Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

So Jon - the outraged of so many political debates actually is very happy with the introduction of water cannons to the streets of the UK, how hypocritical of you.

Hypocritical how, exactly? I believe the right to peaceful protest is sacrosanct, if protesters want to then break the law through violent action then they cross the line. The actions of more than a minority of demonstrators during the last student protests were violent, illegal and aiming to inflict harm on people and property. The Police have a responsibility to respond to protest proportionately and if faced with such anarchic scenes again, I think using water cannon is a proportionate response.

You might not agree with that POV but my argument isn't hypocritical.

Some thoughts for those pushing the line that any Government cuts are "evil, vindictive etc.": Given the situation in Europe and beyond with sovereign Government debt, the size of our debt and deficit, the potential for bond traders to turn on the UK and the consequences of default were our bonds given the Irish/Greek treatment, what exactly do you think the Government should do?

I may be wrong but it appears more than a few posters are relentlessly looking to make political capital out of each and every reduction in spending without a) accepting that cuts need to be made or suggesting where those cuts should come that would be sufficient and 'fair'.

I realise that Labour has never spelled out where they feel a single penny should be cut and so cannot provide a narrative for guiding responses to that question. Maybe those opposing cuts believe that the dangerous situation vis a vis debt and the mood of the markets is exaggerated or could even be ignored, maybe they think the UK is invulnerable to such a turn of events?

I'm genuinely interested to get past the 'boo-yah' approach and see what poeple's opinions for dealing with the situation - and indeed what the situation is - really are.

In your own time, go on...

[Jon]

The actions of more than a minority of demonstrators during the last student protests were violent, illegal and aiming to inflict harm on people and property.

So, do you believe the majority of the protesters were being violent and illegal?

[Awol]

The actions of more than a minority of demonstrators during the last student protests were violent, illegal and aiming to inflict harm on people and property.

So, do you believe the majority of the protesters were being violent and illegal?

Very clever Jon. I should have said "small" minority as I don't think more than 50% were being violent, no. It was however in the context of the whole demonstration a large number of people. I watched the live video showing many 100's of students/anarchists/rocket polishers attacking the police lines and smashing things up for most of the day.

I don't - as you apparently do - consider attacking policemen to be an example of "power to the people" and I think the protesters deserve whatever comes their way in those circumstances.

EDIT: For civility.

[blandy]

All the various coverage I've seen in all kinds of media suggests to me that a sizeable number of people were there to cause aggro....but enough about the Police.

It looks to me like the police are deliberately, through initimidation and violence and kettling etc trying to disuade students from attending future protests. They are, as with the miners strike, being used politically. They are not just "striving to maintain law and order" as they should be.

A number of anarchists and whatever are attending intent on causing violence, but the vasy majority are not. Some have been provioked by the Police. What has it come to when the Police charge young children, women and girls on horseback, detain them for 9 hours without food or water or toilets, in the freezing cold?

There is at least as much violence and lawbreaking by Police as by demonstrators (excluding the real troublemakers who just went along for a riot).

As one MP said yesterday - the Purpose of Kettles is to bring things to the boil.

[Awol]

They are, as with the miners strike, being used politically.

If a demonstration against any Government takes place then by definition the police deployed to control the demo are being used politically. They are a tool of the State employed to maintain the rule of law.

They are not just "striving to maintain law and order" as they should be.

Surely maintaining law and order extends to preventing demonstrators invading the Houses of Parliament and disrupting the execution of the democratic process? If you watched the protest there is no doubt that is why the police lines blocking that route to the HoC entrance were being attacked, should they have just stood aside?

The kettling began later to try and control a mob that had already displayed violent intent, they cannot realistically be seperated out on the ground from those who were there for peaceful protest once the two sides are engaged. That leaves the police two choices: Stand aside and allow havoc to ensue or implement tactics to control what was happening.

I've had a go many times about the kettling of peaceful demonstrators (the G20 and countryside alliance protests being the worst examples) but once a section of the protesters becomes violent what else are the police supposed to do? That is a genuine question.

[kidlewis]

well I hope coventry get a budget cut considering they spent god knows how many thousands of pounds inserting a pointless bus lane on the road I travel down. It took over 8 months to do the work, cause huge delays and after all the digging up the road and moving the pavement a bit, we are left with a 200 yard bus lane.

**** pointless.

I guess Network West Midlands will be happy, but considering there should be more focus on pedestrianising and cycle lanes and not bus lanes which not many people use anyway. Makes me livid how they can add in bus lanes to create a traffic problem, then justify this stupid policy by saying "yeah there's a traffic problem".

Next they will probably say they are going to bus lane part of the ring road. ARGH

the council in Coventry are hell bent on strangling the city's road network to justify buses. It would be justifiable if the "express" bus was more than once every 45 minutes. The fact that they threw out a proposal to have the bus station at the rail station and kept with Poole Meadow because about 10 old bidders said they "liked it and was, near the shops".

It's another case of us British being shit at networking this country properly. Just like this half arsed high speed rail network and don't get me started on Crossrail, that's even shitter.

[drat01]

I don't - as you apparently do - consider attacking policemen to be an example of "power to the people" and I think the protesters deserve whatever comes their way in those circumstances.

Yeah like being put into a coma or dragging a disabled bloke not once but twice from his wheelchair. Jon when Labour were in power you were shouting load in every thread about civil liberty this and how the Gvmt controlled the police. Now the other lot are in power the H word strikes again massively because your stance on those very same subject have done a complete and utter U turn. To agree to water cannons on the streets of the UK is a perfect example, it seemingly is its OK to protest against the last Gvmt but not against this one

Some thoughts for those pushing the line that any Government cuts are "evil, vindictive etc.": Given the situation in Europe and beyond with sovereign Government debt, the size of our debt and deficit, the potential for bond traders to turn on the UK and the consequences of default were our bonds given the Irish/Greek treatment, what exactly do you think the Government should do?

Yes the cuts are continued to be vindictive, we have seen it again with the council cuts and the attacks on front line services something you shouted very loudly that this Gvmt would never do. How do you explain the obvious attacks on political and social, economic grounds for the council cuts?

I may be wrong but it appears more than a few posters are relentlessly looking to make political capital out of each and every reduction in spending without a) accepting that cuts need to be made or suggesting where those cuts should come that would be sufficient and 'fair'.

I realise that Labour has never spelled out where they feel a single penny should be cut and so cannot provide a narrative for guiding responses to that question. Maybe those opposing cuts believe that the dangerous situation vis a vis debt and the mood of the markets is exaggerated or could even be ignored, maybe they think the UK is invulnerable to such a turn of events?

I'm genuinely interested to get past the 'boo-yah' approach and see what poeple's opinions for dealing with the situation - and indeed what the situation is - really are.

In your own time, go on...

its been said many many times that the scare stories that you and many in the Tory party especially about no cuts from other parties is nothing but pure fantasy. The whole thing though is speed, timing, severity and targets. This Gvmt have taken a lot of decisions based on nothing more than ideology and vindictiveness. There were decent alternatives but that did not fit in with the agenda, some up front some obviously hidden. It seems like a lot of initial justification is scare tactics, only to find that the picture that is painted by the Gvmt and its supporters is not as catastrophic as they make out and time, considered approach and not putting the UK population at risk would be a far better approach.

This is about this Gvmt, the one that is making the decisions now that will seriously impact this country for many years. The attacks that are happening are ill thought out and against key front line services. You can try and deflect as much as you like but that is the reality. Inflation has just gone up, VAT rises in the New Year, massive cutbacks (not in the Tory heartlands of course!), thousands if not millions to lose their jobs, increases in uncertainty etc. Jon you may miss a lot of this not living in the UK but the reality is here, the juggernaut of the impact of these cuts is revved up and about to smash into those who cannot get out of its way

[blandy]

They are, as with the miners strike, being used politically.

If a demonstration against any Government takes place then by definition the police deployed to control the demo are being used politically. They are a tool of the State employed to maintain the rule of law.

The point I'm making is that as where thwere's any assembly of large numbers of people there, the role of the Police is (should be) independent of political angle - they are there to maintain law and order, not to either encourage or discourage protesters from protesting legally in the future.

At the student protest there are numerous examples of the police acting with bias.

They are not just "striving to maintain law and order" as they should be.

Surely maintaining law and order extends to preventing demonstrators invading the Houses of Parliament and disrupting the execution of the democratic process? If you watched the protest there is no doubt that is why the police lines blocking that route to the HoC entrance were being attacked, should they have just stood aside?

No, in that instance, they were right to block the protesters from getting at the HoC.

The kettling began later to try and control a mob that had already displayed violent intent, they cannot realistically be seperated out on the ground from those who were there for peaceful protest once the two sides are engaged. That leaves the police two choices: Stand aside and allow havoc to ensue or implement tactics to control what was happening.

I've had a go many times about the kettling of peaceful demonstrators (the G20 and countryside alliance protests being the worst examples) but once a section of the protesters becomes violent what else are the police supposed to do? That is a genuine question.

It doesn't take 9 hours without food and water to do that. And they were doing it to non violent demonstrators. It was political. It was wrong. Charging in on horseback, to a captive crowd was wrong. Beating people unconcious weas wrong. Dragging a disabled lad from his wheelchair, twice, was wrong. Beating schoolkids was wrong. Standing by while anarchists attacked and assaulted students was wrong.

[snowychap]

Some thoughts for those pushing the line that any Government cuts are "evil, vindictive etc.": Given the situation in Europe and beyond with sovereign Government debt, the size of our debt and deficit, the potential for bond traders to turn on the UK and the consequences of default were our bonds given the Irish/Greek treatment, what exactly do you think the Government should do?

The new policy regarding higher education funding will increase the level of government debt (by approximately £13 'billion' over the course of the period that the government's independent OBR would forecast, I believe that was up to '15/'16).

I have yet to see any analysis or projections on the effect of this policy on debt over the course of, say, the next 40 years (taking in to account that the w/off date will be 30 years after the loans are taken out) and I do wonder whether anyone has actually looked in to this.

I can't believe the treasury hasn't. Surely they've got sufficient data on repayment profiles for those who have taken out loans since 1990 and have looked in to it enough to make projections on what they think will happen?

If not then there may well be a really big problem being stored up for a number of years hence (which leads me back to the 'irony' point I made a number of pages back about comments of debt for the future).

[snowychap]

They are, as with the miners strike, being used politically.

If a demonstration against any Government takes place then by definition the police deployed to control the demo are being used politically. They are a tool of the State employed to maintain the rule of law.

I think one of the suggestions is that they (and the tactics being used) are intentionally being employed to deter people from future protests.

[Richard]

we have seen it again with the council cuts and the attacks on front line services

What "attacks" on front line services

[Awol]

I don't - as you apparently do - consider attacking policemen to be an example of "power to the people" and I think the protesters deserve whatever comes their way in those circumstances.

Yeah like being put into a coma or dragging a disabled bloke not once but twice from his wheelchair. Jon when Labour were in power you were shouting load in every thread about civil liberty this and how the Gvmt controlled the police. Now the other lot are in power the H word strikes again massively because your stance on those very same subject have done a complete and utter U turn. To agree to water cannons on the streets of the UK is a perfect example, it seemingly is its OK to protest against the last Gvmt but not against this one

Ian this getting ridiculous. I answered your point by saying peaceful protest is absolutely legitimate and violent protest is not. How is that saying "it seemingly is its OK to protest against the last Gvmt but not against this one"? I'm perfectly happy to debate all of these issues you, but if you simply ignore the answers given and then literally make up and ascribe a POV to me - when I've said the opposite - how can we discuss anything?

]

Some thoughts for those pushing the line that any Government cuts are "evil, vindictive etc.": Given the situation in Europe and beyond with sovereign Government debt, the size of our debt and deficit, the potential for bond traders to turn on the UK and the consequences of default were our bonds given the Irish/Greek treatment, what exactly do you think the Government should do?

Yes the cuts are continued to be vindictive, we have seen it again with the council cuts and the attacks on front line services something you shouted very loudly that this Gvmt would never do. How do you explain the obvious attacks on political and social, economic grounds for the council cuts?

So no answer to the question then? Fair enough.

I may be wrong but it appears more than a few posters are relentlessly looking to make political capital out of each and every reduction in spending without a) accepting that cuts need to be made or suggesting where those cuts should come that would be sufficient and 'fair'.

I realise that Labour has never spelled out where they feel a single penny should be cut and so cannot provide a narrative for guiding responses to that question. Maybe those opposing cuts believe that the dangerous situation vis a vis debt and the mood of the markets is exaggerated or could even be ignored, maybe they think the UK is invulnerable to such a turn of events?

I'm genuinely interested to get past the 'boo-yah' approach and see what poeple's opinions for dealing with the situation - and indeed what the situation is - really are.

In your own time, go on...

its been said many many times that the scare stories that you and many in the Tory party especially about no cuts from other parties is nothing but pure fantasy.

Ok, I didn't say that Labour wouldn't have made cuts - in fact I've argued the opposite on this thread - just that they never said where and what they would cut. The point is, if you oppose each and every cut in public spending (as you appear to) then where exactly do you think these cuts could be made?

Or as you seem to suggest, is the financial danger of the markets losing confidence in UK Plc's ability to control its spiraling debt and reduce the deficit a "pure fantasy"? If it is fantasy then what in your opinion has just happened to Greece and Ireland? What makes you think that the UK is immune from such an outcome? I'm really interested in what is actually informing your opinions over this.

The whole thing though is speed, timing, severity and targets. This Gvmt have taken a lot of decisions based on nothing more than ideology and vindictiveness. There were decent alternatives but that did not fit in with the agenda, some up front some obviously hidden.

What alternatives were offered and by who? I realise Labour said they wanted to halve the deficit over the next Parliament and not wipe it out as per coalition plans, but where did they actually say the cuts would be made - or didn't they? Again can you please jusitify this use of the word vindictiveness? I've no doubt that you mean it, but can you actually explain what it is that you mean?

It seems like a lot of initial justification is scare tactics, only to find that the picture that is painted by the Gvmt and its supporters is not as catastrophic as they make out and time, considered approach and not putting the UK population at risk would be a far better approach.

So what is the real picture vis a vis debt and the deficit and how does that fit with what is happening in the Eurozone?

This is about this Gvmt, the one that is making the decisions now that will seriously impact this country for many years. The attacks that are happening are ill thought out and against key front line services. You can try and deflect as much as you like but that is the reality.

Come on, I'm not deflecting anything Ian. I'm trying to find out what you think they should be doing instead and why you think that?

[peterms]

...

I may be wrong but it appears more than a few posters are relentlessly looking to make political capital out of each and every reduction in spending without a) accepting that cuts need to be made or suggesting where those cuts should come that would be sufficient and 'fair'.

I realise that Labour has never spelled out where they feel a single penny should be cut and so cannot provide a narrative for guiding responses to that question. Maybe those opposing cuts believe that the dangerous situation vis a vis debt and the mood of the markets is exaggerated or could even be ignored, maybe they think the UK is invulnerable to such a turn of events?

I'm genuinely interested to get past the 'boo-yah' approach and see what poeple's opinions for dealing with the situation - and indeed what the situation is - really are.

In your own time, go on...

OK, here's my view.

What the situation is:

The problem hasn't peaked. Germany failed to sell all it wanted at a bond auction last week (and 20% of what it did sell was bought by itself, ie the Bundesbank). Japan next year needs to sell debt equivalent to 60% of gdp; it's never sold debt externally before. In the same year, the US needs to sell $4.2 trillion. How can all this happen? Who will buy it? What if it doesn't sell?

More banks are in serious trouble, eg Bank Austria, the biggest banking presence in eastern Europe (but owned by Unicredit, which is Italy's biggest bank, and which is also caught up in the Madoff scandal as well as the Irish problem).

Current policy approaches appear to suggest that the problem has been contained, and it's now about getting back to normal through a process of austerity, while aiming for growth through exporting.

The bailout which has already happened hasn't solved the problem that's been revealed so far, never mind the worse problems to come; and it's plain to see that the scale of the issue is so extreme that no amount of cutting public spending can deal with it.

There's then the further point that expecting exports to save the day, while the very countries we would export to are deep in shit street, is fanciful if their economies are also struggling, and meanwhile taking demand out of the economy through artificially depressing the economy through these cuts is self-defeating.

Along the way, the social unrest which will be caused by the cuts will grow. What we've seen so far, before any of the cuts have even happened, will be mild compared to what will come.

How to deal with it:

The international community will need to face up to the extent of the problem, though that doesn't seem to be happening to the extent required. That would involve acknowledging that papering over the cracks without major defaults isn't possible. It's that key point which is the elephant in the room. Managing that, and rebuilding a banking system which is sound, without major chaos along the way, seems the most impossibly challenging task, and yet that's what the task is.

In the meantime, hacking away at services, creating unemployment, reducing spending power and extending the recession, based on some half-baked notions about "deficit bad, cuts good" is divisive, destructive, and basically mad.

A better approach would be to try to minimise the harm to the general public, while seeking the support of the international community to face up to the problem and tackle it in a co-ordinated way. That would mean closing down many financial institutions, recognising that the assets they claimed to have never existed at the value claimed, and those who "owned" these worthless or even non-existent assets will take a serious hit to their wealth. Protection of the less wealthy shareholders and investors would be needed; saving the wealth of the Duke of Westminster et al, not. Of course that won't happen, because the wealthy people who would lose by this course of action won't permit it. They want us to pay them money so they keep what they claim they own.

Instead of which, we have the government seeking to protect those who have caused the problems, while using the opportunity of the crisis as a cover and excuse for redistributing wealth and dismantling the parts of the state which most benefit the less well off. It doesn't deal with the problem, it punishes those who are already the victims of the situation while shielding the perpetrators, and it's simply wrong.

[blandy]

Sort of related to AWOL's point to Drat, you're not going to get Labour being specific on what they'd cut, or where. There's no political reason for them to do so, they think. They'll go as far as " we said we'd cut less severely" and that's it.

I guess they hope to just capitalise on the unpopularity of many of the cuts actually being made, while hiding that they'd have done similar in many cases.

[tonyh29]

it seemingly is its OK to protest against the last Gvmt but not against this one

do you have footage of the vandalism and anarchy caused by the Anti Iraq war protesters ?

[blandy]

Violent protest has historically been more successful, hasn't it?

[kidlewis]

they should try to focus budget cuts to force councils to stop wasting money, without impacting on key areas. hopefully with Coventry getting a budget cut it means these crappy bus lanes will stop being built at a ridiculous cost to the taxpayer and hopefully they can focus on creating more affordable housing, improving the city centre for shoppers (considering that is all Coventry is useful for) and invest in their award winning market.

And hopefully continue to plan to revamp the crappy train station and surrounding area which will bring more business to the area.

The fact that the opposition since time began hasn't really given any counter argument or details of what they would do when asked sort of highlights another big issue on why politics is finger pointing and blaming without a decent counter argument.

Perhaps PMQ's should take part in Wembley or another arena suited to such tepidness.

[blandy]

CASH-strapped local councils have pledged to identify the workers who are most useful and then sack them.

As jolly communities secretary Eric Pickles confirmed a 10% funding cut, council leaders vowed to protect the pointless sh**s that exists only to keep themselves and their sweaty, self-serving chums in nice cars and lovely Waitrose food.

Martin Bishop, deputy leader of Newark Borough Council, said: "In times of austerity it's our duty to focus on gimlet-eyed middle-aged women with oversized wooden beads and weirdly-spelled names like 'Shealagh McLabrador'.

"And then there's the red-faced men called Ray who need to take six months off with stress and get regular visits from professional cuddlers, after getting over-excited by Toy Story 3."

He added: "Fortunately, our more pointless managers have contracts saying that we can't get rid of them without a redundancy package backdated to the reign of Aethelbald on the basis that if Newark council had existed in 733 AD they would almost certainly have been a grade six.

"But we will be looking closely at people who drive bin lorries, clean streets and run youth clubs and asking ourselves what contribution they're making to things like health equality and bisexual tolerance.

"How many weekends a year are they spending at good quality hotels writing the phrase 'customer facing' on a whiteboard in between massive mouthfuls of luxury goats' cheese vol-au-vent?"

Roy Hobbs, a £2500-a-day Restructivisational Consultants brought in to protect core council bullshit, said: "If you leave an infinite number of overflowing dustbins outside an infinite number of houses, sooner or later someone will take them away. Also bin men are probably a bit sexist.

"Now if you'll please excuse me, it's five minutes to five and if I don't get out of the door exactly on time I'll turn into a pumpkin."

[avfc89]

Losing the EMA grant is a massive blow for people in deprived areas.

[kidlewis]

Losing the EMA grant is a massive blow for people in deprived areas.

for many people, but not all who get EMA.