Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

I'm quite surprised by that poll to be honest; I didn't think Ed would be in the lead at this stage.

Not that surprising really. He's saying very little, hasn't articulated any kind of credible alternative policy (ie, we'd be cutting too) and very few people realise he was a key advisor to Brown when labour were wrecking the economy. As long as he says very little then the unpopularity of spending cuts and tax rises the coalition are implementing should see his support rise.

When there is an election and he has to come up with and articulate a plan, then it might be be so rosy for Labour.

[drat01]

:-) Labour wrecking the economy. Jon as was showed yesterday - and confirmed by C4 - the Cons were happy with the spending of the previous Gvmt.

I am loving the H word of the Tory party now, especially as the Internet is a great source of contradiction on what they say and what they do. For the Tory party its as though the rest of the world never existed

[Awol]

:-) Labour wrecking the economy.

Who "saved the world" by bailing out the banks and turned a self inflicted banking crisis into a sovereign debt problem? Who was one of his key advisors?Is that man now leader of the Labour party? Has the penny dropped yet?

Jon as was showed yesterday - and confirmed by C4 - the Cons were happy with the spending of the previous Gvmt.

..and Brown supported Lamont's policy over ERM, right up to the point when the wheels came off. The opposition agreeing with government policy doesn't mean it's not bloody stupid policy regardless.

[snowychap]

So what sort of punishment is Chaytor looking at when found guilty?

It'll be interesting.

His defence seem to be stressing that there has been no loss to the public purse (as monies have been returned) and the CPS that there is a breach of trust.

If the latter wills out then I suppose a custodial sentence but the guidelines seem to suggest up to 21 months for the level of dosh involved (which would automatically be halved, wouldn't it for a guilty plea?).

My guess? Something suspended.

Glad to be wrong.

18 months.

Ex Labour MP David Chaytor has been jailed for 18 months for fraudulently claiming more than £20,000 in expenses.

Chaytor, 61, the former MP for Bury North, last month admitted three charges of false accounting.

He made claims for IT consultancy work he was never charged for and renting two homes which, it turned out, were owned by him and his mother.

The maximum sentence was seven years in jail but his guilty plea was taken into account.

He had been due to be the first MP to stand trial over expenses but changed his plea days beforehand.

Prosecutors said Chaytor deliberately tried to "siphon off" public money he was not entitled to by providing false documents to back up claims for rent which he never paid.

But his defence said Chaytor would have been entitled to the money if he had gone about it "honestly and frankly" - and he showed "stupidity" in submitting fraudulent documents.

[Chindie]

Clearly framed by the Tories.

[peterms]

...But his defence said Chaytor would have been entitled to the money if he had gone about it "honestly and frankly" - and he showed "stupidity" in submitting fraudulent documents.

That part is deliberately misleading, isn't it?

The claim was fraudulent because he claimed to be paying third parties, but in fact either there was no payment or it was made to his daughter, ie he and/or his immediate family benefitted.

The statement that he would have been entitled to the money glides over the fact that he would have been entitled to claim an equivalent sum and pass it to a third party, ie not retain the money within his immediate family.

What he did leaves him better off. What his lawyer says he was entitled to, wouldn't.

Lawyers, eh?

[gilbertoAVFC]

Even, as a Labour voter, I find it obscene that Labour are four ahead of the Tories whilst doing absolutely nothing. Very little will get done in this country if the government chops and changes every election. It's a British mindset for the those who are not in power to always be better than those that are and it is awfully counter-productive.

As a student, I'd love to hear what people think about the increases in fees. I personally have little objection, but it would be interesting to get a perspective from somebody who has been in employment for some time.

[snowychap]

Very little will get done in this country if the government chops and changes every election.

:?

Recent election results:

1979 Conservative

1983 Conservative

1987 Conservative

1992 Conservative

1997 Labour

2001 Labour

2005 Labour

2010 NOC - Tory/Lying party coalition.

[blandy]

Recent election results:

1979 Evil Party

1983 Still Evil

1987 Mad and Evil

1992 Lost the plot

1997 Good intentions lost after 12 months Party

2001 What do we do now? Party

2005 Did we really used to have a plot? Party

2010 Disconnected from Reality and still a bit Evil, but with a kitten, which we're eating alive Party

[snowychap]

Recent election results:

1979 Evil Party

1983 Still Evil

1987 Mad and Evil

1992 Lost the plot

1997 Good intentions lost after 12 months Party

2001 What do we do now? Party

2005 Did we really used to have a plot? Party

2010 Disconnected from Reality and still a bit Evil, but with a kitten, which we're eating alive Party

Back to the Chaytor call and it's nice to see Jonathan Aitken getting a bit of air time.

Still, if one is after some expert comment about former MPs doing time, I suppose one is, unfortunately, not spoilt for choice (Archer would be really scraping the barrel).

[peterms]

As a student, I'd love to hear what people think about the increases in fees. I personally have little objection, but it would be interesting to get a perspective from somebody who has been in employment for some time.

I object to fees at these levels for many reasons.

First, there is a good argument for charging some level of fees, on the basis that people often don't value what they don't pay for. For example, when training courses are free, some people seem to think it's ok not to turn up, sometimes even not giving notice. However, charging at such a level that many people are put off the course goes against the democratisation of education. I realise that the Tories don't want education democratised and therefore the policy is entirely consistent with their values, but these are not my values.

Second, the level of fees means that students will increasingly see education as a simple cash converter. If I do this course at this institution, will it repay itself? Education is about more than narrow cash advantage, but the effect of this policy is to give a firm push (I think "nudge" is the vogue term) that people should see it in this way. I think that's shallow, self-centred, and shortsighted; again, it may be consistent with Mr C's values, not with mine.

Third, there is something incredibly damaging about creating an expectation that large amounts of debt are entirely normal and that everyone has them, so it's no big deal. That is entirely the attitude which causes bubbles, speculation, and the kind of economic disaster we are trying to recover from. At the same time, it also massively benefits Dave C's mates in the banks, because without this attitude, the market for their "products" (what a weasel word; they produce nothing) would be far smaller, limited to what people could actually afford.

Defenders of this policy say that there are too many people higher education. I agree - there are. But that's not because of charging policies. There were far fewer when we had non-repayable grants. It's more to do with pushing people in that direction, doubling the number of universities by renaming polys, and trying to get the dole figures down by keeping people in education longer. By dragging in this issue to justify charges, they bring in a red herring which just confuses the issue.

On a personal note, I got grants, my kids will have loans, so I suppose there's a personal/family interest there, but my arguments stand independent of that.

[Gringo]

I object to the fees increase as it's wrong. Same with the removal of EMA - probably worse than the fees increase, but with little media coverage.

[avfc89]

I'm quite surprised by that poll to be honest; I didn't think Ed would be in the lead at this stage.

Not that surprising really. He's saying very little, hasn't articulated any kind of credible alternative policy (ie, we'd be cutting too) and very few people realise he was a key advisor to Brown when labour were wrecking the economy. As long as he says very little then the unpopularity of spending cuts and tax rises the coalition are implementing should see his support rise.

When there is an election and he has to come up with and articulate a plan, then it might be be so rosy for Labour.

Jon, It amuses me how you blame Brown for the economy like he had control over a GLOBAL financial meltdown. And I also didn't hear David Cameron rejecting Brown's economic vision in the previous years. As for Ed, I agree he hasn't set out a clear definition of his intentions. And that is one of the reasons why I'm shocked by the poll; I can understand the Lib Dem failure, but the Tories projected result suprises me a lot.

[Gringo]

Jon, It amuses me how you blame Brown for the economy like he had control over a GLOBAL financial meltdown. And I also didn't hear David Cameron rejecting Brown's economic vision in the previous years.

Probably because both red and blue right wing parties were pursuing right wing market driven dogma.

Cutting pension relief: Tories started it. Labour carried it on.

Selling off playing fields: Tories started it. Labour carried it on.

Privatising health services: Tories started it. Labour carried it on. Tories will complete it.

Privatising education: Labour started it. Tories expand it

Loving the market: We're all in it together. Of course the boom eventually turns to bust, which is probably why AWOL posts this at labours door.

Would the tories have done better or made it worse? Probably would have produced the same mess with different entrails.

[peterms]

Jon, It amuses me how you blame Brown for the economy like he had control over a GLOBAL financial meltdown.

I think the key point is in Jon's later post, which I largely agree with. (It concerns me that I seem to agree with Jon far more than I ever used to. I expect it worries him, too.) The crisis was caused by thieving or fraudulent or incompetent shits in the banking sector, but Brown decided to take these private debts into public ownership, at massive cost to us.

Not only that, he seemed to believe he had taken a key step in saving the global financial system by doing so, and that this was a praiseworthy act.

I think Brown's analysis is largely correct, in that without his intervention global capital would have struggled to get such international support so quickly for taking public resources to fund the losses of their own misconduct. He led the way when others seemed to be transfixed by the scale of the problem.

The younger Brown, the well-read, astute, principled child of the manse, would have rejected that course of action, because it was the wrong thing to do.

As it turned out, the older, less wise Brown went along with the siren voices, and set in train a course of events which are massively costly to those who can least afford it, which reinforce delinquent behaviour among the gambling classes, and which don't even bring the crisis to an end. Bad call, Gordy.

[Gringo]

Hey leave us gambling classes alone, we provide the tax revenues* that keep the 'City' strong.

*Not tax that we pay, but the landlords and the owners of EAT etc

[peterms]

Hey leave us gambling classes alone, we provide the tax revenues* that keep the 'City' strong.

*Not tax that we pay, but the landlords and the owners of EAT etc

You bastard. You're dictating this to a flunky while you recline in an investor-funded deckchair on a sandy beach with the waves lapping round your feet while someone offers you several choice wines, aren't you?

[Awol]

Jon, It amuses me how you blame Brown for the economy like he had control over a GLOBAL financial meltdown.

I think the key point is in Jon's later post, which I largely agree with. (It concerns me that I seem to agree with Jon far more than I ever used to. I expect it worries him, too.)

Personal politics aside we both see this situation for what it is: the open transfer of power from politicians (and by definition, populations) to ponzi scheme professionals. Whether you're a capitalist, an imperialist or a communist, all can make common cause when they recognise the danger of the fascist in the corner.

The crisis was caused by thieving or fraudulent or incompetent shits in the banking sector, but Brown decided to take these private debts into public ownership, at massive cost to us.

Not only that, he seemed to believe he had taken a key step in saving the global financial system by doing so, and that this was a praiseworthy act.

I think Brown's analysis is largely correct, in that without his intervention global capital would have struggled to get such international support so quickly for taking public resources to fund the losses of their own misconduct. He led the way when others seemed to be transfixed by the scale of the problem.

Quite, unfortunately he led in precisely the wrong direction.

The younger Brown, the well-read, astute, principled child of the manse, would have rejected that course of action, because it was the wrong thing to do.

I disagree here and would use a well worn Brownism to support that: "No more boom and bust." Anyone who genuinely believes (as he undoubtedly did) that they had abolished the economic cycle simply cannot have a good cognitive grasp of the situation. He was the wrong man, in the wrong place at the wrong time. John Smith RIP.

[avfc89]

I wonder what Phil Woolas is doing now?

[Gringo]

beeeb"]David Cameron attacks 'murky' football governance

David Cameron has attacked the way world football is governed, describing it as "murky," following England's failed bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

The prime minister claimed he was personally misled by a number of FIFA executives over the bid.

He accused some of them of reneging on assurances that they would vote for England's bid, which only received two of the 22 votes available.

Shocking. People saying they're going to vote one way and then voting completely the opposite. Shocking.