Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Jon]

I'm not a huge fan of Tom Watson .

and why not?

Great player back in his day, and still very good now!

You ageist swine!

[peterms]

We're living in a period of extreme financial meltdown, all of which started before the present government took power. Why did you think was going to happen to people's spending? If Labour had got in, does anybody think that shops like Thorntons would be posting record profits buoyed by the lavish spending of the British public?

The government can choose to adopt policies which make the economic crisis worse, or less bad. They have chosen to make it worse, by reducing employment, reducing disposable income, and therefore reducing the overall level of economic activity. Because the level of spending is lower than it might have been, the impact on retailers is greater, and some firms which might have struggled through will go to the wall. Whether Thorntons might have survived, who knows.

The point is that this business about being helpless onlookers in a mess of someone else's making is simply not the case. They can't control the global economy. They can choose to offset some of the worst effects of the crisis, and have chosen not to, for political reasons. That they won't accept responsibility for the choices they have made is not unsurprising, but still pretty pathetic.

[Risso]

It isn't fair to accuse others of not seeing it though just because they earn a decent living. We're living in a period of extreme financial meltdown, all of which started before the present government took power. Why did you think was going to happen to people's spending? If Labour had got in, does anybody think that shops like Thorntons would be posting record profits buoyed by the lavish spending of the British public?

Mart, but you are just spouting the Tory party line there. No one has said that and deflection of blame is the only answer that you and the Tory party seem to have. Cameron and Gideon et al, have embarked on a massive attack on various sectors in the UK, the speed, size and targeting of certain areas were excessive and like many predicted any recovery will stagnate and we are in real danger of going back into recession. The better option would have clearly been to be more gradual, the UK economy and world economy would have allowed for that. But instead we have seen massive attacks not just as a result of deficit reduction but also ideologically led, attacking elements in UK society that totally abhorrent to the true Tory cause such as the NHS and the public sector.

As for what I earn, spend etc, that has **** all to do with it. If you want to play silly I could say at least I pay ALL of my taxes in the UK :-)

Well as you live there, so you should! As I don't (thank god) then I don't have to!

[drat01]

Well as you live there, so you should! As I don't (thank god) then I don't have to!

But you still get to vote ............ :wink:

[blandy]

The government can choose to adopt policies which make the economic crisis worse, or less bad. They have chosen to make it worse, by reducing employment, reducing disposable income, and therefore reducing the overall level of economic activity. Because the level of spending is lower than it might have been, the impact on retailers is greater, and some firms which might have struggled through will go to the wall. Whether Thorntons might have survived, who knows.

The point is that this business about being helpless onlookers in a mess of someone else's making is simply not the case. They can't control the global economy. They can choose to offset some of the worst effects of the crisis, and have chosen not to, for political reasons. That they won't accept responsibility for the choices they have made is not unsurprising, but still pretty pathetic.

I don't approve of the way the Gov't has proceeded either, but what you wrote is factually incorrect.

They have not "reduced employment" (either by choice or accident) - the opposite is the case. Unemployment is less now than it was when they started.

Whoever was the Gov't since last May would broadly speaking have done many many of the same things as this lot have done.

They all said before the election that they would cut spending and follow similar economic paths. The tories and their wee pet have gone about it with less nose holding that would labour, they've done some stuff which labour would not have done, and decided not to do some things which labour would have, but at the top level, economically, there's not much difference. A lot of what's been implemented and the consequences to date is stuff that labour started off before the election

The effects of the tories more strident actions in various areas will be seen in the next few years, as the natural lag between announcing a ploicy, implementing it and seeing the results works through.

[GarethRDR]

The shopping centre near me in Woking had dozens of empty spaces where shops went down the tube ...and guess what , that was happening before the Tories came to power as well ....

That awesome Laserquest is still there, right? :shock:

[tonyh29]

i believe so not been in that bit for a while though

[GarethRDR]

Neither have I, but I do remember it being the best in the local area by a mile. Shits all over Laserquest Guildford from a great height.

[peterms]

I don't approve of the way the Gov't has proceeded either, but what you wrote is factually incorrect.

They have not "reduced employment" (either by choice or accident) - the opposite is the case. Unemployment is less now than it was when they started.

Pete, the headline figure is that unemployment has fallen by 88,000 in the quarter. Let's look behind the headline a bit.

61,000 of that is the increase in the number of 16-24 year olds in education.

The number of people claiming JSA rose by 19,600 in the one month since the headline figures were produced. The number of women JSA claimants is now the highest since 1996.

The number of people working part-time or self-employed because they can't find a full-time job increased by 46,000, and is now at the highest level since records began (1992).

Figures from ONS.

There is also the point (though I can't find the source) that the comparison of this period with the last hasn't allowed for changing labour market figures (entrants and leavers, for demographic reasons), meaning that a smaller proportion of those wanting work are in work now than before.

The overall picture is claimants up, more young people going into education because they can't find work, more people being counted as employed (looks like success) though they are in part-time work when they want full-time work (not success). And around all of that, a headline figure which shows unemployment falling.

[Ads]

I see Mr Green off H&V has exposed Miliband for the useless twerp that he is with his robot speech.

[jacquesderrida]

I don't approve of the way the Gov't has proceeded either, but what you wrote is factually incorrect.

They have not "reduced employment" (either by choice or accident) - the opposite is the case. Unemployment is less now than it was when they started.

Pete, the headline figure is that unemployment has fallen by 88,000 in the quarter. Let's look behind the headline a bit.

61,000 of that is the increase in the number of 16-24 year olds in education.

The number of people claiming JSA rose by 19,600 in the one month since the headline figures were produced. The number of women JSA claimants is now the highest since 1996.

The number of people working part-time or self-employed because they can't find a full-time job increased by 46,000, and is now at the highest level since records began (1992).

Figures from ONS.

There is also the point (though I can't find the source) that the comparison of this period with the last hasn't allowed for changing labour market figures (entrants and leavers, for demographic reasons), meaning that a smaller proportion of those wanting work are in work now than before.

The overall picture is claimants up, more young people going into education because they can't find work, more people being counted as employed (looks like success) though they are in part-time work when they want full-time work (not success). And around all of that, a headline figure which shows unemployment falling.

Sincerely Peter, I applaud your lucid prose. Expertly written, sir.

What is you take – and indeed, yours Blandy – on the idea of the 'Robin Hood Tax'? Unfortunately, it seems to have lost a little impetus recently.

This: http://robinhoodtax.org/

[blandy]

All that's true, no doubt. Going on the stats, the numbers of employed people is up since this time last year. I'm sure the stats hide all kinds of stuff, and I'm sure they have done for decades - the whole Uni thing is at least in significant part due to Labour encouraging more people to go to Uni, to keep them off the dole figures.

I'm not defending the tories (or labour come to that) they are much the same when it comes to this kind of use of stats. I just think that from the point of view of someone who wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could kick them, that trading "this is up/this is down" is meaningless to me. Labour utterly let me down, tories are caustic for the country, and there's little between them. the argument is so narrow. There's nothing to differentiate Red Ed from Cameron other than their different self interests. Have either of them ever had a "proper" job? DO they understand or give a damn?

I despise the tory idea of changing the country to make it a fertile feeding ground for their mates in "the private sector" to leech from, and claim somehow the private sector is somehow better in every way, so that's why they do it.

It's not - much of it it eats people (figuratively). Equally, the public sector tolerates incompetence, slackery, and pompous moralising from the people who run it.

The model is broken, the major parties are broken, self-interested islands of unhappy ignorance.

Labour, tory, democrat, republican - 5% difference between either. All the same.

Obama/Bush - all those ideals on Obama's side, and the difference is what, in the implementation? 5% maybe. And in the UK, there's no idealistic zeal in Labour. The tories are doing the same as labour would have, only a bit faster and harder, with added thatcherite society f***cking added in. But they're toreis, It's what they do.

I'm utterly fed up with "these are better/less bad that those" - they're ALL bad. all of them. Which poison would Sir prefer? Strychnine or Arsenic?

Details like how many unemployed souls there are - slightly more, slightly less. So what? Labour aren't an alternative to the tories, other than on a ballot form, they're the same thing in a different shade of blue. The UK system has rotted from the inside and the appearance from the outside is maybe painted differently, but they're both hollow shells.

Anyway, Robin hood tax? Yes, it's better than lipstick on the pig, I suppose. Will it happen? will it f.....

[peterms]

What is you take – and indeed, yours Blandy – on the idea of the 'Robin Hood Tax'? Unfortunately, it seems to have lost a little impetus recently.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not aware of strong arguments against it, though there was a mention in this very brief piece that it doesn't distinguish between profitable and unprofitable transactions. The same writer also suggests there are better alternatives:

As it happens, better tools than the Tobin tax are at regulators' and policymakers' disposal if they choose to impose a crash diet on the City. The fee structure of investment banks could be re-examined, for instance. If banks' corporate clients aren't capable of putting downward pressure on those fees, then surely there is a competition problem. If barriers to entry are too high then antitrust rules should come into play. Let the debate begin.

I'd have thought the Tobin Tax would be simpler than the alternatives he suggests, though I'm not sure about the scope for evasion.

There are some good ideas about tax here, and the idea of a Land Value Tax is good. I like especially the proposal to move from taxing things which create value, to taxing unproductive asset-holding. Looking at the way small retailers, restaurants and so on are struggling at present, while the rentier owners of their properties keep screwing them for rent, underlines that we could be taxing in a better way.

[Gringo]

If you want a tax to succeed you don't call it the 'robin hood tax'

[snowychap]

Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd chuck this in here:

Former Unite leader paid £500,000, sparking 'golden goodbye' row

Britain's largest trade union, Unite, is facing a "golden goodbye" pay row after its former leader was paid more than £500,000 last year, including a £361,000 severance payment.

Derek Simpson, 66, who stepped down as joint general secretary last year, received the payout as his successor was attacking the government for overseeing "obscene" remuneration at state-owned companies such as Royal Bank of Scotland.

According to Unite's annual return for 2010, Simpson received £510,659, the bulk comprising of £361,347 in severance pay. He also received £97,677 in gross salary, and more than £51,000 in housing benefit and car allowances.

Simpson's colleague and joint general secretary, Tony Woodley, did not receive a payoff and was paid a total of £136,289. He is still employed by Unite on £20,000 a year.

Simpson and Woodley's successor, Len McCluskey, said he was shocked by the payment. But he stressed that Simpson's payoff was drawn up under the financial system used by the Amicus union, which merged with the T&G in 2007 to form Unite. The Amicus and T&G finance functions were not combined until late last year.

"It was absolutely unbeknownst to me or the Unite executive," said McCluskey. "It occurred under a different regime with a union that no longer exists and operated under different governance."

At a meeting on Monday, Unite's executive requested a legal opinion on the settlement, although it is understood that the payoff follows precedent for previous Amicus leaders.

McCluskey said there would be no similar payments under his regime, but the union was powerless to intervene in Simpson's case. "It is inappropriate but there is little that I can do about it. There will be no such agreements in Unite going forward." Technically, it is not within our jurisdiction. This is a decision taken by a previous union and therefore we can do nothing other than pass comment and make certain that Unite does not engage in such practices."

McCluskey is a critic of bankers' bonuses and in January said: "As ordinary workers cope with fuel and food price rises, these obscene and unfair rewards are a reminder that in Cameron's Britain, we really are not all in this together."

He admitted that the revelation could damage Unite's standing in the debate over public spending cuts. "There is no doubt that it will not be viewed in a favourable light by our members or potential members.

"We have to get the message across that this happened in a previous union. This is a new union with a new vision and new, democratic ways of operating. And we are committed to working in a proactive way with working people."

Unite's return shows that the union has 1.5 million members, of whom only 1.2 million pay subscriptions. Woodley's concern over faltering membership has seen him take a new full-time post as the executive officer for organising. This week McCluskey announced plans to launch a cut-price "community membership" for students and the unemployed in a riposte to David Cameron's big society policies.

According to the return, Unite generated an income of £141.6m last year but spent £171.9m, pushing the union into a deficit of £30.2m.

Simpson could not be reached for comment. His last year in office was dominated by the battle between British Airways and its cabin crew, which saw 22 days of strikes and cost the carrier £150m. Simpson infuriated BA at one point in negotiations by sending out live twitter updates. At the time Woodley described the tweets as "unfortunate, to say the least".

Pretty disgraceful.

[drat01]

:-) - Oh the joy. Apparently according to some Tory supporters the whole Murdoch thing was a one off, a non-story and we should move on :-)

It seems that as the hours go by, as was suggested this becomes more and more suspect for Cameron and the Tory party.

The whole Tory party marketing machine is trying its hardest to deflect from this now, but the reality is that it wont go away because of the serious nature now of the whole thing.

I wonder who Ashcroft will be telling the Tory party to make noises against Cameron so that they can step into his expensive shoes when he soon relinquishes his job ?

[Awol]

Clearly emloying Coulson was a massve error of judgement (apparently pushed by Osborne) and may yet have serious reprecussions for Cameron personally. In all honest it should - Boris for PM.

Murdoch's comment at the committee yesterday was aso enlightening, when he said the politician he'd had most contact with in the UK over recent times was one Gordon Brown. Of course, the fact that the criminal behaviour at News of the World, the laughable Police investigations/cover ups and failure of Government to intervene took place under Blair and Brown's watch is irrelevant. The Labour Government clearly hated mean old Rupert.

This mess is all the fault of the Tories and don't let anyone tell you different.

[drat01]

:-) - ah the denial is still there eh Jon? - a non-story still? :wink:

So this morning when more and more things are oozing out about the links between this and the Tory party is all Labour's fault? :-)

Keep that head in the sand mate

[Dale]

Peterms, LVT is one of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems a few years ago... There is within (the non-governmental) party a real enthusiasm for it.

Whilst I do think there are some practical issues it would encourage the sensible distribution of property and stamp out a fair amount of tax avoidance.

[drat01]

Flashman Cameron resorting to snide and attempted bullying. Shown up as a total hypocrite and hoping that a "oops sorry" will suffice for all of this.

Maybe Cameron thinks that public are too thick to seriously question what Cameron and his inner circle knew from one of it's leading sources Coulson. He keep harping on about transparency since the last election, but nothing whatsoever about before and when Coulson was getting info supplied to him and ultimately the Tory party. As many have said before this is a massive fire with lots of smoke, Cameron is hoping that people just run away from it. Unfortunately for him they wont.