Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

I actually agree my advice doesn't apply to absolutely all politicians, which is why it's IMO pretty reliable, as opposed to totally reliable - i.e. it's mostly .

not sure I agree that your statement says what you want it to. I mean "never trust a politician" is pretty categorical whether you think it is qualified by the "pretty reliable" or not.

If you had said "never trust some politicians" I think there would be no disagreement and it would have said what you wanted.

What blandy's advice said to me was that one's default setting should be never to trust a politician, that the tendency towards being untrustworthy demonstrated by policiticians meant that the safest bet wasn't to trust 'em.

I'm not sure if that's exactly what he meant but that's how I read it; I also read it as a reference to their professional lives and not necessarily their private dealings.

I'm also dubious as to whether calling someone 'committed to what they believe in' is exactly a counter to the above, either. The more 'committed' they were/are, the more, perhaps, they may envisage the ends justifying the means.

[blandy]

What blandy's advice said to me was that one's default setting should be never to trust a politician, that the tendency towards being untrustworthy demonstrated by policiticians meant that the safest bet wasn't to trust 'em.

I'm not sure if that's exactly what he meant but that's how I read it; I also read it as a reference to their professional lives and not necessarily their private dealings.

I'm also dubious as to whether calling someone 'committed to what they believe in' is exactly a counter to the above, either. The more 'committed' they were/are, the more, perhaps, they may envisage the ends justifying the means.

100% right, that's exactly what I mean.

Like "never walk across the motorway" - you wouldn't get killed every time, but it's pretty reliable advice.

And pms's post shows why IDS fails the test. IMO. Good intent, but can't be trusted to use what he knows to be true to do what he knows to be right.

[Richard]

What blandy's advice said to me was that one's default setting should be never to trust a politician

Ahh I see, guilty until proven innocent ?

Another reason why I do not agree with it.

[snowychap]

Ahh I see, guilty until proven innocent ?

Balance of probabilities, Richard, or some form of prudence, if you will :winkold:.

p.s. The presumption of innocence line seems to have been misappropriated in recent times by politicians (with no little irony considering policies enacted) mostly to defend themselves and those whose interests they share.

[blandy]

Trust has to be earnt. With politicians and the Party system we've got, very few have a record of actually earning (my) trust.

An example of the system's flaws, if I write to my local MP asking hi to (for example support local pubs via CAMRA's campaign on beer tax, or to stop selling off school playing fields or...etc. I get a reply saying he has to abide by cabinet decisions because he's got a job as some sort of underling to an underling, so can't make any representations.

Which I take to basically mean "Sod off, I've got a career to look after, I can't be going round doing things like trying to have fairness or opportunity for people I represent..."

He's a tory.

[peterms]

...if I write to my local MP asking hi to (for example support local pubs via CAMRA's campaign on beer tax, or to stop selling off school playing fields or...etc. I get a reply saying he has to abide by cabinet decisions because he's got a job as some sort of underling to an underling, so can't make any representations.

Which I take to basically mean "Sod off, I've got a career to look after, I can't be going round doing things like trying to have fairness or opportunity for people I represent..."

He's a tory.

Your MP is mistaken. Mr Cameron himself has made it clear that it is perfectly acceptable and proper for Cabinet Ministers to lobby on issues, even those where they have no special constituency interest. And by long custom and practice, MPs are given extra scope to lobby on things which have a local importance in their constituency. I expect no-one's told the poor chap.

[blandy]

He's a PPS and apparently expected to vote in line with the government on every issue and is bound to a code of Collective Ministerial Responsibility. I think underlings like him reckon they have to stick to rules, which obviously are waived in the case of "chaps" like Jeremy Hunt. Convenient all round for them, then.

[drat01]

5 Tory MP's claim that UK residents are workshy and idle. Considering that the UK employer typically works more than most of the European counterparts seems to piss on their claim. Plus the fact that none of the 5 have ever held any job as such other than MP or Lobbyist or working for the Tory party seems to somewhat piss on their credibility to try and flagship some new Tory policy to try and hit back at the working bloke off the street. No doubt Cameron will try and get some headlines with some attack on "benefit scroungers" AKA single mums etc.

Funny how also the Tory supporters and those who are members of the party have had nothing to say about Gove and the latest set of lies said to be fact re playing fields. Maybe CHQ have not sent out a memo or maybe the local councils have too many playing fields to sell.

[snowychap]

Iain Duncan Smith complains of anti-government bias at BBC

Iain Duncan Smith's department has made a formal complaint to the BBC claiming its coverage of the government is biased.

The work and pensions secretary singled out the broadcaster's economics editor, Stephanie Flanders, for the harshest criticism, accusing her of "peeing all over British industry".

Officials at the BBC defended its record of impartiality and Flanders' reporting. But Duncan Smith told a Sunday newspaper that the BBC diminishes the role of the government in good news but "dumps" on it when the story is bad.

His department has formally complained to the BBC head of news, Helen Boaden, about the broadcaster's "carping and moaning".

The minister appeared particularly angered by coverage this week of the unexpected drop in the unemployment rate to 8%. The jobless total fell by 46,000 in the quarter to June to 2.56 million, with the number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance last month at 1.59 million, down by 5,900 on June.

He told the Mail on Sunday: "The BBC is locked to the reading of the economy that is run out of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls' office. They think if only you spend and borrow more money you can create growth everywhere.

"This is the general tenor of everything that comes out of the BBC. They expected the [employment] figures to be flatlining.

"They convinced themselves youth unemployment would continue to rise, but when it fell they were in a complete quandary.

"Stephanie Flanders poured cold water over the whole thing. She said: 'Of course this is good news, but it could be because we aren't productive enough.'"

Flanders also wrote in her BBC blog last week about the apparent contradiction between 201,000 more people finding work in the previous three months while output fell 0.7%. Among the possible answers explored by the award-winning journalist were that the Office for National Statistics has been underestimating growth, that a rise in part-time and self-employed workers who would like to work more hours is flattering the jobs figures, and that companies are "hoarding" good staff while they wait for good times to return.

"Why not just sit back, and enjoy the novelty?" added Flanders. "The trouble is that the longer the puzzle continues, the more potentially worrying it becomes, because it becomes less and less likely that simple measurement error explains it."

Duncan Smith added: "If the unemployment figures had gone up, we would have been on the BBC TV News at Six and Ten and would have got the blame."

He added: "When the news is good, the BBC view is: 'Get the government out of the picture quickly, don't allow them to say anything about it.'

"When the news is bad, [it's]: 'Let's all dump on the government.'

"Last month, there was a marginal rise in youth unemployment so they centred on that.

"This time it came down so they cast doubt on the figures. [Flanders] said it could be industry is so bad they have to take on two people where one person could do the job.

"She was peeing all over British industry and the private sector. It was terrible. Our private industry is unbelievably robust compared to much of Europe."

Commenting on Duncan Smith's interview, Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "The work and pensions secretary should stop moaning about how this mess is being reported and start doing something about it."

The BBC said: "BBC News is confident our coverage of this story was impartial, fair and balanced, reflecting a wide range of views. Indeed Mr Duncan Smith expressed his position on several BBC outlets.

"Stephanie interrogated numerous aspects of the figures in her analysis. She echoed questions raised by many experts, including the deputy governor of the Bank of England as well as noting the rise in the number of people in work was good news."

The DWP said: "The department made a complaint regarding the coverage of the employment figures on the Six O'Clock News and News at 10. The secretary of state has made his views clear in the Mail on Sunday."

Yes, Mr Duncan Smith, she didn't just sit there and shrug when asked how this was the case as you did on each TV network on which I saw you, she asked questions about why these figures were as they were and what they may mean if they are indeed correct (as pointed out in the article she did comment about a possible underestimation of growth, too - "It is quite possible that the economy is stronger than the official statistics suggest...").

[Richard]

I absolutely abhor anyone who carries out domestic violence. But just to carry on the punch and judy stuff that seems to be so popular despite protestations to the contrary, on playing fields I feel the H word that Tony is so loathe to use comin out.

Under the previous government I think something over 200 were sold off, including by Stephen Twigg when he was a schools minister. Burnham himself has admitted that playing fields need to be sold off "to develop sporting facilities". I think under the current government sales are only approved if the school has closed, merged or if equal / better facilities are put in place.

Indeed the new NPPF has brought in increased protection for playing fields which mean they cannot be built on unless replaces or Sport England agree they are surplus to requirements and allows local people to earmark locally important green spaces such as protection for playing fields.

I hate having a debate in a third person type of way

[Awol]

I hate having a debate in a third person type of way

But liars (in the real world) aren't worthy of the saliva it would take to spit on them, so why care?

[peterms]

From the Telegraph.

Surprise rise in UK borrowing as corporation tax falls

Chancellor George Osborne's deficit reduction plans were dealt a blow on Tuesday when official figures revealed a shock rise in borrowing in July.

The ONS said the public sector finances excluding bank bail-outs - the government's preferred measure - showed a deficit of £600m, compared to a £2.8bn surplus in July 2011, following a sharp shortfall in corporation tax.

July is traditionally a month for strong income tax and corporation tax receipts and economists had been expecting a surplus of £2.2bn.

However, total receipts fell 0.8pc, driven by a near 20pc drop in corporation tax, while Government spending increased 5.1pc.

Revenue from North Sea oil and gas companies was unusually low and accounted for about £1bn of a £1.7bn shortfall in corporation tax compared to last year.

In a further blow to the Chancellor, net borrowing for April to June, was revised up by £1.4bn.

Borrowing so far this year, excluding a one-off boost after assets from the Royal Mail's pension fund was transferred to the Treasury, is £44.9bn, £9.3bn higher than a year ago.

The Treasury said in statement: "The government remains committed to the credible plan we have set out to deal with Britain's debts, and today's numbers emphasise how risky it would be to deliberately increase borrowing."

The government had planned to eliminate the structural budget deficit by 2015 with a tough programme of spending cuts and tax rises, but the weak economy has forced it to extend that by two years and Prime Minister David Cameron has warned austerity could last until 2020.

Vicky Redwood of Capital Economics said: "We should treat the figures with some caution. The ONS warns that the timing of self-assessment tax receipts can vary from year to year, so more receipts than usual might come through in August. And the drop in corporation tax reportedly partly reflected a drop in oil and gas receipts, due to the closure of the Elgin gas field."

However, she expects borrowing for 2012/13 overall will overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast of £120bn, excluding Royal Mail effects, by over £35m, adding: "With the recovery falling well short of the OBR's expectations, we think that the government will struggle to cut borrowing at all next year either."

Britain's economy has been mired in recession since late last year, and the government has faced growing calls to focus on growth rather than austerity.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund said Britain could need to cut taxes or boost investment spending to support growth if the economy has not picked up by early next year.

So far, finance minister George Osborne has focused on schemes to lower banks' funding costs to get credit flowing, as well as guarantees to support infrastructure investment without spending taxpayers' money directly. Measures to support house-building are expected next month.

Philip Shaw, economist at Investec, said: "It certainly puts the Chancellor in a real dilemma with respect to whether he should turn on the taps for infrastructure spending... A big programme of investment would be a major risk. If the authorities become successful in stimulating the economy via monetary policy, that's the ideal way forward. But it's not clear that either QE or the Funding for Lending Scheme will be effective."

Public sector net debt, excluding financial sector interventions, totalled 65.7pc of gross domestic product, a record for the month of July, but down from the all-time record of 66.2pc hit in June.

I love the Treasury's statement: "The government remains committed to the credible plan we have set out to deal with Britain's debts, and today's numbers emphasise how risky it would be to deliberately increase borrowing."

Must be hard to say that with a straight face.

It might be better to say: "The Chancellor will draw on the experience he gained temping as a towel-folder in Selfridges to assess how to deal with this entirely unpredictable (ahem) turn of events".

[Bazdavies79]

UK public borrowing more than expected in July.

The UK government borrowed more than expected in July, traditionally a good month for tax receipts, the Office for National Statistics said.

Net borrowing was £600m in July, an increase of £3.4bn on the same month in 2011 when it repaid £2.8bn.

The Treasury blamed disappointing corporation tax receipts, especially from North Sea oil production.

Some analysts suggest the government may now miss official forecasts for total borrowing this year.

So far this year, public sector net borrowing - excluding banking interventions and the one-off boost earlier in the year from a transfer of Royal Mail pension assets to the public sector - was £44.9bn, up from £35.6bn from the same period in 2011.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the official UK economic forecasters, predicted that borrowing on the same measure would be £119m for the whole of the financial year.

The figures will open up the debate on whether the government is doing enough to cut the UK's deficit, the amount it spends more than it gets in.

"The government remains committed to the credible plan we have set out to deal with Britain's debts," a Treasury spokesman said.

Weak growth

"We're going backwards not forwards," said economist Alan Clarke of Scotia Bank.

"It's going to increase pressure on the government to get back on track either by tightening fiscal policy further to make up for the lost ground, or loosening policy in the hope that stronger economic growth improves the public finances."

July is usually a good month for tax receipts, meaning the government normally makes a surplus, because it is the month that businesses make quarterly corporation tax payments and individuals' tax self-assessment returns are recorded.

"It's the same story we've been seeing since the beginning of the year, that tax receipts are down, which is not surprising given the weaker growth performance of the economy," said Gustavo Bagattini from RBC Capital Markets.

Tom Vosa, an analyst at National Australia Bank said the monthly numbers were "terrible". "But the trend so far isn't disastrous," he said.

"Unless we see a further fall in revenue, the government could possibly still have a small undershoot for the fiscal year as a whole."

The Office for National Statistics said net debt - the sum of all borrowing - was £1.032bn, or 65.7% of GDP.

The ONS also revised the figure for how much the UK borrowed in the 2011-12 financial year to £125bn. The OBR had forecast £126bn.

BBC

Edit - Peterms just pipped me at the post. ^

[snowychap]

However, she expects borrowing for 2012/13 overall will overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast of £120bn, excluding Royal Mail effects, by over £35m...

Does she mean million or 'billion'?

[peterms]

However, she expects borrowing for 2012/13 overall will overshoot the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast of £120bn, excluding Royal Mail effects, by over £35m...

Does she mean million or 'billion'?

She means billion.

But also see Neil Wilson's comment on her musings:

"And with the recovery falling well short of the OBR's expectations, we think that the government will struggle to cut borrowing at all next year either."

The causality mistakes there are astonishing. Why is the Guardian giving this woman any airtime at all?

The failing recovery *causes* the deficit to sustain or increase - as a result of the automatic stabilisers kicking even harder and trying to stop us collapsing into the black hole of a depression.

Reduced tax take and increase benefit payments are what is keeping money flowing around the system.

Deficits reduce when the non-government sector saves less. They save less when they feel confident about the future and the level of leverage they are shouldering. And that happens when spending increases demand, increases orders and increases incomes.

The job of the government in these situations is to take the savings from those that are fearful and reinject them into the economy - either via tax cuts or extra spending. Only by doing that forcefully will you ease the fear and therefore the desire to save in the private sector.

[peterms]

Little exchange on Twitter: Tory press office try to present the increase in deficit as a reduction, are corrected by an economist who has actually read the ONS release, are asked to correct their statement, and fail to correct it or apparently to understand the issue at all. Where do they dredge them up from?

I expect they are currently drafting a briefing to tory members telling them what good news this is, which we will soon see reflected in one or two posts on here.

CCHQ Press Office ‏@RicHolden

Government borrowing tracking significantly below last year's level. Source: ONS, p2 http://tinyurl.com/c78wvsj http://twitpic.com/am0tcb

Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes

. @RicHolden Are you serious? Entirely driven by the Royal Mail transfer. Current deficit up about £11 bn. Perhaps you'd like to correct?

CCHQ Press Office ‏@RicHolden

.@jdportes Interesting prediction, given that the deficit is down by a quarter in the first 2 years http://www.twitpic.com/afyd9q

Jonathan Portes ‏@jdportes

. @RicHolden er, not a prediction - it's in the ONS release you (mis) read. Current deficit up £11bn. Perhaps you'd like to correct?

CCHQ Press Office ‏@RicHolden

@DuncanWeldon @jdportes We’ll only know the total deficit figure at end of the financial year. Are you basing a prediction on this month?

[drat01]

Houshold debt rises

Average household debt has passed £10,000 as families struggle to cope with rising living costs, a study has found.

Insurance company Aviva’s latest Family Finances report shows the average UK Household now has £10,563 of debt, up from £9,314 in May.

Loans from family and friends are making up a growing proportion of the borrowing – which excludes mortgages – increasing from £701 in May to £1,545 in August. Six per cent of families use pay-day-loans, with single parents being the most like group to take up this form of borrowing.

Expenditure is up across most areas, particularly energy bills, which have seen annual inflation of 10.11 per cent, and now make up 5 per cent of family spending. Housing costs make up 19 per cent, and have increased 1.95 per cent over the last year, with the amount spent rising from £504 to £513.

Despite this the number of families who have to survive on less than £1,250 a month has fallen from 30 per cent in November 2011 to 22 per cent in August 2012. However there has also been a drop in families with an income of more than £2,500, down to 31 per cent from 36 per cent this time last year.

The research is based on findings from 14,000 people intended to be representative of the UK population as a whole.

This edition of the quarterly study also looked at ‘intergenerational living’. It found 73 per cent of UK family members have lived with another generation of their families beyond the age of 18. The most common form was young people continuing to live with their parents, usually for an average of three years. Twenty four per cent reported intergenerational living for more than five years, and 8 per cent for more than 10 years.

Louise Colley, head of protection sales and marketing for Aviva, said: ‘Generally we think of children becoming independent when they reach 18, but it’s clear many are relying on their families both financially and practically into their 20s and 30s and beyond. There’s also evidence of older family members living with relatives for companionship and care, so dependencies can occur at almost any point in families’ lives.’

Even more evidence that this Gvmt have screwed things up even more. To see the Tory party and its supporters try and claim that things are getting better when the facts show otherwise shows them up for a complete and utter lack of understanding on what is going on. Maybe its yet another case of them feathering their own nests and their supporters / donators so it looks rosy, while the rest of the UK slides deeper and deeper into the mess that Osborne, Cameron assisted by the LibDems have imposed on the country. Many said that the cuts were ill targeted, over aggressive and would do nothing but harm to the UK in general. How right they were

[Eames]

Without wishing to get into a party political arguement with you, the statistics in that report are ropey at best. For instance, the "average" UK household debt figure is skewed massively by the fact that the average debt in London (of Aviva customers) is apparently £33k. When you consider that the next highest region is the northwest (£15k) but most are generally between 5-8k you can see that the average is highly misleading. This is just one example without really reading the report in any great detail....

It also says quite clearly that the drop in income/increase in debt could be attributed to the school holidays, since a similar fall happened at the same time last year.

[peterms]

Without wishing to get into a party political arguement with you, the statistics in that report are ropey at best. For instance, the "average" UK household debt figure is skewed massively by the fact that the average debt in London (of Aviva customers) is apparently £33k. When you consider that the next highest region is the northwest (£15k) but most are generally between 5-8k you can see that the average is highly misleading. This is just one example without really reading the report in any great detail....

It also says quite clearly that the drop in income/increase in debt could be attributed to the school holidays, since a similar fall happened at the same time last year.

I don't understand the approach used by Aviva of taking a sample of 14,000 and extrapolating from there. It's a reasonable thing to do when taking opinion polls, but to find average household debt it's surely better to look at the total and simply divide by the number of households.

Using that approach, Credit Action find it is £7,854 in June excluding mortgages, £55,448 in June including mortgages.

Presumably Aviva are mostly interested in finding out exactly what sort of debts people are taking on or paying off, so they can try to flog them more of their own "products" and increase their market share.

[Eames]

^^ Yeah that too.......