Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Xann]

Lib Dem Peer Baroness Benjamin of Beckenham.

[ender4]

I expect there aill actually be a bounce on the Christmas retail numbers

What do you mean Richard? I'm not seeing your point I'm afraid.

everyone will spend extra before the 20% VAT come in on Jan 1st.

i know i needed to buy a new bed, tv, sofas, bookcase, dining table, etc... later this year. i will now make sure i buy it all before Dec 31st, rather than taking my time & buying it over the next 12 months.

[TrentVilla]

I expect there aill actually be a bounce on the Christmas retail numbers

What do you mean Richard? I'm not seeing your point I'm afraid.

everyone will spend extra before the 20% VAT come in on Jan 1st.

i know i needed to buy a new bed, tv, sofas, bookcase, dining table, etc... later this year. i will now make sure i buy it all before Dec 31st, rather than taking my time & buying it over the next 12 months.

Yeah I get that, its logical that will happen. In addition to that the figures will also naturally be up on last Christmas I think due to the general position people are in.

What I don't understand is the point that Richard was trying to make with that comment in relation to the previous posts which stated the rise in VAT to 20% will result in people spending less.

Just because their will be increased spending in the lead up to Christmas and before the early January VAT rise it doesn't some how disprove the belief that post VAT rise people will spend less especially on bigger higher price items.

[Richard]

Just because their will be increased spending in the lead up to Christmas and before the early January VAT rise it doesn't some how disprove the belief that post VAT rise people will spend less especially on bigger higher price items.

To be fair I never said it did but was just pointing out that there would be a positive impact on the Christmas retail number

[Richard]

ie a short term boost to the economy which is something Liebour tried to achieve with their 12 month (whole year) VAT reduction but which never really worked and ended up costing us around £12BN I think it was

[TrentVilla]

Just because their will be increased spending in the lead up to Christmas and before the early January VAT rise it doesn't some how disprove the belief that post VAT rise people will spend less especially on bigger higher price items.

To be fair I never said it did but was just pointing out that there would be a positive impact on the Christmas retail number

No quite right you didn't but there was a implication there, intended or not.

There will obviously be a post increase boost in sales figures although it won't really be tangible due to the time of year.

The longer term implications though for retailers will be far less positive though I suspect than any initial short term boost.

[Gringo]

ie a short term boost to the economy which is something Liebour tried to achieve with their 12 month (whole year) VAT reduction but which never really worked and ended up costing us around £12BN I think it was

1) Most observers seem to think the VAT cut did help the retail sector through 2009; and

2) Labour's 12 month VAT cut also achieved "a bounce on the Christmas retail numbers" - so the tory bounce will be compared to the labour bounce and so year on year there will be little bounce at all.

And in the longer term it still hits the poorest hardest and is the most unfair tax you can increase. Which is of course why labour worked so hard to remove it.

[snowychap]

Something liberal and sensible?

Ken Clarke to attack 'bang 'em up' prison sentencing

The justice secretary, Ken Clarke, will today launch a scathing attack on the Victorian "bang 'em up" prison culture of the past 20 years.

His speech to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in London marks a major assault on the "prison works" orthodoxy launched by former Tory home secretary Michael Howard – and is believed to be causing nervousness in Downing Street.

Clarke will warn that simply "banging up more and more people for longer" is actually making some criminals worse, without protecting the public.

"In our worst prisons it produces tougher criminals. Many a man has gone into prison without a drug problem and come out drug dependent. And petty prisoners can meet up with some new hardened criminal friends," says advance extracts of his speech.

Clarke faces mounting pressure to halt the £4bn prison building programme – the largest in Europe – and his speech will fuel expectations that he intends to divert thousands of offenders away from short-term prison sentences when the government's review of sentencing is published in the autumn.

The justice secretary faces a battle if he is to stabilise the growth of the prison population, which is forecast to rise to 94,000 before the next general election.

Clarke was last in charge of prisons when he was home secretary between 1992 and 1993, when the prison population in England and Wales stood at 44,628. He says today that the current population of 85,000 is "an astonishing number which I would have dismissed as an impossible and ridiculous prediction if it had been put to me in a forecast in 1992."

He says that "for as long as I can remember" the political debate on law and order has been reduced to a competition over whether a government has spent more public money and locked up more people for longer than its predecessor. It now costs more to put someone in prison – £38,000 – than it does to send a boy to Eton.

He said: "The consequence is that more and more offenders have been warehoused in outdated facilities and we spend vast amounts of public money on prison. But no proper thought has been given to whether this is really the best and most effective way of protecting the public against crime."

Clarke will point out that prison is the necessary punishment for many offenders, but he questions whether "ever more prison for ever more offenders" always produces better results for the public. He provides his own answer by observing that the record prison population and the crime rate in England and Wales are now among the highest in Western Europe.

He says that just locking people up without actively seeking to change them is "what you would expect of Victorian England" and he notes that reoffending rates among the 60,000 prisoners given short sentences has reached 60% and rising.

"This does not surprise me. It is virtually impossible to do anything productive with offenders on short sentences. And many of them end up losing their jobs, their homes and their families during their short time inside," says Clarke.

[Awol]

The prison issue needs to be solved at the root and that means addressing drug policy. Legalise the supply of heroin to addicts through the NHS and at the same time get really medieval on dealers, distributers and importers.

Crime would halve at least inside twelve months.

[TrentVilla]

Wouldn't getting tough with those involved in the supply of drugs led to a marked increase in the prison population in direct contrast to the article posted above?

Don't get me wrong, I agree change is needed and I agree that firm and prolonged targetting and punishment of those involved in the supply chain would have a marked impact on crime levels but I simply don't see how that can be achieved with a lower prison population and as was suggested yesterday less police resources due to budget cuts.

[Jon]

Reducing the prison population/not locking "crims" up is unlikely to go down well with traditional Tory support.

Interesting move.

I am recalling Dracula Howard's "prison works" speech of a few years ago ....

[Awol]

Wouldn't getting tough with those involved in the supply of drugs led to a marked increase in the prison population in direct contrast to the article posted above?

My logic is that the majority of offenders are involved in low level crime, carried out to fund their drug habits. That far exceeds the numbers of people involved in supply. By reducing the former through registration and NHS prescription, then hammering the latter through targeted action and hugely increased sentences we could halve the numbers banged up in one to two years.

I simply don't see how that can be achieved with a lower prison population and as was suggested yesterday less police resources due to budget cuts.

There are lots of policeman, the question is how we use them. Maybe take the focus off revenue generation by pursuing everything with four wheels, then direct more resources towards a concerted drive to hammer the heroin supply chain.

[drat01]

Another day another hypocrisy stunt by Cameron and Clegg.

They held a cabinet meeting in Bradford - cost around 100K pounds. When Labour were in power they were all over these meetings in places like Brmingham major critics of thm. within days again of taking office what do they do?

Hypocrites and Liars on the road in Bradford

David Cameron risked accusations of hypocrisy yesterday after taking his new coalition Cabinet on its first 'away day' to Yorkshire.

The Conservatives were fierce critics of the day trips, started by Gordon Brown and estimated to cost more than £100,000 a time.

But the Prime Minister has continued the practice by holding yesterday's meeting at the Grattan Stadium in Bradford.

Cabinet ministers then spent the day on visits relating to their area of responsibility.

The theme for the meeting was boosting regional economic activity and helping businesses grow.

But critics have derided the exercise as a 'gratuitous PR gimmick' aimed at winning over large numbers of disaffected public sector workers living in the area.

The trip came as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced £1billion Regional Growth Fund to stimulate private investment.

First announced in the Budget last week, companies will be able to bid for money for plans which increase investment, jobs and growth in their area.

The government is also axing nine Regional Development Agencies - set up by Labour to support local businesses. They will be replaced by partnerships between councils and firms.

Mr Clegg insisted the new scheme will help ensure 'no region or community gets left behind'.

But Mr Cameron's decision not to axe regional Cabinet meetings has raised eyebrows because senior Conservatives have criticised the excursions in the past.

In 2008, George Osborne said taking a 'day trip' would not solve the country's problems and the then shadow Treasury minister Mark Hoban said the trips were a 'scandalous' waste of taxpayers' money.

In the run-up to the General Election, Labour was also accused of deliberately holding the meetings in marginal seats which it was vulnerable of losing.

The Government has previously revealed that the average cost of a meeting is nearly £80,000.

But the true value is estimated at closer to £100,000 - when costs such as security, management, hiring a venue and travel costs are taken into consideration.

The regional cabinet comes just days after the Government unveiled the harshest public spending cuts for a generation.

In a bid to reduce costs, ministers travelled to yesterday's meeting by train - standard class - and by coach for a series of visits.

A Number 10 spokesman said: 'Everything is going to be done to keep the cost to an absolute minimum.'

Mr Brown introduced cabinet meetings outside Westminster in September 2008. Birmingham was the first venue and became the first regional cabinet gathering since 1921.

Mark Wallace, Campaign Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: 'These regional days out for the cabinet are a costly PR exercise and nothing more. They were wasteful when Gordon Brown did them and they are wasteful now.

'People around the country don’t want politicians making patronising visits for a few hours at taxpayers’ expense, they want real power over their own lives. These trips should be scrapped once and for all.'

Leading Conservative blogger Iain Dale added: 'What on earth is the point of the Cabinet meeting in Bradford today?

'What can they decide in Bradford that they couldn't in London, to say nothing of the extra cost? I was hoping these kind of gratuitous PR gimmicks had ended with the last government. Clearly not.

'Cabinet ministers tour the country the whole time. They do not need to do it collectively. It's a waste of their time and of taxpayers' money.'

Shadow business secretary Pat McFadden said the regional development agency announcement was a 'broken promise' that existing RDAs would survive 'in areas where they are popular'.

Add to that the announcement of getting rid of 9 RDA's - amazing

[bickster]

I don't get it, Labour did it and they criticised by the Tories. so the Tories do it and a Labour supporter criticises using a Daily Heil article as justification? Surely you should be saying well done, another idea stolen from Labour. Accusations of hypocrissy in politics are all too common, why can't politicians be seen to be changing their opinions? (surely this is a good thing, shows flexibility and a willingness to listen etc etc) Why can't we seemingly put an end to the PR stunts and the tit for tat, you say black we'll say white rubbish?

This is all about PR, why cant we get rid of that shit too? It was a PR stunt under Labour and its a PR stunt under the ConDem Govt too. As usual both are as bad as each other

[drat01]

No Gareth - it hilights the hypocrisy of the arguments at the time. What you are effectively saying is that we can scrap anything they have said previously?

FTR I have no problems with cabinet meetings moving around the country, in fact the more that Gvmt is moved out of the south east the better. But we have seen in the budget that they are attacking public services outside of the SE which will lead to job losses, so how then do they reconcile that with this?

This Gvmt have already gone back on so much of what they criticised Labour for and what they were elected on. It's not even over a period of years which typically happens, this lot have done it in days.

As for the Daily Heil - the reason I posted the story from there was on purpose, to show that even one of their biggest supporters was amazed at teh hypocrisy

[bickster]

What exactly is the point of highlighting hypocrisy where does that get anyone. We'd be here and so would the politicians and the media all year just doing that and getting nothing domne

It was a Labour PR stunt now copied by the Tories. Like I keep saying, same horse different jockey.

Everything you've said just makes me more convinced I've been right all along. We have to rid politics of the political party. No parties and none of this nonsense would go on, its phoney politics by phoney politicians

[TrentVilla]

Politics is full of hypocrisy and politicians are hypocritcal, on both sides of the house and in all parties. They argue one thing one week and then the total opposite at a later date depending on circumstance and the position of their party at that given time. That is politics, they all say and do things they don't believe and they disagree with things the other parties say not because they think it was wrong but because they said it.

That is about it. So do we really need to point out every example? Can't we just accept that it happens?

[TrentVilla]

I simply don't see how that can be achieved with a lower prison population and as was suggested yesterday less police resources due to budget cuts.

There are lots of policeman, the question is how we use them. Maybe take the focus off revenue generation by pursuing everything with four wheels, then direct more resources towards a concerted drive to hammer the heroin supply chain.

Sorry mate but that doesn't make any sense.

The police budgets are being cut, numbers of offices will be cut, time spent on the beat will be cut. There is no getting away from this but you have ignored this and instead made it a point about how police resources are used.

The simple fact is that Police resources are going to be reduced over the next few years in line with their budgets, which makes it more likely not less that they will pursue crimes which bring with them financial insentives, ie traffic crime.

I don't agree with it, I'd rather that they focus on other things. I think though its unrealistic to expect budgets to be cut by up to 25% and then expect them to mount a serious crack down on drug dealers. Its just not realistic at all.

[snowychap]

I have no problems with cabinet meetings moving around the country

I do. It's an utter load of nonsense. It isn't about moving government out of the South East at all.

It's a shameless PR exercise. It was when Gordo decided to do it and it is now that Cameron has decided to continue it.

[TrentVilla]

I have no problems with cabinet meetings moving around the country

I do. It's an utter load of nonsense. It isn't about moving government out of the South East at all.

It's a shameless PR exercise. It was when Gordo decided to do it and it is now that Cameron has decided to continue it.

I agree. No matter who is doing it, it is a cheap stunt.