A Little Bit of Politics.

[f4f3]

So, how long have I given our new ConDem government before passing judgement? Well, about 90 seconds, to be honest, but I haven't commented on them till now. Partly because I was waiting for them to do something, partly because I didn't want to be the one to wipe the spawn off the faces of my Lib Dem friends who'd gone to bed as noble princes, and woken up as frogs.

The theory, as far as I can remember, was that the conscience of the Liberals would rein in the Tories tendency to reward the rich and punish the poor. That the Tories, perhaps, had changed - that they weren't the Thatcherites of old, that they might even had developed a social conscience of their own. I quite wanted to believe that.

However it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. The Liberals have become the nodding dogs of the austerity apocalypse. They agreed with the rise in VAT, arguing that a rise in personal income tax allowance would take the pinch off that extra tax. Despite knowing that VAT is universal, and that income tax is only paid by those working. So, a swift kick at the unemployed with a lie thrown in. (Oh, and a total lack of embarrassment at having campaigned against the Tory VAT bombshell. 

The week after that, Ian Duncan Smith revealed that the age at which a state pension is paid will go up from 65 to 66. His justification for this is that life expectancy is now 84 for men and 89 for women. He didn't say that was for people being born today, not those reaching retirement age today. He didn't say that life expectancy is significantly lower for poor people than rich. How significant is significant? Well it's 63 for men in Shettleston, a couple of miles to the east of me, and in Kensington and Chelsea it's 83.7.

I heard another two things today. One, that the government aims to take a third of people off invalidity benefit. How? Are they going to increase standards of care, introduce new treatments, licence new drugs? Nah, they're going to change the rules so that you have to pass new tests to qualify for the benefit (I nearly said "make you jump through hoops", but I don't want to give them any ideas).

The other was that Theresa May announced a cap on non-EU immigration to the UK, the first time this has ever been done. I feel slightly ashamed, and slightly dirty.

And I'm not even keeping them in power.

Comments

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I'd certainly be interested in your suggestions for how we get out of the hole we're in. A hole we're in at least in large part to Mr Brown, who was chancellor when the economy was going down the toilet, and PM when we decided to repay the banks' ineptitude by giving them all our money and ask them not to do it again. Lo and behold two years later, they're rolling in the cash and we're rolling in the shit.

It's a nightmare situation we find ourselves in, and tough measures is the only way to get out of it. Sweeping it under the carpet didn't help. I don't like what's being done but you know, I ain't got any better ideas. All I know is things can't go on as they are and someone's got to be unpopular. At least the tories know everyone hates them anyway so what the heck.

I don't think it's so hard

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

1. Tax the banks

2. Increase the top rate of income tax and lower the point at which it kicks in

3. Implement Frank Field's plan for welfare reform

4. Cut defence spending to the same level as a % of GDP as Germany

Re: I don't think it's so hard

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

They're doing number 1.

They're not going to do number 2 - they're the tories - and the unfortunate fact is they achieved the popular vote. We have to be realistic here.

I'll have a wee shufty on the internet about 3 and 4 - ta.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

We've been told so often that the sky is falling that it's easy to believe. Mr Osborne told us last week that he can sort this out in four years of a five year parliament, leaving him a full extra year of cost cutting to build up a bribe bank for re-election.
Do you remember "If it's not hurting, it isn't working"?

No one argues that the world economic situation (which wasn't create by Brown and Darling) has taken a huge chunk out of the nation's assets. But we didn't give the banks our money, we bought a share in their business. When we sell that, we'll make the money back. If we hadn't supported the banks then the consequences would have been worse - basically we let a self-regulating industry get so badly in debt that we couldn't afford to let them fail. That would be an industry that the Tories wanted to be less controlled, not more.

So yes, cuts need to be made, more money has to be raised through taxation. The Tories have decided that they will raise 80% of the money through cuts, 20% through taxation. So far the cuts have been targeted at the poorest and most vulnerable parts of society, and the tax rises have been aimed at everyone.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I've heard this "we didn't give the banks money, we bought shares" nonsense before. If we bought shares why aren't they doing what their 80%+ owners tell them? Why are they still giving out obscene bonuses? It seems to me that the action Osborne has taken on the banks this time around isn't enough but it's better than the previous government did. And whilst the last lot aren't responsible for the global situation, I am certain that they could have done more to mitigate its effects on the UK and they are definitely responsible for the banks effectively having us by the short-and-curlies. Shares, indeed!!

VAT seems to be a tax that hits everyone. In fact, better still, it's a tax that (to a point) one has a choice in paying. We as a nation have to stop spending beyond our means - that means being more frugal on luxuries.

On the cuts issue, I'm sure you have worked in the public sector over your career - I know I have - and it's a shockingly wasteful place. THe people who do nothing, the processes that achieve nothing are mind boggling. This has to change. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a much better target for money making than taxation is. No, I don't have the answer as to how to achieve that, but the UK public sector is a disgrace and has to change.

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

In an attempt to get the US government out of their boardrooms, Citibank miraculously found the funds to give the lent US taxpayer money back, back, back. Or buy out the shares, or whatever. Like, in May or something.

They don't want federal interference in their finances if it means they have to be honest and make less money and have someone actually looking at their books.

I expect no British bank will opt to retain the government-as-taxpayer as shareholder a minute longer than they have to.

Which is only one of a tiny number of issues, but there is my prediction.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Yes but that's because in return for the US taxpayers' dollars, they got a degree of control which it was in the banks' best interests to get rid of.

Ours? Ours got told to play nice in future...

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

My favourites were Barclays, who borrowed billions from the Saudis rather than take government money...

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

The Saudis were probably in a better position to afford it.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"I've heard this "we didn't give the banks money, we bought shares" nonsense before. If we bought shares why aren't they doing what their 80%+ owners tell them? "

Personally I'm all in favour of nationalising the banks. Glad you're with me on that one. But I'll settle for getting our money back, preferably with a bit of profit. That's what shares are for - you don't see the pension funds running banks, do you?

"Why are they still giving out obscene bonuses?" mostly because the bonuses are a percentage of incremental income - trader no make profit, trader no get bonus. If we don't want the banks making money that way, great - but so long as they get to play the big casino with our money, they keep part of the winnings.

"It seems to me that the action Osborne has taken on the banks this time around isn't enough but it's better than the previous government did."

Osborne and Cameron opposed a bank levy right up until the moment they stole the idea. Brown proposed it last year, and would have enacted it by now. He also enacted a 50% levy on bonus payments over a certain amount - a move opposed by the Tories.

"And whilst the last lot aren't responsible for the global situation, I am certain that they could have done more to mitigate its effects on the UK and they are definitely responsible for the banks effectively having us by the short-and-curlies. Shares, indeed!!"

Maybe you can tell me how they would have mitigated it further, then? Way I see it, Labour's action to mitigate the recession saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Tory approach will lose them (look at the government's own budget predictions for the increase in unemployment). For them, it's a price worth paying.

"VAT seems to be a tax that hits everyone. In fact, better still, it's a tax that (to a point) one has a choice in paying. We as a nation have to stop spending beyond our means - that means being more frugal on luxuries."

VAT does hit everyone - but unlike income tax, it hits the poorer harder. The Institute for Fiscal Studies budget analysis. shows that less than one percent of the resources of the those in the top 10%' of income goes in VAT following the rise to 20% but 2.3% of the much lower income of the poorest 10% goes in VAT payments

I did work for the Public Sector, the NHS in fact, shortly before the last Tory lot brought in the Internal Market, which raised the cost of delivery enormously, as well as adding a management layer whic, strangely enough, has grown larger ever since. The internal market, PFI and outsourcing have been the biggest money making cons run over the last twenty years. "The UK public sector is a disgrace" my arse - go off and get ill in the US without insurance, and tell me how much better you were treated over there. Where do you think the funding cuts will fall? On the workers delivering services, or on the managers who will implement the cuts?

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

"How could the Labour government have mitigated the banking problems further?"

Well, possibly by implementing something similar to the US did. i.e. we'll bail you out, but we own your ass till you pay us back. Instead of entering into the worst investment in history. We will never see the money back for those shares, much less a profit.

VAT might not be perfect but nothing is - at least this way folks have half way an option to reduce its impact on them, which is more than can be said for an income tax hike.

When I refer to the public sector I don't mean the NHS specifically - I mean the civil service. And yes, the tories brought in the management layer that is crippling the NHS, but let's not forget that Labour had 12 years to get rid of it - instead of which they strengthened it - with a decade of obsession with KPIs and pointless micromanaging. Besides, who brought it in isn't the question - who's going to get rid of it is. The civil service is a joke. Our tax system is ludicrously and unnecessarily complex for example. New Zealand has something like six tax codes and the vast majority of the population is the same one. Quangos are worse - look at the mess SLC is in through basically just not doing its job properly for 10 years. It's not alone either - it's just the one that got caught.

I'll agree with your last point - but the issue there is where the cuts will fall, not whether or not they are necessary/appropriate. I'll fight with you to have those cuts fall on the beaurocracy layer rather than those doing a good job well but I won't stand by and say that these institutions don't need a darn good shakeup.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

Remember that I didn't get the government I voted for either and I'm not agreeing with everything the one we got is doing but I am trying to see the sense in it, and I see quite a lot. I also see a lot that's guided by tory values and well, although I don't agree with those, I can't criticise an elected government (and they won by vote share as well as first-past-the-post) for sticking to the principles they campaigned on. Whether or not the Lib Dems should have joined forces with them I'm split on - at first I thought no, but I'm starting to think yes.... Time will tell on whether or not that was a good thing.

Ultimately we're never going to agree on politics because I don't share your socialist views. This doesn't however make me a rabid tory. Here - I'm just trying to *understand* what the government is doing rather than butt against it, because in one thing I do agree with them wholeheartedly: we're up shit creek and tough measures are required to get us out.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

What was the Tory vote share? 30 some percent? On a sixty odd percent turnout? So about 20% of the people eligible to vote voted for them?
I wouldn't laugh about this so much if you hadn't taken me to task so strongly for describing a win with 20% of the eligible vote as convincing back in November...

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I didn't make any comment on the quality of the win, I merely stated the fact that they got more votes than anyone else, ergo they won the by vote share. I'm not championing it, merely stating the fact. Sure, more people should get off their arse and vote but short of making it mandatory there's not a lot we can do about that.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"We will never see the money back for those shares, much less a profit."

In the case of RBS, we bought at about 50.5, and they're currently trading about 44. Last September we were sitting on about £1 billion worth of profit.

I've already said that VAT has a disproportionate effect on the poorer parts of society than income tax. I can understand you not taking my word for it, or whatever selective links I might put up, so if you don't want to do your own research (the share prices above took me two minutes to get) then we'll have to drop this one.

I don't disagree about there being inefficiencies in the Civil Service - Labour identified £65 million worth of cuts there. The argument is on timing and severity - the Tories will cut faster and deeper because they just don't give a damn about who gets hurt - they know it won't be them. Labour proposed staged cuts which would have taken longer, and cost less jobs. It's a matter of priorities.

A darn good public sector shakeup is one thing. 1.2 million lost jobs (the government's estimate, not mine) over five years is another. 2,000 jobs a week. Teachers, nurses, policemen, roadworkers, painters, plasterers. 2,000 a week. 300 a day. 35 every working hour.

Oh, and they also calculate that around 700,000 of those jobs will be in the private sector. Programmers, shop assistants, lorry drivers, accountants...

Cutting that deeply, that quickly, is a price worth paying. So long as someone else is doing the paying.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

"In the case of RBS, we bought at about 50.5, and they're currently trading about 44. Last September we were sitting on about £1 billion worth of profit. "

And now we're sitting on a massive loss. Way to go investing, guys.

I know you have this image of the tories as being evil bloodthirsty monsters. Fact is they're politicians with a different view point to yours or mine. The fact that they're politicians means they won't cut their own throats because that's not what politicians do.

What I've heard today (and from your post above) is a bunch of politicians bandying scary statistics around and if I know two things gauranteed to be lies it's statistics and anything coming from the mouth of a politician. Multiply by a factor of ten if they're out to score political points with their oponents.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Neil, all of the market went down in the past year, not just the banks.
But at least you've identified a great area for savings - the Office Of National Statistics, who published those lying figures...

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

You know what. Let's just drop the whole thing. I've said everything I'm going to on the subject and the tone of this is getting unpleasant.

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

They don't care if everyone hates them, as long as they come out after 5 years with the assets of the wealthy protected. If they solve some financial problems along the way, that's just gravy on the perfectly roasted turkey of an administration.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

You're not wrong there.

[anthrokeight.livejournal.com]

Ah... immigration caps! Nothing says "ew! yuck!" like immigration quotas based on regional origin!

Says the descendant of an illegal immigrant from Eastern Europe, from back when being Polish was almost as bad as being Black! Especially if you were a Jew! Oh my!

Also, and you who lived in Thatcherite will understand this full well, but... we have a conservative (and that's AMERICAN conservative) governor whose 40% state spending cuts (and totaly refusal to raise revenue streams) were supposed to improve quality of life and bring jobs to the state of Minnesota.

Hah. hah. hah. hah. hah.

Haaaaaaaaah.

Just the state of our once-excellent public education system makes me want to cry, never mind other public services. Like roads and stuff.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Give the ConDems five years, and public service will be a thing of the past in the UK. The right wing press have already made them their favourite target, with daily attacks on feather-bedding public service workers with there good pension deals and reasonable holidays. Bastards.

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

That's not new though really is it? Only difference is that there's more papers joining in and they did that *before* the election.

The thing to bear in mind though is that there is also a left wing press and they're as biased in the opposite direction. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

"The left wing press".
So that's the Record and the Mirror then.
Anyone else?