John Redwood wrote:the UK is still adding to its borrowing at more than £100 billion a year. State debt just keeps increasing at an alarming rate. This week the UK ten year cost of money for the government rose again, to 2.1%. This is still a low figure, but it is 40% up from the bottom and rising. Every 1% added to the average interest rate is a large increase in future spending on just servicing the ballooning debt. (£10 bn extra cost if you include the Bank of England owned debt)
Let’s try and get these huge figures across in a more accessible form. For every man, woman and child the UK now has borrowed nearly £17000. On top of this is all the bank, PFI and pension debts of the public sector, which take it to £40,000 of borrowing per person. As each person’s income is only £25000 on average, the task of repaying the debt is now gargantuan. Meanwhile instead of starting to rein it in, the state borrows more, so people are adding £1700 a year extra to their already large debts.
I still remember a friend of mine, a rabid Conservative, who served under Redwood in Wales telling me never to trust that man!
I have just followed the recommendation of the friend who taught me American History at Lancaster. It's about the way the Planter Class in the Southern States were rabid reactionaries and opposed all taxation and 'progress' because it threatened their way of life. Bob's thesis over the last twenty years has been that the South actually won the Civil War because their neo-conservative principles are gaining the upper hand in America. This book supports the thesis. The thing that struck me on skimming through the book before I read it is that if you take the title 'American Taxation. American Slavery' and substitute the landed magnates and later the new industrial plutocracy in Britain for the planters in the book you have a convincing explanation for why our current Tory dominated administration is hell bent on rolling back the advantages gained by the working classes in the last 100 years. The policy is driven not by economic reality but Old Tory DNA. Exactly what the Republicans are attempting in America at the moment. Interesting contrast at the moment reading Sassoon's 'Sherston's Memoirs' because it's basically an old fashioned High Tory's view of his world which was modified by war service in WW1 and resulted in a greater awareness of the basic unfairness of the system which led to people like Macmillan and others coming out of the war and being seen as socialists because they advocated 'caring Conservatism'. It all fits with what we are seeing now under an administration of politicians who have no experience of real life and can't see the consequences of the policies they are pursuing. Perhaps they should read the history and learn some lessons.....
I see Cameron is being asked some interesting questions about his concept of 'The Big Society' when under his leadership the driving forces of community care, the charities, are being starved of resources.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Though he is speaking what both business leaders and the financial sector are saying about all this debt which will have to be repaid.
It should be paid by those here and now, and not left to our grandchildren
There is no such thing as a caring politician. The state needs money to make it look beneficial, when if it didn't try to take the money in the first place and give you a little bit back to placate you, then maybe people would get on with living their own lives and take responsibility for their own communities.
Well there you are.... we are all standing corrected.....
I see there is a new cunning wheeze, alter the way RPI is calculated. Expectation is that it will fall about 1%. Enormous implications and not all of them good!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Something strange going on, at 07:00 the Office of National Statistics put out a statement that they had decided announcing that they had changed their minds about altering RPI. No doubt because someone had realised just how enormous the changes were. The new proposal is that a new index be produced. The bottom line is probably that if the change had gone through the government would have come under enormous pressure and accused of simply using statistics to milk more out of the economy.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
I'm afraid that the current crop of Ministers seem increasingly unable or even inclined, to do the right thing let along the best thing. Mind you, I'm not sure the best thing can ever be done as it suggests you'll please all of the people all of the time and that's never going to happen. We humans are just too irrational - blame our brains and sentience.
No, as the Justice Secretary noted at the dispatch box yesterday (on this probation service thing), sometimes you just have to believe in a policy and implement it. I'm not sure I want public money spent on blind faith. The Justice Secretary is not alone; most schools policy is driven by the belief of the Education Secretary; the Health Bill was driven by the belief of the Health Secretary and the Welfare Bill the other day was driven by the belief of the Work and Pension Secretary. As the multiple clarifications put out by for example the ONS and other evidential agencies testifies, the actual evidence flies in the face of these beliefs.
It seems, rather worryingly, that at our better schools and universities the Enlightenment never happened. Which must be the case as the alternative - that we have as venal and damned nasty a group as ever disgraced the green benches - is just too awful to contemplate (I am being sarcastic). Mind you when you have one of the very rudest men I've come across as PM what do you expect? A fish rots from the head and all that.....
Richard. Thanks for that and as usual I agree with you. "as venal and damned nasty a group as ever disgraced the green benches" You may be sarcastic but that's the view I am getting and it's the reason I have been quiet about politics lately. I see no redeeming features and I'm afraid the reports in Private Eye about nepotism and the public repudiation of policies like PFI followed by their adoption under a different guise don't help. I keep scanning the horizon for a glimpse of practical policy suggestions from principled politicians but I'm afraid they are thin on the ground. We do a lot of talking about changing the ethos in the financial institutions, we need a change of ethos in Downing Street. It's driven by Old Tory DNA and the Bullingdon Effect at the moment and I don't like it.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
How relieved I am that my life does not revolve around politics, or that I have sycophantic contacts, whos very words I swoon over. I appreciate good hard working people who try to do their best, and local people in particular, they have their fingers on our pulse. I will quote something that I understand may have come from WW1 "If You know of a better hole, then go to it"!!!
I feel like doing a bit of spouting about the Common Market debate.....
It all seemed so simple all those years ago, a united Europe was a far better alternative to war. Everybody was in favour of cooperation, even hardened Empire Men like Churchill advocated some form of unified trade policies and closer political cooperation. We are now faced with enormous decisions about cooperation with what is now the European Union but unfortunately it has all become far more complicated. Over the years, the simple trade association that started as the Iron and Steel Community has expanded until today, full membership of the EU means commitment to centralised banks, political union in what is going to become a federal system with political and economic policy dictated from the centre, which in affect is Germany with France as a significant but ailing partner. This is going to mean that full-blown participants are eventually going to lose self determination in terms of economic policy, major political decisions (particularly in foreign policy) and integration of justice systems. In short, it's a minefield.
I voted yes in the original referendum, question is what will I vote in the next (if there is one!) Not possible to give an answer now on this as we don't know what the question will be but the favourite seems to be a straight in or out decision at the moment. I don't believe that the EU is interested in a two speed Europe, they will want full commitment or nothing.
Here's my problem. I can't conceive a 'national government' that has no ultimate control over its taxation, economic policy, major political decisions and foreign policy. It seems to me that by definition this is abdication from national responsibility. At the moment, I do have a measure of control in that I have a vote and previous experience suggests that when we have a government completely out of kilter with the electorate our system gives us the opportunity to consider the party manifestos and make a decision based on what we think is best for Britain. If we plunge into the European Project it seems to me that we lose this firewall.
There is another factor. It isn't yet clear whether the EU can survive economically and politically because of the internal weaknesses highlighted by the failure of the Euro to manage the differences between the individual members. I think everyone would agree that the biggest escape we have had in recent history is rejecting monetary union and retaining control of our currency. Full membership is going to entail losing this advantage.
So, which way am I tending to go? At the moment if asked to vote yes or no to full integration I would vote no. (This puts me in the same boat as unlikely Comrades like Eric Pickles!) It would be too big a change in an uncertain world and I would prefer the UK to sink or swim by its own efforts. If this means that we would lose our ability to 'punch above our weight' in international forums, so what? I've never been a fan of us trying to remain in the 'Superpower' club. It's time we recognised that we have moved on from the Empire and in reality we are a small but prosperous island off the coast of Europe in a prime position to trade with both East and West. In short, I prefer a slow decline in international status but retention of our powers to govern ourselves. As for predictions of disaster if we opt out, forget it. The same goes for predictions of a golden future is we opt in, we all know the world isn't like that.
I don't like the way Europe is developing so I'll go with Sam Goldwyn, "Include me out!"
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
Oooh...a great analysis Stanley ! I'll go with you !
I voted "no" in the referendum. My damn car broke down in Manchester when I was on my way to the polling booth and I had to abandon it. There were some very strange bedfellows in that too, far left & far right mostly, not wishing to relinquish our political identity. Enoch Powell was one, a pure purist...we used to wish that he was on our side.
If by 'Whitehall', he means 'civil servant' there are some things civil servants do that I'm sure many of us would hope a Minister or SpAD stays well away from. Or if he only knows about 30%, he could do the difficult thing and find out about the rest.
But I rather suspect it's another pop at civil servants saying 'no' to Ministers. Or if I could be permitted to translate, saying 'the policy is unlikely to deliver the outcomes expected, or perhaps work at all, but as the politician it is for you decide on the politics and do as you wish in full receipt of the analysis'. Very annoying to people not known for their humilty and who assume that because they think something is right, it is.
Anyone listen to Nick Robinson's "Decision Time" on Radio 4?
Discussing benefits and pay back.
The oft quoted sample of people who opine "I have paid in, so now it is my turn to get some back" was used quite well to illustrate that all that money has already gone, and a lot more too. There is no stash of money anywhere and there is no entitlement.
They never answered the question of which political party actually sold that 'pup'
Richard is right. The whole point of the Civil Service is that it is independent of politics by design. Apart from pure administration its function is to translate 'political initiatives' into workable policy. Bad news for the politician if they tell him it won't work. Of course they make mistakes, as in rail franchise contract, but in an organisation that size staffed by humans we must accept that mistakes are possible.
Rossy, glad you liked my 'spoutings'.... It got a bit more complicated yesterday when Cameron appeared to rule out a straight yes/no question. Of course this depends on what his rebellious right-wingers can do to alter this. If he gets his way and presents a compromise for consideration it means his promise to give a referendum is worthless as the negotiation of any compromise position with the EU will take so long that there is no guarantee he will be in power when the referendum becomes possible. Add to this the further complication that he has yet to get agreement on a compromise solution with the EU. The bottom line is don't hold your breath!
Benefits under the Welfare State were never funded by contributions being ring-fenced in a fund like commercial insurance. Treasury Rules do not permit homologation of taxes and so the money went into the pot. So any money paid out is on the basis of the promises made in the legislation not legal right.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net
"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!
I had thought that civil servants were there to ensure that policy was carried out by the representatives of the the people that were democratically elected. No one elects Whitehall, but I would favour the US model of transition.
Not to actually decide which policies are carried out.
The program of change should encourage full revolutionary changes and it is possibly the conservative nature of civil servants that actually means that they have been roundly condemned by all sides of the house
Maybe my ideas of democracy are actually out dated
Plus, no civil servant is reasonably going to carry out a policy which would ultimately see their role extinguished.
Stanley wrote:Benefits under the Welfare State were never funded by contributions being ring-fenced in a fund like commercial insurance. Treasury Rules do not permit homologation of taxes and so the money went into the pot. So any money paid out is on the basis of the promises made in the legislation not legal right.
The Laws can change, as far as I'm aware there are no 'promises' made in any legislation
