POLITICS CORNER

[Tardis]

Why all the fuss then when the figures show that those with no earnings get a relative bigger percentage of the tax spend?

Doesn't it prove the re-distribution already within the system? As per the heading on the original graph/article.

What it obviously doesn't demonstrate is the actual cost to provide that re-distribution. That will always be political

[Tardis]

Denis MacShane pleads guilty to falsely claiming expenses whilst an MP

[Stanley]

Have a look at this LINK for a report on the rising and unsustainable level of personal credit in the UK. This is the time bomb that lies below the much-vaunted 'economic recovery'. As I have asked before, just who is benefiting from this 'improvement'?

[Tardis]

I wonder if Ed Millibland is now regretting his words about his clarion call two years ago for a more ethical form of capitalism. Glasshouses and all that.

Those chickens really do appear to have come home to roost with the Co-op bank, which is at the very heart of the Labour movement, and you know how bad it is when you get stuff on LabourList like this:

http://labourlist.org/2013/11/pmqs-verd ... eived-one/

[Stanley]

" Glasshouses and all that."
Quite, that was what struck me when I heard Cameron going on his hypocritical attack on Labour and the Co-op connection. If a league table of dodgy associations was drawn up the Tories would be well in the lead. Labour and the co-operative movement were closely connected from the earliest days, long before the Co-op Bank was even thought of. What the attack demonstrated was that in our modern political in-fighting, a connection hot off the press and topical trumps historic cases in the impact they have on the majority of electors because they have such short memories. Milliband had no chance when he raised the matter of Tory donations because they are old news and in the weird world of spin doctors they have no currency despite the fact they are true. All parties are guilty of this and it devalues political debate.

[Bruff]

Well quite (again). One of the more depressing aspects I have to say, this partiality with respect to your associations, contacts and so on. 'You did this' leads to 'Well, you did that' and 'this persons dodgy' leads, to 'yeah, but what about him?' How trite. For every alleged meth smoking Methodist that attended Downing Street, there's an alleged murderer pitching up at the behest of the MP for Pendle (allegedy). Dear me, is this what it's come to?

I have some sympathy with Mr McNulty who tweeted yesterday on the ill-advised approach of the Leader of the Opposition. You know the PM is primed to chuck this sort of stuff back whatever the questions because as a former PR spiv he arguably knows no better. Best to stick to the rather more pressing issues, let the PM do his worst and walk out with your integrity intact. No one emerges with any credit when trading faux outrage. And frankly, the vast majority of the public aren't interested anyway.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

Political soundbites doesn't hide the underlying issues in any party.

I think that you're wrong about the public. They do care

[Tardis]

Osborne increases debt more than Labour did over 13 years

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... an-labour/

The only unfortunate thing is that we don't have a 'what if' for the opposition plan as their deficit closure plan would have been slower based on 2010 figures. Appears that inflation is doing most of the work.

[Stanley]

Dead right Richard. Let us remember that this is the PM that promised us an end to yaboo politics, especially at PMQs. Unfortunately this is a product of electioneering and we will get more and more of it. My suggestion to Mr Milliband is that his response to all these puerile jibes should be a simple request that Parliament should concentrate on the important matters in hand, like the continuing fall in disposable incomes of the lower 50 percentile.

[Bruff]

Well of course yes, I may very well be wrong in my assertion that a vast majority of the public aren't interested in the tittle-tattle of politics that passes for debate these days. But I guess the reason I think they might not be comes from my recognition that I am a bit of a political nerd. Crikey, I'm the saddo that'll happily sit and watch the BBC Parliament Channel for hours on end. But I'm pretty unusual among my acquaintances who for the most part are fairly enquiring types but have very little interest in matter to hand. I guess too one could reflect on this thread on this site - three or four regular posters for the most part and nowhere near as varied in contributions than other threads.

The 'Westminster Bubble' seems quite an appropriate phrase to me. You spend your days in this bubble and you think the murmerings and mutterings and occasional eruptions of interest in who met with whom/received this or that/stitched up this or stitched up that, is somehow shared by the swathe outside of the bubble. Is it? I'm not so sure. Is the wider population really concerned about Falkirk say - would indeed they know what the heck nerdy old me would be on about if a barked 'Falkirk' at them? Same with who snorted what, or who who met with the snorter. This is not to say that the various behaviours are not deserving of sanction, but swing an election? Not so sure. Seems to me its perceived competence that does that. I'll grant it might lead to a more cynical and jaundiced view of the political class, but in this respect the focussing of our elected representatives on it seems self-defeating. There's enough cynicism about - heck, I like a healthy bit myself (it's a natural consequence of age and experience) - but if it's a problem, don't add to it, by suggesting behind every pecadillo there's a whopping piece of muck.

Richard Broughton.

[Tardis]

Nice letter in this week's Craven Herald about Politics, with which I agree whole heartedly.

I know that this person wasn't at that meeting (I was the only audience member who stayed for that bit) so must have gleaned his opinion from the news report. It isn't on line at the minute, so I can't link to it.

[Stanley]

Unfortunately Richard there seems to be a lot of muck around at the moment. Of course that's a product of a more open media, I'm sure it was always there but nowadays we get to know about some of it. I read Private Eye and the information they publish (and don't get sued for doing so) indicates that there is a lot going on in our political system that would amaze many voters. All we can do is keep plugging away at our own little bits of cynicism and hope that eventually some sort of order will return.

[Stanley]

Do I detect a slight change in the wind in the comments on the Flowers débâcle? Some pertinent questions are being asked about the Coalition's responsibility and particularly the role of Mr Osborne. The response has been predictable, make it sub judice by starting yet another pseudo independent enquiry and kick the can down the road far enough for it not to be a factor in the 2016 election. Lord Miners reckons it will take five years, not too sure about the value of his opinion but that would certainly be par for the course.
The bottom line is that there are flaws in a system that allows someone as obviously flawed as the Rev. Flowers to become chairman of a major bank. Perhaps it's time for all holders of high office to be positively vetted before being allowed to take post. Mind you, they didn't even bother to that with Andy Coulson so I suppose it's too much to ask for it to be done in other cases. Come to think, if the Labour Party had done it with Flowers it might have saved them a lot of grief. Could it be that candidates for these sorts of positions have swum in the murky waters for so long that none of them are squeaky clean?
What's this I hear about the Tory Party website 'accidentally' losing ten years of content making it much harder to check back on what was said and promised? Could this possibly be something to do with the 2016 election?

[Stanley]

I see Dominic Grieve has, quite rightly, come under criticism for his remarks about corruption in immigrant communities. (LINK). One wonders why he was so insensitive as to raise what might be a problem and link it to immigrants when the main focus at the moment is on corruption elsewhere, and not in immigrant communities. Was he trying to divert the focus from the Flowers affair? Or is he attempting to bolster the anti-immigrant arguments? Or could it be that he wasn't thinking at all, simply giving voice to his own prejudices. Whatever the reason, it was ill judged, badly timed and a hostage to fortune. Perhaps another evidence of the existence of a 'Westminster Bubble' insulated from the real world. Shouldn't a man holding the post of Attorney General have more sense than this?

[Thomo]

So, he wasn't just highlighting the concerns raised by Baroness Warsi earlier then!

[Tripps]

Whenever any such scandal erupts, I always think of the old films of naval engagements, such as the Yangtse Incident, when the order goes down to the engine room - "make smoke". Is there any possibility that this guy is simply saying the truth? Hard to imagine, since after all he is a politician.

[Thomo]

Hard to imagine or not, and whether we like it or not, there is a great deal of truth in what they have both said. Or have we reached a point where a few can do as they please whilst the majority can only watch?

[plaques]

I remember Lord Greaves (Pendle) raising a question in the House of Lords that the postal ballot system in Pendle was being abused only to be told in round terms " Its only a bit of local difficulty, just go away and sort it out".
It now appears its a bit more than a "local difficulty".
Perhaps David will supply a fuller account.

[David Whipp]

I remember Lord Greaves (Pendle) raising a question in the House of Lords that the postal ballot system in Pendle was being abused only to be told in round terms " Its only a bit of local difficulty, just go away and sort it out".
It now appears its a bit more than a "local difficulty".
Perhaps David will supply a fuller account.

Sadly, without the benefit of convictions, libelous...

[Tardis]

What's this I hear about the Tory Party website 'accidentally' losing ten years of content making it much harder to check back on what was said and promised? Could this possibly be something to do with the 2016 election?

Why limit this to just the Tory party? There is nothing pre-2010 (Milibland's ascent) on Labour's, as that has been wiped too. Nothing on UKIP before 2013 apparently. Nothing on Lib Dem? Selective politiking doesn't get anywhere near the issue

[Tardis]

The HS2 Bill published today is 55,000 pages of Law.

[Bruff]

I think what was of concern with regards to the Conservative Party's deleting of its archive was the 'bot' (or whatever it's called) they simultaneously installed to prevent any search you might do directing you to the speeches etc nested on other sites. I don't think there's anything wrong with tidying-up your archive, or having your 'news' section only going back say one Parliament - its quite easy to track them down elsewhere. And whilst there's also perhaps nothing 'wrong' in taking active steps to stop you finding material full stop, it looks a bit odd to me at least. I'm not sure the Labour Party (or any others) have taken these steps, though I might very well be wrong in that.

News today that the chap arrested in this slavery thingy was an active hard-leftist in 1970s London. And I mean hard-left - venerated Mao he did. The very thought. As I speak I expect the Mail etc are breathless to the point of ecstacy in their search for anyone who can confirm he attended a Ralph Milliband talk............

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

What's this I hear about the Tory Party website 'accidentally' losing ten years of content making it much harder to check back on what was said and promised? Could this possibly be something to do with the 2016 election?

Not quite Orwell's Ministry of Truth but getting near.

George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth is Oceania's propaganda ministry.

[Whyperion]

... Shouldn't a man holding the post of Attorney General have more sense than this?

I don't thin Attorney Generals over the years have had a too brilliant reputation anyway ( assorted legal advice to Govt etc , at the least questionable ) .

[Stanley]

I like it Richard! It was also reported that the man in question had been expelled from the Communist Party for being too extreme so it's almost certain the Mail will be able to dig out a link between him and Ralph Milliband.
Ian Hislop was in no doubt about the motives behind the deletion of material on the Tory website. He thinks it is to make it more difficult for the ordinary public to find old speeches and promises in an election campaign. He said it won't affect the journalists because they have other ways of accessing the material.
I was talking to my mentor Steve Constantine on Sunday, he was the bloke who turned me on to Inter War history and we agreed on two things. First that the manipulation of statistics is worse now than the chicanery Charles Webster reported in 'Healthy or Hungry Thirties' and second, that the conclusion I came to after the course was that the biggest problem was the distribution of wealth. The latter of course is always referred to as 'The Politics of Envy' by opponents of the idea but when you get to the point where many people are having to choose between paying the rent, heating the home or eating you have reached levels of deprivation not seen since the worst days of the old laisser faire politics. I said when the Tory dominated Coalition first came in that Tory DNA would force them to effect a regression to the worst days of 19th Century repression of 'the lower orders' and I am still convinced that this is what is happening. For centuries the poor were farmed to produce a source of labour and managed by famine to keep the numbers down. That solves the welfare problem!
My prediction is that it will not work and is probably the worst basis for a 21st century election campaign you could possibly find. Time will tell, but the bottom line is that 'the labouring classes' are the source of real, added-value wealth. The sooner this is recognised the better. Shuffling paper round to make paper profits in the city doesn't cut it.