POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

News from Italy that it is likely that Berlusconi will be expelled from parliament today. Not before time!

[Stanley]

Par for the course, Berlusconi rails and blusters against what looks like his inevitable fate. Looks like the end of the road for him.
Dodgy arguments about immigration flood out from the government even though any serious investigation of the facts shows that immigrants are less likely to claim benefits and more likely to be in work than your average home grown elector. None of this makes any difference of course because the name of the game as far as Cameron is concerned is to shoot the UKIP fox and transfer the 'blame' to the previous Labour government. It's just dodgy electioneering and sooner or later will be recognised for what it is, dirty, dishonest politicking. In an ideal world, well informed voters would be deciding their vote on policy, not muck raking but then we don't live in that world. The depth of pure hatred in the knee-jerk reactions of many voters is shocking and is a shameful demonstration of the lowest common denominator syndrome.
By the way, funny that it's the poor immigrants who are the 'problem', the rich ones are invited in with open arms!

[plaques]

Since the days of Daniel Defoe and Queen Anne immigration has always been a contentious issue. The obvious plus side is importing skills and expertise without the expense of education and training and then having done their bit towards growth and taxation income go home again before they become a burden. The down side is an excess of unskilled people vying for jobs in an already overcrowded market dragging wages and living standards down to a all time low level. Who can blame an "economic migrant" from trying to better himself.
There must be a controlled level of immigration that takes into account the needs of the country at large and not the knee jerk xenophobic reaction we see at the moment.

[Tizer]

I've posted something on science and politicians in the Science thread:
http://www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk/view ... 255#p47255

[Stanley]

Professor Sutherland is right. One of the striking features about 'normal' entry to politics these days is that it's a politics/economics degree at Oxford followed by a nepotistic unpaid internship and then a researcher and activist followed by the offer of a seat. In other words a world experience limited to the dreaming spires and the Westminster bubble. Contrast the career path via the workplace and the unions which was how some of the giants got into Parliament. I know I am biased but when the PM gets himself into trouble because he has to appoint a PA who knows about 'grass roots' you know it's getting serious.
I think it's significant that my outrage when I see xenophobic comments, usually from the far right, is the fact that it demonstrates their complete lack of any knowledge about the roots of their ethnicity. Virtually none of them are the 'true blooded English patriots' they see as the ideal. The same level of ignorance can be seen amongst MPs but in different areas.
On current policy statements... It looks as though Linton Crosby and his little helpers are trawling the focus groups and opinion polls desperately looking for trends that they can climb on board to make the Tory election offering more attractive. Complete reversal of old policy statements in supporting first time buyers, plain packaging for tobacco, attitudes to high interest loans and the 'Green Levy' on energy bills. Vince Cable is modifying his relaxed attitudes to the 'brass plate' shell LLPs that he was so relaxed about but with have proved to be a Godsend to any foreigner wishing to set up a company for illegal purposes which is protected so well by legal firewalls that it can't be investigated. See Private Eye passim for a brilliant investigation of this threat. (Could the 'little helpers' be reading PE for indications of which way to go?). The way the electioneering is going at the moment suggests that it will be guerilla warfare. If they went back and read the history they would find that successful campaigns are almost always founded on sound policies based on principle, not opportunist shifts of policy to shoot the opposition fox.
One thing about Labour at the moment is that I think they have got it right. They are concentrating on a few core policies mainly aimed at improving the lot of the lower 50percentile who are watching their disposable income being eroded every day by benefit cuts, cuts in social services, Low pay even when in work and the effects of inflation on the core necessities of life, Energy, food, rents and meaningful employment at a living wage. This line of attack is going to become more and more pertinent as there is no possibility of any improvement for at least ten years. The crazy aspect of all this is of course the fact that the prosperity of the rich depends solely on the meaningful labour of the working class adding value by transforming raw materials or doing the essential tasks which keep society going. In the long term they are not shooting someone else's fox but cutting their own throats.

[Stanley]

Latest announcement in the current panic over the electoral consequences of rising energy bills is to cut by 50% the subsidy for domestic insulation, the most cost-effective route to lowering costs. Perfect example of the ignorance in the Westminster Bubble when it comes to basic science. Your life is in their hands!

[Stanley]

Caneron getting stick because so many of the people invited to accompany him to China are personal friends or Tory Party donors.

[Tardis]

Guardian today reporting that Ed is shelving any reform of the party's links with the Unions until at least after the next election

[Stanley]

Bring back Clause 4!
Reports that the Treasury are looking at possible targets for privatisation, public assets worth £20billion. More fire sales at give-away prices?

[plaques]

public assets worth £20billion. More fire sales at give-away prices?

I was beginning to wonder what the trip to China was all about!

[Stanley]

Tory version of good household management. When in power, sell the family silver! Doesn't say much for the 'recovery'.
Ossie gives his Autumn Statement today. I'll lay a small bet it'll be big on recovery and light on any respite for the poor.
Watch out for changes in pension ages. School leavers will have to work until they are 70 and some changes have been re-arranged to come in early.
No doubt Ossie will be in self-congratulatory mood. He shouldn't be, he will ignore what he forecast two years ago and will ignore all criticism on low incomes and inflation. Good news for some but bad for many....

[Stanley]

Noticeable yesterday that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility was at best lukewarm about Ossie's view of the 'recovery'. The Treasury is a bit leery as well. Many major problems swept under the carpet and this is not going to be forgotten at the election.
I have been struck, listening to the eulogies flooding in on Nelson Mandela's death, by the number of them from politicians who have no concept of humility, service or principle. They would do well to study his life and try to emulate him.

[Tardis]

Political visit to West Craven yesterday S.o.S. Rt Hon Theresa Villiers

In house of flowers being interviewed by that man from the B&E

[Stanley]

I see that MPs will vote themselves a pay rise of 11% today with enhanced pension arrangements. Of course the excuse is that they have to take it as it has been awarded by an 'independent' committee. Tell that to the poor!

[Stanley]

Funny that on the same day the salary increase for MPs was announced, we learn that 13 million are officially in poverty and of these over half are 'in work'. Seebohm Rowntree must be rotating in his grave.... Add to this the people who are not officially in poverty but at their wits end struggling to survive, many of them on high interest credit.... One man's 'economic recovery' is another man's hell.
Ian Duncan Smith is going to be questioned yet again about the implementation of the Universal Credit. I wouldn't like to be in his shoes. The Department of Work and Pensions is probably going to have to write off over £50million on bum IT contracts. This project is not going well....

[plaques]

Stanley you should always look on the bright side. Poverty is measured as less than 60% of average earnings. As average earnings drop then in no time poverty will be eliminated. QED.

[Stanley]

That's true....
Listened to IDS on radio4 Today defending his handling of the Universal Credit programme. Despite being pressed by James Naughtie he ignored the questions and rambled on interminably following his prepared text. In the end they ran out of time. I saw him doing the same thing in front of Glenda Jackson in the Parliamentary Committee. (Her face was a picture!) He gave every evidence of a politician who was floundering and refusing to accept reality. The only thing I heard him admit to was that 'over £40million' had been written off on failed IT contracts. The general impression is that this project is in serious trouble and the intention is to keep ignoring criticism and kicking it into touch until after the election. MPs have evidently seen through this, they are setting up an independent investigation commission.

[Stanley]

Worth taking notice of this warning from the BofE about the rise in property prices. LINK. It becomes increasingly evident that partly as a result of government policy on helping buyers we are in danger of producing a bubble similar to the one that was a factor in the collapse of 2008. Scotland is seeing the same problem. This doesn't surprise me as it is fuelled by more and more debt. What happens when the eventual interest rate rises kick in? Are we quite certain that the mortgage providers are pursuing due diligence when assessing the ability of applicants to pay? Call me an old cynic but I don't trust them and this looks dangerous to me.

[Stanley]

President Obama hit the right note at the Mandela gathering yesterday but he was almost the only one that came out unscathed. Jacob Zuma was booed off the podium and many complained that there was too much emphasis on foreign VIPs. Little vignettes like to wan face of Blair in the background and Obama shaking hands with Castro. A strange occasion rounded off by Desmond Tutu remonstrating with the protesters and telling them he 'wanted to hear a pin drop'. But probably cathartic and exposed some of the least attractive traits of the people involved.

[Stanley]

Have you noticed that every time Cameron has to address any matter connected with the drop in real incomes he characterises it as the pay cuts in the public sector? Could he be steering his answers away from recognising the scale of the problem building up in all the lower paid sectors? Another example of the results this morning is the report that the main vector for appeals for help is in rent and mortgage payment arrears. This is an ongoing situation and can only get worse. It extends far beyond the 'public sector'. Also consider the inexorable rise in personal debt. In 2008, Ossie, as shadow chancellor was addressing fellow wonks at Harvard and said "We have warned for several years that the boom in household indebtedness is unsustainable.... An economy built on debt is living on borrowed time" How true, at the time this debt in the UK was 175% of incomes but fell during the crisis to 140%, the same as the US. It is now rising again and the OBR has warned that by 2019 it will be 160% due solely to the Coalition policies reducing incomes. This is exactly what is happening at the moment, the 'recovery' is based on ever increasing levels of debt and not old fashioned value added manufacturing fuelled by domestic demand. Reliance on exports is a chimera as everyone else is trying to do the same thing, a form of economic warfare. There will come a time when all these pigeons will come home to roost. It's time that this was recognised and policies adjusted to try to alleviate the problem. Kicking the can down the road by selling assets, accountant's tricks like PFI and getting dubious investment from places like China only guarantee that our children will have to pay the bill.

[Tardis]

The latest ONS data indicate that government consumption grew by 1.7% in 2012 in real terms. It continued to hold up over the first half of this year (2013)…real spending grew by a cumulative 0.8% in the first three quarters

What cuts?

[Bruff]

Presumably the ones that have hit Departmental Spending Limits as opposed the other area of Government spending, Annual Managed Expenditure. I think we've mentioned this before on here - the former is amenable to tight control in this country; the latter, not so much. Thus, you can cut the former, but in the absence of legislating (often) for a cap on the latter these cuts do not manifest as 'cuts' to overall expenditure. Either way, the distinction does not obscure the reality that cuts have indeed taken place.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

I also note that there is a groundswell of comment on the fact that the only people who have seen a steady rise in income are my lot, the pensioners! Oh dear, are we going to become a target?
Tripps has triggered me off with this post in Quotations. "Meanwhile, experts stressed, MPs are paid less than GPs ‘mainly because of the medical degree’." (Daily Mail).
These comparisons are sterile and it's notable that nobody has actually addressed the root of the problem with MP's pay. It is a hangover from the days when you needed a private income to be an MP and it was seen as quite reasonable that when in office, you took advantage, legal or otherwise of any opportunities that arose. Traditionally, kick backs and commissions were accepted as quite normal, indeed, many posts were unpaid and income and expenses depended solely on these commissions. With the advent of pay and expenses for MPs, theoretically, the back door incomes were no longer necessary but the ethos didn't vanish overnight. Remember when Parliament was described as 'the best club' in London? Office holders still 'looked after' their friends who reciprocated. Over the years a semi-legal system of income augmentation like employing wives and relations, buying second homes and getting subsidised mortgage payments and even renting out primary homes bedded in and if your conscience was flexible enough you could do well out of the system. In addition, every now and again the House could vote itself a basic pay rise. All very comfortable.
These systems were all well understood but as long as nobody rocked the boat they were allowed to proceed (or fester). The crack came with a combination of disputes over party funding and the great expenses scandal. Once exposed it became obvious that something had to be done. Eventually this resulted in the Independent Committee and it is their examination and readjustment which has produced the 11% pay rise accompanied by changes to expenses which they say will not cost the public anything. All they have done is regularised the situation and put the whole question of remuneration on a more transparent and equitable basis. A good thing I am sure but of course the announcement of the 11% rise at a time when so many are experiencing income reduction has been a red rag to a bull despite its obvious utility.
So, the whole sorry mess is actually the fault of Parliament which buried its collective head in the sand and refused to have a root and branch adjustment years ago because too many were on a good thing with the liberal expenses. The adjustment has been forced on them now and the Party Leaders are being disingenuous when they oppose the change. They should be pointing out that this is a necessary adjustment of what was in effect a corrupt system and will not result in any extra expense to the public. The question arises as to why they are doing this.
I believe that part of it is the obvious PR advantage of opposing what the general public sees as an unfair settlement but there could be a lingering affection for the old system which gave Parliament the freedom to operate as 'the best club'. It would be better for transparency and democracy if the reforms were put in place and then attention could be focussed on the remaining cancers of nepotism and favouritism. Too much power lies in the hands of those who can allocate office, run the honours system and appoint peers and even bishops. As I have said many times before we are trying to run a 21st century government with a 19th century structure. Forget tradition, run Parliament like a modern business with proper rewards, checks and balances and make the whole system transparent.
Will it happen? Not yet I fear, it will take a long time for parliamentary DNA to evolve and submit to modification. Until it does, we shall not see any transformation.

[Tardis]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric ... ansparency

As part of the drive to help cut council waste and increase local accountability, new provisions were announced today (12 December 2013) to strengthen the public’s ability to hold councils to account.

The transparency code for councils introduced by the coalition government was voluntary, but adherence to it will now become mandatory for all councils with gross income or expenditure above £6.5 million.

In addition to existing requirements the statutory code will now also require councils to publish:

spending on corporate credit cards
greater openness on the money raised from parking charges, allowing residents to ‘go compare’ with neighbouring councils
subsidies given to trade unions, including union “facility time”
information on councils’ contract and tenders, to make it easier for small and medium firms to bid for work and introduce more competition to lower costs
local authorities’ property assets, to help drive better efficiency of the £220 billion town hall estate
grants given to voluntary and community groups, to show how councils are backing the Big Society

[Tripps]

Wow. . . Just thought I'd better point out the quote was from The Daily Mash which is a spoof publication, not the Daily Mail. It's the second website I visit each day, and very perceptive, if sometimes a bit rude.

It is screamingly obvious that there is no justification whatever for such a pay rise. Almost everyone in work, could make a similar case.
At one level though there are no entry qualifications to become an MP. They don't even have to have the routine 5 GCSE's. They all seem to have very thick skins though. We hope that elections will sort them out. Is it working? I'm not sure.