OneGuyFromBarlick

Whyperion wrote:but its not to give the result he declares he wishes to achieve

You mean; he says what he means to say but doesn't mean what he says? All a bit to Machiavellian for me.
Also, if you calculate the "living wage" as currently £7.85 and increase it by 3% (compound) each year for 5 years, ie: 2020 , roughly the normal wage increase in the past years,it comes to £9.10. After taking away a portion of the tax credits that low earners now enjoy I can't see how its such a good deal for the 'hard working families'.

Ossie has very simple goals and knows exactly what he is doing. He sees himself as redressing the balance which over the last 80 years has slowly swung in favour of the lower classes as union influence improved working conditions and wages and the Welfare State relieved people of the fear of sickness and the workhouse. Make no mistake, this is the Tory project. It's only a matter of time until we have the modern equivalent of the Spike again. I'm perfectly serious about this, the trajectory of low incomes is downwards and will get worse as the cuts bite, we haven't seen the full effects yet.
I know you think I am exaggerating but give it some thought. Many families are hanging on by their finger tips, sustained only by expensive credit and the poorer they get the more expensive living becomes. When they reach the end of the line the solution is B&B but that is so expensive and inadequate pressure will build to provide 'hostels'. This is the inevitable consequence of inequality and we are getting very close to it. Look at Cameron's latest cunning wheeze.... if a child has a bad school attendance record the family is penalised by withdrawing benefit. This reinforces the stresses inside the family that caused the problem in the first place. What happens then? It won't cure the problem so the next step is to declare the child out of control and a delinquent, work it out for yourself. The tragedy is that given investment in the right areas these families could be in work and contributing to society instead of being an intractable problem. Think Jarrow, pit villages after mine closure and Redcar. How about Port Talbot and Barrow? How long until they slip into the same league? The Tories are manufacturing wastelands.....

Thinking about Theresa May and her reactionary views on migration and discrimination I was reminded of this pub in Stockport Market Place in 1979.

Posturing by senior conservatives who have a dog in the fight for Conservative leadership......

Last week when I visited my dad, a life long Tory who was once a Tory councillor and thought the sun shone out of Maggie Thatchers backside was making positive noises about Jeremy Corbyn which was something of an eye opener.

If he starts reading the Guardian instead of the Daily Mail, the transformation will be complete......

Your dad is evidently not a hide-bound Tory but a thinker. Anyone who looks objectively at Cameron's disgraceful speech yesterday and what Jeremy Corbyn is saying can only come to one conclusion.
Cameron yesterday was outrageous. He makes all the promises about inequality, poverty, opportunity, housing, the NHS and can be shot down on any of them. The most worrying thing for him at the moment is the deathly hush in the Labour Party. Anyone who has read Crossman's Diaries knows how politics works away from the spotlight and things haven't changed since he wrote them 45 years ago. The Party is meeting and debating in private and it won't be too long before we know what policies have been decided on and whether there is any real split in the ranks. My forecast is that there will not be a schism, positions will be agreed and real opposition can start. This won't take too long, the next milestone is the May Council elections and they have to unite to fight them. Then there is the attempt to repair the huge damage in Scotland.
Cameron and the Tories are convinced they have won and are invincible, they actually believe their own advertising. Time will tell....

See THIS for a good objective analysis of the speech in the Guardian.

There seems to be a rush to 'Our party is more centre than yours' going on at the moment. The Lib Dems did it first, now the Tories are at it. Leaving a somewhat divided Labour and the SNP holding out the left.....

Cameron's speech reminded me of a bit of history. Richard11 dealt with the Peasants Revolt by promising to implement Wat Tyler's demands for more equality for the ordinary peasants. In the next meeting Tyler was murdered by the Barons and Richard rode of with the rebels quietly following him. Subsequently none of the original promises where met. The whole episode showed that the power of deceit in dispersing trouble had been demonstrated. Are we now seeing history repeat itself?

History is all about history repeating itself. We never learn.

It is well known that if Mr Cameron says something it must be true. His latest pronouncement that Jeremy Corbyn 'thinks the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy' and is now believed by 30% of the population. Of course stopping in mid sentence in order to misquote someone is a well used trick to paint a negative picture. By the time the truth comes out the damage has been done and the caravan moves on. The real context was "What Corbyn actually said was that it was a "tragedy" that Bin Laden was never put on trial and brought to justice for his crimes.". A much fuller version can be seen here. Link.
Believe what you will but I think that the whole speech will unravel for Mr Cameron in the next few days.

P, if it does that will be par for the course, all his other promises have proved false. The 'progress' the Tories are achieving is a triumph of blind allegiance over reality. Their only real achievement is the acceleration of the flow of capital upwards to the 1% and this has been done by taking it from everyone else. Meanwhile the total of debt creeps inexorably upward. The Institute of Chartered Surveyors reports that house prices are rising and in their opinion housing is overvalued. The banks appear to have escaped tighter regulation. Am I alone in seeing another 2008 looming on the horizon?
Meanwhile in the real world, man says "Sorry I can't come I am committed to other engagements on that day" and is immediately attacked by the Monster Press.

Stanley wrote:Meanwhile in the real world, man says "Sorry I can't come I am committed to other engagements on that day" and is immediately attacked by the Monster Press.

Come on, Stanley, a bit more to it than that. You shouldn't slight the Queen, it just isn't cricket. The man is a moron ill mannered. Send him to The Tower.

No, that's exactly what happened, even the palace agrees and says it is quite common and no big deal.

I have to say I wasn’t aware that when the Privy Council met, every single one of its 600-odd members is under an obligation to turn up. This must be the case if the non-attendance by Mr Corbyn is an issue or else we would be hearing about these slights every blessed time.........

Mind you as a republican, when Mr Corbyn does turn up he’ll be called a hypocrite. However, as I noted a while back there’s a good case for hypocrisy being the main ‘British value’ and so in the face of the PM’s extraordinary attack on his ‘anti-Britishness’ Mr Corbyn should be advised to wear this hypocrisy with pride.

And thanks to plaques for that excellent clarification of the PM’s egregious turn of phrase. I would add that Mr B Johnson at the time of the Twin Towers attack, made a forceful plea for Bin Laden to be brought to justice and put on trial noting that it is Bin Laden and his ilk that seek death and destruction whilst we seek justice. It shows the depths to which this PM regularly sinks when one cites the London Mayor in support.

Richard Broughton

See THIS for a Guardian article on the funding crisis in the NHS. Then go back to Cameron's conference speech. There seems to be some sort of disconnect....

The opposing forces are marshalling their resources for the referendum. This is going to dominate Parliamentary activity for months. My fear is that eyes may be taken off the ball in other areas.....

We are told that Jeremy Corbyn will be using questions from ordinary people again this week at PMQs. I have no problem with that, indeed I support the tactic but this time will he please pursue Cameron and not let him simply bat the questions away. The job of the Opposition is to make the PM uncomfortable and force him out of his 'Smug Zone'. The Tories only have a small minority and at the moment are cruising along convinced they are Lords of the Political Universe. Time they were challenged properly, God knows there are plenty of chinks in their armour!

We are told Corbyn should not be addressed as The Right Honourable .... so is the correct term: the none-right Honourable or the right none-honourable gentleman? And if it is the first suggestion does that make him far-left?

I've submitted a question for Jeremy about giving young people in children's homes the same right to post 18 support that would apply if they were in foster care. Nolic

China.... Who cares?
Comrade, that's the sort of question that needs asking and acting upon. Nice one. I hope he asks it and doesn't let Cameron off his smug-hook!
I watched Michael Gove making his tour of the Texas prison system on Panorama last night. Very laudable to go and see what others are doing (despite their use of the death penalty) but knowing Gove he'll come back convinced he knows more then the experts and will impose his views on them. That's what he did with education and leopards don't change their spots. God knows we need improvement in our prison system but not on the basis of instant opinions without the moderation of experience.
When you think about it, it's this syndrome that has damaged the NHS so much. The imposition of bright ideas and top down reorganisation on the system without consulting the people who know what is really needed. Think PFI and imposition of higher staffing levels as a knee-jerk reaction to perceived ills without additional funding.

Have a look at THIS for a report on what seems to be a Damascus conversion of Michael Gove after his visit to Saudi Arabia. I hate to admit it but at the moment he appears to be talking common sense and trying to correct some of the terrible results of Chris Grayling's stint as Justice Minister. There may be hope for him yet.... Let's give him a chance. (More than can be said about Tory attitudes to Jeremy....)

The right-minded among us might wonder why on earth this country ever thought it appropriate to sell its judicial services shall we say to a country wedded to such judicial sanctions as crucifixion, the lash and beheading. Still, where’s there’s money to be made and all that.

One intersting thing about the US prison system (aside from it being heavily privatised) is that in a country with no universal health care system, it’s the go-to place for mental health services. Huge numbers of people with mental health problems in the US are processed and treated through the prison system. Have a think about mental health services here and then reflect on that point.

Encouraging to see the story here is about the Labour U-turn and not the Chancellor’s idiotic policy on budget surpluses (best of luck in getting ‘normal circumstances’ or perhaps better ‘abnormal circumstances’ on statute). That’s the spirit, tittle-tattle not detail. And whilst we’re on about idiocy and the Chancellor, yesterday’s deflation was spun positively by the Chancellor which strikes me as very odd given the BoE has a 2% target. You’d almost think that a degree of inflation (within reason) was good for the economy given the setting of this target, but I’ve clearly not got that right. Best tell Mr Carney to put away his pen and stop writing to the Chancellor explaining why he’s missed this ‘target’ (again)………….

Richard Broughton

I agree with you Richard about the choice of focus in 'reporting' on the economy. A positive attitude must be maintained at all costs!
I remember once tasking my friend Martha about an economics problem that had always puzzled me, the fact that no Western economy could function without perennial growth. The short version of her answer was that given that equilibrium was not possible, a small degree of inflation is healthy because it caters for increases in expectation and population which makes sense to me. A bit like steering a boat, a balanced propulsion system with contra-rotating twin screws needs constant correction and is harder to steer in a straight line than a boat with a single propeller that has and inbuilt bias to swing one way all the time. That's why balance is impossible to maintain with occasional corrections. Hence the sensible target of 2%. Most economists agree that the position we are in now is dangerous because it makes deviation from course due to outside influences inevitable.
Private Eye raised a couple of interesting points about the economy yesterday. The one that interests me is the cunning wheeze of gradually changing the meaning of the word 'affordable' in terms of housing. In a piece titled 'Housing News' on p. 12 they point out that in 2010 the term meant either a home for 'social rent' (measured against earnings) or shared ownership. The Coalition modified the definition of 'affordable' to 80% of a commercial rent, so relative to a rising market instead of to earnings. Under the latest changes the term now includes 'starter homes' costing up to £250,000 (£450,000 in London). The cheapest 'social rent' in London was £130 a week but now 'affordable rent' is £170. These small changes in the position of the goalposts make 'targets' easier but even so, the number of new builds lags behind demand and so market rents and prices rise with subsequent damage to affordability compared to wages. Just one example of how inequality can be caused by weasel words and cunning wheezes that are not immediately obvious.
Like any contract, we have to read the small print!

Another problem is the use of the term `average house price'. It's a useless figure because house price varies due to so many factors. The issue is also confused by the fact that sometimes it refers to UK average and other times to England, or England and Wales etc. The UK average quoted is very different to the England average, for obvious reasons.

Watching the Commons debate on Mr Osborne’s fiscal charter each side forwarded two principle arguments. The Tories making the claim that ‘we should mend the roof when the sun shone’ ie; the deficit would be the overriding priority in ‘normal’ times, although as Bruff pointed out ‘normal’ would probably be abnormal. Their second major point was ‘why had he and Mr McDonnell changed their minds’, a question which was repeated by different MPs as though the initial explanation had never sunk in. Labour in turn attacked the Tories on the grounds that the charter was no more than a political trick to label them as ‘deficit deniers’ and that economically it made no sense and wasn’t supported by any well known economist.
The end result was that the Tories won the vote, (bull…t baffles brains), supported by a number of Labour abstentions. The official list of those who abstained can be seen here. Link.. No doubt Mr Corbyn will be asking why they chose to abstain and it would be interesting if these reasons were to be made public. This would be another ‘first’ for Corbyn in his attempt to get some transparency into politics.

I agree with both of you. The fact that the fiscal debate was dominated by Tory criticism of a shadow chancellor who had changed his mind after consulting with his colleagues and no doubt some sage advice from trusted experts was characterised as evidence that 'Labour is in chaos' when actually they are not. 12 abstainers isn't chaos it's evidence of healthy differences of opinion. (At least it is when Tory 'rebels' do the same.)
From there the House descended into typical ya-boo mode. I would like them to have been dragged back to the point by a little history. There is, to my knowledge, no instance of the 'pursuit of sound money' and the setting in place of 'fiscal rules' being successful. What can be shown by simple example and sound evidence is that steering the economy pragmatically, taking account of current circumstances, can be very successful. We did it to finance two world wars and a subsequent economic recovery. The glaring example at the moment is that borrowing at low interest rates to finance building in Education and the NHS would be far cheaper than PFI which is crippling us. Of course Labour are wary of using that example because they used it more than anyone else. Another mistake that should be acknowledged and moved on from. This would be real transparency.

Indeed plaques and Stanley. And I might add that ‘mending the roof when the sun shines’ implies that the Government will take more money from people than it needs to go about its business. Which whilst someone like me might have no problem with that, it’s odd to hear it from the mouth of a Tory and one wonders what that ridiculous body the Tapayers Alliance would have to say. Not to mention that the last 30-odd years have been devoted to ensuring as many folk as possible think that tax in whatever form is little more than theft of ‘their’ money.

It all boils down to the simplistic notion that government finances are the same of household or personal finances. You hear this all the time. ‘Maxing out a credit card’, ‘money at the end of the month’, the summonsing of McCawber and so on. The reason it’s simplistic (and I’d say wrong-headed) is that household/personal finances are finite and government’s not. That is, we as individuals and households are here one day gone the next: we are born, we work, we retire, then we die. In that time we borrow, which makes sense. Many of us to buy a house, often 300% of our income (and more!), payed back over 25/30 and more years before we retire.

Government is nothing like this. Government is not born and so incapable for a time, I guess it then works but it certainly does not retire (or die). Government is around ‘forever’ in effect. So it makes sense for Government to borrow and invest a nominal percentage of its income each and every year in schools, and roads and health and new technologies etc. - all the infrastructure that makes life tolerable to everyone and everything. Every country in the world does this. No country does what this country has now said it will do. Which is in effect that, as someone I read the other day said, we will no longer pass on the national fabric to the next generation in as good a shape as we inherited it. Generations hence will live, in a great analogy, on hand-me-downs, in a society increasingly crumbling with ever-declining revenues, productivity, competitiveness, and so forth.

It’s a nonsense. No right-minded person would suggest it. Which is why we have the weasel-worded ‘normal times’. That’s the get-out that lights up the shabby political trap. Labour (and everyone else) should have bellowed this from the rooftops.

Grammar schools are back (or as I like to say, Secondary Moderns are back). Children divvied up before puberty. Marvellous.

Richard Broughton