POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

Thanks for that Tiz, a well thought out and written article. I like "Normalisation of deviance is a consequence of herd behaviour. It occurs most soberingly where something bad happens and nobody says anything because everyone is expecting that someone else will instead." Quite.....
Have a look at THIS BBC report on the Lords votes and the reaction of Osborne. The ploy that tries to obscure what is happening by saying that 'the Lords will be dealt with' is dangerous and an obfuscation of what is really happening. The Tax Credit policy is unravelling and if pursued without modification could be, as forecast, a Poll Tax moment. Despite denials that recipients will lose 'in the long term', pressure is building from all sides including the Tory Backbenchers. Osborne will do anything he can to avoid a John McDonnell moment but the possible consequences of trying to 'move on' without modification don't bear thinking about.
This is the tip of an iceberg. The bottom line is that the austerity policy and the consequential inequality within society as a means of bringing about an 'economic miracle' is increasingly recognised as counter-productive. Spin and obfuscation cannot work for much longer. The question is, is it remotely possible that the biggest U-turn of the lot could actually happen? Personally I doubt it, they are not going to stop digging this hole and in the end it will prove to be their undoing but in the interim vast damage will have been caused and we shall be paying for the consequences for many years. 'We're all in it together' could actually turn out to be true, all in the same hole!

[plaques]

So the House of Lords sent the bill back for the Commons to reconsider. The first reaction was to try to shoot the messenger. They are unelected is the cry. We will have to deal with them later. Its unconstitutional. But we don't have a written constitution. The nearest we have ever had was back in Oliver Cromwell's days. Its unprecedented. Well not quite, Perhaps not for 100 years but certainly not 300 years as quoted. Actually, this wasn't a true finance bill therefore the Lords could reject it. To soften the blow the Lords offered up an explanation that the Back Benches in the Commons didn't really know what they were voting for. This is absolute nonsense, of course they knew, even Heidi Allen MP knew and she was new to the game.
So what do they do now? They'll retreat to a back room and see what they can get away with. A smokescreen will go up that to delay its implementation will put us another £4bn in debt. No mention of the £167bn that the Trident replacement is likely to cost. Expect more smoke and mirrors.

[Bruff]

George Osborne will inherit and be the 18th Baronet of Ballentaylor. That the House of Lords will apparently be ‘dealt with’ is a reminder that his Great Grandfather was in the House of Lords when the Parliament Act was brought in 1911. By a Liberal Government, exasperated as the hereditary likes of the Ballentaylor’s of Tipperary did all they could to block the popular will and protect their interests against any form of wealth redistribution. Osborne and his like making veiled threats to the Lords is simply a demonstration that an apple does indeed never fall far from the tree: like his forebears he exists to shore up the interests of the wealthy elite as like the dog returning to his vomit he knows no better. It also poses the question in my mind why, after 100+ years, are these people still governing us? The sooner he and all his works are crushed the better.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

As I predicted a few weeks ago they'll bring about their own end, crushing themselves like a collapsing star. They're rapidly losing touch with reality and missing all the warning signs. What worries me is the lack of any replacement and the danger of opening an opportunity for extremists.

[PanBiker]

Nice to know that Andrew Lloyd Webber got his £300.00 attendance allowance for flying back from America to vote in favour of the tax credit cuts. He has only voted 30 times in the last 14 years despite having over 1800 opportunities to do so in the time he has been in the upper house. He already has £650 million to his name, sooner we get rid of these parasitic lords of the universe the better.

Guardian article

[Tripps]

I was going to post this earlier, and describe it as 'the end of irony' (again). The idea of this man being flown in, to vote for a measure which would reduce the income of the 'hard working poor' is bizarre.

They don't mention in his wealth, his Stud Farm called Watership Down . I saw them auction some of their yearlings at Tattersalls recently. They were among the highest prices realised.

He has been an amazingly lucky owner and breeder for many years. (Yes I'm jealous). I understand he wrote some songs as well. It's almost enough to make you want to vote Labour. There's only one consolation - he'll never be as good looking as me.

[Stanley]

Lovely intelligent posts....
"The first reaction was to try to shoot the messenger.". Exactly right P. Instead of taking good advice they went on the defensive and some fool even put about the rumour that Cameron could appoint 100 Tory peers to get control of the Lords.... I don't think I need spell out the utter inanity of that. Far better to use any reforming zeal to make it an elected house.
Richard, you've been taking more interest in Ossie's lineage than I have! So he's literally 'beyond the Pale'.
Tiz, that's my view as well and I desperately want to see some cohesion in the Opposition used to attack the government.
Ossie is desperately papering over the cracks. They have obviously got the message but are spending more time defending themselves than actually addressing the basic problem, that austerity is a dead letter unless it is directed at the money. Carpet bombing the most vulnerable in society is not only ineffective as an economic strategy (indeed it is directly counter productive in terms of stimulating the economy and saving money on the long term) it is cruel and repressive and really 'unconstitutional'.
Have you noticed that everyone is keeping very quiet about the slowing down in the economy and the jobs market?

[Tripps]

That's not to say that the aim of reducing tax credits is wrong. Legacy of Gordon Brown. It should have been done differently, by tapering over a very long time.

I have not seen anyone mention yet the unintended consequences, that many people now do not wish to do any overtime, even at enhanced rates, because it would reduce their (or their partner's) tax credit. Result - agency staff, especially in the health and care fields, have to be employed at huge cost.

[plaques]

I have not seen anyone mention yet the unintended consequences,

Any system that interferes with the 'natural' balance of earnings will always create conditions where the recipient will at some point feel it pointless to earn that extra pound. This is the argument used by the hardworking entrepreneurs who are on the borderline of the top rate of tax. Mrs P was in the NHS for years. I can never remember when she was paid any overtime. It was always "you can claim your time back later". Of course there was never a convenient time to take this time off. I doubt if the situation has changed.

[Tizer]

I can't recall ever being paid overtime or being paid a bonus when in employment. When running our own business Mrs Tiz and me were in partnership, not limited company status, and the profits were our salaries. We worked long hours and had few holidays to get a decent income. As you will guess, I don't like the bonus culture!

[plaques]

and the profits were our salaries.

I can see what you are trying to say but Karl Marx would have said it slightly differently. Being self employed you were acting as both Capitalist and Labourer. All your 'overheads' including other workers prior labour must be built into your wages. If you then go on to work 10, 12, or 15 hours in the day your labours must release a wage sufficient for you to continue to exist. Unfortunately, your wages per hour may be substantially less than you could have enjoyed in other employment. In Marx's logic an individually self employed worker does not make a profit he just makes a wage.
The end result is that the self employed have generally to work 'efficiently' for long hours in competitive environments at lower overall wage rates. This is why in a cyclic production environment the individual often fails.

[Stanley]

David, I agree that tax credits need to be reformed, they are not a benefit for workers but a hidden subsidy for industry. The easiest way to do this is to force the employers to make the proper payment for the job. I always had the benefit of being paid for overtime but no bonuses. It is grossly unfair to make someone work longer hours without compensation in the wage, to do otherwise is simply to unilaterally lower the wage rate. This is why the unions fought (successfully) for many decades to get the rate for the job. This was of course a messy process and I am not defending everything that was done but the net result was a fair living wage, something which is absent today. Marx argued for this in the mid 19th century but crucially also warned about the danger of de-skilling employment by adopting mass production and specialisation without safeguarding craft skills and the ability to earn higher wages. This is exactly what has happened and it is the low skilled who suffer most. Once the need for the craftsmen and women diminishes the apprentice system can be allowed to decay and vocational education to supply the pool from which the potential crafts people can be recruited can be neglected in favour of higher education (and PPE degrees!).
What we are looking at is a class system, two classes the upper class and the underclass. The only time the underclass is needed is when we go to war and need cannon-fodder. The need for factory fodder has gone. Therefore, in our present situation they are surplus to requirements and can be allowed to decline.
Before you rail against that consider the educational level of non privileged primary teaching and the difference in trajectory between the kids of the rich and those of the poor. It has social effects as well in security, satisfaction, quality of life, propensity for criminal behaviour and even life expectancy itself.
Is what we have to report progress?
Historical footnote: The great advances in public health, provision of open spaces and improvements in medicine that improved the lot of the underclass in the second half of the 19th century started when it was realised that the potential recruits for the Crimean war were so unhealthy.

[Tizer]

How easily politicians of all parties were taken in by the Kids Company lady! Perhaps this shows that politicians think we can be taken in just as easily by them.

[Stanley]

I think they do. They would do well to remember the aphorism usually credited to Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
They also believe that if, when asked a question, it is sufficient to quote related 'facts'. Did you hear Jeremy Corbyn trying to get an answer to a simple question when he asked Cameron if he guaranteed that nobody would be worse off after the Tax Credit Revision. Did he ask six times? Did he get an answer? Cameron could just as well have quoted the Fifth Amendment.... "I refuse to answer the question on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me". At least that would be honest.

[plaques]

Yesterdays Commons debate on tax credits was much more civilized and constructive than what we hear when Cameron or Osborne are leading the charge. Some interesting points where raised by both sides of the house. Ref:
Stephen McPartland MP (Con): I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I mention teaching assistants because I think they are a classic example of people who are constricted in the hours they are able to work. They can work only so many hours a week and so many days a year.

The existing mitigation includes free childcare for three and four-year-olds, but if people do not have a three or four-year-old that is pointless and does not help whatsoever. There has been talk about the personal income tax allowance increasing from £11,000 to £12,500. I would like to see it go up to £15,000 by the end of the Parliament, but if people do not earn more than £11,000, it is of no use to them. People on £11,000 will still be hit by the £1,200 or £1,400 cut. That punishes people who are going out to work and doing the right thing. That does not sit right with me and I cannot support it.

I hope Osborne is listening.

[Stanley]

I fear that even if he listens he takes no notice unless what he is hearing is a threat to him or the government. Policy today is based on dogma, not logic or evidence.

[Stanley]

Another knee-jerk government policy bites the dust. See THIS for a Guardian report on the climb-down on the 'Snoopers Charter'. The Draconian powers that Theresa May announced have all been dropped from the forthcoming Bill. One wonders how much of this is related to internal jockeying for position in any future leadership race in the Tory Party.
The usual 'unattributable sources' inside the House report that Ossie is 'as mad as a wet hen' after the Lords revolt and is badly shaken. Even more significant the same sources say that this episode of blind adherence to the Tax Credit revisions is being seen by many as an example of his poor grasp of the mechanics of politics. Again, handy in that he is one of the contenders for the Leadership.
All this makes me wonder where the principle is in our leaders.....

[plaques]

All this makes me wonder where the principle is in our leaders.....

Stanley may recognise this piece written over 150 years ago. Unfortunately its still relevant today.
'The exploiting classes need political supremacy in order to maintain exploitation. Ie; in the selfish interest of a tiny minority, and against the vast majority of the community. The exploited classes need political supremacy in order completely to abolish all exploitation. Ie: in the interests of the enormous majority of the people, and against the tiny minority constituted by the slave-owners of modern times- the landlords and the capitalists.'
Picketty and Stiglitz are shouting out the same message but are being quietly buried by the right wing press. Politicians like Blair and other 'right wing' socialists distort the original aims of socialism into a watered down version of capitalism. All this predicted 150 years ago.

[Stanley]

Thanks for that P. My mate Karl unless I am sadly mistaken. Some things never change and as you say, these matters are just as true now as they were in the great days of Feudalism let alone the 19th century. You are perfectly right in my opinion in your view of the modifiers of the pure socialist message like Blair at al. They too are motivated largely by the same concepts that drive the Tories, restoration of what they see as the 'proper order' where an elite have power to run the country in what they see as the right way with 'sound money'. Men like Piketty, Stiglitz and others are producing the evidence and arguments which, though derided by the Right Wing and their minions in the press, are having an effect on current economic thinking. Concepts like 'all boats float on the rising tide' and the 'basket of household goods' (an earlier version in the 1920s was the cloakroom example, you can't take more umbrellas out of a cloakroom than you put in) have been comprehensibly disproved but are still trotted out as truth by third rate economists to justify their infantile policies which are nothing but naked ploys to retain wealth in the upper echelons.
This is why I am in favour of men like Corbyn who, though they have a mountain to move, are attempting to reform the public view of what principled politics should be. Somehow they have got to get their message out to not only the doubters in their own party but to the general public. Funnily enough I see the Tories as being their best ally in this because the policies they are pursuing are transparently failing and only held together by spin and downright falsehood. Eventually this will fail, the only trouble is the damage being done to society as they demolish the advances made in the last century.
One voice that is noticeably absent is Gordon Brown. I suspect he is beginning to realise how wrong his economic thinking was and is staying below the parapet! I note with pleasure (I am human and flawed!) that Blair is on the back foot now. He is watching his 'legacy' crumble before his eyes, not just on foreign policy and his fawning subservience to Dubya but on his political philosophy. It may yet prove that the major force in the country is those who are deprived and affected most by inequality. This is what history teaches us but it's so slow!

[Stanley]

Worth looking at is THIS BBC report on the problems of persuading developers to build houses even on what look like ideal sites. It highlights some of the problems the government has when dealing with the private sector and relying on them to make up the shortfall in provision of houses. What it highlights to me is the need for the government itself to borrow money at historically low rates of interest and build council houses. Of course this is seen today as an incredibly old-fashioned concept but the fact remains that after WW1 the Addison Act which allowed local authorities to borrow and build and the post WW2 housing drive which did the same thing, produced the houses needed in record time. What this signals to me is that the 'housing shortage', particularly low cost 'social housing' is a product of the government's reluctance to step in and be part of the solution. Current political thinking is that wherever possible the government should abdicate responsibility by stepping back and allowing the market to fulfil the need. Can anyone argue credibly that this is a successful policy?
THIS REPORT from the BBC on the enquiry into possible mismanagement and preferential treatment of Kids Company makes depressing reading and I think we can all form some conclusions on the evidence. There are many areas where the politicians should stand back and simply be legislators and allow the experts in the field to manage the facilitation of policies.

[Stanley]

Has Ossie locked David in the broom cupboard at Number Ten? He seems to be acting as PM at the moment....
Mind you, if I allow myself some particularly devious thinking, could it be that Ossie is being allowed to take the lead on so many matters so that if things go pear shaped before the leadership election some useful ammunition could be generated? Surely not......

[Tizer]

There is another reason why the housebuilding companies don't get on with it even when they've got planning permission and I learnt about it when we were thinking about self-build. They like to buy the land and get permission for their designs well in advance so that they can side-step upcoming tighter regulations. Once they've got permission they can wait at least 5 years (it might be 7 now) and then build to meet the regs as they stood 5 years ago. This makes a big difference to their profits when the regs are tightening so frequently these days. But it means that people buying a new house and thinking they've got the latest in insulation, safety etc are getting outdated specs. I guess we could call it the Volkswagen approach...Fortschritt durch Betrug, or Progress through Cheating!

[Stanley]

I like that Tiz and it supports what I was saying in another thread. I don't think it's seen as 'cheating', rather clever exploitation of loopholes in the regulations. I've done it myself when dealing with Treasury rules and fund-raising but you have to be very careful not to overstep the bounds of propriety and the key in my case was my moral compass, I knew when I was in danger of going too far. Every time I was scrutinised I came out squeaky clean and within the rules. Of course in the VW case they went a bit further than that but I am not surprised when other examples of the same thinking surface. Could corporate moral compass be the problem?
Isn't it amazing how, when there is a high profile issue, the government loves to convene a meeting of the COBRA and make immediate and authoritative decisions. Plays well with the country and how they must love that name.... What a pity they don't use the same incisive logic on far greater matters like energy management. Could news value have anything to do with it?

[Whyperion]

I've just thought, why should people have to do 'overtime' just to earn a decent wage? (particulary in service industries (care sector eg) where scope for efficient increase in 'production' is not availble within a fixed time ).

[Stanley]

Entirely predictable criticism of Jeremy Corbyn at the Cenotaph yesterday. He is accused of 'just nodding' instead of bowing properly after he placed his wreath. Shades of Michael Foot's 'donkey jacket' (which of course was nothing of the sort....) and Jeremy must have known he was on a hiding to nothing before he went.
Nice to see THIS far more objective report in the Huffington Post. I also agree that the Chief of Staff was out of order and one wonders how he has escaped sanction for breaking the rule that serving personnel should not make political comments. Would it have been the same if he'd criticised one of the government?
Have you noticed how Cameron et al have gone quiet about the reverse on tax credit cuts in the Lords? One of the consequences is that Ossie is having to work harder on his targets for the present parliament. See THIS ITV report for the scale of the cuts he has agreed already and note that there are suspicions that IDS has blocked a raid on the new Universal Benefit by making it a personal 'red line'. This was widely interpreted as IDS threatening to resign but non-attributable sources say that this is not the case as any going back on such a key policy would be so damaging. Even so, the prospect of 30% cuts in four departments over the next four years in four key departments (If indeed such 'savings' are possible.) is bad news for the majority of the population. It has more than a whiff of desperation to me. You'd think that the global consensus was that austerity works.....
Meanwhile the forecasts for the global economy are revised downwards. This is dead in line with Piketty's predictions in 'Capitalism in the 21st Century'.