POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

I must have mis-heard the turnout figure. I heard 52% yesterday during a discussion on R4 as well.
US deadlock gets serious as Obama has signed the legislation. He (and most commentators) say the effects will start immediately. The Republicans say he is scaremongering. We shall soon find out but the measures were designed by the Republican majority under Bush to be so draconian as to force the government to make adjustments. Once again, politics appears to be getting in the way of common sense!
Later... Cameron has written an article defending his management of the party. The basic message is no change. So that's all right then. (LINK)

[Stanley]

Tory backbenchers are asking some pointed questions about what will happen in the next financial review when the government has to admit that borrowing hasn't fallen, it has gone up 50% and nothing to show for it. Meanwhile Hammond at Defence says that welfare should be cut further and not his budget. One could be forgiven for despairing when you look at how this country is being governed. Steady as you go? Why does Titanic spring to mind....

[hartley353]

Tory backbenchers are asking some pointed questions about what will happen in the next financial review when the government has to admit that borrowing hasn't fallen, it has gone up 50% and nothing to show for it. Meanwhile Hammond at Defence says that welfare should be cut further and not his budget. One could be forgiven for despairing when you look at how this country is being governed. Steady as you go? Why does Titanic spring to mind....

Article in yesterdays paper says the titanic is being ressurected.

[Tardis]

Tory backbenchers are asking some pointed questions about what will happen in the next financial review when the government has to admit that borrowing hasn't fallen, it has gone up 50% and nothing to show for it

To be fair all the parties in 2010 said that they would decrease the deficit, not the actual borrowing

[Stanley]

But not as fast and the main reason for the increased borrowing is the increased cost of benefits because too much was taken out of disposable incomes too fast and this is the main reason why real wages have fallen and the domestic economy has slowed down. The downward spiral started in 2008 when all the money was thrown at the banks instead of putting some into the economy as a stimulus. (I did tell them at the time but what the hell do I know....)

[hartley353]

There is hardly a day passes without receiving E/mails requesting my help with pressurising my local MP. The requests are for national and global issues. Not all get my sanction, but the ones which I believe will benefit all do. What has surprised me is the number of letters I get in reply. The postman now treats me with a new level of respect after seeing the number of house of commons envelopes delivered. Better still some of the requests are being acted on. Now I see that people power can get things done,maybe the post box is more powerful than the ballet box.

[Whyperion]

With the changes to 'Universal Benefits' and particularly monthly payments. although it seems a good idea ( as govt reciepts peak monthly with paye and ni contributions coming in from employers , and VAT reciepts from larger traders ) , aside from hardship issues to recipients , I think there will be a significant shift in spending , maybe utilities can survive with monthly payments ( spurious arguement at weekend from one proponent that people could not access some financial etc services as they didn;t have a 'monthly' income {I always thought it was a income threashold in a month - certainly my son - and poss some other workers has a problem with 4 weekly income as the annual income meets bankers requirements but /13 gives some months below the £x paid in per month ! } . But local shops I think will have a significant drop in income and a greater spenditure in 'superstores' . Perhaps someone should tell the policy makers that fresh veg/ fruit/ breads etc does not last a month normally as I doubt that people will be able to resist 'offers' in superstores and will find budgeting really difficult over a one month timeframe , along with more waste occurring. With benefits paid at a near subsistance level , theres no 'spare' funds that workers on a higher wage can make do on.

[Tardis]

But not as fast and the main reason for the increased borrowing is the increased cost of benefits because too much was taken out of disposable incomes too fast and this is the main reason why real wages have fallen and the domestic economy has slowed down. The downward spiral started in 2008 when all the money was thrown at the banks instead of putting some into the economy as a stimulus. (I did tell them at the time but what the hell do I know....)

You're talking about a 0.4% between the parties, and none of them had figured in the eurozone crisis

Plus those banks that went bust, as all the evidence now points to, did so because of mortgages on an asset bubble

[Stanley]

So we didn't throw all the money at the banks?

[Tardis]

So we didn't throw all the money at the banks?

Maybe you could correct me:

Brown & Darling bought equity in the banks, made money available cheaply, and effectively nationalised Northern Rock. Most of the money from NR has come back, bar £200million. Lloyds expects to repay this year and start being able to resell the govt shares in tranches giving money back to the Treasury

RBS is a basket case

All intervention was as per normal country guarantees to their banking systems. The only ones who ignored this were Iceland. They did the right thing

None of the debts were incurred through casino banking, simple liquidity issues caused by the massive asset bubble, still not recovered from the 2008 level

[Tardis]

Nice vindictive pmq's yesterday and maybe some light with the Cameroon trying to pin the Mid Staffs on Andy Burnham

Have to admit I asked Postman Johnson on Radio5 if he would resign at the time and he said no. Maybe someone should have taken one for the team. Still no actual debate about the whole of the prescious NHS failings though.

[Stanley]

David Cameron was quite right yesterday when he said that the decisions we make now will affect the economy for years to come. Problem is that the decision he seems to have made, 'steady as she goes', ignores the reality of the situation. His intellectual forbears pursued 'sound money' dogma in the Inter-War years and eventually found it was wrong. Perhaps he should go back and read the history books. In the real world the solution in the 1930s was to get industry moving again, put people in living wage jobs and get money and investment flowing in the economy.That's what we need now and people like Vince Cable are on the right lines. Until this happens, we are doomed to flatline and the longer it goes on the worse the consequences. To say "there is no alternative" is a downright lie. Of course there are alternatives! The closer we get to the next General Election the clearer this will become and eventual change will not be driven by economic sanity but the pressures of Party Politics. No way to run the country!

[Tardis]

Today's govt is already borrowing, far more than it has ever done in history, now over £2 trillion. Why should our grandchildren pay for the failed economics of the past?

Most is just going on day to day spending

To believe that people like Vince Cable can just wave a magic wand & spend a few billion £'s to 'get the economy going' ignores the very reason why the economy is stalled

The banking crisis is only a part of it

[Whyperion]

OBR has stated that the present Coalition measures will result in short-term economic downturn , Cable seems to say that present downturn is being caused by economic conditions in trading partners. They cannot both be right.

[Stanley]

I see that the OBR pulled Dave up yesterday for saying that they agreed that lack of improvement in economy was not due to austerity measures but external factors. In effect, they give both equal weight. Dave says there is a confusion between forecasting and the actual figures. So that's all right then..... Whichever way you cut it he's right. What's the point of having an 'Office for Budget Responsibility and not listening to them when they disagree with you?
Nick Clegg takes the unusual step of speaking at the opening of the annual conference. He warns the party that they are on a cliff-edge and have to 'clean their act up' in respect of treatment ow women. More evidence that the matter of the Noble Lord's behaviour was raised on numerous occasions but was glossed over. (He still denies wrong-doing)
Latest reports are that Vince Cable is still pressing for relaxation of cuts on essentials like his own business department which funds research in industry. The signs are that the Tory backbenchers are also putting pressure on George Osborne to re-think 'steady as she goes' in his budget statement. Cameron is starting to look isolated and the rumour mill is working overtime on leadership challenges. Teresa May starts to emerge as a candidate.... Interesting times! The consensus for easing austerity and putting resources, even if borrowed, into investment in the economy are global now and one wonders how long isolated politicians pursuing dogma against the tide can survive.
By the way, estimates of how much the austerity package has affected GDP vary from 1.5% to 2.5% per annum but all agree that the effect is negative. (Apart from Dave of course)

[Tardis]

Stephanie Flanders, BBC & ex girlfriend of Ed Balls has a much more balanced view of the OBR statement

Whilst it supports the govt up to the point where he didn't put in 'short term', it doesn't half lay into the left and Vince Cable's plans for extra borrowing

As one wag on #bbcaq said last night:

"Our politics has moved on, but our politicians have not"

[Stanley]

That nice man Liam Fox is to make a speech today calling for George Osborne to abandon the ring-fencing of health education etc. and to freeze all public spending for five years, in other words a year on year cut of 2.5%. Has he taken into account the expense of reinstating the workhouses and treadmills? How can anyone even entertain a measure like this? What goes on in his tiny little Tory mind? Has he ever been in need or hungry or watched children crying because they are deprived of necessities? This is as clear an illustration as you could want of selfishness and a complete disregard for the plight of over 50% of society. I have said for a long time that the agenda of the Right is to revert to laisser faire capitalism of the 19th century. Dinosaurs!

[Tardis]

I certainly didn't hear him mention work houses or the other stuff that you scare monger about

He did ask why low paid workers had to pay tax more than once on the same income and asked why they should be penalised for saving money for a rainy day

He did ask why we penalise those starting out on the housing ladder

He did ask why some benefits were universal instead of just taxable, which would mean that the Treasury would recoup money from those who earned more money

Did he give examples of withdrawing benefits from specific individuals? Apart from Housing Benefit to sections of the under 25's?

To me that does sound like freeing up money to put it into the pocket of the working man to actually spend it and drive the economy forward, because I'd rather have the money in my pocket than the elected politicians telling me how they spent my money

I for one think the "Beast" of government should be starved in much the same way as people are being forced to pay for the mistakes that the government made, and before Stanley says that will affect the poor, no it won't because the systems are already in place to protect them. None of the speech actually went anywhere near that, but the tax system needs to be fairer and reward those who provide livelihoods for others.

If there were actual credible constructive critiscism instead of knee jerk scare stories, then maybe someone would actually save the welfare state, but mould it into a position where my grandchildren didn't have to pay for Gordon Brown's mistakes. The interest on which is over £700 each for next year.

It will free up capital, make the UK more competitive and might actually make people buy British goods

Whether it is the right way, I'm not sure, the private sector isn't yet strong enough to lead any kind of recovery because the crash is still out there in every town

[Stanley]

"I certainly didn't hear him mention work houses or the other stuff that you scare monger about" Quote from Dickens of course. Sorry you missed the allusion. A natural consequence of terminal poverty under laisser faire policies. We've been there before, read the history.

[Bruff]

Talking of scaremongering, when and where did this socialist coup the Dr mentions happen?

Seriously, on this 'socialist coup' thing I do get fed up with the contention that aspiration and hard work is the route to wealth (and by 'wealth' here we know the good Dr and his ilk mean serious riches). There are huge swathes of absolutely vital employment in this country where the aspiring will work exceptionally hard in the full knowledge they will never achieve this wealth. They simply aspire and work hard to different ends and for different reasons. Are they somehow the agents of their own lack of riches?

It's so facile an argument I might as well counter with the equally facile argument that the minimally aspirational and indolent also achieve great wealth. They simply inherited, married well or otherwise got lucky.

One thing I'd quite like to see in this country is a working person earning enough, or a pensioner drawing enough, to put a roof over their head without the State stepping in to ensure this through a housing benefit. Seven out of eight recipients of housing benefit are in work or pensioners. To do this you would likely need a living wage/pension arrangements, a load more homes, or rent controls, or a massive devaluation in house prices, or a mix of, is not all, four. Good luck to anyone standing on this platform in 2015, which is just one issue illustrative of the pickle we are in.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

From your mouth to God's Ear Richard. I had to fight the urge to write a NOP yesterday about the basis of the contempt in which some wealthy members of society regard the lower classes who produce the wealth that keeps them in the style to which they have become accustomed. Can't they see that the basis of all wealth is not finagling on the trading floors which is simply transferring money from one account to another but getting your hands dirty, growing crops, providing essential services and adding value through manufacturing processes. (I'm starting the NOP aren't i!)
It is perfectly obvious that the way to stimulate the economy is raise the disposable income of the mass of consumers and until this is done there can be no long-term improvement. The present policies are diametrically opposed to this. 'Austerity', in other words cutting the wages and benefits of the lowest 85% of the population was tried in the inter-war years and failed. Read the history! It took rearmament to kick start the economy in the 1930s plus the realisation that the monetary policies were actually eroding the incomes of the capital holders. At some point the same realisation of loss will hit our top 15% and they will change policy but think of the misery and damage that will have been caused, a legacy similar to Thatcher's Children..... A triumph of Tory dogma over common sense.
Very bad manufacturing figures reported. How much more evidence do our leaders need?

There is a direct historical parallel with this syndrome. In the mid 19th century the scourge of Cholera was big news. The problem was that nobody realised that the old 'Miasma Theory' of disease transmission was totally wrong until Dr Snow did his investigations around the Broad Street Pump ( LINK) and proved that the source of the infection was faecal contamination of ground water from leaky cess pits. This led to the great sanitary improvements of the late 19th century which focussed on improving conditions in the worst areas, the overcrowded slums. There was an immediate reaction from the wealthy house holders on the hills above the towns accusing the town fathers of 'Municipal Socialism' They thought the money should be spent on them and not the poor. Eventually they were forced to realise that the focus of the infection was in the slums and that the best way to protect themselves was to spend the money on the poor. A perfact analogy with our economic plight at the moment. Read the history lads!

[Bruff]

I'm a bit conflicted with this alcohol pricing business. It's a blunt proposal and so naturally will hit the sensible drinker (who are the vast majority) in the pocket. The serious problem drinker is not price sensitive and so will do what it takes to get their hands on drink.

The 'binge' drinkers? Well there are few stats that seem never to gain much airtime or print. Alcohol consumption has been falling for the last decade. Binge-drinking is down. Under-age drinking is down. Drink-driving is down. The number of people saying they are tea-total is up. True, alcohol-related presentations at hospitals is up, but the Government's own data-crunchers admit this is in large part due to a change in the recording. Essentially, if you turn up at casualty with a cut or a sprain (with an 'accident' basically), the first thing asked is 'have you been drinking?' If you answer yes, then it's an alcohol-related presentation - whether you had a pint, a half, or a belly-full. I know this as last year I contrived to miss the bottom step of the stairs and badly sprained my ankle. I thought it was busted the day after and so turned up at A&E. First question: had I been drinking? Answer, yes a glass of wine with wife at dinner. Click: alcohol-related.

On alcohol-related liver disease, yes it's rising but how much of this is due to excessive consumption over the past 1 or 2 decades, now manifesting, but long-term given the stats above will plateau and then fall? I don't know and no one says.

On alcohol-related violence, I'm not comfortable with this term. I do not know of any evidence for alcohol inducing violent behaviour (others may know). As far as I know, the physical and psychological effects of alcohol as it is taken of an session is short-term (the first few), social garrulousness, happiness leading to (after the first few), unsteadiness and loss of motor-control and then a 'depression' or maudling effect. Oh, and you pee a lot. Does it 'cause' violence? Or are those with a propensity for violence, and the rest of us, socially-conditioned to see a punch-up after a night on the ale as being a direct result of an effect of alcohol? I ask as I've put away more than my fair share of an evening on many occasions over the years and never felt the urge to have a rumpus, along with the vast, vast majority of other drinkers. In a nutshell, is alcohol and violence a genuine cause-effect relationship? I'm not so sure.

Once again, and sorry to be boring, but if we do have an alcohol 'problem', one blunt measure will make not a sack of difference. It will require a cross-sector policy response, drawing in pricing perhaps, measures, availability, labelling, the 'night-time economy', social attitudes, drinks-establishment design and so on.

Richard Broughton

[Tardis]

I too would like to see many people afford their own houses, but in today's zombiefied market you can not blame the builders for not building, just so that the price of houses decreases.

Dickens may have been a very good moraliser, with his serialisations of pulp fiction, but such a shame that he did not also conduct himself accordingly in his own life.

It is not for anyone, to tell anyone else how to run their lives, least of all the state which has such a poor record on these matters. I find it very patronising when people talk of helping the sick, vulnerable and the poor...but then give them hand outs which actually reinforces their position and does not enable them to climb out of their predicament.

I find it very sad when people label 'the rich'; when GP's, Consultants, NHS heads, Civil Servants, Council heads, Accountants, Lawyers etc all fall into this bracket and many more. Almost as if people are no longer allowed to work hard anymore and earning money is somehow bad.

When the country is not willing to pay it's food producers a living wage, you know that there are some serious value issues and if that means everyone has less to spend on Sky packages, then maybe that is the choice that you have to make.

[hartley353]

My belief God has put us on a loop,we are fated to ever make the same mistakes,and the only thing which will change is the calendar.

[Tardis]

Lord Ahmed suspended

Calamity Clegg claims Chris Huhne is still a close friend

David Laws interviewed on the radio about integrity

Plus ca change