Day 5168: An Elephant's Eye on the Election

Tuesday:

You may not have noticed that there's an election coming. They've been keeping rather quiet about it.

A number of people have said that this year's election is "too close to call" or "too complicated" but I think that, even this far out, the results are pretty obvious.

The Liberal Democrats will come fourth in vote share with probably about 16% and win two-hundred and nine five-way marginals. Nick Clegg will become Leader of the Opposition as Al Murray is swept into Downing Street, made Prime Minister as leader of the Stop Farrago Alliance of Labour, Tory and SNP.

Okay, maybe it won't QUITE happen like that. It might be two-hundred and EIGHT – get down to Hornsey and Wood Green because we CAN win there and help keep Lynne Featherstone as MP for Awesome.

Okay, okay, maybe not two-hundred and eight either. But there are reasons for OPTIMISM. Maybe not quite as much optimism as Auntie Caron managed to muster in telling the Westminster Hour we could hold all fifty-seven of our current seats, though you've got to admire her for saying it with a straight face.

I think we can hold at least half, probably somewhere in the mid-thirties, and maybe a gain or two as well.

The reasons for this are, of course, complicated, but come down to the weakness of Mr Milipede's Hard Labour and the split vote on the right.

LABSERVATIVES

We only HAVE about 15 seats facing challengers from Hard Labour or Nasty Nationalists – well, we have a couple more than that, but no one is taking Charlie Kennedy or Alistair Carmichael's seat without Viking Longboats. Most of our seats are a fight with our so-called partners in Coalition the Conservatories.

In order to counter the PERCEIVED threat from the Party they REALLY want to be in bed with, the Kippers, Mr Balloon has been not so much tacking to the right as galloping for the starboard flank as fast as Master Gideon's little legs and Theresa May's kitten heels can carry him. Policies like deep cuts in benefits, targeted at the young and the fatshamed; the obsession with cutting spending deeper and harder than necessary – while promising vast and unfunded give-away tax cuts, not to mention remaining highly dubious in their attitude to possible tax evasion especially by their rich supporters; their increasing security paranoia, with Civil Liberties infringements verging back towards New Labour era; above all the frothing venom over Europe and immigration… all these are painting them as the Nastier-than-Ever Party.

It makes it all the more desperately important than ever that Liberal Democrats hold the centre ground, not because we're wishy-washy and moderate, but because we're the Party with a radical social conscience and grounded, practical, old-fashioned British COMMON SENSE.

Fortunately for Britain (not to mention us!), Mr Milipede's cohorts appear to have decided that he's already lost. They have wasted the last five years conspicuously failing to come up with an alternative plan to Osborneomics-lite while ostentatiously avoiding any engagement with apology for the catastrophe that overwhelmed them in office. In much the same way as Mr Vague's disastrous 2001 election odyssey descended into "Save the Pound! Save My Job!", they are reduced to pitiful wails of "Save the NHS! Save the Milipede!"

It isn't that they don't have any policies. It's just that they don't have any policies that would make anything BETTER.

Take the latest mini-spat over TUITION FEES. It's clearly ALL about the POSITIONING. They want to be able to play the Nick Clegg card AGAIN, so they want to wave a policy that LOOKS totemic (but isn't) so that they can wave Lib Dem pledge cards around (please no one notice Labour pledges). Except first it means pissing two-billion quid up the wall and Mr Balls can't find the cash, and second, more importantly, it's a give-away to the RICHEST students, and doesn't actually HELP people who need it. Whereas the as-good-as Graduate Tax that the Liberal Democrats negotiated has ACTUALLY helped a huge increase in the numbers of people from the least well off backgrounds making it to University.

(The man responsible, Tristram Hunt – surely that's a silly nickname? – is clearly a total liability, whether it's announcing that he's PRIVATISING SURE START – which I remain astounded has not received more coverage; though not at the total lack of synthetic outrage from Pollyanna Toytown – or insulting all NUNS. That's no doubt why he's convinced himself he's got a shot at Mr Milipede's job.

Though to get it, he'll have to get past Mr Woodchuck Umunna, whose face can currently be found next to the Wikipedia definition of "ambition".)

Meanwhile Mr Balls, while remaining the man who most people blame for the crash, has recently managed to forget the names of Labour's business backers and suggest that every window-cleaner needs a paper audit trail. Bill Somebody and get a Receipt, you might say. Mr Ball's position is, er, erratic to say the least, oscillating between occasional adherence to the terrifying splurges of Modern Money Theory (or Magic Money Tree economics) and back to flat out austerity and refusing any of his colleagues the cash to fund their endless lists of not-quite-pledges.

So the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are all "on manoeuvres" rather than campaigning to win. They expected to inherit the Coalition's position on the green benches, but if they can't do that they'll settle for inheriting Milipede's seat instead.

That's where the Liberal Democrats need to press hard that we remain the ONLY Party that stands between the country and a terrifying Tory majority. Hard Labour just aren't up to the job. The last five years have shown that Liberal Democrat ministers and back-benchers have got the guts and determination to hold the line against the Tories.

SICKLY GREENS

One response to Mr Milipede's shambles has been the Green Surge. No, I don't mean BARFING.

The Greens would be more admirable if their one MP hadn't been more loyal to the Labour Line than many of Mr Milipede's own alleged colleagues. (Apparently the Green Party's own slang is "Watermelon" – Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside – but this is probably RACIST to watermelons.) Seeking to capitalise on Labour's weakness and to outflank them on the left they are standing as a Syriza-like anti-austerity ticket, though that might not play out so well now that the real Syriza have apparently capitulated to European Union demands to stick with the austerity programme.

(Thus probably saving Greece, but SELFISHLY denying us the service of demonstrating the Farrago Folly by proving that dropping out of the Euro actually COULD make things extremely very much WORSE.)

What I REALLY object to, though, is how much of an Ed Balls Up the Greens are making of selling the policy of a Citizens' Income, a policy that apparently I, a stuffed elephant, understand better than the Green Leader Ms Notaclue Bennett.

There are many positives to be gained from providing a basic flat rate cash stipend to every single person in the country, potentially saving a lot of bureaucracy, protecting people from abusive employers, rewarding carers and housewives/husbands for their contribution, and greatly simplifying and maybe even SAVING some people's lives. But it's neither cheap nor simple to get there and it needs a good, strong PLAN that you can lay out to get to all the upsides. What you absolutely cannot do is KEEP going on the radio and the tellybox and waving your fluffy feet in the air saying "read the website, I don't remember this bit!"

NASTY NATS

The OTHER response to the Great Miliflop is the rise of the tide of nationalist parties. "Blame-the-other-people" parties always do well in difficult times, and the economic times we've been through have hardly been difficulter.

And after five solid years of Labour supporters screaming blue murder about the Liberal Democrats for working with the Conservatories, it is quite a BITTER IRONY that they find the exact same tactic being turned upon them by the Scots Nats for supporting the Conservatories and other pro-Union Parties in the Referendum Campaign.

There could hardly be a better demonstration of the FLAWS of our First Pass the Port electoral rules (and how STUPID our journalists are) than what is happening in Scotland. The press appear ASTONISHED that the LOSING side in the referendum seems to be doing so well in the prospects for Parliament. But it's simple MATHS.

Under ANY system of alternative voting, the pro-Union votes transfer to block the minority Nasties. Which is what happened in the Referendum.

But under First Pass the Port, the LARGEST LOSER WINS.

Because there are SEVERAL Parties that want to keep the United Kingdom, the winning side is DIVIDED; because the Scots Nasties are ISOLATED, they hoover up all the anti-votes. Ironically, this is the tactic of MARGARET THATCHER, who they hate.

Hilarious as it is that the Nasties are probably going to deprive Mr Milipede of any chance of an outright majority, the worse outlook is that they might ALSO deprive him of enough seats to form a Coalition with the remaining Liberal Democrats.

KIPPERS

Channel Four's mockumentary "UKIP: The First 100 Days" has received record numbers of complaints. Mainly because that's what Kippers do best: complain. In fact, it's difficult to know if they do anything else. Except make on-camera racist remarks.

Though also, it was RUBBISH.

There was almost no sting to the satire, no ring of dangerous truth to the warnings. Police snatch-squads and brutalisation of innocent minorities were treated much more DAD'S ARMY than SECRET ARMY. Economic implosion didn't seem to affect anyone's standard of living, in spite of all the factories closing. And the nice lady UKIP parliamentarian turned out to be nice in the end, so that was all right. We didn't get to see the follow-up scene where it's explained that she's "had a breakdown" and she's carted off to Broadmoor in one of those coats that ties up the back while her family are on a one-way flight to Karachi.

No, if anyone should be complaining it's the OTHER PARTIES for this far too nice portrayal, that seems to imply we could get away with electing a bunch of RACISTS without it all going Nuremberg on us.

Of course, the last thing Farrago wants is to actually WIN. Winning means having to do something other than complain. Worse, it means being the one who is complained ABOUT. No, he likes his nice cushy Euro-job where he gets paid a fortune and doesn't have to show any results. Or even show up!

Still, lucky for Nigel our electoral system is so horlicksed that he probably won't have to face his nightmare scenario of being everyone else's nightmare scenario.

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT

The PLAN for the Liberal Democrats has always been to show that Coalition WORKS, and that we can be TRUSTED in Government. We've certainly shown that a Coalition CAN last five years. Remember, almost EVERY SINGLE commentator in 2010 expected a second election within six months. We've proven them wrong once already. Whether we can be TRUSTED is… a slightly other matter, unfortunately.

It's difficult to see how we can continue in Coalition with the Tories. We've largely used up the areas of policy overlap, not to mention the GOODWILL, between our Parties. Equally though, many people have suggested that a period in Opposition, licking our wounds, might serve the Party well.

Maybe it would, but would it serve our Country well?

I still believe that the purpose of political parties is to be in Government, getting things done.

(Not the Labour Party's urgent desire to be in Government just to be in Government; not the Conservatories belief that they are entitled to be in Government because they are entitled.)

A Labour/Liberal Coalition, with Vince Cable as Chancellor (finally!), would be a better outcome for the Country (AND demonstrate that Coalition can remain stable even if the larger partner transitions) than a feeble minority Labour administration, with Scots Nats and Green demonstrating the real meaning of "propping up" (where they can take ALL the blame and get no policies at all enacted). And another Liberal/Tory Coalition, could one be bodged together in the wake of the election tearing strips out of each other (probably around an agreement that WE will run the country while Mr Balloon plays Euro-referendum) would STILL be better than letting the nutters run the asylum on their own (with the Farragistas not so much propping up as pushing to topple over).

But the real choice belongs, quite rightly to the British people.

And we've only just begun.

Day 3542: Economic Literacy Test: Caroline Lucas plays Mini-Me to Bully Balls Dr Evil

Sunday:


I am FED UP of being called "economically illiterate" by people who clearly wouldn't know one end of the economy from the other.

Usually it is the Egregious Ed, Mr Bully Balls who was, don't forget, special advisor to the Chancellor who outspent the government's income for seven years running while letting the banking sector play chicken with a housing bubble.

This time, though, it was the Sickly Green MP Radio Caroline Lucas, repeating the same deluded, deceitful and frankly DANGEROUS dribble on the World this Weekend.

I'll say this once: CUTTING SPENDING DID NOT CAUSE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.


The principle cause, the thing that turned the Wall Street Crash into the Great Depression was the decision by the American government that rescuing banks that had gone bankrupt gambling on the stock market would only encourage them to do it again: so called MORAL HAZARD. So they let those banks go BUST. That wiped out the savings of huge numbers of Americans, businesses, particularly FARMS, as well as individuals, and the American economy IMPLODED.

The effect on Great Britain was twofold: firstly, with the American banks gone, our supply of credit dried up and there was a credit crunch. Secondly, with the American economy gone, our exports dried up too.

British exports were ALREADY in trouble. For starters, during World War part one a lot of our export markets got pinched while we were busy. But then Mr Winston Churchill (remember him? Oh yes) had attached the pound to the Gold Standard at too high an exchange rate making our exports more expensive and so uncompetitive. And then the Unions (remember THEM?) went and called a GENERAL STRIKE which made our exports less reliable as well as even more expensive.

So by the end of the 1920's the economy was a bit TOTTERY anyway, and the American collapse knocked us over like a domino.

Add to that the fact that countries all over the world responded to the crisis in the WORST POSSIBLE WAY™ by throwing up protectionist trade barriers.

So suddenly Great Britain stopped making money.

THIS is where the spending cuts happened. In those pre-Keynesian days the government tried to balance the budget EVERY YEAR, rather than over the course of the economic cycle (if you are a Keynesian) or NEVER (if you are Mr Frown or his Sith apprentice Bully Balls or in this case Radio Caroline).

So the then Chancellor, Mr Philip Mount Snowden cut public sector pay by 10% AND (note this) raised income tax from 22½% to 25%.

This is GENUINELY a case of a government that is "taking money out of the economy". Taxation TAKES money from the economy. Government spending puts it back. In a "balanced" budget you put back as much as you take out. If you INCREASE tax and DECREASE spending the Government is literally REMOVING MONEY from the productive part of the economy.

If there is LESS money in the economy then FEWER people can buy things and this SLOWS the economy further.

The NORTH was hit much the hardest by the collapse in exports, because it was so heavily, too heavily invested in HEAVY industry: mining, shipbuilding, steel-working. In the South, more-flexible light industry sprang up: making things like washing machines and even cars leading to economic growth and recovery in those areas. This was the beginning of the North South DIVIDE as formerly-prosperous parts of the North remained stuffed (at least until rearmament came along and the Government suddenly needed a lot of steel and coal and ships).

Rearmament, incidentally, when the Government said: "forget balancing the budget; we need to buy stuff", is ironically one of the inspirations for KEYNESIAN economics, because that Government spending kick-started the economy.


Now there are some SIMILARITIES to today's situation and some GLARING DIFFERENCES.


We HAVE recently had a big crash on the bursting of an economic bubble; we HAVE been overly reliant on foreign credit (then American, today Chinese); we have seen Government income fall and expenditure rise; and we HAVE seen a MASSIVELY SPLIT Labour Party supplanted by a Coalition of Liberals and Conservatories who have to clean up the MESS.

HOWEVER, this time we SAVED the Banks (however ODIOUS they may have been before and indeed since) so we still HAVE an economy; this time our exchange rate is NOT chained to an absurdly macho level (yes, we were all wrong about that one); this time thanks to the European Union we DON'T see trade barriers flying up between us and our major customers; but equally this time the Government was ALREADY in a lot of debt because of years of uncontrolled overspending and manufacturing was already on its knees from decades of neglect by Governments of BOTH other parties; not to mention the TITANIC (in every sense) over-reliance on the financial sector to keep us afloat: something of a case of Mr Frown placing all our eggs in one ROULETTE WHEEL.

So once again I have to say it's just not as simple as saying "cuts=bad=great depression".

The DANGER of the economy tipping back into recession because of Government making deflationary spending cuts has to be weighed against the OPPOSITE DANGER of the markets losing confidence in British creditworthiness which would see interest rates shoot up, bank lending squeezed even tighter and a whole lot of people laid off when the money just plain RUNS OUT, causing an EVEN WORSE recession.

Frankly, it is seeing both sides of the DANGER that meant the Liberal Democrats had to change their minds about the urgency of the cuts. And anyone who's saying they've got a plan for the economy WITHOUT saying they've at least considered the other threat is deceiving you.





And speaking of things I have to keep repeating, Hard Labour (and Sickly Greens) are STILL calling the Coalition Cuts "taking money out of the economy". This is, to coin a phrase, economically illiterate.

For the last nine years, and for all of the next five (heaven help us) the Government has spent and will spend MORE than it takes out of the economy in tax.

i.e. the Government is putting money IN to the economy.

It has been possible to do this by running up a rather large tab… to the extent that we are in debt for getting on for a TRILLION POUNDS that is a MILLION times a MILLION pounds or twenty grand for every man, woman, child and fluffy elephant in the country.

That is in a word Radio Caroline might understand UNSUSTAINABLE.

The Coalition policy is NOT to "take money out" of the economy but to "put in LESS", eventually to STOP because it ISN'T OUR MONEY.


"Ah ha!" says Radio Caroline, "you're making the mistake of thinking of the country's economy like your household economy where if your income goes down you have to control your spending, but it doesn't work like that."

No, Caroline it REALLY REALLY does work like that.

In an emergency, you can borrow money to cover a gap between your incomings and your outgoings. Maybe there's been a personal crisis, maybe the tumble drier exploded, whatever. You talk to the bank and agree a bridging loan.

Government debt is just a really, really BIG bridging loan.

The "bank" in this case is the world money markets. And just like you might have to negotiate with the bank in order to get the money you need, and just as the bank might give you certain conditions, then likewise the Government has to "negotiate" with the markets, sometimes literally, sometimes by taking action that convinces the markets that the UK's finances are sound and that the investment is both worthwhile and safe.

And just like a bank, eventually, the money has to be PAID BACK.

Radio Caroline's solution is to dump our problems on future generations. Which just shows up the Sickly Green's promises of a sustainable future.

We've been borrowing for years and years and years; we just can't carry on like that.

"Ah ha!" will say Mr Balls, "but Mr Milton Keynes tells us that it is OKAY to borrow. When you are in a hole… KEEP DIGGING!"

Except this is only HALF of what Mr Keynes tells us. The OTHER half is PAY OFF THE DEBT in the GOOD TIMES. Which is exactly what we DIDN'T do for the period of the BOOM YEARS between the dot.com collapse and the credit crunch.

In the late 1930s the British Government COULD borrow money to spend on British industry precisely BECAUSE it had been running PAINFUL balanced budgets up to then; in 2010 we CAN'T because we HAVEN'T.

If you just KEEP borrowing money to prop up your Government spending you end up with a completely different economic model and it is called WEIMAR GERMANY.

The value of your currency collapses; your interest rates spiral out of control; and EVERYONE gets very, very poor very, very quickly.

And yes, that ended up with a nasty bully in charge as well, so you can perhaps see the attraction for Mr Balls.

And another thing!

If one more person repeats this nonsense I swear I will SPIT!

"If you make public sector workers redundant then they stop contributing tax to the Government's coffers"

NO! WRONG WRONG WONG!

It is NOT POSSIBLE for a public sector employee, no matter how lovely and worthwhile and socially valuable, to make a net contribution to the Treasury. Not even if you count all the VAT and airport tax and Stamp Duty that they might pay

Think about it: the VERY MOST that someone could possibly pay in tax is ALL of their earnings and if all their earnings come from the Government in the first place then the VERY BEST that the Treasury could ever do is BREAK EVEN.

And in practice you must have a bit of pay left after the tax or what do you buy your sticky buns with?

In pure CASH terms the Government is always ALWAYS better off NOT paying someone than paying them.

That does NOT mean that the Government SHOULDN'T employ people. Obviously there is a HUGE BENEFIT to be had in having teachers and doctors and policemen and poets laureate (er). And often – though not always – economies of scale mean that the Government can do this more efficiently than the private sector. Can but not necessarily does.

But suggesting that the Government will somehow be worse off if it employs fewer people is STUPID SOPHISTRY.

It's a CON: if you pay me twenty quid I'll give you a tenner back; so now if you don't pay me you'll not get that tenner – you'll be ten quid out of pocket! If you believe that then I'll have ten pounds please.
.

Day 3090: Green Eyed Monster

Thursday:


I am sad to read today that super-humanly strong-stomached Auntie Jennie has finally, thanks to THIS posting, given up on her efforts to make the LABOUR CONSPIRACY website a bit LIBERAL.


I do not seem to have written very much in my Fluffy Diary about the sickly Green Party, mainly because, you know, why bother? If you are GENUINELY concerned about the environment then you will find the Liberal Democrats have policies that meet most of your needs; if you are more interested in SHOWING OFF your Holier-than-thou-ness then feel free to POSE.

But they ARE quite ANNOYING.

Their leader is Radio Caroline Lucas – and, as an MEP, Radio Caroline floats around outside the Three-Mile Limit broadcasting Hippy Tunes and merrily taking no responsibility. Particularly irritating is her REPETITIVE JINGLE: oh, those Westminster Parties are all the same.

Yes, I KNOW why she does it – she knows she's ONLY going to get PROTEST votes and so needs to paint herself as the "alternative" choice. But to suggest that the Liberal Democrats are the same as the Conservatories or Hard Labour is a BIG FAT FIB and she knows it.

In fact, with their AUTHORITARIAN desire to IMPOSE their policies regardless of what people actually want and their OPPOSITION to the European Union, Radio Caroline's party has FAR MORE in common with the Conservatories and Hard Labour than the Liberal Democrats have with ANY of them.

While WE recognise that everyone in Europe (and the World!) all need to work TOGETHER if we are to protect the planet, the Greens seem to think that the environment ends at the White Cliffs of Dover. And while Liberal Democrats believe that the benefits of FREE TRADE will help to lift people everywhere out of poverty and ENABLE them to make better environmental choices, the Greens want to put an end to all that, seemingly intent on taking us back to the kind of pre-industrial barter economy where the environment was protected from humans by such methods as FAMINE and PLAGUE.

(Which reminds me of their "HEALTH" policies – "no" to developing new drugs; "yes" to aromatherapy. Forgive me but "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!")


The article in question is a great big WHINGE about how dreadful it is that the Liberal Democrats didn't just lie down and act like a doorstep for the Greens. Never mind that we might think that their policies are not just wildly ILLIBERAL but also BAD for the environment, it seems that we should not point out that most people don't actually want to vote for them!

This, they claim, is "telling fibs"; in fact, writer Rupert the Bear-with-a-sore-head goes so far as to give us a funny name – he calls us "Fib Dems". I mean, what sort of a BABY would do a silly joke like THAT?!

[R: Millennium's excuse is that he is eight years old – what is Rupert's?]

The PROBLEM is that it's NOT the Liberal Democrats who are LYING.


Here is what Rupert the Bear-faced-liar CLAIMS that the Liberal Democrats said:

"It takes about 150,000 votes to elect an MEP in the East of England. The Greens only got 25,000 votes across the whole of the East at the last General election."

Here (from the leaflet that he links to) is what the Liberal Democrats ACTUALLY said:

"Just 2% of voters in this election will come from Norwich – but the Greens are weak in the East outside of Norwich. They have no chance of getting enough votes across the East to elect and MEP, and last time were 64 THOUSAND votes short. They only won 25,000 votes altogether across the East of England in 2005's general election."

Do you see that Rupert has DISTORTED what the Liberal Democrats said in order to SEXY-UP his complaint.

The Liberal Democrats presented the FACTS: the Greens FELL SHORT in the last Euro elections, outside of Norwich their support fades away, and in the last General Election it all but disappeared. Is any of that inaccurate? No. It is in any way misleading? NO!

But the "complaint" OMITS the fact that we referred to that last Euro result FIRST, makes it SEEM that we were basing our claim on ONLY the general election result, whereas the FULL quote shows that the general election result was only MORE EVIDENCE to show that the Green were generally weak.

Oh, and with the benefit of hindsight we SAID that they COULD NOT WIN and they DID NOT WIN. So it was true.

(To further inform and entertain: later, in the comments thread, our very own self-styled Tactical Nuclear Badword, the award-winning Mr Jumbo Graham, lays in to point out more direct LIES that the Greens are telling, somewhat undermining their "we lost because we don't tell lies" agenda.)


So, anyway, FLUFFY HUGS for Auntie Jenny; it was a BRAVER effort than the one that I made to make the idea of a co-operative progressive project work and I am SORRY that you feel it hasn't.

And as for the Greens… ooh, Green Grapes, how SOUR do THEY look, I wonder?


.