Friday:
Once Upon a Time, the people of the United Kingdom of England and Scotland decided that their king had got too uppity and chopped his head off.
And then, being very British about it, decided that what they really wanted was another king again, thank you very much.
And some MPs thought that things should go back to just how they were, with the King having absolute power over everything.
But some other MPs said, isn’t that what caused all the bother in the first place, and maybe unfair power is something we should do something about.
And so, in the end, Liberalism was born.
Mr Dr Vince “the Power” Cable, isn’t king of the Lib Dems. But he might want to be a bit more cautious about sticking his neck out…
Today he is making a few suggestions about how to turn the Party into a Movement. And, like the “Movement Pie” in TV’s “The Preventers” it is… “strangely unappetising”.
Captain Paddy used to have what was called the “Bungee Squad”, so that when he leapt off a cliff with a new notion, they could reel him back in. This press launch of a proposal to bounce the Party into following is more Lemming Squad – take the leap and expect all the rest of us to follow.
What is behind this is Brexit – obviously – and the cowardice of MPs in government and opposition. The Tory Rebels don’t want to split the Tory Party. The Labour moderates don’t want to split the Labour Party. Their tribalism is what is preventing Parliament coming together to stop Brexit. But that is on THEM not on US.
But creating a “safe space” for disenfranchised members of OTHER PARTIES – at the further expense of our own identity – doesn’t do us any good. Or in the long run the country any good. Last time we behaved like the only adults in the room, we agreed to a coalition and were annihilated for our pains. We no longer have the political capital to do that again! And look what has happened without Liberal voices being heard in Parliament?
I WANT more Liberal voices. So I WANT people to be Liberals, to support and join the Liberal Democrats.
But I’m actually pretty AMBIVALENT about a “supporters scheme”.
On the one fluffy foot, the more the merrier. On the other fluffy foot, this is wasting a lot of time and potentially money (especially if the Leader want’s his own Special Conference to make the changes) on PROCESS when we could be spending that time and money on telling people how GREAT Liberalism is. It looks an awful lot like the Politician’s Syllogism (“Yes, Minister”): we must do SOMETHING – THIS is something – we must do THIS!
(And didn’t we say One Member One Vote would get the members more involved? Now that that’s not worked we want to get the not-even-members more involved?)
We’re not in politics just to be a bigger club for people who like being in The Politics Club. Liberals are in politics to do something DIFFERENT, or we’d just have done the easy thing and joined one of the bigger clubs in the first place.
And that’s why this Movement Pie is the wrong way round. It starts from the idea of being welcoming – which is GOOD – but offers nothing different once everybody gets there. Worse it’s more “None of the Above”
For better or worse – usually worse – that’s why the likes of Brexit or Corbyn are brilliant recruiters: because they have something exciting that appeals to converts.
Liberal Democrats need to be bolder in offering something different, something that ENTHUSES people into signing up. Liberal ideas are a beacon that inspire people, and Liberals should always welcome aboard all the new people inspired by Liberalism.
If your only big idea is to say you’ll welcome as many people as you can find but only for more of the same (but not EVIL!), you may well find that not many people will be very interested in tucking into your biggest pie ever…!
Because it’s a Pie with no FILLING.
Oh it may be EYE-CATCHING. So is any SPECTACULAR BELLY-FLOP. But is it the right answer? Is it even answering the right question?
Because the Liberal Democrats have had, let’s be honest, bit of a problem for a bit of a while now: post-joining the Coalition, no one knows what the Party stands for.
To most people The Tories stood for the people with money, Labour stood for the people without and the Lib Dems USED to stand for “the None of the Above” Party. And then we were in government and we weren’t none of the above any more.
To possibly too many of our MPs and members, we were the “Nice Moderate in the Middle Party”, not to profligate not too evil, just right. The kind of people who thought John Major was too exciting a shade of grey. And while, in the current political climate, you can see the attraction of being the “we’re not nutters” Party, it’s also heavily contributing to the belief that we are the “We stand in the middle, we’ll stand with anyone, not for anything” Party.
Saying we will welcome all and sundry, no need to sign up to our values, and we will have any leader you like so long as you like them… if ANYTHING that is MORE OF THE SAME PROBLEM.
And THIS fluffy elephant says FLUFF OFF to that!
I am a LIBERAL and I want to see my Party doing LIBERAL THINGS – taking part in Europe, cleaning up our air, standing up for people who are a bit different, challenging the RIGHT-WING consensus of Labour and Tory Parties that immigrants are bad and big government is good.
Liberalism started off by being about taking power away from central control and giving it away. It started with the biggest centre of power of them all, the divinely appointed King. But it also became about taking away the power of other bullies over people.
We talk about Human Rights, which are to protect you from a bullying government, and about workers rights which are to protect you from a bullying employer, or about protection for minorities which are to protect you from a bullying mob.
Socialists might talk about seizing power from the capitalists; conservatives might talk about protecting the status quo. But they are just arguing about who has the power. Only Liberalism wants to abolish the idea of there being someone in power.
How we give power and freedom to people are big big questions: how do we – for example – free people from poverty? Lloyd George answered that with a People’s Budget and pensions; Beverage answered it with the Welfare State; today maybe a British dividend or universal basic income might be the answer.
But the question is still relevant.
Which means Liberalism is still relevant.
Which means WE need to have an answer to prove that WE are relevant!
Showing posts with label Mr Vince. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mr Vince. Show all posts
Friday, September 07, 2018
Wednesday, December 03, 2014
Day 5085: Master Gideon’s Mission to Mars – Some Thoughts on the Autumn Statement
Wednesday:
Do we really want another stimulus for the housing bubble? Really?
Raising some taxes is good (bankers and Starbucks, though… well, how amazing brave to pick those targets).
But hasn’t Chancellor Osborn sworn he wasn’t going to raise any more taxes? I dectect the hand of Danny Alexander; it’s of a piece with his efforts to tackle tax evasion and reduce opportunities for tax avoidance.
The extra funding for the NHS appears to have come from… underspedning in the NHS. Master Gideon as Baron Munchausen will thus clear the deficit by pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.
And there’s a distinctly Janus-faced feel to some of the Conservative’s pronouncements, crowing over our outpacing of other European economies while simultaneously whining about how this makes us too attractive to those waves and waves of immigrants, coming over here fixing our plumbing and so on.
Equally it seems very off to boast that our GDP is going up but our contributions to the European Union are going down in the same statement where you complain that Amazon’s profits go up but the tax they’re paying go down. Sauce for the Christmas Goose, you would have thought.
Why is it that the tax receipts have fallen short of expectations? Ignore the flashy rabbit-from-hat Stamp Duty give-away; this is the central question of the Autumn Statement. The Chancellor boasted that he’d be reducing the deficit in spite of falling revenue, but that’s not the same as having an explanation. Could it be that Mr Balls is finally right about something, and below inflation wage increases have hammered the Treasury’s income too?
I remain convinced that having more people in work but with lower wages across the board is a fairer way of sharing the pain of economic disaster than the ‘Eighties approach of dumping the bottom three million on the dole; nevertheless, it does point to Balls having a point, and it plays well to crosslink Labour’s “cost of living crisis” narative to the Tories failure on their own terms to cut the deficit.
And while it might be fairer, it might not be good politics to give everyone a resentment against the government instead of just a minority who you can marginalise. Labour have clearly been trying a number of formulae – “squeezed middle”, “one nation Labour” whatever it was Mr Milipede forgot to say this year – to try and saddle this resentment to their political cause.
(It’s ironic that the non-Labour left have largely undermined this by shreiking and carrying on that marginalising a minority is exactly what the government is doing – helped, it must be said, by the Tories’s rhetoric and Iain Drunken Swerve being allowed to continue to exist.)
But low wage inflation isn’t the whole story. The dramatic fall in the oil price – generally welcomed by the Chancellor as a good thing, not least because falling energy prices makes Labour’s energy price freeze policy look rather silly – has a knock-on effect in terms of treasury income as it reduces the fuel duty, VAT, petroleum tax, supplementary charge to corporation tax and even the climate change levy.
(And while we’re at it: building a whole load of new roads is hardly in line with the “greenest government ever” line, and rather more school of Mr Balloon’s “drop the green carp”. And, as Jennie reminded us, probably counter-productive – if you want to improve travelling by road… spend the money on public transport. The number of road users is a function of price and convenience versus the alternative, so you would reduce congestion by making it preferable for people to tavel by train. The government appears to be doing the opposite. I suppose it might drive receipts from petrol taxes back up.)
Plus the UK’s economic growth has not yet translated into a boom in consumer spending, again forestalling a surge in VAT receipts at HMRC. In fact, largely the growth seems to be being directed into the housing bubble, which brings us back to point one.
Even so, granted Mr Balls has some grasp of some of the cause of the government’s income not coming up to scratch, it’s still a bit of a leap from there to “and Labour will fix this by…[insert policy when we think of it]”.
Which leaves us clinging to nurse in fear of something worse. Though what could be worse than nurse being revealed as Master Osborn in a pinafore?
The Chancellor’s promise to clear the deficit by 2018 – although more realistic than Labour’s “sometime” in the next Parliament aspiration – is undermined not so much by his already having failed at this once (seriously, giving the finite nature of British Parliament’s you have to start out with a plan for one term at a time; given the slow reveal of the scale of the problem, the Coalition’s cautious approach balancing cuts with stimulus – again at Danny Alexander’s urging – has trod a fine line that has ended up closer to the Liberal Democrats timescale for cutting the deficit than the Tory’s and seems to be paying off, at least at the moment), but much more by the frankly fantastical idea that almost all the remaining cuts can come from the benefits, largely in-work benefits, paid to working age people.
Employment is already at record high levels. (This is a good thing!) But without some unforeseen huge increases in wages – again, see Mr Balls point – it is difficult to see any substantial ability to cut the support we need to give to keep these jobs viable.
On Sunday, on the Andy Marr show, the Chancellor was challenged on the way that spending cuts have fallen largely on not merely “welfare” but specifically on working age benefits. Pensioners have largely weathered the economic storm protected by the Coalition’s triple lock. The Tory Treasury team have clearly war-gamed this one, as Master Gideon came out with a very convincing-seeming answer: “Oh but I have hit the pensioners – I’ve taken half a trillion out of pensions by raising the retirement age”. Well, that’s quite an impressive hit against your core vote, isn’t it?
But take a moment to think about it: raising the retirement age does not affect existing pensioners; it’s actually another blow to those of us in work saving money by putting off the day when we will be able to claim back some of the fortune we are currently paying in.
And of course these cuts depend largely on the Tories being in power after the next election. Vince Cable – who has been quietly getting on with the business of being business secretary: increasing investment to manufacturing and boosting apprenticeships (notice the National Insurance cut to help more there) – has written to the Office for Budget Responsibility to ask them to point out how the Tories’ “no tax please were the British Tea Party” approach is wildly at odds with the Liberal Democrats’ fairer, balance tax and cut policies.
Overall, this was a typically theatrical financial moment from a Chancellor who has learned all his lessons from Gordon Brown. The splash of largess to catch the headlines; the smoke and mirrors over where the money comes from; some nasty medicine in the details; the hidden hand of the Liberal Chief Secretary trying to steer us a little away from full-throated Thatcherism and a little towards more social justice.
This is the course we are committed to now: from here on it’s full tilt towards the General Election and (subject to Nigel Farage and the Tory suicide-squads on the back benches derailing them onto Europe again) this is the ground that the Chancellor has laid out. It is, as President Clinton used to say, the economy, stupid.
And believe me, George Osborn is the economy… and stupid.
Do we really want another stimulus for the housing bubble? Really?
Raising some taxes is good (bankers and Starbucks, though… well, how amazing brave to pick those targets).
But hasn’t Chancellor Osborn sworn he wasn’t going to raise any more taxes? I dectect the hand of Danny Alexander; it’s of a piece with his efforts to tackle tax evasion and reduce opportunities for tax avoidance.
The extra funding for the NHS appears to have come from… underspedning in the NHS. Master Gideon as Baron Munchausen will thus clear the deficit by pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.
And there’s a distinctly Janus-faced feel to some of the Conservative’s pronouncements, crowing over our outpacing of other European economies while simultaneously whining about how this makes us too attractive to those waves and waves of immigrants, coming over here fixing our plumbing and so on.
Equally it seems very off to boast that our GDP is going up but our contributions to the European Union are going down in the same statement where you complain that Amazon’s profits go up but the tax they’re paying go down. Sauce for the Christmas Goose, you would have thought.
Ed Balls has some good questions, but no answers.
Why is it that the tax receipts have fallen short of expectations? Ignore the flashy rabbit-from-hat Stamp Duty give-away; this is the central question of the Autumn Statement. The Chancellor boasted that he’d be reducing the deficit in spite of falling revenue, but that’s not the same as having an explanation. Could it be that Mr Balls is finally right about something, and below inflation wage increases have hammered the Treasury’s income too?
I remain convinced that having more people in work but with lower wages across the board is a fairer way of sharing the pain of economic disaster than the ‘Eighties approach of dumping the bottom three million on the dole; nevertheless, it does point to Balls having a point, and it plays well to crosslink Labour’s “cost of living crisis” narative to the Tories failure on their own terms to cut the deficit.
And while it might be fairer, it might not be good politics to give everyone a resentment against the government instead of just a minority who you can marginalise. Labour have clearly been trying a number of formulae – “squeezed middle”, “one nation Labour” whatever it was Mr Milipede forgot to say this year – to try and saddle this resentment to their political cause.
(It’s ironic that the non-Labour left have largely undermined this by shreiking and carrying on that marginalising a minority is exactly what the government is doing – helped, it must be said, by the Tories’s rhetoric and Iain Drunken Swerve being allowed to continue to exist.)
But low wage inflation isn’t the whole story. The dramatic fall in the oil price – generally welcomed by the Chancellor as a good thing, not least because falling energy prices makes Labour’s energy price freeze policy look rather silly – has a knock-on effect in terms of treasury income as it reduces the fuel duty, VAT, petroleum tax, supplementary charge to corporation tax and even the climate change levy.
(And while we’re at it: building a whole load of new roads is hardly in line with the “greenest government ever” line, and rather more school of Mr Balloon’s “drop the green carp”. And, as Jennie reminded us, probably counter-productive – if you want to improve travelling by road… spend the money on public transport. The number of road users is a function of price and convenience versus the alternative, so you would reduce congestion by making it preferable for people to tavel by train. The government appears to be doing the opposite. I suppose it might drive receipts from petrol taxes back up.)
Plus the UK’s economic growth has not yet translated into a boom in consumer spending, again forestalling a surge in VAT receipts at HMRC. In fact, largely the growth seems to be being directed into the housing bubble, which brings us back to point one.
Even so, granted Mr Balls has some grasp of some of the cause of the government’s income not coming up to scratch, it’s still a bit of a leap from there to “and Labour will fix this by…[insert policy when we think of it]”.
George Osborn has some answers that need questioning
Which leaves us clinging to nurse in fear of something worse. Though what could be worse than nurse being revealed as Master Osborn in a pinafore?
The Chancellor’s promise to clear the deficit by 2018 – although more realistic than Labour’s “sometime” in the next Parliament aspiration – is undermined not so much by his already having failed at this once (seriously, giving the finite nature of British Parliament’s you have to start out with a plan for one term at a time; given the slow reveal of the scale of the problem, the Coalition’s cautious approach balancing cuts with stimulus – again at Danny Alexander’s urging – has trod a fine line that has ended up closer to the Liberal Democrats timescale for cutting the deficit than the Tory’s and seems to be paying off, at least at the moment), but much more by the frankly fantastical idea that almost all the remaining cuts can come from the benefits, largely in-work benefits, paid to working age people.
Employment is already at record high levels. (This is a good thing!) But without some unforeseen huge increases in wages – again, see Mr Balls point – it is difficult to see any substantial ability to cut the support we need to give to keep these jobs viable.
On Sunday, on the Andy Marr show, the Chancellor was challenged on the way that spending cuts have fallen largely on not merely “welfare” but specifically on working age benefits. Pensioners have largely weathered the economic storm protected by the Coalition’s triple lock. The Tory Treasury team have clearly war-gamed this one, as Master Gideon came out with a very convincing-seeming answer: “Oh but I have hit the pensioners – I’ve taken half a trillion out of pensions by raising the retirement age”. Well, that’s quite an impressive hit against your core vote, isn’t it?
But take a moment to think about it: raising the retirement age does not affect existing pensioners; it’s actually another blow to those of us in work saving money by putting off the day when we will be able to claim back some of the fortune we are currently paying in.
And of course these cuts depend largely on the Tories being in power after the next election. Vince Cable – who has been quietly getting on with the business of being business secretary: increasing investment to manufacturing and boosting apprenticeships (notice the National Insurance cut to help more there) – has written to the Office for Budget Responsibility to ask them to point out how the Tories’ “no tax please were the British Tea Party” approach is wildly at odds with the Liberal Democrats’ fairer, balance tax and cut policies.
Overall, this was a typically theatrical financial moment from a Chancellor who has learned all his lessons from Gordon Brown. The splash of largess to catch the headlines; the smoke and mirrors over where the money comes from; some nasty medicine in the details; the hidden hand of the Liberal Chief Secretary trying to steer us a little away from full-throated Thatcherism and a little towards more social justice.
This is the course we are committed to now: from here on it’s full tilt towards the General Election and (subject to Nigel Farage and the Tory suicide-squads on the back benches derailing them onto Europe again) this is the ground that the Chancellor has laid out. It is, as President Clinton used to say, the economy, stupid.
And believe me, George Osborn is the economy… and stupid.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Day 4211: The Price for Dropping Lords Reform – VINCE FOR CHANCELLOR
Thursday:
...and Mr David Outlaws for Business Secretary.
(Let's spell that out clearly: the Liberal Democrats to get a WHOLE EXTRA CABINET MINISTER, and one of the Great Offices of State.)
It seems quite plain that a cabal of bitter Conservatories are determined to derail ANY of the Liberal Democrats parliamentary legislation.
But it's ALSO very evident that where we have Cabinet Ministers we have made a REAL difference.
And, most obvious of all, Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable is the only person COMPETENT, CAPABLE and most important TRUSTED to take charge of the British Economy.
So it's WIN-WIN-WIN.
WIN #1: Mr Dr Vince gets the job he was born to do.
(And Master Gideon might even thank us for putting him out of his misery. And, er, promoting him sideways to Conservatory Chairperson would give him licence to sink his teeth into Mr Bully Balls' ankles any time he wanted.)
WIN #2: The Prime Monster gets to STAMP some much need AUTHORITY on his Premiership AND look MAGNANIMOUS to BOTH SIDES (his backbenchers get a victory and we get a Ministry), while actually we get him out of a HOLE without losing (big red) face.
(If, as looks increasingly likely, Mr Balloon has lost any vestiges of control over the Conservatory Party, it may not even be within his gift to deliver on his promise of Tory votes to back Lords Reform. Yes, like all of his other promises it's not worth the cast-iron guarantee it's not printed on. But, as Prime Monster, the appointment of Ministers remains within his gift and Mendacious Mensch and Humpty Soames can't stop him no matter how many lies they tell.)
WIN #3: The Liberal Democrats' SHARE of influence in the Coalition is RESTATED and CONFIRMED.
Suggesting a FAIR DEAL quid pro quo is much more GROWN-UP and ROSE GARDEN than throwing about sulky threats to derail the Boundary Commission. It's a trade-off, not a tit-for-tat.
Remember, we want to show that Coalition WORKS. But also remember, Mr Balloon needs to show that Coalition works EVEN MORE. Because he's out of a job (and buried in a motorway flyover pillar) the very second that it fails.
Why Mr David Outlaws? I know in the past I have pushed for a FEMALE Liberal Cabinet Minister (and in a minute I will again) but to sugar this pill a little, I suggest reinstating "the Conservatories' favourite Liberal Democrat" would be the best way forwards. (Particularly as they can and will take it as a hint that the exile of their current darling, the swivel-eyed "Fantastic" Dr Fox, need not be forever.)
On the other fluffy foot, if we ARE going to do a full reshuffle, it might (FINALLY!) be time to promote Ms Lynne Featherweight to, er, Lynne Heavyweight! The Conservatories would probably want one of their own to take over from Mr Danny as Treasury Number Two (Mr Michael Borogrove probably – which would make an appropriate opening for Lady Lynne as Education Secretary). Alternatively, Lovely Sarah Teather to be promoted within the Education Department. Or even fabulous Ms Jo Winsome to do, well, just about anything!
I realise this leaves Mr Danny out in the cold. I like Danny very much but just now I think he would benefit from some time reconnecting to the Party (or decontaminating his reputation from accusations of having gone native at the Treasury), so I'd suggest a "senior Party position" – our "Minister for Newsnight" – perhaps also taking in charge of policy development for the 2015 manifesto.
I remain COMPLETELY CONVINCED that Parliament CANNOT heal the problems of Great Britain until first we heal the problems with Parliament itself, the gaping poisonous wound that is the shortfall in our democracy in BOTH Houses. But so long as the Labour Party are going to be TOTALLY TWO-FACED on this – first voting for reform with their right fluffy feet, then promising support to the reactionary rebels with their FAR-right fluffy feet – then we need to move the Coalition forward with short-term measures instead. Breaking the Coalition rewards Hard Labour Opportunists AND their deceitful partners on the Conservatory reactionary right.
We CAN still walk away. That definitely has to still be on the table, and Mr Balloon needs to have that made PRETTY DARN CLEAR to him. He can't expect to give in to his rebels and give us nothing – that is NOT being a Prime Monster and he'd very soon find that he WASN'T a Prime Monster any more.
But neither do we need to be so set in stone over the Coalition Agreement that we cannot continuously look at what we have to offer in exchange for changing those terms.
Everyone KNOWS that Vince is the best man for the job of Chancellor. So let's give him the job and move on.
.
...and Mr David Outlaws for Business Secretary.
(Let's spell that out clearly: the Liberal Democrats to get a WHOLE EXTRA CABINET MINISTER, and one of the Great Offices of State.)
It seems quite plain that a cabal of bitter Conservatories are determined to derail ANY of the Liberal Democrats parliamentary legislation.
But it's ALSO very evident that where we have Cabinet Ministers we have made a REAL difference.
And, most obvious of all, Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable is the only person COMPETENT, CAPABLE and most important TRUSTED to take charge of the British Economy.
So it's WIN-WIN-WIN.
WIN #1: Mr Dr Vince gets the job he was born to do.
(And Master Gideon might even thank us for putting him out of his misery. And, er, promoting him sideways to Conservatory Chairperson would give him licence to sink his teeth into Mr Bully Balls' ankles any time he wanted.)
WIN #2: The Prime Monster gets to STAMP some much need AUTHORITY on his Premiership AND look MAGNANIMOUS to BOTH SIDES (his backbenchers get a victory and we get a Ministry), while actually we get him out of a HOLE without losing (big red) face.
(If, as looks increasingly likely, Mr Balloon has lost any vestiges of control over the Conservatory Party, it may not even be within his gift to deliver on his promise of Tory votes to back Lords Reform. Yes, like all of his other promises it's not worth the cast-iron guarantee it's not printed on. But, as Prime Monster, the appointment of Ministers remains within his gift and Mendacious Mensch and Humpty Soames can't stop him no matter how many lies they tell.)
WIN #3: The Liberal Democrats' SHARE of influence in the Coalition is RESTATED and CONFIRMED.
Suggesting a FAIR DEAL quid pro quo is much more GROWN-UP and ROSE GARDEN than throwing about sulky threats to derail the Boundary Commission. It's a trade-off, not a tit-for-tat.
Remember, we want to show that Coalition WORKS. But also remember, Mr Balloon needs to show that Coalition works EVEN MORE. Because he's out of a job (and buried in a motorway flyover pillar) the very second that it fails.
Why Mr David Outlaws? I know in the past I have pushed for a FEMALE Liberal Cabinet Minister (and in a minute I will again) but to sugar this pill a little, I suggest reinstating "the Conservatories' favourite Liberal Democrat" would be the best way forwards. (Particularly as they can and will take it as a hint that the exile of their current darling, the swivel-eyed "Fantastic" Dr Fox, need not be forever.)
On the other fluffy foot, if we ARE going to do a full reshuffle, it might (FINALLY!) be time to promote Ms Lynne Featherweight to, er, Lynne Heavyweight! The Conservatories would probably want one of their own to take over from Mr Danny as Treasury Number Two (Mr Michael Borogrove probably – which would make an appropriate opening for Lady Lynne as Education Secretary). Alternatively, Lovely Sarah Teather to be promoted within the Education Department. Or even fabulous Ms Jo Winsome to do, well, just about anything!
I realise this leaves Mr Danny out in the cold. I like Danny very much but just now I think he would benefit from some time reconnecting to the Party (or decontaminating his reputation from accusations of having gone native at the Treasury), so I'd suggest a "senior Party position" – our "Minister for Newsnight" – perhaps also taking in charge of policy development for the 2015 manifesto.
I remain COMPLETELY CONVINCED that Parliament CANNOT heal the problems of Great Britain until first we heal the problems with Parliament itself, the gaping poisonous wound that is the shortfall in our democracy in BOTH Houses. But so long as the Labour Party are going to be TOTALLY TWO-FACED on this – first voting for reform with their right fluffy feet, then promising support to the reactionary rebels with their FAR-right fluffy feet – then we need to move the Coalition forward with short-term measures instead. Breaking the Coalition rewards Hard Labour Opportunists AND their deceitful partners on the Conservatory reactionary right.
We CAN still walk away. That definitely has to still be on the table, and Mr Balloon needs to have that made PRETTY DARN CLEAR to him. He can't expect to give in to his rebels and give us nothing – that is NOT being a Prime Monster and he'd very soon find that he WASN'T a Prime Monster any more.
But neither do we need to be so set in stone over the Coalition Agreement that we cannot continuously look at what we have to offer in exchange for changing those terms.
Everyone KNOWS that Vince is the best man for the job of Chancellor. So let's give him the job and move on.
.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Day 4083: A Super Tuesday for Dr Vince
Tuesday:
It was a GOOD day to be the President*... of the Board of Trade.
A welcome announcement of much-needed new jobs and investment always puts a spring in the stride of the Business Secretary.
Add to that a subtle hint that we Liberal Democrats might trade off the 50p tax rate that raises millions for a proper wealth tax that raises billions.
And then SOMEONE leaked a letter showing our Vince is the "Man of Vision", with a policy for social market intervention that will make George Osborne's head explode.
(And it's usually Fantastic Doctor Fox who does that!)
Many people with large property portfolios don't even NEED a large income so they don't pay lots of income tax. And with 5% of the population owning more of the wealth than the other 95% put together, it is surely fairer to ask them to contribute a bigger share.
But even before we GET to fairness, there is a good ECONOMIC case for taxing WEALTH. At a time when the economy is crying out for INVESTMENT in jobs and businesses, far too much of the nation's money is being LOCKED AWAY in PROPERTY.
That's a simple consequence of SUPPLY and DEMAND – years of planning restrictions and under-investment in housing stock means that demand for houses outstrips supply, forcing up prices. The Hard Labour Government was more than indulgent of this dangerous house price bubble; in fact, most of their so called economic policy rested on convincing people that the rise in house prices meant that they were getting richer as an excuse to keep on borrowing. Not that the Conservatory government of the Nineties and Eighties was any less guilty of encouraging house price speculation with their selling off council houses on the cheap and nation of homeowners rhetoric.
With governments of both old-Party persuasions tacitly conniving in the housing inflation, property becomes an investment that is, self-evidently, safe as houses. And BANKS prefer to lend mortgages (with a nicely-guaranteed-to-retain-its-value property to secure the loan) than business loans (which are risky in the current post-crash climate).
BUT if people had to spend LESS on just keeping a roof over their heads they would have MORE to put into investments, savings, pensions or just plain old spending – all of which are GOOD for economic growth in a way that makes locking it all away in bricks and mortar look deeply UNHEALTHY.
Now, obviously, there are DECADES of abuse laid up there, and one thing we DO NOT WANT is a property price crash to leave people with NEGATIVE EQUITY. So the government has to tread terribly softly here.
What a MANSION TAX would do is put some GENTLE pressure on house prices at the upper end while at the same time UNLOCKING some of that locked-away capital.
Meanwhile we SHOULD look at the bottom end of the house market too, because the OTHER big contributor to the swelling of the housing bubble has been the indulgent way that Housing Benefit – a benefit that benefits LANDLORDS way more than people in the house – was treated by successive governments. Daddy Alex has – quite rightly – suggested that we should be looking again at proper RENT CONTROLS.
It certainly should not be substantially more expensive to pay the rent than a mortgage on the same property – a practice that leave the HAVES (as in "have the money for a deposit") sitting pretty on their buy-to-let mini empires while trapping the HAVE-NOTS in rental dependency forever.
The best possible outcome would be to engineer STABLE house prices while the rest of the economy GROWS to CATCH UP. If anyone DOES know how to do that, answers on a postcard to Danny Alexander at the Treasury.
In the meantime, probably best just build a lot of new homes.
(*Actually, it was a pretty decent day for Barry O, too, as Mr Mitt Morony continued to play the role of wounded MOOSE, floundering through another set of Primaries, limping to near-victories while the neo-creationist fruitloops continue to bite chunks out of his synthetic credibility.)
It was a GOOD day to be the President*... of the Board of Trade.
A welcome announcement of much-needed new jobs and investment always puts a spring in the stride of the Business Secretary.
Add to that a subtle hint that we Liberal Democrats might trade off the 50p tax rate that raises millions for a proper wealth tax that raises billions.
And then SOMEONE leaked a letter showing our Vince is the "Man of Vision", with a policy for social market intervention that will make George Osborne's head explode.
(And it's usually Fantastic Doctor Fox who does that!)
Many people with large property portfolios don't even NEED a large income so they don't pay lots of income tax. And with 5% of the population owning more of the wealth than the other 95% put together, it is surely fairer to ask them to contribute a bigger share.
But even before we GET to fairness, there is a good ECONOMIC case for taxing WEALTH. At a time when the economy is crying out for INVESTMENT in jobs and businesses, far too much of the nation's money is being LOCKED AWAY in PROPERTY.
That's a simple consequence of SUPPLY and DEMAND – years of planning restrictions and under-investment in housing stock means that demand for houses outstrips supply, forcing up prices. The Hard Labour Government was more than indulgent of this dangerous house price bubble; in fact, most of their so called economic policy rested on convincing people that the rise in house prices meant that they were getting richer as an excuse to keep on borrowing. Not that the Conservatory government of the Nineties and Eighties was any less guilty of encouraging house price speculation with their selling off council houses on the cheap and nation of homeowners rhetoric.
With governments of both old-Party persuasions tacitly conniving in the housing inflation, property becomes an investment that is, self-evidently, safe as houses. And BANKS prefer to lend mortgages (with a nicely-guaranteed-to-retain-its-value property to secure the loan) than business loans (which are risky in the current post-crash climate).
BUT if people had to spend LESS on just keeping a roof over their heads they would have MORE to put into investments, savings, pensions or just plain old spending – all of which are GOOD for economic growth in a way that makes locking it all away in bricks and mortar look deeply UNHEALTHY.
Now, obviously, there are DECADES of abuse laid up there, and one thing we DO NOT WANT is a property price crash to leave people with NEGATIVE EQUITY. So the government has to tread terribly softly here.
What a MANSION TAX would do is put some GENTLE pressure on house prices at the upper end while at the same time UNLOCKING some of that locked-away capital.
Meanwhile we SHOULD look at the bottom end of the house market too, because the OTHER big contributor to the swelling of the housing bubble has been the indulgent way that Housing Benefit – a benefit that benefits LANDLORDS way more than people in the house – was treated by successive governments. Daddy Alex has – quite rightly – suggested that we should be looking again at proper RENT CONTROLS.
It certainly should not be substantially more expensive to pay the rent than a mortgage on the same property – a practice that leave the HAVES (as in "have the money for a deposit") sitting pretty on their buy-to-let mini empires while trapping the HAVE-NOTS in rental dependency forever.
The best possible outcome would be to engineer STABLE house prices while the rest of the economy GROWS to CATCH UP. If anyone DOES know how to do that, answers on a postcard to Danny Alexander at the Treasury.
In the meantime, probably best just build a lot of new homes.
(*Actually, it was a pretty decent day for Barry O, too, as Mr Mitt Morony continued to play the role of wounded MOOSE, floundering through another set of Primaries, limping to near-victories while the neo-creationist fruitloops continue to bite chunks out of his synthetic credibility.)
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Day 4043: Yes to Help for Low Earners, But We NEED to Help the No-Earners Too!
Thursday:
Today, Cap'n Clegg will be calling on Master Gideon to ACCELERATE the increases in personal allowance, giving lower and medium earners more of their money back SOONER (paid for by taking MORE tax from the better off).
This is a GOOD idea. It's giving money back to the people who are most likely to spend it, and more spending will help with the woes of a shrinking economy and falling high street sales.
But cutting taxes for people IN work DOESN'T help the growing numbers of people OUT of work. People we seem to be ATTACKING rather than HELPING.
Like many of my Liberal Democrat friends, I got an e-mail this morning from Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, was by way of a TRAILER for Cap'n Clegg's speech, telling me he is PROUD of the Coalition's commitment to increasing the tax allowance to £10,000.
I WISH I could take PRIDE in this Coalition, but I'm afraid the best I can manage is a sort of NUMBING of the GNAWING HORROR that we are barely taking the edge off the Conservatories' aggressive right-wing agenda.
This sort of thing can't convince me we're doing the RIGHT thing; merely that we're trying to do the LEAST WRONG thing.
(Well that and that the ONLY thing WORSE would have been propping up the AUTHORITARIAN LUNACY of a discredited and economically illiterate HARD LABOUR Party!)
So while you are considering Mr Vince's e-mail, can I also direct your attention to THESE THOUGHTS written by our friend Mr Simon.
Now, I confess that my first reaction was DEFENSIVE – a LOT of my first reactions are defensive these days; I wonder if I'm developing STOCKHOLM SYNDROME – responding to a story about bullying Job Centre staff with the thought "well, would that REALLY have been any different under the LAST government?" In fact, I'm sure we can all get out the DVDs that show that this sort of thing has been in currency since the last Conservatory recession. In fact, probably since the one BEFORE THAT!
And with the increasingly CONTROVERSIAL Welfare Bill still actually in Parliament (and hence all over the news), surely we can't be blamed for how the Law stands just YET – this is still HARD LABOUR's law of demanding people get back to work because of Mr Frown's PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, not the Conservatory law of, er, demanding people get back to work because of Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve's VICTORIAN VALUES.
But read on!
Because what Mr Simon has to say about MESSAGE and TONE is frightening and true. The messages that are spilling from the Conservatory part of the Coalition – aided and abetted by the frothing venom of the newspapers – are all about VICTIM BLAMING and a VILIFICATION of the NOT WELL OFF.
And so long as we continue to use the words "hard working families" we're SUPPORTING this TOO and that is WRONG with a capital WRONG.
It does not MATTER that Cap'n Clegg assures us that he means "hard-working" in a BROADER sense; it's still using the word WORKING. It implicitly says "and not working equals BAD".
There are two things to say to this:
FIRST: people who are out of work and looking for work – especially when there is NO WORK – do NOT need the extra grief of getting it in the neck all the time.
SECOND: people who are out of work and not looking for work – good luck to 'em. It is NOT the business of government to MAKE people live their lives any particular way and it is COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL of the Conservatories to laud as "bold entrepreneurs" the wunch of bankers who get government support while decrying as "scroungers" the bunch of people getting government support because they're not employed any more.
If you WANT help to get back to work then the government should give it, but if you DON'T and if you can live on sixty-seven squids a week then frankly you deserve a NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS and not more rude words from people who couldn't get elected against the worst Labour government in History!
(And since I've been saying for AGES that I would support a flat Citizen's Income if only I could make the maths add up – the problem remains the disproportional effect of Housing Benefit in a housing market that is still massively over-inflated, which is why that's proving such a botherer in the current debate about a "cap" on benefits – and I would be the hypocrite to say anything else now.)
There is very little fraud in the Benefits system, and I bet that any there is is more than cancelled out by people doing THEMSELVES out of Benefits because the whole business is too darn complicated.
And because of that, the PLAN was a GOOD plan to SIMPLIFY the benefits into one, and to change the way benefits are taken away as you get into paid work, the so-called "taper", so that working does always pay.
But at a time of massive fiscal contraction that was always going to be difficult to do FAIRLY (and I THOUGHT Mr Drunken-Swerve had got extra money from the Treasury to make the transition more PAINLESS) and doing it at the same time as trying to cut projected benefit payments is WILDLY DODGY!
(Even though that's a not-increasing-the-total-payments-by-20%-like -wot-Labour-said-they-were-planning sort of "cut" i.e. a not cutting but not increasing either sort of cut – or a letting INFLATION inflict the PAIN for you sort of cut, if you prefer.)
But we DID win the fight to make Chancer Osborne increase benefits – not just pensions, but ALL the main benefits – in line with the 5.2% Inflation in September this year when he wanted to use a lower number. Which on the one fluffy foot is a GOOD THING because it's hard enough to live on benefits as it is; but on the other fluffy foot focuses the problem on cutting NUMBERS, because you can only cut the OVERALL Benefit bill by cutting the AMOUNT that people get OR the NUMBERS of people getting it.
Which gets us to the aggressive approach to job centre staffing.
The government spends something like three quarters of a TRILLION pounds and about a THIRD of it goes on the NHS and about another third goes on the benefit bill. If you've sworn not to cut the money to the NHS, then there really is NOWHERE ELSE to cut than the benefit bill. And THEN most of the benefits are actually PENSIONS. You can't cut THEM either – even if it weren't political suicide to piss off the "grey vote", EVERYONE hopes they're going to end up a pensioner one day. The great UNSAYABLE of British politics is to suggest a freeze in pensions or freeze of the NHS, 'cos that's where all the money REALLY goes.
But if you CAN'T freeze those, well, you can see how more and more of the cuts get focused on the segment called "in work benefits" which our Conservatory (AND Hard Labour!) masters appear to think should be called "ought to be in work" benefits.
Quite simply, there is NO WAY to make this add to fair treatment.
At the moment there is BIG BLAME BATTLE going on.
Hard Labour, for obviously self-serving reasons, have been pushing HARD – and with some success – the idea that it was gambling by bankers that trashed the economy.
(Though, of course, that's only HALF the story: what the bankers were gambling ON was that millions and millions of ordinary people would carry on borrowing to fund lifestyles in excess of what they were earning, egged on by a government that was borrowing to fund a lifestyle in excess of what the whole economy was earning.)
In return, the Conservatories (and us!) have with even greater success pinned a lot of the blame for the CRASH on Hard Labour. But the blame for the ONGOING pain... that's more difficult to explain.
(Particularly since a LOT of people are feeling the "double whammy" of the economy grinding to a halt at a time when they have huge debts. The answer "well that's your fault" not being very conducive to re-election.)
Inevitably, we turn to the very human way of excusing ourselves for the pain that we are causing. By BLAMING the very people on whom the burden falls heaviest.
And then BOTH sides take a pop at the IMMIGRANTS!
It's got to STOP.
We should make the benefit system simpler, that's a given.
We should make it more generous too, but we can't get the money.
(Sure, we could talk about mansion taxes and no corporation tax cut, but we won't get them past the Conservatories and we can't cut MORE from anywhere else! And borrowing is RIGHT OUT!)
So let's talk about what we CAN do which is change the LANGUAGE.
'Cos no one is a "scrounger". They are all future entrepreneurs. Or future artists. Or future teachers.
Mr Balloon needs reminding that his BIG SOCIETY depends on people who AREN'T GETTING PAID: volunteers, or carers. Or at the root of it, your basic parents.
So as Liberal Democrats let's make it a CAMPAIGN to talk POSITIVELY about the people who aren't working because they haven't got work or aren't able to work. We can start with thinking of better words than "unemployed" or "job seekers". I've come up with the phrase "free sector" (as opposed to the "waged sector"), but you might think of something better.
And perhaps "families doing their best" instead of the wretched "hard-working families".
Yes, it might sound like political correctness, but if political correctness didn't work, we'd still be using the N word and Conservatories wouldn't talk about "death taxes".
In summary: let people get on with rebuilding their lives and they might start to rebuild the economy.
.
Today, Cap'n Clegg will be calling on Master Gideon to ACCELERATE the increases in personal allowance, giving lower and medium earners more of their money back SOONER (paid for by taking MORE tax from the better off).
This is a GOOD idea. It's giving money back to the people who are most likely to spend it, and more spending will help with the woes of a shrinking economy and falling high street sales.
But cutting taxes for people IN work DOESN'T help the growing numbers of people OUT of work. People we seem to be ATTACKING rather than HELPING.
Like many of my Liberal Democrat friends, I got an e-mail this morning from Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, was by way of a TRAILER for Cap'n Clegg's speech, telling me he is PROUD of the Coalition's commitment to increasing the tax allowance to £10,000.
I WISH I could take PRIDE in this Coalition, but I'm afraid the best I can manage is a sort of NUMBING of the GNAWING HORROR that we are barely taking the edge off the Conservatories' aggressive right-wing agenda.
This sort of thing can't convince me we're doing the RIGHT thing; merely that we're trying to do the LEAST WRONG thing.
(Well that and that the ONLY thing WORSE would have been propping up the AUTHORITARIAN LUNACY of a discredited and economically illiterate HARD LABOUR Party!)
So while you are considering Mr Vince's e-mail, can I also direct your attention to THESE THOUGHTS written by our friend Mr Simon.
Now, I confess that my first reaction was DEFENSIVE – a LOT of my first reactions are defensive these days; I wonder if I'm developing STOCKHOLM SYNDROME – responding to a story about bullying Job Centre staff with the thought "well, would that REALLY have been any different under the LAST government?" In fact, I'm sure we can all get out the DVDs that show that this sort of thing has been in currency since the last Conservatory recession. In fact, probably since the one BEFORE THAT!
And with the increasingly CONTROVERSIAL Welfare Bill still actually in Parliament (and hence all over the news), surely we can't be blamed for how the Law stands just YET – this is still HARD LABOUR's law of demanding people get back to work because of Mr Frown's PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC, not the Conservatory law of, er, demanding people get back to work because of Mr Iain Drunken-Swerve's VICTORIAN VALUES.
But read on!
Because what Mr Simon has to say about MESSAGE and TONE is frightening and true. The messages that are spilling from the Conservatory part of the Coalition – aided and abetted by the frothing venom of the newspapers – are all about VICTIM BLAMING and a VILIFICATION of the NOT WELL OFF.
And so long as we continue to use the words "hard working families" we're SUPPORTING this TOO and that is WRONG with a capital WRONG.
It does not MATTER that Cap'n Clegg assures us that he means "hard-working" in a BROADER sense; it's still using the word WORKING. It implicitly says "and not working equals BAD".
There are two things to say to this:
FIRST: people who are out of work and looking for work – especially when there is NO WORK – do NOT need the extra grief of getting it in the neck all the time.
SECOND: people who are out of work and not looking for work – good luck to 'em. It is NOT the business of government to MAKE people live their lives any particular way and it is COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL of the Conservatories to laud as "bold entrepreneurs" the wunch of bankers who get government support while decrying as "scroungers" the bunch of people getting government support because they're not employed any more.
If you WANT help to get back to work then the government should give it, but if you DON'T and if you can live on sixty-seven squids a week then frankly you deserve a NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS and not more rude words from people who couldn't get elected against the worst Labour government in History!
(And since I've been saying for AGES that I would support a flat Citizen's Income if only I could make the maths add up – the problem remains the disproportional effect of Housing Benefit in a housing market that is still massively over-inflated, which is why that's proving such a botherer in the current debate about a "cap" on benefits – and I would be the hypocrite to say anything else now.)
There is very little fraud in the Benefits system, and I bet that any there is is more than cancelled out by people doing THEMSELVES out of Benefits because the whole business is too darn complicated.
And because of that, the PLAN was a GOOD plan to SIMPLIFY the benefits into one, and to change the way benefits are taken away as you get into paid work, the so-called "taper", so that working does always pay.
But at a time of massive fiscal contraction that was always going to be difficult to do FAIRLY (and I THOUGHT Mr Drunken-Swerve had got extra money from the Treasury to make the transition more PAINLESS) and doing it at the same time as trying to cut projected benefit payments is WILDLY DODGY!
(Even though that's a not-increasing-the-total-payments-by-20%-like -wot-Labour-said-they-were-planning sort of "cut" i.e. a not cutting but not increasing either sort of cut – or a letting INFLATION inflict the PAIN for you sort of cut, if you prefer.)
But we DID win the fight to make Chancer Osborne increase benefits – not just pensions, but ALL the main benefits – in line with the 5.2% Inflation in September this year when he wanted to use a lower number. Which on the one fluffy foot is a GOOD THING because it's hard enough to live on benefits as it is; but on the other fluffy foot focuses the problem on cutting NUMBERS, because you can only cut the OVERALL Benefit bill by cutting the AMOUNT that people get OR the NUMBERS of people getting it.
Which gets us to the aggressive approach to job centre staffing.
The government spends something like three quarters of a TRILLION pounds and about a THIRD of it goes on the NHS and about another third goes on the benefit bill. If you've sworn not to cut the money to the NHS, then there really is NOWHERE ELSE to cut than the benefit bill. And THEN most of the benefits are actually PENSIONS. You can't cut THEM either – even if it weren't political suicide to piss off the "grey vote", EVERYONE hopes they're going to end up a pensioner one day. The great UNSAYABLE of British politics is to suggest a freeze in pensions or freeze of the NHS, 'cos that's where all the money REALLY goes.
But if you CAN'T freeze those, well, you can see how more and more of the cuts get focused on the segment called "in work benefits" which our Conservatory (AND Hard Labour!) masters appear to think should be called "ought to be in work" benefits.
Quite simply, there is NO WAY to make this add to fair treatment.
At the moment there is BIG BLAME BATTLE going on.
Hard Labour, for obviously self-serving reasons, have been pushing HARD – and with some success – the idea that it was gambling by bankers that trashed the economy.
(Though, of course, that's only HALF the story: what the bankers were gambling ON was that millions and millions of ordinary people would carry on borrowing to fund lifestyles in excess of what they were earning, egged on by a government that was borrowing to fund a lifestyle in excess of what the whole economy was earning.)
In return, the Conservatories (and us!) have with even greater success pinned a lot of the blame for the CRASH on Hard Labour. But the blame for the ONGOING pain... that's more difficult to explain.
(Particularly since a LOT of people are feeling the "double whammy" of the economy grinding to a halt at a time when they have huge debts. The answer "well that's your fault" not being very conducive to re-election.)
Inevitably, we turn to the very human way of excusing ourselves for the pain that we are causing. By BLAMING the very people on whom the burden falls heaviest.
And then BOTH sides take a pop at the IMMIGRANTS!
It's got to STOP.
We should make the benefit system simpler, that's a given.
We should make it more generous too, but we can't get the money.
(Sure, we could talk about mansion taxes and no corporation tax cut, but we won't get them past the Conservatories and we can't cut MORE from anywhere else! And borrowing is RIGHT OUT!)
So let's talk about what we CAN do which is change the LANGUAGE.
'Cos no one is a "scrounger". They are all future entrepreneurs. Or future artists. Or future teachers.
Mr Balloon needs reminding that his BIG SOCIETY depends on people who AREN'T GETTING PAID: volunteers, or carers. Or at the root of it, your basic parents.
So as Liberal Democrats let's make it a CAMPAIGN to talk POSITIVELY about the people who aren't working because they haven't got work or aren't able to work. We can start with thinking of better words than "unemployed" or "job seekers". I've come up with the phrase "free sector" (as opposed to the "waged sector"), but you might think of something better.
And perhaps "families doing their best" instead of the wretched "hard-working families".
Yes, it might sound like political correctness, but if political correctness didn't work, we'd still be using the N word and Conservatories wouldn't talk about "death taxes".
In summary: let people get on with rebuilding their lives and they might start to rebuild the economy.
.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Day 3643: Some GOOD News For Mr Dr Vince
Wednesday:
We all know that Mr Dr Vince "the power" Cable (currently slightly shorted) is a fan of the humble BEE.
In fact, Mr Dr Vince is a BIT like a Honey Bee himself, isn't he: a big golden thing that bumbles around making nice things and pollinating British industry. Not to mention the special dance. And, like the honey bee, plagued by irritating mites that are spitting poison.
Yes, it's the Tell-lies-o-graph continuing its vendetta against the Liberal Democrats with SHOCK REVELATIONS that Mr Vince is AGAINST A MASSIVE VESTED INTEREST and that other Lib Dems OPPOSE SCRAPPING BENEFITS.
Tomorrow, presumably, they lead on the news that Captain Clegg met Mr the Pope earlier this year and believes him to be a Catholic!
(And as for what Mr Paul Burblings could tell you about what he knows about BEARS and WOODS, well, let's just hope the Sunday edition is sufficiently… absorbent!)
Auntie Caron has more on how Mr Dr Vince behaves like a GENTLEMAN and the Tell-lies-o-graph is doing real DAMAGE to politics; while Auntie Jennie has a more PITHY response to the British meeja's recent choices for setting the agenda.
But what I GENUINELY do not understand is why we are supposed to be in ANY WAY "embarrassed" about this.
If ANYONE should be "embarrassed" it should be the Tell-lies-o-graph for getting CAUGHT out in a COVER UP, when their coverage suspiciously failed to mention the whole "going to war" against the Tell-lies-o-graph's commercial rival Mr Roger Stavro Moredick.
And if anyone ELSE should be "embarrassed" it's Hard Labour for leaping to the defence of a foreign plutocrat who already has way too much power (and pays far too little tax) in this country. I mean, nice to see that Hard Labour as still on the side of the ordinary billionaire in the street, isn't it.
Look, can someone explain to me how Liberal Democrat ministers discussing their honestly held opinions is "indiscrete" when Mr Dale Winton gabbing on the The Today Programme about the texts he's received from Tory's whinging that "it's not fair" are NOT indiscrete?
Isn't it COMPLETELY BACKWARDS that it's fine to tittle-tattle to a notorious GOSSIP behind people's backs, but actually come out and SAY what you believe, oh, the horses are frightened now!
And to those Conservatories who are spitting and hissing that a Conservatory minister would have been fired for such "indiscretions": HELLO! Have you already forgotten the DEFENCE SECRETARY, "fantastic" Dr Fox, blatantly leaking and briefing against his own government during the highly sensitive defence review? Special treatment for Liberal Democrats my BIG FLUFFY BEHIND; where's the public dressing down for Foxy, then?
It just seems very odd to me that we elect ministers to make DECISIONS on our behalf on the basis of their OPINIONS being ones we generally agree with, and then quite bizarrely expect them to exercise NEUTRALITY when it comes to MAKING those decisions.
Do you ask the waiter to recommend what's GOOD and then complain when she picks something from her own restaurant's MENU? Do you think she should be making a NEUTRAL decision and considering the benefits of the takeaway next door of the Pizza Tonight down the street, even though you've made some sort of choice to come and sit down in HER restaurant?
Yes, yes, I get it that where you want a decision made in a "quasi-judicial" way, you don't want the judge to start the case by saying: "good lord, this one's OBVIOUSLY a wrong 'um; I shall be directing the jury to find him GUILTY and am looking forward to extracting a sentence of the MAXIMUM VENGEANCE allowed by the penal code."
But Ministers are THERE to make POLICY; if you want someone to take impartial quasi-judicial decisions… get a JUDGE!
Okay, for those who insist on "playing" politics like a Game of Monopoly where all the squares are "Westminster", then the Liberal Democrats are "damaged" by this; Mr Dr Vince has set back his ability to do good things because his remarks are a little too VAIN for his own good.
But each of these "leaks" shows a Liberal Democrat considering the interests of the country: is it in the countries interest to reduce participation in the media? How will people cope with the housing benefit cut? Is the change to child benefit fair and considered? Was the tuition fees debacle a train wreck?
I can TOTALLY agree with the decision made by each and every Liberal Democrat quoted.
The decisions and compromises that our ministers have had to make have been painful and far from perfect, but they CAN say with confidence that they were made for the BEST POSSIBLE REASONS, and with the interest of the Country put first.
So this is the message to the wingnuts on the right of the Conservatory Party and the Colonel Blitherington Bufftons of the Tell-lies-o-graph: you are NOT going to get a Right Wing government if you bring down the Coalition. Look at the opinion polls you morons: if there's an election, Hard Labour will WIN. And the economic recovery is TOO FRAGILE to allow that to happen.
I can hardly believe I am saying this but: Conservatories, STOP PUTTING YOUR OWN PETTY INTERESTS AHEAD OF THOSE OF YOUR COUNTRY!
And the GOOD NEWS for Mr Dr Vince is that scientists think that they have discovered a CURE for his beloved Honey Bees.
Let us hope that we can find a CURE to clean some of the POISON out of our POLITICS too.
.
We all know that Mr Dr Vince "the power" Cable (currently slightly shorted) is a fan of the humble BEE.
In fact, Mr Dr Vince is a BIT like a Honey Bee himself, isn't he: a big golden thing that bumbles around making nice things and pollinating British industry. Not to mention the special dance. And, like the honey bee, plagued by irritating mites that are spitting poison.
Yes, it's the Tell-lies-o-graph continuing its vendetta against the Liberal Democrats with SHOCK REVELATIONS that Mr Vince is AGAINST A MASSIVE VESTED INTEREST and that other Lib Dems OPPOSE SCRAPPING BENEFITS.
Tomorrow, presumably, they lead on the news that Captain Clegg met Mr the Pope earlier this year and believes him to be a Catholic!
(And as for what Mr Paul Burblings could tell you about what he knows about BEARS and WOODS, well, let's just hope the Sunday edition is sufficiently… absorbent!)
Auntie Caron has more on how Mr Dr Vince behaves like a GENTLEMAN and the Tell-lies-o-graph is doing real DAMAGE to politics; while Auntie Jennie has a more PITHY response to the British meeja's recent choices for setting the agenda.
But what I GENUINELY do not understand is why we are supposed to be in ANY WAY "embarrassed" about this.
If ANYONE should be "embarrassed" it should be the Tell-lies-o-graph for getting CAUGHT out in a COVER UP, when their coverage suspiciously failed to mention the whole "going to war" against the Tell-lies-o-graph's commercial rival Mr Roger Stavro Moredick.
And if anyone ELSE should be "embarrassed" it's Hard Labour for leaping to the defence of a foreign plutocrat who already has way too much power (and pays far too little tax) in this country. I mean, nice to see that Hard Labour as still on the side of the ordinary billionaire in the street, isn't it.
Look, can someone explain to me how Liberal Democrat ministers discussing their honestly held opinions is "indiscrete" when Mr Dale Winton gabbing on the The Today Programme about the texts he's received from Tory's whinging that "it's not fair" are NOT indiscrete?
Isn't it COMPLETELY BACKWARDS that it's fine to tittle-tattle to a notorious GOSSIP behind people's backs, but actually come out and SAY what you believe, oh, the horses are frightened now!
And to those Conservatories who are spitting and hissing that a Conservatory minister would have been fired for such "indiscretions": HELLO! Have you already forgotten the DEFENCE SECRETARY, "fantastic" Dr Fox, blatantly leaking and briefing against his own government during the highly sensitive defence review? Special treatment for Liberal Democrats my BIG FLUFFY BEHIND; where's the public dressing down for Foxy, then?
It just seems very odd to me that we elect ministers to make DECISIONS on our behalf on the basis of their OPINIONS being ones we generally agree with, and then quite bizarrely expect them to exercise NEUTRALITY when it comes to MAKING those decisions.
Do you ask the waiter to recommend what's GOOD and then complain when she picks something from her own restaurant's MENU? Do you think she should be making a NEUTRAL decision and considering the benefits of the takeaway next door of the Pizza Tonight down the street, even though you've made some sort of choice to come and sit down in HER restaurant?
Yes, yes, I get it that where you want a decision made in a "quasi-judicial" way, you don't want the judge to start the case by saying: "good lord, this one's OBVIOUSLY a wrong 'um; I shall be directing the jury to find him GUILTY and am looking forward to extracting a sentence of the MAXIMUM VENGEANCE allowed by the penal code."
But Ministers are THERE to make POLICY; if you want someone to take impartial quasi-judicial decisions… get a JUDGE!
Okay, for those who insist on "playing" politics like a Game of Monopoly where all the squares are "Westminster", then the Liberal Democrats are "damaged" by this; Mr Dr Vince has set back his ability to do good things because his remarks are a little too VAIN for his own good.
But each of these "leaks" shows a Liberal Democrat considering the interests of the country: is it in the countries interest to reduce participation in the media? How will people cope with the housing benefit cut? Is the change to child benefit fair and considered? Was the tuition fees debacle a train wreck?
I can TOTALLY agree with the decision made by each and every Liberal Democrat quoted.
The decisions and compromises that our ministers have had to make have been painful and far from perfect, but they CAN say with confidence that they were made for the BEST POSSIBLE REASONS, and with the interest of the Country put first.
So this is the message to the wingnuts on the right of the Conservatory Party and the Colonel Blitherington Bufftons of the Tell-lies-o-graph: you are NOT going to get a Right Wing government if you bring down the Coalition. Look at the opinion polls you morons: if there's an election, Hard Labour will WIN. And the economic recovery is TOO FRAGILE to allow that to happen.
I can hardly believe I am saying this but: Conservatories, STOP PUTTING YOUR OWN PETTY INTERESTS AHEAD OF THOSE OF YOUR COUNTRY!
And the GOOD NEWS for Mr Dr Vince is that scientists think that they have discovered a CURE for his beloved Honey Bees.
Let us hope that we can find a CURE to clean some of the POISON out of our POLITICS too.
.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Day 3375: Take a Chancellor On Me!
Monday:
The world-weary member of the Government, knowing that they're going to lose and just going through the motions; the smug Opposition candidate, so certain that they are entitled to walk into office and so clearly demonstrating their unfitness to do so, with all the same old, tired, prepared lines that just ring false; and the Liberal Democrat who's a star.
Yes, it's the 1997 Stevenage Election Debate between doomed Conservatory Mr Tim Wood; power-dressing Hard Labour wannabe Mrs Barbie wife-of-the-millionaire-author-Ken Follet; and Daddy Alex!
Well, they do say History repeats itself, first in the Grauniad, then on Channel Four.
Okay, okay, it was "Ask the Chancellors" on the telly, staring Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, Sooty, Mr Frown's Glove Puppet, and someone who claims that Mr Balloon knows him.
That "someone" turned out to be Master Gideon "I've seen people do being the Chancellor so I could do it" Oboe – so called because he is wooden and windy. Presumably the young millionaire baronet would be confident that we could show him some footage of parachuting and then push him out of a plane!
In fact, most of the Conservatory coverage following the debate has been along the lines of: "Master Oboe did not actually come on stage and drop his trousers – what a magnificent triumph this is!"
Is it just me, or can we not aspire to MORE from the Shadow Chancer than passing the "barely competent" test?
After all, what kind of person can declare their "top priority" for Government to be a policy THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE YESTERDAY?
Remarking on Master Oboe's unexpected conversion to cutting taxes instead of reducing the deficit, Mr Michael Thick on the Newsnight Show said what a TERRIBLE SHAME it was that two big economic developments had occurred on the same day – like it was some kind of FLUKE that the Conservatories JUST HAPPENED to make this U-Turn mere hours before he was to go up against the grown-ups.
As Miss Piggy says in "The Great Muppet Caper" when the very transport she requires just happens to literally fall off the back of a passing lorry:
Not that "not raising your taxes in a year paid for by cuts now" REALLY compares to "an immediate £700 a year back, NOW when the economy needs it to get growth started again".
(And I know it's a fiddly detail, but it's a further COMPLICATING of the tax system because he'd STILL be introducing an extra 1p on NI (EACH for employer and employee) on incomes above a certain level, effectively making another NI band. Remember: the SIMPLER the tax system, the FAIRER the tax system, as it is EASIER for the taxpayer to UNDERSTAND.)
Pulling this "rabbit-out-of-the-hat" trick of an announcement is yet another in a series of WILD and UNPREDICTABLE swings in Conservatory economic policy: first it's the age of austerity, then they're guaranteeing to match Hard Labour spending; first cuts are going to have to be faster and deeper, then they're not; last week, efficiency savings are fiction, this week they're the pot of pixie gold at the end of Mr Oboe's rainbow; cut the deficit first; no, cut taxes first!
It's becoming HORRIBLY OBVIOUS that the Conservatories DON'T HAVE ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AT ALL!
They're just desperately rummaging around for anything that they think might look good on an airbrushed poster!
Last week, someone – I think it might have been Mr Paxo on the Newsnight Show after the budget – asked why, after the implosion of the Credit Crunch and the Longest Recession in History™, are Hard Labour warming up to fight on the economy?
Well dur!
If they DON'T, then they SURRENDER that territory to the Conservatories!
What is surely far more ASTONISHING, is just how UNPREPARED the Conservatories are to fight them there.
Remember, this is a Hard Labour Government that has just delivered a budget including such gems as saving a half a billion pounds by people in the NHS being less poorly. Presumably, this means Lord Blairimort's return to front-line British politics is to be accompanied by him curing the lame and dying through the laying on of hands (fee: negotiable).
Because while Mr Oboe may be groping for the first clue about how to run the economy, Chancellor Sooty seems to have given up even trying.
You could see it in his eyes, really. The despair.
Take this business about the "Death Tax".
The Conservatories are WIDE OPEN here. "Death Tax", they say over and over. "Death Tax, Death Tax, Death Tax!" And yet, the Conservatories themselves have almost the same policy – they AGREE about charging for care for the elderly; they ONLY disagree about TIMING!
The policy that they label a "Death Tax" is the possibility that Hard Labour might – just might – increase care for the elderly paid for by introducing a twenty thousand pound exit charge. Yup, you get free care till you die, at which point you are charged for it.
The Conservatories policy is the ENTIRELY different policy of charging you eight thousand pounds on retirement. Yes, you pay UP FRONT. Even if you DON'T end up needing care in your old age. The Conservatories call this "Insurance" but if they're going to keep saying "Death Tax" then I'm going to have to start calling it the "Good as Dead Tax"!
Conservatory Shadow Death Secretary, Mr Angela Lansbury, explained it all on the The Today Programme:
So, look, to even just barely make SENSE the Conservatories would have to chare TEN thousand pounds each, not EIGHT. But TEN thousand is a number which sounds too much like the Hard Labour charge of TWENTY thousand and would reveal the SIMILARITY.
Yes, Hard Labour and Conservatory Parties in practically indistinguishable complete non-shock!
But does Chancellor Sooty point out that Master Gideon is being a noisome TWIT, copycatting the tactics of American Replutocrats by putting a SCARY NAME on a policy that he barely disagrees with just to FRIGHTEN voters into voting Conservatory when they'll end up with much the same?
No!
The exhausted glove puppet lets slip one of his trade mark confessions and admits that Hard Labour are going to chicken out of the policy because they're too scared to take on the snivelling little shouty-boy's half-baked argument!
It is really too much effort to crush him like one of his own pimples? For this end-of-the-line Hard Labour Government, apparently so.
He just waits to hand over to BUGGINS TURN in the knowledge that not a lot will change and no doubt he'll get a very nice retirement, perhaps on the board of one of these Banks Wot We Own.
At this point, do I REALLY need to point out just WHY Mr Dr Vince was universally seen as winning the debate?
(Oh yes, UNIVERSALLY – do you think those Conservatories would be SQUEALING about "Lib Dems stuffing the audience" if they didn't know, KNOW that our guy came in WAY ahead?)
That phrase of Mr Vince's, "Pinstripe Scargills", PERFECTLY sums up how Hard Labour and the Conservatories like the pigs and the farmers at the end of Animal Farm, have become indistinguishable.
As Mr Vince said himself in his closing remarks: the Liberal Democrats are DIFFERENT, not beholden to EITHER the Pinstipe vested interst in the City, NOR the Scargill vested interest in the Unions.
"We believe in a change of Government, but a REAL CHANGE!"
You CAN do better than Mr Frown's puppet or Mr Balloon's weakest link. You CAN have Mr Vince as Chancellor. You just have to VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!
.
The world-weary member of the Government, knowing that they're going to lose and just going through the motions; the smug Opposition candidate, so certain that they are entitled to walk into office and so clearly demonstrating their unfitness to do so, with all the same old, tired, prepared lines that just ring false; and the Liberal Democrat who's a star.
Yes, it's the 1997 Stevenage Election Debate between doomed Conservatory Mr Tim Wood; power-dressing Hard Labour wannabe Mrs Barbie wife-of-the-millionaire-author-Ken Follet; and Daddy Alex!
Well, they do say History repeats itself, first in the Grauniad, then on Channel Four.
Okay, okay, it was "Ask the Chancellors" on the telly, staring Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, Sooty, Mr Frown's Glove Puppet, and someone who claims that Mr Balloon knows him.
That "someone" turned out to be Master Gideon "I've seen people do being the Chancellor so I could do it" Oboe – so called because he is wooden and windy. Presumably the young millionaire baronet would be confident that we could show him some footage of parachuting and then push him out of a plane!
In fact, most of the Conservatory coverage following the debate has been along the lines of: "Master Oboe did not actually come on stage and drop his trousers – what a magnificent triumph this is!"
Is it just me, or can we not aspire to MORE from the Shadow Chancer than passing the "barely competent" test?
After all, what kind of person can declare their "top priority" for Government to be a policy THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE YESTERDAY?
Remarking on Master Oboe's unexpected conversion to cutting taxes instead of reducing the deficit, Mr Michael Thick on the Newsnight Show said what a TERRIBLE SHAME it was that two big economic developments had occurred on the same day – like it was some kind of FLUKE that the Conservatories JUST HAPPENED to make this U-Turn mere hours before he was to go up against the grown-ups.
As Miss Piggy says in "The Great Muppet Caper" when the very transport she requires just happens to literally fall off the back of a passing lorry:
"What an UNBELIEVABLE coincidence!"Quite obviously, Master Gideon had been prompted to make this announcement to make it LOOK like the Conservatories had something up their sleeve to reply to the Liberal Democrat policy of cutting taxes for millions by raising the basic allowance to £10,000.
Not that "not raising your taxes in a year paid for by cuts now" REALLY compares to "an immediate £700 a year back, NOW when the economy needs it to get growth started again".
(And I know it's a fiddly detail, but it's a further COMPLICATING of the tax system because he'd STILL be introducing an extra 1p on NI (EACH for employer and employee) on incomes above a certain level, effectively making another NI band. Remember: the SIMPLER the tax system, the FAIRER the tax system, as it is EASIER for the taxpayer to UNDERSTAND.)
Pulling this "rabbit-out-of-the-hat" trick of an announcement is yet another in a series of WILD and UNPREDICTABLE swings in Conservatory economic policy: first it's the age of austerity, then they're guaranteeing to match Hard Labour spending; first cuts are going to have to be faster and deeper, then they're not; last week, efficiency savings are fiction, this week they're the pot of pixie gold at the end of Mr Oboe's rainbow; cut the deficit first; no, cut taxes first!
It's becoming HORRIBLY OBVIOUS that the Conservatories DON'T HAVE ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AT ALL!
They're just desperately rummaging around for anything that they think might look good on an airbrushed poster!
Last week, someone – I think it might have been Mr Paxo on the Newsnight Show after the budget – asked why, after the implosion of the Credit Crunch and the Longest Recession in History™, are Hard Labour warming up to fight on the economy?
Well dur!
If they DON'T, then they SURRENDER that territory to the Conservatories!
What is surely far more ASTONISHING, is just how UNPREPARED the Conservatories are to fight them there.
Remember, this is a Hard Labour Government that has just delivered a budget including such gems as saving a half a billion pounds by people in the NHS being less poorly. Presumably, this means Lord Blairimort's return to front-line British politics is to be accompanied by him curing the lame and dying through the laying on of hands (fee: negotiable).
Because while Mr Oboe may be groping for the first clue about how to run the economy, Chancellor Sooty seems to have given up even trying.
You could see it in his eyes, really. The despair.
Take this business about the "Death Tax".
The Conservatories are WIDE OPEN here. "Death Tax", they say over and over. "Death Tax, Death Tax, Death Tax!" And yet, the Conservatories themselves have almost the same policy – they AGREE about charging for care for the elderly; they ONLY disagree about TIMING!
The policy that they label a "Death Tax" is the possibility that Hard Labour might – just might – increase care for the elderly paid for by introducing a twenty thousand pound exit charge. Yup, you get free care till you die, at which point you are charged for it.
The Conservatories policy is the ENTIRELY different policy of charging you eight thousand pounds on retirement. Yes, you pay UP FRONT. Even if you DON'T end up needing care in your old age. The Conservatories call this "Insurance" but if they're going to keep saying "Death Tax" then I'm going to have to start calling it the "Good as Dead Tax"!
Conservatory Shadow Death Secretary, Mr Angela Lansbury, explained it all on the The Today Programme:
"one in five will need residential care in old age, costing on average fifty thousand pounds over two years. So, so long as all five in five pay their eight thousand then that'll pay for itself! Hang on five times eight only makes forty… let's just remember that Hard Labour want to tax DEATH!"
So, look, to even just barely make SENSE the Conservatories would have to chare TEN thousand pounds each, not EIGHT. But TEN thousand is a number which sounds too much like the Hard Labour charge of TWENTY thousand and would reveal the SIMILARITY.
Yes, Hard Labour and Conservatory Parties in practically indistinguishable complete non-shock!
But does Chancellor Sooty point out that Master Gideon is being a noisome TWIT, copycatting the tactics of American Replutocrats by putting a SCARY NAME on a policy that he barely disagrees with just to FRIGHTEN voters into voting Conservatory when they'll end up with much the same?
No!
The exhausted glove puppet lets slip one of his trade mark confessions and admits that Hard Labour are going to chicken out of the policy because they're too scared to take on the snivelling little shouty-boy's half-baked argument!
It is really too much effort to crush him like one of his own pimples? For this end-of-the-line Hard Labour Government, apparently so.
He just waits to hand over to BUGGINS TURN in the knowledge that not a lot will change and no doubt he'll get a very nice retirement, perhaps on the board of one of these Banks Wot We Own.
At this point, do I REALLY need to point out just WHY Mr Dr Vince was universally seen as winning the debate?
(Oh yes, UNIVERSALLY – do you think those Conservatories would be SQUEALING about "Lib Dems stuffing the audience" if they didn't know, KNOW that our guy came in WAY ahead?)
That phrase of Mr Vince's, "Pinstripe Scargills", PERFECTLY sums up how Hard Labour and the Conservatories like the pigs and the farmers at the end of Animal Farm, have become indistinguishable.
As Mr Vince said himself in his closing remarks: the Liberal Democrats are DIFFERENT, not beholden to EITHER the Pinstipe vested interst in the City, NOR the Scargill vested interest in the Unions.
"We believe in a change of Government, but a REAL CHANGE!"
You CAN do better than Mr Frown's puppet or Mr Balloon's weakest link. You CAN have Mr Vince as Chancellor. You just have to VOTE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!
.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Day 3259: OK you bankers, I accept your resignations – if only Saint Vince were Chancellor
Thursday:
The Board of the Royal Bank-that-we-own of Scotland are behaving like a flock of Sir Desmond Glazebrooks, the incompetent but wily banker of "Yes, Monster" and "Yes, Prime Monster" fame, who would insist treating all the good chaps like good chaps because it wouldn't be being a good chap to do otherwise.
"We HAVE to give out a BILLION-and-a-HALF QUID in bonuses or the good chaps will leave," they whine. "And if you won't let us, we'll all QUIT!"
Well, HURRAY for Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, Sage of Twickenham, calling their bluff: ok, he says, quit then!
Listen to Saint Vince on the The Today Programme. And yah boo to anyone who says politicians don't answer the question he answers each one straight.
Now, let's see if Mr Frown will "save the world" or save the bankers' bonuses.
The lovely Caron muses that the bankers should be more than a bit grateful that they've still GOT jobs rather than whinging that they are not being overpaid enough.
And even CGI (Charlotte Gore, Independent) is up for calling the bankers' bluff… on the grounds that they're venal Government quislings, naturally.
.
The Board of the Royal Bank-that-we-own of Scotland are behaving like a flock of Sir Desmond Glazebrooks, the incompetent but wily banker of "Yes, Monster" and "Yes, Prime Monster" fame, who would insist treating all the good chaps like good chaps because it wouldn't be being a good chap to do otherwise.
"We HAVE to give out a BILLION-and-a-HALF QUID in bonuses or the good chaps will leave," they whine. "And if you won't let us, we'll all QUIT!"
Well, HURRAY for Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable, Sage of Twickenham, calling their bluff: ok, he says, quit then!
Listen to Saint Vince on the The Today Programme. And yah boo to anyone who says politicians don't answer the question he answers each one straight.
TODAY: If you were Chancellor what would you do?Mr Dr Vince is, of course, RIGHT. It is about time someone called these ghastly bankers' bluff and told them that THEY have got to contribute something to cleaning up the MESS that THEY made.
St Vince: I'd accept their resignations and be very clear that this bank has to operate in the interest of the public.
TODAY: But what about the minority investors?
St Vince: Well, what about the MAJORITY investors – i.e. the Great British public who own 80% of this bank and have put in billions and billions of pounds. The minority shareholders were largely big institutions who sat passively by and allowed the crisis to develop.
TODAY: Won't the board argue that what they're doing IS in the public interest, making a profit to get the public's money back?
St Vince: Of course the taxpayer should get their money back but that's not the only objective. There's also restoring the flow of credit to small and medium sized British businesses who are still finding it very difficult to obtain credit.
TODAY: If they don't get "the going rate" won't the good staff will go to Goldman Sacked (to do "god's work", one guesses)
St Vince: Let's not forget the five-thousand people in the City earning over a million are all ultimately guaranteed by the taxpayer, the Government has effectively said they'll underwrite them. This is not "normal commercial business" in the sense most that people would understand it.
TODAY: Lord Mandeltine says that the Government is asking for restraint from the bankers but that RBS won't be singled out.
St Vince: Well, Darth Sideious, excuse me, Lord Mandeltine has got to be firm. The bank is effectively blackmailing the Government by saying do what we say or we will walk. The Government has put in billions of taxpayers' money and has got to exert some discipline.
Now, let's see if Mr Frown will "save the world" or save the bankers' bonuses.
PS:
Mr Stephen of the Glenn points out that that the Scottish Bankers are like the Scottish Nasties in their threat to toss their toys out of the pram if they can't spend public money their own way. He also shows that the total bankers at the Bank-that-we-own want to take a QUARTER of the profits for their own wallets. Not so much repaying the public investment there then.The lovely Caron muses that the bankers should be more than a bit grateful that they've still GOT jobs rather than whinging that they are not being overpaid enough.
And even CGI (Charlotte Gore, Independent) is up for calling the bankers' bluff… on the grounds that they're venal Government quislings, naturally.
.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Day 3210: The Vince and the Paupers
Thursday:
At the risk of incurring Auntie Jenny's FANGIRL-ENVY, I've been to see Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable.
He was here in Tower Hamlets to boost the local party and particularly our excellent candidate, Mr Ajmal Masroor.
Bethnal Green, currently fiefdom of Mr Gorgeous Pussycat George, leader of the Respect-the-Leotard Party, is one of the most deprived Boroughs in the country and yet it lies directly between the glittering riches of the twin towers (of wealth) that are the City and Canary Wharf or, as Mr Professor Tolkien might probably not have put it, Minus Morals and Minus Money.
And now, young Jedi...
Mr Dr Vince explained a bit of how the economy has had a massive HEART ATTACK, and how the treatment was massive injections of medicine, or "MONEY" as it is called in banking circles.
The GOOD news is that the patient survived.
The BAD news is that there is a lasting legacy of damage done.
For a start, there's the legacy of rising unemployment, expected to top three million and particularly impacting young people and ethnic minority men.
Then there's the legacy of bad banking, with good businesses unable to get credit because the Smaugs in the City want to sit on their hordes not invest them: for example, the RBS or Royal Bank that WE Saved, is actually lending LESS in the last few months.
Asked how it is that collapsed banks have the wherewithal to pay out bonuses, he said that they shouldn't be. These bonuses are just jarring. Clearly there are two different types of banks: the plain and simple cases like Northern Rock, like HBoS, where the taxpayer has stepped in and rescued them. Clearly they shouldn't be in any position to do this. But then there are also the other sort of banks, including Goldperson Sachs who have caused such a fuss this week, who have not been saved DIRECTLY but have nevertheless benefitted SUBSTANTIALLY at the taxpayer's expense: from the perception that – post Lehman Brothers – no matter how badly they fluff up, Governments will be forced to bail them out rather than risk another atom bomb type blast wiping out what's left of the world economy; to all the money they are making by brokering and marketing the very I.O.U's that the Government has had to issue to pay for rescuing the OTHER banks. It's just WRONG that they be allowed to operate on this basis.
"The banks know they can't fail so they take excessive risks," protested one member of the audience, "and then they pay bonuses based on one year's performance that reward those very risks!"
"You've correctly recognised the problem," said Mr Vince, sagely. This is the very problem that the G20 drew up new rules to address… it's just Mr Frown's Government that is being slow to do anything about it!
Which of course brings us to the legacy of wrecked government finances, with income right down and spending on benefits spiralling up, which is why it is so necessary for a proper PLAN with key objectives of preserving frontline services, the things that Government MUST do, while cutting back on the things that Government should NOT be doing which in the short term means things like not replacing Trident, but also continuing cuts like cutting benefits for people earning fifty-or-more thousand pounds and then more painful things like looking at freezing public pay.
But he also wanted to be POSITIVE, to note that even if Hard Labour have smashed the economy, there are still things we can do to rebuild, starting with an urgent programme of building much-needed social housing.
At a time when much of the building industry is actually being mothballed and leading to unemployment, there is also a chronic shortage of affordable and Council homes. Obviously, we should be bringing these two together, fixing two urgent problems at once. And many building firms have found themselves with large empty blocks of flats, costing them money to keep empty: we should be able to acquire these and take over them for social housing.
At the same time we need a focus on young people because they are being hardest hit by the recession, and we have to avoid another "lost generation", like the people failed by the Conservatories in the Nineteen-Eighties. Instead of squandering ten billion pounds on a VAT cut, most of which has just disappeared, we would have put that money into guaranteeing young people a job within ninety days.
I piped up with a question about Mayor Bojo the Clown's new above-inflation hikes in tube and bus travel for Londoners: is this DAMAGING during a recession or a NECESSARY investment?
Mr Vince admitted that there was a bit of a "torrid" time ahead for public transport: it needs a lot of money investing in it, and where is that money going to come from? We supported the principle of Congestion Charging at the time it was introduced, and we support Crossrail, so long as it stays within its budget, because it's a good project.
I think that was a qualified "yes" to "necessary investment", though I'd add that Mayor Bojo would have less of need to hike the Central Congestion Charge by 25% if he wasn't simultaneously abandoning the Western Extension.
Mr Ajmal also reminded people of the suggestion from our London Assembly members to adopt a system like they have on the continent where if you bleep your Oyster Card for ONE bus or tube journey, within a limited time if you change to another bus, or from DLR to tube or the like, you don't get charged for a SECOND journey when you've really only made the one.
The audience actually seemed quite KEEN on the idea of the "mansion tax", perhaps easy to see why when our society is becoming increasingly UNEQUAL, unequal in income AND unequal in wealth. One of our key proposals, Mr Vince reminded everyone, is to lift a great many people out of tax, and to cut taxes for all lower and middle income earners, by shifting the burden of tax to those who can afford to pay more. At the moment, even a relatively modest family home can cost seven or eight hundred thousand pounds but will pay the SAME in Council Tax – tax band H – as a thirty MILLION pound mansion. When most countries, and even American cities like Washington and New York, have a property tax of this kind, so it's not exactly cruel and unusual punishment.
"Should you have told the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, though?" someone asked.
"Ah, well, yes it would have been desirable to have gotten my colleagues on board, and I've apologised to them for that," he admitted.
He didn't JUST want to talk about the economy, though, and he wanted to add some words about our distinctive Liberal Democrat PRINCIPLES.
Civil Liberties is central to our beliefs, and that's why we were first to oppose the I.D.iot cards, first again to stand up against ninety-day detention without trial, and first to oppose the abuses of anti-terrorism powers.
He told us a little story: in his constituency of Twickenham, aircraft noise from Heathrow is a big issue. So Mr Vince recently went with a party of entirely-respectable middle-aged persons to throw PAPER PLANES at the Ministry of Transport as a protest. But before they could launch these "missiles", a police inspector turned up and told them they had five minutes to clear the street before he invoked the Terrorism Act!
We're also INTERNATIONALIST by nature; we opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was ILLEGAL under international law. Now there is Afghanistan. At the time of the attack to deal with the Taliban government and their support for Al Qaeda terrorists, we AGREED with that necessary, proportionate and finite action. But now we have to question whether there is any proper PLAN to what we are still doing there and, if there is, how we are supposed to achieve it, and if our soldiers have the equipment and supplies they need to do what we ask. Because the alternative is that we are now trapped in an open-ended commitment to support a corrupt undemocratic government that is in power on the back of a fixed election.
One thing that was interesting was that the audience, a relatively even mix of people from different ethnic backgrounds, were more concerned about Iraq… and IRAN… than they were about MPs' expenses; the one question on the expenses scandal seemed to draw little interest (though there was laughter in response to Mr Vince's remark: "I saw I was on the list of 'angels'; looking at who else was on the list, I thought 'the criteria for admission to heaven have been relaxed a bit!'."), whereas there was much discussion of human rights abuses from Afghanistan to Burma, from China to Palestine.
The third principle Mr Vince chose to emphasis was ANTI-RACISM. He remembered his late wife, who was coincidentally Asian, and how at the time of Mr Enoch Powell's speeches she had to stay off the streets for safety. He also remembered that, even though he had been in the Labour Party at the time, it was always the LIBERALS who stood up for minority rights. We've made a lot of progress since then, but prejudice still remains and that's why we see the rise of the British Nasty Party and their ilk. Liberal Democrats believe that it is our DUTY to take them on, and where we take them on – like we did this year in Burnley – we BEAT them.
We finished with a question about why he ruled himself out of the leadership after Sir Mr the Merciless resigned.
"Well," he said, "I didn't rule myself out; I was ruled out. My colleagues said that they felt, after what happened to Ming, that they wanted someone from a new generation, and I might have thought that I was doing a perfectly good job running the party, but that was the choice that was made."
I think we all know that for all that he was VERY good as acting leader, he did have that magical aura of protection in the word "acting" that would have vanished quickly if he'd gone from acting to actual. But I thought that that was interesting because I had not heard the story told that way before. A tinge of regret? Perhaps.
.
At the risk of incurring Auntie Jenny's FANGIRL-ENVY, I've been to see Mr Dr Vince "the Power" Cable.
He was here in Tower Hamlets to boost the local party and particularly our excellent candidate, Mr Ajmal Masroor.
Bethnal Green, currently fiefdom of Mr Gorgeous Pussycat George, leader of the Respect-the-Leotard Party, is one of the most deprived Boroughs in the country and yet it lies directly between the glittering riches of the twin towers (of wealth) that are the City and Canary Wharf or, as Mr Professor Tolkien might probably not have put it, Minus Morals and Minus Money.
And now, young Jedi...
Mr Dr Vince explained a bit of how the economy has had a massive HEART ATTACK, and how the treatment was massive injections of medicine, or "MONEY" as it is called in banking circles.
The GOOD news is that the patient survived.
The BAD news is that there is a lasting legacy of damage done.
For a start, there's the legacy of rising unemployment, expected to top three million and particularly impacting young people and ethnic minority men.
Then there's the legacy of bad banking, with good businesses unable to get credit because the Smaugs in the City want to sit on their hordes not invest them: for example, the RBS or Royal Bank that WE Saved, is actually lending LESS in the last few months.
Asked how it is that collapsed banks have the wherewithal to pay out bonuses, he said that they shouldn't be. These bonuses are just jarring. Clearly there are two different types of banks: the plain and simple cases like Northern Rock, like HBoS, where the taxpayer has stepped in and rescued them. Clearly they shouldn't be in any position to do this. But then there are also the other sort of banks, including Goldperson Sachs who have caused such a fuss this week, who have not been saved DIRECTLY but have nevertheless benefitted SUBSTANTIALLY at the taxpayer's expense: from the perception that – post Lehman Brothers – no matter how badly they fluff up, Governments will be forced to bail them out rather than risk another atom bomb type blast wiping out what's left of the world economy; to all the money they are making by brokering and marketing the very I.O.U's that the Government has had to issue to pay for rescuing the OTHER banks. It's just WRONG that they be allowed to operate on this basis.
"The banks know they can't fail so they take excessive risks," protested one member of the audience, "and then they pay bonuses based on one year's performance that reward those very risks!"
"You've correctly recognised the problem," said Mr Vince, sagely. This is the very problem that the G20 drew up new rules to address… it's just Mr Frown's Government that is being slow to do anything about it!
Which of course brings us to the legacy of wrecked government finances, with income right down and spending on benefits spiralling up, which is why it is so necessary for a proper PLAN with key objectives of preserving frontline services, the things that Government MUST do, while cutting back on the things that Government should NOT be doing which in the short term means things like not replacing Trident, but also continuing cuts like cutting benefits for people earning fifty-or-more thousand pounds and then more painful things like looking at freezing public pay.
But he also wanted to be POSITIVE, to note that even if Hard Labour have smashed the economy, there are still things we can do to rebuild, starting with an urgent programme of building much-needed social housing.
At a time when much of the building industry is actually being mothballed and leading to unemployment, there is also a chronic shortage of affordable and Council homes. Obviously, we should be bringing these two together, fixing two urgent problems at once. And many building firms have found themselves with large empty blocks of flats, costing them money to keep empty: we should be able to acquire these and take over them for social housing.
At the same time we need a focus on young people because they are being hardest hit by the recession, and we have to avoid another "lost generation", like the people failed by the Conservatories in the Nineteen-Eighties. Instead of squandering ten billion pounds on a VAT cut, most of which has just disappeared, we would have put that money into guaranteeing young people a job within ninety days.
I piped up with a question about Mayor Bojo the Clown's new above-inflation hikes in tube and bus travel for Londoners: is this DAMAGING during a recession or a NECESSARY investment?
Mr Vince admitted that there was a bit of a "torrid" time ahead for public transport: it needs a lot of money investing in it, and where is that money going to come from? We supported the principle of Congestion Charging at the time it was introduced, and we support Crossrail, so long as it stays within its budget, because it's a good project.
I think that was a qualified "yes" to "necessary investment", though I'd add that Mayor Bojo would have less of need to hike the Central Congestion Charge by 25% if he wasn't simultaneously abandoning the Western Extension.
Mr Ajmal also reminded people of the suggestion from our London Assembly members to adopt a system like they have on the continent where if you bleep your Oyster Card for ONE bus or tube journey, within a limited time if you change to another bus, or from DLR to tube or the like, you don't get charged for a SECOND journey when you've really only made the one.
The audience actually seemed quite KEEN on the idea of the "mansion tax", perhaps easy to see why when our society is becoming increasingly UNEQUAL, unequal in income AND unequal in wealth. One of our key proposals, Mr Vince reminded everyone, is to lift a great many people out of tax, and to cut taxes for all lower and middle income earners, by shifting the burden of tax to those who can afford to pay more. At the moment, even a relatively modest family home can cost seven or eight hundred thousand pounds but will pay the SAME in Council Tax – tax band H – as a thirty MILLION pound mansion. When most countries, and even American cities like Washington and New York, have a property tax of this kind, so it's not exactly cruel and unusual punishment.
"Should you have told the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, though?" someone asked.
"Ah, well, yes it would have been desirable to have gotten my colleagues on board, and I've apologised to them for that," he admitted.
He didn't JUST want to talk about the economy, though, and he wanted to add some words about our distinctive Liberal Democrat PRINCIPLES.
Civil Liberties is central to our beliefs, and that's why we were first to oppose the I.D.iot cards, first again to stand up against ninety-day detention without trial, and first to oppose the abuses of anti-terrorism powers.
He told us a little story: in his constituency of Twickenham, aircraft noise from Heathrow is a big issue. So Mr Vince recently went with a party of entirely-respectable middle-aged persons to throw PAPER PLANES at the Ministry of Transport as a protest. But before they could launch these "missiles", a police inspector turned up and told them they had five minutes to clear the street before he invoked the Terrorism Act!
We're also INTERNATIONALIST by nature; we opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was ILLEGAL under international law. Now there is Afghanistan. At the time of the attack to deal with the Taliban government and their support for Al Qaeda terrorists, we AGREED with that necessary, proportionate and finite action. But now we have to question whether there is any proper PLAN to what we are still doing there and, if there is, how we are supposed to achieve it, and if our soldiers have the equipment and supplies they need to do what we ask. Because the alternative is that we are now trapped in an open-ended commitment to support a corrupt undemocratic government that is in power on the back of a fixed election.
One thing that was interesting was that the audience, a relatively even mix of people from different ethnic backgrounds, were more concerned about Iraq… and IRAN… than they were about MPs' expenses; the one question on the expenses scandal seemed to draw little interest (though there was laughter in response to Mr Vince's remark: "I saw I was on the list of 'angels'; looking at who else was on the list, I thought 'the criteria for admission to heaven have been relaxed a bit!'."), whereas there was much discussion of human rights abuses from Afghanistan to Burma, from China to Palestine.
The third principle Mr Vince chose to emphasis was ANTI-RACISM. He remembered his late wife, who was coincidentally Asian, and how at the time of Mr Enoch Powell's speeches she had to stay off the streets for safety. He also remembered that, even though he had been in the Labour Party at the time, it was always the LIBERALS who stood up for minority rights. We've made a lot of progress since then, but prejudice still remains and that's why we see the rise of the British Nasty Party and their ilk. Liberal Democrats believe that it is our DUTY to take them on, and where we take them on – like we did this year in Burnley – we BEAT them.
We finished with a question about why he ruled himself out of the leadership after Sir Mr the Merciless resigned.
"Well," he said, "I didn't rule myself out; I was ruled out. My colleagues said that they felt, after what happened to Ming, that they wanted someone from a new generation, and I might have thought that I was doing a perfectly good job running the party, but that was the choice that was made."
I think we all know that for all that he was VERY good as acting leader, he did have that magical aura of protection in the word "acting" that would have vanished quickly if he'd gone from acting to actual. But I thought that that was interesting because I had not heard the story told that way before. A tinge of regret? Perhaps.
.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Day 3029: Cassandra Cable?
Friday:
Mr Vince "the Power" Cable was on the The Today Programme this morning… just barely.
He was there with an important WARNING about the regulation (or LACK thereof) of Building Societies and they SQUEEZED him in in between Mr Humpy's report on "My Nice Holiday in South Africa" and the funny "Are archaeologists going to dig up Cleopatra's ASP?" story.
Look, I KNOW that the financial crisis is a bit wearisome by now, what with the unrelenting MISERY of it all being a bit, well, MISERABLE.
But really, you would think people would take Mr Vince's warnings a BIT seriously. It's not like his warning about too much DEBT hasn't been QUITE A LOT proved COMPLETELY RIGHT!
I am reminded of the TROJAN PRINCESS Cassandra whose prophetic warnings were ignored resulting in the fall of TROY.
Mr Vince says "Whoa!" to more debt – and they should have said "Whoa" to that WOODEN HORSE too!
(That joke copyright Doctor Woo and the Mythmakers)
.
Mr Vince "the Power" Cable was on the The Today Programme this morning… just barely.
He was there with an important WARNING about the regulation (or LACK thereof) of Building Societies and they SQUEEZED him in in between Mr Humpy's report on "My Nice Holiday in South Africa" and the funny "Are archaeologists going to dig up Cleopatra's ASP?" story.
Look, I KNOW that the financial crisis is a bit wearisome by now, what with the unrelenting MISERY of it all being a bit, well, MISERABLE.
But really, you would think people would take Mr Vince's warnings a BIT seriously. It's not like his warning about too much DEBT hasn't been QUITE A LOT proved COMPLETELY RIGHT!
I am reminded of the TROJAN PRINCESS Cassandra whose prophetic warnings were ignored resulting in the fall of TROY.
Mr Vince says "Whoa!" to more debt – and they should have said "Whoa" to that WOODEN HORSE too!
(That joke copyright Doctor Woo and the Mythmakers)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)