Tuesday:
Whenever I hear "exploding underpants"* it's hard not to think of Bojo the Clown, whose re-election as Lord Mayor of London Town has inspired some of the more FRUITY Conservatories to come out fighting for more "traditional" Conservatory policies.
Which is ODD 'cos Bojo's nine-point-plan puts LOTS of emphasis on investment for jobs and growth (points 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. And probably 7 too. And maybe 9.) and distinctly NONE on cutting immigration "to help the working class (i.e. BNP-voting) poor", 'cos Bojo may be BONKERS but he's not STUPID. He just tries hard to LOOK stupid!
London's economy, the most powerful and only GROWING part of Great Britain, RELIES on immigration and on diversity, on the energy and innovation and culture that comes with everything from Brick Lane to gay-daddies getting married. And Bojo KNOWS that.
The idea that the Coalition Parties each just lost loads of Councillors because the Coalition is not Conservatory ENOUGH is just LAUGHABLE.
Quite apart from anything else, we KNEW when we signed up for this Coalition that it was going to be HORRIBLE, that we'd been handed a CHALICE that was not just POISONED but bought on HIRE PURCHASE with the BAILIFFS on the way round! Of COURSE we were going to get roughed up because it's the Government's JOB to take the BLAME. I've said before that we chose the long and painful but ultimately safer path out of the depression, rather than the wild borrow and gamble approach. But that's not going to make things any easier along the way.
But if you really WANT simplistic analysis, then CLEARLY it's because the Coalition policies are TOO MUCH CONSERVATORY, not too little.
Look, the Liberal Democrats are widely seen as losing votes because we've become TOO CONSERVATORY.
And you can trace the moment that the fluffy bottom fell out of the Conservatories' polling figures to... Master Gideon's top-rate-of-tax-cutting Budget, when suddenly the Conservatories looked TOO CONSERVATORY too!
The unravelling of the Budget was all about the spin that it was a tax cut for the rich paid for by hitting pasties, grannies and charities. And, ironically, conservatories.
For some Conservatories it is time to play the "Personal Incredulity Fallacy". THEY have a personal bug about "gay marriage", or Equal Marriage as we call it in the real world, and House of Lords Club reform so they ASSUME that the voters have a bug about Equal Marriage and House of Lords Club reform.
Rather than, say, Mr Landslide's "ever so popular" NHS reforms or Mr Gove's "widely lauded as uncontroversial" Free Schools or Mr Drunken-Swerve's "not in any way likely to have caused a fuss" slashing of Welfare Payments (the cuts hitting hundreds of thousands of families in the month before polling).
Sadly, imposing your personal fantasies on the electorate will not get you elected.
But never mind that. And let's put to one side the fact that most Conservatory Home readers would almost literally die of horror at the thought of an Alternative Queen. And let's look at those Conservatory Home Alternative Queen's Speech Bills in full:
1. British Bill of Rights Bill
Funny how Conservatory's say "no one is interested in Civil Rights" when it's Equal Marriage and say "nothing could be more vital" when it's their own Little Englander hobby-horse.
It is unbelievably difficult not to smell the XENOPHOBIA all over this one. "We want to send bad people to bad places and we don't care if bad things happen to them even if they turn out not to have been bad people after all, and now nasty foreigners are saying we ought to stick to the list of HUMAN RIGHTS even if it was US that wrote it, wahh!".
Which part of FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS do these people not understand? It can't be FUNDAMENT. And it can't be MENTAL. Cos they've demonstrated plenty of BOTH.
2. Promotion of Competition Bill
a) Water companies to compete on what appears to be a Railtrack basis with the pipes owned by a separate company. Not a recipe for disaster at all, then.
b) More banking competition, including breaking up RBS. Don't swoon; this bit is actually good.
3. Rail Improvements Bill
Scrap HS2 and tackle bottlenecks and reduce overcrowding instead. Tricky one this, as we should really look at the evidence and decide which is the better investment of limited resources. If they could back up their case with some facts, this might be convincing.
(For some reason, also includes high speed broadband roll out – why not in the competition bill?)
4. Make Prison Work Bill
(Are we saying prison DOESN'T work? Are we admitting Mr "Something of the Night" Howard was wrong?)
Solution, basically, export the problem. Repatriate non-British citizens and make 'em serve sentence abroad (assuming we CAN, and that's not a recipe for "foreign murderer/rapist/paedo released early in foreign jail outrage" type headlines) + send mentally ill to social services (who we're sure will cope and that's not a recipe for "loony murderer/rapist/paedo strikes again in not in prison outrage").
5. Fairness to British Taxpayers Bill
(i.e. Hand the Foreigners the Bill Bill)
a) Charge an "entry fee" for foreign road users to cover "wear and tear" of British roads
You can see how this appeals to the "it's not fair" mentality of the little-Englander. And fortunately, as a nation of traders there's no way that a hike in the cost of transporting goods INTO Britain could possibly be passed on to consumers here. Er.
b) Charge an "entry fee" for foreign tourists for entrance to British attractions e.g. museums
Fortunately, Britain has no massive tourist industry that generates important foreign currency income, so adding an extra disincentive to visit Britain will do no harm to the economy there either. Er.
c) Charge foreign people who get sick for use of NHS
Actually this happens already but "enforce" it by putting an statutory obligation on trust Trusts to collect – because they don't "trust" then to collect! Nice. And there's nothing like refusing to treat people with communicable diseases for keeping those epidemics out there in the population.
6. Affordable Energy Bill
Translation: "cut subsidies for generation by more expensive means" means "cut subsidy for green renewables" therefore placing more reliance on imported energy (i.e. LESS affordable energy bills).
Or fracking. Hilariously, injecting water into shale rock to force gas (and earthquakes) out was SO wildly economically UNVIABLE that no one even considered doing it until the price of oil and gas went through the roof.
7. Anti-congestion bill
Make councils let cars drive faster.
8. Double EU referendum bill
OK, now we're getting to the real fun.
Part One: hold a referendum to pre-determine (bind the hands of) the Government's negotiating position in renegotiation of a treaty with the other 26 EU members that is NOT up for grabs.
Part Two: then hold a second referendum to agree to the outcome.
How many ways can this POSSIBLY go wrong?
How do you even HOLD a referendum on a negotiating position? What's the question going to be? "Do you agree that the Prime Monster should go to Europe to demand the Abolishing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Repeal of the Social Chapter, the Sinking of the Spanish fishing fleet, the Bulldozing of Strasburg, the Introduction of Driving on the Left Continent-wide and the Compulsory Imposition of Dairy Milk as the European Chocolate Standard, but we're willing to cave on all of that so long as you let us measure beer and milk in pints, tick one box Yes or No"?
Are the "Yes" campaign supposed to become the "No" campaign if the negotiations go fluffy-bottom up?
Will ANYONE on the other side of the Channel even take this seriously? Ms Angular Meercat is already telling Greece off for "getting their election wrong".
Note also that the wording pre-supposes that we WILL be repatriating powers, the referendum will just determine what and how much. This is called "begging the question".
9. Education (Choice and Opportunity) Bill
Private companies to provide schools on a fee-paying basis. No chance THAT could be portrayed as "privatising our schools" is there. Oh, because it IS.
And it certainly couldn't be portrayed as turning the clock back FIFTY YEARS. Which to be fair would only make Mr "Boro" Gove's British Empire history lessons TWO decades out of date instead of SEVEN.
Admission by academic achievement (which in no way favours those able to afford tutoring, er).
A "percentage" of profits to be reinvested. So that'll be a percentage lower that 100%, I guess.
No mention of removing Eton and Harrow's status as "charities" though.
10. University Standards Bill
aka The Waahh, Vince Cable got his way over the head of OFFA so we want to abolish it Bill.
11. Double Devolution Bill
Tax-raising powers (and hence blame) to be sent to Scotland. Fair enough. English votes for English laws. Riiiiight.
Funny how Conservatories say "No one is interested in Constitutional Reform" when it's the House of Lords Club and not when it's their own Little Englander hobby-horse.
12. Finance Act (don't we get one of those anyway?)
Putting the "you're 'aving a laff" into the Laffer Curve.
The next budget should "increase" the amount that rich people pay by, er, cutting the top rate of tax from 45% to 40% and cutting the rate of capital gains tax to from 28% to 20%.
Didn't that just work out SO WELL in the Budget. See above. And also your current poll rating (-10% in a month).
Admittedly, it might be that YOU see the need to differentiate from US as much as WE Liberal Democrats want to disassociate ourselves from the nastier ideas that YOU have. In which case, we will keep our tax cuts for the least well off and you are welcome to be the Party of tax cuts for the super-rich. Good luck with that!
13. Trade Union Members' Bill
Further neuter Britain's remaining Trades Unions by requiring 50% turnouts in strike ballots. You know, just about one and a half times the turnout that turned out so 'enthusiastically' to give a 'massive' popular mandate (not a gay-marriage euphemism) to that 'popular new old-style Tory hope' Bojo the Clown.
Oh, and slice off Labour's funding by giving the Unions the "option" of donating the political levy to good causes instead. Why not just have them buy Lottery Tickets?
Next step, what, house arrests for Mark Serwatka and Bob Crow? I know they're ANNOYING but... didn't we used to live in a DEMOCRACY?
14. Electoral Integrity (Yes, We Have None) Bill
Requiring everyone to turn up at the polling station in person – with I.D! – if they want their vote. Like THAT'S not going to deter anybody from voting. Like THAT'S not going to disenfranchise anybody. And what would be the chances that it's easier for the well-heeled to get to the polling station and they're more likely to have passport/driving licence/credit card I.D. to hand. Our democracy is pretty robust and widely trusted as it is.
And it's I.D.iot Cards again. AGAIN! Not content with learning ALL the wrong lessons from the most disgusting Replutocrat malpractices of the US of Americaland, you want to adopt the NEW fluffing LABOUR playbook too!
Examples of voting fraud are shocking BECAUSE they are so few and far between. They need to be tackled, but the way to tackle them is by having council officers CHECK people who want a postal vote by going to MEET them. Whereas this is a rather naked attempt to put people off voting altogether.
And finally...
15. House of Lords Reform (Now We're Really Taking the Piss) Bill
Having based their entire article on the unsupported assertion that we should not at a time of economic woe be considering legislating for reform the House of Lords, they conclude by proposing... legislating to BLOCK reform of the House of Lords, and to waste everyone's time and even more money by prancing naked round the issues yet again, this time with a Royal Commission, like the business of reforming the Lords hasn't been Commissioned to DEATH in the ONE HUNDRED YEARS since we started.
Anyone signing up for this LIED in their 2010 manifesto and should be required to RESIGN their seat IMMEDIATELY.
In conclusion, Popular Conservatoryism is an OXYMORON. By which I mean a member of the Bullingdon Club.
But as the Conservatory Homeboys themselves put it:
"Popular Conservatoryism is pro-poor and broad-based"
By which they mean FAT-ARSED and in favour of MORE poor people.
It's important to remember that the Coalition was supposed to be about finding solutions through GOVERNING.
We CAN'T just pass laws to make problems go away. We don't believe that works! We're not Hard Labour! Their insane machismo of pushing more and more LEGISLATION through the House of Commons like lard through a mangle solved NOTHING (except for a temporary assuaging of Lord Blairimort's addictive craving for a new Press Release every five minutes).
What Mr Dr Vince is doing DAY to DAY in the Department for Business is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than any number of "Willies, look at the size of my waving of, Bill" bills in Mrs the Queen's Speech.
Mr Milipede has some cheek when he says that people want "answers not excuses" from the Coalition.
"Excuses" from Hard Labour for the economic shambles precipitated on their watch so far: the bankers, Europe, the bankers, America, the Tories (don't help them), the bankers, world economic conditions, the bankers, the Crimson Pirate Life Assurance Company, and the bankers.
"Answers" from Hard Labour: ...
But never mind that because we hold ourselves to a higher standard than Mr Opportunist and his Bandwagon of Merry Persons.
Why HAVE we failed to deliver so far? Isn't it because the Conservatories have had us sticking TOO RIGIDLY to the Plan A for Austerity when we SHOULD have been TESTING the outcomes and ADJUSTING as we went? That's EVIDENCE-BASED policy making.
We should look at Cap'n Clegg's schemes to bring forward infrastructure investment and the youth programme, and at Mr Dr Vince's plans for more apprenticeships and support for British winners as the RIGHT way to respond to the deepening crisis.
In short: LESS Conservatory DOGMA; MORE Liberal Democrat FLEXIBLE RESPONSE.
*I know, I know it's a "terrorist atrocity" in the making but, seriously, how can ANYONE think that HUMILIATING THEMSELVES by trying and failing to blow off their rude bits in the cause of murdering a lot of people is going to get them anything but the POINT and LAUGH treatment in any imaginary afterlife they might, well, imagine?
I genuinely think that massive amounts of DERISORY LAUGHTER is a better way to counter these numpties than the sort of massive security overkill that makes them think they're important.
.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Friday, May 04, 2012
Day 4142: Election Flop – Mr Balloon turns to Porn
Friday:
Top Secret Government Strategy (for Tories who have yet to get with the programme)
Step 1: Denude Westminster Government of as much power as possible – localise it, federalise it, devolve it, whatever.
Step 2: Install House of Lords Club with enough teeth and mandate to stop future government ever undoing this.
Step 3: Lose 2015 election, see Hard Labour stuck powerless in Whitehall taking the blame for a decade while we get back to what we're GOOD at – running local councils and actually making people's lives BETTER!
Seriously, though, the Liberal Democrats exist to BE IN POWER.
Locally or nationally, if we're going to liberate people from poverty, ignorance and conformity, we've got to be in power. Otherwise, like me, you're just BLOGGING.
And all the evidence shows that where we ARE in power, we deliver the services that people want AND value for money. So that's why it's disappointing when we take a drubbing.
This morning, Mr Paul Cornell, an otherwise noble writer of Doctor Who, tweeted:
Which I'm afraid merely serves as a reminder that Labour are TORIES with added SANCTIMONIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Hard Labour, of course, are the Party SO "addicted" to power that they installed a lying, warmongering megalomaniac with a god complex as Prime Monster. And then were so GRUBBY to keep their incompetent mitts on the levers of government that they let a cowardly bullying economic-illiterate with known telephone related tantrum issues take over without any input from the people.
(No, don't say you didn't know Lord Blairimort was EVIL – Daddy Alex was warning you of it on election night 1997, and frankly it was OBVIOUS from 1994 when he was willing to use the death of a little boy, Jamie Bulger, for political leverage. And don't say you didn't know Mr Frown wasn't up to the job – there isn't anyone in W1 who didn't hear the slanging matches through the walls of 10 and 11 Downing Street.)
Hard Labour THEMSELVES admit that they have to ask their supporters to wear a CLOTHES PEG to hide the STENCH and vote Labour in spite of it.
THAT'S what REALLY being addicted to power looks like. Liberal Democrats can remain PROUD of their Party's achievements and their Party's candidates!
As a GOOD CHRISTIAN, though, I am sure Mr Cornell is familiar with Matthew 7.5.
Hard Labour and their APOLOGISTS like to remind us that we had a CHOICE to go into power with the TORIES. And this is TRUE – we had a choice of the BLUE Tories or the RED Tories. (And the RED Tories were more interested in taking their ball away and having a leadership contest than attending to the GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.)
They love to GLOAT that entering the Coalition has lost us a third of our support because of our "treason" – as though it might have NOTHING to do with us having to deal with the fallout from what happened ON HARD LABOUR'S WATCH, namely the WORST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE since the Great Depression. (Gosh it's SO BORING that that just hasn't GONE AWAY, isn't it – except in Labour's FANTASY economics.)
As Mr Ed Davey said on the Newsnight Show last night: "It's been Ninety Years since we had any Mid-Tem Blues!" So let's ENJOY 'em while we CAN!
But before Hard Labour's supporters get TOO carried away with their total, brilliant success ((c) the "infamous minister of justice", Jack "Man 'O" Straw, er...), it's worth remembering that TURNOUT in these elections was an APPALLING 32%. (An INDICTMENT of us ALL! Go read Auntie Jennie for more.) So Hard Labour's 39% of the vote is actually only 12% of the POSSIBLE vote – and that's FEWER people turning out to support Mr Milipede than showed up to back Mr Frown when he was annihilated at the last general election.
If anything, this is a massive victory for... our voters not turning up.
(And you know, with a double-dip recession and string of Conservatory cock-up and corruption scandals, who can blame 'em. This is no endorsement of the Coalition, but Labour benefits from our ABSENCE not their own strength.)
Anyway, in an effort to move on from the FLACCID election results, Mr Balloon (do you remember when he was RE-LAUNCH KING? See for example, diaries here, here and here. Old habits die hard, it seems.) is going to a conference to look at PORN.
No! It's not what you think.
Apparently, he wants to make it HARDER for people. (To see it, that is!)
Daddy Alex wants to call this more Conservatory WILLY-WAVING. I give him a very firm stare!
Look, even if backdoor methods of banning things that are legal wasn't stupid, illiberal and very unlikely to work, does he REALLY think that this is going to stop the moderately determined horny teenager getting his – or even her – hands on anything on the Internet?
And THIS is why we need Liberal Democrats in GOVERNMENT. To SAY, "Hang on, Mr Balloon, this is STOOPID!"
May the Fourth Be With You!
.
Top Secret Government Strategy (for Tories who have yet to get with the programme)
Step 1: Denude Westminster Government of as much power as possible – localise it, federalise it, devolve it, whatever.
Step 2: Install House of Lords Club with enough teeth and mandate to stop future government ever undoing this.
Step 3: Lose 2015 election, see Hard Labour stuck powerless in Whitehall taking the blame for a decade while we get back to what we're GOOD at – running local councils and actually making people's lives BETTER!
Seriously, though, the Liberal Democrats exist to BE IN POWER.
Locally or nationally, if we're going to liberate people from poverty, ignorance and conformity, we've got to be in power. Otherwise, like me, you're just BLOGGING.
And all the evidence shows that where we ARE in power, we deliver the services that people want AND value for money. So that's why it's disappointing when we take a drubbing.
This morning, Mr Paul Cornell, an otherwise noble writer of Doctor Who, tweeted:
"...How addicted are the Lib Dems to power, that they'll ride it until it kills them?"
Which I'm afraid merely serves as a reminder that Labour are TORIES with added SANCTIMONIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Hard Labour, of course, are the Party SO "addicted" to power that they installed a lying, warmongering megalomaniac with a god complex as Prime Monster. And then were so GRUBBY to keep their incompetent mitts on the levers of government that they let a cowardly bullying economic-illiterate with known telephone related tantrum issues take over without any input from the people.
(No, don't say you didn't know Lord Blairimort was EVIL – Daddy Alex was warning you of it on election night 1997, and frankly it was OBVIOUS from 1994 when he was willing to use the death of a little boy, Jamie Bulger, for political leverage. And don't say you didn't know Mr Frown wasn't up to the job – there isn't anyone in W1 who didn't hear the slanging matches through the walls of 10 and 11 Downing Street.)
Hard Labour THEMSELVES admit that they have to ask their supporters to wear a CLOTHES PEG to hide the STENCH and vote Labour in spite of it.
THAT'S what REALLY being addicted to power looks like. Liberal Democrats can remain PROUD of their Party's achievements and their Party's candidates!
As a GOOD CHRISTIAN, though, I am sure Mr Cornell is familiar with Matthew 7.5.
Hard Labour and their APOLOGISTS like to remind us that we had a CHOICE to go into power with the TORIES. And this is TRUE – we had a choice of the BLUE Tories or the RED Tories. (And the RED Tories were more interested in taking their ball away and having a leadership contest than attending to the GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.)
They love to GLOAT that entering the Coalition has lost us a third of our support because of our "treason" – as though it might have NOTHING to do with us having to deal with the fallout from what happened ON HARD LABOUR'S WATCH, namely the WORST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE since the Great Depression. (Gosh it's SO BORING that that just hasn't GONE AWAY, isn't it – except in Labour's FANTASY economics.)
As Mr Ed Davey said on the Newsnight Show last night: "It's been Ninety Years since we had any Mid-Tem Blues!" So let's ENJOY 'em while we CAN!
But before Hard Labour's supporters get TOO carried away with their total, brilliant success ((c) the "infamous minister of justice", Jack "Man 'O" Straw, er...), it's worth remembering that TURNOUT in these elections was an APPALLING 32%. (An INDICTMENT of us ALL! Go read Auntie Jennie for more.) So Hard Labour's 39% of the vote is actually only 12% of the POSSIBLE vote – and that's FEWER people turning out to support Mr Milipede than showed up to back Mr Frown when he was annihilated at the last general election.
If anything, this is a massive victory for... our voters not turning up.
(And you know, with a double-dip recession and string of Conservatory cock-up and corruption scandals, who can blame 'em. This is no endorsement of the Coalition, but Labour benefits from our ABSENCE not their own strength.)
Anyway, in an effort to move on from the FLACCID election results, Mr Balloon (do you remember when he was RE-LAUNCH KING? See for example, diaries here, here and here. Old habits die hard, it seems.) is going to a conference to look at PORN.
No! It's not what you think.
Apparently, he wants to make it HARDER for people. (To see it, that is!)
Daddy Alex wants to call this more Conservatory WILLY-WAVING. I give him a very firm stare!
Look, even if backdoor methods of banning things that are legal wasn't stupid, illiberal and very unlikely to work, does he REALLY think that this is going to stop the moderately determined horny teenager getting his – or even her – hands on anything on the Internet?
And THIS is why we need Liberal Democrats in GOVERNMENT. To SAY, "Hang on, Mr Balloon, this is STOOPID!"
PS:
May the Fourth Be With You!
.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Day 4140: Brian Paddick and the Liberal Democrats: A Vote You Can Be PROUD Of
Thursday:
What do you WANT in London?
A single policy of an unaffordable fare-cut bribe OR a shiny new million-pound bus?
Wouldn't you rather have a DELIVERABLE low fares policy AND a plan to turn all of London's buses and taxis ELECTRIC for greener, cleaner air!
Do you want a BRAGGING war over who can put more police on the street?
Wouldn't you rather have an EXPERIENCED leader who PIONEERED techniques rebuilding TRUST between public and police AND who pledges to CUT OUT the HARASSMENT of stop-and-search and END the scandal of the POLICE being WASTED on trivial cannabis arrests!
Do you more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers) OR more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers)?
Wouldn't you rather have a REAL commitment to working London-wide to restart PROPER council house building to replace the lost housing stock coupled with IMAGINATIVE plans to bring empty houses back into use AND finding new living space above shops and businesses.
Wouldn't you rather have a PLAN to make London not just an AFFORDABLE place to live but a BETTER place to live, with pedestrianized zones between Oxford Street and Trafalgar Square, with more spent on the PARKS across London and more SPORTS and more ARTS and MORE TREES everywhere!
Wouldn't you rather have someone who'll give young people have SOMEWHERE OF THEIR OWN to go so they don't have to hang about on the streets so they don't risk falling victim to GANG culture AND who'll invest in education and apprenticeships and advice to see that young people have a FUTURE.
Some people are thinking of voting for Bojo the Clown because they think he is HARMLESS. Or, as the Hitchhiker's Guide might have it, MOSTLY HARMLESS. Well, we can do a LOT BETTER than "harmless".
Some people are thinking of voting for Ken because... er... well, even Hard Labour admit that they're reduced to the old CLOTHES PEG strategy – you've got to vote Ken or else Mr Balloon won't understand that he's got to be punished for not having fixed the economic devastation that Labour wrought yet. Er, or something. Well, we can do a lot better than THAT too!
Some people are even thinking of voting for Jenny Jones because even though they think her policies are WOO they would rather feel WARM and FLUFFY than actually vote for what they want. People with an ACTUAL commitment to green policies (or even Green PARTY policies, which are not ALWAYS the same or as effective), good for you; but people protest-voting Green to spite Cap'n Clegg over tuition fees earn my fluffy contempt. (Pod Delusion, it is YOU I am looking at!)
If you think that the Liberal Democrats don't deliver for you – when the UNFAIR electoral system meant we got FEWER seats in Parliament, we STILL delivered ALL FOUR promises on the front of our manifesto.
If you think that we break our promises – we managed to turn Hard Labour's Student Loans into a Graduate Tax that was FAIRER and MORE GENEROUS than EITHER the Conservatories OR Hard Labour wanted or would have delivered. New graduates now pay LESS each month than they would have done under Hard Labour.
And if you think that we're "traitors" just because we backed the other Party that had the larger number of votes and the larger number of seats and the larger DEMOCRATIC MANDATE rather than support a Party that had just spent thirteen years trampling over EVERYTHING we believe in about CIVIL LIBERTIES and INTERNATIONAL LAW – then you should probably ADMIT you we're going to vote for the AUTHORITARIAN, ECONOMICALLY-ILLITERATE, WARMONGERING CRIMINALS anyway, weren't you.
Who's REALLY on your side these days? Let's look at the EVIDENCE.
Times are tough for everyone, but LOCALLY it's only Liberal Democrat councils that have kept open SURE START schemes and LIBRARIES.: unlike those Conservatory vandals' and Hard Labour hypocrites' councils, not one Lib Dem-run council has closed a library. And NATIONALLY it's the Liberal Democrats who have CUT TAXES for the lowest earners and focussed the PUPIL PREMIUM on a better start for the least well off.
I don't care how much tax Ken's been avoiding; I don't care how much Bojo earns moonlighting for the Tell-lies-o-graph. But THEY care or they wouldn't have tried to keep it HIDDEN from you.
There's a BETTER WAY than that.
Hard Labour and the Conservatories are JUST LIKE EACH OTHER, telling you you must vote for them so that the other feller doesn't get in. Well you know what, you don't have to vote for EITHER of them – vote for the REAL alternative and then NEITHER of the other fellers will get in!
I don't want to vote for a clown OR a caricature.
And I don't have to.
I can vote for Brian Paddick and the Liberal Democrats. And I can be PROUD of it.
.
What do you WANT in London?
A single policy of an unaffordable fare-cut bribe OR a shiny new million-pound bus?
Wouldn't you rather have a DELIVERABLE low fares policy AND a plan to turn all of London's buses and taxis ELECTRIC for greener, cleaner air!
Do you want a BRAGGING war over who can put more police on the street?
Wouldn't you rather have an EXPERIENCED leader who PIONEERED techniques rebuilding TRUST between public and police AND who pledges to CUT OUT the HARASSMENT of stop-and-search and END the scandal of the POLICE being WASTED on trivial cannabis arrests!
Do you more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers) OR more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers)?
Wouldn't you rather have a REAL commitment to working London-wide to restart PROPER council house building to replace the lost housing stock coupled with IMAGINATIVE plans to bring empty houses back into use AND finding new living space above shops and businesses.
Wouldn't you rather have a PLAN to make London not just an AFFORDABLE place to live but a BETTER place to live, with pedestrianized zones between Oxford Street and Trafalgar Square, with more spent on the PARKS across London and more SPORTS and more ARTS and MORE TREES everywhere!
Wouldn't you rather have someone who'll give young people have SOMEWHERE OF THEIR OWN to go so they don't have to hang about on the streets so they don't risk falling victim to GANG culture AND who'll invest in education and apprenticeships and advice to see that young people have a FUTURE.
Some people are thinking of voting for Bojo the Clown because they think he is HARMLESS. Or, as the Hitchhiker's Guide might have it, MOSTLY HARMLESS. Well, we can do a LOT BETTER than "harmless".
Some people are thinking of voting for Ken because... er... well, even Hard Labour admit that they're reduced to the old CLOTHES PEG strategy – you've got to vote Ken or else Mr Balloon won't understand that he's got to be punished for not having fixed the economic devastation that Labour wrought yet. Er, or something. Well, we can do a lot better than THAT too!
Some people are even thinking of voting for Jenny Jones because even though they think her policies are WOO they would rather feel WARM and FLUFFY than actually vote for what they want. People with an ACTUAL commitment to green policies (or even Green PARTY policies, which are not ALWAYS the same or as effective), good for you; but people protest-voting Green to spite Cap'n Clegg over tuition fees earn my fluffy contempt. (Pod Delusion, it is YOU I am looking at!)
If you think that the Liberal Democrats don't deliver for you – when the UNFAIR electoral system meant we got FEWER seats in Parliament, we STILL delivered ALL FOUR promises on the front of our manifesto.
If you think that we break our promises – we managed to turn Hard Labour's Student Loans into a Graduate Tax that was FAIRER and MORE GENEROUS than EITHER the Conservatories OR Hard Labour wanted or would have delivered. New graduates now pay LESS each month than they would have done under Hard Labour.
And if you think that we're "traitors" just because we backed the other Party that had the larger number of votes and the larger number of seats and the larger DEMOCRATIC MANDATE rather than support a Party that had just spent thirteen years trampling over EVERYTHING we believe in about CIVIL LIBERTIES and INTERNATIONAL LAW – then you should probably ADMIT you we're going to vote for the AUTHORITARIAN, ECONOMICALLY-ILLITERATE, WARMONGERING CRIMINALS anyway, weren't you.
Who's REALLY on your side these days? Let's look at the EVIDENCE.
Times are tough for everyone, but LOCALLY it's only Liberal Democrat councils that have kept open SURE START schemes and LIBRARIES.: unlike those Conservatory vandals' and Hard Labour hypocrites' councils, not one Lib Dem-run council has closed a library. And NATIONALLY it's the Liberal Democrats who have CUT TAXES for the lowest earners and focussed the PUPIL PREMIUM on a better start for the least well off.
I don't care how much tax Ken's been avoiding; I don't care how much Bojo earns moonlighting for the Tell-lies-o-graph. But THEY care or they wouldn't have tried to keep it HIDDEN from you.
There's a BETTER WAY than that.
Hard Labour and the Conservatories are JUST LIKE EACH OTHER, telling you you must vote for them so that the other feller doesn't get in. Well you know what, you don't have to vote for EITHER of them – vote for the REAL alternative and then NEITHER of the other fellers will get in!
I don't want to vote for a clown OR a caricature.
And I don't have to.
I can vote for Brian Paddick and the Liberal Democrats. And I can be PROUD of it.
.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Day 4133: Driving into a Hole
Wednesday:
Top story on the BBC: an unnamed driver – known only as "Master Gideon" – has crashed his car into the Paris Metro. Apparently he misread the signs.
OK, look it's NO GOOD pretending this is good news. We're in a recession again.
The difference between the expected +0.1% growth and the surprise -0.2% contraction is pretty tiny. But that's just saying that the economy would have been pretty dire even if we HAD avoided a second recession on a technicality.
This is NOT the outcome we wanted. We should admit that and ask what we could do better.
The Chancer of the Exchequer, Master Gideon Oboe – henceforth to be known as the Double-Dipsh— no, I can't say that! – has already had a BAD MONTH because of the Budget, because actually it DID slap more taxes on the rich and the very, very rich and they've been finding all sorts of ways to whinge about it.
It's funny how we're told to cut less and tax a little more right up to the point where we DO that and then it's pasty-tax this and conservatory-tax that and cathedral-tax the other.
(And it's REALLY helpful when you can get CHARITIES to front up your demands for tax loopholes. Of course, some people might say that if you need a tax break in order to give money to charity, you don't deserve to call yourself a philanthropist. Even if the charity in question is the Birmingham Opera Company, who I am sure bring great joy to the least well-off through their Pas des Deux-es.
(Look, with charity donations, like PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS, there's a case for saying that they come out of your BEFORE-TAX income, fair enough. So if I've been persuaded by the Party that the amount you put in your pension should have a cap, then it seems only CONSISTENT that they should say the same for the charity giving.)
In part the badness of the news is PSYCHOLOGICAL: just the WORD "recession" is enough to dent confidence and slow our chances of growth and recovery.
OF COURSE it hurts POLITICALLY. It lets Hard Labour weep their crocodile tears and crow about "wrong choices".
But we should not let that put us off taking a SERIOUS look at our choices and reassessing whether they ARE bad or not.
And you KNOW how much I HATE it when Ms Nadine "Mad Nad" Dories might have a POINT.
But "remorse, contrition and compassion" are EXACTLY the qualities that we should be showing. They are what I had HOPED would make the difference between this administration and the governments of Queen Maggie and Mr Major-Minor.
The predictions of growth that have repeatedly proved so over-optimistic are based on the way that the economy – nationally and globally – has bounced back from previous recent recessions (1972, 1980, 1991, 2001). But in some ways, the REASON for those bounce-backs was CAUSE of this recession: we were pouring on more of the old problem, racking up ever-more DEBT.
The Bank of England relaxed lending laws at the start of the Seventies, triggering a house price boom that helped us over the Oil Shock; our own North Sea Oil, i.e. the flogging off a previously-undiscovered asset, reducing the Nation's net savings, rescued us from the early-Eighties recession; leaving the EMU and the subsequent devaluation and inflation lifted us out of the Nineties property crash, again at the expense of a lot of National wealth, and of course a huge burst of cheap borrowing forestalled the dot.com collapse in the early Two-Thousands.
This time around, it's that very borrowing that has finally caught up with us and CAUSED the crash. We can't at the same time take the action to stop it happening again AND let it happen again to get us out of the hole.
Essentially, we've been storing this cataclysm up for four decades, and the models really aren't ready for it.
Another big drag on growth is the renewed (or never-went-away) CREDIT CRUNCH.
I've said before, many times, how if you lend more money it has a magical multiplying effect that boosts economic growth; and that if you reduce lending then it reverses the process, sucking growth right back out again.
The banks are having to build up much bigger reserves against losses to meet the new regulations that the Coalition have put on them. In simple terms, this means they need more money IN and not as much OUT.
It's why, for example, the Halifax-that-we-own have raised their mortgage interest rate even though the base rate remains frozen at an all-time low. They're gouging an extra margin from borrowers to build their own balance sheet. But at the same time cutting people's spending power, taking money AWAY from activity that could help growth.
It's the same problem that we had with the VAT rise last year – money is burnt up in interest (or tax) instead of being spent on making things.
Thirdly, there is the simple factor of TIME. Almost ALL of the levers that Gideon the Chancer can pull take a VERY long time to affect the economy. There's a BIG rise in the personal allowance coming in – it's been announced for ages but it's only going to go into your pay packet this month. Too late for the first quarter growth figures. The EVEN BIGGER tax cut announced in this year's budget won't get to you until NEXT year.
That VAT rise last year had a big impact, pumping up inflation, and it's only a year later that the inflation figure is starting to come down (subject to the ongoing energy crisis and soaring food prices). Once you've done something like that it's TOO LATE to change your mind. Sure, you can chop and change the VAT rate all the time, as Labour propose, but that causes no end of problems and costs for businesses who have to reprint all their price lists and reprogram all their accounting software.
In a way, it ought to be impossible to blame the Coalition… YET. Because the cuts have barely started. We hardly cut at all in 2010, and 2011 was merely the beginning. Except for the VAT rise, really, the impact has not yet arrived.
The most terrifying aspect of this though is that most of the cuts are STILL TO COME. The plan is, as it always was, to keep spending the SAME in cash, and allow inflation to do all the dirty work. Then any real growth above inflation would give the Coalition more room to manoeuver, slackening off on the spending controls, reducing the bite of the extra taxes. But the growth hasn't arrived. So the screws continue to tighten.
Well, there IS always that possibility. But I still don't think so.
Hard Labour's solution was – and still is – more stimulus, paid for by more borrowing, to try and kick-start the economy. They'll point to Americaland where President Barry O DID do more stimulus (spending coupled with a package of tax cuts) and the outcome appears to be an economy that might just come good in time for his November re-election.
(Of course that is SIMPLISTIC – the US economy has a different economic mix, with more manufacturing and much less finance and they are much less closely tied to Europe, but on the other fluffy foot have much, much worse borrowing to start with – but it's a crude enough comparison to be worth considering.)
The American example shows that more stimulus COULD have worked.
What it doesn't show is that it WOULD have worked.
If a patient has a massive heart attack, you can get them back on their feet with a massive injection of adrenaline.
They'll bounce up and run around for a bit at first, but of course IT WILL KILL THEM.
And in a lot of ways this is exactly what Mr Alistair Dalek DID do with his VAT cut and Quantum of Easing. He injected the economy with a massive dose of cheap money and the so-called growth was bought, almost literally pound for pound, by borrowing it from the future.
Hard Labour's MASSIVE ECONOMIC GAMBLE was – or would have been – to KEEP pumping borrowed growth into the economy in the hope that a genuine recovery would come along in time to save them.
Essentially, keep the patient running around and keep your fingers crossed that their heart starts again on its own before they DIE.
The PROBLEM with this approach – and it's a FUNDAMENTAL problem – is that all you've done (so far) is create a massive PONZI scheme: you are generating growth at the front door but only by pumping in borrowed money at the back door.
What is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL is that once you HAVE got an economy that looks like it's growing is THEN you do the HARD WORK to fix the broken bits of your system: cut your spending; run a huge budget surplus to repay your borrowing; rebalance your economy in favour of wealth-generating and away from government spending.
And based on their history there is NO EVIDENCE that Hard Labour would be willing to DO that work. They would just repeat the DISASTER of their last government and fund a spending binge on the never-never.
(There's also a secondary problem with Labour's methods – to be effective, you need to give your stimulus of borrowed money to the PRIVATE SECTOR, to manufacturing, construction, mining or farming – including wind farming. Basically, things that GENERATE more cash than you put in. It's called INVESTMENT. The evidence shows that what Hard Labour's SPIN MACHINE calls "investment" actually means spending the money on more public sector workers instead. That may result in a better society in the long run, but it doesn't solve the immediate problem and arguably makes it worse in the short term by adding more costs to other already-hard-pressed workers.)
Whether the gamble succeeds or fails depends on how long people can be persuaded to keep lending you the money.
If you're lucky then you get away with it. Enough growth in genuine economic activity – not just recirculating government money – and you can pay for the extra borrowing to cover you through the "actually fixing the economy" phase.
But if you're unlucky, if the manufacturing and service sectors don't come up with the goods before it becomes too expensive for you to carry on borrowing, then never mind GREECE... the next stop for the economy is YEMEN.
On coming into power, in the climate of turmoil on the money markets, on seeing the Treasury's books, on receiving the infamous "there's no money left" note from Liam Byrne, with the spectre of a potential Greek collapse hanging over us... all of these factors persuaded the incoming Coalition that the time before the borrowing dried up was LESS rather than MORE, and that the chances of the GAMBLE paying off were not worth the risk.
Does that mean that we missed the chance of a short cut out of the pain of a trashed economy?
Yes, it does.
But we ALSO avoided the downside risk of a toxic combination of spiralling national debt, escalating interest rates, out-of-control inflation and STILL no growth – the kind of mix that's destroying the Eurozone at the moment.
This is BAD but it's a LONG, LONG way from as bad as it could be.
The government managed to hit its annual borrowing target – in part thanks to that VAT rise.
Yes we "only" added a hundred and twenty six billion squids to the national debt last year. But that's eleven billion squids fewer than in the year before, despite rising inflation. The gap is closing.
And the pound continues to STRENGTHEN against the DOLLAR and the EURO, showing that the markets believe our economy is SAFER and STRONGER than either the Americaland or the Euroland economies, in spite of growth over there while we're still bouncing along the fluffy bottom. People want to invest their money HERE, and that's a good thing.
Well step one is DON'T PANIC!
Own up to the fact we've NOT solved the problems of the economy yet. They were pretty massive but we thought we could do it. We SAID we could do it. But (at least so far) we HAVEN'T.
But that's NOT a reason to flail about wildly adopting "Plan B", "Plan C" or "Plan 9 from Outer Spads" at random.
We should look at what we ARE doing. Does it look RIGHT? If not, can we fix that? Who is being hit hardest? Is that fair? Can they take the cost? Can we give more help to those in need?
In this immediate set of figures, it appears that the driver of this contraction is the construction industry. And this is ANNOYING because it's one place where the government COULD reasonably borrow to invest: buying new home building and road and rail infrastructure NOW helps keep builders in employment AND prepares the way for when the recovery comes. And the assets that they build can return an "economic rent" – if they're houses a literal rent – that covers the cost of borrowing so it DOESN'T damage the economy.
And to be fair the Coalition ARE doing SOME of this. But clearly not enough and/or not quickly enough.
Planning laws and general NIMBY-ism are a real brake on bringing forward these projects. Obviously High Speed 2 is going to take a geological aeon before it breaks ground, but just think of all the objections to new windmills or new housing estates, too. Having said that, I bet you most MPs could name one or two "off the shelf" projects in their constituency just waiting for funding – that's a place we should be looking to nudge a bit harder.
Less construction isn't the whole of the story. There's just not any growth in any other areas to make up for it either. Remember Mr Dr Vince's leaked letter – we need to sharpen our strategy for growth, boost investment and back Britain.
Unclenching the credit crunch is going to be necessary if not vital. Captain Clegg made a speech about access to finance today.
But we also need a revival of OPTIMISM.
It's not all bad news. The rise in commodity prices means that some things that were not economically viable before now look profitable. That's what happened with North Sea Oil in the Seventies. This provides new OPPORTUNITIES. Some of them are GOOD (like mining space asteroids); some of them are, er, NOT SO GOOD (like Fracking Blackpool).
But what is KEY is that people are now starting to CONSIDER these opportunities.
People are willing to make PLANS – however outrageous or barmy they may seem.
THAT is what's needed for recovery, the start of the upswing, a sign of hope.
.
Top story on the BBC: an unnamed driver – known only as "Master Gideon" – has crashed his car into the Paris Metro. Apparently he misread the signs.
OK, look it's NO GOOD pretending this is good news. We're in a recession again.
The difference between the expected +0.1% growth and the surprise -0.2% contraction is pretty tiny. But that's just saying that the economy would have been pretty dire even if we HAD avoided a second recession on a technicality.
This is NOT the outcome we wanted. We should admit that and ask what we could do better.
The Chancer of the Exchequer, Master Gideon Oboe – henceforth to be known as the Double-Dipsh— no, I can't say that! – has already had a BAD MONTH because of the Budget, because actually it DID slap more taxes on the rich and the very, very rich and they've been finding all sorts of ways to whinge about it.
It's funny how we're told to cut less and tax a little more right up to the point where we DO that and then it's pasty-tax this and conservatory-tax that and cathedral-tax the other.
(And it's REALLY helpful when you can get CHARITIES to front up your demands for tax loopholes. Of course, some people might say that if you need a tax break in order to give money to charity, you don't deserve to call yourself a philanthropist. Even if the charity in question is the Birmingham Opera Company, who I am sure bring great joy to the least well-off through their Pas des Deux-es.
(Look, with charity donations, like PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS, there's a case for saying that they come out of your BEFORE-TAX income, fair enough. So if I've been persuaded by the Party that the amount you put in your pension should have a cap, then it seems only CONSISTENT that they should say the same for the charity giving.)
In part the badness of the news is PSYCHOLOGICAL: just the WORD "recession" is enough to dent confidence and slow our chances of growth and recovery.
OF COURSE it hurts POLITICALLY. It lets Hard Labour weep their crocodile tears and crow about "wrong choices".
But we should not let that put us off taking a SERIOUS look at our choices and reassessing whether they ARE bad or not.
And you KNOW how much I HATE it when Ms Nadine "Mad Nad" Dories might have a POINT.
But "remorse, contrition and compassion" are EXACTLY the qualities that we should be showing. They are what I had HOPED would make the difference between this administration and the governments of Queen Maggie and Mr Major-Minor.
Why isn't it working?
The predictions of growth that have repeatedly proved so over-optimistic are based on the way that the economy – nationally and globally – has bounced back from previous recent recessions (1972, 1980, 1991, 2001). But in some ways, the REASON for those bounce-backs was CAUSE of this recession: we were pouring on more of the old problem, racking up ever-more DEBT.
The Bank of England relaxed lending laws at the start of the Seventies, triggering a house price boom that helped us over the Oil Shock; our own North Sea Oil, i.e. the flogging off a previously-undiscovered asset, reducing the Nation's net savings, rescued us from the early-Eighties recession; leaving the EMU and the subsequent devaluation and inflation lifted us out of the Nineties property crash, again at the expense of a lot of National wealth, and of course a huge burst of cheap borrowing forestalled the dot.com collapse in the early Two-Thousands.
This time around, it's that very borrowing that has finally caught up with us and CAUSED the crash. We can't at the same time take the action to stop it happening again AND let it happen again to get us out of the hole.
Essentially, we've been storing this cataclysm up for four decades, and the models really aren't ready for it.
Another big drag on growth is the renewed (or never-went-away) CREDIT CRUNCH.
I've said before, many times, how if you lend more money it has a magical multiplying effect that boosts economic growth; and that if you reduce lending then it reverses the process, sucking growth right back out again.
The banks are having to build up much bigger reserves against losses to meet the new regulations that the Coalition have put on them. In simple terms, this means they need more money IN and not as much OUT.
It's why, for example, the Halifax-that-we-own have raised their mortgage interest rate even though the base rate remains frozen at an all-time low. They're gouging an extra margin from borrowers to build their own balance sheet. But at the same time cutting people's spending power, taking money AWAY from activity that could help growth.
It's the same problem that we had with the VAT rise last year – money is burnt up in interest (or tax) instead of being spent on making things.
Thirdly, there is the simple factor of TIME. Almost ALL of the levers that Gideon the Chancer can pull take a VERY long time to affect the economy. There's a BIG rise in the personal allowance coming in – it's been announced for ages but it's only going to go into your pay packet this month. Too late for the first quarter growth figures. The EVEN BIGGER tax cut announced in this year's budget won't get to you until NEXT year.
That VAT rise last year had a big impact, pumping up inflation, and it's only a year later that the inflation figure is starting to come down (subject to the ongoing energy crisis and soaring food prices). Once you've done something like that it's TOO LATE to change your mind. Sure, you can chop and change the VAT rate all the time, as Labour propose, but that causes no end of problems and costs for businesses who have to reprint all their price lists and reprogram all their accounting software.
In a way, it ought to be impossible to blame the Coalition… YET. Because the cuts have barely started. We hardly cut at all in 2010, and 2011 was merely the beginning. Except for the VAT rise, really, the impact has not yet arrived.
The most terrifying aspect of this though is that most of the cuts are STILL TO COME. The plan is, as it always was, to keep spending the SAME in cash, and allow inflation to do all the dirty work. Then any real growth above inflation would give the Coalition more room to manoeuver, slackening off on the spending controls, reducing the bite of the extra taxes. But the growth hasn't arrived. So the screws continue to tighten.
Could Hard Labour have been RIGHT?
Well, there IS always that possibility. But I still don't think so.
Hard Labour's solution was – and still is – more stimulus, paid for by more borrowing, to try and kick-start the economy. They'll point to Americaland where President Barry O DID do more stimulus (spending coupled with a package of tax cuts) and the outcome appears to be an economy that might just come good in time for his November re-election.
(Of course that is SIMPLISTIC – the US economy has a different economic mix, with more manufacturing and much less finance and they are much less closely tied to Europe, but on the other fluffy foot have much, much worse borrowing to start with – but it's a crude enough comparison to be worth considering.)
The American example shows that more stimulus COULD have worked.
What it doesn't show is that it WOULD have worked.
If a patient has a massive heart attack, you can get them back on their feet with a massive injection of adrenaline.
They'll bounce up and run around for a bit at first, but of course IT WILL KILL THEM.
And in a lot of ways this is exactly what Mr Alistair Dalek DID do with his VAT cut and Quantum of Easing. He injected the economy with a massive dose of cheap money and the so-called growth was bought, almost literally pound for pound, by borrowing it from the future.
Hard Labour's MASSIVE ECONOMIC GAMBLE was – or would have been – to KEEP pumping borrowed growth into the economy in the hope that a genuine recovery would come along in time to save them.
Essentially, keep the patient running around and keep your fingers crossed that their heart starts again on its own before they DIE.
The PROBLEM with this approach – and it's a FUNDAMENTAL problem – is that all you've done (so far) is create a massive PONZI scheme: you are generating growth at the front door but only by pumping in borrowed money at the back door.
What is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL is that once you HAVE got an economy that looks like it's growing is THEN you do the HARD WORK to fix the broken bits of your system: cut your spending; run a huge budget surplus to repay your borrowing; rebalance your economy in favour of wealth-generating and away from government spending.
And based on their history there is NO EVIDENCE that Hard Labour would be willing to DO that work. They would just repeat the DISASTER of their last government and fund a spending binge on the never-never.
(There's also a secondary problem with Labour's methods – to be effective, you need to give your stimulus of borrowed money to the PRIVATE SECTOR, to manufacturing, construction, mining or farming – including wind farming. Basically, things that GENERATE more cash than you put in. It's called INVESTMENT. The evidence shows that what Hard Labour's SPIN MACHINE calls "investment" actually means spending the money on more public sector workers instead. That may result in a better society in the long run, but it doesn't solve the immediate problem and arguably makes it worse in the short term by adding more costs to other already-hard-pressed workers.)
Whether the gamble succeeds or fails depends on how long people can be persuaded to keep lending you the money.
If you're lucky then you get away with it. Enough growth in genuine economic activity – not just recirculating government money – and you can pay for the extra borrowing to cover you through the "actually fixing the economy" phase.
But if you're unlucky, if the manufacturing and service sectors don't come up with the goods before it becomes too expensive for you to carry on borrowing, then never mind GREECE... the next stop for the economy is YEMEN.
On coming into power, in the climate of turmoil on the money markets, on seeing the Treasury's books, on receiving the infamous "there's no money left" note from Liam Byrne, with the spectre of a potential Greek collapse hanging over us... all of these factors persuaded the incoming Coalition that the time before the borrowing dried up was LESS rather than MORE, and that the chances of the GAMBLE paying off were not worth the risk.
Does that mean that we missed the chance of a short cut out of the pain of a trashed economy?
Yes, it does.
But we ALSO avoided the downside risk of a toxic combination of spiralling national debt, escalating interest rates, out-of-control inflation and STILL no growth – the kind of mix that's destroying the Eurozone at the moment.
This is BAD but it's a LONG, LONG way from as bad as it could be.
The government managed to hit its annual borrowing target – in part thanks to that VAT rise.
Yes we "only" added a hundred and twenty six billion squids to the national debt last year. But that's eleven billion squids fewer than in the year before, despite rising inflation. The gap is closing.
And the pound continues to STRENGTHEN against the DOLLAR and the EURO, showing that the markets believe our economy is SAFER and STRONGER than either the Americaland or the Euroland economies, in spite of growth over there while we're still bouncing along the fluffy bottom. People want to invest their money HERE, and that's a good thing.
What should we DO about it?
Well step one is DON'T PANIC!
Own up to the fact we've NOT solved the problems of the economy yet. They were pretty massive but we thought we could do it. We SAID we could do it. But (at least so far) we HAVEN'T.
But that's NOT a reason to flail about wildly adopting "Plan B", "Plan C" or "Plan 9 from Outer Spads" at random.
We should look at what we ARE doing. Does it look RIGHT? If not, can we fix that? Who is being hit hardest? Is that fair? Can they take the cost? Can we give more help to those in need?
In this immediate set of figures, it appears that the driver of this contraction is the construction industry. And this is ANNOYING because it's one place where the government COULD reasonably borrow to invest: buying new home building and road and rail infrastructure NOW helps keep builders in employment AND prepares the way for when the recovery comes. And the assets that they build can return an "economic rent" – if they're houses a literal rent – that covers the cost of borrowing so it DOESN'T damage the economy.
And to be fair the Coalition ARE doing SOME of this. But clearly not enough and/or not quickly enough.
Planning laws and general NIMBY-ism are a real brake on bringing forward these projects. Obviously High Speed 2 is going to take a geological aeon before it breaks ground, but just think of all the objections to new windmills or new housing estates, too. Having said that, I bet you most MPs could name one or two "off the shelf" projects in their constituency just waiting for funding – that's a place we should be looking to nudge a bit harder.
Less construction isn't the whole of the story. There's just not any growth in any other areas to make up for it either. Remember Mr Dr Vince's leaked letter – we need to sharpen our strategy for growth, boost investment and back Britain.
Unclenching the credit crunch is going to be necessary if not vital. Captain Clegg made a speech about access to finance today.
But we also need a revival of OPTIMISM.
It's not all bad news. The rise in commodity prices means that some things that were not economically viable before now look profitable. That's what happened with North Sea Oil in the Seventies. This provides new OPPORTUNITIES. Some of them are GOOD (like mining space asteroids); some of them are, er, NOT SO GOOD (like Fracking Blackpool).
But what is KEY is that people are now starting to CONSIDER these opportunities.
People are willing to make PLANS – however outrageous or barmy they may seem.
THAT is what's needed for recovery, the start of the upswing, a sign of hope.
.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Day 4131: When is a Referendum NOT a Referendum?
Monday:
Surprisingly, the answer is NOT "when it's AJAR" because it's actually the OPPOSITE of ajar, it's a DELAYING TACTIC designed to hold the door to democracy CLOSED just that little bit longer.
The people who are AGAINST a democratically elected House of Lords KNOW that no one in their right minds would vote "NO" to Lords reform. So it is CLEAR that they are angling to SHIFT the debate OFF the simple, central fact: "if you're going to make laws over me I have a RIGHT to a say in whether your fluffy bottom gets a shiny red seat!"
We can ALREADY get a FLAVOUR of the sort of "NO" campaign that the anti-democrats want to run from the murmurings on the WEIRDER wings of the Conservatory Party. They want to portray it as PR by the "backdoor", a "sneaky" rerun of the AV choice that they claim was "already rejected". It was NOT. Mr Mark Reckons punctures these LIES.
NO ONE voted to reject a proportional system, 'cos AV ain't proportional, and the "No" campaign SAID SO last year.
You can bet your last bean that having FORCED a public vote, they will then play the "this is an EXPENSIVE WASTE of time when there are more important things to do" card that worked so well for them in their vicious and deceitful anti-AV propaganda.
The TRUTH is that there is NOTHING more important than sorting out HOW we make the decisions about running the county. It doesn't matter whether you think that the most important thing is HEALTH or EDUCATION or TAX or FOREIGN POLICY or POLICE or PUBLIC NUDITY – the decisions about how to deal with ALL of those are made by the people we elect. Or in the case of the House of Lords Club, the people we DON'T elect! Which means getting how we elect them right has to be sorted FIRST.
The UNGODLY alliance between the WACKY-WING of the Tories and the closet-conservative REACTIONARIES in the Hard Labour party is based on their old fashioned sense of ENTITLEMENT.
They just cannot get over the idea that PEOPLE have a RIGHT to say how they are governed. That the "social contract" between people and government has OBLIGATIONS on THEIR side too.
They don't like the COALITION because it's an example of how Governments ought to work: messy, certainly, but with policies being argued out IN PUBLIC and with the public able to see what's being decided.
And they don't like the idea of an ELECTED House of Lords because it's the last bastion of "we know better than you" against actually having to do what their BOSSES, you me and everyone else in Great Britain, actually tell them to do!
Mr Milipede – presumably as part of an ongoing bid to plagiarise EVERY television comedy going – calls this sort of government an "OMNI-SHAMBLES" because policies are being found wanting and rejected.
I guess Mr Milipede preferred the "good old days" of New Labour when policies would go wrong, but the Government would use their massive, gerrymandered majority to RAM THEM THROUGH ANYWAY.
Oh yes, how well we remember those TRIUMPHS of STRONG government: the 10p Tax debacle; the NHS database bully-balls-up; the almost entirely circular education policy that abolished one sort of academy before creating another; the classic I.D.iot card exercise in burning money; or everybody's favourite, the murderous and illegal invasion of a country that was no threat to us at all based on a LIE by the Prime Monster.
The word "OMNI-SHAMBLES" – lest Mr Milipede forget – is uttered by a character widely believed to be NOT-IN-ANY-WAY based on Mr Alistair Henchman of Dodgy Dossier infamy.
If THAT's "strong government" I'm all in FAVOUR of a House of Lords with a bit more MANDATE to say "not in our name!"
The case for an ELECTED House of Lords, and for a PROPORTIONALLY ELECTED elected House of Lords, is pretty much UNANSWERABLE. So much so that ALL the Parties elected to the House of Commons said that's what they would do at the last election.
An appointed chamber means PATRONAGE. It means CRONYISM. There is NO SUCH THING as an "independent" appointments commission – shame on you, Lord Steel – someone is ALWAYS going to "know someone". Being a "close personal friend" of the Prime Monster – or the "independent" head of the commission – is not a better reason for getting a free pass into the legislature than your great-great granny being a "close personal friend" of the monarch.
We're told we will lose an "expert" house. Well expertise can be highly overrated. You may be a brilliant neurosurgeon, but how many days of the week is the House of Lords legislating on neurosurgery, eh? We want brilliant GENERALISTS, not brilliant SPECIALISTS. Saying you're a great expert in ONE field is as good as saying you're as IGNORANT as the rest of us ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE!
But fine, if you believe that your expertise makes you better qualified to make laws, go right ahead and use it as one of your selling point when you STAND FOR ELECTION. If you're right, it will help you win.
We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1911. We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1949. We don't need one now.
It seems ASTONISHING that people who CLAIM to be defending "the way that these things work" seem so anxious to RIDE ROUGHSHOD over, well, the way these things work. Surely it's difficult to defend the status quo of an unwritten constitution when you keep MAKING IT UP as you go along! And that they now want to waste MILLIONS of POUNDS of YOUR money, charging you for the PRIVILEGE of having a say over whether you should have a say... it beggars belief as well as the exchequer.
Let's just accept that it's the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY now and probably time to move on from an EIGHTEENTH CENTAURY Parliament. You were ALL elected on a manifesto pledge to do this, so pass the bill and let's get on and elect ALL* the people who make our laws.
*To a certain value of "all"! 80% for fluff's sake...!
.
Surprisingly, the answer is NOT "when it's AJAR" because it's actually the OPPOSITE of ajar, it's a DELAYING TACTIC designed to hold the door to democracy CLOSED just that little bit longer.
The people who are AGAINST a democratically elected House of Lords KNOW that no one in their right minds would vote "NO" to Lords reform. So it is CLEAR that they are angling to SHIFT the debate OFF the simple, central fact: "if you're going to make laws over me I have a RIGHT to a say in whether your fluffy bottom gets a shiny red seat!"
We can ALREADY get a FLAVOUR of the sort of "NO" campaign that the anti-democrats want to run from the murmurings on the WEIRDER wings of the Conservatory Party. They want to portray it as PR by the "backdoor", a "sneaky" rerun of the AV choice that they claim was "already rejected". It was NOT. Mr Mark Reckons punctures these LIES.
NO ONE voted to reject a proportional system, 'cos AV ain't proportional, and the "No" campaign SAID SO last year.
You can bet your last bean that having FORCED a public vote, they will then play the "this is an EXPENSIVE WASTE of time when there are more important things to do" card that worked so well for them in their vicious and deceitful anti-AV propaganda.
The TRUTH is that there is NOTHING more important than sorting out HOW we make the decisions about running the county. It doesn't matter whether you think that the most important thing is HEALTH or EDUCATION or TAX or FOREIGN POLICY or POLICE or PUBLIC NUDITY – the decisions about how to deal with ALL of those are made by the people we elect. Or in the case of the House of Lords Club, the people we DON'T elect! Which means getting how we elect them right has to be sorted FIRST.
The UNGODLY alliance between the WACKY-WING of the Tories and the closet-conservative REACTIONARIES in the Hard Labour party is based on their old fashioned sense of ENTITLEMENT.
They just cannot get over the idea that PEOPLE have a RIGHT to say how they are governed. That the "social contract" between people and government has OBLIGATIONS on THEIR side too.
They don't like the COALITION because it's an example of how Governments ought to work: messy, certainly, but with policies being argued out IN PUBLIC and with the public able to see what's being decided.
And they don't like the idea of an ELECTED House of Lords because it's the last bastion of "we know better than you" against actually having to do what their BOSSES, you me and everyone else in Great Britain, actually tell them to do!
Mr Milipede – presumably as part of an ongoing bid to plagiarise EVERY television comedy going – calls this sort of government an "OMNI-SHAMBLES" because policies are being found wanting and rejected.
I guess Mr Milipede preferred the "good old days" of New Labour when policies would go wrong, but the Government would use their massive, gerrymandered majority to RAM THEM THROUGH ANYWAY.
Oh yes, how well we remember those TRIUMPHS of STRONG government: the 10p Tax debacle; the NHS database bully-balls-up; the almost entirely circular education policy that abolished one sort of academy before creating another; the classic I.D.iot card exercise in burning money; or everybody's favourite, the murderous and illegal invasion of a country that was no threat to us at all based on a LIE by the Prime Monster.
The word "OMNI-SHAMBLES" – lest Mr Milipede forget – is uttered by a character widely believed to be NOT-IN-ANY-WAY based on Mr Alistair Henchman of Dodgy Dossier infamy.
If THAT's "strong government" I'm all in FAVOUR of a House of Lords with a bit more MANDATE to say "not in our name!"
The case for an ELECTED House of Lords, and for a PROPORTIONALLY ELECTED elected House of Lords, is pretty much UNANSWERABLE. So much so that ALL the Parties elected to the House of Commons said that's what they would do at the last election.
An appointed chamber means PATRONAGE. It means CRONYISM. There is NO SUCH THING as an "independent" appointments commission – shame on you, Lord Steel – someone is ALWAYS going to "know someone". Being a "close personal friend" of the Prime Monster – or the "independent" head of the commission – is not a better reason for getting a free pass into the legislature than your great-great granny being a "close personal friend" of the monarch.
We're told we will lose an "expert" house. Well expertise can be highly overrated. You may be a brilliant neurosurgeon, but how many days of the week is the House of Lords legislating on neurosurgery, eh? We want brilliant GENERALISTS, not brilliant SPECIALISTS. Saying you're a great expert in ONE field is as good as saying you're as IGNORANT as the rest of us ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE!
But fine, if you believe that your expertise makes you better qualified to make laws, go right ahead and use it as one of your selling point when you STAND FOR ELECTION. If you're right, it will help you win.
We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1911. We didn't need a referendum to enact the Parliament Act in 1949. We don't need one now.
It seems ASTONISHING that people who CLAIM to be defending "the way that these things work" seem so anxious to RIDE ROUGHSHOD over, well, the way these things work. Surely it's difficult to defend the status quo of an unwritten constitution when you keep MAKING IT UP as you go along! And that they now want to waste MILLIONS of POUNDS of YOUR money, charging you for the PRIVILEGE of having a say over whether you should have a say... it beggars belief as well as the exchequer.
Let's just accept that it's the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY now and probably time to move on from an EIGHTEENTH CENTAURY Parliament. You were ALL elected on a manifesto pledge to do this, so pass the bill and let's get on and elect ALL* the people who make our laws.
*To a certain value of "all"! 80% for fluff's sake...!
.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Day 4112: Oh Dear Federal Conference Committee
Saturday:
Please, please, please read this GOLDEN posting from Mr Dave and then take the time to write – POLITELY – to the FCC (conferenceinformation@libdems.org.uk) about their BLITHERING proposals to let the POLICE decide who can come to OUR Conference.
Please remind them that we're the Liberal DEMOCRATS and not the "Liberal DO-WHAT-THE-FUZZ-SAYS-OCATS".
Only POLITELY.
Here's what Daddy Richard wrote:
More on this from Auntie Caron and Uncle Stephen O'the Glenn
.
Please, please, please read this GOLDEN posting from Mr Dave and then take the time to write – POLITELY – to the FCC (conferenceinformation@libdems.org.uk) about their BLITHERING proposals to let the POLICE decide who can come to OUR Conference.
Please remind them that we're the Liberal DEMOCRATS and not the "Liberal DO-WHAT-THE-FUZZ-SAYS-OCATS".
Only POLITELY.
Here's what Daddy Richard wrote:
I am distressed to learn from Andrew Wiseman's article for Liberal Democrat Voice of 14th April that once again you are considering conceding to the police the right to conduct checks on which of our members are permitted to attend Federal Conference.
The most important concern is that this is clearly an unwarranted constraint on the right of Party members to attend and participate in conference. The ability of the police to deny access to the democratic process – no matter what safeguards and party committees are required to give their approval – is illiberal.
If the police wish to stop you voting in a General Election, they are required to arrest you, and convict you by presenting evidence to a court. The proposals outlined by Andrew in his piece make no mention of whether the member in question will even be informed that the police have raised an objection, much less afforded the right to make a defence, which is clearly against natural justice.
We should be opposing this, not making it a part of our processes.
Second there is the question of intrusion. It is in the nature of state bureaucracies to gather more data simply because they can. I note, appalled, that it is necessary to "insist" on data being deleted after it is used. The routine assumption being that the police are entitled to keep data on private citizens once they have gathered it, just because! Again, we ought to resist this on principle. And on top of the general point, there are particular issues concerning the privacy of some LGBT+ members that are really not properly addressed by the proposals. As the Party that would like to think of ourselves as the most inclusive and welcoming, are we really happy to be seen closing the door to an important community?
Thirdly, but perhaps most likely to carry you, it seems that this proposal would be expensive and counter-productive, diverting limited police resources into performing background checks and away from measures that might have a measurable effect on the security of the conference. The examples Andrew listed in his piece as given by the police – the Brighton bombing and the Norwegian gunman – were both committed by individuals who were not registered for the conference and would therefore not have been prevented by any background check. Indeed, I should be grateful to know if accreditation has prevented any terrorist attack. Has any terrorist ever registered for the event which they intended to attack? Were they picked up by a review of their past associations?
I am highly concerned that the purpose of accreditation is to give the impression of security while not actually making anyone any safer. And indeed, by diverting resources, actually making the conference less safe.
Fourthly, I am sure that I do not need to remind you that conference passed a motion at Birmingham that specifically said:
"Conference therefore calls upon... The Party President to ensure that conference arrangements respect Article 6 of the federal constitution which provides that Local Parties elect representatives and that no other body within or without the party has the power to exclude in advance their attendance at conference."
(see: HERE {pdf})
To summarise: the proposal for conference accreditation is illiberal, anti-democratic, intrusive, unlikely to deliver any increase in security and quite possibly dangerously wasteful of police time and money and against the Party Constitution and the express will of Federal Conference.
I therefore ask you to please think again.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Flowers
Tower Hamlets Conference Representative
PS:
More on this from Auntie Caron and Uncle Stephen O'the Glenn
.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Day 4119: Shock and Snore – Master Gideon versus the Tax System
Wednesday:
It's all about tax returns, this week.
Apparently,the Treasury HM Revenue&Customs*+* have been SHOCKING Master Gideon with some of the ways that rich people run rings around the taxman.
Plus, we've now gotten infected by the American habit of politicians releasing their tax affairs to prove what good citizens they've been.
First it was the candidates for Mayor of London, sparked off by Mr Ken Newt saying that anyone who avoided tax didn't deserve a vote. Apparently overlooking that this included himself.
Now the contagion seems to have spread to Mr Balloon, Master Gideon and the rest of the Cabinet.
"Hands up who in benefits from the 50p tax cut," demanded Mr Milipede in the Budget debate. Repeatedly*. "Come on come on own up who's been naughty then," he could have added, since he was already behaving like the milk monitor in the reception class.
Of course he was taking advantage of PARLIAMENTARY ETIQUETTE that meant that none of them could reply, knowing that the CAMERAS would show them having to sit there like a bunch of LEMONS.
The simple answer, though, ought to have been: "NONE OF THEM", since the Coalition Cabinet took a pay CUT on entering office so that they, unlike when Mr Milipede was in the Cabinet, do not earn more than £150,000 for their duties. And since Mr Balloon also banned Cabinet ministers from moonlighting that ought to be ALL they earn.
(OK, possibly NOT what with trust funds, investment income, property portfolios and all the other ways for WEALTH to make money...**)
But a somewhat overlooked fact is that Cabinet ministers are actually WORSE OFF because of the changes in allowances and thresholds. Remember that "withdrawal of personal allowance" that Daddy keeps going on about? Well, because they earn more than a hundred thousand squids, that affects the Cabinet. So, they DON'T gain from the increased personal allowance that takes millions out of tax, but they DO have to pay more of their income at the 40% rate because of the reduced 40% threshold.
The changes mean that they will be paying more than a grand MORE in tax next year than they were when the Coalition formed in 2010.
The net effect of the tax changes mean that it's actually people earning more than a hundred and fifty AND eight-and-a-half thousand squids actually get a tax cut.
So you would have to be earning TWENTY-FOUR GRAND ON TOP of your Cabinet salary (not fifteen, as the Grauniad thinks) in order to benefit from the upper rate cut from 50p to 45p.
Yes, I'm SURE that your heart BLEEDS for them; it's not EXACTLY like they'll be short of sticky buns. But it IS worth remembering this whenever Hard Labour are bleating about "Do you benefit personally"; a fair reply would be: "No, and we're paying more than YOU did!"
*Actually, speaking of people who repeat the same line over and over without listening to the reply, Ms Rachel Reeves – robotic Shadow to Mr Danny – likes to bang on over and over that reducing the 50p rate to, er, a higher tax rate than Hard Labour had for all but FOUR of the SIX-HUNDRED and SEVENTY-NINE weeks that they were in government, amounts to an "average tax cut of ten thousand pounds".
How do you get "an average of ten thousand pounds"? Well, there are three hundred thousand people in the 50p-as-was bracket, so you take three billion squids and divide that by three hundred thousand.
Hang on, where did those three billion squids come from? That's half a billion squids MORE than even the two-and-a-half billion that Hard Labour claimed would be raised by the 50p rate. (Or THIRTY times more than the hundred million squids that the figures checked by the Office for Budget Responsibility agree that the upper rate ACTUALLY raised.) How is this MATHEMATICALLY possible?
After all, she could not have just MADE UP a big-sounding number, could she?
**Actually, this manages to get oh so close to an important point while still managing to miss it entirely.
Mind you, Mr Milipede does like to BLUR the difference between BEING a millionaire – which means HAVING a million squids – and EARNING a million pounds a year which makes you a CONSIDERABLY FATTER cat-monster.
(Certainly, we'd none of us say "no" to having a million squids... unless they were ACTUAL squids... ew! But the days when a million pounds could buy you a "millionaire lifestyle" are in the past. You'd be MODESTLY but not LAVISHLY well off for the rest of your life – you don't get much that interest at the moment, but the capital at least would last forty years if you gave yourself the equivalent of the average salary. In fact, thanks to the house price boom, a lot of people, especially in the south-east, are millionaires on paper without having a lot of ready cash for buying champagne and yachts.)
But if you are REALLY WEALTHY then it's quite possible to arrange your affairs so that you only get a SMALL INCOME. If you've got pots of cash, then there are all sorts of SAVINGS you can make – you don't need to pay for a MORTGAGE 'cos you can just buy a house with capital; you don't need to pay into a pension 'cos you've got a tidy pot already; you don't have to pay a fortune for a ticket for your daily commute 'cos you don't actually have to have a job; and so on.
So it's is a whole lot more complicated that JUST knowing what someone's "taxable earnings" are OR knowing that on paper they're worth "a million". To see the WHOLE PICTURE you need to have an idea of their earnings AND their total WEALTH (and probably the WEALTH of their immediate family, like spouses, parents, children, that great aunt of a distant cousin who just happens to let them live in her castle and fly about in her plane etc).
People who are PAID millions of squids are at least DOING SOMETHING (even if you cannot credit that they actually EARN a salary larger than the GDP of a small country***!). People who just SIT on piles of cash are actually WORSE 'cos they're not just not contributing to the country, but their wealth is actually locked away from the economy when it could be being invested.
That is why shifting tax from INCOME to WEALTH actually MAKES SENSE.
Though of course Liberal Democrats prefer to pass the tax cut on to the millions at the bottom end, rather than the Conservatories preference for giving a bung to a few chaps in the city City.
***Actually****, the country with the smallest GDP is Tuvalu, with a GDP of thirty-six million dollars, which is still more than Bingo Bob Diamond of Barclays gets paid. Shush, don't tell him.
****Too many "actuallys".
.
It's all about tax returns, this week.
Apparently,
Plus, we've now gotten infected by the American habit of politicians releasing their tax affairs to prove what good citizens they've been.
First it was the candidates for Mayor of London, sparked off by Mr Ken Newt saying that anyone who avoided tax didn't deserve a vote. Apparently overlooking that this included himself.
Now the contagion seems to have spread to Mr Balloon, Master Gideon and the rest of the Cabinet.
"Hands up who in benefits from the 50p tax cut," demanded Mr Milipede in the Budget debate. Repeatedly*. "Come on come on own up who's been naughty then," he could have added, since he was already behaving like the milk monitor in the reception class.
Of course he was taking advantage of PARLIAMENTARY ETIQUETTE that meant that none of them could reply, knowing that the CAMERAS would show them having to sit there like a bunch of LEMONS.
The simple answer, though, ought to have been: "NONE OF THEM", since the Coalition Cabinet took a pay CUT on entering office so that they, unlike when Mr Milipede was in the Cabinet, do not earn more than £150,000 for their duties. And since Mr Balloon also banned Cabinet ministers from moonlighting that ought to be ALL they earn.
(OK, possibly NOT what with trust funds, investment income, property portfolios and all the other ways for WEALTH to make money...**)
But a somewhat overlooked fact is that Cabinet ministers are actually WORSE OFF because of the changes in allowances and thresholds. Remember that "withdrawal of personal allowance" that Daddy keeps going on about? Well, because they earn more than a hundred thousand squids, that affects the Cabinet. So, they DON'T gain from the increased personal allowance that takes millions out of tax, but they DO have to pay more of their income at the 40% rate because of the reduced 40% threshold.
The changes mean that they will be paying more than a grand MORE in tax next year than they were when the Coalition formed in 2010.
The net effect of the tax changes mean that it's actually people earning more than a hundred and fifty AND eight-and-a-half thousand squids actually get a tax cut.
So you would have to be earning TWENTY-FOUR GRAND ON TOP of your Cabinet salary (not fifteen, as the Grauniad thinks) in order to benefit from the upper rate cut from 50p to 45p.
Yes, I'm SURE that your heart BLEEDS for them; it's not EXACTLY like they'll be short of sticky buns. But it IS worth remembering this whenever Hard Labour are bleating about "Do you benefit personally"; a fair reply would be: "No, and we're paying more than YOU did!"
*Actually, speaking of people who repeat the same line over and over without listening to the reply, Ms Rachel Reeves – robotic Shadow to Mr Danny – likes to bang on over and over that reducing the 50p rate to, er, a higher tax rate than Hard Labour had for all but FOUR of the SIX-HUNDRED and SEVENTY-NINE weeks that they were in government, amounts to an "average tax cut of ten thousand pounds".
How do you get "an average of ten thousand pounds"? Well, there are three hundred thousand people in the 50p-as-was bracket, so you take three billion squids and divide that by three hundred thousand.
Hang on, where did those three billion squids come from? That's half a billion squids MORE than even the two-and-a-half billion that Hard Labour claimed would be raised by the 50p rate. (Or THIRTY times more than the hundred million squids that the figures checked by the Office for Budget Responsibility agree that the upper rate ACTUALLY raised.) How is this MATHEMATICALLY possible?
After all, she could not have just MADE UP a big-sounding number, could she?
**Actually, this manages to get oh so close to an important point while still managing to miss it entirely.
Mind you, Mr Milipede does like to BLUR the difference between BEING a millionaire – which means HAVING a million squids – and EARNING a million pounds a year which makes you a CONSIDERABLY FATTER cat-monster.
(Certainly, we'd none of us say "no" to having a million squids... unless they were ACTUAL squids... ew! But the days when a million pounds could buy you a "millionaire lifestyle" are in the past. You'd be MODESTLY but not LAVISHLY well off for the rest of your life – you don't get much that interest at the moment, but the capital at least would last forty years if you gave yourself the equivalent of the average salary. In fact, thanks to the house price boom, a lot of people, especially in the south-east, are millionaires on paper without having a lot of ready cash for buying champagne and yachts.)
But if you are REALLY WEALTHY then it's quite possible to arrange your affairs so that you only get a SMALL INCOME. If you've got pots of cash, then there are all sorts of SAVINGS you can make – you don't need to pay for a MORTGAGE 'cos you can just buy a house with capital; you don't need to pay into a pension 'cos you've got a tidy pot already; you don't have to pay a fortune for a ticket for your daily commute 'cos you don't actually have to have a job; and so on.
So it's is a whole lot more complicated that JUST knowing what someone's "taxable earnings" are OR knowing that on paper they're worth "a million". To see the WHOLE PICTURE you need to have an idea of their earnings AND their total WEALTH (and probably the WEALTH of their immediate family, like spouses, parents, children, that great aunt of a distant cousin who just happens to let them live in her castle and fly about in her plane etc).
People who are PAID millions of squids are at least DOING SOMETHING (even if you cannot credit that they actually EARN a salary larger than the GDP of a small country***!). People who just SIT on piles of cash are actually WORSE 'cos they're not just not contributing to the country, but their wealth is actually locked away from the economy when it could be being invested.
That is why shifting tax from INCOME to WEALTH actually MAKES SENSE.
Though of course Liberal Democrats prefer to pass the tax cut on to the millions at the bottom end, rather than the Conservatories preference for giving a bung to a few chaps in the city City.
***Actually****, the country with the smallest GDP is Tuvalu, with a GDP of thirty-six million dollars, which is still more than Bingo Bob Diamond of Barclays gets paid. Shush, don't tell him.
****Too many "actuallys".
PS:
*+*Actually, not the Treasury, but Her Maj's Revenue and Customs, thanks to Hon Lady Mark for correction. Arrgh "actually" overload!!!!!.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Day 4110: Snooper Powers aka This Must Be Stomped On With Giant Fluffy Elephant Feet!
Monday:
Leaks to the press say that the government – NB: authoritarian idiot branch (note to Cap’n Clegg: please ensure this is confined to Conservatory rabble) – are proposing to “maintain” our security forces' ability to fight baddies (or indeed anyone they think is looking at them funny) by MASSIVELY INCREASING the scale and scope of their powers.
Simple solution, Cap’n Clegg NEEDS to make a statement: “This is the Conservatories FLYING A KITE. You know as well as I do that I and my Party aren't going to put up with this sort of STUFF AND NONSENSE. Case closed.”
We are NOT in a competition to see who can be the most “not quite as EVIL as Hard Labour”.
We are the FLUFFING LIBERAL PARTY. We ROLL BACK this kind of thing; we do NOT ROLL OVER for it!
That is all.
.
Leaks to the press say that the government – NB: authoritarian idiot branch (note to Cap’n Clegg: please ensure this is confined to Conservatory rabble) – are proposing to “maintain” our security forces' ability to fight baddies (or indeed anyone they think is looking at them funny) by MASSIVELY INCREASING the scale and scope of their powers.
Simple solution, Cap’n Clegg NEEDS to make a statement: “This is the Conservatories FLYING A KITE. You know as well as I do that I and my Party aren't going to put up with this sort of STUFF AND NONSENSE. Case closed.”
We are NOT in a competition to see who can be the most “not quite as EVIL as Hard Labour”.
We are the FLUFFING LIBERAL PARTY. We ROLL BACK this kind of thing; we do NOT ROLL OVER for it!
That is all.
.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Day 4103: Cameron Plumbs New Depths
Monday:
What's the difference between the Prime Monster, Mr Balloon, and the man behind that big boat movie (currently being remade for telly as ITV's Drownton Abbey)?
Answer: they're both FISHY stories, but we've yet to hit fluffy bottom in Mr Balloon's latest cash for access scandal.
And, like the big boat in question, Mr Balloon's denials don't cut much ice.
When he says "this is not the way the Conservatories raise money", it stretches credulity un peux since Tory Treasury Mr John "Judge Dredd bad word" Crudd has resigned because you can see him on video doing exactly that.
Saying that the visitors to the upstairs flat are in Mr Balloon's "private time" was never going to wash. It stopped being his private business the moment that a senior Conservatory was on the tellybox saying that "private time" was up for public auction. Nor is the excuse that there would be no proper record of private visitors believable. At very least, they'd need to be on the list of people for the police to LET IN. (Or are we to understand that you can routinely troll up at Downing Street and tell the office on duty: "no, I'm not on the list, I've got some private time with Mr Balloon"?)
And Auntie Maude's appeal on the The Today Programme was also less than convincing: look, he said, everyone knows you can buy access to the Prime Monster. We are completely open and honest about how nakedly venal we are.
That Conservatory menu in full:
It was with something approaching heroic stupidity that Hard Labour fielded Lord Levy on this subject, the man who was cleared of selling peerages by a Metropolitan police commissioner who later received a peerage. No relation. Fortunately it turned out to be a TOTAL COINCIDENCE that every single person to donate one million pounds to Hard Labour received a knighthood or a seat in the House of Lords, or THAT might have been AWKWARD!
Brave, too, of Mr Milipede to demand an inquiry into "Cash for Policymaking" given where that's likely to go in his own Party, and the way that Hard Labour keep on scuppering cross-Party agreement on donations so that the Unions can continue buying access to Hard Labour policymaking, er, I mean making fraternal donations for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and dropping those changes to Hard Labour's constitution last year was ENTIRELY a COINCIDENCE too. HONESTLY.
Another inquiry, though, will get us NOWHERE. We already KNOW what the answer is: limit donations, a proper register of lobby interests and lashings of HUMBLE PIE.
It is EASY to lampoon politicians as in the pocket of SHADY PLUTOCRATS... because they ARE. We ALL get tarred with that particular brush. Protesting that it's "just the Conservatories" will only get us slapped with a "well YOU'RE in bed with them".
Mr Mark Reckons is DEAD RIGHT on this: the Liberal Democrats need to announce an immediate self-denying ordinance of only accepting donations of ten grand or less.
(If nothing else, it would spare us the embarrassment of another Michael Brown fiasco – our one and only big donor in all of history and it was a bad-word up of such, forgive me, Titanic proportions that one suspects he was actually a Conservatory sleeper agent all along, intent on providing that Tory blogger Dale Winton with an "all Parties are corrupt" riposte to be used every single time that his own Party are caught red-fluffy-footed with another brown envelope.)
.
What's the difference between the Prime Monster, Mr Balloon, and the man behind that big boat movie (currently being remade for telly as ITV's Drownton Abbey)?
Answer: they're both FISHY stories, but we've yet to hit fluffy bottom in Mr Balloon's latest cash for access scandal.
And, like the big boat in question, Mr Balloon's denials don't cut much ice.
When he says "this is not the way the Conservatories raise money", it stretches credulity un peux since Tory Treasury Mr John "Judge Dredd bad word" Crudd has resigned because you can see him on video doing exactly that.
Saying that the visitors to the upstairs flat are in Mr Balloon's "private time" was never going to wash. It stopped being his private business the moment that a senior Conservatory was on the tellybox saying that "private time" was up for public auction. Nor is the excuse that there would be no proper record of private visitors believable. At very least, they'd need to be on the list of people for the police to LET IN. (Or are we to understand that you can routinely troll up at Downing Street and tell the office on duty: "no, I'm not on the list, I've got some private time with Mr Balloon"?)
And Auntie Maude's appeal on the The Today Programme was also less than convincing: look, he said, everyone knows you can buy access to the Prime Monster. We are completely open and honest about how nakedly venal we are.
That Conservatory menu in full:
- "Treasurer's Club": £100,000 buys you a brief meeting with the Prime Monster
- "Leader's Club": £250,000 and you get an intimate soiree for deux in the Number Ten flat
- "Inner Circle": £500,000 and you can spend the weekend at Chequers and snog SamCam
- "Masonic Rites of Dracula": £25,000,000 and he'll do bad bad BAD with a pig on live national telly.
It was with something approaching heroic stupidity that Hard Labour fielded Lord Levy on this subject, the man who was cleared of selling peerages by a Metropolitan police commissioner who later received a peerage. No relation. Fortunately it turned out to be a TOTAL COINCIDENCE that every single person to donate one million pounds to Hard Labour received a knighthood or a seat in the House of Lords, or THAT might have been AWKWARD!
Brave, too, of Mr Milipede to demand an inquiry into "Cash for Policymaking" given where that's likely to go in his own Party, and the way that Hard Labour keep on scuppering cross-Party agreement on donations so that the Unions can continue buying access to Hard Labour policymaking, er, I mean making fraternal donations for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and dropping those changes to Hard Labour's constitution last year was ENTIRELY a COINCIDENCE too. HONESTLY.
Another inquiry, though, will get us NOWHERE. We already KNOW what the answer is: limit donations, a proper register of lobby interests and lashings of HUMBLE PIE.
It is EASY to lampoon politicians as in the pocket of SHADY PLUTOCRATS... because they ARE. We ALL get tarred with that particular brush. Protesting that it's "just the Conservatories" will only get us slapped with a "well YOU'RE in bed with them".
Mr Mark Reckons is DEAD RIGHT on this: the Liberal Democrats need to announce an immediate self-denying ordinance of only accepting donations of ten grand or less.
(If nothing else, it would spare us the embarrassment of another Michael Brown fiasco – our one and only big donor in all of history and it was a bad-word up of such, forgive me, Titanic proportions that one suspects he was actually a Conservatory sleeper agent all along, intent on providing that Tory blogger Dale Winton with an "all Parties are corrupt" riposte to be used every single time that his own Party are caught red-fluffy-footed with another brown envelope.)
.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Day 4100: The Shocking Truth – Who is Worse Off under the Granny Tax
Friday:
It warms my fluffy heart to see the great and the good of the left (La Pollyanna Toytown and chums) manning the barricades on behalf of those who don't earn enough to benefit in this week's budget, who face more cuts to welfare and tax credits and who...
Sorry, what's that?
They're ACTUALLY kicking up a fuss about people who ALREADY get extra benefits being told they're getting even more on top?
Riiiiiiiight.
From the HOWLS and CARTOONS you'd think that Gideon was PHYSICALLY removing tenners from old ladies' purses and stuffing them into the thongs of passing Fat-Cat-Monsters.
(And why GRANNIES not GRANDDADDIES, I am not alone in asking. And does this only apply if you have offspring who have offspring?)
The truth is the rather-more-nuanced: "He's not sticking an extra tenner INTO the Grannies' (etc) purses".
(Something that the Hard Labour HYPOCRITES were doing for YEARS on the sly, but when Gideon is naive enough to TELL people what he's doing, they go all SHOCKED MITTENS.)
So who IS going to have to pay MORE because of this "mugging"?
(This is the SCIENCE BIT – you can tune out for the next few paragraphs if you want.)
It's not QUITE nobody.
No one over 65, not one single person, will be worse off because of the changes to personal allowances.
In fact, better-off older people, those earning between thirty and forty thousand pounds (those people still in work or with REALLY good pensions) will be even BETTER off because they don't get the age-related bonus either (one of those iniquitous "withdrawal of personal allowance" stings that we have talked of before), so they WILL benefit from the Liberal Democrat tax cut that raises EVERYONE'S personal allowance.
HOWEVER, in an example of the World's Smallest Inter-generational IniquityTM, people who are sixty-THREE now, would have gained an extra allowance when they turn sixty-five in 2013/14 and they now WON'T get the EXTRA allowance. So if they are earning more than nine grand (and many will be relying on a retirement income that is less than that) then, because they'll be starting to pay tax at the new higher personal allowance of £9,205 instead of the age-related personal allowance of £10,500, they could be paying up to £259 of tax that they would not have had to pay.
People who are sixty-TWO now would have gained the extra allowance in 2014/15. It is a reasonable guess, in fact a near certainty, that the personal allowance will go up to £10,000 in that year (a year faster than planned thanks to Liberal Democrats negotiations over the budget). They will miss out on £500 of bonus personal allowance, so, again if they have enough income, they will pay £100 in tax more than they might have done. Current sixty-three year-olds with similar incomes will also have to pay this £100.
(There is a similar effect on people who are SEVENTY-three, who – if their income is above ten-and-a-half grand – will pay an extra £32 in each year that they would not have done if the system hadn't changed, and people who are SEVENTY-two – likewise, earning more than £10,500 – who will miss out on that £32 tax cut in the second year.)
It looks pretty likely, though, that in 2015/16 the personal allowance will go up to MORE than £10,500... in fact ideally to more than £10,660... and the advantage of the age-related allowance will cease to exist.
(And I appreciate that there is a fairly subtle difference between not getting a benefit that you've never had BUT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD, and not getting a benefit that no one has ever had.
So, current sixty-three-year-olds (who earn between roughly nine thousand pounds and twenty-six thousand pounds) will be worse off by £359 (or less, and most by nothing).
Current sixty-two-year-olds (earning likewise) will be worse off by £100 (or less).
Current seventy-three-year-olds (you get the bit with the earnings by now) will be worse off by £64 (or less).
And current seventy-two-year-olds (earnings blah blah blah) will be worse off by £32 (or less).
And no one else.
No one else will be worse off.
Of course they'll not be BETTER OFF either. But that's because they're BETTER OFF ALREADY, and the effect of these changes mean that everyone else is just CATCHING UP.
All of the wheezing and groaning that we hear on this issue is coming from people who already HAVE more benefits than younger people AND EXPECTED TO GET EVEN MORE ON TOP OF THAT.
The IFS study has shown that actually, pensioners have contributed LEAST to the austerity.
So maybe, just maybe, it is RIGHT to ask them to shoulder a little of the burden too by GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY GET and NOT PAYING MORE.
Which is SO harsh.
The big surprise is that it was the CONSERVATORIES who put this change into the budget mix. The Liberal Democrats' preferred option – as voted at Conference – was to restrict the benefit of paying into pensions for higher rate tax-payers.
You'll not be surprised to hear that Daddy Richard actually PREFERS the Budget's option, because it means that people will pay the tax on their income WHEN THEY GET THE MONEY, rather than when they are putting it into the pension fund.
What you might NOT expect, thought is that, even though pension contributions are NOT to be included in the Tycoon Tax limit of 25% of earnings being put into legitimate tax avoidance, we're not so sure that we would mind if they were!
We've had a LOT of discussion with Count Packula (...and, er, had a chat with Mr Danny... and, er, passed the word to Cap'n Clegg...) about how much paying into a pension is LEGITIMATELY providing for an independent retirement and how much is MANIPULATING the tax system by shifting income to a time when you are in a lower tax bracket. The evidence seems to be that a LOT of people dodged the bullet of the 50p rate by dropping extra income into pensions. It's persuasive that this – like many other tax-advantageous schemes – is being used as a DODGE.
And so we've come to the conclusion that LIMITING how MUCH of your income you can defer like this – and 25% seems like a FAIR amount – is a BETTER way to stop ABUSE than asking people to pay contributions from their taxed income.
Anyway, that's neither here nor there when it comes to THIS budget.
There's still plenty to be OUTRAGED about in the budget...
...although, as with MOST of the WRETCHED COMPROMISES that we have to make in this Coalition, it's possible to feel a bit better about our bits when you've looked at the details – e.g. we may not have got a mansion tax NOW, but that doesn't mean it's off the table; the Conservatories still want to get rid of that 45p rate. Never mind what you hear in the papers about Gideon being in two minds about whether or not they should get rid of the 50p: it was the first thing the Conservatories slapped on the table and their number one red line. They were GAGGING for it! So we've got a LOT of leverage left with the 45p, which will cost more and need a more significant wealth tax to pay for it. HINT HINT.
And the tax incentives for creative industries are very much to be welcomed, as they are in line with Mr Dr Vince's leaked letter about how the Government should have an industrial strategy that supports British winners. A BIG difference between us and the Conservatories is that a Liberal government would INTERVENE to help, as opposed to Conservatory LAISSEZ-FAIRE (or Laissez-FAIL more often than not). We can and must be the Party of the VISION THING!
On the other fluffy foot, Master Gideon talked about taking another ten billion away from welfare. It might not be what he meant, but it's certainly what he SAID. Which is terrifying!
And the politics of the 50p rate remain just AWFUL. And the mathematics looks quite risky. The 50p rate may only have raised around a hundred million because the high-earners avoided the tax (through contributions to pensions and other legitimate schemes and wheezes), but that DOESN'T mean that they won't similarly duck the 45p rate, and we could end up with a substantially larger hole in the finances that Gideon predicts.
And even if he's got his sums right, the effects of the Tycoon Tax and the extra Stamp Duty don't really start to be felt until year THREE of this plan. This year the budget shows what is called a "fiscal tightening" or LESS MONEY IN of nearly two billion pounds, and next year one billion. That's a gap that's got to mean accelerated restraint on the spending side. Or FASTER, DEEPER CUTS.
So get angry, if you have to get angry, but get angry about the RIGHT THINGS.
Get angry that the Liberal Democrats fought their corner WELL and got a tax cut for MILLIONS but still couldn't stop the Conservatories giving a bung to billionaires.
Get angry that there is less for those in poverty, and remember whose FAULT that is.
Get angry about the GREED of the Labour years that RUINED the economy and that the poorest, as always, have to pay for Labour's folly.
But if you REALLY want to get angry, get angry at the FAUX outrage of MILLIONAIRE lefties cynically playing politics with Grannies, scaring them that they'll be taxed into the poorhouse when really they'll pay NOT A PENNY MORE.
.
It warms my fluffy heart to see the great and the good of the left (La Pollyanna Toytown and chums) manning the barricades on behalf of those who don't earn enough to benefit in this week's budget, who face more cuts to welfare and tax credits and who...
Sorry, what's that?
They're ACTUALLY kicking up a fuss about people who ALREADY get extra benefits being told they're getting even more on top?
Riiiiiiiight.
From the HOWLS and CARTOONS you'd think that Gideon was PHYSICALLY removing tenners from old ladies' purses and stuffing them into the thongs of passing Fat-Cat-Monsters.
(And why GRANNIES not GRANDDADDIES, I am not alone in asking. And does this only apply if you have offspring who have offspring?)
The truth is the rather-more-nuanced: "He's not sticking an extra tenner INTO the Grannies' (etc) purses".
(Something that the Hard Labour HYPOCRITES were doing for YEARS on the sly, but when Gideon is naive enough to TELL people what he's doing, they go all SHOCKED MITTENS.)
So who IS going to have to pay MORE because of this "mugging"?
(This is the SCIENCE BIT – you can tune out for the next few paragraphs if you want.)
It's not QUITE nobody.
No one over 65, not one single person, will be worse off because of the changes to personal allowances.
In fact, better-off older people, those earning between thirty and forty thousand pounds (those people still in work or with REALLY good pensions) will be even BETTER off because they don't get the age-related bonus either (one of those iniquitous "withdrawal of personal allowance" stings that we have talked of before), so they WILL benefit from the Liberal Democrat tax cut that raises EVERYONE'S personal allowance.
HOWEVER, in an example of the World's Smallest Inter-generational IniquityTM, people who are sixty-THREE now, would have gained an extra allowance when they turn sixty-five in 2013/14 and they now WON'T get the EXTRA allowance. So if they are earning more than nine grand (and many will be relying on a retirement income that is less than that) then, because they'll be starting to pay tax at the new higher personal allowance of £9,205 instead of the age-related personal allowance of £10,500, they could be paying up to £259 of tax that they would not have had to pay.
People who are sixty-TWO now would have gained the extra allowance in 2014/15. It is a reasonable guess, in fact a near certainty, that the personal allowance will go up to £10,000 in that year (a year faster than planned thanks to Liberal Democrats negotiations over the budget). They will miss out on £500 of bonus personal allowance, so, again if they have enough income, they will pay £100 in tax more than they might have done. Current sixty-three year-olds with similar incomes will also have to pay this £100.
(There is a similar effect on people who are SEVENTY-three, who – if their income is above ten-and-a-half grand – will pay an extra £32 in each year that they would not have done if the system hadn't changed, and people who are SEVENTY-two – likewise, earning more than £10,500 – who will miss out on that £32 tax cut in the second year.)
It looks pretty likely, though, that in 2015/16 the personal allowance will go up to MORE than £10,500... in fact ideally to more than £10,660... and the advantage of the age-related allowance will cease to exist.
(And I appreciate that there is a fairly subtle difference between not getting a benefit that you've never had BUT THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE HAD, and not getting a benefit that no one has ever had.
So, current sixty-three-year-olds (who earn between roughly nine thousand pounds and twenty-six thousand pounds) will be worse off by £359 (or less, and most by nothing).
Current sixty-two-year-olds (earning likewise) will be worse off by £100 (or less).
Current seventy-three-year-olds (you get the bit with the earnings by now) will be worse off by £64 (or less).
And current seventy-two-year-olds (earnings blah blah blah) will be worse off by £32 (or less).
And no one else.
No one else will be worse off.
Of course they'll not be BETTER OFF either. But that's because they're BETTER OFF ALREADY, and the effect of these changes mean that everyone else is just CATCHING UP.
All of the wheezing and groaning that we hear on this issue is coming from people who already HAVE more benefits than younger people AND EXPECTED TO GET EVEN MORE ON TOP OF THAT.
The IFS study has shown that actually, pensioners have contributed LEAST to the austerity.
So maybe, just maybe, it is RIGHT to ask them to shoulder a little of the burden too by GETTING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY GET and NOT PAYING MORE.
Which is SO harsh.
The big surprise is that it was the CONSERVATORIES who put this change into the budget mix. The Liberal Democrats' preferred option – as voted at Conference – was to restrict the benefit of paying into pensions for higher rate tax-payers.
You'll not be surprised to hear that Daddy Richard actually PREFERS the Budget's option, because it means that people will pay the tax on their income WHEN THEY GET THE MONEY, rather than when they are putting it into the pension fund.
What you might NOT expect, thought is that, even though pension contributions are NOT to be included in the Tycoon Tax limit of 25% of earnings being put into legitimate tax avoidance, we're not so sure that we would mind if they were!
We've had a LOT of discussion with Count Packula (...and, er, had a chat with Mr Danny... and, er, passed the word to Cap'n Clegg...) about how much paying into a pension is LEGITIMATELY providing for an independent retirement and how much is MANIPULATING the tax system by shifting income to a time when you are in a lower tax bracket. The evidence seems to be that a LOT of people dodged the bullet of the 50p rate by dropping extra income into pensions. It's persuasive that this – like many other tax-advantageous schemes – is being used as a DODGE.
And so we've come to the conclusion that LIMITING how MUCH of your income you can defer like this – and 25% seems like a FAIR amount – is a BETTER way to stop ABUSE than asking people to pay contributions from their taxed income.
Anyway, that's neither here nor there when it comes to THIS budget.
There's still plenty to be OUTRAGED about in the budget...
...although, as with MOST of the WRETCHED COMPROMISES that we have to make in this Coalition, it's possible to feel a bit better about our bits when you've looked at the details – e.g. we may not have got a mansion tax NOW, but that doesn't mean it's off the table; the Conservatories still want to get rid of that 45p rate. Never mind what you hear in the papers about Gideon being in two minds about whether or not they should get rid of the 50p: it was the first thing the Conservatories slapped on the table and their number one red line. They were GAGGING for it! So we've got a LOT of leverage left with the 45p, which will cost more and need a more significant wealth tax to pay for it. HINT HINT.
And the tax incentives for creative industries are very much to be welcomed, as they are in line with Mr Dr Vince's leaked letter about how the Government should have an industrial strategy that supports British winners. A BIG difference between us and the Conservatories is that a Liberal government would INTERVENE to help, as opposed to Conservatory LAISSEZ-FAIRE (or Laissez-FAIL more often than not). We can and must be the Party of the VISION THING!
On the other fluffy foot, Master Gideon talked about taking another ten billion away from welfare. It might not be what he meant, but it's certainly what he SAID. Which is terrifying!
And the politics of the 50p rate remain just AWFUL. And the mathematics looks quite risky. The 50p rate may only have raised around a hundred million because the high-earners avoided the tax (through contributions to pensions and other legitimate schemes and wheezes), but that DOESN'T mean that they won't similarly duck the 45p rate, and we could end up with a substantially larger hole in the finances that Gideon predicts.
And even if he's got his sums right, the effects of the Tycoon Tax and the extra Stamp Duty don't really start to be felt until year THREE of this plan. This year the budget shows what is called a "fiscal tightening" or LESS MONEY IN of nearly two billion pounds, and next year one billion. That's a gap that's got to mean accelerated restraint on the spending side. Or FASTER, DEEPER CUTS.
So get angry, if you have to get angry, but get angry about the RIGHT THINGS.
Get angry that the Liberal Democrats fought their corner WELL and got a tax cut for MILLIONS but still couldn't stop the Conservatories giving a bung to billionaires.
Get angry that there is less for those in poverty, and remember whose FAULT that is.
Get angry about the GREED of the Labour years that RUINED the economy and that the poorest, as always, have to pay for Labour's folly.
But if you REALLY want to get angry, get angry at the FAUX outrage of MILLIONAIRE lefties cynically playing politics with Grannies, scaring them that they'll be taxed into the poorhouse when really they'll pay NOT A PENNY MORE.
.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Day 4098: Oh What A Lovely Budget. Apparently.
Wednesday:
A letter arrives. It's from Captain Clegg! He seems unnaturally happy about Master Gideon's latest budget. I'd better check the POSTMARK – ah yes, he appears to be writing from CLOUD CUCKOO LAND...
But anyone earning more than £155,000 has had a tax cut of more than £250, and that's MORE than the £220 a basic rate taxpayer will get.
And Stamp Duty is a tax on BUYING property, not on HAVING property – it's not really a wealth tax, more a barrier to entry to the Tory Toff circles.
Or maybe it's just misplaced punctuation!
To be fair, some of the more EGREGIOUS get-out-of-tax-free loopholes have been, well not closed but made considerably more modest and that DOES gain us back a sizeable whack more tax, clawing back about a BILLION quid over five years.
So if you take the Tycoon Tax to mean the capping of some of those tax avoidance schemes PLUS a similar amount from the Stamp Duty then you might get to...
And then we see ANOTHER TEN BILLION off Welfare payments.
But that DOESN'T mean taking pride in a Budget that basically tickles the Tories' tummies and gives us one concession and sending us off with a pat on the head.
How did we manage to let them NOT put up any serious wealth taxes?
How much* of that ten billion welfare cut goes towards mitigating the cut in BENEFITS for RICH PEOPLE?
And how about we STOP trying to OWN the whole Government, take CREDIT for what we HAVE got (a basic rate tax cut) and ADMIT to where we DIDN'T get our way (oops, no mansion tax!).
I'll be PROUD when we HAVE a Lib Dem budget. Until then, I'll stick with being thankful for small mercies and APOLOGISING for shaf... bad-word-ing the poor. AGAIN!
*It's about two-thirds of a billion a year, actually. Look, I LIKE universal benefits, they're simple, unbureaucratic and get to the people who need them, but that doesn't mean I'd choose child benefit for duchesses over employment support for the disabled.
.
A letter arrives. It's from Captain Clegg! He seems unnaturally happy about Master Gideon's latest budget. I'd better check the POSTMARK – ah yes, he appears to be writing from CLOUD CUCKOO LAND...
Dear Millennium, We can be proud that the biggest tax cuts in today's Budget go to millions of working families.Well, the most EXPENSIVE tax cuts, perhaps. 'Cos with only 330,000 people paying 50%, it costs LESS OVERALL to give them a bung.
But anyone earning more than £155,000 has had a tax cut of more than £250, and that's MORE than the £220 a basic rate taxpayer will get.
As a result of this Budget, someone working a full week on minimum wage will see their income tax bill cut by over 50% compared to under Labour.Successfully not benefitting EITHER of my Daddies, because one earns too much and one earns too little. Congratulations to the households of TWO top-end basic rate payers, though. You earn more than both Daddies put together AND get two tax cuts. Plus you keep your Fluffy Child benefit! Hooray!
Increasing the personal allowance to £9,205 takes us within touching distance of our number one manifesto pledge – ensuring no one pays any tax on the first £10,000 they earn.
Thanks to our changes, a basic rate taxpayer will be paying £45 a month less in tax than they would have been under Labour.Although strictly speaking, that's £45 LESS the extra that they are paying in VAT and duties on fuel, beer and ciggies. And yes, Hard Labour WOULD have put those things up too (especially the VAT) but you're not comparing a fictional Labour budget with Gideon's actual figures – you're comparing the actual tax rates they had in 2010.
We can be proud that we've ensured the richest in our society will be paying more, much more.Oh please! At Conference you were implying that the Tycoon Tax should be a tax on INCOME, some sort of minimum percentage that billionaires like Mitt Moron ought to pay. Today it's a hike in stamp duty. STAMP DUTY?! This just looks like spin. And not very good spin.
The Tycoon Tax, an increase in stamp duty for high value properties and other new taxes on wealth...
And Stamp Duty is a tax on BUYING property, not on HAVING property – it's not really a wealth tax, more a barrier to entry to the Tory Toff circles.
Or maybe it's just misplaced punctuation!
To be fair, some of the more EGREGIOUS get-out-of-tax-free loopholes have been, well not closed but made considerably more modest and that DOES gain us back a sizeable whack more tax, clawing back about a BILLION quid over five years.
So if you take the Tycoon Tax to mean the capping of some of those tax avoidance schemes PLUS a similar amount from the Stamp Duty then you might get to...
...will raise five times as much as the 50p tax rate. Those with annual incomes of more than £150,000 a year will be paying on average an additional £1,300 a year in tax, as a result of this Budget.How?
Of course, this is a Coalition Budget and we did not get our own way on everything.Well, it IS true that the budget has been an obvious case of a Liberal Democrat tax cut at the bottom and a Conservatory tax cut at the top, and that's GOOD, we can work with that. But the question is WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM. And it looks very like it's come from FASTER and DEEPER cuts.
And then we see ANOTHER TEN BILLION off Welfare payments.
Conservative priorities are not ours. But as on so many other issues...We rolled over and let them have their way?
...we have made sure that there is a real Liberal Democrat stamp on this Budget.And a real Conservatory kick in the badwords.
Lower taxes for more than 20 million working people; effective new taxes on the rich.Really, Cap'n? Proud?
This is a Budget we can be proud of – a Budget for the many, not the few.
Thanks for all the support you give to the party. Best wishes,Well, I support the Party because we're supposed to be BETTER than this. We ACCEPT that we cannot do the ALL things we want to do, nor that we can stop the Conservatories doing many bad things we'd rather that they didn't.
But that DOESN'T mean taking pride in a Budget that basically tickles the Tories' tummies and gives us one concession and sending us off with a pat on the head.
How did we manage to let them NOT put up any serious wealth taxes?
How much* of that ten billion welfare cut goes towards mitigating the cut in BENEFITS for RICH PEOPLE?
And how about we STOP trying to OWN the whole Government, take CREDIT for what we HAVE got (a basic rate tax cut) and ADMIT to where we DIDN'T get our way (oops, no mansion tax!).
I'll be PROUD when we HAVE a Lib Dem budget. Until then, I'll stick with being thankful for small mercies and APOLOGISING for shaf... bad-word-ing the poor. AGAIN!
PS:
*It's about two-thirds of a billion a year, actually. Look, I LIKE universal benefits, they're simple, unbureaucratic and get to the people who need them, but that doesn't mean I'd choose child benefit for duchesses over employment support for the disabled.
.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Day 4096: Ask Not For Whom the Road Toll, it Tolls for You!
Monday:
This is starting to get SILLY. Apparently we're now proposing to privatise the roads.
So buying large public works on the never-never is BAD when it is Hard Labour's crazy PFI schemes but FINE when it's giving the nation's vital road infrastructure over into the fluffy feet of MAMMON, is it?
Because we're all so PLEASED with the way that the OTHER privatised monopolies have worked out.
(So long as by "we" we mean "the foreign companies who now own our utilities".)
It's not QUITE up there with slashing disabled people's benefits, but it is a VERY Conservatory-led policy.
If we want a JOBS and GROWTH strategy, wouldn't it be a BETTER idea to keep the key underpinnings of our civilisation in public ownership?
And for a government that is supposed to be obsessed with NOT lumbering our children with debt the way Hard Labour did, do we really want to be using some of Hard Labour's Enron-style OFF-BALANCE SHEET accounting to spend money now and pay later?
.
This is starting to get SILLY. Apparently we're now proposing to privatise the roads.
So buying large public works on the never-never is BAD when it is Hard Labour's crazy PFI schemes but FINE when it's giving the nation's vital road infrastructure over into the fluffy feet of MAMMON, is it?
Because we're all so PLEASED with the way that the OTHER privatised monopolies have worked out.
(So long as by "we" we mean "the foreign companies who now own our utilities".)
It's not QUITE up there with slashing disabled people's benefits, but it is a VERY Conservatory-led policy.
If we want a JOBS and GROWTH strategy, wouldn't it be a BETTER idea to keep the key underpinnings of our civilisation in public ownership?
And for a government that is supposed to be obsessed with NOT lumbering our children with debt the way Hard Labour did, do we really want to be using some of Hard Labour's Enron-style OFF-BALANCE SHEET accounting to spend money now and pay later?
.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Day 4088: NHS – a Typical Liberal Compromise
Sunday:
Just back from the NHS debate and we've succeed in voting for EVERYONE! We agreed with Ms Dame Shirl the Girl that the amended bill was now better, and we agreed with Mr Dr Evan that the Lords can still vote to nuke it anyway!
Many good points were made, about the complexity of the new arrangements and that there is more centralisation going on under cover of devolving some other powers. And of course that none of the doctors, nurses, midwives, surgeons or psi-judges who have looked at the bill actually want it.
BUT, Dame Shirl made the MOST telling point.
Hard Labour's 2006y bill – which we default to if we kill this one – laid the foundation for PRIVATISING the Health Service, with their PFIs and sweetheart deals for private clinics and paying for operations that don't even happen.
OUR bill, now we've amended it, STOPS LABOUR'S PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS.
On the whole, I think that the CORE of this bill is a GOOD IDEA that has been VERY BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
Giving the POWERS and the RESPONSIBILITIES for YOUR care to YOUR doctor is a GOOD THING.
But we should have done it VOLUNTARILY and we should have run LOTS OF TRIALS so that people could SEE if it worked.
And if it DID work, people would have been CALLING for the changes not shouting "traitor" at queues of people that they ought to be persuading. (ACTUALLY HAPPENED – good way to persuade people that!)
And if it DIDN'T we could have agreed to drop it based on the evidence.
Instead we have the mess Mr Landslide and Mr Balloon dropped us in.
"No top down reforms of the NHS" – it's almost like Mr Balloon wasn't paying any attention to what his ministers wanted.
At least the Lib Dems are listening!
PS: Got stuck in the lift with Mr Dr Vince this morning and it carried us away to the fifth floor instead of the ground. Still, if you're going to be trapped with the Business Secretary it's better to on your way to the top!
Just back from the NHS debate and we've succeed in voting for EVERYONE! We agreed with Ms Dame Shirl the Girl that the amended bill was now better, and we agreed with Mr Dr Evan that the Lords can still vote to nuke it anyway!
Many good points were made, about the complexity of the new arrangements and that there is more centralisation going on under cover of devolving some other powers. And of course that none of the doctors, nurses, midwives, surgeons or psi-judges who have looked at the bill actually want it.
BUT, Dame Shirl made the MOST telling point.
Hard Labour's 2006y bill – which we default to if we kill this one – laid the foundation for PRIVATISING the Health Service, with their PFIs and sweetheart deals for private clinics and paying for operations that don't even happen.
OUR bill, now we've amended it, STOPS LABOUR'S PRIVATISATION OF THE NHS.
On the whole, I think that the CORE of this bill is a GOOD IDEA that has been VERY BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
Giving the POWERS and the RESPONSIBILITIES for YOUR care to YOUR doctor is a GOOD THING.
But we should have done it VOLUNTARILY and we should have run LOTS OF TRIALS so that people could SEE if it worked.
And if it DID work, people would have been CALLING for the changes not shouting "traitor" at queues of people that they ought to be persuading. (ACTUALLY HAPPENED – good way to persuade people that!)
And if it DIDN'T we could have agreed to drop it based on the evidence.
Instead we have the mess Mr Landslide and Mr Balloon dropped us in.
"No top down reforms of the NHS" – it's almost like Mr Balloon wasn't paying any attention to what his ministers wanted.
At least the Lib Dems are listening!
PS: Got stuck in the lift with Mr Dr Vince this morning and it carried us away to the fifth floor instead of the ground. Still, if you're going to be trapped with the Business Secretary it's better to on your way to the top!
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.)
Monday, March 05, 2012
Day 4081: Man Who Has Never Seen Snow Demands Right to Define Skiing*
Sunday:
*Well, that's about as silly as a frock-wearing man who has vowed never to marry insisting against all sense and evidence that only he can define marriage.
Look, I'm just THRILLED to learn that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS has penetrated the previously-entirely-inured-to-new-thinking sanctums of the Eternal Apostolic Catholic Church, prop Mr the Pope, but I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father's representative in Scotland, Mr Cardinal Keith – the aforementioned man in frock – that he can't just go making them up.
That's a little bit NAUGHTY.
Verging on the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
For starters, it's a lovely idea that everyone has a Human Right to a mummy and a daddy – although I'm not completely sure that Mr the Pope will be okay with Cardinal Keith deciding that the immaculate conception was a breach of Mr Jesus's human rights.
Nor, I'm afraid, does article sixteen define "marriage" as between men and women. What it ACTUALLY says is that "men and women have a human right to marriage". So it does say that men have a right to marriage and women have a right to marriage. But it doesn't say that you need one of each to practise that right. Which is fair enough because some people – including some Christians and some Muslims – have believed in having, for example, more than one woman in a marriage. And we couldn't go condemning people just for their weird religious beliefs, could we!
On the other fluffy foot, I do not think that Cardinal Keith has entirely thought through his insistence that it is not for the State to define marriage. After all, the Vatican is a State.
*Well, that's about as silly as a frock-wearing man who has vowed never to marry insisting against all sense and evidence that only he can define marriage.
Look, I'm just THRILLED to learn that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS has penetrated the previously-entirely-inured-to-new-thinking sanctums of the Eternal Apostolic Catholic Church, prop Mr the Pope, but I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father's representative in Scotland, Mr Cardinal Keith – the aforementioned man in frock – that he can't just go making them up.
That's a little bit NAUGHTY.
Verging on the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.
For starters, it's a lovely idea that everyone has a Human Right to a mummy and a daddy – although I'm not completely sure that Mr the Pope will be okay with Cardinal Keith deciding that the immaculate conception was a breach of Mr Jesus's human rights.
Nor, I'm afraid, does article sixteen define "marriage" as between men and women. What it ACTUALLY says is that "men and women have a human right to marriage". So it does say that men have a right to marriage and women have a right to marriage. But it doesn't say that you need one of each to practise that right. Which is fair enough because some people – including some Christians and some Muslims – have believed in having, for example, more than one woman in a marriage. And we couldn't go condemning people just for their weird religious beliefs, could we!
On the other fluffy foot, I do not think that Cardinal Keith has entirely thought through his insistence that it is not for the State to define marriage. After all, the Vatican is a State.
Day 4078: Why Don't We Just Tax Chutzpah?
Thursday:
Warming up to take a pop at our own tax policy, I'm reassured to see that the Conservatories continue to be driven into conniptions over the 50p tax rate, this week with another group of concerned businesspersons contacting the Hello-o-graph to express their anxiety that rich people contributing to the coffers and not being driven to leave the country is in some way bad.
Still, you've got to be impressed by their CHEEK!
"We believe the richest should help the poorest in society..." they say. Before demanding to help just that little bit less.
Here's a DIFFERENT taxing idea instead: LOWER the threshold of the 50% band to £140,000 as we raise the personal allowance to £10,000 and get rid of the withdrawal of personal allowance – a tax cut for the rich paid for by the richer, and a more HONEST and TRANSPARENT way of raising the tax from the most well off.
Warming up to take a pop at our own tax policy, I'm reassured to see that the Conservatories continue to be driven into conniptions over the 50p tax rate, this week with another group of concerned businesspersons contacting the Hello-o-graph to express their anxiety that rich people contributing to the coffers and not being driven to leave the country is in some way bad.
Still, you've got to be impressed by their CHEEK!
"We believe the richest should help the poorest in society..." they say. Before demanding to help just that little bit less.
Here's a DIFFERENT taxing idea instead: LOWER the threshold of the 50% band to £140,000 as we raise the personal allowance to £10,000 and get rid of the withdrawal of personal allowance – a tax cut for the rich paid for by the richer, and a more HONEST and TRANSPARENT way of raising the tax from the most well off.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Day 4077: True Fact
Wednesday:
It's been a bit heavy going at work this month – that's Daddy Richard's excuse AGAIN. So, sorry to all my readers for another month of light blogging. Here's some of what we missed...
 |
| From Blogger Pictures |
It's been a bit heavy going at work this month – that's Daddy Richard's excuse AGAIN. So, sorry to all my readers for another month of light blogging. Here's some of what we missed...
Day 4073: Workfare? Workfoul?
Saturday:
It's entirely voluntary and the idea is supposed to be to give young people the experience of holding down a job, of getting up in the morning, of working as part of a team and so on. Just without the experience of GETTING PAID FOR IT.
I have listened to the lovely Sarah Teather defending this government scheme, and pointing out that 50% of people who try it out DO go on to get a proper job afterwards. And I've heard that the scheme is terribly popular and that people are desperate to get on it. But with record youth unemployment, YOU'D be desperate for anything that might give you an edge too, wouldn't you. And I just can't get over the NIGGLING feeling that we have MINIMUM WAGE legislation in this country for a REASON.
We already know that the minimum wage is set TOO LOW. Otherwise why do we need to have WORKING TAX CREDITS? Surely we all know that these were not just the moody monomaniac's compulsion to control who is and is not "deserving" but also Mr Frown's ADMISSION that he would rather make other taxpayers subsidise criminally low salaries than force his new chums in big business to pay a living wage. A win-win for the authoritarian friend of the millionaires!
And now we're letting them pay NOTHING and getting people to work for the price of their benefits.
OK, it's not "slave" labour because you can just walk away; but it is a BLEEDIN' LIBERTY!
If a job needs doing – and burgers DO need flipping, shelves DO need stacking – then it ought to be worth PAYING someone to do it. If your company is getting some desperate youth to do it while on the Job Seekers, then that's a PAYING JOB LOST.
Waterstones quits unpaid labour scheme
Matalan quits unpaid labour scheme
Tesco and Argos quit unpaid labour scheme
Greggs the Bakers quit unpaid labour scheme
Burger King quits unpaid labour scheme
Do you see a pattern developing here?
It's entirely voluntary and the idea is supposed to be to give young people the experience of holding down a job, of getting up in the morning, of working as part of a team and so on. Just without the experience of GETTING PAID FOR IT.
I have listened to the lovely Sarah Teather defending this government scheme, and pointing out that 50% of people who try it out DO go on to get a proper job afterwards. And I've heard that the scheme is terribly popular and that people are desperate to get on it. But with record youth unemployment, YOU'D be desperate for anything that might give you an edge too, wouldn't you. And I just can't get over the NIGGLING feeling that we have MINIMUM WAGE legislation in this country for a REASON.
We already know that the minimum wage is set TOO LOW. Otherwise why do we need to have WORKING TAX CREDITS? Surely we all know that these were not just the moody monomaniac's compulsion to control who is and is not "deserving" but also Mr Frown's ADMISSION that he would rather make other taxpayers subsidise criminally low salaries than force his new chums in big business to pay a living wage. A win-win for the authoritarian friend of the millionaires!
And now we're letting them pay NOTHING and getting people to work for the price of their benefits.
OK, it's not "slave" labour because you can just walk away; but it is a BLEEDIN' LIBERTY!
If a job needs doing – and burgers DO need flipping, shelves DO need stacking – then it ought to be worth PAYING someone to do it. If your company is getting some desperate youth to do it while on the Job Seekers, then that's a PAYING JOB LOST.
Waterstones quits unpaid labour scheme
Matalan quits unpaid labour scheme
Tesco and Argos quit unpaid labour scheme
Greggs the Bakers quit unpaid labour scheme
Burger King quits unpaid labour scheme
Do you see a pattern developing here?
Day 4071: Subsidised Alcohol Leads to Brawl in Bar
Thursday:
Actually, the superficially-hilarious story of a Hard Labour MP going bananas and head-butting a Conservatory and then punching one of his own whips look like it might be a bit of a tragedy.
Mr Eric Joyce, the MP in question, looks like he might have gone off the rails after his wife left him. Or possibly vice versa. Either way, it looks like he could have done with a lot more care and attention from his colleagues before it got to this stage.
And let's not forget that WE didn't necessarily handle Charles Kennedy's drinking problem terribly well either.
So let's show a little compassion.
Ulysses
Actually, the superficially-hilarious story of a Hard Labour MP going bananas and head-butting a Conservatory and then punching one of his own whips look like it might be a bit of a tragedy.
Mr Eric Joyce, the MP in question, looks like he might have gone off the rails after his wife left him. Or possibly vice versa. Either way, it looks like he could have done with a lot more care and attention from his colleagues before it got to this stage.
And let's not forget that WE didn't necessarily handle Charles Kennedy's drinking problem terribly well either.
So let's show a little compassion.
Ulysses
Day 4069: Greek Tragedy
Tuesday:
The impossible financial situation in Greece rumbled on. On the one fluffy foot, you can UNDERSTAND why the Euro-bankers might want everyone in the Greek Parliament to sign up to the latest rescue plan – with fresh elections on the way, the temptation must be for an opposition party to repudiate the deal and stand on a platform of abandoning the austerity. And they'd probably WIN. The next government will surely be tempted to default, meaning the bankers will lose all the money they're considering loaning to the current government. So OBVIOUSLY they want everyone to be as IMPLICATED as everyone else.
But on the other fluffy foot, the bailout loans are basically by-passing the Greek people and going straight back to the banks that loaned them too much money in the first place.
Anyway, the Greek government managed to pull itself together long enough to even more pain... and then the Euro-bankers kept them waiting another week before grudgingly agreeing to hand over the cash rather than let the mother of democracy go bust. Which was nice.
Lots of people continued to opine that Greece will "obviously" have to leave the Euro, as though this makes any sense at all. ANY new Greek currency will fall through the floor faster than you can say TARTARUS, and leave them with raging hyper-inflation on top of their massive EURO-DENOMINATED debts. The problem for the Eurozone remains, as I've said before, north-European (especially German) reluctance to take some responsibility for the economic disparities and agree to GIVE MONEY to the poorer parts of the continent.
Unsurprisingly, the Greeks responded to this with the now the traditional riots.
2008 Riots
2010 Riots
2011 Riots
2011 Riots again
2012 Riots
2013 Future Riots
The impossible financial situation in Greece rumbled on. On the one fluffy foot, you can UNDERSTAND why the Euro-bankers might want everyone in the Greek Parliament to sign up to the latest rescue plan – with fresh elections on the way, the temptation must be for an opposition party to repudiate the deal and stand on a platform of abandoning the austerity. And they'd probably WIN. The next government will surely be tempted to default, meaning the bankers will lose all the money they're considering loaning to the current government. So OBVIOUSLY they want everyone to be as IMPLICATED as everyone else.
But on the other fluffy foot, the bailout loans are basically by-passing the Greek people and going straight back to the banks that loaned them too much money in the first place.
Anyway, the Greek government managed to pull itself together long enough to even more pain... and then the Euro-bankers kept them waiting another week before grudgingly agreeing to hand over the cash rather than let the mother of democracy go bust. Which was nice.
Lots of people continued to opine that Greece will "obviously" have to leave the Euro, as though this makes any sense at all. ANY new Greek currency will fall through the floor faster than you can say TARTARUS, and leave them with raging hyper-inflation on top of their massive EURO-DENOMINATED debts. The problem for the Eurozone remains, as I've said before, north-European (especially German) reluctance to take some responsibility for the economic disparities and agree to GIVE MONEY to the poorer parts of the continent.
Unsurprisingly, the Greeks responded to this with the now the traditional riots.
2008 Riots
2010 Riots
2011 Riots
2011 Riots again
2012 Riots
2013 Future Riots
Day 4065: Abu Qatada Crisis – Home Secretary Deported By Mistake
Friday:
Confusion still seems to abound concerning why we can't just send a man who has been convicted of no crime to a country where they probably obtained the evidence against him by torturing some other people until they were willing to say anything. I'll spell it out for you: BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!
I'm sure it won't be long before some MORON comes along saying "what about the human rights of our womens and childrens"... oh, look, here comes the egregious Conservatory idiot Mr Peter Bonehead to say "What about the human rights of all our citizens - our men and women and children?"
Listen, numbskull, the thing about Universal Human Rights is that they're either Universal or they're worthless. Once you start making EXCEPTIONS for SPECIAL CASES then you open the door to letting any Tom, Dictator or Harry say that YOUR human rights are a SPECIAL CASE. Immediately before applying the electrodes.
Thankfully we've got a Liberal Democrat like Lord Alec Carlisle to say: "It is extraordinary that this man should remain in the United—" oh for fluff's sake.
Look, I have no doubt that Mr Qatada is a VERY BAD MAN. Which is surely all the more reason to KEEP HIM HERE where we can KEEP AN EYE ON HIM rather than just booting him out of the country and hoping that he'll be somebody else's problem. If he breaks the law, prosecute him and send him to prison. And if he doesn't... then what's the problem?
And now we learn that the government – the first government with PROPER LIBERALS IN for almost a century – wants to tinker with the Human Rights Convention.
Right now, we are begging the Syrian government to stop blowing up their own citizens, and trying to persuade the Chinese to be a bit less brutal, and MPs are going to debate Bad Vlad and the Russians' human rights record. So we WANT these people to look to the human rights court – the court that WE, Great Britain, were PROUD to set up following World War Part Two – and we WANT them to see responsible countries – like, maybe, US – obeying the rulings of the court. Because that way maybe EVERYONE gets a few more human rights. So are we REALLY choosing NOW to start bad-wording about with the court? Please tell me this is a BAD CHEESE DREAM!
Qatada released
May Sent to Jordan
Russian Rights
British Wrongs
Confusion still seems to abound concerning why we can't just send a man who has been convicted of no crime to a country where they probably obtained the evidence against him by torturing some other people until they were willing to say anything. I'll spell it out for you: BECAUSE IT IS WRONG!
I'm sure it won't be long before some MORON comes along saying "what about the human rights of our womens and childrens"... oh, look, here comes the egregious Conservatory idiot Mr Peter Bonehead to say "What about the human rights of all our citizens - our men and women and children?"
Listen, numbskull, the thing about Universal Human Rights is that they're either Universal or they're worthless. Once you start making EXCEPTIONS for SPECIAL CASES then you open the door to letting any Tom, Dictator or Harry say that YOUR human rights are a SPECIAL CASE. Immediately before applying the electrodes.
Thankfully we've got a Liberal Democrat like Lord Alec Carlisle to say: "It is extraordinary that this man should remain in the United—" oh for fluff's sake.
Look, I have no doubt that Mr Qatada is a VERY BAD MAN. Which is surely all the more reason to KEEP HIM HERE where we can KEEP AN EYE ON HIM rather than just booting him out of the country and hoping that he'll be somebody else's problem. If he breaks the law, prosecute him and send him to prison. And if he doesn't... then what's the problem?
And now we learn that the government – the first government with PROPER LIBERALS IN for almost a century – wants to tinker with the Human Rights Convention.
Right now, we are begging the Syrian government to stop blowing up their own citizens, and trying to persuade the Chinese to be a bit less brutal, and MPs are going to debate Bad Vlad and the Russians' human rights record. So we WANT these people to look to the human rights court – the court that WE, Great Britain, were PROUD to set up following World War Part Two – and we WANT them to see responsible countries – like, maybe, US – obeying the rulings of the court. Because that way maybe EVERYONE gets a few more human rights. So are we REALLY choosing NOW to start bad-wording about with the court? Please tell me this is a BAD CHEESE DREAM!
Qatada released
May Sent to Jordan
Russian Rights
British Wrongs
Day 4063: Without a Prayer
Wednesday:
Lady Insider Warsi and definitely-not-a-lady Eric Pickled and man-in-a-frock (or is he a lady?) Mr Lord Canary all rush to the defence of the poor Christians who are being oppressed by a court ruling that no they cannot use the council agenda to COMPEL non-Christians to attend prayers. Shockingly, if they want to talk to their invisible friend they are completely free to do so so long as they do it in their own time and don't make other people join in. In her Valentine to Mr the Pope, Lady Warsi said this was up there with the invasion of Poland. Someone should have reminded her to not mention the War.
And THEN Mrs the Queen barrels in, reminding us all how LUCKY we are to have an established Church to defend the rights of anyone who wants to believe in religion. 'Cos I'm SURE that's how it works, and I for one look forward to seeing Brenda standing up for someone's right to conduct a black mass...
Warsi
Pickled
Canary
Council
Queen
Lady Insider Warsi and definitely-not-a-lady Eric Pickled and man-in-a-frock (or is he a lady?) Mr Lord Canary all rush to the defence of the poor Christians who are being oppressed by a court ruling that no they cannot use the council agenda to COMPEL non-Christians to attend prayers. Shockingly, if they want to talk to their invisible friend they are completely free to do so so long as they do it in their own time and don't make other people join in. In her Valentine to Mr the Pope, Lady Warsi said this was up there with the invasion of Poland. Someone should have reminded her to not mention the War.
And THEN Mrs the Queen barrels in, reminding us all how LUCKY we are to have an established Church to defend the rights of anyone who wants to believe in religion. 'Cos I'm SURE that's how it works, and I for one look forward to seeing Brenda standing up for someone's right to conduct a black mass...
Warsi
Pickled
Canary
Council
Queen
 |
| From Blogger Pictures |
Day 4062: A Negative Outlook
Valentine's Day
I know I'm always on about Mr Bully Balls shooting his mouth off, but this month he really took the biscuit. AGAIN.
When the credit rating agency Moody's put Great Britain on a WARNING that we might be downgraded from our Triple-A risk rating if Master Gideon doesn't stick tight to his austerity programme, the Shadow Chancer took to the airwaves to announce this was a sign that Master Gideon should, er, abandon his austerity plan.
Basically, Moody's said "take one step closer to Mr Balls' position and we shoot you". Which Mr Balls took as an endorsement. And did any of the interviewers ask him about this blatant contradiction? GET A CLUE!
Moody's
Balls
I know I'm always on about Mr Bully Balls shooting his mouth off, but this month he really took the biscuit. AGAIN.
When the credit rating agency Moody's put Great Britain on a WARNING that we might be downgraded from our Triple-A risk rating if Master Gideon doesn't stick tight to his austerity programme, the Shadow Chancer took to the airwaves to announce this was a sign that Master Gideon should, er, abandon his austerity plan.
Basically, Moody's said "take one step closer to Mr Balls' position and we shoot you". Which Mr Balls took as an endorsement. And did any of the interviewers ask him about this blatant contradiction? GET A CLUE!
Moody's
Balls
Day 4056: South Atlantic Sabre Rattling
Wednesday:
Apparently sending a PRINCE and a BOAT to the Falklands counts as a "dangerous militarisation". At least that is what the President of Argentina is to complain to the United Nations about. Mind you, according to the BBC's then-and-now comparison, it looks like these days the Falklands would stand a better chance of taking Argentina if the islanders invaded them. Fortunately, the Argentinians have Oscar-winning Sean the Sheep on their side. So that's all right then.
Accusation
Comparison
Actor
Apparently sending a PRINCE and a BOAT to the Falklands counts as a "dangerous militarisation". At least that is what the President of Argentina is to complain to the United Nations about. Mind you, according to the BBC's then-and-now comparison, it looks like these days the Falklands would stand a better chance of taking Argentina if the islanders invaded them. Fortunately, the Argentinians have Oscar-winning Sean the Sheep on their side. So that's all right then.
Accusation
Comparison
Actor
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Day 4050: A Liberal Woman's Place is… IN THE CABINET!
Thursday:
The Crown Persecution Service have announced that they're to make an announcement about the case of Mr Huhney-Monster, and ALREADY the SPECULATION has started on who's going to succeed him assuming he has to do the walk of SHAME.
We love Mr Ed. We love Mr David Outlaws. But if –I only say IF – this IS the end of the road for the Huhney-Monster, then couldn't we at least PRETEND to consider one of the EXCELLENT candidates of the LADY persuasion?
Sparkling Ms Lynne Featherweight; lovely Sarah Teather; could it even be time for Ms Jo Winsome? (Yes, that's a BIG jump straight to cabinet but, you know… Jo WINSOME!)
Let's be CLEAR: these three are NO ONE's TOKEN woman. Yes, it would be HUGELY helpful to have one (or MORE!) of them in the Cabinet as a role model and to show how SERIOUSLY we take promoting women within the party. BUT by ANYONE'S reckoning, they are ALL among the BEST and BRIGHTEST that the Party has to offer, regardless of whereabouts they keep their reproductive organs!
Ms Lynne, Queen of the Lib Dem Blog-o-sphere, is surely the BEST candidate. She's carved out a HUGE role in the Home Office, demonstrating the ability to drive through the LIBERAL agenda, and even persuading Ms Teresa May-Not of the case for diversity and equality.
Lovely Sarah is the me-sized dynamo who has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to hold her Brent seat against insane odds (up to and including her own sense of humour), who has ALSO been key to delivery of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge on the PUPIL PREMIUM.
And as for tireless campaigner Jo Winsome… ANYONE who has met her will tell you she's AWESOME, an absolute star, destined for great things, and – so long as Scotland doesn't do anything DAFT like wandering off towards independence – a sure bet for future leadership. She's also a mate of my Daddies, so not at all biased there!
Anyway, they're all TOP MPs.
So COME ON, Cap'n Clegg! Do the RIGHT THING and increase our Cabinet Gender-balance by INFINITY PERCENT!
'Cos sometimes, only a woman will do.
.
The Crown Persecution Service have announced that they're to make an announcement about the case of Mr Huhney-Monster, and ALREADY the SPECULATION has started on who's going to succeed him assuming he has to do the walk of SHAME.
We love Mr Ed. We love Mr David Outlaws. But if –I only say IF – this IS the end of the road for the Huhney-Monster, then couldn't we at least PRETEND to consider one of the EXCELLENT candidates of the LADY persuasion?
Sparkling Ms Lynne Featherweight; lovely Sarah Teather; could it even be time for Ms Jo Winsome? (Yes, that's a BIG jump straight to cabinet but, you know… Jo WINSOME!)
Let's be CLEAR: these three are NO ONE's TOKEN woman. Yes, it would be HUGELY helpful to have one (or MORE!) of them in the Cabinet as a role model and to show how SERIOUSLY we take promoting women within the party. BUT by ANYONE'S reckoning, they are ALL among the BEST and BRIGHTEST that the Party has to offer, regardless of whereabouts they keep their reproductive organs!
Ms Lynne, Queen of the Lib Dem Blog-o-sphere, is surely the BEST candidate. She's carved out a HUGE role in the Home Office, demonstrating the ability to drive through the LIBERAL agenda, and even persuading Ms Teresa May-Not of the case for diversity and equality.
Lovely Sarah is the me-sized dynamo who has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to hold her Brent seat against insane odds (up to and including her own sense of humour), who has ALSO been key to delivery of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge on the PUPIL PREMIUM.
And as for tireless campaigner Jo Winsome… ANYONE who has met her will tell you she's AWESOME, an absolute star, destined for great things, and – so long as Scotland doesn't do anything DAFT like wandering off towards independence – a sure bet for future leadership. She's also a mate of my Daddies, so not at all biased there!
Anyway, they're all TOP MPs.
So COME ON, Cap'n Clegg! Do the RIGHT THING and increase our Cabinet Gender-balance by INFINITY PERCENT!
'Cos sometimes, only a woman will do.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)