Politics

[ewerk 30221]

Just spotted this on N-O.

 

It should be re-run on every Labour PPP for the next election.

 

http://www.twitvid.com/ERX9W

[Renton 21231]

Just spotted this on N-O.

 

It should be re-run on every Labour PPP for the next election.

 

http://www.twitvid.com/ERX9W

 

Think HF already posted that somewhere but that's the first timeI've had access to sound. It'll be a small miracle if Clegg get's re-elected into parliament now.

[Renton 21231]

The impact on growth of cutting spending is small fry compared to the impact of the UK being downgraded. We seem to be covering old ground here and you're still not getting it.

 

Credit ratings are relative. If the best credit in the world is BBB+, then the bidding starts there. It's simple demand and supply. That's why so many fairly dubious corporate credits have managed to get away bonds at skinny pricing- there was simply too much supply of cash and price contracted.

 

A downgrade won't have been pretty, but it would not have been armegeddon. The idea that it's a good thing to heap widespread misery in order to please a bunch on analysts and Moody's, Fitch and S&P suggests the world has gone completely mad. We have to keep things in perspective. Russia got a govt bond away the other week, 1998 seems a long time ago now I guess.

 

Don't forget Labour too was planning cuts. It was indeed inevitable. This is not in question- what is in question is using the economic situation as a trojan horse to go about dismantling the state in line with radical conservative dogma. It's not about saving money, it's about shrinking the state as a whole.

 

I guess when you consider the pre-election rhetoric, which was entirely reasonable, and far more draconian actions since, they really have 'played a blinder'.

 

Great to see Boris scampering over Crossrail as well. It's a brilliant project and a feat of engineering that will revolutionise transport in the capital. But if we're cutting back, then surely we're cutting back.....

 

Good post Matt.

[Guest alex]

Danny smashed for 6 again

[Happy Face 29]

Just spotted this on N-O.

 

It should be re-run on every Labour PPP for the next election.

 

http://www.twitvid.com/ERX9W

 

Think HF already posted that somewhere but that's the first timeI've had access to sound. It'll be a small miracle if Clegg get's re-elected into parliament now.

 

2J deserves the credit.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Business Secretary Vince Cable is to propose a graduate tax linked to post-university earnings, replacing the current system of tuition fees, as part of major reforms to higher education.

 

Under the plans to be announced on Thursday the government would pay tuition fees directly to universities, instead of lending to students.

 

Graduates would repay the cost of their degree once they start working, with higher earners paying more.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...iwGyV6W0KRLZwug

 

 

The Lib Dems seem to be willfully alienating anyone who voted for them.

 

People voted for them to scrap tuition fees, not to re-brand it.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Happy Face

[Danny CL 0]

Danny smashed for 6 again

 

Not really I just don't have time to pick through Matts point. Which really isn't a point, more of a rant based on the idea that the Tories have ignored all sound economic advise to put into place a nefarious plan to dismantle this countries public sector at the detriment of the country as a whole....which is of course as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

Like it or not a downgrade would have been a disaster because:

 

A. The countries exchange rate would have been smashed meaning we would have had to pay back much more on our EUR and USD denominated debt

B. The rate we borrow at would make interest cost a real burden on future spending

 

Who cares if you can get a bond out if you are paying a 1000+bp spread on it?

 

Of course the accumulated minds of Toontastic have got it right and the government working on the advice of some of the countries finest economists have it all wrong.

 

Clearly a conspiracy against the north *scousetastic*

[Park Life 71]

Just spotted this on N-O.

 

It should be re-run on every Labour PPP for the next election.

 

http://www.twitvid.com/ERX9W

 

As soon as there was a hung parliament he gets taken aside and made offers regarding his career etc and all this idealism goes out the window. Same as it ever was. Wealth is basically created by the ideas, intelligence and skills of the people and mostly they are the last to benefit...Hmmm...

[Renton 21231]

Danny smashed for 6 again

 

Not really I just don't have time to pick through Matts point. Which really isn't a point, more of a rant based on the idea that the Tories have ignored all sound economic advise to put into place a nefarious plan to dismantle this countries public sector at the detriment of the country as a whole....which is of course as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

Like it or not a downgrade would have been a disaster because:

 

A. The countries exchange rate would have been smashed meaning we would have had to pay back much more on our EUR and USD denominated debt

B. The rate we borrow at would make interest cost a real burden on future spending

 

Who cares if you can get a bond out if you are paying a 1000+bp spread on it?

 

Of course the accumulated minds of Toontastic have got it right and the government working on the advice of some of the countries finest economists have it all wrong.

 

Clearly a conspiracy against the north *scousetastic*

 

I doubt any Conservative would disagree that one of their fundamental policies is to achieve a smaller role for the State and public sector, so what are you on about? Plenty of economists disagree with the present austerity plans, and it is a fact that the North of England will be hit hardest by them, just as we were in the 1980s - Cameron has admitted this already, no conspiracy needed.

[Park Life 71]

Would have been better to wait another 6 or so months before the cuts. What we have here is a soverign Govt running in fear of the markets at a time the markets are at their most vulernable worldwide. This would have been a good time to cull the markets with fair play legislation and tranches of wealth sharing taxes actually.

[spongebob toonpants 3925]

Danny smashed for 6 again

 

Not really I just don't have time to pick through Matts point. Which really isn't a point, more of a rant based on the idea that the Tories have ignored all sound economic advise to put into place a nefarious plan to dismantle this countries public sector at the detriment of the country as a whole....which is of course as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

Like it or not a downgrade would have been a disaster because:

 

A. The countries exchange rate would have been smashed meaning we would have had to pay back much more on our EUR and USD denominated debt

B. The rate we borrow at would make interest cost a real burden on future spending

 

Who cares if you can get a bond out if you are paying a 1000+bp spread on it?

 

Of course the accumulated minds of Toontastic have got it right and the government working on the advice of some of the countries finest economists have it all wrong.

 

Clearly a conspiracy against the north *scousetastic*

 

You are out of your depth son, give it up

[Park Life 71]

After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national Debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It was primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

 

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

 

* Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)

* Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS and other banks.

 

Although 60% of GDP is alot it is worth bearing in mind, that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan for example have a National debt of 194%, Italy is over 100%. The US national debt is close to 71% of GDP. [see other countries Debt]. Also the UK has had much higher National Debt. e.g. after the second world war it was over 180% of GDP.

 

 

For me a country like the UK can handle debt at much higher levels, I suspect the raw focus on debt right now has more to do with political engineering and public perception scare tactics than the reality justifyies. Agnecies cutting our credit rating? What agency has the balls to do that anyway, the same ones that have been completely wrong about everything and every crisisn since the second world war? They are just tools of the ruling elite who are protecting their cash rather than a group of concerned experts worried about the UK, they don't give a fuck about the UK.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

Our debt is basically on a par with the Eurozone, yet it is portrayed in the media as an economy breaking monster which is total bollocks.

 

1 Zimbabwe 304.30 %

2 Japan 192.10

3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 185.00

4 Lebanon 160.10

5 Jamaica 131.70

6 Singapore 117.60

7 Italy 115.20

8 Greece 108.10

9 Sudan 104.50

10 Iceland 100.60

11 Belgium 99.00

12 Nicaragua 87.00

13 Israel 83.90

14 Sri Lanka 82.90

15 Egypt 79.80

16 France 79.70

17 Germany 77.20

18 Portugal 75.20

19 Hungary 72.40

20 Canada 72.30

21 Jordan 69.90

22 United Kingdom 68.50

23 Austria 68.20

24 Ghana 67.50

25 Malta 66.20

26 Cote d’Ivoire 63.80

27 Ireland 63.70

28 Netherlands 62.30

29 Philippines 62.30

30 Norway 60.20

31 India 60.10

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[NJS 4365]

Agnecies cutting our credit rating? What agency has the balls to do that anyway, the same ones that have been completely wrong about everything and every crisisn since the second world war?

 

I wish someone had the moral courage to stand up to rating agencies and bring them to account for their part in what amounts to fraud (rating securities at triple A when they knew they were shit) over the last few years.

[Park Life 71]

Agnecies cutting our credit rating? What agency has the balls to do that anyway, the same ones that have been completely wrong about everything and every crisisn since the second world war?

 

I wish someone had the moral courage to stand up to rating agencies and bring them to account for their part in what amounts to fraud (rating securities at triple A when they knew they were shit) over the last few years.

 

I would have had them all strung up from lamposts in London long ago. I'm fukcing serious they are a menace and a hinderance to society as a whole, especially a progressive society like the UK which has been one of the most successful with immigration and job creation and fair play as against the whole of Europe put together.

 

The real friction here is that the markets have been unhappy with Labours high spending on the NHS and welfare for a long time and see this as their chance to realign British politics. They don't like it if money is syphoned away from the markets and given to the people it really is as simple as that.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

If we're looking at low impact cuts I'd start here:

 

But more than 12½ years later the great "bonfire" Mr Brown spoke of remains unlit. In fact, the cost of executive agencies, advisory bodies, independent monitoring boards and other quangos has mushroomed under New Labour. Spending on such agencies soared to £167.5billion in 2006, up from £24.1bn in 1998.

 

Research revealed for the first time this weekend shows that over the past two years ministers have created 200 quangos. The new study, which will become available online to the public this week, has been put together by the Economic Research Council, Britain's oldest think-tank. By trawling through a forest of government accounts, the ERC has created a database that allows users for the first time to see how the quango state has grown since 1998 and how its payroll - and its pay - has grown exponentially.

 

1. Cut deep as above.

2. Cancel all new defence procurement and get out of Afghanistan. (Keep nuke subs only).

3. Cut NHS management, hire more nurses and doctors. (Cut GP pay...why are they earning upto £115,000 a year anyway??)

4. Bank tax on profits for all banks in the UK and bank taxes across the EU and mega taxes on bonuses. If you want to fuck off to America go ahead.

5. Scrap all taxes on small business that employ more than 5 people and with a turnover of less than 1 million inc corporation tax.

6. Scrap all but the most necessary liason agencies with the EU (we spend 30 billion on quasi-EU bodies.

7. Set timetable for reimbursment of the public purse from bailout banks.

8. Invest in medium sized industry in high unemployment zones, create tax breaks for foreign private capital to invest in such zones.

 

...for starters...

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[AgentAxeman 169]

They don't like it if money is syphoned away from the markets and given to the people it really is as simple as that.

 

 

very true!

[Happy Face 29]

Danny's favourite paper isn't keen....

 

The coalition government needs to adopt a much more sophisticated approach to its cull of quangos than its predecessors if it is to get value for money and better government out of the exercise, an influential think-tank warned on Wednesday.

 

Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair promised a “bonfire of quangos” on taking office, but in the long term neither succeeded in cutting their numbers, the Institute for Government said on Wednesday.

 

Performance often dipped as bodies were abolished and merged. Tens of millions of pounds of costs were incurred, and many of the promised savings never materialised.

 

This time, all 950-odd bodies that operate at arm’s length from ministers are being re-examined as part of the government’s spending review. But the coalition would not get far if it chiefly concentrated, as before, on cutting their numbers, warned Ian Magee, former Whitehall permanent secretary and author of the report “Read before Burning”.

 

“The government must go beyond a simple numbers game,” he said. “While the word quango has acquired a perjorative status, [the fact is that] many arm’s-length bodies are fundamental to the effective running of the British state”.

 

Three-quarters of their expenditure was tied up in just 15 organisations, he said, and the job of many of those – for example the research and university funding councils – was to pass money through while insulating ministers from any charge that they are exercising patronage.

 

Cutting how much they spend was a very different decision to deciding whether to cull the organisations altogether, Mr Magee said.

 

The report argues that a more fundamental rethink is needed this time round. There are at least 11 types of arm’s length body, with absolutely no consistency between their classification and what they do or how they report. Non-ministerial departments – Customs and Excise, for example – in practice have ministers, while Ofgem and Ofcom, which do essentially the same regulatory jobs for energy and telecoms, are classified differently.

 

Ministers should reduce the 11 types of organisation to just four, the report says, with “constitutional bodies” such as the National Audit Office – and potentially the Office for Budget Responsibility if ministers really want to make it independent – having the biggest distance from ministers, with parliament alone overseeing any dismissal of the chairman or board.

 

Each body should be independently reviewed every three to five years to make sure it is still needed and works well with its department. New bodies should be subjected to a full business case and face a “sunset clause” for abolition.

 

Meanwhile, the long tail of some 450 bodies that have no executive function but provide expert advice should no longer be classified as arm’s length bodies, but as expert advisers, not quangos.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/59cd716e-8f74-11df...F%2Frereferyned

[Park Life 71]

New Open Europe research finds that EU regulation has cost UK economy £124 billion since 1998;

UK laws are on average around 2.5 times more cost effective than EU laws

 

Open Europe last week published the most comprehensive study to date on the costs of regulation to the UK economy since 1998. Based on over 2,300 of the Government's own impact assessments, Open Europe has found that regulation has cost the UK economy £176 billion since 1998. Of this amount, £124 billion, or 71 percent, had its origin in EU legislation.

 

The cost of regulation in 2009 stands at £32.8 billion. Of this 59 percent, or £19.3 billion, stems from EU legislation. Since 2005, when the UK Government launched its 'better regulation' agenda, the cost of regulation has doubled - although both the Government and the EU Commission have taken some positive steps to address overly burdensome laws.

 

The research also estimates the average benefit/cost ratio of EU regulations at 1.02, and UK regulations at 2.35. In other words, for every £1 of cost, EU regulations introduced since 1998 have only delivered £1.02 of benefits, meaning that on average it is 2.5 times more cost effective to regulate nationally than it is to regulate via the EU.

 

 

Cut all this shit as well.

[Happy Face 29]

How can you lump all regulation together and argue to take an axe to it all, while complaining the banks have been allowed to run rampant and need to be boxed in?

 

Clearly some regulation is a good thing worth paying for and in some cases should probably be extended.

[Park Life 71]

How can you lump all regulation together and argue to take an axe to it all, while complaining the banks have been allowed to run rampant and need to be boxed in?

 

Clearly some regulation is a good thing worth paying for and in some cases should probably be extended.

 

CUT IT ALLLLLL!!!

[Renton 21231]

If we're looking at low impact cuts I'd start here:

 

But more than 12½ years later the great "bonfire" Mr Brown spoke of remains unlit. In fact, the cost of executive agencies, advisory bodies, independent monitoring boards and other quangos has mushroomed under New Labour. Spending on such agencies soared to £167.5billion in 2006, up from £24.1bn in 1998.

 

Research revealed for the first time this weekend shows that over the past two years ministers have created 200 quangos. The new study, which will become available online to the public this week, has been put together by the Economic Research Council, Britain's oldest think-tank. By trawling through a forest of government accounts, the ERC has created a database that allows users for the first time to see how the quango state has grown since 1998 and how its payroll - and its pay - has grown exponentially.

 

1. Cut deep as above.

2. Cancel all new defence procurement and get out of Afghanistan. (Keep nuke subs only).

3. Cut NHS management, hire more nurses and doctors. (Cut GP pay...why are they earning upto £115,000 a year anyway??)

4. Bank tax on profits for all banks in the UK and bank taxes across the EU and mega taxes on bonuses. If you want to fuck off to America go ahead.

5. Scrap all taxes on small business that employ more than 5 people and with a turnover of less than 1 million inc corporation tax.

6. Scrap all but the most necessary liason agencies with the EU (we spend 30 billion on quasi-EU bodies.

7. Set timetable for reimbursment of the public purse from bailout banks.

8. Invest in medium sized industry in high unemployment zones, create tax breaks for foreign private capital to invest in such zones.

 

...for starters...

 

We spend £168 Billion on Quangos? Nearly £3000 per capita (including children)? Common sense says that is complete bollocks.

[Park Life 71]

If we're looking at low impact cuts I'd start here:

 

But more than 12½ years later the great "bonfire" Mr Brown spoke of remains unlit. In fact, the cost of executive agencies, advisory bodies, independent monitoring boards and other quangos has mushroomed under New Labour. Spending on such agencies soared to £167.5billion in 2006, up from £24.1bn in 1998.

 

Research revealed for the first time this weekend shows that over the past two years ministers have created 200 quangos. The new study, which will become available online to the public this week, has been put together by the Economic Research Council, Britain's oldest think-tank. By trawling through a forest of government accounts, the ERC has created a database that allows users for the first time to see how the quango state has grown since 1998 and how its payroll - and its pay - has grown exponentially.

 

1. Cut deep as above.

2. Cancel all new defence procurement and get out of Afghanistan. (Keep nuke subs only).

3. Cut NHS management, hire more nurses and doctors. (Cut GP pay...why are they earning upto £115,000 a year anyway??)

4. Bank tax on profits for all banks in the UK and bank taxes across the EU and mega taxes on bonuses. If you want to fuck off to America go ahead.

5. Scrap all taxes on small business that employ more than 5 people and with a turnover of less than 1 million inc corporation tax.

6. Scrap all but the most necessary liason agencies with the EU (we spend 30 billion on quasi-EU bodies.

7. Set timetable for reimbursment of the public purse from bailout banks.

8. Invest in medium sized industry in high unemployment zones, create tax breaks for foreign private capital to invest in such zones.

 

...for starters...

 

We spend £168 Billion on Quangos? Nearly £3000 per capita (including children)? Common sense says that is complete bollocks.

 

Well you're wrong. EU quangos alone are around 30 billion. You know all that shit about how big your sausage is Renty and whether some car sprayer in Hoxton is using the correct water based paint.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

Save 100 billion across the EU zone per year by chucking all the global warming crap in the bin.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4849167.ece

[AgentAxeman 169]

Probably just headline grabbing but nevertheless, a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

"David Cameron has told MPs it is an "outrage" that a family was able to claim £2,000 a week in benefits to live in a luxury townhouse.

 

He said housing benefits had got "completely out of control" under Labour but the new Government would impose a cap next year.

 

At Prime Minister's Questions he said many people would regard the new £400-a-week limit as "very, very generous".

 

It was reported last week that Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in Kensington, central London, at a cost of £8,000 a month.

 

The issue was raised by Tory Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon), who asked Mr Cameron: "Do you agree that Mr Nur and his family, who have moved into a £2,000-a-week house at the taxpayers' expense in Kensington, is exactly the sort of thing the coalition was elected to fight against?"

 

The Prime Minister said: "The housing benefit situation, particularly in central London, has got completely out of control.

 

"The idea that a family should be able to claim £2,000 a week for their house I think is an outrage for people who go to work every day, pay their taxes and try and do the right thing for their family.

 

"That is why we will cap housing benefit levels from April next year so the maximum that can be claimed will be £400 a week for a property with more than four bedrooms.

 

"Even £400 a week, many people on ordinary incomes will look at that and find that very, very generous for how we help people, and every penny of that comes out of hard-earned taxes."

 

The changes were announced in last month's Budget, when Chancellor George Osborne told MPs the cost of housing benefit had risen from £14 billion 10 years ago to £21 billion currently - more than was spent on the police and on universities combined."