The Clegg phenomenon and the 2010 UK Election

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Like the socialist George Bush did in America? Or the socialist Brian Cowen in Eire?

And the fat cat bankers are letting their belts out to the next notch because of socialist Labour?

But of course...

They are making hay lending money to the Goverments to fund the huge deficits. That's what bankers do, lend money at interest.

The huge deficits caused by the governments bailing out the banks...

Even the banks that weren't directly "rescued" could only function because of the assurances given by these "socialist" governments that they would not be allowed to fail. They charge the governments interest on money that the governments assure...

Priceless!

But back to the claims that it is always "socialists" that run out of money; how does that explain the world economic crisis, and especially the crfises under Bush and Cowens' watches? Is Greenspan a socialist? Is the IMF socialist?

Was Japan "socialist" throughout its "Lost Decade"?

What a ... puzzle.

[Aravar]

Actualy the UK government was running a deficit long before the crsis hit. From about 2001 they'd added about £200bn to the official debt, let alone the off the books PFI stuff.

The deficits are not just because of the bank crisis, that's just what Labour want you to beleive. The government is only trying to cut the non-baliout part of the deficit. Much of the "cost" of the bailout is not reflected in the current acocunt being guarantees and the like.

In an ideal world I'd have let the banks go under. Unfortunately, in the real world most of our transaciton are done through the banking system. If for example RBS had shut its doors that could have left large numbers of people without the means to buy food, and businesses unable to pay wages.

The US has also been fighting a couple of large wars, with major troop commitments, which can't have helped their finances.

The US Treasury Secretary has been blaming Gordon for the crisis.

Sitll lets just keep borrowing, pay the interest to the bankers and hope something will turn up.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Actualy the UK government was running a deficit long before the crsis hit. From about 2001 they'd added about £200bn to the official debt, let alone the off the books PFI stuff.

The "off the books PFI stuff" that was introduced by John Major? Was he socialist?

And the "off the books PFI stuff" that George Osborne lambasted in opposition, but in government has embraced? I don't think you are claiming George Osborne is a socialist, are you?

Perhaps some clarification of what you mean by "socialist" would help, as I find your ascribing of the term confusing...

PS

And, of course, the huge defecits are not just a feature of the UK. You explain the record US defecits by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wasn't the UK involved in those wars? From 2001?

It would seem that the USA converting surplus under Clinton to record defecit under Bush has nothing to do with socialism (I think...), but the UK hitting a record defecit (by following very similar economics as the US) is because of socialism.

That appears to be frightful political opportunism, Aravar...

[Aravar]

The Labour and Co-operative Party of Great Britain who have, by the confession of their outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury run out of money.

Dear Chief Secretary, I am afraid there is no money. Kind Regards - and good Luck! Liam

Of course you think the'yre all tories, I find your ascribing of that term confusing too.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

And they ran out of money... by folowing Thatcherite Tory policies. That they ran out of money is not denied, but the why has nothing to do with socialism. Even "Call me Dave" Cameron was a supporter of Labour's fiscal policies... until this unbridled Thatcherite economic agenda went pear shaped.

Another opportunist.

But you still haven't explained how the USA went from surplus to record deficit under Bush. Was Bush a socialist?

[Aravar]

Perhaps some clarification of what you mean by "socialist" would help, as I find your ascribing of the term confusing...

PS

And, of course, the huge defecits are not just a feature of the UK. You explain the record US defecits by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wasn't the UK involved in those wars? From 2001?

Not on nearly the same scale: just look at the size of the defence budget.

It would seem that the USA converting surplus under Clinton to record defecit under Bush has nothing to do with socialism (I think...), but the UK hitting a record defecit (by following very similar economics as the US) is because of socialism.

I think you'll find that what the US sepnds its money on compared with what the UK spend its money on are rather different. Defence spending accounts for 20% of the Federal Budget, as opposed to 9% in the UK. Medicare and Social Security amount to about 45% in the US as opposed to health, pensions and welfare in the UK which amount to about 64% of the UK's budget.

I'll grant you that not all financial mismanagement is socialist, but the what happened in the UK was. The money was spent on schools n' hospitals, according to Labour

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

General fiscal policy is not in toto described by what money is spent on. PFI is not socialist, unless Major was socialist. The back door privatation of services, in the NHS and other fields, is not socialist, yet became a cornerstone of Labour policy, even when demonstrably more expensive than state provision.

You appear to confuse the Labour Party, which had its roots in socialism, with a party that practices socialism. Even the term "socialist" was sidelined under "Dear Tony"; the phrase "Social Democrat" displacing it.

But back to some meat... how can the collapse in Ireland be attributed to socialism? Under Cowens, Ireland ran a "brutal" form of low tax, free-marketism, routinely held up at the time as the example par excellence by Cameron and Osborne.

It failed dismally. Was it socialist?

It seems that what you are propounding is that any economy that collapses that is, even nominally, "socialist", then socialism is to blame (even when socialist policies are not being followed), but any government that isn't socialist that collapses is... sorry, I really don't know what argument you make. Blaming socialism would appear to be simply a knee jerk ideological reaction, devoid of any actual comparative analysis.

If economies of all stripes fail synchronously, how can a system which is not even being practiced in any of those economies be held responsible. The international community that has experienced economic collapse is capitalist not socialist.

PS

"The money was spent on Schools and Hospitals" according to Labour.

1) Labour wasn't, and isn't, socialist

2) The money was spent on PFI which is a Major introduction. The PFI payed for schools and hospitals, at enormous expense, and which guarantees income to private organisations. It is NOT socialism.

[Aravar]

It seems that what you are propounding is that any economy that collapses that is, even nominally, "socialist", then socialism is to blame (even when socialist policies are not being followed), but any government that isn't socialist that collapses is... sorry, I really don't know what argument you make. Blaming socialism would appear to be simply a knee jerk ideological reaction, devoid of any actual comparative analysis.

I am blmaing the size of the deficit in the UK on the policies of a party which is socialist in the pursuit of policies of increased public spending on the NHS and education, which are generally thought of a socialist goals. The NHS is generally held up to be the pride of the achievement of the post-war Labour Party, and being universal, (largely) free at the point of delivery is generally regarded as socialist in nature. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't tihnk that all the increased spending on the NHS went on PFI. As a simple example GPs got massive pay increases compared to what they had previously.

I readily agree that other governments have been fiscally incontinent. But that does not affect the reaosn of the incontinence, and subsequent deficit in the UK.

[eborr]

not the Liam Burne line again -

THAT WAS A JOKE

not a very good one, and it allowed the limited intellects within the CON-DEM alliance to think that they had been given a prize piece of propoganda - what an insult to the British people.

The labour party is not a socialist party, and under Bliar it had few policies which could be described socialist

What it had to face was a period of 17 years neglect in our schools and hospitals.

Unfortunately they chose to use PFI and other off-balance sheet measures to fund these programmes, which will cause problems in the future - but at least we have got some kind of investment in our country.

Another major mistake the labour Govt. made was to invite industrialists and management consultants to give them advice on the public sector, given that our business leaders are some of the least compentent in the world it was hardly surprising that we had mistakes like the "new Doctors contracts" where the framework for the agreement was concocted by one of these geniie. It didn't take the medics very long to work out how they could make the "efficiencies" work to entirely their own ends.

And now to complete the work of transfering large amounts of NHS budget into the pockets of GP's Cameroon is bringing on his own scheme of the GP's controlling the procurement budget.

And on the Irish question

"Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking."

George Osbourne

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 733821.ece

Had little George been in charge in 2006 and followed this shining example then we would genuinely have run out of money

[Aravar]

not the Liam Burne line again -

THAT WAS A JOKE

Of course it was a joke, but it was based on a sound understanding of the dire state of the public finances.

The fact that he making a joke does not alter that.

[eborr]

We see another fine example of the absolute incompetence of the British Govt, with the handling of the Libyan issue, firstly we had the William Hagues in his best south yorkie tones announcing that Col Gadaffi, was in Carracas, with his mates Hugo Suarez, Beelzebug and Vlad the Impaler, having run away like the coward we all knew he really was. No doubt he went through the same rigerous level of checking the veracity of the statement as the Bliar did over weapons of mass destruction.

Then we have the news on Sunday from "14 pints "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/871543.stm
that the top priority of the British Govt was to arrange a charter flight to remove British nationals from Libya, as yet that Charter flight is yet to arrive.

Fact 1 The Italians and Austrians have managed to get a charter flight in and out of the country

Fact 2 The French have managed to get 2 charter flights in and out of the country

Fact 3 The US Govt have chartered a Ferry and it is waiting off the Libyan coast

Fact 4 Other than the Italians the British Govt has better relations with Libya than other western counties.

On the radio today there was a piece from a Govt source extolling an example of the "Big Society". In the face of cuts to the local Goverment transport budget, residents of a village that was due to have it's bus service cancelled have clubbed together to buy a bus.

Perhaps Mr Hague was expecting our citizens in Libya to follow their example and buy themselves a plane.

Hague also announced that he was sending a Frigate to wait in International Waters, gun boat diplomacy.

The weapon platform that would be most useful in this scenario is a carrier, in their defence review the Tories have scrapped both of our carriers and have decomissioned the only aircraft we have capable of flying off the carriers. We are due to commision two new carriers into service in the next couple of years.

My suggestion to the Govt is that they call for a resolution at the Security Council of the UN requesting that the world has no new conflicts for the next couple of years until the carriers arrive, whoops that's no good, because although we are getting the carriers, the aircraft to fly off them are not due to arrive until 4 years after that.

Putting aside ideaology for one moment what is particularly stunning about our Government is how incompentent that are.

[Aravar]

Hague also announced that he was sending a Frigate to wait in International Waters, gun boat diplomacy.

The weapon platform that would be most useful in this scenario is a carrier, in their defence review the Tories have scrapped both of our carriers and have decomissioned the only aircraft we have capable of flying off the carriers. We are due to commision two new carriers into service in the next couple of years.

My suggestion to the Govt is that they call for a resolution at the Security Council of the UN requesting that the world has no new conflicts for the next couple of years until the carriers arrive, whoops that's no good, because although we are getting the carriers, the aircraft to fly off them are not due to arrive until 4 years after that.

Putting aside ideaology for one moment what is particularly stunning about our Government is how incompentent that are.

I'm with you all the way on the question of the Fleet.

[eborr]

the Libya thing is providing the Govt, with an excellent chance to "bury" bad news.

Given the pathetic response to bringing back UK citizens from Libya, early yesterfay morning there were stories coming out from Govt sources criticising the response from the Foriegn office in sorting stuff out. By that they were trying to push the blame onto the mandarins, something which always go down well in the Tory shires.

A couple of hours later Cameroon did his fronting up bit apologising for the Governments performance, which was clearly right, because the deployment of the fleet and the despatch of Govt chartered flights are not decisions that would be taken by Civil Servants, those always come from the political arena.

By taking this stance, he was able to deflect the media away from far more important issues, namely the failing economy and the impact it is having on young people.

In the 16-24 age group we have nearly 1 million unemployed, or 15% of that age group - actually I cannot call them unemployed because under 18's don't count - the correct classifications is NEETS (Not in Employment, Education or Training). This of course is a record, and the number will increase because they have already removed the employment maintenance allowance which enables young people from poor families to remain in education beyond 16.

And of course then we have the universities, where the increase in fees will certainly make young people think twice, when instead of getting yourselves 50 k worth of debt, you can stay at home, get 30 quid a week pocket money and play with the xbox.

It was also announced that the negative growth figures for the last quarter we even worse than the initial announcement. Against speculation that the recession was over, the initial numbers were -0.2 the numbers have since been revised to -0.6

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It was also announced that the negative growth figures for the last quarter we even worse than the initial announcement. Against speculation that the recession was over, the initial numbers were -0.2 the numbers have since been revised to -0.6

Obviously you haven't heard the explanation. In December, we had the wrong type of snow...

It was hilarious how Clegg was completely oblivious of the fact that, because "Call Me Dave" was out of the country, he, as Deputy Prime Minister, was acting Prime Minister. Oh, what a shower this government is. I was never a supporter of Labour under Blair or Brown, but as Joni Mitchell so succinctly put it...

"Don't it always seem to go,
that you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

There are calls for a snap General Election, as the coalition has no mandate. Won't happen, of course, because they'd be crucified. Instead, we'll get the dismantling of the Welfare State, the NHS, LEAs, all totally contrary to manifesto promises.

Shysters!

[nerdanel]

This of course is a record, and the number will increase because they have already removed the employment maintenance allowance which enables young people from poor families to remain in education beyond 16.

Happily, according to a Labour-commissioned study, 88 percent of teenagers receiving the £30/week "encouragement" to attend post-compulsory education reported that they would be able to attend college even if it was eliminated. It's also rather staggering that the allowance was apparently claimed by nearly half the post-compulsory student demographic.

http://www.economist.com/node/17967036

[eborr]

The wrong type of snow was an argument put forward by the then newly privatised rail companies to account gor their poor performance during one winter in the Major era

It was quite rich of the Govt. to blame the snow, when because of the previous bad winter last year we were better prepared this year than for decades. The other amusing proposition was that the construction industry had been especially hampered due to the bad weather. Hampered they may have been if the construction workers were not on their traditional annual two week xmas break.

Not only are they inept at Govt, they cannot even put together a plausible excuse for their failure.

The only hope we have is that the Beard and Sandal brigade which has always been at the heart of the liberal party will rebel and pass motions through conference, which might cause sufficient liberal MPs to leave the Govt. All that would then happen I guess is that Clegg and his orange book chums will join the tories. Cleggs present being a safe seat in the shires.
And then to the European commision where his talents for straight talking and integrity will set him up as a worthy successor to Mandelson, Kinnock, and Leon Brittan

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

This of course is a record, and the number will increase because they have already removed the employment maintenance allowance which enables young people from poor families to remain in education beyond 16.

Happily, according to a Labour-commissioned study, 88 percent of teenagers receiving the £30/week "encouragement" to attend post-compulsory education reported that they would be able to attend college even if it was eliminated. It's also rather staggering that the allowance was apparently claimed by nearly half the post-compulsory student demographic.

http://www.economist.com/node/17967036

Spot the spin...

“only 12% of the teenagers receiving the allowance said they would not be able to attend college without it. “

Thus for 88%, ability to attend was not dependant on the allowance. However, what does this say about incentive to attend?

The article goes on to say;

“the money wasted on the 88% of recipients who would have attended college anyway,,,”

Where is the justification that those students who claim the allowance is not vital to attendance would attend without the allowance? Perhaps, over and above the 12% who could not attend without the allowance, another 35% would not attend without the allowance.

The conclusions presented in this article are self evidently flawed.

[nerdanel]

Ghân, I have every confidence that more people will attend college and university if paid to do so. In fact, the same would probably be true even of middle-class and upper-class students: if you bribe people to do something, you'll get more to do it.

That's not the point. The point of need-based financial assistance is to ensure access for people who otherwise could not attend. (Note that eborr's comment to which I was responding used the word "enables" to refer to the payments.) It is not to bribe people who otherwise could attend, but would choose not to do so due to insufficient commitment to their education. As a disenfranchised UK taxpayer-of-sorts (VATpayer) at the moment , I'm delighted by this change.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Ghân, I have every confidence that more people will attend college and university if paid to do so. In fact, the same would probably be true even of middle-class and upper-class students: if you bribe people to do something, you'll get more to do it.

That's not the point. The point of need-based financial assistance is to ensure access for people who otherwise could not attend. (Note that eborr's comment to which I was responding used the word "enables" to refer to the payments.) It is not to bribe people who otherwise could attend, but would choose not to do so due to insufficient commitment to their education. As a disenfranchised UK taxpayer-of-sorts (VATpayer) at the moment , I'm delighted by this change.

I understand your position, nerdanel, but I think it is short-sighted to underestimate the value of incentivised attendance, and the resulting educational advancement.

It is an unknown at what point a student becomes motivated. The financial incentive, which is not a great amount, prolongs exposure to education for those who may well have already fallen by the wayside without it. In a society that bemoans the unskilled and under-educated, it is simply ludicrous to withdraw the incentive that may well result in a better educated young populace.

As a policy, it is mean spirited and small minded.

[Túrin Turambar]

I have an issue with higher rates of attendance at universities being set as an objective of education policy and of itself. The purpose of post-secondary education is to give people the training that a) they would get the most personal fulfilment out of and b) that would allow them to make their maximum contribution to society and the economy.

Simply paying people to stay in education is, in my view, misguided. Not only does it ignore the fact that many of those students would be happier and working more to their skills in other areas, but it allows the government and institutions of higher learning to fail to address other issues that might dampen attendance.