-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
The government is desperate to be seen to be cutting spending, no matter how dumb this is, no matter what real effect it's having on the deficit.
They are determined to enforce the austerity narrative, as part of an ideological struggle rather than as good economics. Spending on infrastructure would be counter to this, as all spending has to be bad, and all cuts have to be good.
There's a reason Osborne is Chancellor, and much like his policies and education, it has fuck all to do with economics.
Agreed on HSR, but this needs to be combined with electrification and modernisation of trunk routes. We need a fast North-South spine, but that has to be matched with adequate East-West links.
Heathrow does need expansion, but not indefinitely. Better to add capacity at other, Northern, airports. Spread the load, share the wealth, etc.
Infrastructure spending in general needs more equal geographical distribution, far too much is focused in the South-East.
Utterly shocking. To think that this government could be doing such things to improve the country and just looks at such proposals and says "Nah to much effort". Just thinking about power infrastructure alone, that would create huge numbers of jobs because it's a quite a labour intensive area and is also vital to the economic well being of a country.
Chris Huhne and ex-wife jailed for 8 months. Daymn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Vicky-Pryce-jailed-for-eight-months-each.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Vicky-Pryce-jailed-for-eight-months-each.html
Nicktendo86
Member
They should put them in then same cell just for kicks.
Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
Stick a camera in the cell and put it on channel five. I'd watch.
Those points suddenly don't look as bad.
CyclopsRock
Member
Ahahahahaha that makes me so happy. There's something hugely satisfying about these cunts that simultaneously lie in court whilst telling others how to live their lives being sent to the prisons they themselves maintain that makes me bloody joyous.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I'm glad the wife got the same sentence. The media coverage and undercurrent of benevolent sexism had me really worried she was going to get off scot-free. She seemed vindictive as fuck and people have a mind of their own -- she was just as in the wrong as he was.
radioheadrule83
Banned
One of the kids seemed fairly ensconced on the Mother's side of things -- judging by his emotional tirades in texts and phone calls to his father, I suspect he's going to be very fucked up by all of this, sadly. But then, maybe time away from their manipulations and their overly public lives can be a good thing for him.
I was shocked to that the judge actually released those text messages to the public
CyclopsRock
Member
I mostly agree but, in her defence, she did commit at least one less crime than he did (that is, speeding).
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Nice stuff from the FT this week, skewering Coalition economic policy:
"David Cameron’s “there is no alternative” speech last week on the UK economy has aroused much criticism. This is justified.The British prime minister’s arguments for sticking to the government’s programme of fiscal austerity were overwhelmingly wrong-headed.
It is easy to understand why he had to defend the government’s failing flagship policy. The incoming coalition embarked on a programme of austerity with the emergency Budget of June 2010. The economy, then showing signs of recovery, has since stagnated. Even the fiscal outcomes are poor. Indeed, according to the latest Green Budget from the authoritative Institute for Fiscal Studies, this fiscal year’s borrowing requirement may be bigger than last year’s. Only a productivity collapse saved the day – by keeping unemployment surprisingly low, ameliorating the social impact of the output disaster
How does one defend this record? Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford and Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, among others, have demolished the prime minister’s views. Here are the key points.
Mr Cameron argues that those who think the government can borrow more “think there’s some magic money tree. Well, let me tell you a plain truth: there isn’t.” This is quite wrong. First, there is a money tree, called the Bank of England, which has created £375bn to finance its asset purchases. Second, like other solvent institutions, governments can borrow. Third, markets deem the government solvent, since they are willing to lend to it at the lowest rates in UK history. And, finally, markets are doing this because of the structural financial surpluses in the private and foreign sectors.
Again, Mr Cameron notes that “last month’s downgrade was the starkest possible reminder of the debt problem we face”. No, it is not, for three reasons. First, Moody’s stressed that the big problem for the UK was the sluggish economic growth in the medium term, which austerity has made worse. Second, the rating of a sovereign that cannot default on debt in its own currency means little. Third, the reason for believing long-term interest rates will rise is expectations of high inflation and so higher short-term rates. But such a shift is going to follow a recovery, which would make austerity effective and timely.
Mr Cameron also argued: “As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear ... growth has been depressed by the financial crisis ... and the problems in the eurozone ... and a 60 per cent rise in oil prices between August 2010 and April 2011. They are absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible.” This brought a rejoinder from Robert Chote, OBR director, who noted that: “Every forecast published by the OBR since the June 2010 Budget has incorporated the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth in the short term.”
Serious researchers, including at international organisations, argue that the multiplier effect of fiscal austerity may be far bigger than the OBR has hitherto assumed, at least in today’s depressed circumstances. Moreover, even if the OBR believes the outcome turned out worse than forecast because of adverse shocks, rather than its underestimation of multipliers, this is an argument for active policy, not against it.
The prime minister also stated: “[Labour] think that by borrowing more they would miraculously end up borrowing less ... Yes, it really is as incredible as that.” What truly is incredible is that Mr Cameron cannot understand that, if an entity that spends close to half of gross domestic product retrenches as the private sector is also retrenching, the decline in overall output may be so large that its finances end up worse than when it started. Bradford DeLong of Berkeley and Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, have shown that, in a depressed economy, what Mr Cameron deems incredible is likely to be true. A recent International Monetary Fund paper argues that “fiscal tightening could raise the debt ratio in the short term, as fiscal gains are partly wiped out by the decline in output”. Mr Portes adds that, even if this is not true for the UK on its own, it is likely to be true for Europe since almost everybody is retrenching simultaneously.
Mr Cameron argues that “this deficit didn’t suddenly appear purely as a result of the global financial crisis. It was driven by persistent, reckless and completely unaffordable government spending and borrowing over many years.” In a way, this is the most worrying error – not because the fiscal policy of the Labour party, then in power, was perfect. Far from it. Fiscal policy should have been tighter. But that is not the main reason the UK has a huge structural deficit.
It is the economy, stupid. In 2007, according to the IMF, UK net debt – at 38 per cent of GDP – was the second-lowest in the Group of Seven leading economies. These levels were also exceptionally low by UK historical standards. In the March 2008 Budget, the Treasury estimated the structural cyclically adjusted deficit on the current budget at minus 0.7 per cent in 2007-08 and minus 0.5 per cent in 2008-09. The collapse in output has caused the explosion in deficits and debt. Almost everybody underestimated the vulnerability, the Conservative leadership among them: pre-crisis, it committed itself to continuing the plans that Mr Cameron now calls “reckless and unaffordable”.
Some think reckless spending explains the jump in government spending from 40.7 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to 47.4 per cent two years later. Yet, between 1996-97 (the year before Labour came into office) and 2007-08 (the year before the crisis), the share of spending in GDP rose by only 1.2 per cent. No: the collapse in GDP, relative to expectations, caused the jump in spending and decline in receipts, relative to GDP. The Green Budget compares the forecasts for 2012-13 made in the 2008 Budget and the 2012 Autumn Statement: nominal GDP is down 13.6 per cent, receipts are down 17.6 per cent, spending is down 5.6 per cent and borrowing is up 372 per cent. It is because the OBR (and others) believe most of this lost GDP is permanent that the position seems so grim. (See charts.)
Mr Cameron’s argument against fiscal policy flexibility is wrong. But, beyond this, we have to consider why the economy has proved so fragile and rebalancing so difficult. That is for next week."
"David Cameron’s “there is no alternative” speech last week on the UK economy has aroused much criticism. This is justified.The British prime minister’s arguments for sticking to the government’s programme of fiscal austerity were overwhelmingly wrong-headed.
It is easy to understand why he had to defend the government’s failing flagship policy. The incoming coalition embarked on a programme of austerity with the emergency Budget of June 2010. The economy, then showing signs of recovery, has since stagnated. Even the fiscal outcomes are poor. Indeed, according to the latest Green Budget from the authoritative Institute for Fiscal Studies, this fiscal year’s borrowing requirement may be bigger than last year’s. Only a productivity collapse saved the day – by keeping unemployment surprisingly low, ameliorating the social impact of the output disaster
How does one defend this record? Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford and Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, among others, have demolished the prime minister’s views. Here are the key points.
Mr Cameron argues that those who think the government can borrow more “think there’s some magic money tree. Well, let me tell you a plain truth: there isn’t.” This is quite wrong. First, there is a money tree, called the Bank of England, which has created £375bn to finance its asset purchases. Second, like other solvent institutions, governments can borrow. Third, markets deem the government solvent, since they are willing to lend to it at the lowest rates in UK history. And, finally, markets are doing this because of the structural financial surpluses in the private and foreign sectors.
Again, Mr Cameron notes that “last month’s downgrade was the starkest possible reminder of the debt problem we face”. No, it is not, for three reasons. First, Moody’s stressed that the big problem for the UK was the sluggish economic growth in the medium term, which austerity has made worse. Second, the rating of a sovereign that cannot default on debt in its own currency means little. Third, the reason for believing long-term interest rates will rise is expectations of high inflation and so higher short-term rates. But such a shift is going to follow a recovery, which would make austerity effective and timely.
Mr Cameron also argued: “As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear ... growth has been depressed by the financial crisis ... and the problems in the eurozone ... and a 60 per cent rise in oil prices between August 2010 and April 2011. They are absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible.” This brought a rejoinder from Robert Chote, OBR director, who noted that: “Every forecast published by the OBR since the June 2010 Budget has incorporated the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth in the short term.”
Serious researchers, including at international organisations, argue that the multiplier effect of fiscal austerity may be far bigger than the OBR has hitherto assumed, at least in today’s depressed circumstances. Moreover, even if the OBR believes the outcome turned out worse than forecast because of adverse shocks, rather than its underestimation of multipliers, this is an argument for active policy, not against it.
The prime minister also stated: “[Labour] think that by borrowing more they would miraculously end up borrowing less ... Yes, it really is as incredible as that.” What truly is incredible is that Mr Cameron cannot understand that, if an entity that spends close to half of gross domestic product retrenches as the private sector is also retrenching, the decline in overall output may be so large that its finances end up worse than when it started. Bradford DeLong of Berkeley and Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, have shown that, in a depressed economy, what Mr Cameron deems incredible is likely to be true. A recent International Monetary Fund paper argues that “fiscal tightening could raise the debt ratio in the short term, as fiscal gains are partly wiped out by the decline in output”. Mr Portes adds that, even if this is not true for the UK on its own, it is likely to be true for Europe since almost everybody is retrenching simultaneously.
Mr Cameron argues that “this deficit didn’t suddenly appear purely as a result of the global financial crisis. It was driven by persistent, reckless and completely unaffordable government spending and borrowing over many years.” In a way, this is the most worrying error – not because the fiscal policy of the Labour party, then in power, was perfect. Far from it. Fiscal policy should have been tighter. But that is not the main reason the UK has a huge structural deficit.
It is the economy, stupid. In 2007, according to the IMF, UK net debt – at 38 per cent of GDP – was the second-lowest in the Group of Seven leading economies. These levels were also exceptionally low by UK historical standards. In the March 2008 Budget, the Treasury estimated the structural cyclically adjusted deficit on the current budget at minus 0.7 per cent in 2007-08 and minus 0.5 per cent in 2008-09. The collapse in output has caused the explosion in deficits and debt. Almost everybody underestimated the vulnerability, the Conservative leadership among them: pre-crisis, it committed itself to continuing the plans that Mr Cameron now calls “reckless and unaffordable”.
Some think reckless spending explains the jump in government spending from 40.7 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to 47.4 per cent two years later. Yet, between 1996-97 (the year before Labour came into office) and 2007-08 (the year before the crisis), the share of spending in GDP rose by only 1.2 per cent. No: the collapse in GDP, relative to expectations, caused the jump in spending and decline in receipts, relative to GDP. The Green Budget compares the forecasts for 2012-13 made in the 2008 Budget and the 2012 Autumn Statement: nominal GDP is down 13.6 per cent, receipts are down 17.6 per cent, spending is down 5.6 per cent and borrowing is up 372 per cent. It is because the OBR (and others) believe most of this lost GDP is permanent that the position seems so grim. (See charts.)
Mr Cameron’s argument against fiscal policy flexibility is wrong. But, beyond this, we have to consider why the economy has proved so fragile and rebalancing so difficult. That is for next week."
QuicheFontaine
Member
So, any thoughts on the European Parliament demanding an extra £1,700,000,000 from Britain for this year's budget?
That's a very low percentage of the £14bn increase they're pushing for - wonder why we're getting such a bargain.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's an inherent conflict in Democratic mandate. MEPs have a responsibility to sort out the budget, but have no say (or reason to care) about how the implications of that budget are paid for by central government treasuries. What has to get cut locally to inflate their budget? That certainly isn't within their mandate, that's in the national governments mandate. That's why there are events like that in Feb to agree with those tasked with actually implementing the budgets on the limits for the Parliament to work within, because at the end of the day, MEPs could agree to a rise of £500bn but if the members can't afford it, it doesn't mean much. Bit of a mess.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I know, right? So cheap!
Incidentally, I just saw this advert for a speedboat with 90% off. What a great bargain! I mean, sure I'm absolutely broke at the moment but what a deal. Now is definitely the time to buy a speedboat.
And yes, yes, I do already own a speedboat. But this one is so much larger, harder to steer and more inefficient. I think I'd be getting quite the bargain if I went ahead and paid for it.
Who are you, Comrade Sarcasm?
Anyhow, had a look at the BBC article on this. It's actually completely and totally right for the EU parliament to do this. They're not arguing the 3.3% decrease, they're arguing that governments need to resolve the conflict between that decrease and the fact that the EU isn't allowed to accumulate debt (which it will if the budget goes ahead as-is):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21754737
But yeah, the Torygraph didn't really emphasis that. Wonder why...
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ok, maybe I got a little carried away there.
I quite like the name Comrade Sarcasm though 
I think what grates me though is the use of the word "demand" here. It would seem natural, when presented with a "demand" to ask oneself "or else what?".
Just heard a story about a Labour plant in the Question Time crowd to bash a UKIP member of the panel? Politics is ridiculous.
Who would challenge him? All parties seem really weak to me with regards to current and potential leaders. Better the devil you know and all that.
Who would challenge him? All parties seem really weak to me with regards to current and potential leaders. Better the devil you know and all that.
Ok, maybe I got a little carried away there.I quite like the name Comrade Sarcasm though
I think what grates me though is the use of the word "demand" here. It would seem natural, when presented with a "demand" to ask oneself "or else what?".
I think that's just the wording used by the article authors. I looked at the original link and found only one reference to "demand":
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2013-0129&language=EN
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
If we consider how removed from reality they are: Gove or something dumb.
Theresa May? She seems to be making some waves with her removal of the Human Rights Act shitshow.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Must be true then.
Miles Quaritch
Member
There does seem to be some validity to their claims based on the images, etc provided in the article. That's something I never thought I'd say.
Doesn't make much of a difference though. Regardless of if she was there as a plant or a concerned citizen eager, it needed to be done and I applaud her taking the opportunity to highlight their misleading, underhanded scare tactics.
Here's the clip from QT for those who haven't seen it.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/03/question-time-audience-member-slams-ukip-on-immigration-stats/
Mallory Archer? No thanks...
Miles Quaritch
Member
What is there to say?
This is just a sample of what's coming based on the figures I've seen at work. It's going to hit adults with disability the hardest. So hard that a sharp increase in homelessness of disabled adults is something we should all prepare for.
Captain_Spanky
Member
The new regime changes hit disabled people so hard it feels like it's purposeful sometimes. Like the ATOS tests being completely ill-equipped to deal with mental health issues, which the article also touched on.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Maybe they should stop being scrounging scum and get a job?
radioheadrule83
Banned
ATOS seem mandated to minimise claimants. Which is fine. But surely its in governments best interests that they don't penalise truly vulnerable people in a time of need.
The ESA review for the father of this kid should be pushed to the bottom of a pile and not taken from him until later. Even then his mental state should be assessed fairly. The bedroom tax should have caveats and exemptions in a given financial year... a person dying is obviously a legitimate reason to have an empty room. The whole policy is vile, they should at least try and police it with some semblance of humanity.
If we were talking about any other family in Norris Green, one that hadn't experienced a death, I'd probably be prone to prejudice and thinking they should just deal with it -- but they have. And actually, parts of it are the poorest in Liverpool and there are no doubt a lot of vulnerable people there whose lives are going to go from shit to worse because of things like this. There will be consequences to things like this. Long lasting social consequences.
The ESA review for the father of this kid should be pushed to the bottom of a pile and not taken from him until later. Even then his mental state should be assessed fairly. The bedroom tax should have caveats and exemptions in a given financial year... a person dying is obviously a legitimate reason to have an empty room. The whole policy is vile, they should at least try and police it with some semblance of humanity.
If we were talking about any other family in Norris Green, one that hadn't experienced a death, I'd probably be prone to prejudice and thinking they should just deal with it -- but they have. And actually, parts of it are the poorest in Liverpool and there are no doubt a lot of vulnerable people there whose lives are going to go from shit to worse because of things like this. There will be consequences to things like this. Long lasting social consequences.
The Tory agitators don't really give a monkey's who's next, they just really hate Dave (for exactly the opposite reasons that the rest of us hate Dave).
Of course it's purposeful. Disabled people stop costing money when they're dead.
It's also pretty standard practice for governments to target the disabled and disadvantaged when times are hard, they're less likely to fight back.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Never stopped them shutting down mental health facilities or allowing landlords to buy up huge swathes of council housing.
Not to mention, of course, that the opposition will always claim they would have done loads of awesome things that would have worked perfectly. When in reality, they'd have been just as fucked as the incumbents and their ideas are fucking cretinous anyway.
Miles Quaritch
Member
It's a feeling shared among many of the disabled adults I've talked to. This will probably be looked back upon as the single worst thing this government will have done if changes aren't made for disabled adults.
ATOS is a complete joke. Utter joke, no-one should ever be subjected to the garbage they subject people to day in and day out.
CHEEZMO™;50117673 said:
Indeed. Allowing the sale of social housing was probably one of the worst things Thatcher could have done and it's being replicated now by the current Government through the home ownership scheme.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Was gonna say, lol.
So, nobody cares about this anymore, then. You'd all rather laugh at the nutter MP who started another pub fight.
No wonder Cameron and cronies get away with so much shit.
Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
Cameron is right if that's in relation to the current libel reform bill that Labour are paying politics with. As things stand, much needed libel reform is about to be scrapped because of shitty additions from labour peers trying to squeeze in Leveson recommendations where they're not needed.