An argument over a fiver

I have no interest in what labour has to say - they lost the last election and are irrelevant until such time as we have a choice at another election.

We can however judge the effects of tory ideology as the economic collapse gathers pace against a setting of global recovery.


Tories: taking labour's mess and making it worse.

It is easier to argue over the small sums - none of them understand the large ones.
Thank goodnes they only tinker at the edges so calamity only comes slowly.

The only thing that will get the economy moving is tax reductions for low and middle earners and small companies and less red tape and beaurocracy. Labour are irrelevant to the argument and do not have the answer anyway. They never did. The tragic thing is that if they had spent all that tax that was coming in wisely in the early years of the new millennium we would have been in a much better position now.

God jon112dk, it's always ideology with you, isn't it? That has now become the comment stupid people always retreat to when they haven't got any facts.

Could it possibly be the case that the Tories may be doing what they believe will improve the economy - and peoples' welfare - over a prolongued period of time, so as to win votes at the next election?

Are you really that much of a conspiracy theorist that you believe the Tories are going to purposely anger the majority of the population for 5 years, to the detriment of their next election hopes?

Stop being so ridiculous; it's embarrassing to read. The Tories want power, they'll do what they think is right now to fix the economy, as that will get them re-elected. That is all. No dogma, no conspiracy, no ideology. Just an economic system that doesn't 'take no thought for the 'morrow'.

Thats Ed Balls for you. He sees a bit of spare cash and it burns a hole in his pocket, until it is spent. He is a deficit denier. The reason he would want to revise Darlings plans for the economy, is because he knows it is more or less in line with what the Coalition are doing already.

You are right, it is like arguing over a fiver on the floor and thats exactly the problem. Neither party have any idea how to pull the economy back into balance. Neither party would take action even if they did, it is all about just getting power and keeping it.

It seems Britain will have to tear itself apart, before the penny drops, that politically and economically the UK cannot go on like this.

Ed Balls spent far to much time reading about economics, but unfortunately not understanding it. Like Brown he lives in the past, and spends much of his time manipulating keynes to suit his arguments.

Here we go again, more punch and judy politics. There had better be something other than hot air in the Budget, at least then there will be a proper argument not this asinine posturing. What I don't want to see, or hear, is more of the 'jam tomorrow' stuff dished out by 'New' Labour, were we are expected to wait years for any goodies and only then if 'conditions are right'.
Regards, etc.

Labour don't really have a leg to stand on, given that when they were in charge they did not have the balls to grab the nettle and deal with the economic problems prior to the election.Indeed they were still approving initiatives for which we did not have money in the 5 months upto the election.

Given that the public have discovered what useless frauds they were, they now sit on the sidelines sniping at the government's actions and act as if they are suddenly wiser in opposition.

It is probably a wise move not to tell the opposition what is being done with the money as they will only waste parliamentary time coming up with with more advice on ways to spend the money. It's a pity really that they were not so good at generating the funds in the first place.

Maybe we could save the country a fortune by sacking the opposition because unlike the Lib-Dems and the Conservatives they clearly have not put aside their party political differences for the public good.

Nick Robinson - you are so forgiven to be weary, and your honesty is appreciated.

The so-called opposition led by Ed & Ed & Co., totally limited, are a complete disaster.

It's difficult to find the strength to find the words to describe the fall and fall of the Labour opposition and it's so called 'leaders'?

So, until Ed Miliband and Ed Balls find other jobs, not subsidised by the tax-payer - the better. They are a complete embarrassment and holding back genuine talent, imposed by the Labour Party Executive?

No, I don't support Labour, but they need to do better for everyone in the UK - not just themselves.

4. At 3:08pm on 14 Mar 2011, Marnip wrote:
.... The Tories want power, they'll do what they think is right now to fix the economy, as that will get them re-elected.
=========================

If power was the tory agenda they would have kept quiet about their cuts before the last election - at one stage they (rightly) had such a lead over labour in the polls they could have had a landslide victory. Instead they could not acheive a conclusive majority over gordon brown: how bad is that?

The tories regard this sham national emergency as a 'once in a generation' opportunity to cripple the public sector like they did with the miners last time they were in.

Their policies are not helping them in the polls and they are destroying the domestic economy - at best stagnation, and more likely collapse, at a time when we should recovering from recession.

That is ideology not pragmatism.

Tory ideology might not be fixing the problems we have in the very short term (although we haven't really given them time to work), but the Labour ideology created the problem in the first place so little Ed, Balls and Co have nothing to shout about.

It's a shame Darling stepped down - at least he had a coherent argument for dealing with the deficit in that he at least acknowledged the problem and could legitimately discuss the coalition's strategy.


Ball's position is weak to say the least, having chosen to oppose any mention of cuts whilst in opposition. Still he is good entertainment and Osborne knows he is up for the fight - no Queenbury rules for Balls.

Two Tory parties bickering over the arrangement of the deckchairs!

Neither of them have the faintest idea how to do arithmetic let alone how to manage the economy. It is like watching Morecambe and Wise or Tony Hancock doing brain surgery, amusing by fatally flawed.

The will not face up to the destructive ballooning of personal debt that will cripple the Nation for a generation or more. The old lot through that running the economy, not of earned income but a debt bubble was a good and proper thing to do and this lot are just carrying on on the same lines with student fees - both cretinous and craven. No one has the gumption to reform the Bank of England and the Treasury, yet the Nation will continue on its downwards spiral until this is done! You cannot buck arithmetic!

The best thing would be to punish the bankers for the crimes they committed,jail being the lesser of the options to be considered.It will be the only way to prevent it all from happening again. This has always been about protecting the wealth of the wealthy and has little to do with economics and economic recovery. The rich and powerful preying on everyone else.

Ah, Nick, you sound like you need a holiday.

There is an upside though..... Now you know how every other poster on here feels about jon112dk's "offerings!

We wont have to wait until the next general election to find out who is more right about the economy - we will have a good idea by the local elections in May. If the economy is headed in the wrong direction the Lib Dems will be annihilated - all pain and no gain. On the other hand a restarted recovery will simply result in just large scale losses for them and the grass roots know it!

One lives in hope that the two Ed-ed machine will eventually dissociate itself from most of the economic policies (a flattering description) of the last Labour government.

So the 'Oxbridge and Harvard educated' Balls.. (IPGABP1's word's not mine) has decided that the coalition's allegations are "total utter garbage and claptrap". Nice evidence of your education, Mr Balls.

Rather than actually expalin where the £12bn of unfunded spending labour proposes is coming from, he resorts to the language of the playground (like many of his supporters on these posts). It's a rich irony that he used to be the children's minister.

I repeat, when will somebody in the labour party demonstrate the self attributed intellectual superiority about which we are constatnly reminded. (that's you sagamix)

It's grim up north London...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasn’t that already been tried before by a certain Mr Brown?
The Socialist agenda for job creation (sic) is dead in the water & partially responsible for the mess we are in now.

True job creation can only come from the Private sector & I hope Berty will listen to the CBI who wants more help for export & medium sized British businesses.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12660601

Robin @ 16 wrote:
I repeat …

>>

Yup.

Let's not put mascara on a melon, Robin (16), you just want to kick against the enlightened and settled consensus that we need high quality and comprehensively scoped public services, free at the point of delivery. Stuck in Victorian times, you are. Mutton chop sideboards wouldn't surprise me, if I had a photo.

forgottenukcitizen @ 18 wrote:

True job creation can only come from the Private sector.

>>

A mantra seen often on this blog, but is it true?

Imagine the town I live in grows in size by 20%. As a result, we need 20% more privately-employed window-cleaners and 20% more council-employed bin men. Are the window-cleaners's jobs 'true' jobs but the bin men's jobs not? How so?

20 - "Stuck in Victorian times, you are."

If Robin were stuck in Victorian times, he would at least be stuck in a time that had at one time existed.

Your views, saga, are stuck in a timezone that has never and will never exist.

18. At 4:19pm on 14 Mar 2011, forgottenukcitizen wrote:
"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.
Hasn’t that already been tried before by a certain Mr Brown?
The Socialist agenda for job creation (sic) is dead in the water & partially responsible for the mess we are in now.
===============================

Hang on a minute - that's a bit off message.

I thought the tory propaganda was that gordo FAILED to regulate the banks, thereby forcing the poor honest bankers into their greedy conduct and single handedly created global recession.

Now you're telling us he was taxing them too much.


By the way, when is your beloved private sector going to deliver all those jobs snooty keeps promising? Unemployment is UP. Looks more like a collapse than a recovery.

18 forgotten

"True job creation can only come from the Private sector & I hope Berty will listen to the CBI who wants more help for export & medium sized British businesses."

Answer

"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.

14. At 4:08pm on 14 Mar 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Ah, Nick, you sound like you need a holiday.
There is an upside though..... Now you know how every other poster on here feels about jon112dk's "offerings!
==================================================

Heh, Fubar.

Brilliantly on topic as always.

I see you were still one or two blogs behind the rest of us on the last one, so at least you have caught up a little bit.

jon112dk, at post 9 - good point well made. Let's not let Marnip turn "Ideology" into another logical fallacy like all those who misuse Godwin's Law.

Ideology has not "now become the comment stupid people always retreat to when they haven't got any facts." It's become the fallback agenda of an incompetent cabinet who haven't got the skills to govern with any initiative.

So still the quibble is about the how fast and how deep? Are we not stuck on a point of degrees, just like Nick is saying.
Basically The Conservatives want to lance the boil and Labour want treat the boil maybe in time it will get better and more manageable

For those of you who cannot take their medicine, (the cuts and and the harshness of it) reflect that a hard one off approach very rarely costs more than a continued, resource sucking attempt to grapple with such a thorny issue

In time this coalition will be more fondly remembered for its long termism, despite the fact the pain it inflicts now will cause many to jump ship and vote them into the wilderness for many years

Gordon Brown talking sense:

"It's not enough to discuss the future of banks at a national level. If you have a German solution, a British solution and an American one, you could get three separate sets of regulations and it would mean that the banks could look at the different countries and decide which operations to locate in each country.

"We've got to think and act globally. If we don't do that, we won't solve the banking problem."

Gordon Brown's interview with an online German news organisation, 22 February 2011.

We should give up arguing about the bonus taxes and bank levies in the UK alone (though this pleases the electorate). Anything more substantial than a few billion will actually lose tax revenue, not increase it. And what's the point in that?

"And that is how you end up with today's not entirely illuminating exchanges."

... And, why you proffer even less illuminating commentary on the whole sorry mess?

21. pdavies65

The 20% extra bin men will be paid for out of taxes raised by those in the Private sector (primarily).
Not that we need to worry too much about this because after the ConDem’s have finished, we will probably end up with 20% less.

Either way, few would argue that the imbalance between Public & private sector employment has become unsustainable & unaffordable.

We need new jobs for those who are about to lose theirs in the Public Sector & I would far rather see them in productive employment than part of the ConDem’s Big Society program after one year on the Dole.

To do this the Government needs to support businesses in the Budget.

21. At 4:41pm on 14 Mar 2011, pdavies65 wrote:
forgottenukcitizen @ 18 wrote:

True job creation can only come from the Private sector.

>>

A mantra seen often on this blog, but is it true?

Imagine the town I live in grows in size by 20%. As a result, we need 20% more privately-employed window-cleaners and 20% more council-employed bin men. Are the window-cleaners's jobs 'true' jobs but the bin men's jobs not? How so?"

Wind back to the start of that last paragraph. How does the town grow by 20% in the first place? That's where the private sector comes in.

As for window cleaners and bin-men, alas while the number of window-cleaners would probably increase by 20%, if it were a Labour council the number of bin-men would increase by 200%. Or more. Council tax woud rise, people would spend less, the town would shrink by 17%, the Labour council wouldn't lay off any of the binmen as they'd be beholden to the unions, things would go from bad to worse. The Labour council would then blame nasty American bankers and declare the town insolvent.

NR: 'Forgive me for sounding weary after this morning's exchanges about the economy, but I am. This is, as someone once said, the narcissism of small differences. Or to put it less grandly, it is political positioning by both the opposition and the government about small measures and relatively small sums of money ahead of the Budget.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick, I think you are paid too much if you think £12bn is small beer.

"Your views, saga, are stuck in a timezone that has never and will never exist" - andy @ catch

Accept the first but certainly not the second. People never expect the future (over and above a couple of years hence) because they're too wound up with the day-to-day. It's all tidying up the sock drawer and not much else. Then - all of a sudden - they're slap bang in it. In the future. And they wonder how they got there. Too late by then, of course.

5. At 3:12pm on 14 Mar 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
You are right, it is like arguing over a fiver on the floor and thats exactly the problem. Neither party have any idea how to pull the economy back into balance. Neither party would take action even if they did, it is all about just getting power and keeping it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
£12bn is 1/10 of the NHS budget and not so lon ago was 1/10 of the UK public spend. Not a fiver on the floor!

Yes John (28), but let's make sure we agitate for that global solution. Take the lead even. This is one of those Schrodinger's Cats - or is it Prisoners' Dilemmas? - yes, it's a PD, that's the one. Each country gets a possible short term gain by playing footsy with the bankers, but ALL countries (together) stand to benefit enormously by kicking them where it hurts.

28 - "Gordon Brown's interview with an online German news organisation, 22 February 2011."

I did wonder what he was up to, apparently he's rarely seen in the Commons where, I understand, he's being paid £65k a year to represent his constituents in parliament.

I wonder if Gordon got paid for the interview?

Mr Ed and his side kick Balls dont have a plan so its a nothing script.

May I also suggest the smaller sum of £2bn is not to be sneezed at, as I think it represents 1/2p on basic rate IT. As the average taxpayer doesn't have any more money - 'There is no money left' - it is significant. About £70. About six week's food bill for someone living on slender resources.

snuff 34

You miss the point Nick Robinson was making, in comparison to the problem, it is like arguing over a fiver on the floor and will seem like that to the public.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It was Tory Ken Clarke who created the automatic 1 penny increases per litre in fuel duty. That law intends to encourage consumers to economise on car fuels.

Ken Clarke was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early 1990s. John Major was PM when it started. So let's give both of them the credit due for their initiative! It certainly wasn't Labour.

The previous Labour government did create the precedent of cancelling the otherwise automatic increase in fuel duty. Which was done whenever the world price increase in Oil rose sufficiently to deter extravagant petrol usage.

40 - How can it be against the house rules to suggest a re-running of the Schrodinger's Cat experiment substituting Saga for the cat would only work if the box were thoroughly sound-proofed?

The bit I don't get from labour is:

Tax Bonuses!!!!

and

Cut Bonuses!!!!

Ummmm ... if you cut them, wont that decrease the tax revenue?

What they should be saying is

Increase Bonuses!!!

Then tax 'em like mad.

Forget economics, this is basic primary school arithmetic!

32. At 5:14pm on 14 Mar 2011, Up2snuff wrote:
Nick, I think you are paid too much if you think £12bn is small beer.

----------------------------------------------------------
£12bn for a small beer? Does Nick drink at my horribly overpriced local?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is absolutely not about the numbers. It is about one thing and one thing only - credibility. Labour know they have to erase the memory of their failure if they are ever to have a chnace of winning an election.

Unfortunately for Balls, particularly, to claim any credibility on the economy is astounding arrogance. 13 years in power, the last 8 running up £450 billion of extra debt, leaving behind the largest peacetime deficit ever and ballooning liabilities for the pensions of the extra 1 million people they stuck on the public payroll. All the time Balls was there, alongside the great Gordo - magician extra-ordinaire - illusionist more like.

Labour have no credibility on the economy. They wrecked it.

42 I think William Hague should replace the cat as there is a finite probability that he is politically both alive and dead simultaneously at the moment. Ditto Nick Clegg.

23. jon112dk wrote:

By the way, when is your beloved private sector going to deliver all those jobs snooty keeps promising? Unemployment is UP. Looks more like a collapse than a recovery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t got a clue Jon & neither has anybody else.

I do know that if we don’t make the UK more business friendly pretty quickly, I can see an awful lot of people providing Big Society with cheap labour instead; something you & I wouldn’t want to see.

Not a fan of Bankers myself, but fail to see how kicking them is going to promote job growth in the UK?

(My comment 18 was meant to refer to general tax & spend on Public sector employment; I should have been more specific – my bad).

I agree with Nick.

Nick, a good explanation for the rather pointless debate.

I do think that Ed Balls is doing himself no favours. It plays well to Labour faithful and plays badly to anyone with a wider view of the utter mess we are in.

Unfortunately the last people the two Eds need to convince are the party faithful. They need to convince the rest of the population that they have firstly accepted that we do need to "cut, cut, cut". They also need to convince people but they will not seek to return to the Blair/Brown era of spend, spend spend (on NHS, Defence, new schools etc.), ideologically driven wealth redistribution reforms (tax credits, means tests) and top down central government dictate (ID cards, control orders).

It really shouldn't be hard for Labour to bite their tongue on the majority of cuts and just focus on the inevitable coalition mistakes and contentious policies (NHS reform, forests, child benefit, police commissioners). However, they can't seem to resist cheap jibes with poorly conceived policies so currently just look like faintly pathetic NIMBYs.

WE are OWNED lock stock and barrel by Bankers have been for over 3 centuries the next bust will arrive shortly the exscuse the fall of stock values in Japan (no fault of the populace). The time to stockpile food is NOW nothig else realy matters.

On a side note -:

LATEST:Prime Minister Cameron says 'no intention to get involved in another war' in Libya

Now where have I heard this before ? we are being set up again folks!!

Have placed a bet that we will be fighting in libya within 6 months.

There is nothing as profitable as WAR..

The Con-Dem's work us to death just to pay off this debt, which is no where near the amount the American's owe or the Japanese owe...
So what will they do, in a few years time we will have paid off our debt and contracted our economy down and have high unemployment, the USA and Japan will Hyper-Inflate their economies so that 14 trillion dollars that are owed at the moment, probably 25 trillion dollars in 5 years, becomes the price of a loaf of bread. Hmmm what will that do to our economy? well when the USA caused this economic situation it had the world to bail it out, when we go down the drain, we have contracted and withdrawn from the old empire so much that we only have ourselves to rely on, we will not even make it in the top 100 economic nations after the USA and Japan hyper inflate. The debt is fixed, but growing the economy by adding a few naughts to the end of everything will make it insignificant.
But tweddle dee and tweedle dumn are too thick to be 'on the inside joke' on this matter.

31 Andy
"Wind back to the start of that last paragraph. How does the town grow by 20% in the first place? That's where the private sector comes in."

But what if the 20% growth was caused by the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers? Are you saying that is the reponsibility of the private sector? I do hope you are.

Look at the big picture, Nick. What this is about is Balls denying Osborne the opportunity to represent some tiny bits of fluff (e.g. cancelling 1p of duty on fuel) as a grand growth-promoting strategy. He's pointing out now that there are opportunities for small-scale 'generosity', that would be available whoever was in government, so that at budget time Osborne can't pull a stringy rabbit out of a battered hat and present it as some great triumph.

Please try to remember what you wrote today, so that you can give an appropriate reaction when Osborne tries to present your 'fiver' as some dramatic government giveaway.

I will ask again and perhaps the more enlightened will answer me

Why are we giving Ed Balls so much media space and time he is a senior figure in a Political Party that is virtually Bankrupt and was Browns right hand Man running up the most unsustaninable debts ever seen in this Country and that does not even include PFIs

I am happy to take a lesson on economics but not from either of the two Edds

'8. At 3:22pm on 14 Mar 2011, corum-populo-2010
The so-called opposition led by Ed & Ed & Co., totally limited, are a complete disaster.'

As a small compensation, there is the contribution to comedy.

I saw Miliband E. 'interviewed' at lunchtime.

The reason for the quotes is because the interviewer was not allowed to get a word in edgewise, as it appeared that the premise was disgorging as much of any old thing was deemed a better substitute for making any sense.

On top of which, it all seemed to be attempted without taking a breath, which didn't help, sonically, as the lack of air created some very odd noises.

It merely served to make Mr. Cameron not seem as bad, and that alone is hard to forgive.

No, doesn't sound at all against the rules, Andy (42); just sounds like it might not have been adding value, might not have been a good development of the interesting point I make at 35.

"It is the equivalent of a row about a fiver dropped on the floor when you are having your house repossessed. "

UTTER TOSH!

The difference may be only one of degree, but why don't you tell that to the 100's of thousands of peoples who's lives and livelyhood these "small measures" will affect!

Nick and George apparently "feel our pain" about fuel prices, do they? Do they really? Do You nick? Have any of the three of you ever drove past a petrol station and got angry after seeing the price board? Have you ever had to make a decision about if you can take your kids to the great park 10 miles away but had to give them the xbox contoller again because you simply can't afford the petrol?

I have just had to turn down a better job, with better career prospects because I have a baby on the way and the petrol costs will be too much.

Long term it's a fantastic prospect for me and my family. Were petrol 10p a litre less I'd be able to afford it, but how can I take a pay cut with a child on the way knowing my wife will be on maternity?

I can't take it though because me, my wife or child would starve.

So yes the differenace is simply of degree, but it makes a massive difference!

These are the decisions that real people make every day, these are decisions that people like you, David, George, Ed and Ed don't understand.

Why does Mr Robinson comment on something tha he obviously thinks is trivial. Better not to comment at all or do your job and think of something interesting.

@No 4 Marnip:

I have to somewhat defend what Jon112dk has said. There is very clearly an ideological push in what the Tories are doing here. There's no "conspiracy" about it, it is happening. The Tories want small government and the economic crisis is their fillip for forcing it through.

Although i couldn't disagree more with their flawed ideology, there is nothing technically "wrong" with how they are going about implementing it. They are in government, and it is their prerogative to govern according to their leanings, no matter how much i abhor it.

They can say it isn't ideologically-driven until they are blue in the face, but even they don't seriously expect the public to believe that. In fact Marnip, i would be quite concerned if you think that a party in power DOESN'T govern according to their ideologies.

Ex@50
"I do think that Ed Balls is doing himself no favours. It plays well to Labour faithful and plays badly to anyone with a wider view of the utter mess we are in."

I do agree, it is turning into pantomine when Balls says it is not their job to put forward policies and he does not have access to the figures - I had expected a more credible performance from him.

Should have gone for Cooper not Balls.

A bus load of politicians were driving down a country road one afternoon, when all of a sudden, the bus ran off the road and crashed into a tree in an old farmer's field.

Seeing what happened, the old farmer went over to investigate. He then proceeded to dig a hole and bury the politicians.

A few days later, the local policeman came out, saw the crashed bus, and asked the old farmer, "Were they all dead?"

The old farmer replied, "Well, some of them said they weren't, but you know how them politicians lie."

"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.


Yes, let's tax the bankers until they have all left town - what sensible idea - 'Ballsonomics' at its very best!

Still, as stated above, it plays well to the faithful, and that's the main thing - doesn't matter how irresponsible it is.

All the people I have been talking to at work over the last few weeks, plumbers, chippies, decorators, tilers etc, they are mainly concerned with immigration and labour need to get a grounded policy on this to redress criticism in this area. But when it comes to the economy, the anger at the way the tories are going about things, ie severe cuts and austerity for the masses and yet business as usual for the bankers and the rich, this is completely dwarfing any criticism of labour on their economic competence..

As things stand, Labour only has to sit tight and let the Tories (and Lib Dems) take the flak for economic stagnation, higher taxes, unemployment etc. If things are going well by 2015 Labour can't win anyway. If things look bleak, Labour will win, whatever, especially with a Lib Dem meltdown. The thing is, a few touchstone issues like 'tax the bankers', 'save the NHS' etc. will keep the pot simmering nicely. So Miliband and balls may be doing the right thing. Nick is right, it is arguing over a fiver, but it's my fiver and the electorate's.

I have to admit that I don't understand how people can think the rich aren't paying their share given that we have the highest income tax rates for decades and the highest rate of VAT ever. However it just shows that in politics perception counts more than reality.

That said, I do think that the Lib Dems may have made a mistake in dropping their 'mansion tax'. It would have been an obvious quid pro quo in exchange for the Conservative policy of an increase in inheritance tax but it would have been a very visible symbol of the super rich being taxed in a way they couldn't easily avoid.

Re prev prev blog. Blame
Sorry I didn’t get a chance to reply to your post which I took on board.. I think a longer response is for another time. I think it also ties in with the AV debate which ive been mulling over quite considerably. At the moment im in the no to AV camp. Although I could be in favour of full PR.
But in short reply to your “principle” over “lesser of two evils post”......................
I think that your point can be turned around to make my point. By supporting the only current viable and likely to be elected party to remove the tories is going to prevent a considerable amount of misery for many many people. By voting for the greens or SWP etc, it maybe nearer to a personal philosophy, but in the short term, it ain’t going to provide rest-bite to those who need it most. I don’t think facilitating the tories policies by voting for smaller parties that cant remove them is very principled, especially when the cost of it and end result means more misery and more tory rule.
The tories are very organised campaign wise and have a huge financial base to fund this. Combined with a majority right wing media. Fragmenting left wing opposition only serves to keep them strong.

"Labour don't really have a leg to stand on, given that when they were in charge they did not have the balls to grab the nettle "

But I thought Labour did have (Ed) Balls, it was just that did not want to use them on the public in case they caught a nasty dose of...

Election disaster (that was what you were expecting me to say wasnt it)

A very useful bit of big picture there, Mr Robinson, that allowed the 'Band-wagon' ... sorry no the ...'BLand-wagon' ... to be put on the spot ... and well ... didn't they both look very stupid!

re #39
To the public, £12m seems like a lot of money. Some Chief Execs earn that sort of amount and not necessarily in banks, either. That's about twelve lifetimes of work for the average person.

Then multiply it to billions ...

re #63
£2bn tax on banks/bankers is hardly likely to make them leave ...

... but ...

... it's so typical of Labour to want to create public sector jobs out of thin air.

'Doing what?' should be the question asked by Mr Robinson (paid to do so) and answered by Messrs Miliband and Balls (also paid to do so).

"And that is how you end up with today's not entirely illuminating exchanges." [NR]

Not only an accurate comment on the events you were reporting but also oddly prophetic concerning the comments which were to follow it.

"64. At 7:13pm on 14 Mar 2011, lefty11 wrote:
All the people I have been talking to at work over the last few weeks, plumbers, chippies, decorators, tilers etc, they are mainly concerned with immigration and labour need to get a grounded policy on this to redress criticism in this area. But when it comes to the economy, the anger at the way the tories are going about things, ie severe cuts and austerity for the masses and yet business as usual for the bankers and the rich, this is completely dwarfing any criticism of labour on their economic competence.."

So your door-step polling says that people think what labour did on immigration was wrong. seems to be the consensus. Too much, too many, too soon, no view of the impact (as immigration didn't impact on 'nice' areas of London, I guess). So now you think Labour should adopt a new policy? What, exactly? "sorry, we won't do that again"? And on the economy, your door-step polling finds annoyance that it's "business as usual" for the banks? What is "as usual"? Oh, it's what the bankers were doing for 13 years while Labour let them off the leash. Still, you can always recommend a new policy can't you, "sorry, we won't do that again". remarkable thing about Labour is that if they are re-elected, they will just find a new way to mess up the economy.

And people like you wander the streets shoving "sorry" leaflets through people's doors.

"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.

"They've already promised that they would spend £12bn they haven't got," replies George.

"That's balls," replies Balls (actually he said it was "totally utter garbage and claptrap").

"We'd cut VAT on fuel," say the Eds.

"But hold on, your government is responsible for increasing duty by 1% above inflation for the next four years," says George.

And so on and so on.

Sounds like just about every comments section that follows every BBC blog entry, doesn't it?

Forgive me for sounding weary after this morning's exchanges about the economy, but I am.

I feel your pain, I really do. I'm tired of this crap, too.

The govt cannot raise £2bn and spend it and create 110,000 real and sustainable jobs (hopefully for British workers ... and that bit was also missing) ... that is impossible ... unless the govt is going to pick winners and invest directly, create and own and operate businesses.

If Balls and Milliband want to create real and sustainable UK jobs they need to understand that it is the job of govt to create the right economic conditions and not to do what the UK private sector cannot currently deliver (as starved by capital in an economy stalled by debts and taxes) ... never mind Civil Servants dishing out £2bn of tax money.

What Balls and Milliband should have said is something like this:

... it would be our proposal that we are not going to interfere with the day to day operations of the UK 'banks' (or SOFOMTs i.e. some other forms of money traders ... as many of these gambling dens are not even 'banks' according to the man in the street definition) ... but our strategy is that we expect the UK banks to invest at least £100 billion this and every year (between them) in long term British based business enterprise ... and if the Banks don't 'play balls' with this ... we'll squeeze them and tax them out of the country and replace them with institutions that can be trusted to do the right things with our nation's capital.

This all goes to show that the Eddie's 'bland-wagon' ... HAS NO IDEA!

The big issue with the SOFOMT's is how they use their capital in terms of strategic direction for the UK economy. If the UK SOFOMT's used their capital on the UK, in pursuit of long term gain, instead of sleazing it all around the world, the UK economy would take a large leap forward.

The UK economy now ALSO needs significant revenue neutral financial redistribution of between £50 and £75 billion into the pockets of those who will spend it and do the most with that money IN THE UK ... and do this year ... because £2bn as pointed out is piddling 'pea-nuts'. I've explained elsewhere, as to how I think that this redistribution can be achieved.

The 'Bland-wagon' failed here on two critical aspects of our UK economy and clearly they have no idea whatsoever ... let us hope that George Osborne can do a lot better.

74 - then why read them?

Sorry Nick, have the headache tablets to hand as I think we've got more of this for a while !

65. At 7:19pm on 14 Mar 2011, mcnaughtonspolitics wrote:

As things stand, Labour only has to sit tight and let the Tories (and Lib Dems) take the flak for economic stagnation, higher taxes, unemployment etc. If things are going well by 2015 Labour can't win anyway. If things look bleak, Labour will win, whatever, especially with a Lib Dem meltdown.

-> Not necessarily surely we could have a hung parliament. The days of big party (Labour + Tory) majorities are perhaps gone for now. There are no certainties at this time ! As you say if the economic sun shines then things can change hugely for any government. After all we had 13 years of the last lot.

The thing is, a few touchstone issues like 'tax the bankers', 'save the NHS' etc. will keep the pot simmering nicely. So Miliband and balls may be doing the right thing.

-> Ahh 'Back to the Future!'.. great film but bad politics!. Sounds like 70/80s rewind to me. Didn't do Labour good then and it possibly wont now. And it's not as if anyone believes Labour would really tax the bankers and 'save the NHS anyway'! It wasn't until TORY Blair came along and promised everything to everyone that Labour actually won elections. Not just hoping the other party mucks everything up. Some people might loathe Mandelsohn but he wasn't stupid. far from it. His point is that Labour is now seriously danger of losing the 'middle ground'. Brother David Miliband seems to also agree.

Perhaps if we didn't have the oscillating governments over the past 30 years, and something more stable with several parties contributing to government. Yes it's compromise, yes it means AV or PR, but I think it will put an end to these wild swings from spend to thrift... Somewhere in between would be nice, spend a little, but tax a little too... Maybe even save a bit?

Both government and opposition are repeating political narratives that favour their own position.Both contain elements of truth and elements of fantasy.

Mr.Osborne now has charge of the economy.Stresses have multiplied and are seismic.There are the cuts,faster than many economists think wise or justified,there is the Middle East and now Japan crippled by natural disaster.

Mr.Cameron meanwhile is acting as cheerleader for intervention on the side of the Libyan rebels.Mr.Hague`s obvious reluctance seems the wiser course,Saudi troops, in Bahrain by invitation,fired on and killed protesters.Do we intervene there,of course not,Libya is acting as surrogate for all those reactionary regimes we sell to who are also shooting down their own rebels.

Does Mr.Osborne understand that the pressures building on the British economy from cuts,the Middle east and Japan are deflationary beyond the aim of his original policy to abolish the deficit in four years? That was risky,the risks have now multiplied.

Can he change course if his policy is seen to fail? We don`t know,he`s not yet been tested but the signs are not good.Like Mr.Cameron,he is political.Both men think that to solve problems verbally is to solve them practically.Military posturing without an aircraft carrier is an example.

Does the opposition have an answer? No,but neither does the government and they are in charge.It is possible we will need to reflate by public spending in the light of changing events.It is right for the opposition to give voice to this eventuality.

1. At 5:30pm on 14 Mar 2011, leftie wrote:

It was Tory Ken Clarke who created the automatic 1 penny increases per litre in fuel duty. That law intends to encourage consumers to economise on car fuels.

leftie in the interest of impartiality, Ken Clarke did not impose the 1 ppl rise

The fuel price escalator was introduced by the Conservative government in 1993 and set at an annual increase of 3% ahead of inflation, later rising to 5%. After gaining power in 1997, the rate of increase was raised by the Labour government to 6% per year. The last rise due to the escalator took place following the budget on 9 March 1999.

The end of the ecalator was in Nov 2000 after fuel protests.

Tax increases above inflation for fuel duty have not stopped, fuel duty rise for 2009 was above inflation and the tax was increased by Labour's last budget so that on 1 April from 2011 to 2014 by 1 ppl above inflation in each year. that is where the 1 ppl comes from

Woe.. Woe.. Woe... E Con á me yes E Con á Me, the smoke is clearing: Bud Jet, I see Bud Jet and more and more Bud Jet. But what is this something else is in the mist.. Sur Plus a Tax Sur Plus.. Treachery, Treachery.

67. lefty11

"I think that your point can be turned around to make my point."

I thought you might say that.
Agree AV is halfway but not sure if that's all we'll get.
btw I think the right will also fragment. (is already)

Labour had to change to unseat the Tories. But they became the Tories in many ways. Reminds me of the American stand-up, Reginald D Hunter, and his piece on American slogans. 'To conquer fear, you must become fear'
You can't erase Thatcherism, you can't erase Blair and New Labour. Hypocrisy, venality, corruption.
I was considering the LibDems as a 'kingmaking' vote before the last election... they chose the wrong king as it turned out. Either way they would have been swallowed up.
Glad I made the choice I did. You're proposing Labour, stage one, then vote Green? I'm saying vote for what you believe in. Therein lies the difference.

66. At 7:30pm on 14 Mar 2011, The_Ex_Engineer wrote:
I have to admit that I don't understand how people can think the rich aren't paying their share given that we have the highest income tax rates for decades and the highest rate of VAT ever.
=============================

Ah.. but are the rich boys actually paying those taxes?

From businessmen who reckon their wife living abroad owns the business to royals who can sell houses without any capital gains tax to premier league footballers earning millions and paying ~2% tax it's clear not all of them are paying it.

VAT? Perhaps a bit trickier to dodge. But don't tell me the businessman - sorry the businessman's wife - will be buying their next yacht in the disunited kingdom and paying UK VAT on it. Perhaps he pays VAT on the price of his lunch at a nice restaurant.

Andy? How does he avoid paying VAT on his lunch in a London restaurant?

Government can't create jobs (never was, never is and never will be) but to provide opportunities and environment for job creation. Tax reduction is essential to economic recovery and the only solution for reducing deficit.

76 - Because roughly one in every hundred comments or so contains something that makes me think, which then makes me do some research, which then reveals something interesting.

I would prefer it wasn't such hard work.

82 Blame
You're proposing Labour, stage one, then vote Green?
----------------------------------

Spot on. Absolutely. Lets get labour in. Wipe away the tories, and reduce them to a fringe party. (we could call them conkip or kipcon :-) Then we can lobby lobby lobby for changes we really want under a left wing government. And then we can sort out FULL PR. But first we have to get rid of the tories (libdems are finished anyway).
And also regarding immigration, labour needs to have a honest debate about it and policy up. It disturbs me that I talk to people who would normally be traditional working class labour voters and suddenly they drop BNP into the conversation. Fault? Labours policy on this AND the right wing press, changing some people who would ordinarily be compassionate and understanding regarding asylum etc, into something else altogether. I don’t necessarily have any anti asylum feelings myself but got to listen to the voters (and dispel some sensationalist myths that the right propagate, at the same time) a sort of “meet in the middle” approach.

Within these high level discussions no pun intended everyone is talking about who throws the best party and does the host keep a well stocked cellar full of mouton cadet as a bit of table wine can go a long way between old friends.

And speaking of old friends of which many of you all are the eventful press call for what do you think about the latest stock take oops manifesto off the press as I would like your opinion about the figures that you have tucked away of who is going to go all out for the brief and how many might we be able to scrounge off the other teams.

Never read a manifesto and I have never had one pushed through my letter box either. We in the real world only get a quick flash of it off the news and everything else is missing off the council tax bill from a faceless representative.

Even if let’s say they all found a printing budget for a copy for each household that in most cases would be a waste of money to one in three it is only good for the winning host to get their size nines in the door of number 10.

Now wait your turn for your four minute window if you are not on the guest list if you please.

Andy @ 31 wrote:

Wind back to the start of that last paragraph. How does the town grow by 20% in the first place? That's where the private sector comes in.

>>

Sorry, I forgot to mention ... the town grew by 20% because they opened a new hospital and there was a big influx of public sector workers (NHS, in this case).

So going back to my original question, why are the window-cleaners' jobs any more real than the bin men's? The answer: they aren't.

Clearly, "only the private sector can create real jobs" is just one of those things people say - like "there's no smoke without fire" or "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Complete rubbish, as soon as you give it a moment's thought.

To all who say labor has created the mess we're in I say 'garbage' - the bankers are to blame and they got away with it totally free (save for the pathetic fig leaf Osborne extracted from them). The tories are out to ruin anything that is not based on the ability to pay - just look at the 'it's the council's choice' arguments re spending cuts - power without responsibility. Mr Robinson, if you're so weary of all the politics why not take a break - Macclesfield is really nice this time of year.

re #80
I seem to recall that Alastair Darling officially re-activated the Fuel duty Escalator - hence the current scheduled increases. This time last year, the increase was a FD increase. But then, Snuffy's brain can be very fluffy.

Gordon Brown loved to give the impression that he had got rid of the Fuel Duty Escalator post 2000. But that would have required a substantial cut in tax on petrol and diesel. It didn't happen ...

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

The whole thing is a charade. Labour is just doing what oppositions do, contest the issues that they think will make an impact and cause some embarassment.

The Tories are doing what Tories always do, they are trying to destroy the public sector. They have some justification, as it has grown a little too much for the country's good. All these stupid non jobs were bound to need a cull and there is always waste to attack in large organisations. But of course to the Tories this is a smokescreen, they are after bigger prizes, the wholesale transfer of public services to the private sector: including the NHS.

The only real issue at present is whether you believe that the Lib Dems are a controlling factor on the Tory excesses or an unwitting conspirator in the decimation of the public services. I think they are the latter, but either way they have sold their principles and will suffer the consequences.

79. At 8:38pm on 14 Mar 2011, bryhers wrote:

.....Does the opposition have an answer? No,but neither does the government and they are in charge.It is possible we will need to reflate by public spending in the light of changing events.It is right for the opposition to give voice to this eventuality.

-> Bryhers. The government does have an answer, but you don't like it. A difference. Nick's point which you don't address is that there isn't much of a REAL difference between the parties and what they would do to tackle the deficit. What Labour has said today regarding bankers is a political sideshow for the left as they dont have a clue how to implement it. It's just easy rhetoric but in the end hard politics to make it really work. AFter all this is the same Labour that effectively nationalised several banks and in doing so signed contracts which mean we cannot stop banks obscene pay rises even now. I don't think Nick or anyone else were particularly impressed by these same old robin hood politics from Labour. In reality - Labour would have to the same difficult things the Tories are doing and cut hard. For example - Darlings plan which would have been Labour policy now if they'd won. Darling admitted that this was going to be deeper & harder than anything Maggie Thatcher ever did! This was reported by the BBC & Gaurdian last year. We need to encourage the private sector, enterprise & manufacturing to create longterm jobs so we have a sustainable balanced economy, not just a huge public sector 'bubble'.

Sorry Nick I don't buy the weariness complaint. Do you really expect anything different?

All journalists have to remain on reasonably amiable terms with front line politicians to ensure that they keep their story line feeds open. As a result 'canny politicians' (Nick's words) like Ed Balls get let off the hook because none of the political journalists wants to really grill them too hard.

Unlike our Nick, my exchange today was more illuminating.

It was with a service station attendant at a deserted motorway stop.

I asked her how long it had been this quiet and she said it had really been since Christmas.

What's more, she went on to say that there were three schools near her house and normally in the past, she would never venture out when the children were being taken to school but now she can drive about normally at that time as the children appear to be being walked to school.

She also went on to say that people seem to be using the local park much more at weekends rather than driving out into the country.

This little exchange, I would humbly suggest, is far more interesting than the stuff these politicians have been spouting today.

The thing you absolutely have to remember about how a government borrows is this: it borrows by selling promises to repay money in the future. If investors don't believe that a country's economy or political management is good enough to repay, or that it owes more than it can repay then they'll not buy these promissary notes; this is termed a bond strike. Bond strikes aren't predictable, not precisely, you cannot determine when investor confidence will suddenly vanish, only that at some point it certainly will.

So, when your spending plans depend on borrowing staggering sums of money and you as a government look frankly clueless (as Labour under Gordon did) and don't have a plan for repaying the borrowed money, then you are on a path that is long term predictable. Basically sooner or later there will be a bond strike, and you as a government will not be able to pay your bills.

This is why cuts were inevitable, and why making them as fast as possible is the best plan; you know that if you don't
make planned cuts the Market will force unplanned ones on you, and those hurt much worse. This is why Labour lost the election, and remain unelectable; they display an extremely worrying lack of clue and always have done.

"We are governing from the middle for the middle" (Nick Clegg)

Now, I thought the Lib Dems were supposed to be a radical party.

"We are governing from the radical middle for the radical middle". Or is that a radical muddle?

You know it makes sense (vote NO to AV, that is).

Create more jobs in the public sector, and at a stroke you can give everyone a sense of purpose and a feeling of being useful. This would give everyone a stake in the big society. It could be paid for by creating "compensation" parity between the two sectors. Resentment of one sector bailing out the other would be eliminated, creating peace and harmony. If implemented ex ministers would also have a choice of job opportunities, instead of being limited to banks, and the boardrooms of large plcs.

18. At 4:19pm on 14 Mar 2011, forgottenukcitizen wrote:
"Tax the bankers more and spend the £2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.
Hasn’t that already been tried before by a certain Mr Brown?
The Socialist agenda for job creation (sic) is dead in the water & partially responsible for the mess we are in now.
________________________________________

Good one. I assume they would be public sector jobs, if so by the time one has included employer NI, pension contributions and coverage for sick days then the average wage for these 110,000 jobs would be £13600 pa. He was obviously not thinking of providing anyone a high paid ( or even average paid ) job. A bit like Brown when he said that removing the 10% tax would make the poor better off.

Given the impending impact of the oil price rise, the continuing debt crisis in the EuroLand PIIGS and the sudden fall in the Far East markets due to the Japanese earthquake disaster, does it make sense to proceed with making a large reduction in UK aggregate demand, when the UK economy has already gone into reverse in Q4 2010?

We're told this will be a budget for private sector growth and jobs - but apparently the proposals were felt to be so weak that the planned White Paper was scrapped. Now we hear that Enterprise Zones are to be set up again - a rerun of the 1980s attempt to implement the neoconservative dogma of deregulation and tax cuts. Analysis of this policy showed that the only effect it had was to get companies to shift their investment from location A to location B - there was no additional investment at all, but a loss of tax revenue overall due to the tax breaks in the Zones.

The reality is that UK manufacturing has been uncompetitive for years due to the imbalance in rigged exchange rates and the incredibly low costs of production in places like China due to slave labour wages, scandalous environmental abuse and repression.

The effect of the recent devaluation of Sterling has been a surge in exports - but at the cost of higher inflation via import prices. We need to recognise that it is TRADE that is the key issue and instead of devaluing the currency, we need to target imports by taxing them and by investing in import substitution - this would create loads of jobs, reduce our trade deficit and reduce the welfare bill, so shrinking the deficit.

Twiddling with minor tax breaks and scrapping a bit of red tape won't work - for years the economy was run in the interests of the City, not industry - we need to reverse this and that means proactive government that supports manufacturing - if you want to see what it should look like, take a trip to Germany and see what can be achieved - if you want to see where deregulation and tax incentives lead, go to Eire and you'll find a bombed out speculator's hell of half built office blocks and decimated public services.

The role of Government is to provide a framework and a channel for resources - it is not the "enemy of business" - it is the nation's mechanism to reflect the will of its people. Attacking government as Cameron does is to attack the principle of the democratic will of the people to determine what happens in their own country.

If the coalition's economic strategy leads to a depression, then the electorate's view about role of the state will change and the case for the sort of relationship with the private sector thatwe see in the German economy will win the day and Celgg & Cameron's laissez faire approach will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

An incoming Labour government will move significantly to the left with an interventionist mandate, polarising UK politics away from the centre ground, with UKIP arguing to leave the EU and the Tories retreating into their libertarian bunker, whilst the LibDems are wiped out.

The centre of debate will be about whether leaving the EU would be a more effective policy to boost trade, or whether the UK can work with the other EU countries to rebalance their economies towards a more sustainable model with lower imports and higher doemstic production.