'Credibility gap': The thought doesn't count

Stephanie


There are no differences between Labour and the Conservatives versions in the purported story that you were blogging about...They are using different English words in making there political case; and, what they are planning on doing in office....

N.B.: I am not ADVOCATING a general Election in the United Kingdom...


-Dennis Junior-

I suppose the cuts are dependent on the majority the Tories get.

Hopefully they will get a massive majority and cut all public sector pay above 15k pa by 20% with a cap of 100k in any public sector job. This should get the deficit sorted without anyone being unemployed and services suffering at all.

I'm sure the Tories will have their faults but for New Labour to accuse anyone of getting their sums wrong after the pathetic fiasco of the last few years is laughable. Caledonian Comment

I did think it a bit of a hoot that Labour would try and paint the Tories as a spendthrift party - history would suggest that Labour has that title quick safely in their trophy cabinet

To some extent Labour are right in that if you make overall cuts then spending will fall - so the Tories can't have it both ways

But the worst bit is that both parties treat the electorate like idiots - and at some point they may realise that there are some smart people outside the political arena who are watching this and thinking 'we're not best served by this lot'

We have a deficit - it will have to be reduced - fact

The first party that tells me how they plan to do that , what it means to me and what services they will cut and what services they will preserve will get my vote because they will be the first to treat me like an adult

Failing that 'none of the above' is looking like a possible option because I would not want to legitimise either Labour or the Tories at the moment

#1. Dennis Junior wrote:

"N.B.: I am not ADVOCATING a general Election in the United Kingdom..."

So it is a Government of National Unity then is it?

The economy is really in an appalling numerical mess and no amount of finessing the numbers can make it look any better. The numbers are facts and the deficit is a fact.

As I wrote on this blog over 12 months ago austerity is inevitable. The choice is about bearing the cost fairly in accordance with peoples' ability to pay, or unfairly by extracting blood from the stone of the poor to subsidise the lifestyles (and oh how I hate that word!) of the rich (bankers) or making everyone pay, rich and poor, savers and borrowers.

(So far policy in 2009 has seen borrowers subsidised by savers in a most unfair an inequitable manner through insanely low interest rates - a direct policy of Mervyn King and his fellow MPCers. This MUST change and the pain must be shared by borrowers. PS Mervyn MUST Go!)

I do think the a National Government is a good idea in the present circumstances - we cannot afford a partisan General Election in these desperate times - postpone it for five years and use the election to pick good economically sound men and women to manage our dire national economy. Why should the people have to accept a hung parliament with deals cobbled together in back-rooms after the election - we should be allowed a say?

What I want to know is - who made the 150 page report, who paid for it, and how much did it cost?

Was it made by someone at the treasury (as I suspect), and thus paid for by the taxpayer even though it is actually part of the election campaign?

hold the press - the Tory defence is that they have no policies!

@ 4:30pm on 04 Jan 2010, ps23

you need to educate yourself about a thing or 2 here - the figures were drawn up by the Treasury Civil Servants (you know the individuals paid by the taxpayers to serve the country). it is a perfectly legitimate activity, which also occurred when the Tories were last in power.

5. At 4:13pm on 04 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

'I do think a National Government is a good idea in the present circumstances - we cannot afford a partisan General Election in these desperate times - postpone it for five years and use the election to pick good economically sound men and women to manage our dire national economy.'

Out of all the posts I have read on the business of the forthcoming election, that stands out to me as the best yet. Although I'd have posted, economically and morally sound.

I think I must be like you, a bit weary of career politicians and the lies they tell.

#2

Is this going to be the level of debate on the blogs in the coming election?

What you propose would affect nurses, doctors, teachers, surgeons, social workers, accountants etc who would simply go abroad or into the private sector. You would be left with those who were not good enough to take this action PLUS those who still have a sense of service. I could go on about the poorer service we would get, but if you start thinking of the consequences you might get there yourself.

That does not mean that there should not be cuts in the public sector and that public sector pay needs to be looked at. But remember that many of the failings of the public sector has been laid at the feet of not enough experienced staff; then you willsee what a complex problemm it is. Also remember that the banks were part of the private sector and some were overpaid and failed us.

My point is let's have reasoned well thought arguments not headline grabbing, but poorly thought out ideas. We can leave that to Cameron, Clegg and Brown.

9. At 4:53pm on 04 Jan 2010, Dempster wrote:
5. At 4:13pm on 04 Jan 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:
-----------------------------------
Big problem with this is the likelihood of there never being an election ever again. Be careful what you wish for.

The idea that suggesting the Tories' plans for spending are lacking in credibility is a profitable area for a Government borrowing £180bn a year whose best (and unexplained) promise is to halve the defict down to a mere 6% of GDP within 4 years is really quite funny. Who decided not to have a spending review? Who failed to explain where the cuts were going to fall in the PBR? Who is probably going to have an election before a budget to avoid further shame? Whose leader won't let the word "cuts" out of his mouth? It's funny but it's also pathetic.

I am switching off from all the squabbling as of today. When the election is over I might start listening again.

Both parties need to cut spending. Both will have to make very similar snips and slices. The private sector Tory backers want as small a public sector as possible, with as much private sector activity as can be managed. Conversely, the Labour backers want the reverse.
Both parties have to sell a credible position to the country of as soft a landing as possible whilst maintaining promises to their backers. Both parties want it both ways.
The Government, because they are in Government, has to produce policy statements, pre-budget reports, etc, whereas the Tories dont and can attempt to campaign for the moment with as few policy promises as possible.
This opening salvo is Labour's attempt at forcing the Tories to say exactly what is and what isnt a policy commitment. There has been a credibility gap up til now, undoubtedly.

I think that your analogy is all wrong Stephanie

It is a long held piece of knowledge that when you point a finger you have to see the other's in your fist pointing back at you

Your questions about this document should have run along the lines of:

1/ who did the Labour party pay to produce these details? Election data can't be produced by civil servants I thought?

2/ why are Labour so keen on the Torie's plans when they haven't spelt out their own? Is their campaign denial of their own activities?

3/ is it true that actual treasury data is being denied to the opposition parties, which would allow them to assess the Government's PBR model?

@Gruad999 - "Hopefully [the Tories] will get a massive majority..."

I don't know which heavenly body you are living on but this is just talk. They won't do this. It's an easy shot by a weak and facile cardboard cut-out. What about the gargantuan and unjustified (and DON'T go all "it's competition" rubbish on me) private sector pay? I hope the Tories don't get a single blood sucking leech elected. I wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoelaces.

The idea of a Government of 'National Unity' sounds good on the face of it, but I suspect it would lead to a Zimbabwean style of Government where the encumbant dummy (or the other twit Cameron) would still lever power from an opaque back room. What we need is proper reform to the old and creaking system we still gleefully call the 'mother of all Parliaments'. She's not very well and is overdue at the Crematorium!

I suggested this time last year that a government of national unity was a desirable option. I had hoped that the Labour Party would see the sense of this, dump Brown and form a National Government. They didn't.

Now I feel that the moment for a National Government has passed and it is quite apparent given the prevailing dissimulations and obfuscations that this government must go and go quickly. I agree that it is a pity that there will be no continuity but in the last year Labour has demonstrated time and again a fundamental, visceral dishonesty. In short, they must go.

This then leads us to the question as to the default government. This means the Conservatives; are they up to it? Probably not, but then neither is Labour or anyone else for that matter. There are few of inherent virtue in the current body politic and these are spread through all parties. However, if elected, a Conservative government would have one thing the current government lacks: namely, a mandate.

Currently we are not very clear as to what that mandate includes. I don't even think the Conservatives are clear about that either. A pity.

I hope that as the election campaign develops and the political class begin to realise that the electorate are a whole lot more intelligent than they give them credit for, then some sort of policy framework might evolve. It might develop across party boundaries. This could lead to a National Government with a mandate: who knows? If you ain't prepared to work for it then you won't get it.

Does no one worry that civil servants drew up this document? Paid from the public purse, they have done partisan party political work. Is this not an example of fraud on the public purse?

Day One. And already the "corrections/clarifications, additions and clauses!" I thought via my TV watching and radio listening. And so early in 2010.
I just looked up that marvellous informal meaning to the three word phrase "bill of goods". My appreciation to the site owner for the information below.
Allegedly - in this case of course - every four or five years or so along our political leaders come and give us their latest version of the phrase.
Bill of goods (informal) = Communication (written or spoken) that persuades someone to accept something untrue or undesirable.
The word "gap" may not quite cover it Ms Flanders. Try credibility grand canyon perhaps.

Well it al goes to show that it is best to leave the management of the econmmy with the government rather than the opposition, as at least the government have experience and knowledge of what they are doing as opposed to these Etonian choirboys with their heads in the clouds.

While accepting that GB is inherently unelectable as a part leader, surely labour could do a better job of promoting what it has done with the money spent during its time in government.

Look round and count the new schools and hospitals - how many of those did the tories produce during their 18 years of free market fundamentalism. Despite the tory propaganda, many of those labour policies (lifelong learning or example) have made many, but never enough, people more economically valuable and enriched the lives of those at the bottom of the pile. Add to that the massive long term economic gains of growth and low inflation and it doesn't look anything like the disaster portrayed by the press. Leaders of the financial industry have very kindly, and expensively, given us a reminder of what unbridled capitalism can do for our well being. Do we really want a government which at heart still supports this political philosphy.

On this Planet sandwiched somwhere between both the Crazy Lands of Labour and Conservative dogma about who will be the better at mixing a Re-newed Dogs-Dinner of totally in-active future failed Political Policies for us to digest in now this pending and started over-long run-up Period until the next General Election, whereby already many are saying "Stop the World, - and let me Off", or atleast until a better time in the future Post-Depression Era instead of having to listen from now onwards Daily to Dumb and Dumber (aka: Cameron and Brown) exchanging One-Upmanship blows by blow - Day in, and Day out.

By the time any Head to Head Debates arrives upon our T.V. Screens to watch these Muppets perform "Live", we will be throwing thing's at our Screens begging them to shut-up, and even worse we will be seeing the endless Re-runs on ALL T.V. Networks, just in Case someone somewhere had the sense to escape to Mars for the duration.

But then again, there will be NO escaping the Westminster Christmas Specials about the Election. Ahhhh.

In the last year the nature of money has changed. Markets rise and fall, creating and destroying wealth. If a lot of wealth is lost governments now step in and create money to replace that wealth, the only restraint being the fear of inflation. The problem is that instead of giving the money (wealth) directly to their citizens they distribute it through the banks, in the vain and disingenous hope that the banks will pass it on to the greater economy. The banks use it as capital to trade on their own account, and distribute the profit generated in salaries and bonuses. If you are not a public employee or a banker the future is grim.

There is no 'credibility gap' between Labour and Conservative; they are both incredible.

Their collusion to run our country for their own benefit rather than the electorate's, and their criminal acts of murder, theft and treason renders the whole gang unfit for purpose.

I would suggest that anyone who votes red or blue in the next election, rather than for their best MP candidate, needs their head examining.

Alastair Darling should say he's found an ancient artifact that worth a lot of money, and could help close the funding gap.

He should call it his 'Golden Mule'

That'd win a few votes

#10 Boilerbill - you said

" Is this going to be the level of debate on the blogs in the coming election?

What you propose would affect nurses, doctors, teachers, surgeons, social workers, accountants etc who would simply go abroad or into the private sector. "

My idea of 20% cuts was tried successfully by the Canadians and the Swedish

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/08/michael-white-axe-public-spending

Now what fairer way is there to carry out the cuts than no one loses their job.

They will not be able to move into the private sector because once they have had their salary cut by 20% they will be comparable to private sector workers once pensions and conditions are taken into account.

The route of trimming waste and getting rid of poor workers never works because it is the connected workers who survive not the hard working in the public sector.

Martin wrote:
@Gruad999 - "Hopefully [the Tories] will get a massive majority..."

I don't know which heavenly body you are living on but this is just talk. They won't do this. It's an easy shot by a weak and facile cardboard cut-out. What about the gargantuan and unjustified (and DON'T go all "it's competition" rubbish on me) private sector pay? I hope the Tories don't get a single blood sucking leech elected. I wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoelaces.

Thanks Martin - all comments gratefully received.

I wont use the 'competition' argument to counter this, rather the argument that we are compelled to pay for public services whereas in the private sector someone is only paid what someone else is willing to pay them.

Do I think Frank Lampard is worth £120k pw? No, but somebody does and its none of my business what consenting adults agree.

But public sector is my business, because as a net tax payer I am over paying for their services.

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

It is a matter for despair. In the forthcoming GE, we the electorate, have no real choice whatsoever. Neither of the the 3 leading parties have anything like a clear view of what is required to start this country back on the road to recovery. A National Government led by either Cameron or Brown would merely tinker round the edges and leave the real problems unresolved.

Before this whole mess can be properly addressed we need to develop a new understanding of the nature of the relationship between between wealth and value, the role of work (be that public or private) and the power that government can and should exercise. Without a totally new way of thinking about the State and the economy no effective strategy can be developed.

All we here now, from all of the parties, is that the debt has to be paid off. Has anybody really stopped to ask the question WHY - or at least why now?

I commented elsewhere, very much earlier today, that it was impossible to lay one's hands on Darling's Dodgy Dossier - you say "If you don't believe him, he's got a 150-page document to show you, costing each and every Tory aspiration" - and yet even now, it doesn't seem to have been put on the web anywhere. Perhaps we are only allowed to see the outside covers?

On the other hand, the Conservatives' comprehensive rebuttal of it is easy to find.

And I note your remarks about Liam Byrne being quite happy that the Conservatives had pulled Darling's dossier to pieces.

My point is, Labour seem to have known it was too dodgy to publish, the Conservatives have gone ahead and shown that to be the case quite openly and in some detail, and now Byrne is admitting the point too.

Will we ever believe anything that Darling writes, ever again?

#27 gruad999,

Here we go again! What hope is there of recovery when the old and moribund "my tax £" is being regurgitated?

Without the public sector providing services and facilities you would not have the opportunity to earn a living in the private sector. You must also remember that public sector workers also pay taxes.

Now, can the public sector be managed more efficiently? It is highly likely that there is as much scope for efficiency as there is in the private sector. Are some sectors of the public sector really necessary - probably not but then the same can be said of the private sector. Do public sector unions have too much power - countered by do bankers have too much influence.

We need to re-look at the whole question of work and value and end this silly public/private argument.

This is about election and being elected..not public policy. As both parties facilitated the banking grand theft they would like to distract voters from the past. Both parties have assured the bankers that nothing will change and they can dip into the public coffers whenever one of their schemes goes bad. Of course neither side will want to remind the public that they are paying for all this and that continued unemployment benefits will been seen as a reason to support a party rather than making the needed changes to the financial sector to prevent this kind on unemployment in the future. In institutions that reak with corruption, for so long that they do not recognize the corruption, revolving the door with this suit or that suit will hardly make a difference. Maybe the government would serve the people better by offering free lessons in Chinese.

You can rearrange the deckchairs as much as you want but the fact is we are spending more than we earn, collectively and individually. So, stop paying into the corrupt EU and save £7 billion per annum, stop overseas aid until we are in surplus, stop immigration and stop getting involved in foreign wars. There, that was not too painful, was it?

#31 foredeckdave

Just a point. Public sector paying taxes is still a bill for private sector to pay for as I once explained to a tax inpsector who didn't realise either.

Much better for public sector not to pay taxes (but could receive note to show how much they would have 'paid') as this would reduce the amount needed to raise from private sources in the first place.

The public sector budget has to be set by the size of the private sector tax take. Full stop or the country goes bust (or communist but bust eventually)

Without any private sector taxation there would be no public sector. Think of a developing country for a moment or indeed the UK a hundred years ago.

The problem is that the UK public sector has got too big given the economic size of the country (sadly). It also means that some private sector firms need to rely on it to survive also which is not a healthy either (effectively a double whammy).

If a private sector organisation is inefficient it usually succumbs to market forces and goes bust (plenty of recent evidence or taken over to make it more efficient (unless in a monopoly position like BA or BT which are,of course, both ex-public sector). That maybe harsh but that's the way a true market works.

The problem is the UK economy is very distorted in various ways usually related to taxation in all of its forms. There's far too much of it.

31. At 8:53pm on 04 Jan 2010, foredeckdave:

Fair comment, my wife is a teacher, she works her heart out (god bless her). I work in the private sector, and she works harder than me.

Perhaps the public sector is the skeleton and the private sector the muscles.

In any event we both need each other.

The problem at the moment is the muscles are being allowed to deteriorate to the point where they may no longer be able to support the skeleton.

Stephanie,
You deserve to be running the campaigns and writing the speeches with this type of analysis - but I'm glad you're on our side, thanks.

#21 Irish tel

'.......Look round and count the new schools and hospitals'

Would also be interesting to look at the number of local schools, hospitals, health service providisions that have been closed down in the same period.

This is just about bricks and mortar! The improvement in services in Education and Health SADLY DO NOT indicate that this is necessarily money well spent.

Like mending church roofs makes little difference to the quality of life of the congregation or community. I would like to see the amount of money even in my small community raised for the church 'fabric' fund put to far better use. If GOD is everywhere, why do we need so many glorious(ly empty) buildings in which to meet him?

gruad999

Many thanks for proving my point about level of discussion.

You use an article as your authority, but extract meaning that isn't there.

You make statements as if they are fact, but they are simply your opinion.

I tend to agree with you that very large spending cuts need to be made if we want to balance the books.

But you argue against yourself when you say that quality workers tend to move out of the public sector and say that after a 20 % pay cut public sector workers will be getting with fringe benefits what they would be getting in the private sectors. Implying that quality workers move for (at present) lower wages in the private sector.

Actually, I think the public/private debate is a red herring. What we actually want is efficiently run services. We are after all a service economy. If I want my bins emptied I really couldn't care who does it as long as it is done properly (which means having a settled workforce) and as cheaply as possible.

My final point has to do with the weather. I heard on the radio disbelief that 50 years ago the streets were cleared of snow and ice much more quickly than they are today. The reason was simple - all binmen and some other council workers were taken off their regular jobs to clear the streets. Now that was a truly flexible work force.

#35 Dempster,


I am certainly not against the private sector and I share your view that the muscle has been allowed to deteriorate.

To my mind you have to ask why? I believe that the answer is twofold. The private sector has taken a short term view. It has been far easier to make money out of making money than it has been to develop and sustain manufacturing business (and services are now following the same pattern).

The second element has been government. From Thatcher onward, all of our administrations have failed to make a critical analysis of our long term strategic wellbeing. There has been no sustained support for British business for over 20 years!

Watching the PM on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, I got the impression of a man so clearly out of his depth that if he were a dog he would be put down. The final shot of the program showed Gordon Brown clearly being told to sit down until the credits had rolled. He was up and down like a tarts knickers. I almost felt sorry for the guy, he looked lost. How he must long for a life outside politics where he can bring his considerable intellect to bear in a more academic environment rather than the bearpit of trial by TV, to which he is so clearly not suited. Judging by his performance, I think that he will get his wish rather sooner than he thought.

Boilerbill, post 10 you seem to have repeated the bankers moan re the 50% bonus tax word for word apart from replacing the word bankers with a list of public sector jobs.

IrishTel,post 21, I think you will find that the current UK government built none of those new schools or Hospitals. They were all built by PFI partnerships generally involving building companies and tax exile ofshoots of UK companies. When complete they were sold on to long term investors such as Aviva who own most of the new schools built in London, for example, and other long term investors.

The government is merely leasing them and paying the money back at commercial market rates with a very hefty allowance for profit for the owners. We will have to pay a huge surplus for these PFI deals compared to what it would have cost if New Labour had built them and paid for them the old fashioned way via Government long term debts but that would have busted Gordon's 40% rule a long time ago.

Trust me the current government could teach even the bank a few tricks re off balance sheet accounting!

#34 Rugbyprof,

"If a private sector organisation is inefficient it usually succumbs to market forces and goes bust (plenty of recent evidence or taken over to make it more efficient (unless in a monopoly position like BA or BT which are,of course, both ex-public sector). That maybe harsh but that's the way a true market works."

Given that the private sector has the power to arrange its efficiencies (according to the argument you forward) then you have to say that the oners/managers of the private sector have proved themselves to be extreemely inefficient!

As for a true market - now please show me anywhere in the world where one exists? Like the concept of Perfect Competition true markets do not exist.

If you actually read my posts you will find that I am not defending the public sector. I am arguing that the continued argument merely obscures our ability to realise that it is WORK that creates VALUE - it matters not one jot if that work is delivered by the public or the private sector.

39. At 9:48pm on 04 Jan 2010, foredeckdave wrote:
'To my mind you have to ask why? I believe that the answer is twofold. The private sector has taken a short term view. '

I'm a self employed working Joe, and I haven't taken the short term view, but still I'm struggling.

Dempster, Post 43, I believe what foredeckdave meant when he referred to the private sector was the stock market listed companies who seemed in them recent past to be driven by a desire to achieve ever increasing quarterly profits and increased dividends to keep the shareholders happy and the directors and managers bonuses rolling in.

The non listed sector private sector is full of small to medium companies that have longer term goals like providing for the managers / owners pensions, their childrens education or inheritance amongst many others.

Dempster I don't know how many people you employ but I imagine many have been with your for years and most you would consider as friends not just workers. I imagine you will have been to some of their weddings, heard of their childrens births and marriages and consider your company as a small community rather than a ruthlessley efficient profit machine.

#foredeckdave

True market I refer to here is one which is not distorted by the many tax incentives/public sector funding, monopoly, duopoly, oligopolies (such as banking) etc that causes misallocation i.e. inefficiency of resource (this is different to regulatory issues).

You are right in that many private sector companies are inefficient (to a degree a market will always create inefficiencies through new technology etc) though there are also very many efficient ones. Poor management is unacceptable in both private and public sectors though its difficult to equate exactly what one loses in the public sector case.

However, private sector firms are created with private capital to produce value in terms of employee/shareholder remuneration and of course tax levies in their very numerous forms.

My comments were merely to point out the often erroneous understanding regarding the pay of taxes with public sector employees. This does not imply that their work is in any way less important.

But without the raising of tax from private sector we can't pay for them.

History shows that all things we take for granted for example schools, hospitals, rail, roads, bridges, power etc were all originally from benefactors of private sector not public sector. Governments' main use of taxation was to build military capability up until the last 60 years (remember the NHS came after the 2nd World War).

We would do well to remember these facts. I'm not at all against public sector because it is vital but just that people remember how it came into being. A thriving public sector comes off the back of a a thriving and balanced private sector not the other way round......

#43 Dempster & #44 ItC

Couldn't agree more as an SME owner......

#42 Dempster,

As with all these types of argument generalisations cannot take into account individual situations.

About 7 years ago I took the concious decision to pay-off my mortgage and ensure that I carried no debt from loans or credit cards ( I could not believe that the bubble would last so long). However, I now find that I have no significant advantage.

Similarly, I do not believe that the majority of people on long term Invaldity Benefit are spoungers and do not want to work.

#44 Itc

Just a point.

Most of the dividends mostly go into pension fund coffers to pay for the pension returns that many expect (other than of course many SME/self-employed who don't have pensions but whose taxes pay for others' pensions).

One also forgets the vast corporate tax take on the likes of the FTSE companies not forgetting their huge employee tax and NI contributions which the media never reports (and of course their many products/services which we pay VAT on as well and also the many special extra taxes like those on new cars, petrol, oil, travel, insurance).

There's a different economic argument for alcohol and cigarettes.

But of course no taxes on gambling. Sums it up really......

By the way foredeckdave since you've mentioned value, note VAT - VALUE ADDED TAX. Why doesn't any public sector service charge VAT?

#45 Rugbyprof,

I'm not tooo sure but I believe that the problem we have here is one of terminology.

We live in what we currently consider an advanced society. It has wants and needs that have to be met in a variety of ways. The methods that we employ to do that presently demand a mix of both public and private organisations. Unless you want to return to the appalling social conditions of the late 19th and early 20th Century then we canot rely upon the largesse of the private sector.

#49 FDD

Yes - its an advanced society in as much as government planning allows for 48 hours only for societal breakdown in any major event. And I'm not so sure that some of those appalling conditions have actually disappeared.

Bit I'm also sure that big budget government is the answer either given the evidence. Focus on the foundation.

By the way, I can beat your 7 years of good intention since I sold up and have been renting for 10 years in the belief of the coming collapse (and still am) though I have some private debt that's funded the business.

Unfortunately the present Government sees you as a liability since they believe that you haven't contributed to indirect taxation sufficiently (think houses tax, VAT, credit etc). They want you to be totally irresponsible so they can 'help' you whilst stoking the ever higher tax take.

However, you are part of a sizeable silent minority whose ethos is essentially correct.

It would be nice if the media could do any analysis on their own without allowing themselves to be led by the nose by the various PR place people from the 2 major parties. I yearn for some honesty and integrity but cant help thinking that the media fall into the trap of talking about what the 2 major parties want them to talk about each day.This is one such example and is hardly worth comment.

To 47. At 10:42pm on 04 Jan 2010, foredeckdave

I’ve posted this on Pestons blog, but this is what bothers me most.

I was taught that slavery had been abolished. But here I sit worrying that my children are about to enter debt slavery. Is that going to be the system that we pass on to them?

After such an economic catastrophe, irresponsible foreign wars, politicians that can lie better than tell the truth, in Gods sweet mother earth, surely there must be a better way.

The funny thing is, if you ask the average Joe or Jane, irrespective of their politics, race, religion, or skin colour, they all pretty much want a level playing field for their children to inherit. None that I have ever spoken to, want them to become what can only be described as debt slaves.

Stephanie

It was right to highlight this early political skirmish and the potential economic implications of the various parties' policies. The average person in the street may only have limited interest in this subject according to some of the commentators offering their pearls of wisdom freely today. A more critical eye suggests this challenge to the politicians' economic medicine for the recession is a highly valuable contribution for the media to make on behalf of the public in the run up to the election.

A lot of political heat was generated today, but a few nuggets about policy and spending commitments, cuts and or "aspirations" started to emerge. It remains to be seen whether the electorate will view the Conservatives as the party of cuts and Cameron's confessed "austerity" and Labour as a party of Gordonian "aspiration" or ignore the lot as hot air and spin.

The facts remain, as described earlier in these pages, that spending will have to be cut and taxes will have to rise, whoever wins the next election. Should the Bank of England's inflation target also be moderately re-set, at a higher rate to help tackle the deficit too?

As regards specifics, there are still far more questions than answers.

So, if Cameron will not cut spending in the NHS; one of the biggest spending departments, where will it come from? What did the King's Fund have to say about Cameron's pledge to target healthcare funding at less well-off communities? How will his "maternity networks" differ from the NCT and should the public sector fund that if the voluntary sector is doing it anyway? How do his plans for information technology differ from the NPfIT? What have been the Cameron pledges about what should happen to the NPfIT? - Abolition, abandonment or scrapping are all terms that spring to mind from his previous utterances. Who will pay for alternatives to the National Patient Record System's licences from either Google Health or Microsoft HealthVault? How will private health data be managed through privately owned healthcare technology? Would there be a public cost?

How will the local economic imbalances which lead to less favourable health outcomes be tackled after the Regional Development Agencies have been abolished?

What did Cameron mean by greater "devolution"? Health powers are already devolved in Scotland and Wales and he has no plans for regional government in England, so where will power be devolved to and how? How will the smogorsbord of local government unitaries, counties and Districts manage this in England? Will Primary Care Trusts be abolished, if so who will decide how health funding is spent?

How will the speed of cancer care processes continue to be speeded up and operation waiting lists times be kept low without targets to be met? Will "aspiration" alone be enough?

You are correct, the thought does not count, but costed pledges and specific proposals; the more credible, clear and precise the better. This is just an "aspiration" on my part, rather than an expectation.

#52 Dempster

'.....that my children are about to enter debt slavery.'

If your, mine or anybody's children enter 'debt' slavery, that is surely, largely because they/we are CHOOSING to purchase?? things that they cannot afford.

It may be wrong that they cannot afford certain basics. But TAKING what tehy cannot pay for can never be wise and must always end in indebtedness one way or another.

FIGHTING the WRONG battle.

54. At 00:04am on 05 Jan 2010, brightyangthing

Fair comment, but who pays for the national debt?

And will this whole cycle be repeated ten years hence?

National Debt requires us all to make BETTER and HARDER choices about essential services.

Just today (on BBC Breakfast) Ed Balls talks about making vast sums of money (can't recall and can't find report) on one to one help for under 5's with reading difficulties. This just ONE massive cost for unclear gain.

THIS (or the next) Government should make NO MORE spending promises and must find ways of increasing income.

I suggest a massive hike in tax (VAT) on luxuries. That is everything that comes under the heading of 'entertainmment' - Cinema tickets, restaurants, alcohol, concerts, fashionable clothing, holidays .......

#52 Dempster,

I understand the sentiment. I could of course refer to the National Debt which we have all grown up with and therefore have all been slaves to. The concern at the moment appears to be the level of the debt.

On this blog, about a year ago, I was lambasted for suggesting that one of the ways out of this dilema could be some form of universal debt forgiveness. I have not given up on this outcome. However, it may well take the reliasation of both the US and the Euro economies that real growth cannot occur in the current debt environment.

In your final paragraph you point to the almost universal desire for a level playing field - not only for our children. To me that is a socialistic ideal (note I said socialistic and I do not mean adopting socialism). That is why I feel there is an urgent need to address the wealth imbalance and its consequences. Wealth (as identified by money) is now so concentrated that it is impossible for individuals, organisations and even states to redress the balance. However, this power of wealth is only sustained if we continue to divorce it from value.

If our children are to enjoy a true level playing field then we have to prize more than just the acquisition of money. We have to find a means by which those who add to the level of real value in our societies are encouraged and rewarded. That must include both social and commercial value.

56. At 00:27am on 05 Jan 2010, brightyangthing wrote
'I suggest a massive hike in tax (VAT) on luxuries. That is everything that comes under the heading of 'entertainmment' - Cinema tickets, restaurants, alcohol, concerts, fashionable clothing, holidays .......'

Well let's hope you're not an average working Joe or Jane working for them. Otherwise you may end up struggling to keep it all spinning for yourself and your family.

#58 Dempster

Years ago I recognised the folly of succumbing to 'having it all', so Average Jane? NO.

Keep it spinning? WHY? Sitting still and queit, and having ENOUGH has always been.............. well............ ENOUGH.

Lots of lovely 'extra's' out there - but NOT ESSENTIAL to sustaining life.

CUT cloth ACCORDING..........

I would rather do it by choice than necessity. Less pain, more gain.

There is more satisfaction in life thna that which money an buy.

If I have a roof over my head, an ability to keep warm, enough to eat then I am rich indeed.

59. At 00:58am on 05 Jan 2010, brightyangthing

My last comment was poorly phrased.
It should have read:

Well let's hope you're not an average working Joe or Jane working for one of those types of business them. Otherwise you may end up struggling to keep it all spinning for yourself and your family.

#60 Dempster

No, it wasn't poorly phrased. Perfectly understood.

It's about making tough (very tough) choices about just how much and what does any individual NEED.

I have spent the past 20 + years choosing motherhood over consumerist support.

We have ENOUGH and then some and I have consistently refused work in consumerist industries. Perhaps I am lucky, but many mothers who MUST work to support their families, after they deduct the TRUE cost of fulfilling their jobs, MOST of what they have left is spent on luxuries. Things that they WANT but don't NEED.

It's a personal choice and I happen to believe that if we allowed for example, 50% of all restaurants/eateries to close, the loss of jobs may initiate a retuen to more 'natural' lifestyle choices.

Not easy. Not pleasant. Painful for most of us.

I think we all need to be happy with less STUFF and more TIME.

Just listening to Rose Prince on R4 making my point very well.

So will Labour hold its budget in March, followed by a full 3 year spending review and then go to the election with a legal pledge to stick to those budgets for the next 2 years, they did it in 1997 so there is no reasion Gordan can not do it in 2010!

But evey one knows we will have a give-away budget, no spending review and with in one month of the election we will have a tax rising and slashing of public spending budget which ever party comes to power!

"31. At 8:53pm on 04 Jan 2010, foredeckdave wrote:
#27 gruad999,

Here we go again! What hope is there of recovery when the old and moribund "my tax £" is being regurgitated?

Without the public sector providing services and facilities you would not have the opportunity to earn a living in the private sector. You must also remember that public sector workers also pay taxes."

Yes but think how much admin etc would be saved if the public sector were given a pay cut so that their take home pay did not change and they were taken out of NHI and PAYE. As the public sector are about 1/4 of the work force we cound reduce HR departments, and tax inspectors by 1/4. After all all that currently happens is the taxman pays the NHI and IncomeTax directly to its self but loses out due to the admin fees involved in the transaction.

"21. At 6:56pm on 04 Jan 2010, IrishTel wrote:

Look round and count the new schools and hospitals - how many of those did the tories produce during their 18 years of free market fundamentalism. Despite the tory propaganda, many of those labour policies (lifelong learning or example) have made many, but never enough, people more economically valuable and enriched the lives of those at the bottom of the pile. "

over 80% of all captial expenditure on new buildings, roads etc was done under PFI with the average interest rate above 8%, some as high as 15% (ukplc has been able to borrow at below 3% over the last 10 years).

Speaking as some one who in the last 25years has attended adult education courses gaining 5 extra A levels and several new skills I will tell you that 10 years ago I had the choice of 60+ evening courses and perhaps 2 dozen clubs run in he evenings at our local collage, I went along in November to see the list and there are under 20 courses being offered and half a dozen that I am "Allowed" to attend (one of which was a couse on how to claim benefits) and their are now NO clubs.

The most disappointing lead up to this election, after such a monumental governmental failure to regulate our banks, is that no member of this government has taken any blame. A sensible electorate should ensure that above all such a hopeless lack of character is suitably rewarded at this coming election.
On my list Chamberlain, Eden, Profumo, Carrington and Lamont should have been joined by Brown or at least Darling.

#64 Icewombat
(Must be useful given this weather!)

Its all down to adult education being 'needs' led now. Same here.

BUT HANG IN THERE. The experiment has NOT worked and I predict a roll back.

Please, Please, can we stop this right now! Election stuff already! give us a break. Watched BBC breakfast yesterday, and your newsreader was pushing questions at Ed Balls trying to get him to admit that he didn't have enough money to do what he wanted, and why he had left it till now to do it, and wasn't this just vote winning stuff?. I thought he explained it well, but having failed on this tack, the newsreader then tried to get him to tell us the date of the election, she failed of course.
I always vote, I always listen to what thay all say and try to make my mind up as to what I think is the right party to vote for. However I don't want to start thinking about this until a fortnight before the election.Please desist, otherwise I'll be forced to change channels.

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

Could someone (you, Stephanie?) PLEASE take Labour to task on their criticism of Tory plans to reduce IHT and plans to recognise marriage in the tax system?

Labour themselves introduced the transferable nil rate band into IHT very recently. This has had the effect of reducing IHT and recognises marriage within the tax system. Labour's criticims are hypocrisy.

I have not heard a single interview where this very simple and obvious point has been raised by an interviewer.

Its all a bit misleading talking a whole Parliament ahead because there are so many things we don't yet know that will impact on the public finances. We don't know 1. how high/low growth will be 2. how quickly revenues will recover 3. how high unemployment will rise, how fast it will fall and the impact on benefits 4. what government debt interest repayments are going to be (either because of changes in the cost of borrowing or the amount borrowed). Depending on these factors 'discretionary' changes to tax and spending might be very different. It is therefore the thought that does count, it is perfectly valid to say something is an aspiration but will depend on factors as yet unknown.

Re: 32 ghostofsichuan
This is about election and being elected..not public policy.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Correct. This up-coming General Election IS all about in your face personalities upon Bill-Boards and the likes ( Hence, the reason over 1000 Mug-Shots of Cameron have been plastered all over the walls of the U.K. yesterday ), and as for any Party Policy, well that is subject to change depending upon what Day of the Week it is, or in many Cases what part of the Day it is, and whom is saying what about what for Public constumption which again is subject to change if any of these off the cuff Policies do not find any favor with the General Public at large.

As for card-board cut-outs of Cameron and the likes trying to look sensible, well they speak for themselves, and lack any charm whatsoever.

68 Michael

Right. Our democracy was given away by those we elected as our Members of Parliament; traitors all.

The best thing we can do in the next election is to vote for any candidate other than those wearing a red or blue rosette; those who have surrendered our sovereignty, wrecked our economy, taken us into illegal wars, stolen our money with false expense claims, etc.

Traitors, murderers and thieves; they should be in court for their crimes.

I wonder if anyone can answer these questions
1. firstly what is the total of national debt
2. what was the national debt before the banking crisis
3. how much is owed by the private sector banks
4. and finally what is the value of the goverments shares in the natioanalised and part owed banks at pre crash values
I think it is a fair assumption that they will eventually regain there former status given that most large economies have started to grow and investing in a business that no goverment will allow to fail would seem to be a sound investment

debt reduction should be a priority for any goverment and for the first time im my life time there seems to be a public aceptance and political will to achieve that,
however I have a continued scheptism that behind the conservatives grining front man there lies a blue rinse party that will use a short term crisis to justify long term damage to public services.
It has taken 10 years of investment to achieve health and education in preportion to our global position and wealth, it would take half that time to reverse

I think we have to find some perspective on the discussion on Tory non-policies. If you look at the time since David Cameron took over the Conservatives, every time they have made a suggestion regarding policies, and it has been well-received by the public - Labour take it and use it as their policy.

I think Cameron is being sensible not saying anything now before the election is formally announced, as any of what he says that the public like will simply be taken by Labour, introduced as their policy and they yet again bluff their way into another term of office. The Tories need the protection of a formal announcement so that they know they can talk more freely. The policies are there but they are trying to protect themselves.

Looks like someone on Today was also bleating about the government using civil servants to look at costing opposition policies, and didn't like it

Maybe the government is pushing the boundaries as hard as it can because of this found in the Murdoch press

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6975982.ece

The Government should use it's own monies for its own campaigning, and if it doesn't have any then maybe it should be a little more honest about the situation

Public sector earns 7% more than private
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=496810&in_page_id=2

Why are the conservatives not using this information to propose an average 7% pay cut in the public sector?

Because Labour has now made the public sector so large and unionised that it provides a political millstone to the opposition. Addressing this is surely the issue.

And so it starts....

Read https://www.ft.com/home/uk re Brown and Darling at odds....Funds cut exposure to government bonds

Stephanie

What you and a number of other commentators fail to appreciate is that the markest and rating agencies have already factored in a change of UK government this year with regard to debt funding, sterling, interest rates amd bond ratings.

If there is even a hint of a hung parliament there will be serious repercussions for the £ and UK gilts with resulting interest rates climbing quickly which affect most people in the country both at a personal level and at the national debt level in terms of costs. Also we may find a bond liquidity freeze with nobody wanting to buy UK gilts.

This will move us much closer to the Greek situation. Remember the Greeks have just passed an emergency budget to cut national debt down to 9.1% of GDP and they are still very much in trouble.

We are still projecting UK national debt at around 14% of GDP and because of the issues that remain with our banking (there's plenty of toxicity still in the system) we still have too much in common with Iceland.

Yes the UK is resilient but let's not under-estimate what happens over there can't possibly happen over here.

The British people have a very important decision to make come May. I trust it is the right one........because one is very, very costly indeed, the other one less so.....

Take "The Party" out of politics and give true democracy back to the people.

Our current Politician don't want to face the unpleasant decisions about our economy until after the election. They just want to keep or get in to power. It is time to be honest about our problems. You can't wave the magic wand of regulation, continue to pump money in the economy by printing more or keep on increasing public spending. This is delaying the day of reckoning and only makes matters worse.

You cannot spend your way out of a recession. You cannot over regulate the economy and expect it to function. You cannot tax people and businesses excessively and expect them to keep producing. You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless. The government cannot make up for very high and rising unemployment by increasing the number of public sector workers or put unemployed youngsters on ineffective employment/training schemes. We cannot live beyond our means indefinitely. The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy.

We could start this new decade by increasing the size of constituencies and halving the number of Members of Parliament. Abolish all peerages and vastly reduce the size of the second chamber to a series of specialist working committees who would properly vet all bills.

Re: 74 lammie.
I think Cameron is being sensible not saying anything now before the election is formally announced...

------------------------------------------

In truth what everyone knows by now is that it really doe's not matter that much what ANY of the Political Parties might say in any run - up period to the next Election, for we are ALL in for to be fed upon buckets of Bull - S**t and grandstanding.

But however moreover, what any Government that will next get elected to Parliament will find is that it will in Real-Terms have to do to restore the balance sheet of the UK Economy for the Long-Term once elected that will count.
Therefore, it is wishfull thinking that ANY Political Party will in ANY event be in a better position to satisfy the many pledges that they may make-up, during anytime from now on-wards, and right up until Polling Day proper.

If anyone thinks that any Politician is in any better position to predict future events when they ALL currently don't have any clues whatsoever as to what is next around the corner with regards to future UK or World Growth for Exports and domestic GDP, then how can anyone believe that they can have any insight into what things and changes are needed upon the Home Front or upon the wider World-Stage in the future.

#68 Michael

Please clarify the relevance of your highly political comments to the subject area of this blog? Stephanie's brief is economics and her original article is about spending plans of the political parties in the run up to the General Election.

Where did you learn this regurgitated political propaganda from? Nigel Farage or Nick Griffin or their parties?

When you believe something so fervently it is understandable that any medium for promoting it may be sought. The comments in #68 fit well with the political websites of the aforementioned politicians websites and blogs, but their relevance to a BBC discussion about the economy and public spending is at best highly questionable.

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

No. 31
"Without the public sector providing services and facilities you would not have the opportunity to earn a living in the private sector. You must also remember that public sector workers also pay taxes."

....and without the private sector there who pays for the public sector. I voluntereed a pay freeze last year and will probably do the same again this year to maintain my employment. Until we all face up to the dire economic reality and this includes the puppets we endure as our leaders there is no hope for UKplc.

It's not very difficult to see how the costs of most state activity could be cut by 20 % with little or no loss to public service.

It's impossible to imagine how the resistance of civil servant could be overcome in order to make those savings.

What we need is a government with a plan and the will to deal with the armour plated civil sevice.

Would someone like to calculate the cost of the black hole caused by the failures of this government to control expenditure?

Looks like cod might be off the menu for a little while...

Breaking News: ‘Iceland plans vote on bank payout’
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8441312.stm

BALLS KICKED IN THE BALLS BY BALLS!

'Pimco move to sell gilts raises spectre of a UK sovereign debt crisis'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6933232/Pimco-move-to-sell-gilts-raises-spectre-of-a-UK-sovereign-debt-crisis.html

...er the rest of the news today...An OAP in maidstone bought and extra packet of fish fingers and from Tesco's
Tesco's announces a 0.00000055% increase in sales over the Xmas period.
Estate agent in Reading reports that more people are looking at the 3 properties for sale in his shop shop window....blah, blah, blah.

I find it questionable that the Tories would gain a majority in the next election. Labour has been instrumental even deliberate in the growth of employment by the state. which Public Sector employee would be likely to vote Tory when there nest has been so feathered by the Labour party add to their number the people claiming benefits and those who have benefitted from our liberal imigration policy.
What do you believe the percentages of votes cast to Labour or Tory would be Public sector / benefit claimant or Private Sector

Stephanie, re post 85.

Bobbie seems to have gone off message and is talking about football so is there any chance of a blog re the position re Iceland and its debts?

One comment on this board praises the hospital/school building undertaken by the government and compares this to Tory free market fundamentalism. I think one will find much of this work has been done using the Private Finance Initiative as no one embraces free market fundamentalism more eagerly than Gordon Brown. The terms of these contracts may be onerous to future generations but are not on the public balance sheet.
I think we desperately need a new administration to open up the government books and openly audit the assets/liabilities of the country. I fear there will be fewer of the former and more of the latter than we perceive at present. I think that there is good reason in future to put a block on any chancellor becoming prime minister as it confers the power to control executive scrutiny of his actions following the term of chancellorship.

The simple approach is to believe that they, politicians, are all liars and corrupt with the strong desire to self-promotion and nest feathering. Once they prove that this isn't the case then the electorate - and more importantly, the taxpayers - will start to think about believing anything they might have to say.

For now, it's all just garbage. On all sides.

MELTDOWN IN ICELAND!

What's a pidlin £5billion extra deficit on our balance sheet when we've got a £trillion of deficit on it already!

In for a penny...in for a pound, that's what I say!

As others have already pointed out, what worries me most about this is that Darling's Dodgy Dossier seems to have been compiled by civil servants, working at the taxpayer's expense, but doing party political work.

And if it's true, as manuinlondon (#8) says, that the Tories did that as well when they were in power, that still doesn't make it right.

This seems to me to be a hideous misuse of taxpayer's money, and if I were a journalist at the BBC, that would be the main focus of the questions I was asking.

What has struck me about the Iceland issue, is that the people clearly know that they are going to be taxed to raise the $5 billion that will all go out the country to foreigners (many in the UK). They had nothing to do with the crazy bank lending, yet are expected to pay for it.

Yet in the UK, exactly the same has happened, yet is far far more opaque. We have bailed out RBS and HBOS with well over £100 billion, and this has been to save foreigners from losing money. These foreigners are speculators and property developers, e.g. those who have built castles in the sands of Dubai.

Now how about us having a referendum about paying massively to bail out people we don't care about in foreign lands?

Small business? Look for credit via "social lending" sites. Circumvent the banks and end leveraged asset speculation.

Also, start to introduce continuous online referendum. A political party could be set up to that effect: a party that promises that economic levers will be given to the populace.

Working within the prevailing framework, change everything: remove the politicians and remove the bankers.

First the Tories show their hand saying 10% equiv. tax rises/spending cuts are needed, this then forces Labours hand and they state we will "only" cut/tax rise 9.3%. Both are disingenious and are, once more, LYING to the British people.

Britain is bankrupt 3 or 4 times over. As bad as Iceland.

The IMF, World Bank, and other notable bodies will demand tax rises or cuts equivalent to 20% to 30% or a Gilts strike will take place.
Sterling will then fall like a stone leading to massive inflation unless action is taken.

I cannot vote for any of the two " Liar Parties ".

The only hope is a Government of National Unity containing such as David Davis, Vince Cable, Frank Field, and others of honour and integrity and even then it would be a close run thing.

"The first is that, while voters are unlikely ever to think of the Conservatives as profligate spenders."

Hogwash! If you've ever worked in the Civil Service, then you will see precisely how much money the Thatcherites spent on consultants, in order to enable them to sell off as much of the family silver as they could. If New Labour has continued along this path, then it's only because the previous stripping of H.M.G's previous means of producing wealth has been sold and, is no longer available to any British political party in the future. What the Tories did was the political and economic equivalent of "slash and burn". They are the last people who should be trusted with any nation's finances!

As a Civil Servant with over 26 years experience, I am appalled that Civil Servants have been engaged in clearly Party Political work, in direct contravention of the Civil Service Code.
Of course, when Blair came to power, one of his 'Reforms' of the Civil Service was to effectively undo the reforms resulting from the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854. Consequently, over the past 13 years, the Civil Service has become more politicized - mainly through direct appointments, rather than through open competition.
There is NO way, I would carry out a task with a Party Political Motive driving it
The only reason that Blair/Brown have allowed so many 'Non-Jobs (you know. 'Equality Co-Ordinators' etc.) to flourish is the same reason for Blair wanting 50% of all school leavers to achieve a degree - it keeps the Unemployment figures down
Is it any wonder, then, that it is now, apparently, Open Season on the Civil Service?

Re Post 87:

'which Public Sector employee would be likely to vote Tory when there nest has been so feathered by the Labour party'

Since Blair/Brown came to Power, my quality of life has plummetted, I have had no pay rise at all during the past decade - Iam a Software Engineer with Honours Degree and 20-odd years experience yet I'm paid less than a new-recruit Administrator
What leads you to believe that I'd EVER vote for such a self- serving bunch of cheating, lying Champagne Socialists?

#98. GovernmentBoffin wrote:

"I am a Software Engineer with Honours Degree and 20-odd years experience yet I'm paid less than a new-recruit Administrator"

Does that not answer your implied question? (and also explains why no government IT systems work.) The market says your contribution is not valued. The only time engineering is valued is during war when it actually matters to the civil service and the country that the technology works. In peacetime the systems of management devised by the Civil Service for the self protection of the administrative class function well in their favour.

The Administrative Class neither understands nor values the actual ability to do anything. This is at the heart at what is rotten in our permanent government.

I have long advocated firing the Permanent Secretary as a way of focussing the minds of the Administrative Class on actual out-turns of new computer systems introductions - but as this might actually work - it is always excluded. The pity is that we the poor put upon voter cannot directly sack the civil servants who perpetuate the administrative incompetence (and incidentally economic incompetence) at the heart of government. Instead we are allowed to shuffle the bell-hops! The rot starts at the top with Gus O'Donnell (Head of the Civil Service) - this is the guy who set-up the economic management of the economy that directly led to the credit bubble and the subsequent crunch but then of-course moved on the the Cabinet Office and so avoids responsibility!

One sad element of you posting is that you seem to associate the political government of the country with the administrative incompetence of the civil service. In that the civil service has succeeded in diverting you (and us) from focussing on the real culprits - you bosses and their system of self-protection.

57. At 00:46am on 05 Jan 2010, foredeckdave wrote:
'If our children are to enjoy a true level playing field then we have to prize more than just the acquisition of money. We have to find a means by which those who add to the level of real value in our societies are encouraged and rewarded. That must include both social and commercial value'

Good point.