General Great British Politics Thread!

[stokes234]

I say we cut defence spending and tax the banks and the superrich, and use that to pay for pensions (and tuition fees). Sure, they're over and above what public sector workers contribute to them, but i'd hardly say 7k a year is going to leave much money for plating random household items with gold, and public sector wages are already being subjected to national insurance increases and a wage freeze that is an effective wage cut. The unions have accepted these last two, and are perfectly within their rights to strike if the pension cut and retirement age increase is pushed on them as well.

 

[funk de fino]

This helps when you are trying to argue against the SNP getting more powers for Scotland

"That's what's happened traditionally in Scotland when people challenge the nationalists.

"Those of us who want to challenge the narrow, neo-fascism of the nationalists."

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

This helps when you are trying to argue against the SNP getting more powers for Scotland

Oh come on how can you hold the unionist parties in Scotland responsible for what every extremist nutter happens to say?

I mean its not like he's an elected representative of one of those parties is it? Oh he is? Well you always end up with a few idiots as MP's but they get isolated and never get anywhere near a position of power at Westminster.

I mean it's not like they have made him Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster or anything daft like that, have they? Oh they have?

Well at least they'll have demanded he resign in disgrace after such a nonsensical outburst, right? Right?

ETA: Got to love the Labour spin machine, as reported on the FT blog:

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/

Labour says select committee chairmanships are a matter for the House. But a spokesman says:

“The use of the word ‘neo-fascist’ was unacceptable and Ian on reflection will want to apologise and withdraw the comment.”

Not that he has actually done so yet of course, maybe he has been busy.

 

[geni]

I say we cut defence spending

Not really viable. We've already cut it to the point where we are unlikely to be able to sustain our existing commitments which means that future threats can only be met by nuclear weapons which is not a good place to be.

and tax the banks and the superrich, and use that to pay for pensions (and tuition fees).

Going by the size of the pension bill you can't do that at a viable level of tax.

Sure, they're over and above what public sector workers contribute to them, but i'd hardly say 7k a year is going to leave much money for plating random household items with gold, and public sector wages are already being subjected to national insurance increases and a wage freeze that is an effective wage cut.

Strangely so is much of the rest of the country.

The unions have accepted these last two, and are perfectly within their rights to strike if the pension cut and retirement age increase is pushed on them as well.

Sure they can strike. That should cut the wages bill by 0.27%. Thing is they are unlikely to achive anything by doing so. The goverment simply hasn't got the money to pay the pension costs (in fact if life expectancies continue to increase I'm not sure how valid the current numbers will be) so it's not going to compromise to any meaningful extent. Public sympathy is effectively zilch and the goverment has been smart enough to make sure that no single action is big enough to change that.

 

[stokes234]

Not really viable. We've already cut it to the point where we are unlikely to be able to sustain our existing commitments which means that future threats can only be met by nuclear weapons which is not a good place to be.

So drop down to only having an advanced airforce and a TA, with a token cruiser or two. What else do we need? The Taliban Navy have been crushed and we conquered all their ports. What other countries would want to invade the UK and could realistically get past an advanced airforce?

Going by the size of the pension bill you can't do that at a viable level of tax.

Well, since we barely have a navy and only half the army after my suggested savings, lets say we save ~£20 billion from the armed forces. Tuition fees at 3.3k required around £2.7 billion in subsidies from the government to match them, so lets call tuition fees £6 billion. Tax avoidance costs us around £7 billion a year, so i'm seeing a net saving there of £21 billion. Can you show that the public sector pension gap is more than £21 billion a year?

Strangely so is much of the rest of the country.

Yeah, but not all. The private sector is seeing slow wage increases, but not a wage freeze. And the richest are still getting richer. Take a look at the sunday times rich lists for the past two years. Seems the richest thousand people in the uk have managed to gain around £140bn while most of the country struggles.

Sure they can strike. That should cut the wages bill by 0.27%. Thing is they are unlikely to achive anything by doing so. The goverment simply hasn't got the money to pay the pension costs (in fact if life expectancies continue to increase I'm not sure how valid the current numbers will be) so it's not going to compromise to any meaningful extent. Public sympathy is effectively zilch and the goverment has been smart enough to make sure that no single action is big enough to change that.

Frankly, you're right. They're unlikely to win. But fighting for it is better than taking it lying down. If the unions do nothing about a pension increase now, whats to stop cameron throwing on another few percent in 6 months? Or upping retirement age again by another few years? The unions have to show that they aren't going to roll over every time the tories decide the middle class are too wealthy. Otherwise, there isn't much point to them.

 

[geni]

So drop down to only having an advanced airforce and a TA, with a token cruiser or two.

Before you start suggesting how the UK's navy should be downsized you should probably be aware that cruisers have for the most part been obsolete for decades and the only cruiser the UK has is a static training ship left over from WW1.

What else do we need? The Taliban Navy have been crushed and we conquered all their ports.

What?

What other countries would want to invade the UK and could realistically get past an advanced airforce?

At the last count Argentina, Spain and Cyprus were all making claims on British territory.

However the UK's interests do go beyong mearly preventing the UK mainland being invaded. It is in our interests to be able to prevent attacks on EU countries and wel also have interests in various parts of the former empire. It is also useful to be able to to produce a credible threat beyond "do roughly what we want or we will detonate nuclear weapons in your country".

Well, since we barely have a navy and only half the army after my suggested savings, lets say we save ~£20 billion from the armed forces. Tuition fees at 3.3k required around £2.7 billion in subsidies from the government to match them, so lets call tuition fees £6 billion. Tax avoidance costs us around £7 billion a year, so i'm seeing a net saving there of £21 billion. Can you show that the public sector pension gap is more than £21 billion a year?

Err gap isn't the right word. Public pensions are unfunded so there is an unfunded liability of, depending on estimates, around £1 trillion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2011/05/is_the_treasury_understating_p.html

Yeah, but not all. The private sector is seeing slow wage increases, but not a wage freeze. And the richest are still getting richer. Take a look at the sunday times rich lists for the past two years. Seems the richest thousand people in the uk have managed to gain around £140bn while most of the country struggles.

I really can't see an argument from the public sector that their pay isn't comparible to the UK's 1000 richest people going down to well.

Frankly, you're right. They're unlikely to win. But fighting for it is better than taking it lying down. If the unions do nothing about a pension increase now, whats to stop cameron throwing on another few percent in 6 months? Or upping retirement age again by another few years?

Nothing but what makes you think striking will change that?

The unions have to show that they aren't going to roll over every time the tories decide the middle class are too wealthy. Otherwise, there isn't much point to them.

So the unions are going through the motions. Pretty much true but you are not meant to admit that.

 

[stokes234]

Before you start suggesting how the UK's navy should be downsized you should probably be aware that cruisers have for the most part been obsolete for decades and the only cruiser the UK has is a static training ship left over from WW1.

I don't really care what they're called. Let's have one or two boats with guns attached to them. We don't need anything else.

What?

That was a sarcastic response to the suggestion that the UK actually has "future threats" that an air force wouldn't be enough to deal with.

At the last count Argentina, Spain and Cyprus were all making claims on British territory.

All three countries are democracies that stand to lose far more from trade embargoes imposed by the UN than they would gain from taking away token islands, lumps of rock and military bases.

However the UK's interests do go beyong mearly preventing the UK mainland being invaded. It is in our interests to be able to prevent attacks on EU countries and wel also have interests in various parts of the former empire. It is also useful to be able to to produce a credible threat beyond "do roughly what we want or we will detonate nuclear weapons in your country".

We would still have one of the most advanced air forces in the world. And who is threatening to invade the EU? What parts of the former empire look to be in danger?

Err gap isn't the right word. Public pensions are unfunded so there is an unfunded liability of, depending on estimates, around £1 trillion.

It's only unfunded in the sense that we haven't paid it yet because it hasn't needed to be paid yet. I'm sure you already know this, but it works by funding the people who have retired through a combination of government and current public employee contributions.

According to the National Audit Office:

* Expressed in terms of constant 2008-09 prices, the Government Actuary’s Department projects total payments rising to over £79 billion a year by 2059-60. This is before allowing for income from employee contributions.
* Expressed in terms that track earnings, which rise more quickly than prices, projected payments reach £28.8 billion by 2059-60.
* However, expressed as a proportion of GDP, the projected increase is less stark, as GDP is also assumed to rise. Projected payments are estimated to reach a peak of 1.9 per cent of GDP between 2018-19 and 2033-34 then fall to 1.7 per cent by 2059-60. This compares with a rise from around 1.5 per cent to 1.7 per cent over the last decade.

This shows to me that as a percentage of GDP, pension payments are not actually going to rise.

I really can't see an argument from the public sector that their pay isn't comparible to the UK's 1000 richest people going down to well.

Well, it highlights where the money in society really is and where it's going. In the last two years, the richest 1000 people in the uk have gained almost as much wealth as the national deficit is standing at. If the country really was in dire financial straits i'd understand pension contribution rises, but there clearly is enough money around. The problem is that it is concentrated into the hands of so few.

Nothing but what makes you think striking will change that?

Well, it just stands to reason that if the government is shown that the public sector won't take this lying down, they'll be more wary about taking action in future. I hope, anyway. It certainly seems better to me than sitting around and watching as the middle classes get poorer and the rich get richer.

So the unions are going through the motions. Pretty much true but you are not meant to admit that.

The unions are going through the motions of fighting against what they, and I, consider and injustice committed by the right-wing government. Your comment is like saying that firefighters are just "going through the motions" rescuing people from fires, or teachers are just "going through the motions" educating children. It's their job, their purpose, and if it doesn't work, at least they tried.

 

[geni]

I don't really care what they're called. Let's have one or two boats with guns attached to them. We don't need anything else.

Guns? Do you live in the 1940s or something?

Oh and one boat pointless since you have to operate with no boats at all whenever the thing is in refit.

Still I must congratulate you on coming up with a worse option for the royal navy than it's current policy.

That was a sarcastic response to the suggestion that the UK actually has "future threats" that an air force wouldn't be enough to deal with.

How exactly do you plan to project power to keep somali piracy down to an acceptable level?

All three countries are democracies that stand to lose far more from trade embargoes imposed by the UN than they would gain from taking away token islands, lumps of rock and military bases.

"Trade embargoes imposed by the UN". Why on earth would russia or china support such a measure?

We would still have one of the most advanced air forces in the world.

And? You cannot win a war purely from the air. Certianly not within a practical level of spending.

And who is threatening to invade the EU?

The main concern at present is Russia's intentions towards the baltic states.

What parts of the former empire look to be in danger?

Kenya has potential risks with overspill from somalia and there is the continued possibility that Sierra Leone could kick off again.

It's only unfunded in the sense that we haven't paid it yet because it hasn't needed to be paid yet. I'm sure you already know this, but it works by funding the people who have retired through a combination of government and current public employee contributions.

According to the National Audit Office:


This shows to me that as a percentage of GDP, pension payments are not actually going to rise.

That assumes a 3% GDP growth rate.

Well, it just stands to reason that if the government is shown that the public sector won't take this lying down, they'll be more wary about taking action in future.

One off strike that at present seems to have little chance of attracting wider public sympathy?

I hope, anyway. It certainly seems better to me than sitting around and watching as the middle classes get poorer and the rich get richer.

Goverment is not a job creation scheme for the middle class.

The unions are going through the motions of fighting against what they, and I, consider and injustice committed by the right-wing government.

You've admitted they won't win and it's at least partially symbolic. I suspect it's as much aimed at the memebers as at the goverment.

Your comment is like saying that firefighters are just "going through the motions" rescuing people from fires, or teachers are just "going through the motions" educating children. It's their job, their purpose, and if it doesn't work, at least they tried.

Except I've certianly known teachers who were going through the motions (in fairness they had handed in their notice).

 

[Captain_Snort]

Ummm, about this word "Great".

From the British Isles, Great means it is the largest island, you could argue that Ireland is Lesser Britain.

Anyway, did anyone else listen to Francis Maud on Radio 4 this morning. What an odious liar who obviously has not read the reports he was misquoting.

 

[richardm]

you could argue that Ireland is Lesser Britain.

You could, but I'd check that there were no large Irishmen about first.

Edit: I didn't hear Maude, what was he saying?

 

[Uzzy]

Sir John Major on Scottish Devolution

"Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy? Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?
"My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly - bad for Scotland and bad for England - but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot - and should not - deny them."

About time, really. I'm hoping that Cameron puts forward legislation to do just this, as it'd appease most of the Scottish demands and English ones, as well as preserving the union.

Win win really.

 

[andyandy]

so, anyone following the labour conference?

echo.........

echo.........



For what it's worth, I think Milliband's announcement that student fees will be "cut" to £6,000 (or will rise £3000 from their current position) was one of the most badly misjudged policy announcements for a long time. There was talk about this being a centre-piece policy - I hope it's not otherwise they're going to get stuffed:

promising to return student fees to £3000 - well, that would be an election pledge worth making. It's not unaffordable - and would be a real statement of intent - ie a politician actually reversing (albeit slightly) the neo-liberal tide. But what we've got instead is Labour actually ceding the argument that the state should move away from funding university education, agreeing that fees should be doubled - only a few years after they even introduced fees in the first place at only £1000.

I can even imagine that this will be responsible for a net-loss of votes. Who on the left is going to get behind a plan to have students graduating with £30-40,000 debt? And no-one on the right is going to support it. It's the worst of new labour - triangulating a tory policy, just to the left of the tories' position.

Not quite as Tory as the Tories. There's the election campaign slogan.....

 

[stokes234]

Not quite as Tory as the Tories. There's the election campaign slogan.....

So, whats the left's solution? Abstain on the basis that labour don't represent our values, in the hope that the party gets the message in the future? Vote libdem, and get left-ish social policies and right-wing economic ones? Or stomach it and vote labour on the grounds that they're not quite as Tory as the Tories?

Stupid British system. At least in Wales we have Welsh Labour, who are actually quite left wing.

 

[Skepticemea]

Sir John Major on Scottish Devolution


About time, really. I'm hoping that Cameron puts forward legislation to do just this, as it'd appease most of the Scottish demands and English ones, as well as preserving the union.

Win win really.

Just as the Coalitions policies on debt reduction and how they go about them are unrepresentative of the views of a large number of those that voted for them, the idea of Scottish devolution is the pretty much the last policy remaining from the SNPs time in the wilderness and a favourite of the party and no one else.

I'd imagine a referendum on the issue will result in a fairly decisive "no" but that won't stop it being a drum for Salmond to bang on when he wants to rally support.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's not unaffordable - and would be a real statement of intent - ie a politician actually reversing (albeit slightly) the neo-liberal tide.

What do you regard as neo-liberal?

 

[funk de fino]

Just as the Coalitions policies on debt reduction and how they go about them are unrepresentative of the views of a large number of those that voted for them, the idea of Scottish devolution is the pretty much the last policy remaining from the SNPs time in the wilderness and a favourite of the party and no one else.

I'd imagine a referendum on the issue will result in a fairly decisive "no" but that won't stop it being a drum for Salmond to bang on when he wants to rally support.

. This post is utter nonsense. I fail to see that you even have the slightest clue what you are posting about. Try looking up devolution for a start

 

[geni]

so, anyone following the labour conference?

echo.........

echo.........



For what it's worth, I think Milliband's announcement that student fees will be "cut" to £6,000 (or will rise £3000 from their current position) was one of the most badly misjudged policy announcements for a long time.

It is somewhat honest though. One of the few real political threats labour faces at the moment is appearing to be fiscally irresponsible.

There was talk about this being a centre-piece policy - I hope it's not otherwise they're going to get stuffed:

Opinion polls say otherwise

promising to return student fees to £3000 - well, that would be an election pledge worth making. It's not unaffordable

On its own no. The problem is though that there are a lot of other things that labour would like to spend money on.

Of course that problem could be solved by placing more limits on student numbers but that is politicaly difficult.

 

[Darat]

Another manufacturing firm in the UK starts to cull its workforce. It'll be a real blow in Yorkshire and Lancashire, not only for those directly affected but for the suppliers and support industries as well as retailers in the area.

My reason for the post, however, is this little tidbit from the press:



They make an announcement to the press on the Monday that they'll be informing their staff of job cuts the following day. Did they somehow assume that their staff do not read or watch the news?

Shoddy.

So not too important to the coalition.

And this is what the pathetic Labour lot should be screaming about from the rooftops but no they are too self obsessed and obsessed with following "the media". They need to forget all this "apology" nonsense and attack the coalition recovery and deficit policy with all this evidence that shows the assumptions were inaccurate and that it is not working. Never mind attacking the coalition on the damage they have already (and will continue to do) done to the NHS.

Sorry for the mini-rant but the Labour party is so bloody pathetic and stupid!

 

[Skepticemea]

So not too important to the coalition.

And this is what the pathetic Labour lot should be screaming about from the rooftops but no they are too self obsessed and obsessed with following "the media". They need to forget all this "apology" nonsense and attack the coalition recovery and deficit policy with all this evidence that shows the assumptions were inaccurate and that it is not working. Never mind attacking the coalition on the damage they have already (and will continue to do) done to the NHS.

Sorry for the mini-rant but the Labour party is so bloody pathetic and stupid!

Hospital cuts all nursing staff wages by £600 back by threats of job losses = Labour reaction of "wuh?"

You're correct, Labour should be all over this rubbish but the facts of the matter as invented by me are; they have so little credibility in the bank after presiding over the most poorly prepared for bust in British history that they all they can do when the poor and vunerable are savaged by the feckless jackels-in-office that have the temerity to call themselves a government is cringe and whimper like the beaten, toothless, neutered dogs that they are.

*breathe*

 

[andyandy]

Opinion polls say otherwise

.

The latest poll has the Tories in the lead:

Labour has fallen behind the Conservatives in an opinion poll published on the eve of Ed Miliband's high-profile speech to the party's annual conference in Liverpool.

And, in news which will make unpleasant reading for the Labour leader as he prepares to address delegates, the ComRes survey for The Independent found that fewer than one voter in four sees Mr Miliband as a credible future prime minister.

It is the first time since October 2010 that a ComRes poll has put Tories in the lead and one of only a handful of surveys this year to find Labour in second place.

Some 37% of the 1,000 voters questioned said they backed Tories - down one point since the most recent poll by the same company eight days ago - against 36% for Labour (down two) and 12% for the Liberal Democrats (up one).

Just 24% agreed that Mr Miliband was a credible PM-in-waiting, against 57% who said he was not.

And only 27% said Labour's shadow chancellor Ed Balls would make a better Chancellor than George Osborne, compared to 43% who said he would not.

Those are dire numbers for Labour, given that we're both in the middle of a severe economic downturn, massive unemployment, public sector unrest, anaemic growth, and big cuts.....after all of that the Tories are still beating Labour....

add in the following negatives that will probably affect the next election:

1) Leadership matters - and it looks like both Milliband and Balls are dead weights pulling the party down

2) The boundary changes if they go through will disproportionately affect Labour

3) Labour risk ceding Scotish seats to the SNP

and I'd say the Tories are in a very strong position.