Author Topic: Politics  (Read 85037 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Stu

  • People don't like it when you're in love with Dave
Re: Politics
« Reply #5975 on: Thursday 2 February 2012, 11:52:30 PM »
And don't even get me started about what they've done on housing benefit for social housing tenants...but what may look like money saved to the taxpayer now will only end up costing us all a s*** load more.

What's this about? ???
They keep saying their strategy will take several years to implement, I accept this and realise that in the future we may be able to hold onto players much easier if we manage to achieve success without burning cash to get there. There's next to no point in overspending until you're in the s*** to get to Europe, only to fall out of it for several years and potentially enter relegation battles. Be frugal, spend the money wisely but at all times keep a core of good players in the side and try the utmost to create a core which is reasonably stable for three-four years.

I fully expect to get slayed and slated here for being a w***** apologist and maybe I'm wrong, maybe all they care about is lining their pockets and f***ing us over but you can argue it both ways. The haters have a more aggressive way of talking about it but we'll not know who's right until MA's ownership comes to an end.

wacko

  • Ledge!
  • More poubelle!
Re: Politics
« Reply #5976 on: Thursday 2 February 2012, 11:54:07 PM »
Quote
Immigrants 'must add to quality of life in Britain'

People coming to live in the UK from outside the EU must "add to the quality of life in Britain", immigration minister Damian Green has said.

He argued Britain does not need more "middle managers" or unskilled Labour and those who settle could have to command a salary of more than £31,000.

Any British citizen who wants to bring in a non-EU spouse should also meet a minimum salary level, he added.

Labour said ministers had set out "no workable proposals" to cut immigration.

The government has pledged to cut net migration from 242,000 - the figure for the year ending September 2010 - to the "tens of thousands" last seen in the 1990s

...

Quote
He said he wanted anyone moving to the UK to join a British spouse "to be able to integrate and be independent", which was why a requirement to speak English was being introduced.

But he said he was also proposing to set a minimum income level for any sponsor seeking to bring in a foreign spouse - and said the recommended level from Mac was between £18,600 and £25,700.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said that would be "hammer blow to the human rights of cross border partners and their families".

Chief executive Habib Rahman said: "They've already been hit with an age minimum (although we defeated that), language requirements and ever increasing visa fees. Now they face what is likely to be an unreasonably high income threshold.

"One might argue that this government has it in for poor people who fall in love with anyone who's not resident in the UK."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16850563

these tories are the most batshit crazy bunch ive ever seen. don't earn enough and you're effectively barred from marriage. c***s want to drag us back into the 18th century.

Agree 100% with the language requirements, though.
Quote from: Chivasino
Djimi Traore has more champions league medals than all of London's teams put together.

GM

  • TPFKA GeordieMessiah
Re: Politics
« Reply #5977 on: Thursday 2 February 2012, 11:55:07 PM »
Quote
Peers attack MPs on welfare defeats
(UKPA) – 10 hours ago 

Senior Tories have accused MPs of treating the Lords with "contempt" over the way they dealt with the defeats inflicted by peers on the Government's controversial welfare reform legislation.

Former chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby was one of three Conservative former Cabinet ministers who led the calls for a rethink as anger grew in the Upper House at the Commons invoking its "financial privilege" to throw out Lords amendments.

The use of financial privilege as a reason for rejecting amendments means peers cannot insist on them when the Welfare Reform Bill returns to the Lords later this month.

Lord Lawson told peers: "While the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to claim privilege it is not compelled to do so.

"The constitution of this country operates by conventions and it is one of the conventions of the constitution that this is invoked very sparingly on rare occasions.

"For it to be invoked promiscuously is completely contrary to the conventions of the constitution. I think this raises very serious issues and the House of Commons would be wise to think again."

Tory former Scotland secretary Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said there had been "a series of events which suggest the Commons, which increasingly sends legislation up here which is not properly considered, is treating this place with some contempt".

He called for Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Lords, to have a "frank chat" with colleagues in the Commons on the issue.

And Tory former social security secretary Lord Newton of Braintree said the issue "raises real questions about the relationship in practice, as it has existed over many years, between the two Houses".

He added: "I think we are entitled to hear a statement and ask questions about just where that relationship is now going."

The only reason the Tories have invoked financial privilege ruling on the Welfare Reform Bill is that they know even their own Conservative peers think it's terrible legislation as it currently stands.

And don't even get me started about what they've done on housing benefit for social housing tenants...but what may look like money saved to the taxpayer now will only end up costing us all a s*** load more.

What's this about? ???

Read here: http://www.housing.org.uk/?page=2710

Re: Politics
« Reply #5978 on: Sunday 5 February 2012, 11:27:50 AM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9061775/Bank-of-England-to-print-further-50-billion.html#



The Bank's Monetary Policy Committee is set to announce on Thursday that it is expanding its Quantitative Easing programme from £275bn to £325bn.
Several members of MPC signalled at their January meeting that they would vote for a further round of QE this month.
City economists had thought the committee would approve a further £75bn of asset purchases this month, but services and manufacturing surveys have suggested that the economy performed slightly better than expected in the early weeks of this year.
George Buckley, a UK economist at Deutsche Bank, the investment bank, said: "If sentiment and activity hold up this could even be the last round of QE, although the fragile nature of the recovery and the situation in Europe could mean the programme continues after May."
By buying up bonds owned by banks, the policy aims to give those institutions more money to lend to consumers and businesses, with the effect of boosting helping the recovery. Experts are divided over the policy's success.
The Government has been battered by grim economic news on several fronts in recent weeks. The total size of Britain's public sector debt passed the £1trillion for the first time and unemployment has continued to rise, reaching levels not seen for 17 years.
Most City forecasters believe the economy is currently in the second phase of a double-dip recession after the Office for National Statistics said the economy shrank by 0.2% in the final three months of last year.
Later this month, the Bank of England is expected to revise down its growth forecasts for this year and next.

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5979 on: Sunday 5 February 2012, 12:17:13 PM »
Once again, if they are genuinely trying to kick-start the economy they are doing it exactly the wrong way around. If they want to inject money into the system then they should be giving it directly to the poorest in society (ie those on benefits, etc), where it will actually get spent and therefore find it's way into the rest of the UK economy and generate growth, not to financial institutions who will be allowed to simply use it to improve their balance sheet position and what little does find it's way into the economy will fall into the hands of the more wealthy in society who will not spend as much of it and a significant proportion of what they do will leave the UK therefore meaning the multiplier effect will be greatly reduced.

Their growth strategy - of giving to the rich, whilst taking from the poor - is so obviously arse about face that you have to consider whether growth is actually their intention, very little growth will be generated by this policy, but a lot of the country's wealth will find it's way into the hands of its richest members. Convenient?

Re: Politics
« Reply #5980 on: Sunday 5 February 2012, 02:55:39 PM »
Would be intersting to see whats reinvested back into the UK by these companies.


indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5981 on: Tuesday 7 February 2012, 11:43:13 PM »
Quote
Government 'may sanction nerve-agent use on rioters', scientists fear

Steve Connor
Tuesday, 7 February 2012


Leading neuroscientists believe that the UK Government may be about to sanction the development of nerve agents for British police that would be banned in warfare under an international treaty on chemical weapons.

A high-level group of experts has asked the Government to clarify its position on whether it intends to develop "incapacitating chemical agents" for a range of domestic uses that go beyond the limited use of chemical irritants such as CS gas for riot control.

The experts were commissioned by the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of sciences, to investigate new developments in neuroscience that could be of use to the military. They concluded that the Government may be preparing to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the use of incapacitating chemical agents for domestic law enforcement.

The 1993 convention bans the development, stockpiling and use of nerve agents and other toxic chemicals by the military but there is an exemption for certain chemical agents that could be used for "peaceful" domestic purposes such as policing and riot control.

The British Government has traditionally taken the view that only a relatively mild class of irritant chemical agents that affect the eyes and respiratory tissues, such as CS gas, are exempt from the treaty, and then only strictly for use in riot control.

But the Royal Society working group says the Government shifted its position to allow the development of more severe chemical agents, such as the type of potentially dangerous nerve gases used by Russian security forces to end hostage sieges. "The development of incapacitating chemical agents, ostensibly for law-enforcement purposes, raises a number of concerns in the context of humanitarian and human-rights law, as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)," the report says.

"The UK Government should publish a statement on the reasons for its apparent recent shift in position on the interpretation of the CWC's law enforcement position." The Royal Society group points to a 1992 statement by Douglas Hogg, the then Foreign Office Minister, who indicated that riot-control agents were the only toxic chemicals that the UK considered to be permitted for law-enforcement purposes. But in 2009 ministers gave a less-restrictive definition suggesting the use of "incapacitating" chemical agents would be permitted for law-enforcement purposes as long as they were in the categories and quantities consistent with that permitted purpose.

Professor Rod Flower, a biochemical pharmacologist at Queen Mary University of London, said the latest scientific insights into human brain is leading to novel ways of degrading human performance using chemicals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-may-sanction-nerveagent-use-on-rioters-scientists-fear-6612084.html#

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5982 on: Tuesday 7 February 2012, 11:43:44 PM »
Would be intersting to see whats reinvested back into the UK by these companies.



Judging by the last time essentially nothing.

wacko

  • Ledge!
  • More poubelle!
Re: Politics
« Reply #5983 on: Wednesday 8 February 2012, 05:03:28 PM »
Once again, if they are genuinely trying to kick-start the economy they are doing it exactly the wrong way around. If they want to inject money into the system then they should be giving it directly to the poorest in society (ie those on benefits, etc), where it will actually get spent and therefore find it's way into the rest of the UK economy and generate growth, not to financial institutions who will be allowed to simply use it to improve their balance sheet position and what little does find it's way into the economy will fall into the hands of the more wealthy in society who will not spend as much of it and a significant proportion of what they do will leave the UK therefore meaning the multiplier effect will be greatly reduced.

Their growth strategy - of giving to the rich, whilst taking from the poor - is so obviously arse about face that you have to consider whether growth is actually their intention, very little growth will be generated by this policy, but a lot of the country's wealth will find it's way into the hands of its richest members. Convenient?

Hear, hear.

It didn't work in the US, and it won't work in the UK.
Quote from: Chivasino
Djimi Traore has more champions league medals than all of London's teams put together.

Re: Politics
« Reply #5984 on: Wednesday 8 February 2012, 06:06:58 PM »
Once again, if they are genuinely trying to kick-start the economy they are doing it exactly the wrong way around. If they want to inject money into the system then they should be giving it directly to the poorest in society (ie those on benefits, etc), where it will actually get spent and therefore find it's way into the rest of the UK economy and generate growth, not to financial institutions who will be allowed to simply use it to improve their balance sheet position and what little does find it's way into the economy will fall into the hands of the more wealthy in society who will not spend as much of it and a significant proportion of what they do will leave the UK therefore meaning the multiplier effect will be greatly reduced.

Their growth strategy - of giving to the rich, whilst taking from the poor - is so obviously arse about face that you have to consider whether growth is actually their intention, very little growth will be generated by this policy, but a lot of the country's wealth will find it's way into the hands of its richest members. Convenient?

I agree that the impact of QE is massively impaired due to financial deleveraging, but we should be clear that there is no 'giving' of money here. It's an asset purchase by the BoE and not by the Government. They are buying government bonds from banks in return for cash. Of course such is the regulatory pressure to improve balance sheet strength that all they do with the cash is go out and buy more government bonds, in turn keeping yields nice and low. Very convenient for Gideon.

If HMG is to get involved, it should be through long-term capital projects.

Re: Politics
« Reply #5985 on: Thursday 9 February 2012, 08:21:34 PM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/solar-power-ambition-uk



Nearly 4m homes across the UK will be powered by the sun within eight years, the government said on Thursday, in a dramatic increase of ambition for the fledgling solar power industry.

But the estimate comes on the back of a cut in the subsidies available for solar energy generation, to take effect from April, which will greatly reduce the amount of money households with solar panels will receive. Ministers said the cut was needed because the costs of solar panels have plummeted in recent months, and the new rules follow an unsuccessful attempt to impose cuts last year that was judged unlawful in the courts.

Households fitting solar panels will receive 21p for every kilowatt/hour of energy they generate. This is down from 43p originally. Greg Barker, energy minister, pointed to new research that showed the cost of solar panels had dropped by 45% since 2009, far faster than had been predicted.

He said: "This is a scheme for the many, and not the few."

The government also announced extra money for the feed-in tariffs, which could amount to £2.2bn by 2015. The money has been taken from unspent funds earmarked for the subsidies to other forms of renewable energy, particularly wind. Although renewable energy subsidies are not paid by the government – they come out of a levy on energy bills – the Treasury has set strict limits on how much can be spent on them.

Howard Johns, a solar industry spokesman, said: "The government's initial cut to the tariff was brutal, and this further cut will be utterly devastating for the UK solar sector. The hard facts are that a cut on this scale will leave the solar industry dead in a ditch, destroying tens of thousands of jobs and cutting off a green, hi-tech British industry just as it starts to flourish. In their rhetoric, ministers claim to want a renewable future, but they are destroying the very businesses that can make that future happen. This whole proposal has been rushed and chaotic, and while ministers try to force it through arbitrarily, hard-working people are losing their livelihoods. What was a real British success story is on the verge of being consigned to the dustbin."

But Barker's message to the solar industry was "get real". Electricity consumers could not be expected to foot the bill for some households to enjoy large returns on their capital for investing in solar panels, he said. The initial tariff rates were set by Ed Miliband, then energy secretary, in 2010 based on the cost of solar installations at that time. But Barker said that the dramatic price falls since then meant that solar companies were making bumper profits and the small number of households that could afford the panels and had installed them were benefiting disproportionately, while the cost was passed on to all consumers through higher energy bills. The new mechanisms for cutting the tariffs regularly would prevent this happening in future, he said.

"Never again should we have fixed-rate tariffs that allow a bubble to grow," he said. By cutting tariffs in a predictable fashion in future, he said solar power developers could be more certain of making a sufficient profit margin, and households could expect a return on their investments in panels of about 5%.

The government predicts that, despite the tariff cuts, because of price falls in the cost of components and installation, at least 625,000 households will install solar panels by 2015, compared with about 100,000 that have installed them under the more generous tariff. By 2020, the amount of solar power installed in the UK will amount to 22GW by government estimates – as much energy as is produced by more than 10 large modern power stations. Officials said this estimate was in the middle of their range of predictions, not the higher end.

Under the government's new plans, now subject to consultation, in future the feed-in tariff rate will be cut twice a year as the cost of solar panels falls. Further cuts can also be brought in if the price falls faster than expected.

The government said it would also be easier to install solar power on larger buildings such as schools or hospitals, and that a new "multi-installation" tariff set at 80% of the normal tariff would cover larger schemes with more than 25 installations. Officials said this was set because such large installations benefit from economies of scale.

Households wishing to receive solar subsidies will also have to improve their homes under the new rules, so that they meet at least the D standard for energy efficiency. About half of homes already meet this standard, up from the around 10% that met the C standard that the government had previously proposed.

David Symons, director at the consultancy WSP Environment & Energy, said the new rules could be confusing for households. "The introduction of regular reductions in support, coupled with potential additional ad hoc drops in subsidy levels, will provide more certainty for government, but less clarity to homeowners," he said. "It's important to remember that the ultimate purpose of feed-in tariff support is to grow renewable generation in the UK. Some may read that the main priority of today's consultation paper is not to grow renewables but rather just 'maintaining a tight grip on spending'. It's important that homeowners have a clear view on the help they will get from the government if they invest in a solar panel. Today's consultation will make this harder to understand, so the government will need to work hard to provide up to date information on uptake if it adopts these proposals."

Re: Politics
« Reply #5986 on: Thursday 9 February 2012, 09:21:03 PM »
Sounds way too ad-hoc to attract stable investment. If the government wants to establish a set return, it should do so over a rolling average 12-month electricity price.

Re: Politics
« Reply #5987 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 12:03:05 AM »
erm....

Quote
Tax breaks for hiring a cleaner could save middle class thousands
The proposal could save middle-class families thousands of pounds a year in fees for domestic help and encourage more women to return to work after having children.
It would also act to cut the number of illegal workers, who are often paid “cash in hand”.
The idea would be modelled on a successful scheme operating in Sweden which has caught the eye of the Prime Minister.
The policy is the latest suggestion for boosting employment rates and is designed to appeal to women with young children, a key group of voters.
David Cameron plans to investigate whether the Swedish “maid credit” system could be transferred to Britain.
He expressed interest in the plan during the Nordic-Baltic summit in Stockholm. Mr Cameron told delegates that he was keen to explore Sweden’s experience of “encouraging and helping women go out to work”.
“What you do in Sweden in terms of tax help and tax relief, not so much on child care but on other things that help women go out to work, I thought that was a very interesting idea that I want to look at further.
“We’ve made some big steps forward on the child care agenda, helping parents of two, three and four year-olds with nursery care,” he said.
“We’ve also made some big steps forward in terms of parental leave, but this is another agenda that’s worth looking at. Clearly Sweden has some interesting ideas in this area.”
Specific services eligible for the tax breaks under the Swedish model include cooking, cleaning, gardening and child care.
At the Stockholm meeting, Stina Honkamaa, Google’s executive manager in Sweden, told Mr Cameron: “It’s possible to buy help with housework, like cleaning, babysitting, gardening and so on, at a very reasonable tax rate.
“The actual cost is halved, which makes it easier to promote people to get help at home.”
A similar system in Finland resulted in 92,000 people taking up the scheme in one year alone, with the total tax deduction amounting to €42.70million (£35.80million).
Mr Cameron is under growing pressure to draw up radical plans to help families, who are struggling with the most severe squeeze on their disposable income for a generation. The Coalition is already planning to cut child tax credits and next year will abolish child benefit for all higher-rate taxpayers, a move that will cost some families more than £1,500 a year.
Before the general election, the Conservatives promised to introduce tax breaks for married couples. The Liberal Democrats have stressed that other assistance for families will take priority.
Last night, Labour said of the latest proposal: “This demonstrates how out of touch David Cameron is about the pressures facing women in this country. He is suggesting tax breaks for people who can afford domestic workers at the same time as he is cutting tax credits for working parents and removing child benefit from squeezed families.
“Is this what he means when he says we are all in it together?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9073334/Tax-breaks-for-hiring-a-cleaner-could-save-middle-class-thousands.html
"If you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

BlueStar

  • 2006/07 Newcastle-Online Cup Winner
Re: Politics
« Reply #5988 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 11:27:40 AM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025

Quote
A Devon town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings, the High Court has ruled.

Action was brought against Bideford Town Council by the National Secular Society (NSS) after atheist councillor Clive Bone complained.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ ( ╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻

Re: Politics
« Reply #5989 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 01:30:26 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025

Quote
A Devon town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings, the High Court has ruled.

Action was brought against Bideford Town Council by the National Secular Society (NSS) after atheist councillor Clive Bone complained.
more so that the prayers were part of the official agenda.
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

BlueStar

  • 2006/07 Newcastle-Online Cup Winner
Re: Politics
« Reply #5990 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 07:10:34 PM »
Seem they're going to spend tax payer money on legal representation to fight the ruling  :rolleyes:
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳ ( ╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻

Dave

  • Administrator
Re: Politics
« Reply #5991 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 08:12:16 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025

Quote
A Devon town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings, the High Court has ruled.

Action was brought against Bideford Town Council by the National Secular Society (NSS) after atheist councillor Clive Bone complained.



:lol:

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5992 on: Friday 10 February 2012, 08:20:42 PM »
The Tories are desperately trying to turn us into the states with all the Christianity bullshit, they claim that this kind of crap is what the British people care about, but it's total s***. It's a classic case of them stirring up an issue that no-one really cares about to take everyone's attention off the s*** state of the country and their total lack of ability/willingness to do anything about it. Unfortunately their astroturfing campaign is in full swing and there's nothing to counteract it, so we'll be hearing a lot more of this kind of crap.

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5993 on: Wednesday 15 February 2012, 10:30:44 PM »
Read a couple of insightful articles on the bus this evening:

Quote
Threatened UK downgrade: beyond belief

Osborne's 'staying the course' is like putting a steering lock on a car and driving across town – irrespective of the walls in the way



First came the run on the Rock, then the wider banking bust, and now a clutch of books are asking whether fiat money is worth the paper it's written on. It is ever plainer that economic management is, as much as anything, a question of confidence. So when, late on Monday, debt raters at Moody's signalled that they could overturn the assumption that the UK's word is its bond, you might have thought George Osborne would be very afraid. Why, then, did the chancellor sound rather chipper?

While they are specialists in credit, ratings agencies such as Moody's have something of a credibility problem themselves. They failed to spot the crunch coming until it had bitten, and know even less about the political forces that determine which governments pay up than they do about banks. S&P's downgrading of the US last year was followed by the continuation of ultra-low borrowing rates which implied investors were not worried. The reality is that the costs of default would be catastrophic, so Britain will repay – whatever the gnomes of Canary Wharf may say. Mr Osborne could have said all this, and swatted Moody's away like a gnat. Instead, on the BBC, he cheerfully acknowledged "a reality check".

No matter that the chancellor had chided Labour in hysterical terms when S&P issued a similar warning in 2009, and that it is the weakness of the economy under his unbalanced austerity drive that has pushed public borrowing way up above what he had forecast last year. He is intensely relaxed about the warning from Moody's because all politics is relative, and he is convinced that, for all the problems of the line he is left spinning, it remains an easier line to swallow than Labour's. He reckons that the country is not interested in claims about the paradox of thrift, but instead smells a rat when it hears Ed Balls talk about using emergency borrowing to get on top of the debt.

Perhaps "staying the course" is indeed a shrewd pose – for the moment. Having lectured voters and investors about cuts, the chancellor's own standing and maybe even that of UK debt would take a knock if he were seen to change his mind suddenly. But reality has a habit of intervening in the best-laid political postures. The great bulk of the Osborne cuts are still to come and, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently warned, only one country in modern history has actually achieved retrenchment on this scale. That was Ireland in the late 1980s, where business with then-booming Britain could fill the demand gap.

To assume you can pull off the same trick amid a great global slump is like putting a steering lock on a car and announcing that you will drive across town – irrespective of all the walls in the way. The lock may be a credible device, but the journey will remain beyond belief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/14/uk-downgrade-threat-beyond-belief?INTCMP=SRCH

Quote
Austerity fails, yet we're too shy to think outside the box

Like Dickens's Mr Dorrit, we are hamstrung by our debt, denied the means to earn our recovery. An alternative is needed



Inflation is falling, debt is rising, growth is static and credit is edgy. All these are facts. There must be an economic equation that says what to do next. So where are the economists when we need them? As usual they have taken to the hills. You cannot get a straight answer for love nor money, even on Valentine's Day and from the Bank of England.

The global recession is looking more and more like an economic world war. Conflicts erupt from a cloudless sky, Germany against Greece, Britain against Europe, the west against China, America against itself. Financial armies move across the face of the earth, credit rating agencies plotting their path. They bring destruction everywhere. Commanders gaze bemused at the carnage and try one failed strategy after another. Nothing sensible happens, no lesson is learned, as the grim logic of war takes hold.

As in any war, conflict is coalescing along a central front, between austerity and growth. Can the demon debt be conquered and driven back into the hole from whence it came? The question is the same for Greece, now enduring debtor's torment, as for Britain, which is breathing the stench of renewed recession.

In Greece the answer is simple. The economy is bankrupt. Faced with a government dancing to the tune of its creditors, the people riot. I used to think I would be an Athens rioter because it scared German and French bankers into renewing their loans and paying my wages. Now I would riot to wreck the euro and secure default. It would be chaos, but at least the wound could heal and life start again. At the moment all is hell.

The failure to let Greece restructure its collapsed economy is the final arrogance of Europe's postwar elite, believing it could enforce political union through the blitzkrieg of a single currency. Unable to borrow, Greece must somehow work its way out of debt. But it cannot do this with an exchange rate so grotesque that all labour and capital flees its shores, dumping on London's property market. The bankers' ramp that has long enslaved the Greek people in debt bondage now impedes their orderly escape.

Britain is lucky. Thanks to Gordon Brown facing down Tony Blair, it escaped debt bondage by keeping a flexible pound. But the challenge to its rulers is the same as in Greece. No country's debt can be waved away. The argument of the chancellor, George Osborne, has held sway. With debt still rising and with cutbacks to public spending barely reverting to 2005 levels, he can argue that there is no room to loosen the public purse. This is reinforced by news this week that Britain's credit rating is effectively on hold.

Osborne is acutely aware, because he keeps saying so, that he needs rising tax revenues to finance his debt recovery. If this cannot come from higher public spending, it must come from his promise in 2010 of an expanding private sector. He must somehow maintain the creditworthiness of the public finances while also finding a swift, off-budget stimulus to growth. No purpose was ever served by locking Mr Dorrit in Marshalsea prison and thus stopping him from earning the means of repayment. Britain is likewise imprisoned in austerity without any early means of debt relief. Germany's private sector is booming while Britain's is dormant.

The question of what to do about this should not need political grandstanding between Osborne and his Labour opponent, Ed Balls, who both seem equally baffled by events. It needs a brisk but searching commission of economic inquiry, in public, to determine the balance between credit risk and demand stimulus. This is needed not just for Britain but for all Europe. Incessant summits, idiot headlines about "four days to save the euro", angry exchanges and half-baked reschedulings show only puny statesmen rearranging beach furniture in a hurricane.

Britain has one option not available to the countries of the eurozone. It can print its own currency, and do so with little present risk of inflation. It can print money without damaging the balance of taxing and spending. It can even print money with the agreement of the credit rating agencies, the OECD, the IMF and others, now increasingly worried that austerity is killing the goose that should be laying the golden eggs of growth.

The one ghost of history that horrifies Europe's rulers is that of Germany's interwar hyperinflation and its outcome in the rise of Hitler. Monetarists will happily cut the money supply to curb inflation, as in the 1980s, yet not boost it to cure deflation. The latter terrifies them, and the only reason they can give is that "it might lead to Weimar".

Many things are happening in Europe just now that might lead to Weimar, but monetary inflation is the least of them. So far, the government has authorised money to be printed to give to banks, through quantitative easing, but it has been stored in their vaults and balance sheets. Despite endless debate and argument in bank circles, there is no evidence that the cash has done anything to stimulate demand, indeed the reverse, in reducing pensions by suppressing interest rates. It is supposed to be "injected into the economy", yet it does no such thing.

We revert to Mr Dorrit. It makes no sense to drive an economy into recession where it stops people from working and thus paying more taxes. Growth starts not with bank investment but with demand. It starts with more money flowing down the high street. Here the curse is not Weimar but a bank-obsessed Treasury, fighting war with antique weapons such as quantitative easing that disintegrate in their hands. They can bring themselves to print money for banks, but not for ordinary people – through scrappage schemes, vouchers, corporate job-creation projects and other such off-budget stimuluses tried abroad. These methods need have no more impact on budgetary austerity than does money given to banks.

The failure to take economic management beyond the diktats of austerity has become the great intellectual treason of today. For three years it has trapped governments, economists, bankers and media in a collective miasma of panic about inflation. Thousands of citizens across Europe are having their lives ruined and their children's prospects blighted because a financial elite, once burned, is too shy to think out of its box. It refuses to stimulate demand merely because that is not the done thing to do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/14/austerity-fails-shy-think-outside-box?INTCMP=SRCH

Re: Politics
« Reply #5994 on: Wednesday 15 February 2012, 10:44:31 PM »
many had been saying that from before the austerity packages were enacted. (seemed f***ing obvious to me, especially when the head of the CBI was criticising them for there being no plan for any sort of growth whatsoever......just as in the 80's. what we are doing is moneterism again without calling it that)
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5995 on: Wednesday 15 February 2012, 10:51:29 PM »
Yeah, it should be obvious, but as is alluded to in the first article, most people have accepted the lie as the truth and nothing is going to change their minds, they haven't reached their view based upon any kind of reasoning, they've simply accepted what they've been told at face value and as with any article of faith, it's almost impossible to convince that person that they are wrong.

Re: Politics
« Reply #5996 on: Wednesday 15 February 2012, 10:59:06 PM »
Yeah, it should be obvious, but as is alluded to in the first article, most people have accepted the lie as the truth and nothing is going to change their minds, they haven't reached their view based upon any kind of reasoning, they've simply accepted what they've been told at face value and as with any article of faith, it's almost impossible to convince that person that they are wrong.
or sadly, they are either too thick , don't care or can't be bothered ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

indi

  • Administrator
  • Death to David Pleat.
Re: Politics
« Reply #5997 on: Wednesday 15 February 2012, 11:15:49 PM »
Yeah, it should be obvious, but as is alluded to in the first article, most people have accepted the lie as the truth and nothing is going to change their minds, they haven't reached their view based upon any kind of reasoning, they've simply accepted what they've been told at face value and as with any article of faith, it's almost impossible to convince that person that they are wrong.
or sadly, they are either too thick , don't care or can't be bothered ?

Yeah, that too.

GM

  • TPFKA GeordieMessiah
Re: Politics
« Reply #5998 on: Saturday 18 February 2012, 05:05:59 PM »

David Icke - Son of God

  • Cock p*ss Pardew
Re: Politics
« Reply #5999 on: Saturday 18 February 2012, 08:02:13 PM »
http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/we-can-now-reveal-what-really-happened.html

Quote
On Tuesday past, Conservative Central Office announced that the PM was to make a high profile visit to an NHS Hospital, to a) bolster support for his NHS reform,and b) raise issue of binge drinking. But, as I outlined in my previous post, there was an incident at the hospital. I can now reveal the details of what is alleged to have happened.

The staff were never informed of the Prime Minister's visit, and were  affronted when Cameron arrived at their Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary. I am told that the entire staff refused to speak to the Prime Minister, and this caused quite a stir. It transpires that the shift manager (or matron- I cannot confirm which) was left to 'handle the PM'. Cameron was also assigned close police protection for his entire time in the hospital. The PM was shepherded into the back corridors to give his interview in isolation, apparently because the grimaces and frowns of staff members would have caused an embarrassment.  One staff member joked that the 'only persons who were smiling was his police protection'.

One staff member launched a verbal volley of criticisms at the Prime Minister for breaking his promise on the NHS reforms. The content of the abuse centred around Cameron foisting unwanted reforms upon NHS staff who were unanimously opposed to them. The angry staff member was led away, and is now facing disciplinary action.

The rest of the staff were explicitly instructed that, pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, they were to keep quiet about the incident. It was under these auspices that staff have been sworn to silence.  None of them are willing to go on record and say what happened, even though 4 separate sources have confirmed similar versions of the same event. Three of the sources stated that they feared for their jobs if they went public.
"Following media reports this morning the chairman wishes to make it clear that Alan Shearer has never said to him that he would knock seven bells out of anyone."