ConDems » Tax Research UK

Only a hard core neoliberal could have said what Nick Clegg did about the role of politicians

Sep 222011

I’ve finally had a chance to have a quick look at what Nick Clegg said yesterday. This jumped out, when he was Labour bashing (which seemed his main purpose):

Because let me tell you this: You don’t play politics at a time of national crisis. You don’t play politics with the economy. And you never, ever play politics with people’s jobs.

Hang on a minute. Look what Clegg’s saying:

- When markets fail politicians should not intervene

- In a crisis politicians should shut up

- Government has no role in the economy

- The level of employment is not the government’s responsibility.

That’s what this means. And it’s pure neoliberalism.

It’s also one of the founding hypotheses of my book – The Courageous State. In it I argue that neoliberalism has bred politicians who think that nothing they can do will beat the market so they’d best leave it alone. That’s what Clegg was saying – that markets should be left to sort out crises.

Neoliberal theory is wrong of course. It creates the crises we’re having. And it has no solution to them. But none the less Clegg wants to walk away from his responsibility to exercise judgement, to correct market failure, to ensure we have full employment – the very things politicians are meant to do.

No wonder he’s unfit for his office and his party is consigned to the history books.

Message to Cable: if you don’t believe the state can get us out of this mess quit now and let those who do get on and solve it

ConDems, Economics, Uncategorized 7 Responses »

May 212011

Vince Cable has given an interview to the Guardian this morning. Some of it seems to be Vince trying to reclaim his mantle of old. I fear that’s tarnished.

This is why:

He predicted the impact on people’s lives will not come primarily from government spending cuts, but the squeeze in living standards caused by world prices and a 20% devaluation of sterling against other major currencies.

Oh come on! So it’s all someone else’ fault now he’s in office. That is absurd. If there’s one over-riding characteristic that the Cabinet of which he’s a member shares it is their absolute lack of willing to give any indication of why they wanted to be in office.

Cameron accepts responsibility for nothing.

Lansley wants to strip the Dept of Health of its responsibility for health.

Hammond wants to devolve trains to local government.

And now Cable says if people are going to badly off it’s anyone’s fault but his – and there’s nothing he could do about it.

That’s gross irresponsibility.

It’s also a great line of attack. If these people really don’t want to be in office because they don’t think they can do any thing when they’ve got it why on earth did they want it – except for the ego trip? The moral is simple: kick them out.

Of course there are some things government can’t do a lot about. The incompetence of business and its refusal to invest. The refusal of bankers to bank. The lack of demand in the economy. The fact that the exchange rate was over valued and no isn’t. They can’t stop these things. I’m not saying they can. But dammit, it’s their job to manage the consequence of these things – not just shrug their shoulders as Cale is doing and say ‘bad luck’. Very politely – that’s nonsense.

The Condems did not need to increase VAT to increase inflation and decrease demand.

They don’t need to make hundreds of thousands redundant to fuel fear and keep the savings ratio high.

They don’t need to let bankers carry on, unregulated.

They could – as I have suggested – require that pension funds invest 25% of their contributions in new employment creating activity.

They could promote a Green New Deal.

It’s utter nonsense that the cuts won’t impact people. It’s utter nonsense that we just sit back and take the crap that might flow our way.

The state has a role.

A powerful role.

And if Cable doesn;t know it (and he clearly doesn’t) then he needs to retire soon and let those who believe that the state is an essential component in getting us out of this mess get on and do the job.

The challenges the Tories have to face

ConDems 3 Responses »

May 152011

Tim Horton of the Fabian Society wrote this on the Left Foot Forward blog today, and it’s too good not to borrow, so I hope they’ll forgivve me:

After yesterday’s failed Rally Against Debt – attracting around 500 attendees, despite the benefit of aTimes opinion collumn and coverage across the newspapers - we thought it was time to turn the tables on the Tories by using the No2AV posters they funded to campaign against the Coalition’s cuts.

These posters, you may recall, courted controversy during the referendum campaign with a claim that the Alternative Vote system would cost £250 million alongside a picture of a baby, arguing the money would be better spent on maternity units. Another poster carried the picture of a soldier, arguing for more spending on bulletproof vests.

It was ironic to see a campaign funded by Conservative backers and run by the Chief Executive of the right-wing Taxpayers’ Alliance – who organised yesterday’s rally - championing public spending. It must have been a refreshing change for them to be able to harness people’s love of public services, rather than trying to do them down all the time. But, in the process, the No campaign have given us a great way to campaign against the cuts.

Thanks to Clifford Singer of the Other Taxpayer’s Alliance, the creative force behind theMyDavidCameron.com phenomenon, we have transformed these iconic images into arguments against the Coalition’s programme. And, now the referendum’s over, we’ll keep using these posters to remind the Tories of popular support for our services.

In the meantime, I’ll be writing to the Taxpayers’ Alliance to ask if they’ll join with the Fabian Society to call for higher spending on maternity units and soldier’s equipment, rather than their current focus on even deeper cuts to corporation tax.

The agenda of employee abuse is laid out….by a Lib Dem

ConDems, Labour 8 Responses »

May 112011

As the Guardian reports:

The government is to extend its review of employment law to tighten up discrimination compensation and dilute rules protecting employees’ rights when a business is transferred from one owner to another.

Lib Dem minister Ed Davey will announce the new areas up for review at the Institute for Economic Affairs today as the government attempts to clear away restrictions for employers.

So abuse is to be permitted.

Protection of employees when a buisness is sold is to be diluted to allow for more privatisation and outsourcing – with intent to cut wages.

And all of this done at Thatcher’s favourite far-right think tank by a Lib Dem.

The abuse of the people of this country by a minority continues.

And let’s not pretend that the Lib Dems are part of a progressive majority. They’re not. The Orange Book ended that in their case.

So now Labour has to do this alone, or like in Canada, a new party has to emerge.

It’s hard to fathom how stupid the Lib Dem opposition to NHS reform is

ConDems, Conservatives, NHS Comments Off

May 102011

It is really very difficult to fathom how stupid the Liberal Democrats are.

As the Guardian reports:

The Treasury will only support GP-led consortiums if the new bodies have passed rigorous clinical and financial tests, the chancellor’s deputy said on Monday.

This happened on the day that the Royal College of General Practitioners submitted a report to the government making it very clear that they, and I suspect the vast majority of their members, are utterly opposed to the whole idea of GP led consortia running the NHS.

So here we have the brightest spark in government, the former PR officer of a national park, who has no qualification in finance or medicine telling GPs that they must prove their competence in both areas so that they can do something which they have already announced is utterly foolhardy, and bound to result in the destruction of the NHS, which they seek to preserve.

Now I admit I have some interest in this area as I am married to a GP. that means, because doctors seem to socialise with each other, but I know quite a lot of GPs and hospital doctors. Let me, on the basis of this knowledge, make two suggestions.

Ther first is that GPs are not medically qualified to run the NHS. They are very able people. They’ve dedicated vast numbers of hours to creating extraordinary skill in primary care. That means that they are the first port of call for those who wish to make contact with the NHS. But they have chosen, quite deliberately, not to be specialists. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken, including those GPs who like to claim they have a specialism. Their skill is in generalism, which is, unfortunately, a much underrated area of expertise. As a result, however, they have relatively little understanding of many areas of secondary care medicine, which is of course hospital-based, or of tertiary care, such as many mental health services. They know how to refer to these services, they know when to refer to these services,, and hopefully they do so appropriately, and effectively. But it does not mean they actually know how those services work, or that they are experts in them. As a result, they are not qualified to make decisions on resource allocation within them. That is glaringly obviously the case. But it means that they fail first test that Danny Alexander and the Liberal Democrats have set.

It is much easier to suggest that GPs will fail the second test. Precisely because GPs have spent so much time developing their clinical expertise they have not dedicated large amounts of their effort to developing their financial management skills. Nor have they needed to do so. Although they are technically self-employed, this is pretty technical. What they actually do is work in organisations that have a budget given to them, which means they have no obligation to go out and sell, or raise revenue, or worry about cash flow. The so-called businesses they manage expend most of their cash on salaries, property and minor medical disbursements. They are hardly complex enterprises. Outcomes are highly predictable once the budget for income is known. There is no reason why GPs should have skills to set variable budgets, make decisions on the allocation of resources, when they’ve never had to do so, or make decisions on investments, financing, or conflicting objectives. This has not been required of them so they will not have that skill set, and I’m delighted they don’t: I would much rather they were good GPs.

But what it does mean is that the Lib Dems are, as now seems to be their pattern, setting themselves up to look stupid. They may, of course, think they are clever in trying to undermine the Health and Social Care Bill by making sure the GPs cannot run consortia, but the reality is that if this is the outcome they achieve the Conservatives will simply put these consortia out to private companies. They will have to. Andrew Lansley’s illegal action in demanding the creation of consortia when there was no legal basis for doing so has already am effectively, destroyed the primary care trust structure that has run the NHS in England. So all the Lib Dems are doing is undermining GPs, looking stupid, alienating the public, and helping the Conservatives privatise the NHS.

Good work Danny Alexander. I hope the Grampian National Park will have you back as their PR officer when your days in Whitehall are over, soon. But on the basis of this evidence I wouldn’t offer you a job

As Chris Huhne tears the Coalition apart what is Labour’s big narrative to retake power?

ConDems, Conservatives, Labour, Uncategorized 9 Responses »

May 022011

The Guardian is reporting this morning that “the deepening loss of personal trust at the top of the coalition government engendered by the bitter AV referendum campaign was exposed when David Cameron was accused of a systematic and shortsighted attempt to trash Nick Clegg’s leadership”.

I am sure that is true.

I am eqaully sure that Chris Huhne is also going out of his way to trash Nick Clegg’s leadership – and with good reason, and that this fact is being ignored by the press.

But the truth is that this coalition government is being torn apart and it’s hard to see how it can survive another year, let alone the fixed term it wants.

There remains, of course, a chance that AV will get through.

If not there remains another hope – which is that the government will collapse before new electoral boundaries can be put in place, so preventing that gerrymandering act by the Tories, undertaken in their relentless pursuit of power in the interests of a tiny elite.

But is Labour ready for that challenge? And can it take power back so soon?

What will its big narrative be?

That’s the real question.

Time to call Centrica’s bluff – and use the N word (that’s N for nationalisation)

ConDems, Conservatives, Economics, Environment, Ethics 1 Response »

May 022011

The Guardian reports this morning:

The dispute between energy firms and the government over the level of tax paid for offshore UK drilling dramatically escalated on Sunday with British Gas threatening to shut down an important gas field on the Irish Sea.

Centrica, which owns British Gas, closed the Morecambe Bay field for routine maintenance and warned it may not reopen it because of the 12% tax rise on offshore drilling profits that was announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, in the budget in March.

Now I’m not saying Osborne / Alexander got their decision on extra energy taxes right – r managed them well – but I am saying this is posturing by Centrica. It’s a variation on the ‘if you tax us we’ll go away’ theme. As the Guardian also reports:

In February, Centrica reported record profits of £742m at British Gas – a 24% leap on a year earlier – provoking criticism from consumer groups. Centrica had pushed through a 7% increase in energy bills just two months earlier.

And there is, of course, a simple solution. If they refuse to extract the gas then we should nationalise their assets and do it instead. That was what British Gas was created to do. The mistake was Thatcher’s. She thought the private sector was efficient. That’s not true. But they’re definitely a bunch of charlatans when it comes to making threats about not paying tax – and it’s time to call their bluff.

The power of words

ConDems, Conservatives 1 Response »

Apr 152011

I know this is an advert, but it’s also really thought provoking, so worth sharing:

What is the new narrative we’re seeking?

What form of words tells the ConDems they’re wrong?

And gives people hope?

The time for pandering to the libertarian right is over – the time to tackle their extremism is now

ConDems, Conservatives, Economics, Ethics 9 Responses »

Apr 132011

I have a habit of tackling right-wing libertarian extremists in the UK – who seem to have taken a dislike to me as a result. I can live with that.

And I make no apology for my attitude towards them. Their self-interested greed threatens the well being of vast numbers of people in this country, and most especially the young, the old, the sick, the disabled and those unable to work for any reason – including those that are no fault of their own. All of these people they would leave to the vagaries of the market – knowing full well they do not have the means to take part in the market and that they are as a result destined to abject poverty.

It’s easy to assume that these people just populate the right wing blogosphere. But that, unfortunately, is not true. They also populate the Tory party. I hear Tory MPs like Mark Field promoting 15% flat taxes for the UK, based on Hong Kong with no VAT either.

And I hear the same sentiment echoed time and again by new entrants to parliament from the Tory right.

And I realise that these people are not there to promote society as we know it – but something very different indeed. They’re seeking to overthrow that society we have enjoyed and replace it with a very explicit culture where the haves take all, and the rest are condemned to serve them without hope, chance of change or any effective means of sustaining anything other than what will be a quite basic living – and certainly much worse than that which many enjoy now. You can’t remove the safety net from so many and deliver anything else.

I am glad that awareness of this is now growing – largely because the Tea Party and its associates have taken such a hold on the Republican party in the States and this same madness is becoming more explicit there as a result.

Paul Krugman has delivered listening attacks on Paul Ryan’s budget proposals over the last few days – all worth reading. As he makes clear – this is greed without economic analysis.

Martin Wolf has now joined in – no doubt influenced by his weekend trip to the States. As he says in the FT:

What does the rise of libertarianism portend for the future of the US? This is not a question of interest to Americans alone. It matters almost as much to the rest of the world. A part of the answer came with the publication of a fiscal plan, entitled “Path to Prosperity”, by Paul Ryan, Republican chairman of the house budget committee. The conclusion I draw is the opposite of its author’s: a higher tax burden is coming. But that leads to another conclusion: much conflict lies ahead, with huge implications for politics, federal finance and the US ability to play its historic role.

In can’t quote extensively, but note his conclusion:

The Ryan plan is a “reductio ad absurdum” – a disproof by taking a proposition to a logical conclusion. It would turn the government into a miserly provider of pensions and health insurance. These functions would absorb three-quarters of non-interest spending by 2050. Other functions, including even defence, would collapse. This is most unlikely to happen. Indeed, even if the government were astonishingly successful in curbing the growth of spending on health, the share of federal spending in GDP is almost certain to be above 20 per cent.

A long-term fiscal fight looms. The solution may even have to come out of a crisis. But Mr Ryan has given the president an opportunity, by defining what surely will not happen. Mr Obama must seize it.

Not just Mr Obama.

Mr Miliband and Mr Balls too – because this is not so far removed from right wing Tory thinking.

And even Orange Book Lib Dem thinking.

Yes, we’re in for a fight. And the right have to lose. For the sake of the people of the UK, US and around the world this abusive philosophy based on greed and exploitation has to be shown for what it is – a blatant attempt to abuse.