The Daily Mail, in an appalling diatribe this morning, argues that because in real terms public spending in 2014 will be at the same level as 2008 there is nothing for anyone to protest about.

It’s quite hard to assume anyone is stupid enough to write this so I presume the misinformation is deliberate, or originates in the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

The headline numbers are right. Albeit they assume the government can deliver its plans, which is unlikely.

But the fallacy is in assuming that the composition of the numbers in 2014 is the same as in 2008. Just look at the composition of spending in 2014 compared with 2008. Interest charges will be much higher. That’s not government’s fault: that’s bankers’ fault – and they’re the winners from it.

And look at unemployment. In 2008 there were 1.6 million unemployed. The number now is 2.5 million and is expected to rise over the coming years. So in that static spending we’re paying for nearly a million or so people to be unemployed and are providing for their dependents. But spending is remaining static.

That’s why there are cuts.

And that’s why the Mail is lying through its back teeth when claiming constant spending means there is no reason to protest.

 

Hand on heart, I do not want to be Labour leader | Jon Cruddas | Comment is free | The Guardian .

I like Jon Cruddas and have got to know him a bit over the last couple of years.

I like what he says here. And I admire him for saying it. His recipe is right. I think he’ also right to say he’s not the man to lead the party. But it has to listen to him.

His conclusion is spot on:

Labour has a chance to be bold. And at our boldest, we are Britain’s best hope for a freer more just country. The next few months will decide whether the party is ready to grasp that chance.

I hope they do.

 

As was widely reported before the election, George Osborne was the City’s fourth choice for Chancellor, coming last after Ken Clarke, Vince Cable and Alastair Darling.

Now he’s in office, none the less, he’s doing his very best to alienate even more of this support base.

First, he’s cut Civil Service bonuses. That’s going to really win over all those whose services he is now dependent upon.

And then he’s announced that the Treasury – the department he now heads – has been “cooking the books” – and he’s going to appoint an independent Office for Budget Responsibility to prepare “proper” national accounts and determine the parameters for budget forecasting.

All this on the day an FT columnist says:

Democracies cannot embrace central-bank independence unreservedly – least of all now.

There’s good reason for that. The decisions taken by central bankers are political – or should be. To pretend they’re objective is to deny reality- that there is no such thing as economic objectivity, and that the closer you come to it the more unrealistic are the objectives you set and the less acceptable and predictable the outcomes will be in reality.

The same will be true of the Office for Budget Responsibility. This won’t be objective. Nor will it remove politics from the process of budget setting. But it will do four things. First it will alienate the civil service – the heart of British democracy. Second it will ensure that the madness of neoliberal economics will be at the core of budget thinking – which will be incredibly harmful for us all. Thirdly it will let Osborne pass the buck for a while – as  Brown did – until deregulation and devolvement of responsibility brought the financial edifice crashing down. The same will surely happen again here. Finally, the democratic accountability of the UK will be undermined yet again as another part of our government falls into the hands of those economists and bankers who have already brought the economy to the edge of a precipice.

Apart from those appointed to the Office for Budget Responsibility there can’t be a person celebrating this.

And Osborne has proven his ability, yet again, to alienate everyone. If that were Machiavellian I’d understand. The trouble is that would require competence. And I don’t see that. I just think it’s alienation for the sake of it from a man who has previously managed his own bank account and a failed Tory election campaign. How did he get to run the economy?

 

UK: The Strange Death of the Rainbow Coalition | Social Europe Journal.

My friend and Compass writing colleague George Irwin has written:

To be sure, Britain today does not lack the issues to animate a more progressive politics — climate change, fighting poverty, minority rights, a fairer income distribution, to name but a few. But the centre-left is no longer to be found in a single party, and in some cases it is more engaged in grass-roots movements.

A new politics is needed, a politics of coalition between the different organisation and campaigns across the spectrum of centre-left parties. An essential ingredient of such politics is a change in the voting system, a new constitutional settlement which breaks with the smug insularity of those who argue for the unique virtue of Britain’s creaking voting arrangements. Theirs is the language of Thatcher and Sons, a language which must finally be abandoned if progressive politics is to thrive again in Britain.

I agree.

As I also agree with Polly Toynbee today who says that Labour need not rush a leadership election. Issues need to be decided first.

 

Did you see Vince Cable interviewed on television last night about his new appointment?

The deft, witty, always in command Vince looked like a man putting on a very brave act.

He stumbled for words. His posture was resigned.

Of course we now know he’d been appointed to be responsible for banking – to find George Osborne would not be letting him do the job.

If Vince was ever convinced of the merits of being a ConDem it was already clear he knew he’d been shafted.

He’s just the first to come to that realisation – and that there’s no way out for his party.

There will be a bloodbath soon. There is just no way most Lib Dems will pout up with this: they’ve been sold out by Clegg, Laws and the other free-market fundamentalists in their ranks.

I predict a split soon.

We got so close to PR. And now, maybe, two party politics might be restored. I do at least hope Vince has the courage to take his people back into a genuine third party.

 

Congratulations, Mr Cameron. Now learn the lessons of a dismal campaign | Tim Montgomerie | Comment is free | The Guardian .

Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome has written a 7,000 word dossier condemning Cameron’s management of the election campaign. As he has written in the Guardian:

Ahead of last week’s election, everything was set up for the Conservative party. The British economy was weak. Gordon Brown’s reputation was in tatters. The Labour party was divided. In contrast, Cameron was the most popular Tory leader for a generation in mid-term polls. The party was twice as well-funded as Labour and was able to afford the most professional marginal-seats operation ever seen in UK politics.

And yet, the Tories fell short.

That’s a massive understatement.

With all the money any party leader could dream of thanks to Ashcroft he failed. And now he’s in charge of our economy.

With Brown massively unpopular he couldn’t win the argument for his convictions – because as Simon Jenkins in the Guardian argues – he travels ideology-lite. He wnated – as Vince Cable rather nicely put it weeks ago – to get his friends noses in the trough. That was it.

And who is condemned most of all – George Osborne, as I predicted last Thursday. As Montgomerie says:

The shadow chancellor, George Osborne, never developed a consistent economic message

And this is the man who is now meant to close the deficit, reassure markets and avert another recession – all at the same time. Not a hope.

The message is clear – even the Tories think the team now running the country are second rate. And that’s on day #1.

Wait until May 2015 and see what they think then.

ConDem will be phrase the country will echo then.

 

I gather our new government is to last for five years

I give it the proverbial snowballs chance in hell of lasting that long.

Why?

Well take the aggrieved list of shadow cabinet members without seats.

And the Lib Dems who will defect to Labour before too long.

Two years I buy. Five, no way.

And by then do the Lib Dems seriously think there would be an identity left for them to present to the electorate?

I didn’t want a Tory government.

But now we have it I’m entirely confident it will be a disaster.

And because now there is just one party in opposition Labour cannot fail but win next time.

It won’t be fun until we get there.

But get there we will.

Now, time to move on.

The radical and international agenda beckons.

 

The BBC note that the Labour Party has effectively conceded that it’s out of office.

As I suggested at the weekend – this is the right option for Labour right now.

It has three things to do.

The first is to select an electable new leader with a deputy who between them can command cross party support. The Left must not be left out this time.

Second, it has to sit back for at least two years before pulling a Tory – Lib Dem edifice down. The pain has to be real in the country before an election is called – and the Tories will deliver just that, plus recession and rising unemployment.

Third, they have to become much, much more radical. They will be the sole opposition at the next election (Greens apart in the UK and nationalists elsewhere). The Lib Dems are heading to cease to be. In that case the reason for embracing neoliberalism and all the disasters that are following in its wake have ceased to exist.

But electoral reform has to remain on the agenda. We cannot afford the Tories ever having the chance to secure a majority in its won right – the prospect for democracy in the UK is just too horrible to contemplate.

The bedrock for a serious bounce exists.

And the poisoned chalice is David Cameron’s, topped up by Nick Clegg and his Orange Book friends.

The next two years will be horrid – but that was always going to be the case. But at least there is now a prospect of a freshly elected Labour government, soon.

 

Liberal Conspiracy » A majority of public prefer Lab-Libdem deal.

As Liberal Conspiracy notes:

A Populus poll for The Times suggests the public are open to a range of different outcomes from the inconclusive General Election.

The paper’s headline Public want Conservatives to share power with LibDems highlights the most popular option, though by a very narrow margin, as Peter Riddell reports.

And in fact a Labour-LibDem coalition (51 per cent) has more support than a full Tory-LibDem coalition (46 per cent, with 52 per cent against). A Tory minority government is just more popular than either (53 per cent), as long as it depends on LibDem support, and much the least popular option (29 per cent) if primarily based on an understanding with the Ulster Unionists.

We may see slightly different results as the question is asked in different ways, but the poll suggests that the public seem to support the politicians negotiating to deal with the hung Parliament outcome, and do not regard the outcome as a foregone conclusion.

My suspicion is Liberal Conspiracy have this right: the public did want a hung parliament and want politicians to realise none of them are right. If it stops them offering trite solutions to complex, all to the good.