I believe that government can do things. It may not be a popular position but all the evidence I can see suggests it is true. Break down what government actually does and you find high popularity ratings for quite a lot of it.
And then politicians spoil the show, deliberately. Take news from the last twenty four hours as an example.
First there was the issue of 424 announcements on the last day parliament was sitting this year. That was deliberate news overload in the hope that the government could be unaccountable for its action. To describe such behaviour as contemptuous of parliament, of democracy and so of us all is to be kind to it.
Then I note the story in the Mail that notes research by Which? This suggests that, on average, callers to HMRC waited 38 minutes to be answered - double the wait found in a similar survey a year ago. Many waited more than an hour. Some might say that this proves the need for a digital HMRC, but no it does not. It proves the need for more and better trained staff at HMRC. It is contemptuous not to provide people with the service they require when asking them to pay tax.
And talking of tax, there was the release of research on the bedroom tax. It was widely suggested that this would be massively penal. And so it has been proved to be: 57 per cent of the people affected by the Bedroom Tax had had to cut back on spending on essentials. Essentials means things like food. And children do, of course, suffer as a result. That's contemptuous, of people's needs and the value in their lives.
Anything else? Yes: I have not finished yet. The government has announced cuts of 6.7% in local authority funding. And has said that all such funding will have to be raised locally by 2020, using devolved business rates. First, this is contemptuous of those who need social services local authorities supply. Second, it's contemptuous of local government, who are being forced to do the government's dirty work. Third, it's contemptuous of regional differences in the UK: it is impossible to raise the funding required locally to meet need in many areas precisely because that need is driven by the poor state of the local economy. The government is contemptuous of this.
And whatever you do don't challenge the government. The Lords did, and will be stripped of their powers as a result.
Government can, and should, work. I explain how in my book The Courageous State. But we are living in a contemptuous state. And we are all paying the price for that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What I find contemptuous and arrogant is the continued government insistence that the markets are working and that their management is responsible. To Hell with the evidence that’s just leftist misinformation.
From the last 24 hours
Homeless families at the highest number for 12 years (up 46% this year) and the demand for affordable housing outstrips supply by a factor of at least 2. The only related concrete action to correct a delinquent market appears to be the BoE making plans to manage the real possibility of a collapse in the buy to let sector.
The largest fine on record for the total disregard shown to customers of NPower over a period of years. Luckily profits for this member of the effective power supply club should render this a light slap on the legs.
Today we hear that the digital calculation of financial matters in divorce cases has been wrong for 20 months. That bodes well for HMRC’s plans since it joins a huge catalogue of inept technological initiatives by governments of all colours. In fact I can’t think of one major technology project driven by government that has gone well.
Bill Mitchell’s observation as part of his blog today is apposite here :
“The mainstream economists …… push their claim that government policy interventions can no longer be of benefit to the economy unless they take the form of increased deregulation of the financial and labour market and massive cuts in government spending.
Of course, they exclude any government spending from the cuts that might be of benefit to themselves or the corporate interests that they take succour from.”
sickening-and one has to work hard not to feel consumed by incandescent anger.
I couldn’t agree more. All this is of course in the context of a ruling party who only have a majority of 12, but who are acting as if the figure was ten times that amount.
Given a large amount of gerrymandering…..fiddling the electoral register is a goody…..and the boundary changes, I think they can count on around a 50-seat majority next time (unless they pee-off the pensioners)
After all, they are rapidly de-lousing London of low-income residents..
Contemptuous and contemptible. Here is the face of the contemptible one (among many)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/17/osborne-hands-advisers-big-pay-rises-while-freezing-public-sector-wages
“George Osborne has given the adviser responsible for his new image a promotion and a pay rise of more than 40%, and boosted the number of his political aides by three while asking public-sector workers to accept a pay freeze.
Thea Rogers, a close associate of Osborne, received the biggest rise among all the political special advisers across government, an increase of 42% since the figures were released last November, giving her £98,000. She is now his chief of staff.
A former BBC producer who once worked with the corporation’s former political editor Nick Robinson, she is said to have been responsible for Osborne’s Caesar-style haircut and for placing him on the 5:2 diet. A year ago, she acted as a special adviser, handling his image and events. ”
Actually, beyond contempt.
Totally agree. Arrogant vanity. Who do the Tory party truly admire. Is there amongst them an honourable man or woman who does not worship market forces. In the event of them losing popularity with those who voted for them, may the day dawn when each of us in society can share in a part of the riches they withhold . Words that fall on deaf ears. If I had a great deal of money I would back you Mr Murphy to start a political party, if you could be persuaded. Alas I am deficient in the necessary funds.
And what about the Government’s backtracking on their PROMISE not to allow fracking in our – I stress OUR!!! – National Parks?
This is not only CONTEMPTUOUS of US by THEM, it is also CONTEMPTIBLE OF THEM, given not only their promise, but also the fact that fracking:
a) Has been shown to be massively damaging to the environment (I recall seeing on FaceBook a wonderful clip of a hearing in, I think, Nebraska, where a farmer opposed to fracking brought in a jug of groundwater – noisome in the extreme, and heavily polluted as a result of fracking – poured out several glasses, and bade the “bought and sold” members of the Hearing Panel to drink it, all on TV. Of course, they refused!)
b) Is ruinously expensive and ineffective, as American experience shows.
c) Is not only NOT necessary, but is actually CONTRARY to necessity, given that it is estimated that 80% of the known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground, if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.
But, of course, this shyster Government and their equally shyster chums, will press ahead, leaving environmental degradation behind them, as they run off with their ill-gotten, and equally ill-working, gains (given the destruction they will leave behind them).
The Government and its cronies more and more resembles a bank robbery gang, holding up society with their weapon of “an absolute majority” in Parliament, garnered on a mere 0.8% increase in their vote, amounting to just 24% of the total electorate, where it is estimated that if only 900+ votes had changed hands, the Tories would not have had a majority (See http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900).
Hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy as the expression of the people’s will, is it? No wonder there’s a groundswell to see the introduction of PR. But Blair bottled it, alas, way back in 2000, by failing to implement the Jenkins’ Report.
Sorry – the reference should read
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900-5682492#ICID=sharebar_twitterhttp://
Sandra Steingraber led a successful fight to protect New York from fracking. She is a scientist and she says, ‘there is no safe fracking’.
Prof Anthony Ingraffea also worth listening to. We have a battle on our hands here in Lancashire.
Caudrilla have placed about 80 or so seismic monitors around the sites they are eager to frack.
They don’t care about people or wild life. The protection and nurturing of our land is paramount. It is OUR land damn you.
And an economist’s aphorism to add to your collection: monopolists regard their customers with contempt.
You’ll be reminded, every time you use a public service that’s been sold as a profitable monopoly to a private sector partner of the contemptuous state.
I spent a year , with Liberty, working towards a High Court Appeal for a judicial review of the Bedroom Tax. It’s now out of the news but the hardship continues. My own MP (inherited wealth Tory who files expenses for his HoCommons sandwiches) called it the bedroom Tax at first in correspondence then hastily changed it to the orwellian ‘Spare room subsidy.’ It’s a failed policy, of course BUT we need to remember that it’s main aim, to create tension between home buyers and the social sector (divide and rule) was very successful – I don’t think I can forgive Milliband’s Labour for taking nearly a year to decide to oppose it waiting to see whether the Overton Window would open. Beyond disgraceful.
As you allude to Simon it is not just the Government which forms part of the Contemptuous State but also key sections of the opposition parties.
It is doubtless still the case that should those sections of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who actually understand evidence based policy and know what their job is actually stand up and try to properly oppose you would have a parade of “Progress” (sic) members rampaging through the media using terms such as ” anti business”, “we have to be competitive”,”we need to trust the market” etc.
And no doubt these people stifle meaningful opposition from within the SC and PLP to prevent any alternative narrative or analysis by labelling anyone who fails to kow tow to the neo liberal, neo con one true faith as “loony lefties” and “£3 revolutionaries.”.
The first step in tackling this is to get the opposition doing its job rather than being hamstrung by this cult whose mindsets are still stuck in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This week we have those well known pantomime dames Kinnock and Mandleson pontificating from the Lords about essentially continuing with this approach. The spectacle of the currently main political opposition party being cuckolded for so long is bad not only for democracy but also for basic survival.
What a lovely sentence, Dave – “those well known pantomime Dames pontificating from the Lords” I am left trying to think of a way it could be incorporated into “The Twelve Days of Christmas!”
Back in real life…..
…..Labour brought the policy in but made sure it only hit private renters (who supposedly are richer and so more likely to vote Blue)…..the Conservatives have now extended it to social tenants (who are supposedly more likely to vote Red).
FPTP doesn’t show the will of the people but let’s not pretend the Left had any mandate whatsoever. PR would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition with presumably more right wing policies.
You can’t say that
Voting would have changed
Your conclusion is baseless
A fair point. But no more baseless than people constantly bleating about how unfair it is that 37% of the voters gave the Tories a majority (and of course they like to assume all non voters would vote for the left to get them to their 24% “outrage”). The same people weren’t whining when Labour won a larger majority on 35% of the vote.
What we know for certain is this:
1) The current system gave the Tories a majority
2) Labour were soundly beaten
3) Best guess of PR outcome would be Tory + UKIP
I’m really not sure how the Left feel hard done by from the last election. They were soundly beaten.
I would risk an outcome I do not like in the basis of a better voting system
Why not embrace the idea?
Yep, agree Mr. M – voting under PR would have changed the results given that Blues + Purples, where I live, hammers Reds + Others….and so would have changed a Red seat to a Blue one.
I’m all for PR incidentally as I’ve long thought that it was time it was brought in.
I’d also introduce the requirement for full photo-IDs of voters and the virtual abolition of postal voting – just like they have in Northern Ireland in fact.
I know it’s late in the day on this discussion, but “Bamboo in Paw” really CAN’T have read my post above about the 900 votes difference3, that enabled the Tories to claim an absolute majority on just 24% !!!!!! of the total electorate (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900-5682492#ICID=sharebar_twitterhttp://
Labour may have been soundly beaten, but the Tories sure as hell didn’t really win. but rather stumbled over the line to claim “victory” on a really bogus basis: for the majority of the electorate DID NOT VOTE FOR THEM, so they shouldn’t be behaving like the arrogant tyrants they are.
We simply CANNOT carry on with such a palsied electoral system – it’s an insult to the electorate.
I agree
I certainly agree that PR is a better system for our current multi party offering at present. Doesn’t seem to be anyone here arguing otherwise.
However I see there are new posts making absurd observations. A party now doesn’t have legitimacy because the majority didn’t vote for it? I assume we agree this is ridiculous given that it would imply Blair didn’t have a mandate in 1997?
People need to look beyond their tribal instincts. Tories won with a slim majority in 2015. Labour the same in 2005. Argue for electoral reform for sure and I’ll agree. But please stop the tiresome “24%” party line.
Few here are, I suspect happy with the 1997 outcome
Maybe we would have been better off without it
And 24% is simply correct
No doubt that is why you find it tiresome
The problem is your position is also baseless: you have no evidence to suggest that voting would have been significantly different under PR.
In any event, you can easily construct an argument that UKIP would have done better under PR, thus making a Con-UKIP coalition even more likely in those circumstances. Remember, contrary to virtually all expectations, UKIP hurt Labour far more than they hurt the Tories in May (this is a matter of fact, incidentally, and particularly in the north of England).
Hang on
I said we don’t know
Is that wrong?
You know full well that the reason it is tiresome is that the people who endlessly repeat the 24% stat scream in horror as if this is something new.
Labour were 21.5% for the same stat in 2005, and they secured a majority of 66.
All I’m asking is for even handedness. But that seems to be beyond the realm of this blog.
You have even handed eas
I don’t like our voting system
Nor do many others commenting
You don’t seem able to handle that
The problem is all yours
I know this might seem to be “flogging a dead quadruped”, MrMs ” Bamboo in paw”, but, given the fact that the Tories’ Trade Union Bill will bring in a requirement for a 40% threshold in a vote to strike, where the 40% will relate to the TOTAL membership, so that 100% of 39.99% of a Union could vote to strike, and the strike would be illegal, I adjudge you to be on catastrophically weak ground in arguing that the Tories “won”, rather than, as I said, stumbled over the line.
There is simply NO mandate for all they are doing, and only would (possibly) be if they had achieved of 50% of the total electorate – a rider that applies, I agree, even to Blair’s 1997 landslide – and even then, majoritarian ” dictatorship” is still a “dictatorship” (as argued by Lord Hailsham, before Thatcher swept to power on a lower %age of the vote than Sir Alec Douglas-Home LOST on in 1964, whereupon that great truth was conveniently forgotten by our “elected” “Great Helmsman”, in her haste to tear up everything built up by communal effort and sacrifice since the start of WWll.) and we require a political system that COMPELS the ” winners” to pay cognizance to the “losers”, by truly taking on board their concerns, if those concerns go to the root of the constitution – as things like gerrymandering the boundaries, the Electoral Register, reducing the nber of MP’s, and bringing in Trade Union laws which the Tory, David Davis, said would not have been put of place on Franco’s Spain.
Only PR will enable this to have a chance of occurring – not perfect, but bettercrhan being ruled by rulers such as our current Bullingdon Mafiosi.
Agreed
“And 24% is simply correct”
It may be correct but it’s also completely stupid and meaningless. How many voted for Labour? 20%. Should they be in office based on that figure?
The criticism is of the voting system
Don’t you get it?
Yet another example of how the Westminster system is not and has never been democratic – lets face it real democracy is not what the wealthy and powerful ever want to see in any government!
It’s hard to blame politicians personally (of any side) for doing what is best (and logical) to support their own interests when in government, that after all is what politics in this country is all about. When you have a system which essentially enforces a two party state the “them and us” mentality is inevitable.
Systemic problems need systemic solutions, unfortunately neither of the two main parties will make the necessary changes as it is not in their interests. Further breakdown of the democratic political process seems sadly likely before the wider population wakes up and votes for a party committed to constitutional and electoral reform.
While we are on about gov contempt….
http://rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/why-we-cannot-trust-tories-on-banking.html
Indeed, it seems that the burden of proof will be on the FCA in regard to senior banking malfeasance:
“That will shift the ‘burden of proof’ from bankers themselves to organisations like the Financial Conduct Authority, making it more expensive to pursue high-salaried bosses.
Lib Dem Baroness Kramer accused “outrageous” George Osborne of “buckling to pressure from his friends in the banks” – and warned it could allow bosses to turn a blind eye to another LIBOR rate-rigging scandal.”
You’re an angry man Richard with a lot of hate. You defy your Mormon beliefs with the hate you spew out everyday. If so hippocritical it’s tragic.
Actually, I’m a Quaker
And Quakers seem really quite happy about what I am doing
But why let that worry you?
You can’t tell the difference between Quakers and the Mormons, after all
Time to do a little more research, I suggest
“Time to do a little more research, I suggest”
I wouldn’t hold your breath. One of the fundamental traits of those who practice projection is that they tend not to bother with an evidence based approach, preferring instead the faux certainties of blind faith.
What you are dealing with here is a mindset which operates on the basis of this is so because I say it is so. Consequently, all you get is a statement posing as as conclusion with absolutely no supporting argument or evidence. Suggesting the need for more research is, in such cases, akin to expecting Beelzubub to convert to Catholicism.
you might be right. One of the meanings of ‘hippo’ is an Amazon. Richard has been critical of them.
Hypocritical is about believing one thing and doing another.
The Richard in question usually delivers several mails a day telling me I am a hypocrite, and worse
It’s what a blogger expects
I feel sorry that he can carry such a burden of continuing dislike
And a political party committed to reversing this would be nice to see…
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/18/britain-private-wealth-owned-by-top-10-of-households
I agree
I would
See The Joy of Tax
I can’t disagree with a lot of the above.
But maybe another way of looking at this is that those at the top seem to be making the most of what limited time they actually will have to make the most of it.
These digressions seem like the typical behaviour we see in empires and states (and systems) that are actually coming to an end. They go from over consuming the output of society to consuming the very structures that helped them get to the top in the first place. It’s almost a form of self-destruction we are witnessing.
“…those at the top seem to be making the most of what limited time they actually will have to make the most of it.”
Yes, it’s almost biblical in its calamity!
“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” Revelations 12:12
Let’s hope you’re right about the last gasp of a system coming to an end. It seems very doubtful the economy is going to deliver for most people (and incidentally although fracking has been made easier is it commercially viable?) Certainly I doubt the Tory majority of 12 or so will look so reliable whichever way the EU referendum goes and that, we are told, is not far away.
On the subject of fracking the current price of oil is making it uneconomic for US fracking companies. Yet despite this the Contemptuous State not only ignores its own free market rhetoric on this issue to steam ahead with fracking (including under our National Parks) but at the same time uses the same free market bullshit to allow our coal and steel industries to close down (Kellingly Colliery, the last deep mine in the UK which was opened in 1965, has closed today).
You could not make this stuff up yet the fact remains that there exists millions of registered voters out there who either are incapable or wilfully unwilling to join the dots.
Agreed
Addendum: Channel 4 News just reported the redundancy pay for a miner with 39 years service who has just lost his job at Kellingly is a whopping £13,000. That’s £333 for every years service.
Meanwhile a few miles down the road the Drax power station continues to burn both imported coal and, to achieve emissions targets, wood chippings. Isn’t free market economics wonderful.
That redundancy is insulting
He didn’t even get the statutory maximum redundancy pay available (£14,250.00)
Weird. Great employer..
Especially as 15.7 million registered voters did not bother to vote last time.
Next time there will be a whole rake of unregistered voters not able to register…
I’m not convinced that figure is accurate or reflects what actually happened.
Living in a constituency in which the choice was, to use a metaphor, either Red (Coca) Cola, Blue (Pepsi) Cola, Yellow (Virgin) Cola, and Purple (Generic Supermarket) Cola but no water, this household of four discussed the issue at length,went to the polling station and in effect voted for non of the above.
I spent a good number of weeks over the summer, to no avail, attempting to find a set of figures (nationally and by constituency) anywhere which included a column for spoilt ballot papers, eventually arriving at the conclusion that no such data existed and that spoilt ballot papers had been inaccurately officially classified as non voting -ie had not actually turned up at the polling station, had not been issued a ballot paper, not recorded as having received a ballot paper, not marking a ballot paper in any way, and not placed said ballot paper in the ballot box.
In the absence of such a set of figures it is not possible to arrive at any meaningful conclusion as to how many registered voters never actually bothered to turn up to vote which is the only reasonable definition of a non voter.
Oh.
The USA just passed into law the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, effectively ending the US citizens right to privacy….
Now, just how much of our data, and medical data too, is stored on US cloud storage….
Oh, and what about the rights of US citizens (and everyone else for that matter) to live their lives without fear of terrorism? Quid pro Quo.
Most of the fear of terrorism is wholly misplaced
This is merely an educated guess mind but I’d hazard that there are a substantial number of people still alive, not to mention of course the dead ones, in places like Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, Cambodia, Vietnam, Phillipines, Libya, Iran, etc etc who would have something meaningful to say about the subject of terrorism.
You really don’t know you’re born Mike.
Nothing seems to have changed since the days of US General Smedley Butler, whose book War is a racket you would most certainly benefit from Mike. Probably the most appropriate of his observations being:
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902—1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Or maybe not? Samuel Johnson is said to have had very definite views on the subject of patriotism; it is a shame he is no longer with us to make known his observations on the doctine of exceptionalism.
We never had the level of nonsense during the IRA bombing campaigns. Seems to me some people need to visit the local medics pronto to get themselves a backbone.
Some quote
http://www.votenone.org.uk/spoilt-ballot-results-2015.html
Thanks John.
Gary Younge from the Guardian had the following to say (from a speech given at the launch of the Stuart Hall Foundation):
“The left has yet to work out how to exercise power in the interests of those who put it there”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/19/left-grassroots-global-capital-jeremy-corbyn
I find this remark contains both a profound truth and a profound falsehood.
The truth is that the left has to learn how to exercise power if it is ever given to them by the electorate. The right evidently know the meaning of power, and are using it to entrench their current stronghold in the political arena. But to overcome it, the left must do more than expose and ridicule the contemptuous and contemptible actions of the state. They must come up with positive, practical alternatives, much as Richard is doing with his blogs and publications.
The falsehood is that such power should be exercised in the interests of those who vote for it. If that were the case, then we should expect a contemptuous state against those who oppose it, no matter who is governing. No, the left must aspire to exercise power in the interests of all, focussing on social interests and the common good.
Have we grown so used to the right wing narrative of competition and freedom of capital, that we cannot conceive a government acting in anything other than its own self-interest?
Excellent point
I will recall it