General Chat

The policies of Stafford Cripps practically bankrupted the country and directly led to the collapse of Atlee's government and the Tories returning to power where they remained for 13 years. Among his many errors ( sky high taxation, unfunded liabilities ) the worst were attempting to maintain an artificially high exchange rate for sterling and suppression of domestic demand.

Anybody who thinks that a return to anything like this should get hold of a basic textbook on economics eg R Lipsey, Paul Einzig. Marx is good on analysing the problems of C19 capitalism hopeless on remedies and entirely deficient on C20 capitalism.

The core problem for any chancellor is that the electorate want a good standard of living, quality social services and an easy life. For the last half century this has been made possible by a mix of cheap imports, letting the currency slide and ever rising private and government debt. A flood of cheap immigrant labour helps which is why in office the Tories have done little about it.

There are two basic options:

(a) work a lot harder and be more productive, government spending cuts - this is what Germany has done with great success
(b) lots of waffle and let inflation erode the debt over time - this is what the UK and France have always done. France usually take it to the limit with a default. The relationship between France and Germany over the €uro will hit the buffers before the end of Holland's term with unpredictable consequences.

The new Gov of the Bank of England believes in (b). That is why the £ has been in skid row for the last month or so. It is also why the stock market has been whizzing up.

(b) always does the trick in the end so long as it not allowed to explode. It is also fine for the holders of mortgages, land and property such as art. It is usually very rough on savers and anybody on a relatively fixed income such as state employees, pensioners and people with some or all of their income from state benefits.

Osbourne intends a Barber type boomlet running up to the election and will claim credit for the miracle. Right afterwards he will clamp down. The naive Milliband is walking straight into the trap. Don't forget that the Tories have won more elections than any other party in a democracy, ever.

It strikes me Rollo that the last 2 Prime Ministers have walked into a trap.

Gordon Brown was offered a poisoned chalice by Tony Blair - but no one could have ever realised how hopeless he would be as a leader (cf Michael Foot in 1980's).

Cameron and Osborne are now dead in the water politically. And so is Clegg. Thye will never properly recover from this.

Labour will win in 2015. As long as they shackle Miliband and don't let him speak. Miliband will become third PM to walk into same trap.

New leader of Tories. New leader of Libs.

Was Cripps a Keynesian? I was in 1960's and thought it was the answer to no unemployment and greater prosperity. Bit like pyramid selling though, and it only worked up to a point. Now, every time I hear Ed Balls spouting Keynes I just think "here we go again" :-( :-(

I try not to get into political debate NOT because i don't understand on the contrery i have always taken an interest in all political parties but i tend not to enter debates like this because in my experience most voters are politically illiterate and simply vote for the party based on who their fathers and forefathers voted for so i see no point

years ago i was at a the local colliery "where my father worked" i was talking to some miners about labour v conservatives Every one admitted they always had a better standard of living when we had a conservative administration but had to vote labour, I asked them If you where better off with a conservative Government why vote Labour, Answer "because it's labour and they stand for the working man" one said to me the clue is in the name,

All that aside in my life time all i see is we have a labour government until they have run out of money then the conservatives come back sort the mess out and put us back into prosperity, to then have another labour government, it's a never ending cycle

All my family are life long labour voters and none have a clue what their voting for, I broke the mould and have alway vote conservative based on what each party has to offer and what i want out of life for me and my family

Roy

Sorry for being off topic but in the light of other posts i felt the need :-P

The problem with economists is their opinions can be very varied and conflicting, depending on what side of the fence they sit on, classical or neo-classical.

Many criticised Cripps's policies and many respected them. In his last budget as chancellor, he started a massive house building programme as house building had been severely reduced due to the war and austerity measures, income tax was reduced for low-income earners, and spending on health and education was increased.

Many economists disliked Cripps's attitude and what they considered to be his interventionist policies, these made him very unpopular with some, however he did earn respect for sticking to his convictions and his relentless efforts to kick start the economy after a long period of austerity.

And Yes - I am and always have been a supporter of the Keynesian theory and I also agree that all political parties need to be very wary that they do not walk into a trap set by the other parties - politics can be a dangerous and devious game ;-)

Roy. Agree with your analysis a bit. But to say that the Major Government was doing well is to have memory loss.

Blair was voted in by much of the left wing of traditional Tories. We all forget how popular he once was.

And I reckon it was MacMillan that got us started into this mess we have had for 50 years now.

No memory loss John, You said it yourself,

Blair was voted in by much of the "left wing" of traditional Tories

The Major Government had it's problem but In truth It was more a personality thing,

When Blair won the election the country was prosperous, Even Brown once he saw the books stated how lucky he was to have inherited a thriving economy

Pity Osborne couldn't say the same

Roy

John I hardly think we have been in a "mess" for fifty years.
Thatcher may have had her faults but we did see a period of excellent economic growth and prosperity. This is reflected in the fact that she was the longest serving prime minister of the 20th century so she must have been doing something right. The late 80s and early 90s were a good time for many.
Also, the 60s saw growth both for the economy and for the individual.

I compare the labour party to my first wife,

Once she saw my bank account she couldn't wait to empty it then when that had all gone the credit card was rapidly Maxed out,

Roy

I believe all political leaders, Thatcher, Major, Blair, and Brown, plus the Bankers, contributed to the financial crisis, but let us not cast aside the one who started it, which was Margaret Thatcher when she got into bed with Ronald Regan, unfortunate Major, Blair, and Brown, continued with the policies she put in place, to quote from a newspaper article in 2008:-

"Many of the financial industry's excesses flow directly from the political cover given to its activities, especially in the US and Britain, since the Thatcher and Reagan years in the 1980's. Within a year of Big Bang in 1986, when the City was deregulated, it became conventional wisdom to believe that management of the economy was best left to global market forces"

Blame is irrelevant now as you cannot turn the clock back, what is important is that lessons are learned.

It's a bit sweeping to say most voters are politically illiterate Roy, and that they vote as their parents voted. I do, but on my own research/opinions...not because my mum did, if that were the case my brother would vote the same as me, and he doesn't usually.

What I do see is that people vote based on who was in power at the 'best time' for them financially which is NOT always the same as voting for the party who provided the 'best time' financially for the majority.

Memories are sometimes very short when it comes to politics... there will be people complaining now who forget that they voted for this government ;-)

I think they're mostly much of a muchness, whatever party, whatever leader. I really don't believe any of them, Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron made any decisions themselves, can't imagine any of the above getting up one morning and saying, "think we'll go to war today", they are told what to do/say by others, probably a central body which controls most of the world.

I'm a great believer of The Bilderberg Group theory, makes sense to me.

OneFootInTheGrave , You have a point but You can hardly blame Margaret Thatcher for something that happend on someone elses watch,

Boeing built the aircraft that crashed into the twin towers but no one blames Boeing for that

Roy

Porkie_Pie, having been brought up in the 1940's and 1950's in a Scottish mining village I can see where you are coming from and I vehemently defend any individual's right to vote for whatever political party they choose, it is their choice and their choice alone to do that.

Unfortunately over the past 30 years I have found myself in the position that I have decided not to cast my vote, the reason is simple, I have known personally, several politicians over my life, alas they are no longer with us, but every one of them put their country before self, sadly I have formed the view over the years that there are very few politicians with that attitude and integrity about today :-(

Many politicians over the past 30 years have cemented my view that they are only in parliament to serve their own selfish ideological interests, and many of the others are there, to use the scenario of that game show "In It To Win It" - to increase their bank balance as we saw from the expense scandals :-|

Just as I would defend any individual's right to vote for whatever political party they choose, I defend my right not to vote :-)

OneFootInTheGrave, I totaly agree with all of that

Roy

Lynda isn't the Bilderberg Group the one composed of Interstellar lizards, according to David Icke?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=172434

Roy,your post struck a chord with me as when I got the vote I thought it a bit rash to give me a say without at least some training in how things operated politically and financially in the country!!

OFITG that is the problem with people too..........how many vote for what is good for the country? They do as Roy says and vote for who their fathers, forefathers voted for or for who they think will improve their own financial lot.

If we keep lumping tax onto the well off, more of them will leave the country as Muffy says. They may also take with them their businessess that provide livelihoods for many more.

If you are seriously rich where just where you pay tax and how much is largely a life style choice. Qualifying as "seriously" rich is a journey a long, long way past £ 2M. One of the amusing aspects of English life is that so many people with a mortgage on a 5 bed house, a year old Audi (also on tick) and an amex card consider themselves to be wealthy. Hey ho.

Labour and the LibDims have this in common, they both believe in the ideas of the Levelers such that tax as a method of social engineering is a good thing and blessed in heaven regardless of other considerations. At the same time they love to live to consort with the truly wealthy (Mandelson) or ape their less appealing behaviour (Hune).

Hence the well worn but apt phrase "Bollinger Marxist".

Modern Tories are for the most part considered well beyond the fringe for the UK's established wealth and too stupid for those who have made their fortunes more recently. Cameron just cannot help coming over as the eternal sprog.

All the same any chance of a "mansion tax" in this government is nil. Clegg and Co. are just beginning to lay out their stall for the next election.

Currently the Tories are in a bit of a bind, caught between a desire to balance the books and another to cut tax and doing neither. It would help if they realized that an economy is not the same thing as a medium sized company and that presenting themselves as some sort of house trained socialist party is not really going to cut the mustard.

At least Osbourne has realized that sums are not his forte, let's hope that the Canadians will make a better fist at running the old country.

My relly has a flat in Kensington. He bought it as a basement ruin, his main and only residence. He has spent a fair bit tarting it up, about the same as for a couple of buy-2-lets in Leeds. It remains however no bigger and in the same place as the former butler's accommodation. He does not consider it a "mansion" or that he is one of the "filthy rich" especially now.

Paying, say, 3% p.a. on the current value out of taxable income would be utterly impossible. Maybe a re run of the "compounding" popular with Cromwell's commonwealth government is what Clegg has in mind.

Nick Clegg would face £150,000-a-year bill for his official country retreat under his own mansion tax plan

Nick Clegg's plan to introduce a mansion tax on expensive properties would mean a charge of £150,000 a year on his country retreat Chevening House, it was revealed last night.

The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to use Chevening, which has 115 rooms and is set in 3,500 acres of Kent countryside, as a perk of his Cabinet position.

According to the House of Commons Library, council tax at Chevening is the responsibility of the Chevening Trust, which has run the stately home since 1967 when it was left to the nation by Lord Stanhope.

However, last night a spokesman for Mr Clegg said: "Council tax is currently paid at Chevening House but it is met by the Government, rather than the trustees, and.
given the current arrangements, if a mansion tax was introduced, it is highly likely there would be no loss of revenue – as it would be paid by the Government to the Government, as is already the case for many other taxes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287264/Nick-Clegg-face-150-000-year-official-country-retreat-mansion-tax-plan.html

So basically the mansion tax will not affect Nick Clegg because the tax payer is going to paying the mansion tax for him,

No surprises their then

Roy

It won't happen. Far too many MPs and their relatives of all political stripes would have to pay the tax. They don't have the cash flow to cover it. It is just the LibDems flying a kite. It does though give an insight into the mindset of this party.

In any case a bit like inheritance tax it would be fairly easy for the seriously rich to avoid "mansion tax" altogether regarding their personal income. Anybody who thinks a £ 2M property anywhere in the South east, Cambridge or the M4 corridor let alone London is owned by the seriously rich must be a fully paid up member of the Levellers. Seriously rich does not mean an Audi A6, £ 100 K pa and a monster mortgage.

The essential difference between taxes on owner occupied private property and the "bedroom tax" is pretty obvious. Most private property has been paid for out of taxed income (excluding many MPs, Non-DOMS ). Social housing has been paid for by other people's taxes.

The LIbDems want to go beyond new arrangements for social housing and also force people out of private property where it is " too big for their needs ".

Social housing is for need where people need accommodation and cannot afford it on the private market. I cannot see any logic in the state subsidising the rent on a three bedroom house for a couple whose children have left or a single person with a 2 bedroom flat. Still less for inherited tenancies.

That being said bringing in such a new arrangement at short notice when the chances of the people affected being able to move are near zero is obviously wrong. The "bedroom tax" should only be allowed where there is alternative downsized accommodation in the same area AND removal costs met to at least by 50% by a grant. Moreover anybody with a secured tenancy should keep that status after downsizing.

The Tories seem determined not just to lose the next election but to sink without trace.

Just how large numbers of Londoners being despatched to Margate and points north of Watford while the accommodation is taken over by incoming Bulgarians et al is going to play will be interesting.

(Social housing in east London, Islington and Westminster is already largely under the control of ethnic mafia. Once the Bulgars et al decide to cut a slice of the pie it could become interesting. )

The whole sorry saga reminds me of the forcible removal of the white working class from east London to "new town" housing estates in Essex, Surrey and Kent in the 1950s and 1960s. Tory housing policy is to repeat this stunt.

Once the property is empty it does not have to be re let for social housing but can be sold off. Buy to let anyone ? IMHO making a killing out of London social housing is really what this is all about. Same idea as selling off the forests but much more lucrative.

The Tories' main hope is the utter lack of any credible ideas from Labour and the mendacity of the LibDems. Into every vacuum comes a filling, here comes Grillo in Italy, UKIP in England. Clegg should be grateful that his PR fox was shot otherwise the next election would put 100+ UKIPs in parliament lol.

Goldthorpe and Lockwood were right.