2010: A crunch year for us progressives
[image by Gary Barker]
A General Election which always is a watershed moment in any countries political history.
This one will see a resurgent Conservative Party face an increasingly tired looking Labour Party and a Liberal Democrat Party that has aspirations to greatness.
Meanwhile, the Green Party could well be on the cusp of a breakthrough moment in Brighton Pavilion.
It is my sincere belief that David Cameron is wrong when he says that people throughout politics share a commitment to progress and that all the signs indicate the election of a Conservative government (with or without assistance from AN Other in the form of a coalition) will damage the cause of progress dramatically in this country.
Given that the question becomes for progressives; how do we stop this occurring? Do we look to Labour, the Lib Dems or the Greens?
continue reading… »
Tory dodgy stats on Inheritance Tax laid bare
Fabian Research Director Tim Horton’s proposal that the inheritance tax thresholds should be frozen was adopted by the government in November’s pre-budget report.
He has letters in The Guardian and (why only preach to the converted) The Telegraph pointing to just one of the glaringly obvious flaws in Phillip Hammond’s rather back of the envelope claim that 4 million people will now be liable for inheritance tax, put out by the shadow Treasury Secretary during the holiday period.
Here’s The Telegraph letter.
SIR – The Conservatives’ claim that four million face inheritance tax (report, December 29) is wrong.
continue reading… »
Tory strategy: to hope for a credit downgrade
I smiled a rueful smile when I heard David Cameron call for a ‘good clean fight’ in the forthcoming general election.
Let’s set aside for the moment the fact by pouring millions of Lord Ashcroft mega-wealth into marginal constituencies, the Conservatives are effectively buying up seats, while having the gall to suggest that it is the Labour party that prey to the agenda of its key financial backers.
What is new this time around is that the result of the election may be decided on the basis of a single, methodologically obscure decision by a single credit ratings analyst.
Let’s let Stephanie Flanders take up the story, in her ‘intriguing question for 2010’:
Everyone thinks that the markets will politely wait until Britain has gone to the polls to draw its verdict on the UK. Well, maybe. But if sovereign debt is indeed the new sub-prime – at least where the markets are concerned – it’s difficult to believe that Britain will get through the months before the election without at least one major market wobble.
Perhaps one ratings agency will put the UK on negative watch. Or investors will get seized with the idea of a hung Parliament. Or Britain will simply get caught in the crosshairs of a market panic over sovereign debt in Central and Eastern Europe. Who knows what the trigger will be. But my hunch is there will be something, this side of polling day. The question will be how the major political parties react.
More thoughts on a ‘class war’
A couple more thoughts on class war following on from yesterday’s post.
Sunny picked up the tenor of my argument about how 21st century appeals to privilege and minority interests is neither a disastrous retreat to 1970s antagonisms nor the suicidal doom-and-gloom message that New Labour dinosaurs claim. Yet he seems insistent on labelling the overall strategy one of “class war”.
To be fair to Sunny, he does say that this is intended merely as shorthand, holding his nose and agreeing with Ed Ball’s on this matter. But even then, I’m suspicious of using the term even as shorthand in strategy-debate. For terms have a tendency to stick. Especially when a predominantly right-wing media has already shown itself desirous of squawking about the “class war” label.
And there’s (at least) two more reasons why “class war” is an unwise use of language, on top of yesterday’s list.
continue reading… »
Labour’s need for a Class War strategy explained
Various people have waded into our discussion of electoral strategy in the upcoming election, namely that I think New Labour should fight a ‘class war’, without understanding what I’m getting at.
So I’ll restate some points, rebut criticisms and start by simply saying that if newspapers like the Telegraph are trying to kill it then the strategy must have some merit.
I also think it exposes some generational differences within the Labour party.
What is Class War?
Class War takes place in the papers of the right-wing media every time New Labour raises taxes on the rich even slightly or has the temerity to mention any vaguely economically left-wing policy. New Labour has bent over backwards to shake-off old skool connotations of being in thrall of trade unions, and so it runs away as soon as the spectre of ‘class war’ is raised in the media. Actual policies have been very thin on the ground.
In the current news cycle ‘class war’ nominally took off when Alastair Darling decided to marginally tax bankers’ bonuses. Since then the right-wing media have tried their best to play up supposed differences among ministers on the ‘class war strategy’. The Indy jumped on the bandwagon by bringing in the fox hunting angle.
continue reading… »
Revealed: Cameron meets NHS ‘advisors’ who want to completely undermine it
David Cameron spent some time in a House of Commons private office with Nurses for Reform earlier this month seeking inspiration to remodel the National Health Service.
We are told he wanted to discuss NFR’s ideas on the future of health policy and have them present a range of ideas.
We already know what Daniel Hannan thinks of the ‘60 year mistake’ but what does Cameron think? He would have us believe he ‘loves the NHS’ and it is ’safe in his hands’ and surely consulting nurses proves this? However it’s worth examing the people associated with Nurses for Reform, which is:
growing pan-European network of nurses dedicated to consumer-led reform of British, European and other healthcare systems around the world.
Cameron looks rattled by class war strategy
Iain Dale has the text of Cameron’s New Year speech up. Quite rightly the media will be paying particular attention to this short but important little snippet:
But let’s make sure the election is a proper argument about the future of the country, not some exercise in fake dividing lines.
Cameron recognises here what Tessa Jowell misses in her nonsense about ‘hideous’ ‘class war’. By playing the one nation card at this stage, he is effectively admitting the Tories are deeply rattled by the prospect of a Labour move towards a class-based electoral strategy.
He’s seen the opinion polls, he’s seen the financial context in which such a strategy might be implemented, and he’s afraid.
continue reading… »
Chris Grayling u-turns again, on home defence
It seem to have worked out for the cerebral and shy Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, treading gingerly into the high profile area of the right to self-defence this week.
Perhaps a tiny amount of over-reach? Indeed Melanie Phillips thought Grayling had gone well over the top in ‘endorsing mob rule‘. David Blackburn of The Spectator thought it was populism at its worst, and The Times was equally unimpressed.
The Shadow Home Secretary may well have been angling for a Daily Mail headline. But Tories’ licence to kill a burglar may have been a little stark even for Grayling.
Rather predictably, all this meant that the Shadow Home Secretary in effect reversed his position within 24 hours.
continue reading… »
10 reasons why Daniel Hannan needs a new record on the EU
contribution by Left Outside
Tory MEP Dan Hannan has a dreadful top ten reasons to leave the EU (H/T Thomas Byrne). I hold no love for the EU but I hold Dan in even deeper disdain. This list has not changed my mind.
1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.
Correlation is not Causality. Perhaps, just perhaps, not being in a free trade area with other European states would have lead us to run a worse deficit with the rest of the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, allowing UK Governments to protect inefficient UK firms would have lead us to run smaller surpluses with other continents. I certainly don’t know; evidently neither does Dan Hannan.
continue reading… »
Iain Dale, Climate Crock…
The last few weeks have produced more than their fair share of idiotic ramblings on the subject of climate change and climate science but surely none worse than Iain Dale’s latest pathetic effort:
Oxford is Cool
From one of my readers, Victor NW Kent…
The Met Office has released all of its stored temperature readings “confident that they will prove its prediction of global warming”. Useful.
Purely at random I chose a Midlands city – Oxford, which has recorded data going back to 1853.
Yes, Iain Dale (2:1 in German, Linguistics and TEFL from the University of East Anglia) really is suggesting that his readers check the evidence for climate change in the Met Office’s data using a method posted in comments on his blog by one of his semi-house trained comment-box chimps.
This is obviously an accident waiting to happen but in the interests of humouring him, for the moment, lets look at the method proposed by Victor:
continue reading… »
Will Boris really run against Cameron?
Spectator editor Fraser Nelson, who I have to admit has much better Tory connections than I do, writes that “I gather that Boris is highly unlikely to stand for a second term: he has his eyes on the No.10 prize and would need to get back into Parliament somehow”.
This will fuel speculation about whether it is part of a long softening up exercise, so that a final Boris decision not to run does not come as a political bombshell.
I looked at the case for Boris wanting to get out for Liberal Conspiracy at the time of the Standard interview. The fear is not only the damage that a political defeat in 2012 could do to brand Boris; it is also that being in City Hall until 2016, aged 52, would mean missing a return to the Commons at a 2014/15 General Election, and so a good chance of not being an MP during the next Tory leadership contest.
Boris no doubt relishes the image of a man willing to tear up the political rulebook.
But there are three reasons why I don’t think he will duck out of the 2012 race – and why not running again does not really seem to be as smart as those promoting the “one term strategy” may think.
continue reading… »
Tory plans for personal tax breaks are regressive
contribution by Thomas Byrne
Recently outlined proposals by Tories to allow women who do not work to transfer their personal tax allowance to their husband are extremely flawed.
I agree with the principle being put forward by Iain Duncan Smith, but the means are wrong. Marriage tax breaks are much more important for the poor, yet this policy benefits the rich. And instead of changing tax boundaries, it’s tinkering with a system of complex allowances.
It is unlikely that people who can’t afford accountants will even know about this, let alone know how to transfer their personal allowance across.
Lets work out the maximum saving. This will be where one partner earns just under £50k and the other doesn’t work. Its £2414.
continue reading… »
Why it makes sense for Labour to fight the ‘class war’
Oh dear, John Rentoul feels slightly stung by Don Paskini’s criticisms that his ‘please don’t hurt the rich‘ narrative doesn’t seem to be supported by polls.
He’s not alone.
The last few weeks have seen a succession of newspapers from the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, The Times and even The Economist play the ‘class war’ card. Surprisingly, a bunch of highly paid editors declared that increasing taxes on highly paid people was a bad idea.
But there are good strategic reasons for Labour embracing this phony ‘class war’.
1. Helps them re-frame the debate. The ‘class war’ is narrowly defined as being about bankers’ bonuses and higher taxes. Labour needs to expand this to include: Tories increasing IHT, deploring fairer taxes on the super-rich, their privileged backgrounds, the £250,000 “chicken-feed”, MPs “forced to live on rations”, Cameron not knowing how many houses he owned. In fact top Tory gaffes reek of how out of touch they are.
Re-framing the debate would allow them to talk about wider issues than just bankers’ bonuses.
continue reading… »
Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (70-87)
Time for part 2 of our countdown of ‘100-ish Reasons why Conservative Home and Jim McConalogue are full of shit‘, and this time around we’ll be covering numbers 70-87.
In honour of Paul Evans’ tweet on the first part of this series, we’re calling this next part ‘Creatures from the Tory ID’.
As per last time out, our comments are in italics…
——————
70. It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing a great number of input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used. In this context, the IPCC predictions do not “prove” anything.
Is anyone actually suggesting that climate models do anything other than extrapolate likely future trends based on a combination of historical data, statistical analysis and the use of defined scenarios? Modelling is common place in science, not just climatology but cosmology, particle physics and other branches of the natural sciences, particularly those that rely heavily on the use of statistical physics. Models are not used in isolation, they have to be tested and validated both methodologically and observationally, i.e. they’re used to model past events and trends and their output is then compared to the observed evidence to ascertain whether and how closely they match up (hindcasting). When used to extrapolate future trends, models are monitored against real world data to evaluate how closely the model’s predictions coincide with what’s actually going on in the real world.
None of this has anything to do with providing proof of anything. In science proof has a very specific meaning, and it one that Jim evidently doesn’t understand or he wouldn’t be advancing such an asinine and boneheaded argument.
71. It is entirely inconsistent that the United Nations claimed to prove that man-made CO2 causes global warming while in a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft stating that “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” and “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”.
Hey Jim… its 2009 not 1996 and science has moved on and accumulated a mass of evidence which supports AGW theory.
72. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
There are ways in which CO2 does act as pollutant in the colloquial sense of the term, i.e. acidification of the ocean. However, references to CO2 as a pollutant are usually made in the context of role as one of a number of greenhouse gases which cause warming. Too much warming has severe negative effects on agriculture, health and the environment.
Water is, of course, essential to life but that doesn’t mean you can’t drown in it and if you consume too much in a short space of time you’ll die of hyper-hydration (i.e. water-poisoning).
73. It is simply not true to claim that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes because, while regional variations may occur, there is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports these claims.
Hurricane? What Hurricane? – Michael Fish.
Fuck me, this is basic fucking science. Sea/Oceanic warming in the tropics pushes as increased amount of water vapour into the atmosphere and what goes up much eventually come down, typically after its worked it way up to us, and across the Atlantic, from the Caribbean.
It’s the water cycle you twat, just about the single most basic and readily understandable/verifiable scientific concept in fucking climatology.
BTW, I am working through these in reverse order as I write this up, so expect the level of frustration and abuse to rise as the series continues.
74. It is myth that receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming given that glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries.
Ist not the fact that glaciers are receding and ice shelves are breaking off that provide the evidence for global warming. The accelerating rate at which this is occurring is where the evidence lies. This is gibber.
75. It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising, because that is natural variation and whilst the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The main Antarctic continent is actually cooling.
These are local temperature variations that have no overall impact on global temperatures. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass, overall, at an accelerating rate. More gibber.
76. The IPCC claims “new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread” and the “projected impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance, since global losses in biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence)” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.
Ecosystem studies and biodiversity modelling are relatively new research fields and there is much that is still to be understood, particular in terms of the impact of microclimate buffering and assessing the full acclimation capacity of plants and animals It is, however, untrue to suggest that the IPCC’s assessment is not supported by scientific research. This is a rapidly expanding research field and one that appears, to date, to be remarkably free of fucknut deniers. The overwhelming mass of current evidence indicates a clear link between climate change and the loss of biodiversity, what is uncertain is the full extent to which such losses may be realised if warming continues along the trends evident over the last 100 years or so.
77. The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as they have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes similar to or greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.
Jeez, is this guy a moron or what? Evolutionary adaptation is, in very simple terms, a race between the incidence of genetic variations that give rise of characteristics favourable to survival in a changing climate and the rate at which the climate changes. It not just the scale of climate change that matters but the rate at which that change occurs – if it happens to fast, many species, particularly large mammals, will likely not be able to adapt fast enough to avoid extinction. That’s why the fucking polar bears are endangered – the impact of climate change on polar sea ice is shortening their hunting season, preventing the bears for find the food they need (seals) to lay down the fat reserves necessary to survive hibernation.
78. Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but the real state of sea levels is not what they have stated. Climate scientists have sought to measure the tide gauge. Tide gauging gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. Certain members in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they chose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. It is known that this is a subsiding area. It is well known in geological terms that this is the only record which you should not use, but the IPCC has done so.
Global mean sea levels are calculated using a variety of methods – sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements – all of which show close agreement, i.e. that the rise in sea levels has been accelerating for the last century. The allegation that the IPCC based in measurements on a single tidal gauge in Hong Kong comes from only one source, Dr Nils-Axel Morner, a former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and president of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics from 1981-1989. Morner is now widely regarded as a crank. In 1995 he was awarded the ‘Deceiver of the Year award’ by the Swedish Skeptics Association for arranging university courses about dowsing, for which he claims to have provided theoretical support. In 1997, he was asked by James Randi to claim the one million dollar paranormal challenge by making a controlled experiment that proved that dowsing worked. Morner bottled out of the challenge.
There is no credible evidence to support Morner‘s allegations.
79. The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. This eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 but surface temperatures can and do show a considerable degree of internal variability due to heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. Nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred from 1998 onwards and 1998 was unusually warm due to a very strong El Nino effect.
How can CO2 rises bring about global warming? Take a course in atmospheric physics, asshole.
80. If one factors in for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?
Tropospheric satellite measurements match current warming models other than in the tropics, where the discrepancies are thought to stem from data errors arising from corrections made for satellite drift.
81. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.
See #83. The planet has been off the solar trend for the last 30 years, the main period of modern warning.
82. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In the case of Antarctica, the research actually suggests the opposite: that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.
The Greenland interior is in mass balance but the rate of ice loss in coastal regions doubled between 2002 and 2009. While East Antarctica is gaining land ice, Antarctica as a whole is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.
83. The IPCC claims the climate variation due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is smaller than its estimated net anthropogenic contribution. A large body of scientific research suggests the opposite: that it is the sun that is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
Solar activity has shown little or no long-term trend since the 1950’s, the net effect of which is that any statistical correlation between warming trends and solar activity ceased in 1975. This particular fact comes from a 2005 study by Usoskin, which is one of studies most commonly cited by sceptics and deniers in support of the solar activity hypothesis. It, however, states that “during these last 30 years (1975-2005) the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
84. The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” and will “increase malnutrition and consequent disorders.” In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels have played an indispensible role in making it possible to feed a growing global population.
See response to #86, which explains why McConalogue is talking out his arse.
85. The historical increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and into the future it will likely provide more of the same benefit.
The two most important factors in increasing human lifespans since the industrial revolution are improved nutrition, which is what McConalogue is alluding to, and modern sanitation, which has fuck all to do with CO2.Yes, there’s a statistical correlation between post-industrial CO2 levels and increases in lifespan, but if McConalogue actually understood anything about science he’d know that correlations do not imply causation so ‘probably’ doesn’t cut it as an argument.
86. The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years on the order of 70 percent for wheat, 28 percent for cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.
The most recent projections for the impact of global warming on crop yields indicates that CO2 fertilisation may, at best, compensate for around 50% of the decline in yields project to happen as a result of a number of factors, including higher average temperatures and the impact of warming on soil moisture content. Current evidence also indicates that raising atmospheric CO2 levels above 450 ppm will have a significant adverse impact not only on yields, but on nutritional quality and plant toxicity. Not only is there no guarantee that any additional plant growth due to CO fertilisation will go in to those parts of the plant that are eaten (e.g. grain) but excess CO2 inhibits Nitrogen uptake, which reduces the nutritional content of edible plants.
Guess we can put McConalogue down for ‘knows fuck all about agriculture’ as well.
87. The total man-made CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
The Earth’s been around for 4.5 billion years, although maybe we should skip the first half billion years or so to be fair. Humans? About 200,000 years all-in from the first true Homo Sapiens and about 10,000 years if you want to go by the first evidence of settlement and agriculture. So we’ve been around for between 0.0005% and 0.0000000125% of geological history and we’re already up to 0.00022% of the level CO2 emission of natural emissions from the mantle. Almost all of the man-made contribution to CO2 emissions stems from the last 200-250 years.
Revealed: Top Tories linked to climate change denialism report
Yesterday the European Foundation think-tank published a report, cited by both the Telegraph and the Daily Express, offering a hundred reasons why ‘global warming was natural’.
Put aside the fact it was quickly and easily debunked by the New Scientist and on LibCon. Temporarily forget the fact that if you actually went through the list you’d quickly realise how farcical it was.
Instead ask, who is behind the European Foundation? Well, Martin Robbins did and found that prominent Tories including John Bercow, David Davis, Iain Duncan-Smith and Oliver Letwin are all part of the European Foundation.
David Cameron maintains he’s a firm believer in man-made global warming and agrees that urgent action needs to be taken. He gives the impression Tory climate-change deniers constitute a small number of cranks on the fringes. How will he square that with this?
His policy on the environment now looks to be a shambles with senior Tories exposed as being part of a think-tank endorsing global warming denialism.
Con Home’s Climate Crock Rundown (88-100)
Conservative Home have published a list, in conjunction with the Daily Express, of their ‘100 Reasons why the ‘Copenhagen’ Governments and other proponents of “man-made” Global Warming theory of Climate Change are completely wrong‘.
By way of a response to Jim McConalogue’s lengthy article, we’ll be publishing our own rundown, in several parts, which we’re calling…
‘100-ish Reasons why Conservative Home and Jim McConalogue are full of shit’
For part one of our rundown, which covers reasons 88 to 100, check below the fold… my responses are in italics.
continue reading… »
Tory economic attacks keep missing target
Most of the time, the mainstream media acts like a baying mob with rarely a sense of nuance or self-reflection.
For example over the last few weeks we’ve seen journalist after journalist echoing the Tory line that Britain was in danger of having its credit rating downgraded because of its so-called “mammoth debt” (a narrative now taken up by the liberal press too).
At any other time the Tories would be furious at someone constantly trying to downplay the strength of the British economy. But when they’re doing it that’s ok.
And so it came to pass that Boy George’s constant dire warnings about the economy’s creditworthiness came to nothing.
continue reading… »
Labour isn’t radical enough on the economy
The Pre-Budget Report yesterday was, at best, a muddle that won’t do much to shift voter perceptions about the supposed difference between Labour and the Tories.
Keep in mind that most voters won’t pay any attention to the PBR, let alone sit there and discuss its ramifications like much of the media and blogosphere has done.
Some people may notice the increase in the starting point for NI contributions, others may smile at the sight of bankers squealing on television about the decision to tax their bonuses.
And yet for a government that constantly claims there are clear dividing lines between them and the Tories on the economy – it has constantly failed to outline them in stark terms.
continue reading… »
Dave still doesn’t know what he’s doing
Why isn’t Dave a banker? The Times reports his City in my blood pride at his banking heritage:
David Cameron attempted the balancing act yesterday of wooing the world’s most powerful bankers while assuring Middle England that he would not give that most hated profession too easy a time.Speaking to a gathering of top financiers, the Conservative leader told them: “My father was a stockbroker, my grandfather was a stockbroker, my great-grandfather was a stockbroker.” The City, he assured them, was in his blood. Those present, who included Bob Diamond, president of Barclays, and Richard Gnodde, the co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs in London, purred their approval.
The Times report suggests it was an exercise in characteristic Cameron ambiguity, and not one which did much to answer the same newspaper’s challenge yesterday – “David Cameron has yet to answer a basic question: what does he stand for?”
continue reading… »
Productivity in public services: how the Tories lie
contribution by Margin4Error
Last week the Conservatives launched a new line of attack on the public sector. Phillip Hammond, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told Policy Exchange that the public sector was inefficient.
He said that in the last twelve years its productivity had grown a lot slower than the private sector. Then he concluded that had it kept pace we could have had the same services for £60billion less tax each year.
There are a lot of inferences intended. One is that Labour is wasteful. Another is that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. Another is that voters can expect something for nothing from the Tories, or “more for less” as the official line goes.
But the most important inference is that the Tories can cut the deficit by cutting waste rather than by raising taxes or sacking nurses.
£60billion?
So let’s start with the £60billion annual saving that Labour cruelly denied us.
First of all I have to acknowledge a weakness in my article. I can’t break down their figures for you. I can’t break them down because I don’t have them. In fact no one seems to.
The Conservatives don’t appear to have referenced their assertion anywhere. As such, other than the mouth of Phillip Hammond, we don’t know where £60billion came from.
That problem aside, we are talking about a fairly modest rise in productivity over twelve years.
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
» The Labour leadership’s token contender.. and it’s not Diane Abbott
» In defence of these fraternal nominations
|
66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments 16 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » damon posted on Complete tits » Sunny Hundal posted on Complete tits » Lee Griffin posted on The Labour leadership's token contender.. and it's not Diane Abbott » dan posted on Defend the urban fox! » Richard W posted on Boris rise for Living Wage left of Labour » Julian Swainson posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » sally posted on Complete tits » Joanne Dunn posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Lovely Lynnette Peck posted on How many cabinet MPs went to private schools? » Nick posted on Why don't MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours? » Bob B posted on Complete tits » Nick posted on Complete tits » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Mr S. Pill posted on Complete tits » Nick Cohen is a Tory posted on Complete tits |
