EDIT - Douglas Alexander has tweeted: "Shocked & saddened to hear of the death of Helen Eadie MSP. Helen was a good woman & my thoughts are with her family & her many friends."
They could have done better. I am not happy about their closeness to big business. I am not happy about some of their decisions. They've proved not to be great at politics. But they are still a lot better than the previous lot and a lot better than Miliband's team are likely to be.
They're all going in the same direction. Cameron and Osborne at maybe a slower speed, but only because of the circumstances.
Until that point is accepted everything else is dancing on the head of a pin.
Think of it as cancer.
The art of chemotherapy is killing the cancer without killing the patient. You start with slowing disease progression and then turn things around. But it takes time.
Your approach would risk killing the patient.
They're not slowing the disease progression because they don't recognise it as a disease.
House prices are rising. Debt is rising Retail sales are rising The trade deficit is rising
Worst of all complacency is rising.
Their approach is killing the patient.
The first part of treatment is acceptance of the fundamental mistaken belief that you cannot forever consume more wealth than you create.
And that's what Cameron and Osborne wont accept anymore than Balls and Miliband will.
Sure they mouthed a few phrases when it seemed political to do so but whenever money is needed to throw at a political problem or to fund a pet project or to give to some foreigner Cameron meets that money is spent.
Sorry to hear of the death of Helen Eadie MSP (Labour, Cowdenbeath).
She was a veteran of the reconvened parliament, representing Dunfermline East from 1999-2011 and the new Cowdenbeath constituency from 2011.
Her father-in-law was former MP (1966-1992) for Midlothian Alex Eadie. She worked for her father-in-law and Harry Ewing (MP for Stirling/Falkirk/Grangemouth 1971-1992) at Westminster, and was on James Callaghan's general election campaign team. Prior to her election to Holyrood was a full-time trade union official for the GMB and a councillor on Fife Council.
"out of touch" is just an empty soundbite though isn't it?
Compared to "we're all in this together", "vote blue go green", "Alarm Clock Britain" or "No more broken promises"?
*chortle*
I can't agree that "all in this together" is an empty soundbite as Cameron has delivered on it:
High earners paying more tax Low earners paying less tax Inequality falling Impact of recession falling more on the wealthy than the poor 1m more jobs/below cost of living pay rises as opposed to 1m fewer jobs and above cost of living price rises - surely this would be what all socialists want, apparantly not.
In what universe did that happen, certainly not an honest view of the UK , unless you are being witty
Err, this universe right now.
Feel free to prove any of the statements wrong.
You certainly would be struggling to prove any of them
I doubt it.
- Distributional impact of tax changes has been heavily weighted towards the top decline. - Low earners (not necessarily the worst off) have disproportionately benefits from the increase in personal allowance - Have seen this widely reported, but not the source data - Am sure this could be demonstrated, but it's always a definitional question - jobs point is accurate
The only people who have prospered with this government are the rich. Most people are worse off now than when they came to power, fact.
I would question the "only" point, but, yes, QE has supported equity market prices and London house prices, and the onset of tapering is probably the biggest threat to current prices.
But none of Schards original points are inconsistent with the fact that the wealthy have benefited from increases in the prices of certain asset classes
"out of touch" is just an empty soundbite though isn't it?
Compared to "we're all in this together", "vote blue go green", "Alarm Clock Britain" or "No more broken promises"?
*chortle*
I can't agree that "all in this together" is an empty soundbite as Cameron has delivered on it:
High earners paying more tax Low earners paying less tax Inequality falling Impact of recession falling more on the wealthy than the poor 1m more jobs/below cost of living pay rises as opposed to 1m fewer jobs and above cost of living price rises - surely this would be what all socialists want, apparantly not.
In what universe did that happen, certainly not an honest view of the UK , unless you are being witty
Err, this universe right now.
Feel free to prove any of the statements wrong.
You certainly would be struggling to prove any of them
I doubt it.
- Distributional impact of tax changes has been heavily weighted towards the top decline. - Low earners (not necessarily the worst off) have disproportionately benefits from the increase in personal allowance - Have seen this widely reported, but not the source data - Am sure this could be demonstrated, but it's always a definitional question - jobs point is accurate
The only people who have prospered with this government are the rich. Most people are worse off now than when they came to power, fact.
I would question the "only" point, but, yes, QE has supported equity market prices and London house prices, and the onset of tapering is probably the biggest threat to current prices.
But none of Schards original points are inconsistent with the fact that the wealthy have benefited from increases in the prices of certain asset classes
So we are in violent agreement, but the prosperity is limited to a small elite whilst the majority pay for it.
They're not slowing the disease progression because they don't recognise it as a disease.
House prices are rising. Debt is rising Retail sales are rising The trade deficit is rising
Worst of all complacency is rising.
Their approach is killing the patient.
[snip]
- The government deficit is coming down, both in absolute terms and as a % of GDP - House prices ex-London are still substantially below historical levels both absolutely and as a multiple of income. Yes, I think that there is an issue in P / SP London but I am not sure that, absent capital controls, there is much the government can do about this - Debt is rising: on a government level yes, by definition, but cutting a £120bn deficit in 1 year is not realistic. On a personal level, mortgage debt is still being paid down I believe - Retail sales are rising: yes. I don't like the consumption driven culture either, but I don't think the government has done much to encourage it in particular - Trade deficit is rising: I think you are making an error in just focusing on the trade deficit. The UK has a very strong export led services sector and these are an important part of the economy. That is not to ignore the importance of other sectors, such as oil & gas production and manufacturing. Shale gas exploitation should be accelerated, energy costs reduced (by shifting green taxes to general taxation, and active steps to break up the oligopoly that has developed in energy supply - I'd also look very closely at vertical integration, but it's too long since I studied industrial economics to have a strong view). There should be more investment in company-led training, incentives for employing the young, and more emphasis on key segments in the education system.
Fundamentally, the last government left things in a terrible terrible state. Not just the obvious economic points, but also in welfare and, critically, education. This is going to take a generation to undo. Going too fast may shock the system into destruction.
Cameron and Osborne are making a good start, but there is/will be much still to do. If they can fix education, for instance, that will be a huge thing. Welfare implementation is slow but - again - historically an intractable problem (I wish Blair had had the courage to listen to Field). I have a higher regard for Osborne than I do for Cameron, though.
I have searched the internet to find some reference to this concept of
"different goods different velocity of money" "velocity of money by type of spending" "discretionary spending velocity of money"
And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes.
Look, I think everybody here can think of ways in which mass immigration might cause deflationary pressures within an economy. However, the transmission mechanism of those pressures will not come through decreased velocity of money.
MrJones, if you want to demonstrate that DavidL and I do not know what we're talking about (and I've been wrong many times, so this would hardly be a first), then please post a link to a reputable economist talking about 'velocity of money by category'.
"out of touch" is just an empty soundbite though isn't it?
Compared to "we're all in this together", "vote blue go green", "Alarm Clock Britain" or "No more broken promises"?
*chortle*
I can't agree that "all in this together" is an empty soundbite as Cameron has delivered on it:
High earners paying more tax Low earners paying less tax Inequality falling Impact of recession falling more on the wealthy than the poor 1m more jobs/below cost of living pay rises as opposed to 1m fewer jobs and above cost of living price rises - surely this would be what all socialists want, apparantly not.
In what universe did that happen, certainly not an honest view of the UK , unless you are being witty
Err, this universe right now.
Feel free to prove any of the statements wrong.
You certainly would be struggling to prove any of them
I doubt it.
- Distributional impact of tax changes has been heavily weighted towards the top decline. - Low earners (not necessarily the worst off) have disproportionately benefits from the increase in personal allowance - Have seen this widely reported, but not the source data - Am sure this could be demonstrated, but it's always a definitional question - jobs point is accurate
The only people who have prospered with this government are the rich. Most people are worse off now than when they came to power, fact.
I would question the "only" point, but, yes, QE has supported equity market prices and London house prices, and the onset of tapering is probably the biggest threat to current prices.
But none of Schards original points are inconsistent with the fact that the wealthy have benefited from increases in the prices of certain asset classes
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=household+income+by+decile, top result
which shows the income of the bottom decile rising and the top decile falling.
Sorry to hear of the death of Helen Eadie MSP (Labour, Cowdenbeath).
She was a veteran of the reconvened parliament, representing Dunfermline East from 1999-2011 and the new Cowdenbeath constituency from 2011.
Her father-in-law was former MP (1966-1992) for Midlothian Alex Eadie. She worked for her father-in-law and Harry Ewing (MP for Stirling/Falkirk/Grangemouth 1971-1992) at Westminster, and was on James Callaghan's general election campaign team. Prior to her election to Holyrood was a full-time trade union official for the GMB and a councillor on Fife Council.
IIRC her daughter was one of the shortlisted Labour hopefuls for Dunfermline
1) House prices are not substantially below historical levels they are substantially below PEAK levels but substantially ABOVE AVERAGE levels. This makes Osborne's attempts to boost prices - and lets have nobody deny that's what Osborne is trying to do - all the more reprehensible.
2) By trade deficit I mean trade in goods AND SERVICES. Despite the surplus we have on services we still have had a trade deficit in goods and services every single month for over 15 years. As an aside we have also had a permanent tourism deficit which has seen yet more wealth steadily flow from this country.
3) Mortgage debt is not being paid down as I remember from the BoE stats It might be falling in percentage terms but falling from an massively excess amount to a mere heavily excessive amount does not excuse Osborne's mortgage subsidies.
You're right about the terrible state of the country in 2010 but this isn't going to be undone, either in a generation or not, some of the reforms this government has attempted are good and some aren't, some will succees and some will fail. But the fundamental structure this government inherited will not be changed.
Now this discussion has been had many times before and we can have it many times in future.
But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.
What you should be wondering is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne. I'm the sort of person who voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now and yet they are now worthless in my eyes.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24853271
EDIT - Douglas Alexander has tweeted: "Shocked & saddened to hear of the death of Helen Eadie MSP. Helen was a good woman & my thoughts are with her family & her many friends."
House prices are rising.
Debt is rising
Retail sales are rising
The trade deficit is rising
Worst of all complacency is rising.
Their approach is killing the patient.
The first part of treatment is acceptance of the fundamental mistaken belief that you cannot forever consume more wealth than you create.
And that's what Cameron and Osborne wont accept anymore than Balls and Miliband will.
Sure they mouthed a few phrases when it seemed political to do so but whenever money is needed to throw at a political problem or to fund a pet project or to give to some foreigner Cameron meets that money is spent.
She was a veteran of the reconvened parliament, representing Dunfermline East from 1999-2011 and the new Cowdenbeath constituency from 2011.
Her father-in-law was former MP (1966-1992) for Midlothian Alex Eadie. She worked for her father-in-law and Harry Ewing (MP for Stirling/Falkirk/Grangemouth 1971-1992) at Westminster, and was on James Callaghan's general election campaign team. Prior to her election to Holyrood was a full-time trade union official for the GMB and a councillor on Fife Council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Eadie
But none of Schards original points are inconsistent with the fact that the wealthy have benefited from increases in the prices of certain asset classes
- House prices ex-London are still substantially below historical levels both absolutely and as a multiple of income. Yes, I think that there is an issue in P / SP London but I am not sure that, absent capital controls, there is much the government can do about this
- Debt is rising: on a government level yes, by definition, but cutting a £120bn deficit in 1 year is not realistic. On a personal level, mortgage debt is still being paid down I believe
- Retail sales are rising: yes. I don't like the consumption driven culture either, but I don't think the government has done much to encourage it in particular
- Trade deficit is rising: I think you are making an error in just focusing on the trade deficit. The UK has a very strong export led services sector and these are an important part of the economy. That is not to ignore the importance of other sectors, such as oil & gas production and manufacturing. Shale gas exploitation should be accelerated, energy costs reduced (by shifting green taxes to general taxation, and active steps to break up the oligopoly that has developed in energy supply - I'd also look very closely at vertical integration, but it's too long since I studied industrial economics to have a strong view). There should be more investment in company-led training, incentives for employing the young, and more emphasis on key segments in the education system.
Fundamentally, the last government left things in a terrible terrible state. Not just the obvious economic points, but also in welfare and, critically, education. This is going to take a generation to undo. Going too fast may shock the system into destruction.
Cameron and Osborne are making a good start, but there is/will be much still to do. If they can fix education, for instance, that will be a huge thing. Welfare implementation is slow but - again - historically an intractable problem (I wish Blair had had the courage to listen to Field). I have a higher regard for Osborne than I do for Cameron, though.
I have searched the internet to find some reference to this concept of
"different goods different velocity of money"
"velocity of money by type of spending"
"discretionary spending velocity of money"
And have been unable to find any kind of reference to the thing that MrJones describes.
Look, I think everybody here can think of ways in which mass immigration might cause deflationary pressures within an economy. However, the transmission mechanism of those pressures will not come through decreased velocity of money.
MrJones, if you want to demonstrate that DavidL and I do not know what we're talking about (and I've been wrong many times, so this would hardly be a first), then please post a link to a reputable economist talking about 'velocity of money by category'.
Thank you.
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=household+income+by+decile, top result
which shows the income of the bottom decile rising and the top decile falling.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_317365.pdf
p.17 => lowest Gini coefficient since 1986.
1) House prices are not substantially below historical levels they are substantially below PEAK levels but substantially ABOVE AVERAGE levels. This makes Osborne's attempts to boost prices - and lets have nobody deny that's what Osborne is trying to do - all the more reprehensible.
2) By trade deficit I mean trade in goods AND SERVICES. Despite the surplus we have on services we still have had a trade deficit in goods and services every single month for over 15 years. As an aside we have also had a permanent tourism deficit which has seen yet more wealth steadily flow from this country.
3) Mortgage debt is not being paid down as I remember from the BoE stats It might be falling in percentage terms but falling from an massively excess amount to a mere heavily excessive amount does not excuse Osborne's mortgage subsidies.
You're right about the terrible state of the country in 2010 but this isn't going to be undone, either in a generation or not, some of the reforms this government has attempted are good and some aren't, some will succees and some will fail. But the fundamental structure this government inherited will not be changed.
Now this discussion has been had many times before and we can have it many times in future.
But we both know that Cameron and Osborne are always going to get a pass mark from you - they're your 'sort of people' - whereas their Labour equivalents will be condemned even when their policies are the same.
What you should be wondering is why I am so disillusioned with Cameron and Osborne. I'm the sort of person who voted Conservative in 2010 and should be supporting them now and yet they are now worthless in my eyes.