Wednesday 10th June 2015

Post by **refitman** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 7:02 am

Good morning.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 7:27 am

Morning. I guess we have PMQs today, which brings me to this: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... viour-pmqs

I passed comment then noticed it could typically have been expressed much more succinctly, as demonstrated by aethyrsprite.

The only problem with PMQ is the PM. His aggressive, bullying, and evasive behaviour.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 7:39 am

Morning good

There's absolute fury and mayhem in the EU Parliament, in this morning's 8 am session, as leaders of groupings from both left and right demand that neither the debate nor the vote on TTIP provisions on 'secret-courts' (I've forgotten the acronym for them) and some other measures be cancelled. Points of order were raised, leaders of groupings all referred to the absolute deluge of texts, phone-calls, emails, and petitions, on the matter. Apparently over two million EU citizens have signed petitions. Therefore, their argument goes, the debate on the over 200 amendments should go ahead. However, it is the view of the President (I think this is the President of the Parliament) that since the vote must be delayed, due to some procedural rule about numbers of amendments, the debate should also be delayed so that the discussions are fresh in people's minds when they do finally vote on it. The chairman called a Roll-Call vote, which voted a majority in favour of delaying the Vote. Parliament was adjourned until midday (that's our 11 am) at 8.30 am.

A lot of people are very angry and unhappy. Unlike in our Westminster Parliament, many members were sporting 'Stop TTIP' t-shirts, and even had the same on small placards on their desks. No-one gets told off for applauding, either.

Edit to add: Where I've said 'cancelled' in the first sentence, I should clarify that it's a postponement of the vote and also of the debate.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:04 am

citizenJA will be interested in the Westminster Hall debate secured by Diane Abbott, called Air Pollution in London. Although it concentrates on London/Greater London, it also touches upon the air quality of the whole country. This year, Oxford Street exceeded its annual limit on pollution within the first four days. This is not a competition we want to be winning! Diane's is the first debate of Tuesday morning's session and you can watch it, or choose audio only, here:
[url]http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde ... 1ba685[url]

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:05 am

Thank you Lady C. Good to know that many MEPs, and European citizens, are ready to fight TTIP. Why do we hear nothing about TTIP from Cameron and Osborne, eh? Be interesting to see how the press in other countries report on it - and compare to here.

Oh and morning.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:10 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Thank you Lady C. Good to know that many MEPs, and European citizens, are ready to fight TTIP. Why do we hear nothing about TTIP from Cameron and Osborne, eh? Be interesting to see how the press in other countries report on it - and compare to here.

Oh and morning.

Onto it, rebecca. No I'm not, got other stuff to do, but you have prompted me to follow that up later... I'll even make a note to remind me. Thanks.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:25 am

Nadine Dorries faces challenge after general election smear campaign allegations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08790.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nadine Dorries is facing an extraordinary challenge to her parliamentary future after a rival candidate lodged an election petition claiming she had accused him of being a stalker and a “dangerous criminal”.

The Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire could lose her seat if the smear allegations contained in the election petition, which has been lodged at the High Court by the unsuccessful independent candidate Tim Ireland, are accepted by judges.

The document, which has been seen by The Independent, claims that in the run-up to the general election on 7 May, Ms Dorries attacked the “personal character and conduct” of Mr Ireland by levelling 14 separate “false accusations” against him through her Twitter account, internet blog and comments in the media.

Under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is illegal for anyone to make a “false statement of fact” in relation to an election candidate’s “personal character or conduct” – unless they can show they had “reasonable grounds” for believing it to be true....

... According to Mr Ireland’s document, she publicly accused him during the election campaign of stalking and harassing her “obsessively” for eight years, describing him as a criminal “who should be convicted and imprisoned”.

Ms Dorries also stated that the organised campaign of harassment waged against her by Mr Ireland, a 45-year-old writer and marketing consultant, was so serious that it had caused one of her female friends to go into “premature labour”, the court document claims...

Tim Ireland was instrumental in the uncovering of Grant Shapps' aliases ... Michael Green / Sebastian Fox and so on.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:37 am

Sam Macrory ‏@sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today

In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:40 am

John Mann ‏@JohnMannMP 11m11 minutes ago
I am tabling a question to George Osborne today. Did he balance the books in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:51 am

Morfternoon all...

I thought for a moment I wasn't going to get in here this morning - tried to log in with 'caps lock' on...and worried that I might not get the correct 'first' name for Gidiot Jeffrey George - but it wasn't a trick question

I'm seeing an awful lot of 'how/why Labour lost the election/questions to answer/must do something' and thought I'd throw another 2pence worth in as to how I see it.

So...apart from the shitillions (TM to Ladycentauria, I believe(TM)) donated by a few very wealthy individuals, used the same way as Ashcrofts £5m before the 2010 election - money-bombing marginals - and the full and unflinching support of 90% of the MSM to lie about Miliband and Labour...

Clouncy Funt and his Monsters of Murkydochia used Calamity Clegg and the Lost Deposits as an 'inhuman shield' to hide the rank incompetence under the guise of 'strong goverment'....TCBBAC needed 23 extra seats for a full majority....so, after having used the Lost Deposits to the extent that they were a spent political force they ate them alive. Nothing Miliband or Labour could do about that. (It was good to see someone here post the Burn'em comment about the last manifesto being the best he's campaigned for - adds strength to my hope that he's a true Milibandian.)

...and on the postal voting....I know I've got a well-worn tin-foil hat...but....how many votes were postal? Which constituencies? Were postal votes put in nice easy-to-recognise envelopes? Do we now have a fully privatised postal system (with full 'commercial in confidence' clauses)? Are the brains behind Clouncy Funt capable of finding a way of 'losing' said votes without being seen?...so I guess my question is (as for once, 't'interweb isn't very helpful) where can I find details and verified statistics for the postal votes?

On the UKIP vote, where will they be go now that the Rancid Goat has come out FOR the EU? Where's Farridge gone?...back to ignore things in Yurrrp I guess - he probably needs to wind down a bit with some nice juicy expenses.

...and whilst I've got my shiny hat on...I see Ms Coopers' other half is attending this event again this year (even though he's no longer an elected representative - just a member of the 'club')...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07054.html

...and is Gidiots' attendance paid for by the public purse again? I know, I know.....it's a conspiracy theory....they're all really benign and do things for the benefit of mankind as a whole...so WHY THE F*****G SECRECY THEN? (They might discuss TTIP - but we'll never know)...and, as another aside, Miliband refused to attend and has never attended - but Balls has, I think, attended the last 4 or 5 years...not a good look for the more cynical voters, as it strengthens the 'they're all the same' meme.

...and on the subject of Gidiot the Gormless....where in the longtermeconomicplan we heard so much about before the vote, does it state that there'll need to be an 'emergency budget'? Is it a sort of longtermeconomicemergencyimmediatelychangetoshorttermohf***therereallyisnomoneyleftnowquickwaveanotherChamberlainlikepieceofpaperthat'llfool'em plan?

I feel I ought to genuinely thank FTN again for allowing my odd rantings to stand - I find it calming to be able to vent, even though it must seem a bit randomly idiotic at times...so again, thank you for being here.

edit to strike incoherence.....bumf******boils

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:53 am

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 41m41 minutes ago
Home Office Apologises For Threatening A Man Who’s Never Left The UK With Deportation http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/a- ... atened-wit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … via @BuzzFeed

Extraordinary story. Shows just how incompetent and poor the Home Office systems are.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:54 am

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 39m39 minutes ago
I really am looking forward to the legal definition of normal times.

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 40m40 minutes ago
Is normal times when George Osborne isn't doing drugs?

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:57 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Mann ‏@JohnMannMP 11m11 minutes ago
I am tabling a question to George Osborne today. Did he balance the books in 2010, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15?

Has he explained/clarified this yet....

PAC chair Margaret Hodge said it was "hard to understand why the government debt and deficit highlighted in the whole government accounts differ from those reported in the ONS’s national accounts."

"According to the former document, compiled on the basis of well-understood accounting standards, the UK’s in-year deficit for 2011-12 was £185bn. The national accounts used by the chancellor put the figure at £90bn."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... 30765.html

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:57 am

Margaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goods

Heresy!

On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:58 am

Morning all

re he Osborne balanced budget thing - what he seems to be saying by also tying future chancellor's hands on tax increases is that any increase in capital investment e.g. HS2 has to be paid for by out of current taxes. And if that isn't enough, then by reducing current spending.

Osborne playing politics - hopefully some of the quirks will be pointed out. It would probably end up with a very loose definition of what 'normal' means and be so loose as to be useless.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 8:59 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Nadine Dorries faces challenge after general election smear campaign allegations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 08790.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nadine Dorries is facing an extraordinary challenge to her parliamentary future after a rival candidate lodged an election petition claiming she had accused him of being a stalker and a “dangerous criminal”.

The Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire could lose her seat if the smear allegations contained in the election petition, which has been lodged at the High Court by the unsuccessful independent candidate Tim Ireland, are accepted by judges.

The document, which has been seen by The Independent, claims that in the run-up to the general election on 7 May, Ms Dorries attacked the “personal character and conduct” of Mr Ireland by levelling 14 separate “false accusations” against him through her Twitter account, internet blog and comments in the media.

Under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, it is illegal for anyone to make a “false statement of fact” in relation to an election candidate’s “personal character or conduct” – unless they can show they had “reasonable grounds” for believing it to be true....

... According to Mr Ireland’s document, she publicly accused him during the election campaign of stalking and harassing her “obsessively” for eight years, describing him as a criminal “who should be convicted and imprisoned”.

Ms Dorries also stated that the organised campaign of harassment waged against her by Mr Ireland, a 45-year-old writer and marketing consultant, was so serious that it had caused one of her female friends to go into “premature labour”, the court document claims...
Tim Ireland was instrumental in the uncovering of Grant Shapps' aliases ... Michael Green / Sebastian Fox and so on.

She may be in serious trouble there - Tim Ireland's no fool....maybe the first of many? (Tories found to have lied/obfuscated at the election, in the style of the Dear Leader TCBBAC)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 9:12 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sam Macrory ‏@sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.

'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 9:17 am

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sam Macrory ‏@sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?

I'd agree with that as a tactic. I saw another tweet somewhere - can't remember where unfortunately - saying this was all part of the Tory strategy to define their enemy (Labour) before they had a chance to define themselves (leaderless drift so no clear statements of direction at present).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 9:23 am

tinybgoat wrote:
Margaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goods

Heresy!

On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”

This is why the very last thing Labour should do right now is ape Tory economic policy, because the global economic crash has shown just how unsustainable Thatcherite trickle down economics are. Ed was just a little ahead of the curve in 2015, but public opinion will eventually move to his position that our economic model is broken. The one big message Labour need to get across to the public in response to Osborne's drive to run annual surpluses, is that these surpluses depend upon households taking on record amounts of debt. It's all there in the figures, the trebling of the rate in the rise of household debt has featured in articles in mainstream newspapers, it's an undeniable consequence of Osborne's plans, all Labour have to do is highlight it and keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.

Lonewolfie · Post by **Lonewolfie** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 9:33 am

tinybgoat wrote:
Margaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goods

Heresy!

On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”

In a sense, I suppose, it's nice to see this written down - however, it was pointed out loud and clear at the time and has been said continually ever since - but of course, after the full take-over of the MSM (except the BBC until 2002/3 (again, I believe(TM)) there is and can be NO OTHER WAY and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT until you've either gone away or given up. (I, for one, will never give up, however)

Also, what happened to the proceeds from North Sea oil? - at one point Britain was the 8th highest producer of oil in the world...and don't forget - income tax at 33%/NHS 4% of GDP etc (but very little other tax - VAT etc) and the 6th happiest nation on earth...all because of the post-war consensus arrived at by those who had actually done something real and tangible for the benefit of all people - which is, of course, anathema to the likes of the Thatcherite-RayGunite-Murkydochian cabal...'how the very dare ordinary people think they have rights'.

Although, the real root of the current malaise is here (I believe(TM))...

"The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed".

http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

...so we've ended up with 'fiat' money...

Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

...so, if 'money' is created by Government decree, how can that Government then 'run out' of it? (Rhetorical - austerity is now, was then and always will be a lie to serve the purpose of persecution and subjugation of the masses - and in Gidiots' case , to feed his perversion of making things as difficult as possible for as many (other) people as possible)

ttfn

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 9:51 am

LadyCentauria wrote:citizenJA will be interested in the Westminster Hall debate secured by Diane Abbott, called Air Pollution in London. Although it concentrates on London/Greater London, it also touches upon the air quality of the whole country. This year, Oxford Street exceeded its annual limit on pollution within the first four days. This is not a competition we want to be winning! Diane's is the first debate of Tuesday morning's session and you can watch it, or choose audio only, here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Inde ... b3671ba685" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many thanks, LadyCentauria. I've got it queued up & ready to view when I'm ready.
Good-morning, friends.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:35 am

Lonewolfie wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
Margaret Thatcher’s policies of privatisation, light-touch regulation and low income tax
failed to boost growth, according to a new study that casts doubt on the merits of free
market economies.
In a wide-ranging analysis of Britain’s performance in the decades before and after 1979,
economists at the University of Cambridge say the liberal economic policies pioneered by
Thatcher have been accompanied by higher unemployment and inequality. At the same
time, contrary to widespread belief, GDP and productivity have grown more slowly since
1979 compared with the previous three decades.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-goods

Heresy!

On the analysis, only one aspect of post-1979 policies actually boosted growth, but that
came with grave consequences a few decades on in the shape of the financial crisis.
“Financial liberalisation was the sole aspect of the liberal market reforms introduced into
the UK, initially in 1971-73 and more consistently from 1979, which materially increased
the rate of economic growth,” the paper said.
“The freeing up of finance led to a huge, and eventually unsustainable, expansion of
household borrowing. This temporarily accelerated the growth of consumer spending and
hence GDP and of house prices, but in 2008 contributed to a banking crisis and the longest
recession for over a century.”

In a sense, I suppose, it's nice to see this written down - however, it was pointed out loud and clear at the time and has been said continually ever since - but of course, after the full take-over of the MSM (except the BBC until 2002/3 (again, I believe(TM)) there is and can be NO OTHER WAY and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT and WE'LL SHOUT until you've either gone away or given up. (I, for one, will never give up, however)

Also, what happened to the proceeds from North Sea oil? - at one point Britain was the 8th highest producer of oil in the world...and don't forget - income tax at 33%/NHS 4% of GDP etc (but very little other tax - VAT etc) and the 6th happiest nation on earth...all because of the post-war consensus arrived at by those who had actually done something real and tangible for the benefit of all people - which is, of course, anathema to the likes of the Thatcherite-RayGunite-Murkydochian cabal...'how the very dare ordinary people think they have rights'.

Although, the real root of the current malaise is here (I believe(TM))...

"The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed".

http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm

...so we've ended up with 'fiat' money...

Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

...so, if 'money' is created by Government decree, how can that Government then 'run out' of it? (Rhetorical - austerity is now, was then and always will be a lie to serve the purpose of persecution and subjugation of the masses - and in Gidiots' case , to feed his perversion of making things as difficult as possible for as many (other) people as possible)

ttfn

You're a 21st century Galileo observing reality.
Concocted, dysfunctional monetary models maintaining control of every aspect of our economic infrastructure - working lives, where we live, the tenure of our homes, the work available to do, who does it, who doesn't, rentiers taking currency off working people requiring a commodity priced blown higher than a Tory Chancellor...
Your posts are welcome to me, Lonewolfie, we've similar writing habits, I think. I like to set down my thoughts in words here too.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:46 am

Chancellor Jeff is a right bastard, that's all.

You've been economic pilot for over five years; you're a failure on a scorecard you devised for yourself.
You fail & won't admit you've failed.
Who's paid for your warped mistakes?
Regular people, through no fault or ineptitude on their own part, lacking back-up fiscal arrangements people like you take for granted.
Jeff, using your power to put the hurt on less powerful people makes you a tyrant, an abomination.
I don't like you or your political party.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:58 am

Willow904 wrote:...Ed was just a little ahead of the curve in 2015, but public opinion will eventually move to his position that our economic model is broken. The one big message Labour need to get across to the public in response to Osborne's drive to run annual surpluses, is that these surpluses depend upon households taking on record amounts of debt. It's all there in the figures, the trebling of the rate in the rise of household debt has featured in articles in mainstream newspapers, it's an undeniable consequence of Osborne's plans, all Labour have to do is highlight it and keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.

(my edit)

'Ed was a little ahead of the curve in 2015' - yes, that's right.
'...all Labour have to do is highlight it and keep asking people...' - yes.
I'm Labour.
I think our support of Labour makes us Labour.
I want Labour to do this, my Labour party participation makes me Labour.
We must continue highlighting How Things Work For Real to people who'll listen.

Not enough Labour party votes got tallied in this last GE to put Labour in government.
I guess we'll have to live with that result for awhile.
Take every opportunity to work for greater justice, more fairness for everyone.
The votes will turn up if enough people want that.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:05 am

Media fawning yet again over serial failure D Miliband's banal and uninsightful comments this morning. Ugh.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:20 am

Willow904 wrote:
...keep asking people, are they willing to deplete their savings and take on bigger and bigger debts so the government doesn't have to and does this really make sense as an economic policy - it's the privatisation of debt, essentially, and what we save in taxes that could be used to pay for public services, we'll be paying in interest to the banks instead.

(my edit)

When enough people know this is true throughout their day, no government telling them it's going to stay like that will have support enough to continue in leadership.
When people know their value in society, sleeping & waking, the strength of that justice-seeking rises up.
This power creates things like the NHS, for example.

P.S.
Willow904, you write out some of my ideas better than I can sometimes.
I appreciate your talent.
'...by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone...'
Scares the hell out of Tories, that does, though why I don't know; no one gets hurt.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:31 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Media fawning yet again over serial failure D Miliband's banal and uninsightful comments this morning. Ugh.

Dave Miliband's choice of tie was nice - just this side of silly & entirely appropriate - throws charisma junkies into a tailspin, funky ties on someone they'd prefer not funky.
His frankly nondescript, blandish remarks might have pissed off people wanting hostile tattle.
I didn't watch anything, I just read a little of the article & looked at the video picture of David linked below.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:40 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Media fawning yet again over serial failure D Miliband's banal and uninsightful comments this morning. Ugh.

Yes, I know. Forward to 2007, everyone! After all, that's Progress . . . .

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:41 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
I'd agree with that as a tactic. I saw another tweet somewhere - can't remember where unfortunately - saying this was all part of the Tory strategy to define their enemy (Labour) before they had a chance to define themselves (leaderless drift so no clear statements of direction at present).

(my bold)

That's why all Labour MPs should wear jeans now, I think.
Jeans are comfortable, purposeful outerwear, signalling movement, change in circumstances entirely under control yet ready for the box lifting, chair rearranging & general reorganisation effectively coordinated.
Undercuts jackass jibes from Tories talking up largely non-existent trouble.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:41 am

Well done on 2000 posts, PorFavor

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:43 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well done on 2000 posts, PorFavor

Thanks!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:45 am

@Lonewolfie

Funny you should mention Nixon and 1971, wolfie. I seem to recall him being largely responsible for other wrong turns over stuff that could loosely be priced by the ounce. That too had worldwide consequences, ones that are difficult to remedy. 'And on that note I'll just add that albeit I like Americans, Trans-Atlanticists worry me.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 11:58 am

Oh -

Good morfternoon!

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 12:48 pm

Good morafterning all.

I found this article (and the linked stuff) on the influence of the media in the election quite interesting:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/08 ... _election/

I disagree with quite of lot of it, as I do with a lot of Tim's articles, but he is always thought provoking.

Apologies if someone's already posted a link to it (it's quite old, from the day after the election).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 1:13 pm

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.

Talking of whom, did you see the other day Swinney telling Osborne that the fiscal rules actually allowed for a £93bn increase in public spending?

What happened to "voting for £30bn of Tory cuts"?

If there was one thing that pissed me off in the last Parliament, it was that lie. All the minor parties did- perhaps the Greens genuinely didn't understand, but the SNP sure did.

Liars.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 1:27 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
Talking of whom, did you see the other day Swinney telling Osborne that the fiscal rules actually allowed for a £93bn increase in public spending?

What happened to "voting for £30bn of Tory cuts"?

If there was one thing that pissed me off in the last Parliament, it was that lie. All the minor parties did- perhaps the Greens genuinely didn't understand, but the SNP sure did.

Liars.

Its possible that Bennett didn't because she is pretty thick, tbh - I have little doubt Lucas did, though.

(I still like her despite that, though - silly me)

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 1:47 pm

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Sam Macrory ‏@sammacrory 11m11 minutes ago
Former chancellor Lord Lawson says Osborne's budget surplus law is 'partly political, partly putting the Labour Party on the spot' #r4today
In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?

Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.
Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment.

Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage.

It's not just bollocks, it's Osbollocks!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 1:56 pm

GetYou wrote:Good morafterning all.

I found this article (and the linked stuff) on the influence of the media in the election quite interesting:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/08 ... _election/

I disagree with quite of lot of it, as I do with a lot of Tim's articles, but he is always thought provoking.

Apologies if someone's already posted a link to it (it's quite old, from the day after the election).

Thank you for the link, sincerely, though I disagree with author's premise - that is - people, readers of the media, dictate the news read rather than the news dictating to people. Apologies for clumsy word, 'dictating', 'influencing' is too mild, but it's probably a better adjective. I do think I've summed up the position the author takes - please let me know your thoughts.

Some good quality comments made 'below the line' following the article. Many posts were reasonable & it's well worth taking a look for the comments alone.

I disagree media is the reflection of what the people want to see & hear.
Billions are spent on advertising, marketing & public relations firms not because the public are demanding ads, marketing & PR.
Money & time are spent selling people ideas, products & governments.
Money is spent shaping what we see & hear every day.

Media influences people to vote, buy, sell or act in a way desired by those buying their way into our daily environment.

How appropriate or democratic is it to use power to whittle choices people can make & then call the choice made, 'the will of the people', not acknowledging possibilities deliberately withheld would've changed 'the will of the people'?
My last question is sloppy, too open-ended, I think. It's just a thought I had.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 2:01 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.
Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment.

Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage.

It's not just bollocks, it's Osbollocks!

"...surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost. Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment. Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage."

- tinyboat

Tinyboat should be Chancellor.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 2:04 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: In case you missed Lady C's post from last night ... Osborne's latest propaganda pincer movement is to announce he's going to legislate to make governments operate a surplus in 'normal' times. Peston was on Radio 4 saying many economists would consider this as a move too far - that states need flexibility to be able to generate growth and that the Treasury's own calculations show this won't reduce the general debt any more quickly - it will take 20 years apparently. He also said that without good growth there will be reduced tax revenues and the public will be poorer than they might need to be.

Oh the wonders of Osbornomics eh.

But really it's pretty much a front exercise to try and trap Labour into either voting for it ... because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' - cue SNP, Green, Plaid hollering - or against it because it's pretty meaningless if it's predicated on an undefined 'normal times' and won't do much to help the economy grow - cue Tory and mainstream media braying and hollering.
'partly political, partly putting the Labour party on the spot'....um...isn't that wholly political?

Maybe Labour should just abstain, on the grounds it's complete bollocks, economically speaking?
Hopefully it will unravel before getting as far as a vote, but surely the test for any borrowing should be that the longterm returns either financially or otherwise should match or exceed the cost.
Otherwise Gvt. is sending out message that the country isn't a safe investment.

Put the same rules against private spending & nobody would have a mortgage.

It's not just bollocks, it's Osbollocks!

Osbornomics, Thatcherism MkII or whatever, what level of understanding can we expect from two little rich kids? Thatch herself was the progeny of a small businessman who had a hands-on approach from what I'd heard, so like her kiddies didn't have to. Cash flow, investment for the future, wtf are they? Mummy and Daddy always had enough without bothering oneself with trivialities. Much better to fixate on imaginary household budgets. That's how the economy works; for me and my mates, that is.

Just my impression of second or later generations of inherited wealth, excepting those who take an active role within the family business.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 2:48 pm

CitizenJA

Tinyboat should be Chancellor.

Thanks, I think.
Don't think I'd enjoy that, or be good at it.
but I did have a job folding maps once,
think that's hopefully only similarity

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 3:08 pm

John Prescott has backed Stella Creasy for deputy leader and said she MUST be on the ballot. Needless to say, I agree on both counts

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 3:24 pm

Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.

I wonder what Cameron will propose as the answer to the problem he's just woken up to?

Post by **refitman** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 3:42 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.

I wonder what Cameron will propose as the answer to the problem he's just woken up to?

The IOD seem to think they're going to raise the cost of visas. More than that...?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... c326f2d2f8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 3:43 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/116 ... ially.html

BBC could be forced by law to cover EU referendum impartially
MPs have amended the European Union Referendum Bill to appoint an independent “impartiality adjudicator” to rule on alleged broadcasting bias during the campaign

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 3:52 pm

Rob Merrick ‏@Rob_Merrick 2h2 hours ago
Minister @MattHancockMP rules out #BedroomTax U-turn - says meets "principle of fairness" (Cam claimed scrapping it would cost £1bn) #wato

Sheesh - the Bedroom Tax meets 'the principle of fairness'.

So much for appealing to the One Nation Tory principles and the suggested mea culpa moment.

It's never going to happen under this bunch of ........s.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 4:02 pm

tinybgoat wrote:CitizenJA
Tinyboat should be Chancellor.
Thanks, I think.
Don't think I'd enjoy that, or be good at it.
but I did have a job folding maps once,
think that's hopefully only similarity

Only if you want to be Chancellor, I should have said.
I'm sorry.
I'm glad you don't want to be Chancellor; I don't want to be Chancellor either.
Who wants to be Chancellor?
Your few sentences easily topple Chancellor Jeff's absurd notions & do so in terms everyone can understand.
Well done.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 4:23 pm

Anne Begg retweeted
Paul ‏@Paul1Singh 1h1 hour ago
So the SNP MEPs didn't turn up to vote on TTIP in EU. The right won by 2 votes and so there will be no debate, Stronger for Scotland indeed

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 4:28 pm

Ann McKechin retweeted
Catherine Stihler ‏@C_Stihler_MEP 9h9 hours ago
Tories vote for postponement, Labour votes for TTIP debate and the SNP are not present. Right win vote by 2 votes. Now no debate on TTIP.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 10 Jun, 2015 4:29 pm

refitman wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Matt Chorley ‏@MattChorley 53m53 minutes ago
It is too easy for firms to hire from abroad, says Cameron http://dailym.ai/1GdOHZS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I see Cameron is nicking another one of Ed's astute observations. It is too easy for some firms to bypass any attempt to recruit staff from this country ... and Labour had some good policies to prevent such unfair practices.

I wonder what Cameron will propose as the answer to the problem he's just woken up to?
The IOD seem to think they're going to raise the cost of visas. More than that...?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... c326f2d2f8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave's government actions don't match his words.
I was reading somewhere a couple of weeks ago the maximum number of sponsored employees from outside the UK was close to a cut-off point. The report was from the perspective of UK employers dismayed about this information. I can't locate it at the moment.
However, just out today from gov.UK

Visas and immigration operational guidance – collection
Sponsorship: guidance for employers and educators
Updated lists

REGISTER OF SPONSORS (Tier 4)
Date: 10-June-2015
Register of Licensed Sponsors
This is a list of institutions licensed to sponsor migrants under Tier 4 of the points-based system.
It shows the organisation's name (in alphabetical order), the sub tier(s)
they are licensed for, and their rating against each sub tier.
Legacy sponsors cannot sponsor any new students.
For further information about the content of this register,
please refer to the Tier 4 guidance for sponsors on the GOV.UK website.
No. of Sponsors Licensed under Tier 4: 1,526

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... onsors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

REGISTER OF SPONSORS (Tiers 2 & 5 and Sub Tiers Only)
DATE: 10-June-2015
Register of Sponsors Licensed Under the Points-based System
This is a list of organisations licensed to sponsor migrants under Tiers 2 & 5 of the Points-Based System.
It shows the organisation's name (in alphabetical order), the sub tier(s) they are licensed for, and their rating against each sub tier.
A sponsor may be licensed under more than one tier, and may have different ratings for each tier.
No. of Sponsors on Register Licensed under Tiers 2 and 5: 29,239

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... onsors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;