Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the lib-dems are shit

Going back to this partial or selective claim from Clegg- the treasury forecasts of effects of the budget deliberately left out a huge chunk of the benefit and tax changes as i pointed out at the time (2/3 of according to this) - di di hear Clegg class his own forecasts partial and selective then? No i didn't. I heard the exact opposite. Now the IFS issue a forecast which includes all the changes the lib-dems and the tories left out to present an entirely false picture and now that's partial. What an upside down world the lib-dems live in. They're not only lying to us they're lying to each other now.
 
I'm really disappointed with Clegg. When he bounced the Tories into agreeing to the coalition, I really thought he had the measure of Cameron and the Tories. He may well have the measure of Cameron - the jury's still out on that - but he certainly doesn't have the measure of the rest of the Tories. I imagine Cable's enjoying his taste of power as a swansong before toddling off to the Lords.

Clegg and cameron have far more in common with each other then they do with much of thier own party membership - economically neo-liberal but cool with people being gay and black and stuff. The coalition coup sidelined the 'lefty' elements of the libdems and frothing at the mouth tebbitite bigots on the tory backbenchers - to the mutual benefit of the two posh kids.

wrt to IFS report, whilst it clearly and pretty much inarguably sets out that the austerity programme fucks the poor hardest and goes soft on the wealthy (and deliberately so) - it doesn't tell the whole picture; the effect of the public spending cuts. These will clearly drive up enemployment and hit the poorest areas hardest - so as well as the squeeze on income, the poorest will be most likely to become unemployed and bear the cost (which will incluide a financial cost) of reduced - or withdrawn - services.

this makes the desperate whigservative bleatings about 'not taking into account our other measures' all the more laughable - lets have an audit of the rest of your programe then - it will be a pretty ugly picture for anyone earning less than £25K p/a.
 
Going back to this partial or selective claim from Clegg- the treasury forecasts of effects of the budget deliberately left out a huge chunk of the benefit and tax changes as i pointed out at the time (2/3 of according to this) - di di hear Clegg class his own forecasts partial and selective then? No i didn't. I heard the exact opposite. Now the IFS issue a forecast which includes all the changes the lib-dems and the tories left out to present an entirely false picture and now that's partial. What an upside down world the lib-dems live in. They're not only lying to us they're lying to each other now.

Meanwhile, the EHRC joins in......

Nick Clegg was tonight facing renewed pressure over the budget when Britain's equalities watchdog warned of action if ministers failed to carry out a statutory assessment of the impact of spending cuts on vulnerable people.

As the deputy prime minister insisted that fairness lay at the heart of the coalition programme, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it might censure the government unless ministers can prove they met a legal requirement to consider the impact of cuts on the poor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/25/nick-clegg-budget-cuts-watchdog
 
it doesn't tell the whole picture; the effect of the public spending cuts. These will clearly drive up enemployment and hit the poorest areas hardest - so as well as the squeeze on income, the poorest will be most likely to become unemployed and bear the cost (which will incluide a financial cost) of reduced - or withdrawn - services.

Very true, but the public sector job losses will also affect people who are not the poorest, this is where a chunk of the pain for those somewhere in the middle will come from. Hard to say exactly how badly they will be hit as we dont know how many of their jobs will be moved to private companies rather than eliminated completely.
 
I wonder if the EHRC will have any effect here ... I wasn't aware of that statutory impact assessment requirement ... interesting.

yes. i watching that one with interest. I can hear the torys grinding their teeth over this bit of 'PC' legasaltion from here.
 
yes. i watching that one with interest. I can hear the torys grinding their teeth over this bit of 'PC' legasaltion from here.

I can't remember the EHRC making a huge fuss about it at the time though. Unless I missed it (distinct possibility :D)
 
I wonder if the EHRC will have any effect here ... I wasn't aware of that statutory impact assessment requirement ... interesting.

Yup, govt departments have to do equality impact assessments etc. Perfectly normal in the civil service. That they ignored it here is pretty farcical frankly.
 
Yup, govt departments have to do equality impact assessments etc. Perfectly normal in the civil service. That they ignored it here is pretty farcical frankly.

Aye. I didn't realised it applied to the budget though. I'm a bit confused as to whether the EHRC think that the impact assessments should have been done before announcing 'emergency' budget, or whether they think that they should be done asap afterwards and budget provisions amended accordingly.
 
The C4 economics editor has picked up on something very important from this IFS report and other ongoing research by them. It appears that the main driver of the well off doing better under the tories and lib-dems is the rise in the income tax threshold - precisely the measure trumpeted by lib-dems nationally (and on here) as the element which gave the budget it's progressive tinge due to helping the poorest (see many other threads as to why this was always rubbish even in the lib-dems ideal model never mind the watered down version they settled for):

It’s also worth noting that the likes of Nick Clegg repeatedly cited the IFS analysis in the hallowed leadership debates. More concerning for the DPM might be the work the IFS is doing on precisely why it is that middle high earners are the relative winners so far from the coalition. And it all boils down to the increase in the income tax threshold – ie precisely the policy that was brought to the coalition table by the Lib Dems to introduce “fairness” into the tax system.
 
Aye. I didn't realised it applied to the budget though. I'm a bit confused as to whether the EHRC think that the impact assessments should have been done before announcing 'emergency' budget, or whether they think that they should be done asap afterwards and budget provisions amended accordingly.

I'd say it was applicable readin the EIA guidance

From the EIA website

What is an equality impact
assessment?
An equality impact assessment (EIA) is a tool
that helps public authorities (1) make sure
their policies, and the ways they carry out their
functions, do what they are intended to do and
for everybody.
EIAs help public authorities meet the
requirements of the equality duties and
identify active steps they can take to promote
equality. Carrying out an EIA involves
systematically assessing the likely (or actual)
effects of policies on people in respect of
disability, gender and racial equality, and,
where authorities choose, wider equality
areas.(2) This includes looking for
opportunities to promote equality that have
previously been missed or could be better used,
as well as negative or adverse impacts that can
be removed or mitigated,(3) where possible. If
any negative or adverse impacts amount to
unlawful discrimination, they must be
removed.

1 Public authorities for the purposes of the race equality duty are those that are listed in
Schedule 1A of the Race Relations Act 1976 for the purposes of the duty. For the gender and
disability duties a public authority is any organisation ‘certain of whose functions are
functions of a public nature’.
2 The current legal requirements relate to race, disability and gender equality, but many public
authorities have chosen to extend this to age, sexual orientation and religion or belief in
anticipation of the equality bill becoming law.
3 ‘Mitigation’ is when measures are put in place that lessen the negative effects. For example,
delivering a service by telephone alone may cause problems for those with a language barrier.
Rather than changing the way the service is delivered, this could be mitigated by using
telephone interpreting services.
 
I'd say it was applicable readin the EIA guidance

From the EIA website

The EHRC certainly seem to think it applies at any rate (I just wasn't aware tbh). I wonder (a) what this 'enforcement action' consists of; and (b) what impact, if any, this will have on the scheduled implementation date of 1 Oct for main provisions of Equality Act- where public bodies' Equality Duty is extended. (Already some speculation about whether the Govt will delay implementation - this might provide further excuse).
 
Clegg and cameron have far more in common with each other then they do with much of thier own party membership - economically neo-liberal but cool with people being gay and black and stuff.

Yes, I'd call both of them socially 'liberal' (note small 'l') but I'm not sure I'd call them both fiscally conservative. I had hoped that the Liberals would restrain the Tories from over-indulging in that latter regard, but it doesn't seem to be happening. The operative word is seem, though, as while Osborne has made the call for cuts, how much he actually gets remains to be seen. The less he gets, the greater the Liberal win, I think. Assuming the Liberals have the wit to claim it.

The coalition coup sidelined the 'lefty' elements of the libdems and frothing at the mouth tebbitite bigots on the tory backbenchers

A very good thing.

- to the mutual benefit of the two posh kids.

But which two? Clegg and Cameron, or Clegg and Osborne? I'm not convinced about Cameron. I mean, what has he really done so far?
 
A very good thing.

Well not at all. It gives them the polictical strength to push ahead with their slash and burn economics. Without clegg contribution, cameron would be weak and not strong enought to take on the nasty bloc on the backbencher - which would have furthe alientated a lot of voters.

I dont think clegg - or cable - are that far away from cameron and osbourne on economics - their both orange book lib-servatives.



But which two? Clegg and Cameron, or Clegg and Osborne? I'm not convinced about Cameron. I mean, what has he really done so far?

Clegg and Cameron. Their all a public school cabal anyway. The shared class/cultural background is not the be all and end all but it often produces a similar (elitelist, arrogant, born to rule) mindset and worldview - and that is clearly the case here - okay yah?
 
Osborne has made the call for cuts, how much he actually gets remains to be seen

What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice? He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash. You really have all the reasoning skill of a pork scratching.
 
What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice? He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash. You really have all the reasoning skill of a pork scratching.

lol. Indeed - this delusion the Clegg is in anyway idelogically opposed to the tories economic plans. His pre-election position was based on nothing more then expidiency - this isn't him 'selling out' its his true colours - not that they were particaulrly hidden before if one had the wit to look slightly beyond the "change" bullshit.
 
lib-servatives
See, I don't understand why the coalition/con-dems don't get called this, given Clegg's "lab-servatives" in the election campaign. It might be petty word-play, but this should be thrown back in his face as often as possible, IMO.
 

Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?

What, is captain Left going to fly into the rescue and somehow magically stop the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer with his magic lazer eyes of justice?

Lovely image. :)

He hasn't 'called for fuck all. He has TOLD us what he is going to slash.

So? He's yet to put his words into action. Anyway, he hasn't. He's asked for spending cuts in many departments, but concrete plans have yet to emerge. These are due in late Sept (maybe October) IIRC. And so nothing has yet been implemented, not even the loss of the Audit Commission, which wasn't announced. Osborne and Cameron are going to have to fight on many fronts. All those little - and not-so-little - empires. They will try to delay, protect their staff, protect the services they provide. It remains to be seen if either has the determination of Thatcher, or will roll over like Heath. Make no mistake: I am deeply concerned about the levels of cuts; it's a least-worse scenario. I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.
 
:rolleyes:

I just can't see the point of slagging off one particular brand. It just panders to the tribal instincts of labour apologists like butchers and progresses the argument not one iota. Yes, the libdems are crap, so what?
please, PLEASE, explain how butchers - or in fact - anyone other than fullyplumped is a 'labour apologist', because I'd truly love to hear your reasoning on that one
 
Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?
Sorry - thought you were pleased that the left of the Lib Dems (such as it is) had been neutralised. I don't agree though - the Lib Dems are giving them just enough cover - more of a 'national crisis needs a national government' sort than any actual influence. The raise in the tax allowance has benefitted the rich more than the poor - and that's about the only Lib Dem policy that has got through that wasn't already Tory policy.
So? He's yet to put his words into action. Anyway, he hasn't. He's asked for spending cuts in many departments, but concrete plans have yet to emerge. These are due in late Sept (maybe October) IIRC. And so nothing has yet been implemented, not even the loss of the Audit Commission, which wasn't announced. Osborne and Cameron are going to have to fight on many fronts. All those little - and not-so-little - empires. They will try to delay, protect their staff, protect the services they provide. It remains to be seen if either has the determination of Thatcher, or will roll over like Heath. Make no mistake: I am deeply concerned about the levels of cuts; it's a least-worse scenario. I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.
They will have to scrap a lot of this, but ...

So they have brought this vision home. During the election campaign, Cameron promised that his cuts wouldn’t be “swingeing” – but in power he is ordering cuts of 25 to 40 percent in almost all departments. To give you a sense of how drastic this is: Margaret Thatcher actually increased public spending by 1.1 percent in real terms per year.

http://johannhari.com/2010/07/30/camerons-economic-policies-will-kill-not-cure

They are a fuck of a lot more determined than Thatcher. The only saving grace is that they've announced at least half a dozen policies that make the poll tax look populist, so they may not be in government long enough to pull this shit off.
 
I hope that Clegg & co will restrain the worst of the Tory cuts; I fear they won't.
what on earth makes you think that's on the agenda of clegg & co? The libdems are NOT the jiminy cricket or 'good fairy' of this govt, they are it's stooges. Clegg is an Orange Book liberal - on economic and fiscal policy, practically a Tory.
It is true that there are still elements of the Liberal grassroots that are commendably progressive, not to say stroppily insubordinate (but god knows why they've stayed on board), but their ability to wag the dog is dubious. If they had that much strength - or desire - they'd have stopped the coalition at the start.
 
Because it's better than giving the Tebbitite wing free rein. Do you really want to see David Davis in No 10?

Well no - but that wont happen. Cameron relying on fractious backbenchers - rather then libdem stooges - to get stuff through would weaken his position and his abilty to inflict his shit on us . He would be less able to crack down when they start frothing at the mouth about europe or gay people - further weakening his position - think of the shit major had to deal with from these goons. Clegg has saved him from them.
 
Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach :D His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.
 
Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach :D His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.

Damm the ISF and their ridiculous 'fact based' world view!
 
Sorry - thought you were pleased that the left of the Lib Dems (such as it is) had been neutralised. I don't agree though - the Lib Dems are giving them just enough cover - more of a 'national crisis needs a national government' sort than any actual influence.

Interesting view, and one that was touted early on, but I don't see it echoed anywhere important these days.

The raise in the tax allowance has benefitted the rich more than the poor - and that's about the only Lib Dem policy that has got through that wasn't already Tory policy.

I don't actually mind that it helps the rich more because it also helps the poor (of which I am one, remember). I try to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.

They are a fuck of a lot more determined than Thatcher.

They certainly talk the talk. But I've yet to see deeds, not words.

what on earth makes you think that's on the agenda of clegg & co? The libdems are NOT the jiminy cricket or 'good fairy' of this govt, they are it's stooges. Clegg is an Orange Book liberal - on economic and fiscal policy, practically a Tory.
It is true that there are still elements of the Liberal grassroots that are commendably progressive, not to say stroppily insubordinate (but god knows why they've stayed on board), but their ability to wag the dog is dubious. If they had that much strength - or desire - they'd have stopped the coalition at the start.

Cameron needs to keep the Lib Dems onside. Therefore he has to pander to them. Their price has appeared to be disappointingly low so far. Of course, it's more sensible for both parties that such negotiations are kept secret, and only the results announced, so we're likely not hearing the whole story. Clegg has a lot of spinning to do, and he hasn't been doing it.

Well no - but that wont happen. Cameron relying on fractious backbenchers - rather then libdem stooges - to get stuff through would weaken his position and his abilty to inflict his shit on us .

If he could get them to vote his way, he'd appear a much stronger leader. It's if he has to pander to them overmuch without restraint from the Lib Dems that worries me.

He would be less able to crack down when they start frothing at the mouth about europe or gay people - further weakening his position - think of the shit major had to deal with from these goons. Clegg has saved him from them.

Not so sure there: the coalition doesn't have that much of a majority. Cameron's in a very difficult position balancing all these factions. I hoped for more from Clegg. But Clegg does have the ultimate power to pull the Lib Dems out of the coalition. Then a vote of No Confidence will bring down the government.
 
Clegg has a got a piece in the FT responding to the ISF laughing at his 'progressive austerity'. Apparently he attacks them for taking a ‘purely numerical’ approach :D His reply is utterly destroyed here. If anyone saved the original FT article could they post it up please. Ta.

Fairness should never be a numbers game

By Nick Clegg

Published: August 25 2010 22:41 | Last updated: August 25 2010 22:41

This government has put delivering fairness at the heart of our agenda and, like the British people, we have a clear sense of what we mean by the word. Fairness is about every child getting the chance they deserve, regardless of their background. Poverty and deprivation matter enormously but fairness also demands that what counts is not the school you went to, the jobs your parents did, or the colour of your skin but your ability to move beyond the circumstances of your birth.

These ideas are easy to understand, but difficult to translate into numbers and statistics. Unfortunately, many people who have analysed the government’s decisions have adopted a purely numerical view of what fairness is about. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report on the emergency Budget, published on Wednesday, is a case in point. Its methodology ignores the impact of our increase in capital gains tax for those on high incomes, and makes impossible assumptions about the effect of reform to disability living allowance and tax credits. These are not technical quibbles. They matter.

But there is a bigger problem with the analysis: it measures the impact of the Budget solely on the basis of how much money people could be receiving from and giving to the state at a single moment. This is a definition of fairness championed for the past decade and a half by the Labour party. It led Gordon Brown, as chancellor and as prime minister, to set statistical tests, based often on somewhat arbitrary measures, so that all government policy was dedicated to shifting people from just below to just above a line on a chart, sometimes only by a couple of pounds, with little evidence that it made any difference to their long-term chances in life.

Distributional analysis of the impact of taxes and benefits has an important role to play; we were the first government to include such analysis in our Budget. But we recognise that it only tells part of the story. In the real world, things are more complex than that.

Imagine a workless couple living on £5,000 a year in benefits, currently categorised in the bottom decile. If we increase their benefits by £5 a week, they are £5 a week better off. In the language of the IFS, this counts as fairness, because overall the bottom decile has a little more money, and clearly it is a good thing that the couple have an extra £260 a year.

But imagine the government helps that couple find work. Now they have a shared income of £20,000 a year and fit into the fourth decile. This, in IFS-speak, is not fairness, because the government has not changed anyone’s taxes or benefits. The fact that this couple’s lives are better disappears from the statistics the very second those improvements happen.

You cannot measure poverty with a snapshot because people’s lives last longer than a single second. If you want to measure genuine fairness, the question to ask about government policy is what its dynamic effects are, particularly across the generations. How does it change the future course of people’s lives? How does it increase their opportunities? Will it unlock the poverty trap or deepen it?

This government is having to make difficult choices in order to cut the deficit. But over time, those changes will help the economy to grow and create opportunities that would be destroyed if we allowed borrowing to continue unchecked. There is nothing fair about ducking decisions and burdening the next generation with debt.

But our determination to enhance social mobility goes deeper than that. We are going to increase people’s incentives to work by radically simplifying the welfare system and by raising the income tax threshold, to make sure that work pays. By next April we will have already taken nearly 900,000 low earners out of tax altogether, and that’s just the start. We have lowered corporation tax, which will encourage businesses to grow and take on more staff, and created a special incentive in the national insurance system for small businesses outside London that take on new employees. All these changes will over time help people into work, which is the best and most sustainable route out of poverty.

What happens in our schools is also crucial. We are creating a Pupil Premium targeted at those who need it most, so the best schools have an incentive to take on poorer children and the resources to teach them well. We have learnt from other nations, such as Sweden and the Netherlands that by supporting parents and targeting investment on disadvantaged children, we can boost social mobility.

It will take some time before everybody feels the benefits of the substantial reform we want to see. If fairness was a simple matter of benefits and taxes, it would be easy to achieve. But fairness that lasts demands bigger changes to the way we teach children, the way we encourage work and the way we create growth. Those changes are what really matter, and they are what this government will be – and should be – judged on in the end.

"But imagine the government helps that couple find work." by firing Public Sector workers?
 
has it been mentioned that clegg tirelessly used the IFS data to argue against the labour government during his campaign? i think indy had an article about it y'day. and now clegg is calling the IFS liars. oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom