The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Furunculus]

Let's just start by saying that taxation certainly doesn't "consume" wealth, let alone the fact that income is not equivalent to wealth. I explained this in a little more depth relatively recently.

and i don't accept your explanation. reduce taxation. increase growth. simple as.

[Furunculus]

That said, it would be stupid to permanently discard our ability to do our bit into turning the Fallout series a reality. A replacement for Trident should be looked at when we have the resources to fund it.

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

I would feel uncomfortable with further integration if certain EU institutions did not undergo radical reform. However, the ability of the EU to undergo that reform is lacking, as it is not strong enough to overcome the objections from single member countries. It's a real catch-22 situation.

Working within the EU system is the only way those goals can be achieved, and regardless of the aims of the Tory Party, they simply cannot affect the debate from their position. It's like the USA refusing to join the League of Nations.

A banker being taxed less for his capital gains than a cleaner is for her income is far more immoral than the state spending (Not consuming; that's what the private sector wants the people to do). And progressive taxes don't retard growth, as they encourage consumption by the public.

A referendum lock can easily be screwed up into a ball and chucked into wastepaper basket of Euroscepticism when a non-Tory government gets into power, thanks to the British uncodified constitution, and the Tory's policy of refusing to codify it. Sure, the likes of Heffer and Hannan would huff and puff and get mighty cross, but then they wouldn't vote for anyone but the Tories anyway, so the point is moot.

you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

eu law having supremacy over UK law might be considered part of the problem, had you considered that?

yes indeed, and why is this catch 22 situation necessary for Britain?

you're wrong, as long as there remain unanimous decisions to be agreed by sovereign nation states there is haggling to be done. and if the eurozone needs something, and we are outside it and yet a veto holder then we hold the whip hand. to argue otherwise is absurd, try it...............?

this isn't an argument about progressive taxation, it is an argument about too much taxation. we want less of it.

and the other parties are offering us what? the point is this is a desirable trait, the public want it, so your point that it is invalid because it might be rescinded is utterly condescending.

[Beskar]

This assumes that: A) The formation of the USE is inevitable and B) a Good Idea.

Should be both. We should all be united globally and through time, this should ultimately result in being the case.

you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

Trident was considered a waste of money back in Thatchers day. Still hasn't changed from that.

[Furunculus]

Trident was considered a waste of money back in Thatchers day. Still hasn't changed from that.

Trident is an important part of the reason why Britain still has a UNSC seat, that is the definition of a good thing.

Trident is also a 100% guarantee against having to maintain massive standing armies on the threat of invasion, also the very definition of a good thing.

At £2b/year that is bloody good value for the utility it provides.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAS forced to use a charitable fund to provide body armour for Afghanistan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...nding-row.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

some truly stellar lib-dem policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...-policies.html

The truth is that a Liberal Democrat government would:

End Britain's right to opt out of EU regulations governing justice and home affairs;

Campaign to drag Britain into the euro as soon as the economy stabilises;

Commit the UK to an energy policy based entirely on renewable sources – a plan that would turn us into a peasant economy, as we pointed out this week;

Increase air passenger duty enormously;

Demand that anyone living in a house worth £2 million or more hand over one per cent of the value to the state – a "mansion tax" that could easily be extended to more modest properties;

Abandon Britain's independent nuclear deterrent at a time when rogue states are building their own, and delegate responsibility for foreign policy to the EU;

Grant citizenship to illegal immigrants, thus encouraging more people to slip into this country in the hope of a further amnesty.

[InsaneApache]

The 'call me dave' quotation game.

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

Very funny.

[Subotan]

you imply that we don't have the resources to fund it, why? and you ignore that a strategic deterrent is absolute rather than optional, why?

At this moment in time, what with the budget deficit and all. Once our financial situation is stabilised, we should get back to rebuilding our military capabilities.

eu law having supremacy over UK law might be considered part of the problem, had you considered that?

I would say a bigger problem is that the biggest British Party in Europe has isolated itself from the legislative process that generates that law. And that doesn't change the fact that Eu Law is supreme to British law, regardless.

yes indeed, and why is this catch 22 situation necessary for Britain?

Well, I was talking about strengthening EU institutions, and further integration as a whole. I would rather have a stronger, more accountable and integrated EU than the one we have at present.

this isn't an argument about progressive taxation, it is an argument about too much taxation. we want less of it..

We do?

and the other parties are offering us what? the point is this is a desirable trait, the public want it, so your point that it is invalid because it might be rescinded is utterly condescending.

I'm just pointing out that it's totally pointless, as the Tories wouldn't agree to any further integration anyway (And would rather pass the buck to an imaginary Poundland where 60 million people all despise the Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats ), and any government which does want further integration can get rid of that lock.

Trident is an important part of the reason why Britain still has a UNSC seat, that is the definition of a good thing.

Trident is also a 100% guarantee against having to maintain massive standing armies on the threat of invasion, also the very definition of a good thing.

At £2b/year that is bloody good value for the utility it provides.

I agree, but now is not the right time to be thinking about a replacement.

some truly stellar lib-dem policies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...-policies.html

Truly stellar! Apart from the last (Which I need a sauce for) and the Trident thing, which I've already discussed.

The 'call me dave' quotation game.

http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

Very funny.

I love it!

[tibilicus]

-Another poll shows that the lib dem surge continues.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2613

Tonight’s YouGov poll shows the Lib Dem boost continuing. The topline figures are CON 32%(-1), LAB 26%(-3), LDEM 33%(+4), so following on from BPIX yesterday we now have YouGov putting the Lib Dems in the lead. The 32% is the lowest the Conservatives have been with YouGov since the election-that-never-was in 2007, 26% is the lowest Labour have been since the Conservative party conference boost last year.
The poll was conducted on Saturday and Sunday, so with the “Lib Dem breakthrough” dominating the media and the election narrative. It’s quite hard to guess what is going to happen next – on one hand the Lib Dems are likely to face a concerted attack from the other parties and hostile newspapers, on the other hand if they stay at this level there will be a snowballing effect of them being seen to be on a roll, the Lib Dem’s normal weaknesses of being seen as a wasted vote will be whittled away, and if the two main parties start focusing their fire upon the Lib Dems it may well backfire by making them seem negative and the Lib Dems as the real challenger.

I'm still unconvinced it will materialise into anything convincing but still, if support remains this high after this Thursdays debate and in to the weekend following that debate, I think the Tory's will have essentially thrown the election.

[Boohugh]

At this moment in time, what with the budget deficit and all. Once our financial situation is stabilised, we should get back to rebuilding our military capabilities.

However it isn't a case of suddenly splashing out £30 billion or even £100 billion now to replace Trident, depending on who you want to believe about the cost. The cost is spread out over the expected 50 year lifetime of the new system and keep in mind we need to think about the replacement now for it to be ready in 10 years when the Trident system will come to the end of its life. Starting planning for the Trident replacement now does not mean slashing £30 billion off the health or education budget next year to pay for it, as some (*cough* the Lib Dems *cough*) would have you believe. You know all this talk about problems in defence procurement and how much money is wasted? Well that is precisely because many of the planning decisions are taken with a short term outlook. If the politicians would just grow some balls and put in place long term plans early, rather than rush things at the last minute, then projects like this would generally come in on time and on budget.

I would say a bigger problem is that the biggest British Party in Europe has isolated itself from the legislative process that generates that law. And that doesn't change the fact that Eu Law is supreme to British law, regardless.

Right, EU law is British law, that's how the system works. The only difference is where that law is generated (London or Brussels) and even then only a certain type of EU legislation (Regulations) come directly from Brussels and can be considered 'supreme', in that national legislatures aren't able to pass new laws that aren't consistent with the regulation (i.e. try to obscure the direct effect of the regulation), the rest are passed to member states to implement through their own legislative processes.

Well, I was talking about strengthening EU institutions, and further integration as a whole. I would rather have a stronger, more accountable and integrated EU than the one we have at present.

Well this just boils down to a difference of opinion. I, quite frankly, do not want a more integrated EU than the one we have at present. I presume you are also in favour of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland passing all their power back to Westminster? Otherwise I fail to see the logic of decentralisation being a good thing on a national level but a bad thing on a European level.

I agree, but now is not the right time to be thinking about a replacement.

As explained above, now is exactly the time to be thinking about a replacement if we want a reliable, cost-effective system. The longer we delay, the more it will end up costing and the initial costs aren't going to break the bank.

[Furunculus]

Booguth's correct about trident.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

entertaining op-ed on the paradoxical nature of the lib-dems:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...er-supply.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

and i f anyone is in ANY doubt about how severe the coming reforms NEED to be to stop the UK ending up like albania, read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-the-room.html

Televised debate made history, but what about the herd of elephants in the room?
First, an apology. If you're not willing to endure an analytical bucket of cold water being poured over your head, stop reading now. But if you care about the UK's economic future, I'd advise you to read on.


By Liam Halligan
Published: 9:44PM BST 17 Apr 2010

Last week's "big debate" was a breakthrough. The leaders of our three main political parties finally agreed to a television discussion. It's crazy, though, that Britain – despite our "vibrant media culture" – took so long to stage such an event. The actual discourse was also stymied by all those rules. An audience that "isn't allowed" to clap when it agrees with what someone has said e_SEnD what kind of public debate is that?

A far bigger failing was that all the leaders - even the Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg – continued to promote woefully inadequate and dishonest fiscal policies.

Labour's March budget laid out plans to "halve the deficit" during the next Parliament - from £163bn to £74bn in 2014/15. Even this final figure is huge - around 7pc of GDP, more than twice the annual average during the decade from 1998/99. The whole strategy is also based on extremely optimistic growth assumptions. When they don't materialize, higher benefit spending and lower revenues will blow Labour's "stability plan" apart.

Yet the other two parties have used the Government's underlying assumptions as the framework for their tax and spending policies - to the extent they exist. The election manifestos of all three parties, also published last week, contained less fiscal detail than any in recent history.

Labour says it will "protect schools, hospitals and the police from spending cuts", while raising national insurance contributions. The Tories won't increase NICs, but will give a £150 annual tax break to married couples. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, will slash tax relief on higher earners' pension savings, while restoring the £10,000 income tax threshold.

The important point is that all parties - even the "honest" Lib Dems - are at least £30bn short when it comes to explaining how they'll "halve the deficit" – even if Labour's growth numbers come true. The unspecified spending cuts and tax rises needed to fill those black holes will swamp party political nuances, whoever wins the election. That's an affront to democracy.

The fiscal denial goes much deeper, though. Even if the deficit is "halved" over the Parliament, the "national debt" – the total stock of debt owed, not just the annual increase – still spirals out of control.

In 1997, the national debt was £350bn. After Gordon Brown's reign of terror at the Treasury, that figure now stands at £776bn. Buried in the 2010 budget documents is an admission our national debt will soon double again to £1,406bn by 2014/15, such is the impact not only of ongoing fiscal profligacy but the financial meltdown caused, and then savagely exploited, by the world's "leading investment banks".

While these are absolutely ghastly numbers, the reality is far worse. If you can stand it, I'd ask you to look at the graph accompanying this article. It shows that if government spending continues at current levels, the UK's national debt explodes from 70pc to more than 500pc of GDP by 2040. Were that to happen, debt interest payments would equal 27pc of GDP, more than half of all tax revenues. This is the reality we face. Yet our politicians still deal in, and present as "austerity measures", deficit reduction plans which barely dent state spending.

These aren't back-of-the-envelope estimates. This graph was published by the Bank of International Settlements – the umbrella body for the world's leading central banks – in a report called "The Future of Public Debt: prospects and implications".

The trajectory of UK public debt is the most terrifying of any leading country on earth with the exception of Japan (which anyway has far more savings than the UK and the world's second biggest haul of foreign exchange reserves).

The reason the UK is in such dire straits going forward, apart from the legacy of Brown and the credit crunch, is our rapidly ageing population. Generations of politicians have refused to acknowledge this, parking massive and ever-increasing pension and other state liabilities off balance sheet – so the official public debt projections we publish and occasionally debate in this country are fictitious.

So great are these hidden liabilities that, even if the UK controls spending along the lines our politicians now propose, and retains such fiscal vigilance for the next 30 years – avoiding bank bail outs and pre-election spending splurges for decades hence - our debt stock still exceeds 350pc of GDP by 2040.

Grasping the nettle and cutting state pension entitlements in a manner the BIS calls "draconian" would require nothing short of a transformation of our political culture. Even doing that wouldn't prevent the UK's national debt from topping 300pc of GDP in 30 years' time.

This column has often issued such fiscal warnings. Now important international bodies are doing the same. The BIS reports predict that so huge are the impending debt numbers, with the UK the most vulnerable of all, that Western governments may ultimately "resort to monetisation". In such an environment, "fighting inflation by tightening monetary policy would not work, as an increase in interest rates would lead to higher interest payments on public debt, leading to even higher debt... and, in the
absence of fiscal tightening, monetary policy may ultimately become impotent to control inflation".

To avoid this disastrous vortex of spiralling debt, money printing and inflation, the UK is in desperate need of political honesty. Yet we live in an age of unparalleled spin.

I respect Vince Cable, the Lib Dems' economic guru who won plaudits last week for daring to say, in the heat of the election battle, that the deficit is the "elephant in the room" of British politics. Of course, the Lib Dems are right – at least those of them who agree with Cable (many don't). Yet, as the excellent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, even the Lib Dem plans "fill in only a small part of the deficit-reduction jigsaw".

And then, of course, outside the room containing Cable's large "deficit elephant", there's a thundering herd of even bigger "national debt elephants" charging in the UK's direction. In fact, this country's entire fiscal house is set to be crushed under the massive grey, wrinkled foot of a rampaging "demography elephant", so large and fierce that it makes Cable's beast look like a poodle.

To repeat: between now and 2040, on conservative assumptions, the UK's national debt will spiral from 100pc to 500pc of GDP, or 300pc if we take measures to rein in state age-related entitlements that go far beyond what is currently proposed.

Why aren't our politicians being forced to address this reality? Why aren't the massed ranks of "strategy men" in the Treasury waving this BIS paper under the noses of our so-called leaders, telling them "we have a very serious problem"? Why aren't other mainstream economics commentators screaming from the rooftops, using their media platforms to jump up and down and shout "WE SIMPLY MUST CHANGE OUR WAYS"?

The tone of my writing may humour you. The edges of your mouth may be showing the beginnings of a smile. That is absolutely not my intention. I warned this column wouldn't be an easy read – and I'll close by withdrawing my earlier apology. If you've stuck with me until this final sentence, I suspect you'll understand why.

[InsaneApache]

Well I've had a look at lib-dem policies and they are strange. I'm not sure I could vote for a party that wants to do away with the bomb, or one that wants to adopt the euro. This odd mansion tax, very weird. How is Aunt Edna supposed to pay that on her pension? More state control! Oh yes we need much more of that, after all it's worked rather swimmingly these last thirteen years. As for more green policies, do me a favour. Nope I couldn't vote for this bunch of labour-lite, even tactically.

Back to the drawing board.

[Subotan]

Probably the best reason yet to vote Lib Dem:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...urdoch-lib-dem

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.
Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.
I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)
I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.
So while we sent a team of five, plus assorted senior staff, to both the Tory and Labour conferences, we sent nobody to the Lib Dems. And while successive News International chiefs have held parties at both those conferences, they have never to my knowledge even attended a Lib Dem conference.
It gets even worse. While it would be wrong to say the Lib Dems were banned from Murdoch's papers (indeed, the Times has a good record in this area), I would say from personal experience that they are often banned – except where the news is critical. They are the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored. But it is worse than that, because it is not just the Murdoch press that is guilty of this. The fact is that much of the print press in this country is entirely partisan and always has been. All proprietors and editors are part of the "great game". The trick is to ally yourself with the winner and win influence or at least the ear of the prime minister.
The consequence of this has been that the middle party has been ignored, simply because it was assumed it would never win power. After all, why court a powerless party?
So, as the pendulum swings from red to blue and back to red, the newspapers, or many of them, swing with it – sometimes ahead of the game and sometimes behind.
Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.
We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle. For he is untainted by it.
Just imagine the scene in many of our national newspaper newsrooms on the morning a Lib-Lab vote has kept the Tories out of office. "Who knows Clegg?" they would say.
There would be a resounding silence.
"Who can put in a call to Gordon?" another would cry.
You would hear a pin drop on the editorial floor.
The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.
I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.
All of us who care about democracy must celebrate this over the coming weeks – even if Cameron wins in the end, at least some fault lines will have been exposed.

If I could vote in the next election, it would probably be Lib Dem, and probably for this.

[InsaneApache]

I've never quite understood the lefts fetish with Murdoch. Are they really insulting the electorate by saying that Murdoch buys the election? Maybe they hold to the old adage that we should disband the electorate and form a new one.

[rory_20_uk]

I imagine the Lib Dems are doing rather well if papers have ignored them rather than vilifying them.

And as InsaneApache points out, there are other ways of obtaining news than via Murdoch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Should be both. We should all be united globally and through time, this should ultimately result in being the case.

That's an ideological viewpoint, not a politic opinion. The EU may be doomed, only to be rplaced by the American Empire, or the Chinese New New Kingdom.

[Furunculus]

Probably the best reason yet to vote Lib Dem:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...urdoch-lib-dem

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.
Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election – or held the balance of power – it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.
I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)
I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.
So while we sent a team of five, plus assorted senior staff, to both the Tory and Labour conferences, we sent nobody to the Lib Dems. And while successive News International chiefs have held parties at both those conferences, they have never to my knowledge even attended a Lib Dem conference.
It gets even worse. While it would be wrong to say the Lib Dems were banned from Murdoch's papers (indeed, the Times has a good record in this area), I would say from personal experience that they are often banned – except where the news is critical. They are the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored. But it is worse than that, because it is not just the Murdoch press that is guilty of this. The fact is that much of the print press in this country is entirely partisan and always has been. All proprietors and editors are part of the "great game". The trick is to ally yourself with the winner and win influence or at least the ear of the prime minister.
The consequence of this has been that the middle party has been ignored, simply because it was assumed it would never win power. After all, why court a powerless party?
So, as the pendulum swings from red to blue and back to red, the newspapers, or many of them, swing with it – sometimes ahead of the game and sometimes behind.
Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.
We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle. For he is untainted by it.
Just imagine the scene in many of our national newspaper newsrooms on the morning a Lib-Lab vote has kept the Tories out of office. "Who knows Clegg?" they would say.
There would be a resounding silence.
"Who can put in a call to Gordon?" another would cry.
You would hear a pin drop on the editorial floor.
The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.
I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.
All of us who care about democracy must celebrate this over the coming weeks – even if Cameron wins in the end, at least some fault lines will have been exposed.

If I could vote in the next election, it would probably be Lib Dem, and probably for this.

that's a good reason to vote lib-dem...........?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Excellent Subotan, and one more reason yet to root for the LibDems!

I've never quite understood the lefts fetish with Murdoch. Are they really insulting the electorate by saying that Murdoch buys the election?

It's not a lefty fetish. Murdoch's got an undue influence on UK politics. Remember Murdoch's swing in 1997 that was so instrumental in bringing NuLab to power? :

[InsaneApache]

So they are insulting the electorates intelligence then. It's all as clear as mud.

[Furunculus]

Excellent Subotan, and one more reason yet to root for the LibDems!

It's not a lefty fetish. Murdoch's got an undue influence on UK politics. Remember Murdoch's swing in 1997 that was so instrumental in bringing NuLab to power? :

given that you have such a low opinion of the electorate, it is a wonder that you support the concept of democracy at all.........?

labours win was inevitable after 16 years of tories, especially when the last term was considered riddled with malpractice scandals.

the british electorate are judged to be adults of sound mind and therefore legal responsibility, if you are willing to write that off so easily then concepts like democracy and trial-by-jury are utterly pointless.

i have a little more faith in the people than that, so no, getting worked up about Murdoch (that nasty republican that he is) is totally stupid.

and watching anti-tories (previously known as lib/lab fan-bois) getting worked up over murdochs advocacy for the tories after his support for labour in 97 is frankly just hilarious!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, I trust the electorate alright.

I do however mistrust politicians and politicised media. These two are in bed with each other, enjoy an intimate relationship*, and, even more worryingly, the latter have the upper hand, an undue influence on the former. I am not impressed by their excuse that any questioning of this all too intimate relationship amounts to 'mistrusting the electorate'. Masterful spin that, it plays on the pride of the reader.

*For example:

David Cameron's chief press adviser, Andy Coulson, is not named in any of the suppressed evidence. However, the paperwork shows that during the time when he was editor of the News of the World, and contrary to News Group's earlier denials, editorial staff for whom he was responsible were involved with private investigators who engaged in illegal phone-hacking; and that when Coulson was deputy editor, reporters and executives were commissioning multiple purchases of confidential information, which is illegal unless it is proved to be in the public interest. These purchases were not secret within the News of the World office: they were openly paid for by the accounts department with invoices which itemised illegal acts.

[Furunculus]

*fails to be bothered*

rather more importantly is the liam halligan article above on what the Bank of International Settlements is saying, i.e. unless something DRASTIC as attempted britain will be carrying a public debt of at LEAST 350% of GDP by 2040.

who do you think is going to have the best shot at reducing that figure, and preventing my retirement occuring in azerbaijan mk2?

[Subotan]

Murdoch's influence over the media and British politics is far more dangerous than that of the EU. The Sun revels in boasting about how it won this election or that, rolling like a pig in the mud of corruption. The impact of Fox News in the USA is terrifying enough to make any sane person think twice about Murdoch's attempts to dismantle the BBC.

[Furunculus]

Murdoch's influence over the media and British politics is far more dangerous than that of the EU. The Sun revels in boasting about how it won this election or that, rolling like a pig in the mud of corruption. The impact of Fox News in the USA is terrifying enough to make any sane person think twice about Murdoch's attempts to dismantle the BBC.

not a fear i share, but then i treat the electorate of this country as adults............

[Furunculus]

on the subject of the lib-dems and their blithe refusal to 'see' the fiscal apocalypse the country is facing; here is an ex-lib-dem who has a very good idea of what is needed:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2573/...-is-not-enough

When Tinkering Is Not Enough
It has taken Nick Clegg to get the debate going on the size of the State
Mark Littlewood
It’s become something of a cliché to suggest that politicians are all the same, it doesn’t matter who you vote for and that the real issues that matter to people are ducked or ignored. ‘Don’t vote, it only encourages them,’ the cynics often say.
None of the three main parties have yet to properly address the elephant in the room. And it’s a £170 billion elephant. That’s the approximate size of this year’s budget deficit. On top of an overall debt that is set to accelerate beyond a jaw-dropping figure of £1 trillion.

Such horrific numbers require considerably more surgery in the public sector than is being countenanced by anyone likely to serve in the next British cabinet. Amongst politicians of all stripes there is a growing, albeit often begrudging, acknowledgement that the nation’s finances are in a sorry state, but there is no seizing of an opportunity to fundamentally change the way we do things.
It’s here that liberal free marketeers need to truly find their voice. Because although no party is running on a classical liberal platform in this election, the need to make the intellectual case for less government and more freedom is going to become increasingly important in the months and years to come.

Necessity may – to some extent – become the mother of invention. The prevailing social democratic consensus could soon reach breaking point because of a simple lack of funds. An ever-growing array of government programmes reliant on squeezing still more support from taxpayers - or funded by yet more borrowing - is simply becoming unsustainable.

But proponents of free markets need to show not merely that free markets are necessary, but that they are actually more desirable than the state-run alternatives. It is here – in public relations terms at least – that supporters of markets have sometimes allowed themselves to be boxed in. If arguments between social democrats and classical liberals are couched in terms of the former defending the interests of the poor – or even the ‘average’ family – and the latter defending the vested interests of the rich, then – whatever the merits of the liberal case, the social democrats are likely to prevail.

Free marketeers need to show that the welfare state and a growing public sector sphere are not in the long term interests of the overwhelmingly majority of British citizens.

It is an absurdity, of course, that a third of all households in Britain are reliant on state handouts for more than half of their annual income, but this isn’t merely a heavy tax burden on the middle classes, it entraps the least affluent members of society in a cycle of poverty, generation after generation.

An entirely new economic settlement – and a wholescale review of the functions of the public sector is needed.

With less than three weeks to go until polling day, the LibDems’ Nick Clegg has – according to the polls and media narrative – banked a substantial win in the first of three televised debates between the party leaders. He is widely seen as having scored a public relations coup, in part by insisting on honesty and a new approach to politics.

But the Liberal Democrats’ proposals remain extremely limited. The scale of cuts recommended by Nick Clegg amount to a microscopic proportion of the overall public sector spend – and the LibDems would only countenance any measurable reductions in public spending in the next financial year. Even then, they amount to only ₤15bn per annum – and two thirds of this would be recycled into alternative public sector projects.

In the very same television debate, David Cameron attempted to make a virtue of the modesty of Conservative proposals to trim spending. Although the Tories support cutting spending now, Mr Cameron was determined to emphasise that he was only seeking to save a penny in every pound, that such reductions were easy to achieve and could be implemented without any serious pain.

The Labour Party, of course, continues to insist that any reductions in public spending amount to taking money ‘out of the economy’ (as if the private sector – which funds government programmes - doesn’t really count as part of the economy at all).

What Nick Clegg may well have established is that there is a growing appetite amongst the electorate for straight-talking and that under-promising may be more attractive to voters than over-promising. But his party – along with Labour and the Tories - are yet to contemplate the sort of reductions in government activity that the country really needs.

To a very considerable extent, they are looking at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. Each of the parties is considering present expenditure and looking at where it can be trimmed or where those elusive ‘efficiency savings’ can be made.
But the problem isn’t just that their proposals for cutbacks are so limited, it’s that the size of government has spiraled completely out of control. Public spending has doubled in nominal terms since Labour came to power in 1997. And, while it is true that if you throw enough money at something you are bound to sometimes make some improvements, no one in their right mind suggests that the qualitative output of the public sector has improved in line with the resources placed at its disposal.

Rather than working through every government department, working out how we might save ₤1bn here or ₤2bn there, we should start with a completely blank sheet of paper. We should think through – from first principles - what we want the public sector to do, and how much it should cost. Given that no sensible person would start from here in making those assessments, it makes sense to start all over again.

Let’s not trim, or even slash, a list of specific government programmes. Let’s raze the whole edifice to the ground and start from scratch.

If we did so then it’s hard to imagine that we would countenance a public sector that consumed much more than 30% of GDP.
Tragically, instead of this approach, we face a choice of parties who essentially seem to disagree on whether the proportion of national income spent by the state should be 49%, 50% or 51%. That does not provide much ground for optimism - whichever shade of social democracy ultimately triumphs at the polling stations on May 6th.

Mark Littlewood is Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). He was head of media for the Liberal Democrats from 2004 to 2007.

[Myrddraal]

Churchill would disagree with you Furunculus, and I'm inclined in this case to agree with Churchill.

The combined power of the press is enormous, but it is negated by it's disunity. Monopoly of ownership of the press is quite a scary idea, hence why we are appalled by the idea of state media.

[Furunculus]

the answer is simple then; if we are really only children then we should be governed as children, by benign parents who will make our choices for us.

i'm glad that was cleared up.

[Beskar]

Curious argument Furunculus making.

Shame the world isn't full of Beskar. Now that would bring some great nations.

[Furunculus]

why a curious argument?

my views on the proper form of british politics are adequately described by charalmage the arch-euro-federalist here, oddly enough:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl..._party_leaders

Nick Clegg, the Francois Bayrou of British politics?

* Apr 16th 2010, 9:32 by Charlemagne

A MERE decade or five after the rest of the world, Britain last night held its first live television debate between the three leaders of the main political parties. British politicians not being known for bashfulness, it is no great mystery why debates had not happened before. Every time televised debates were proposed, one or more of the party leaders felt they had more to lose than to gain from appearing on an equal footing with their rivals, and said no. BBC Radio 4 held a fascinating panel discussion before last night's debate, at which former Downing Street insiders recalled that James Callaghan (then sliding from power as an embattled Labour prime minister) had been willing to hold a debate before the 1979 election, but his feisty opponent, Margaret Thatcher, said no. In 2001, a (still all-powerful) Tony Blair scorned the idea of a debate with his Tory rival, William Hague, let alone the amiable but doomed Liberal Democrat leader of the day, Charles Kennedy.

This time, with the polls pointing towards the closest of votes, in which the Liberal Democrats could hold the balance of power, the current Lib Dem leader was not just welcomed to a three-way debate, but wooed on air by Gordon Brown with a sort of dour yet cooing flirtatiousness that was quite something to witness.

As noted here before, Nick Clegg is a bit of a Brussels local hero, having worked for the European Commission before serving one term as a member of the European Parliament. It also helps that he is multi-lingual, comes from a multi-national background and his party is as pro-EU as it gets in British politics.

So across town, there will be broad beams today at the conventional wisdom jumping out of the British newspaper headlines, namely that Nick Clegg was the winner of the debate, romping home in instant polls, and discomforting the Tories greatly. At last, my fellow Bruxellois may have thought, as they sipped their morning espresso, Britain is becoming a more normal country, in which coalition government replaces the ghastly, winner-takes-all certainties of two party politics.

Hmm. I wonder. Any idea that Britain is about to become like Belgium or Germany, ie, countries where consensus and compromise are prized, seems premature to me. As if on cue, an email dropped into my inbox from Denis Macshane, a Labour member of parliament, former Europe minister and—most importantly—one of the few Labour politicians with a genuine enthusiasm for European politics (he speaks languages, shock horror, and goes skiing with foreign politicians etc). Mr Macshane is not exactly an objective observer of British politics: he was in the Manchester spin room briefing foreign reporters for Labour. But he is a shrewd sort.

This is his take, written in condensed memo style. It is partisan, but it is thought-provoking:

On UK punditocracy we always look to America. But surely we are seeing the slow continentalisation of UK politics with the old bipolar Tory-Labour divide replaced by a two and half party system with national identity parties (SNP, UKIP, BNP) also having a big place - think Catalonia, Bossi's Northern League, FN in France, Wilders in Netherlands. Clegg is having the same kind of impact as a Bayrou in France, Rutelli in Italy, maybe a Lafontaine in Germany: compelling communicators who seem apart from the bipolar parties.

But English politics over centuries has remained stubbornly tribal and I am not sure that one good Clegg showing will abolish history. It was the Lib-Dem's Diana moment and good luck to them. But there is a long way to go.

The idea of Nick Clegg as the François Bayrou of British politics is an elegantly low blow. I interviewed M Bayrou in March 2007 before the last French presidential elections, when he rose in the polls to 19%, within hailing distance of the Socialist challenger, Ségolène Royal (who was on 25.5%), though further behind Nicolas Sarkozy (then on 29%). Mr Bayrou's big plan was to overtake Ms Royal in the first round of presidential voting, and then find himself one on one against Mr Sarkozy, when he would offer the French people coalition uniting the left and right. He described the French as deeply distrustful, in search of “guarantees” that reforms are “fair”. Coalition rule offers just such a guarantee, he argues. “If you do not have a broad-based government, citizens will think reforms are being pushed for reasons of ideology.” It was, if you like, an attempt to pull off the same trick as Jean-Marie Le Pen (who overtook the main Socialist candidate in 2002 to squeeze into the second round against Jacques Chirac) but from the nice rather than the nasty side of politics.

In the event, Mr Bayrou never closed the gap, as that March poll was pretty accurately reproduced in the first round of voting in 2007 (Sarkozy 31%, Royal 26%, Bayrou 19%). Since then, his centrist MoDem movement has all but faded totally from view.

Now, I am not saying that Mr Clegg stands no chance of being in a coalition government after the next election. From the distance of Brussels, neither of the main political parties looks especially inspiring: neither Mr Brown nor Mr Cameron were willing to have a grown-up discussion last night about the horrible state of Britain's public finances, instead holding a piffling proxy-argument about £6 billion of spending and/or tax cuts (when the annual budget deficit is forecast to reach £167 billion this year).

It is a thought about the nature of coalition rule and how it is seen in some parts of Europe: as somehow enjoying more moral legitimacy and fairness than majority rule. I am not sure that is where British voters are, yet. There is a long tradition in Britain of kicking the current lot out, and giving the other lot in the opposition a chance to show what they can do. I suspect, again from my distance, that we are watching an electorate minded to kick the current lot out, but not yet sure they trust the other lot to take charge.

so no, i have no time for consensus and compromise, what i like are decisive victories that give a party a mandate for change, and the power to enact it, and if they make a hash of things then kick the buggers out next time.

this is why i like FPTP.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Murdoch's influence over the media and British politics is far more dangerous than that of the EU. The Sun revels in boasting about how it won this election or that, rolling like a pig in the mud of corruption. The impact of Fox News in the USA is terrifying enough to make any sane person think twice about Murdoch's attempts to dismantle the BBC.

I tend to agrre, though the Son is more terrifying than the Father, being essentially a hard-right American.

[Myrddraal]

the answer is simple then; if we are really only children then we should be governed as children, by benign parents who will make our choices for us.

i'm glad that was cleared up.

(emphasis mine)

I tend to believe that we don't have democracy to stop benevolant dictators (such as the great TosaInu, all hail!), but rather to stop the less benevolant ones. We certainly don't get to make the actual decisions of government ourselves, we just pick someone who will, and hope that they will indeed be benign parents who will make our choices for us.

[InsaneApache]

What a weird concept. I always thought that we elected our politicians to run the country for us because we have better things to do. Still if your happy to be patted on your head and told that nanny knows best, I'm pleased for you. Incredible.