General politics discussion thread

[NEWM]

Grim piece from the Guardian website. Interesting times afoot:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ju...t-larry-elliott

 

Slashing the budget deficit will have a dire effect on the north - George Osborne's budget cuts will lead to grinding unemployment in places dependent on the public sector

 

Given that he was announcing a six-year programme of spending cuts unprecedented in the modern era, George Osborne said little in his budget speech about unemployment. Now we know why.

 

Over the next five years, the Treasury believes that at least 2,000 jobs a week are to go from the public sector and up to 2,800 a week from the private sector as a direct result of the planned spending cuts. So much for the idea that the coalition government is taking a surgical knife to a bloated state, creating the space for an unshackled private sector to take up the slack. The private sector will face a double whammy: work from the public sector will dry up, while the loss of so many public jobs will have a ripple effect through the private sector. Those parts of the country heavily dependent on the public sector, anywhere north of a line from the Wash to the Severn estuary, the impact threatens to be dire.

 

Osborne's argument is that he has no choice but to take drastic action; but, apart from the supposed need to appease the bond markets, there is no economic rationale for slashing the budget deficit in the way being planned.

 

First, there is no evidence that the public sector is "crowding" out investment in the private sector. On the contrary, it has only been the demand from the public sector that has prevented the economy sliding into an even bigger hole over the past two years. The chancellor seems to believe that taking the axe to the deficit will lead to a spontaneous recovery in the animal spirits of firms, who will respond by investing more, exporting more, and taking on more workers. This seems improbable, not least because the "crowding in" of the private sector would require a big and permanent reduction in interest rates. But both short-term rates (those set by the Bank of England) and long-term rates (set in the bond markets) are already at historically low levels.

 

Second, the climate for job creation is poor and likely to remain so. Britain's biggest export market, the euro area, is moribund, while the US, which hitherto has rebounded more quickly than Europe from recession, appears to be running out of steam. Bank credit is available, but only at a price, and on conditions businesses consider too onerous. As a result, investment is weak. Consumers swallowed pay cuts and pay freezes in order to safeguard jobs: now it appears more than a million jobs are going to be lost anyway. The temptation for households to save rather than spend will be mightily strong over the next few years.

 

Third, the attempt to appease the markets may prove counter-productive, as big sell-off in share prices on both sides of the Atlantic showed. The plunge was caused, not by concerns over a sovereign debt crisis, but because of a sharp fall in US consumer confidence. Having panicked governments, including ours, into crash deficit reduction, the markets are now worried about the impact on growth. All of which shows it is dumb to allow the financial markets to dictate policy.

 

In Britain's case, that means spending cuts on a scale that will exceed both in scale and duration those imposed by the International Monetary Fund between 1976 and 1982. Yet, unless the next few years throw up a source of job creation as yet unidentified, the impact of this budget will be depressingly similar. Think 1980s. Think Boys from the Black Stuff. Think a new lost generation.

[Carbomb]

It's a sad day when even the French have more balls than the UK.

The French have always had far more balls than us in terms of defending their labour rights and standing up for themselves. It's just the Americans have painted them as cowards because they refuse to aid their imperial crusades, killing and dying for oil and power. Again, realistically an act of bravery and strength.

 

Fuckin' A.

 

On the other hand I have rarely seen anything other than lazy and apathetic acceptance from the British.

 

We weren't always like this. The British have only been this spineless and lazy since Thatcher destroyed the unions.

[Loki]

THe last major protests I remember were over the war in Iraq, and the government took no notice. Before that, the Poll tax riots and the government took no notice. Then there was the Miner's strike in the 80s, and the government took no notice.

 

Maybe as a nation we've just realised that under our current political system, taking to the streets actually achieves nothing?

[David]

Maybe as a nation we've just realised that under our current political system, taking to the streets actually achieves nothing?

I don't think so.

 

I think it's simply fear.

[Carbomb]

THe last major protests I remember were over the war in Iraq, and the government took no notice. Before that, the Poll tax riots and the government took no notice. Then there was the Miner's strike in the 80s, and the government took no notice.

 

Maybe as a nation we've just realised that under our current political system, taking to the streets actually achieves nothing?

 

The Miners' Strike didn't fail because of the general principle of striking not being effective. It failed because Arthur Scargill was an idiot. If you're going to have a strike, have it when people notice and feel it the most. In this case, if you're going to have a coalminers' strike, don't have it in summer when people don't bloody need coal.

 

Also, Scargill was an idiot when it came to dealing with Thatcher. In the very early 80s, he led an industrial action, and Thatcher quickly gave him what he wanted to buy him off. He went off and paraded and crowed about the victory, instead of keeping an eye on what she was doing in the meantime, i.e. preparing the ground for anti-union legislation. When she finally brought it out, he was completely blindsided and unable to do a thing about it, having been effectively presented with a fait accompli.

 

The Iraq protests were big, but they weren't big enough. It's not so much that taking to the streets achieves nothing, but more that the government realises that the population nowadays is more starkly polarised than ever. In the old days, you could be sure that, if a million people were protesting, there would be several million more sharing the same sentiment. In the current era, apathy is so rampant that the most likely situation is that, if a million people protest, there are probably only a few thousand more prepared to get off their lazy, indifferent arses to do anything about it.

[SpursRiot2012]

Hang on, why should I take to the streets because the retirement age might go up to 66? I honestly don't know, explain it to me. Why would I care? If I'm not dead by that age, then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[David]

Hang on, why should I take to the streets because the retirement age might go up to 66? I honestly don't know, explain it to me. Why would I care?

It's that kind of attitude that's seeing the country go down the shitter to be honest.

 

If everyone were only out for themselves we'd all pretty much be fucked.

[Carbomb]

Hang on, why should I take to the streets because the retirement age might go up to 66? I honestly don't know, explain it to me. Why would I care? If I'm not dead by that age, then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

"Crossing that bridge when you come to it" is the last thing you want to do when reaching that age. It's why people save up for their pensions.

[SpursRiot2012]

Hang on, why should I take to the streets because the retirement age might go up to 66? I honestly don't know, explain it to me. Why would I care?

It's that kind of attitude that's seeing the country go down the shitter to be honest.

 

If everyone were only out for themselves we'd all pretty much be fucked.

 

No, you misunderstand, I am saying what would the retirement age going up do to me (or anyone else) that is bad? I honestly don't know and am asking genuinely.

[Loki]

I don't get the uproar either. I think it's unfair that employers can force people into retirement at 65 even if they are perfectly capable of continuing to do that job.

 

As I understand it, starting the state pension later will allow them to make it larger when it does kick in. So let the people continue to be self-sufficient for longer, or something.

[Ronnie]

I don't understand at all people's resistance to changing the retirement age to reflect demographic changes.

 

The pension system wasn't instituted to guarantee people several decades of leisure. When it was instituted under Lloyd George many people would be dead too young to claim any of it, and, of those old and poor enough to be entitled to it, most would be dead within two years. (Sorry, I can't remember which book it was in. I've just had a leaf through a couple of likely suspects and can't find those stats.)

 

We now have a situation where people are physically "younger" than their same-age predecessors. Our 60-year-olds aren't worn down, hobbling, bent-backed. They're not statistically likely to die before they get to their mid-sixties. They're perfectly capable of working.

 

And that's not even factoring in dependency ratios. State pensions are funded by working-age tax-payers, four of which are required to pay into the system to fund one person taking out. 2005's figures showed that this ratio was 0.27, so coverable, But the increase in life expectancy means that this will likely rise to 0.45 by 2035; there will be only two people paying in to the system per retiree, which means that taxes will have to be further increased on those people of working age to cover the cost.

 

It's simply not sustainable to have such a large proportion of the population on a several-decade long holiday, paid for by those who do work. Given that our sixty-year-olds are in far better condition than those of the 1930s and expected to live past their eighties, I don't see what's so unfair about saying that they'll be expected to work longer before the government hands them their pension.

 

I don't get how people can complain, other than for selfish reasons. I fully expect to be working into my seventies and, given that that will come about purely because I'm expected to have a longer, healthier life than my forebears of a century ago, see no ethical problem with it whatsoever, much as I'd like to get a holiday at others' expense.

[David]

I fully expect to be working into my seventies and, given that that will come about purely because I'm expected to have a longer, healthier life than my forebears of a century ago, see no ethical problem with it whatsoever, much as I'd like to get a holiday at others' expense.

Let's hope you're not involved in an industry such as construction then, or any other type of manual labour job.

 

I've worked alongside guys who have ended up with all manner of health complaints in their 50's, never mind their 60's, from the type of work they do.

 

To expect them to be able to continue working until well into their 60's is ridiculous, and to claim that these same guys, many of whom were working from the age of 16 and who haven't stopped since are getting a holiday at others expense is equally as ridiculous.

 

I'd be more likely to believe that a good percentage of students who are arsing around on pretend University courses are the ones taking a holiday at others expense.

 

As for taking to the streets not having any effect, maybe it would be worth reading about the mass movement in Liverpool during the 80's that took on Thatcher.

[The King Of Swing]

I'd be more likely to believe that a good percentage of students who are arsing around on pretend University courses are the ones taking a holiday at others expense.

 

 

 

[Loki]

Let's be honest, state pension means jack anyway. You can't live off it.

 

If we were to scrap it but have an ACTUAL pension scheme for each UK citizen, underwritten by the government, into which a percentage of their income went but augmented by the state (20p in every pound or somesuch), what about that? A public version of a private employment pension scheme but for everyone.

[Ronnie]

I'd be more likely to believe that a good percentage of students who are arsing around on pretend University courses are the ones taking a holiday at others expense.

Absolutely, that'll brook no argument from me. To be honest, I was actually going to write into my post something about "twenty-one years of schooling and a few decades of holidaying being a good return for a little over forty-three years of working under forty hours a week". I didn't include it because of the idea of being unfair to those to whom that paragraph didn't apply.

 

In the same vein, I should've phrased my reply to reflect the truth, that my way of looking at it is biased by my entourage, which doesn't include people who do heavy work. My view is discoloured by office people who are up in arms about being forced to work longer. You could be quite right about those whose work is detrimental to their health.

 

Maybe the solution is to do some form of qualified pension scheme. My uncle was in the army and certainly wasn't expected to work until he was sixty-five before clocking his army pension. Maybe there should be something along similar lines: If you've spent twenty years in a heavy job you're entitled to retire at 65, if you've had a much more comfortable work life you've got to wait an extra eight years, or something like that.

 

Anyway, turning the tables: Given that you wouldn't wish to increase the retirement age, Harry, and that there won't be enough workers to pay contributions to cover the retirees' pensions, what would you do? Follow past plans and encourage people to have a million children each, easing the way in the short term by providing more taxpayers but exacerbating it in the future when they retire and require four workers apiece? Tax the workers even more so that only two are required to cover a retiree's cost? I presume increasing immigration wouldn't be one of your proposals.

 

It's simple: Pensions costs far too much, and will be unsustainable as we head into the future, without some form of drastic action, be that increasing the tax burden, reducing the pension, or delaying the point at which one can claim it.