Who will rid us of this turbulent priest?
No one, hopefully...
The archbishop's role in the HoL, along with representatives of other faith groups, is to act as a moral filter for our system of government and speak out on the issues of the day - he's therefore doing his job - those who don't like this therefore either need to change the HoL and its membership or join the debate on the substance of his comments.
But is he right?
The central claim is that the Coalition lacks a mandate for many of its policies, so is being undemocratic.
Does he have a case?
The mere fact that there was a hung parliament must mean that by defintion there was no clear mandate between the outgoing government and the two alternative propositions on offer @ the election - so there was no majority for radical change.
If you look closely at the LibDem manifesto on the question of the pace and depth of spending cuts and compare this to the Labour proposals, it is reasonable to conclude that there was a clear majority against the Conservative proposals on this main issue, which IMHO more than justfies his central economic policy critique.
OK - election over - hung parliament - what happens now?
Firstly can we reasonably assume that any policy NOT in either the Tory or LibDem manifestos by defintion does not have any mandate because it was never laid before the electorate. Secondly any policy explicitly opposed in either manifesto shouldn't be in the Coalition Agreement either, on the grounds that if either party opposed it, they should have vetoed or amended it during the negotiations.
So are there policies that fit these two criteria being implemented right now?
The answer is yes there are - lots of them - NHS reform, 50% discount on sentences, deep & rapid spending cuts, student fees - the list is long - so an objective audit of the situation shows that Dr. Williams is quite right on the issue of policy mandates.
But we need to delve a bit deeper than he did - there are policies in the Coalition Agreement that ARE NOT IN EITHER MANIFESTO - where did the come from?
To understand this, you need to expose the reality of LibDem politics, and refer to the obscure publication "The Orange Book" - a manifesto of the Libertarian Right within the LibDems, advocating the sort of free market/freedom agenda policies of the Thatcherite era. The Orange Book policies were debated and roundly rejected by the LibDem Party and consigned to bthe dustbin of history - yet here they are, dusted off and write into the Coalition Agreement.
How can this be?
As soon as the hung parliament result became clear, the horsetrading started and Nick Clegg decided to go into coalition with David Cameron - he claims that the LibDems therefore couldn't implement their manifesto, which gave him the right to negotiate the Coalition Agreement's content - fair enough - but did Clegg go beyond the bounds of his role to negotiate within the bounds of the mandate implied in the content of his Party's manifesto?
It is my contention that Clegg effectively put his own Party's manifesto in the bin, dusted off the Orange Book and used the mechanism of the Agreement negotiations to effectively stage a coup d'etat to impose policies roundly rejected by his own party and therefore never laid before the electorate at all in his Party's manifesto.
Dr, Williams' assertion that what has gone on is profoundly undemocratic therefore seriously understates the level of political misconduct - to implement policies debated ad rejected by his own Party and actively opposed in its manifesto is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC - Nick Clegg deliberably allowed voters to think his Prty stood for an range of policies whilst actively seeking to do the exact opposite.
Therefore my assessment of Dr. Williams is that he significantly understates his case.
Thursday 9 June 2011
Wednesday 8 June 2011
BBC Blogs down
I see that there are NO BBC BLOGS this morning...
We appear to have hit someone where it hurts.
Don't mess with the blogosphere!
We appear to have hit someone where it hurts.
Don't mess with the blogosphere!
Tuesday 7 June 2011
Student Loans - Willetts' Disaster
There is a fundamental contradiction in Mr Willetts' "marketisation" of higher education - it goes like this...
1. Except for the extremes of the income distribution, most students will pay EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT of repayments, REGARDLESS of whether their fees were £6k or £9k, so the price elasticity of demand is zero - a flat line - there is no price difference in terms of the amount you pay.
2. The level of demand for higher education could rise, fall or remain the same, but surveys show that the demand curve will probably go DOWN, as many people are put off by the idea of having such large debts.
THE DEMAND CURVE IS THEREFORE LIKELY TO BE HORIZONTAL AND AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN TODAY.
3. Universities understand that they will lose £1 per x of teaching grant in clawbacks, but they will get £3+ per x in fees, so there is a finanical incentive to MAXIMISE the fee level.
4. Demand for university places will be driven by PERCEVED QUALITY, so in crude terms places will fill up top-to-bottom, therefore universities are positioning themsleves in terms of students' quality perception - therefore it makes complete sense to charge the highest fees for the highest quality courses - "if i's expensive,it must be good" in other words.
THE SUPPLY CURVE IS THERFORE VERTICAL @ THE FULL COST FEE OF £9K, whilst the rpice elasticity of supply is also ZERO.
We thererfore do not have a "market" at all in terms of price infliuencing supply or demand.
But it get worse:
5. The Government's own research suggested that at the £6k fee level 30% of student loans would never be repaid because the ex-students' earnings wouldn't generate enough payments over the loan period before the cutoff time expired. If you then project a fee level 50% higher, then working on the standard income distribution profiel, IMHO this non-repayment level rapidly heads north of FIFTY PER CENT.
6. At only a 50% repalyment profile, the cost to the taxpayer of paying for non-repaid student debt and the capital borrowings needed to fund the Student Loan Company spirals rapidly out of control, adding billions to UK government debt.
7. As the whole refor of Higher Education was designed to help reduce UK debt levels and transfer much of the cost of higher education to students, then the reverse will happen, i.e. the policy is entirely self-defeating.
8. Students going into work with £40k+ of debt won' be able to buy homes unless their earnings are quite high - and most won't contribute enough into pensions to get a decent retirement income.
9. The medium to long term forecast IMHO of this is that the taxpayer will have to invest much more insocial housing and provid welfare support in retirement to future generations, which will cost orders of magnitude more than the proposed savings under the new student loan system - all that will happen is that a vast reservoir of personal debt and lack of savings will be transmitted to future generations.
10. The fall i university entry demand will bang down the quality ladder, causing institutions at or near the bottom to be left with empty places, so several will close in future years - 2011 is a "bulge" year.
11. Those who elect not to go to university will either be unemployed, will fall on the government retraining budget, so their costs will simply transfer from education to welfare, or their lack of skills will reduce their employability and earnings profile, so storing up another long term weight on the economy.
Mr Willetts created this situation - he is thought to be as clever as several barrels of monkeys -did he get this all wrong, or did he soresee exactly what would happen and has simply hoped to reach this point then unveil wht he really wants to achieve?
IMHO he is either so arrogant and blinkered that he seriously believed he really would create a market in higher education, mainly because he suffers from a quasi-religious belief in the free market?
Or is this part of a much deeper plan aimed at drastically pruning back higher education to its 1960s levels?
I think we are the point where to Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals etc should also add their voice to the criticism of Mr Willetts and pass a vote of no confidence in him as well.
I notice the word "default" is being used about students who d not earn enough to pay off their debt - THIS IS NOT "DEFAULTING" AT ALL - it is the way the system works and if someone accused me of "defaulting" in this way, I'd sue them for slander.
1. Except for the extremes of the income distribution, most students will pay EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT of repayments, REGARDLESS of whether their fees were £6k or £9k, so the price elasticity of demand is zero - a flat line - there is no price difference in terms of the amount you pay.
2. The level of demand for higher education could rise, fall or remain the same, but surveys show that the demand curve will probably go DOWN, as many people are put off by the idea of having such large debts.
THE DEMAND CURVE IS THEREFORE LIKELY TO BE HORIZONTAL AND AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN TODAY.
3. Universities understand that they will lose £1 per x of teaching grant in clawbacks, but they will get £3+ per x in fees, so there is a finanical incentive to MAXIMISE the fee level.
4. Demand for university places will be driven by PERCEVED QUALITY, so in crude terms places will fill up top-to-bottom, therefore universities are positioning themsleves in terms of students' quality perception - therefore it makes complete sense to charge the highest fees for the highest quality courses - "if i's expensive,it must be good" in other words.
THE SUPPLY CURVE IS THERFORE VERTICAL @ THE FULL COST FEE OF £9K, whilst the rpice elasticity of supply is also ZERO.
We thererfore do not have a "market" at all in terms of price infliuencing supply or demand.
But it get worse:
5. The Government's own research suggested that at the £6k fee level 30% of student loans would never be repaid because the ex-students' earnings wouldn't generate enough payments over the loan period before the cutoff time expired. If you then project a fee level 50% higher, then working on the standard income distribution profiel, IMHO this non-repayment level rapidly heads north of FIFTY PER CENT.
6. At only a 50% repalyment profile, the cost to the taxpayer of paying for non-repaid student debt and the capital borrowings needed to fund the Student Loan Company spirals rapidly out of control, adding billions to UK government debt.
7. As the whole refor of Higher Education was designed to help reduce UK debt levels and transfer much of the cost of higher education to students, then the reverse will happen, i.e. the policy is entirely self-defeating.
8. Students going into work with £40k+ of debt won' be able to buy homes unless their earnings are quite high - and most won't contribute enough into pensions to get a decent retirement income.
9. The medium to long term forecast IMHO of this is that the taxpayer will have to invest much more insocial housing and provid welfare support in retirement to future generations, which will cost orders of magnitude more than the proposed savings under the new student loan system - all that will happen is that a vast reservoir of personal debt and lack of savings will be transmitted to future generations.
10. The fall i university entry demand will bang down the quality ladder, causing institutions at or near the bottom to be left with empty places, so several will close in future years - 2011 is a "bulge" year.
11. Those who elect not to go to university will either be unemployed, will fall on the government retraining budget, so their costs will simply transfer from education to welfare, or their lack of skills will reduce their employability and earnings profile, so storing up another long term weight on the economy.
Mr Willetts created this situation - he is thought to be as clever as several barrels of monkeys -did he get this all wrong, or did he soresee exactly what would happen and has simply hoped to reach this point then unveil wht he really wants to achieve?
IMHO he is either so arrogant and blinkered that he seriously believed he really would create a market in higher education, mainly because he suffers from a quasi-religious belief in the free market?
Or is this part of a much deeper plan aimed at drastically pruning back higher education to its 1960s levels?
I think we are the point where to Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals etc should also add their voice to the criticism of Mr Willetts and pass a vote of no confidence in him as well.
I notice the word "default" is being used about students who d not earn enough to pay off their debt - THIS IS NOT "DEFAULTING" AT ALL - it is the way the system works and if someone accused me of "defaulting" in this way, I'd sue them for slander.
Monday 6 June 2011
Plan B - sensible, achieveable
Would someone please explain to me why the Osborne Deficit Reduction Plan is deemed to be so wonderful that it will never require any amendment to take account of reality unfolding?
1. Recession last Qtr - flatline this Qtr.
2. Oil price spike is HUGE and massively recessionary.
3. Inflation has rocketed way above OBR forecasts.
4. Japanese earthquake has throttled trade in many sectors - NB cars.
5. PIIGS debt crisis has got a lot worse - the UK is exposed.
6. Unemployment is projected to grow as public sector workers lose their jobs.
7. Major sectors like construction and retail report a negative trend.
8. The banks still aren't lending on home loans or to small businesses.
9. The international financial system is creaking .
10. The OBR's forecast that the "Budget for Growth" is that it won't produce any measurable impact.
11. Real living standards are falling rapidly and the cost of living is rising.
12. The UK's balance of payments is deteriorating.
Any reasonable assessment of these factors would indicate the need to revise the plan and revise the forecasts - OK the OBR has revised its growth forecast down a bit, but I simply don't understand why George Osborne thinks that a plan he put in place a year ago or more is so wonderful that there is never any need to modify it in the light of these substantial issues and events.
IMHO we're looking @ 500,000 construction jobs going, 250,000 public sector jobs lost, then add in retail retrenchment plus defence manufacturer's cuts and the shake out in banking, it's likely there will be 5,000,000 unemployed before the next election - a lot less tax coming in and a lot more welfare payments going out - and a lot more government borrowing to pay for it, not less.
The nub of the issue is the real effect on aggregate demand of £110 Bn being taken out of the economy in tax rises and spending cuts. The size of the multiplier we should use to work this out is widely disputed - some say zero - some say 2, 4, 6 or even 10.
A multiplier of 10 would equate to taking £1 Tn of aggregate demand out of the economy at a time of domestic weakness and international fragility - Osborne described the Irish economy pre-bust as a "glowing example" - despite the fact that the Eire economy is now a complete basket case, GO seems determined to repeat their mistakes in the UK - "there is no alternative" is all we hear - no Plan B - the outlook can get as bad as it likes - the colours are nailed to the mast, the wheel of the ship of state is lashed down - there will be no change of course regardless of what happens, regardless of how many icebergs are spotted on the horizon ahead.
This is not pragmatic government responding to the evidence of its own eyes and ears in the interests of its people - its a dogmatic doctrinal fanaticism determined to inflict a political ideology on the country at all costs.
The bailout of the banks cost us £100 Bn+ - our holdings in them are now approx £100 Bn - why aren;t we using this HUGE ASSET to pay off the debt over 5-10 years, whilst stimulating the construction industry to build social housing and create new jobs rather than making such rapid, deep reductions which are not neessary anyway, if we used the banknig assets.
A simply question for Mr Osborne - what sort of event would cause you to revise your economic policy ? Given what's happening already, clearly it would need to be catastrophic.
1. Recession last Qtr - flatline this Qtr.
2. Oil price spike is HUGE and massively recessionary.
3. Inflation has rocketed way above OBR forecasts.
4. Japanese earthquake has throttled trade in many sectors - NB cars.
5. PIIGS debt crisis has got a lot worse - the UK is exposed.
6. Unemployment is projected to grow as public sector workers lose their jobs.
7. Major sectors like construction and retail report a negative trend.
8. The banks still aren't lending on home loans or to small businesses.
9. The international financial system is creaking .
10. The OBR's forecast that the "Budget for Growth" is that it won't produce any measurable impact.
11. Real living standards are falling rapidly and the cost of living is rising.
12. The UK's balance of payments is deteriorating.
Any reasonable assessment of these factors would indicate the need to revise the plan and revise the forecasts - OK the OBR has revised its growth forecast down a bit, but I simply don't understand why George Osborne thinks that a plan he put in place a year ago or more is so wonderful that there is never any need to modify it in the light of these substantial issues and events.
IMHO we're looking @ 500,000 construction jobs going, 250,000 public sector jobs lost, then add in retail retrenchment plus defence manufacturer's cuts and the shake out in banking, it's likely there will be 5,000,000 unemployed before the next election - a lot less tax coming in and a lot more welfare payments going out - and a lot more government borrowing to pay for it, not less.
The nub of the issue is the real effect on aggregate demand of £110 Bn being taken out of the economy in tax rises and spending cuts. The size of the multiplier we should use to work this out is widely disputed - some say zero - some say 2, 4, 6 or even 10.
A multiplier of 10 would equate to taking £1 Tn of aggregate demand out of the economy at a time of domestic weakness and international fragility - Osborne described the Irish economy pre-bust as a "glowing example" - despite the fact that the Eire economy is now a complete basket case, GO seems determined to repeat their mistakes in the UK - "there is no alternative" is all we hear - no Plan B - the outlook can get as bad as it likes - the colours are nailed to the mast, the wheel of the ship of state is lashed down - there will be no change of course regardless of what happens, regardless of how many icebergs are spotted on the horizon ahead.
This is not pragmatic government responding to the evidence of its own eyes and ears in the interests of its people - its a dogmatic doctrinal fanaticism determined to inflict a political ideology on the country at all costs.
The bailout of the banks cost us £100 Bn+ - our holdings in them are now approx £100 Bn - why aren;t we using this HUGE ASSET to pay off the debt over 5-10 years, whilst stimulating the construction industry to build social housing and create new jobs rather than making such rapid, deep reductions which are not neessary anyway, if we used the banknig assets.
A simply question for Mr Osborne - what sort of event would cause you to revise your economic policy ? Given what's happening already, clearly it would need to be catastrophic.
Friday 3 June 2011
BBC dumbdownblogs
I'm proposing we simply stop postng text on the BBC blogs and post links to exterior blogs instead, that way if you want a proper sized comment, you can still post a link to it and be able to read it like this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)