Mar 27

Someone asked why Clegg would do it? (debate with UKIP) Well Clegg is an toff but not as venal as Cameron or demented and power hungry as Miliband. However the better reason is he had nothing to lose and he could outflank Labour among the self described intellectual middle classes by being openly pro EU pro Immigrant*. Just as Farage can outflank Cameron in the fear of the furrin stakes.

* I am pro common market pro immigrant BTW i.e. fuck the EU but not as much as all that.

Labour and Tory cannot engage with UKIP as their policies make no sense and they would be reduced to labeling and ad hominem attacks. Like the Tories with varying degrees of emphasis Labour feels it has to appear pro Europe for its corporate backers, antagonistic to Europe for its potential voters, anti racist but against immigrants! Alleged future Labour leader Rachel Reeves ranted at Immigrants on Question Time and just sounded like a nutter. This is why the main 2 will not debate Farage. They have nothing coherent to say on these issues.

Nick Clegg is a vacuum. He believes in nothing and has nothing to say for himself. Farage at least gives the impression he believes a word he says but his message is one whose merits are impossible to judge and of course he is a one man band disowning candidates and his own manifesto dependent on the time of day. UKIP and Lib Dems had a symbiotic relationship here. On the main issues of UKIP they are attacking from opposing flanks – such is the dimension of Westminster left to right now about the difference between Buda and Pest.

Make no mistake in my lifetime no two parties have been as close on policy as Labour and Tory but they dare not explain this or their Plutocratic policies. That their supporters argue so viciously and with such trolling effect shows their [supporters] stupidity.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Sep 16

The news that financial product and debt junkie or at least as painted as such Larry Summers had as much chance of leading the Fed (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) as John Kerry of winning an award for insight leaves questions about the judgement of the President who proffered him. It’s clear that for reasons of being tough and strong leaders do not communicate outside their circles and hence policy tends to be a pastiche of an idea which has some currency in the real world. Nonetheless Mr Obama and his team appear to have missed the 200 foot high sign above Summers’ head with the word A-V-O-I-D flashing in gaudy Orange.

Of course I am making excuses for President Obama as someone joked the other day Obama and Bush throw babies over a cliff. Democrats call Bush cruel and inhuman and suggest Obama was badly advised. This is the constant refrain from supporters of the ‘Crats and most loathsome Labour fans in the UK about Brown, Miliband, Darling and Balls who bankrupted us.

Just because someone joins ostensibly the most liberal party in their attempt to fulfill their ego does not make them nicer or indeed better people. Quite the opposite they make their career decrying the Conservative agenda then put it into practice – downright dishonest. Thus if the fault is Mr Obama’s wider team who appointed them? Why does he continue to personally back torture and state bullying of whistleblowers? If it’s a Republican we may rest assured the blame is personal.

I like the persona of Nick Clegg (Brown was beyond likable albeit Labour fans pretend) but his actions suggest he is amoral, at best, even if there appears an absence of spite or malice.

The only valid counter or mitigation is these highly educated wall flowers are morons.

Either way I won’t be voting personally for them.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , ,

Dec 01

Wow Ed Miliband read digested and approved fully a 2000 page report in under a day. I guess these pampered Oxbridge types really are super clever. Indeed Mr Cameron and his coalition partner Cleggsy also managed this feat.  Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , ,

Nov 18

The Independent or at least its ‘i’ variant described a ‘desperate’ Nick Clegg apologising for breaking a promise he never expected to have to keep. However Clegg is a deputy and in a coalition without ministry hardly a strong position to effect much and bound by a coalition agreement which if coalition Govt is to be credible he should accept up to  point. That point is now. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , ,

Sep 23

The latest banker friendly wheeze to borrow even more from our future to try to reflate the holed bubble is this: let people gut their pensions to help their kids buy a house! This is stupid no not stupid but really bloody stupid on so many levels. In no particular order

  • Asset prices like house prices are a bubble being maintained by Govt policy of QE and artificially interest rates
  • Chief losers in all this are the pensioners whose return on savings, investments and pensions are almost nil and unless they’re particularly rich or middle class they really should be joining the Occupy movement.
  • More money into houses would further push up prices that are too high which is the issue.
  • This is mortgage interest tax relief by any other name as pensions are subsidised by the state – another back door subsidy to the financial goons.

The only people this helps short term are

  • Middle class kids who get a house they cannot afford at an unsustainable price so long term their parents money will go up in smoke
  • Bankers get more of the minute %tage of collateral they can call upon’s price upheld and it means more profit for them to deposit abroad.

Long term this policy is madness. Building houses is the answer and the answer to so much more. Even if the UK went bust if it built good quality houses and infrastructure it could bounce back.

Does Clegg see this? Is the banker’s son feathering his nest or just throwing simplistic rhetoric around without a clue?

written by reaction \\ tags: , ,

May 22

Interest rates 0.5%, commodity prices rising, cash stockpiled by banks and corporates yet little lending or investment happening unless you count crazy casino banking as investment. Who in their right mind would suggest making money any cheaper and more QE – de facto a devaluation, reduction of saved wealth and a redistribution to Banks and Bankers?

The Head of the IMF. No really. Really that stupid.

Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , ,

Jan 28

So a week after Labour signal the retreat on the cuts they are made to look like prize buffoons. This week Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jul 02

Labour party fans will try to spin the sight of Ed the ‘Clown’ shouting down the working people of the public sector 5 straight times with identical answers to different questions. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , ,

Feb 07

David Cameron in a classic one step up 2 back speech signaled the end, hopefully forever, for the Labour left’s fatuous we’re not racist but… policy of Multiculturalism. Of course being a Tory he could not help splicing Muslim and Terrorism in a speech even Jon Cruddas might have felt was ill judged and stupid. Continue reading »

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jul 30

Thought I’d frame the economic debate that is not happening in this country in a few paragraphs. What I do know about this so far is that matters of economic policy are discussed in the same way the spin doctors discuss everything else with slogans and rhetoric. The news media is complicit by using politicians for this back and forth where any viewers choose who they want to agree with and discussion and consensus are for the birds.

The Labour position is fluid but essentially ranges from the Cuts are too deep to a Ballsian ‘Please Vote For Me’  position of we’d have almost no cuts. Nonetheless essentially it’s a growth maximisation strategy. They will wax lyrical about the 30s and failed deflation policies and as Johann Hari today the Irish experience Osborne was once so fond of quoting. They will not address how our economy ever returns to paying its way because just because the Govt deficit is reduced to nothing over 11 years under the plans. For me growth = imports = debt as we have weak manufacturing. They do make a strong point that the economy may dip again under Govt policy.

My critque of Labour is this Britain does have a lot of advantages with debt but what if we avoid a double dip and then there is a recession in 5 years and we have a mountain of debt and a still large deficit (as there will be). It’s a policy for me that assumes the Brownian world of debt fueled public and private growth and the Housing asset bubble was desirable and can be continued again for another 11 years. To me without a computer model and expert advice it appears to offer no long term answer. It tackles none of the structural questions and whether there is anything to be gained by the UK re-flating when our main market, Europe, is deflating?

To me with the house price bubble and loss of pension rights ordinary people were not benefiting from the Labour growth and whilst some public services did improve they did not tax to make that sustainable.  It’s doubtful with Labour’s strategy that a position of 0.5% interest rates would be sustainable not that it helps anyone except those with tracker mortgages and the banks. Labour need a new answer but have valid critique of the Govt.

The Govt policy is unspoken and one wonders if many of the Lib Dems understand it! It’s to re-structure the economy as a more private sector based economy with a smaller state – one that does not build debt through trade. To do this they have set about reducing Govt budgets outside Health and Education by 25% – or at least that’s the leader maybe to settle a bit below this when people object. Given Health and Education are being re-structured on moronic ideological grounds, not sense, they will be getting deep cuts in reality. Cameron is pimping us with easy to swallow opinions for the Turks and Indians to understand whilst crapping on smaller states like Israel and Pakistan to boost trade it seems.

The idea is that in addition to direct savings the cuts pay medium term by reducing our interest rates and debt interest payments.  It raises the risks of a double dip recession because the laid off public sector workers and reduced Govt spending will drag the economy. Plus the financial markets who like people to suffer pain it seems have kept the currency up in support, making the plan for the private sector to fill the space with an export led renaissance harder to fulfill!

In summary I agree with the Tory view that long term we need to balance our economy better. To export as much as we import. I also agree Brown should have spent less or taxed more. I agree that the parallels with Ireland are false because the structure of our fiscal debt plus the UK’s interest rate and currency are in our control.

However there seems no economic justification for policies that are anti environment as bus services etc get cut. Anti poor as deep cuts inevitably are – without the brutal and naked contempt for poor children shown by the mendacious and incompetent Michael Gove. It befuddles me that VAT is considered a better tax to raise than Income Tax no doubt because although poor people pay more they notice it less starkly than when it comes from their pay packet. It does not tackle care for the elderly which will clearly suffer as NHS and councils are deprived of revenue. It’s a policy that takes a long term view that might even be flawed of one measure the Govt deficit and ignores the real problems facing us of the Environment, care of the Elderly and getting the under class into society.

So is this is the great debate or did Newsnight waste breath on whether Clegg and Cameron told lies in negotiation as everyone does in negotiation last night? Why with such a long term and important decisions facing the country are public sector broadcasters exploring every inch of Raoul Moat’s life but allowed the economy to be covered by the trading of rhetoric by Govt and Opposition.

I want to know more.  For me I don’t know which side is closer but the answer is definitely somewhere in between and without Health and Education restructuring thrown in for good measure.

It’s a logical fallacy for the Tories to claim that as Brown was wrong this is right.

written by reaction \\ tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,