Political prisoner, activist, journalist, hymn-writer, emerging thinktanker, aspiring novelist, "tribal elder", 2019 parliamentary candidate for North West Durham, Shadow Leader of the Opposition, "Speedboat", "The Cockroach", eagerly awaiting the second (or possibly third) attempt to murder me.
Friday, 22 February 2013
Junk George
I am no fan of the rating agencies. But George Osborne is. And the
Triple A rating is gone. Therefore, Osborne and the Coalition ought to be gone,
too.
Sure, but who ran up the deficit that caused this?
Osborne's crime was that he didn't cut Labour's deficit, and raised taxes instead of cutting them-thereby strangling the part of our economy that creates wealth.
But surely, in that case, Labour ought to be "gone" too-since they caused this catastrophic deficit (treating the Treasury like a kid Home Alone with Daddy's credit card) and thus we would have lost Triple A sooner had they stayed in power.
The only solution is for a Government committed to transferring money from the unproductive sector of our economy to the productive (i.e wealth-creating) sector of our economy. Through tax cuts-paid for with real spending cuts.
Nobody cares about any of this. Hardly anyone even remembers any of it now. They don't even blame the Lib Dems. They simply blame the Tories in general, and George Osborne in particular. Couldn't happen to a nicer man.
Only Gideon staked his whole reputation on this. His position is totally untenable. Trying to deflect attention by mentioning the previous government is too desperate for words.
Why are you more interested in the meaningless machinations of patry politics (whose up and whose down etc) than in the future of the country?
Osborne's fate is meaningless, and it will change absolutely nothing about the economic disaster that awaits us.
The point, as Peter Hitchens said last night on Question Time, is that no party is willing to recognise that we cannot go on living beyond our means, as we enter national decline.
Peter Hitchens example was shocking; that our housing benefits cost more than the RAF-and our entire income tax is swallowed by welfare each year.
Instead of serious discussion, we get whingeing babies like UK Uncut.
I'd like to see Peter's exact figures there. And an explanation as to why those particular states of affairs are wrong.
As he, like the Left, has long pointed out, and as he pointed out on Question Time this week, Housing Benefit is a very poor substitute for the council housing that was sold off, we all know by whom.
But why shouldn't social housing cost more than the RAF? How could it not? Spending on the RAF, a service which your neocon mates (in the Henry Jackson Society and The Commentator, which increasingly control UKIP) want to abolish whereas I most certainly do not, is not a saving. It is just spending on something else.
Likewise, define "welfare" (an Americanism, anyway). Most recipients are in work, and recipients also include everyone over 65, as well as all women and many men with dependent children. What do you think that they do with this money? I'll tell you. They spend it. To withdraw it is to withdraw spending power.
Spending of this kind is the precise opposite of living beyond our means. If the whole of income tax goes on "welfare", then by definition it cannot be beyond our means, or that would be impossible, because the money would not be there.
It is the City that is taking out and putting nothing in. As well as the giant corporations to which paying tax is effectively voluntary. Of course, you heartily approve of all of that.
The downturn was global. At the point the Tories came to power the economy was starting to recover. They reversed the very actions creating this. I couldn‘t care less about the economic rating but Osbourne based his entire economic credibility on the sustaining of AAA rating. If he had any self respect he‘d resign.
As for fringe entertainment, it'll be interesting to see how Portillo avoids this one next Thursday evening. You'll remember he also staked the whole Coalition raison d'être on the nation maintaining it's premium lending and borrowing reputation: he is on visual and audio record of repeatedly doing just such a thing.
Off-topic I know but, since we mentioned him, there's a delightful Twitter bust-up between [eter Hitchens and Stella Creasy.
He's socking it to the "bourgeois bohemian" Labour Party-telling Ms Creasy that she and her party "want the votes of people whose opinions they secretly despise" (Gordon Brown's infamous "bigot" comment has been quoted)
Poor Ms Creasy is NOT happy.
He's forcing her to publicly explain why she opposes the grammar schools her party made illegal, when she went to one-and why she won't endorse marriage as better for children than non-marriage.
Every Labour Party fraud (especially Miliband and Cruddas) should be subjected to the Hitchens Hairdryer.
Which fact am I wrong on? His voting record on all those issues is a matter of public record, sir!
I've checked it-you clearly haven't.
And you cannot be a conservative and be in favour of euthanasia, abolishing a child's 'right to a father' and making grammar schools illegal (all of which Cruddas voted for).
There are plenty of people in Parliament with Cruddas's views on those issues-none of them are conservatives.
Sure, but who ran up the deficit that caused this?
ReplyDeleteOsborne's crime was that he didn't cut Labour's deficit, and raised taxes instead of cutting them-thereby strangling the part of our economy that creates wealth.
But surely, in that case, Labour ought to be "gone" too-since they caused this catastrophic deficit (treating the Treasury like a kid Home Alone with Daddy's credit card) and thus we would have lost Triple A sooner had they stayed in power.
The only solution is for a Government committed to transferring money from the unproductive sector of our economy to the productive (i.e wealth-creating) sector of our economy. Through tax cuts-paid for with real spending cuts.
Which party in Parliament will do that?
Nobody cares about any of this. Hardly anyone even remembers any of it now. They don't even blame the Lib Dems. They simply blame the Tories in general, and George Osborne in particular. Couldn't happen to a nicer man.
ReplyDeleteOnly Gideon staked his whole reputation on this. His position is totally untenable. Trying to deflect attention by mentioning the previous government is too desperate for words.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you more interested in the meaningless machinations of patry politics (whose up and whose down etc) than in the future of the country?
ReplyDeleteOsborne's fate is meaningless, and it will change absolutely nothing about the economic disaster that awaits us.
The point, as Peter Hitchens said last night on Question Time, is that no party is willing to recognise that we cannot go on living beyond our means, as we enter national decline.
Peter Hitchens example was shocking; that our housing benefits cost more than the RAF-and our entire income tax is swallowed by welfare each year.
Instead of serious discussion, we get whingeing babies like UK Uncut.
We cannot go on like this. When will we wake up?
I'd like to see Peter's exact figures there. And an explanation as to why those particular states of affairs are wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs he, like the Left, has long pointed out, and as he pointed out on Question Time this week, Housing Benefit is a very poor substitute for the council housing that was sold off, we all know by whom.
But why shouldn't social housing cost more than the RAF? How could it not? Spending on the RAF, a service which your neocon mates (in the Henry Jackson Society and The Commentator, which increasingly control UKIP) want to abolish whereas I most certainly do not, is not a saving. It is just spending on something else.
Likewise, define "welfare" (an Americanism, anyway). Most recipients are in work, and recipients also include everyone over 65, as well as all women and many men with dependent children. What do you think that they do with this money? I'll tell you. They spend it. To withdraw it is to withdraw spending power.
Spending of this kind is the precise opposite of living beyond our means. If the whole of income tax goes on "welfare", then by definition it cannot be beyond our means, or that would be impossible, because the money would not be there.
It is the City that is taking out and putting nothing in. As well as the giant corporations to which paying tax is effectively voluntary. Of course, you heartily approve of all of that.
The downturn was global. At the point the Tories came to power the economy was starting to recover. They reversed the very actions creating this. I couldn‘t care less about the economic rating but Osbourne based his entire economic credibility on the sustaining of AAA rating. If he had any self respect he‘d resign.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Cameron had any, then he'd sack him.
ReplyDeleteAs for fringe entertainment, it'll be interesting to see how Portillo avoids this one next Thursday evening. You'll remember he also staked the whole Coalition raison d'être on the nation maintaining it's premium lending and borrowing reputation: he is on visual and audio record of repeatedly doing just such a thing.
ReplyDeleteOff-topic I know but, since we mentioned him, there's a delightful Twitter bust-up between [eter Hitchens and Stella Creasy.
ReplyDeleteHe's socking it to the "bourgeois bohemian" Labour Party-telling Ms Creasy that she and her party "want the votes of people whose opinions they secretly despise" (Gordon Brown's infamous "bigot" comment has been quoted)
Poor Ms Creasy is NOT happy.
He's forcing her to publicly explain why she opposes the grammar schools her party made illegal, when she went to one-and why she won't endorse marriage as better for children than non-marriage.
Every Labour Party fraud (especially Miliband and Cruddas) should be subjected to the Hitchens Hairdryer.
It would be truly cleansing for politics.
He quite likes Ed Miliband and Jon Cruddas, especially the latter. You have not been paying attention.
ReplyDeleteCruddas-are you sure?
ReplyDeleteHe's a liberal whose public views (on everything from euthanasia and abortion to gay marriage and grammar schools) differ markedly from Peter's.
You should see Cruddas's voting record on social issues-it's somewhat to the Left of Peter Tatchell.
You are missing the point. You are also wrong on at least on those facts. But mostly, you are missing the point.
ReplyDeleteWhich fact am I wrong on? His voting record on all those issues is a matter of public record, sir!
ReplyDeleteI've checked it-you clearly haven't.
And you cannot be a conservative and be in favour of euthanasia, abolishing a child's 'right to a father' and making grammar schools illegal (all of which Cruddas voted for).
There are plenty of people in Parliament with Cruddas's views on those issues-none of them are conservatives.
You are still wrong on Jon and one of them.
ReplyDeleteHe voted for all the things I listed-euthanasia, abortion and every act of 'homosexual equality' legislation of the Blair era.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church ought to have some mechanism for excommunicating fake Catholics like that.
You have still made a factual error.
ReplyDeleteShe does. And it is no dead letter. Why do you think that he hasn't used it against him?
But then, She has never excommunicated all manner of thoroughly heterodox capitalists and warmongers, either. Here's to an African Pope.