Nice Nick Clegg Turning Into Mr Angry

[LuckyOne]

This is something that all the "private good, public bad" guys fail to grasp. A large amount of public money is subsidising private ventures in one way or another. It must hit the private sector. There's no way that it won't and yet there are still so many that believe this private sector growth bull.

The left fails to grasp that many on the right consider the portion of public spending that is bad to be universally bad regardless of whether it is ultimately spent on companies with private ownership.

[Nickolarge]

I can't directly speak for most - but from my POV, the realisation that systematic attempts to directly impinge on inequity merely lead to GREATER inequity, is what made me a conservative or perhaps rather a right-liberal.

That pretty much confirms what I have always thought. Those of us who hold a reasonably strong political view will have all come to that fork in the road. Some of us will have come to the conclusion that those 'systematic attempts' have failed only because they were only ever half heartedly applied or were stopped by vested interests. Others conclude that such attempts can never work and that is were we diverge. In the end we are so far apart that even the term liberal means two totally different things.

[Nickolarge]

The left fails to grasp that many on the right consider the portion of public spending that is bad to be universally bad regardless of whether it is ultimately spent on companies with private ownership.

Oh, don't worry. I grasp that point. There are enough posts and threads on this forum lately to make that abundantly clear.

For me it's another example of the simplistic one dimensional right wing way of seeing things. It's far easier to take the position that nearly all public spending is 'your money' being spent on things that you don't want to pay for. It takes a lot more thought to take notice of all the things that you take advantage of that are or have been publicly funded. It takes a lot more thought to try to work out what damage will be done by withdrawing those funds.

I note that you say "the portion of public spending that is bad" which suggests that you are OK about some public funding. The trouble is that, if pressed, your average right winger can only name a few things that they would publicly fund.

[LuckyOne]

That pretty much confirms what I have always thought. Those of us who hold a reasonably strong political view will have all come to that fork in the road. Some of us will have come to the conclusion that those 'systematic attempts' have failed only because they were only ever half heartedly applied or were stopped by vested interests. Others conclude that such attempts can never work and that is were we diverge. In the end we are so far apart that even the term liberal means two totally different things.

My dividing line has always been about motivation. I think that those on the left crave power more than money while those on the right crave money more than power.

The centrists on the left and the right understand the notion of enlightened self interest and are willing to compromise. The extremists are greedy and absolutists who are not prepared to "bend".

The clip of Maggie the other day was interesting. I would prefer a situation where the poorest person in the country earns 100 loaves of bread a day and the richest earns 1,000,000 to one where the poorest earns 50 loaves a day while the richest earns 250,000. In the former there is more inequality but the poorest person is much better off. I know that this construction is exposed to the argument of creating a false binary but it encapsulates my view that we sometimes spend too much time arguing about how to split up the pie rather than arguing about how to make the pie larger so that everyone is better off, even if some are relatively worse off.

[LuckyOne]

Oh, don't worry. I grasp that point. There are enough posts and threads on this forum lately to make that abundantly clear.

For me it's another example of the simplistic one dimensional right wing way of seeing things. It's far easier to take the position that nearly all public spending is 'your money' being spent on things that you don't want to pay for. It takes a lot more thought to take notice of all the things that you take advantage of that are or have been publicly funded. It takes a lot more thought to try to work out what damage will be done by withdrawing those funds.

I note that you say "the portion of public spending that is bad" which suggests that you are OK about some public funding. The trouble is that, if pressed, your average right winger can only name a few things that they would publicly fund.

See my post about enlightened self interest. There many aspects of government that are in my self interest to see publicly funded even if I will never use them. There are a lot of things that can be provided more efficiently by the state than the private sector.

My beef is with the waste in the oversight and compliance functions of the state which do nothing to contain costs. These include a small number of useless positions within government and some layers of management as well as many quangoes which have functions that should be absorbed back into the civil service or the government.

In my view, the current structure of HB clearly pushes up shelter costs. Its very micro level implementation also makes it very expensive. It falls into the category of public money being wasted on the private sector. If HB were cut to GBP 3.50 per sq m per month nationally next week, no-one would become homeless, house prices would fall and a feords woul go bankrupt. The level of HB in Saxony is EUR 3.85 per sq m per month. Social tenants in Saxony somewhere to live and houses are cheap. Private tenants in Saxony spend about 20% of their incomes on rent. If it were the same in the UK, imagine how much better people's quality of life would be.

[DungBeetle]

Exactly, I have always felt that a large number of right wing supporters have fallen for the easy option. If you look at a lot of issues just on the surface without bothering to dig any deeper, you find yourself stereotyping people and thinking that the answer is to clamp down on this and cut that. It's the "Throw every offender in jail and chuck away the key" kind of thing. If you argue against it you get an answer that goes "If they are locked up they can't commit another crime" and it's normally followed by the roll eyes smiley, as if they are only stating the bleeding obvious and you're an idiot for not agreeing.

For most, right wing politics is just another expression of their cynicism and a desire to blame somebody else for what ails the world without making any real effort to find an equitable solution.

So the debt was sustainable?

[Authoritarian]

Oh, don't worry. I grasp that point. There are enough posts and threads on this forum lately to make that abundantly clear.

For me it's another example of the simplistic one dimensional right wing way of seeing things. It's far easier to take the position that nearly all public spending is 'your money' being spent on things that you don't want to pay for. It takes a lot more thought to take notice of all the things that you take advantage of that are or have been publicly funded. It takes a lot more thought to try to work out what damage will be done by withdrawing those funds.

I note that you say "the portion of public spending that is bad" which suggests that you are OK about some public funding. The trouble is that, if pressed, your average right winger can only name a few things that they would publicly fund.

If individuals were given freedom over taxation payments even the most idealogical left winger would find it hard work stumping up the cash on each transaction. They'd probably opt out of paying VAT etc and instead hand the money over to the good causes directly, but they couldn't argue for this change as charity is a Nasty Tory Party ideal.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Chef

[dhpcza]

Your argument could be recast.

Shelter costs have outstripped household income growth for the last 15 years or so as a result of government policies which have caused shelter costs to rise massively.

The current solution of "topping up" household incomes is becoming economically untenable. The only solution is to force shelter costs to fall to the extent that shelter is affordable for working people again.

My personal view is that changes to HB are a good start. Tightening up mortgage rules and relaxing planning permission requirements are two other necessary steps.

If the cost of shelter dropped by 50%, people in work could afford live without needing "top ups". The burden on those in work to support those on HB would fall.

My read of the policy prescriptions of those on the left is that we should continue to use taxpayer money to continue to keep shelter as expensive as it is now. My read of the policy prescriptions of those on the right is that we can improve everyone's quality of life (apart from BTL landlords) by pushing shelter costs lower.

There is no argument to re-cast: one thing (housing benefit) enters the spectrum of mainstream debate. Another thing (business subsidy via benefits to low wage earners) does not. Why not?

But, to more directly address your post:

The cost of shelter has certainly risen more than most things, but for those on a low wage, everything is expensive (bar something like Primark). I'm talking more of utilities.

Reduce the cost of shelter by 50%, great, I think we are all for that. That isn't what is being discussed here or in proposals by the coalition. They plan to reduce the very top end of housing benefit to stop poor people living in prime London (or, as most of us look at it, to stop subsidising landlords in those areas). Their proposals to raise the rents of many other council tenants far outstrip their "top-end" housing benefit removal, imo. That is an inflationary pressure on rents, surely? From that, I'd assume that reducing the cost of shelter is not a great concern to this government.

That being said, there is still no talk, by them, of businesses paying their workers more so as to remove the need for low-wage subsidy. No talk of this at all.

[Nickolarge]

My dividing line has always been about motivation. I think that those on the left crave power more than money while those on the right crave money more than power.

The right have no general need to crave power because they have always held the lions share of it. They crave money because they know that money is power.

[LuckyOne]

The right have no general need to crave power because they have always held the lions share of it. They crave money because they know that money is power.

So to recast it slightly, we all crave power.

The right enter politics to set up rules that allow them to retain their money as it is the source of power. The left enter into politics as it allows them to gain power without necessarily having money.

There are exceptions to this rule but not many.

[1929crash]

+1

-1

[LuckyOne]

There is no argument to re-cast: one thing (housing benefit) enters the spectrum of mainstream debate. Another thing (business subsidy via benefits to low wage earners) does not. Why not?

But, to more directly address your post:

The cost of shelter has certainly risen more than most things, but for those on a low wage, everything is expensive (bar something like Primark). I'm talking more of utilities.

Reduce the cost of shelter by 50%, great, I think we are all for that. That isn't what is being discussed here or in proposals by the coalition. They plan to reduce the very top end of housing benefit to stop poor people living in prime London (or, as most of us look at it, to stop subsidising landlords in those areas). Their proposals to raise the rents of many other council tenants far outstrip their "top-end" housing benefit removal, imo. That is an inflationary pressure on rents, surely? From that, I'd assume that reducing the cost of shelter is not a great concern to this government.

That being said, there is still no talk, by them, of businesses paying their workers more so as to remove the need for low-wage subsidy. No talk of this at all.

The need for low wage subsidies is a symptom of the problem of high shelter costs and probably helps keep shelter costs higher than they would otherwise be. Old HB rules drive shelter costs up which create the need for low wage subsidies which then enable people to pay more rent which drives up HB further etc etc.

Solving the problem of high shelter costs removes the need for low wage subsisies.

Forcing businesses to pay enough that low wage subsidies are no longer required, makes our current high shelter costs permanent and probably causes more unemployment as businesses would be even more motivated to outsource, automate etc.

The transition to lower shelter costs is going to bumpy and horrible for some people, especially as high HB and low wage subsidies are amongst the root causes of high shelter costs. I cannot think of a painless way to unwind the viscious circle of rising shelter costs, rising HB and rising low wage subsidies. I wish that I could.

[Nickolarge]

See my post about enlightened self interest. There many aspects of government that are in my self interest to see publicly funded even if I will never use them. There are a lot of things that can be provided more efficiently by the state than the private sector.

This is another aspect of right wing politics. Being told that something is being done for a reason that is not the real reason.

We get sold the idea of handing things over to the private sector because it would be more efficient. The reality IMO is that it is just another business opportunity for the folk who support the Tories. Efficiency is only a side issue for those who take over.

The idea that you can run something for less money, make the owner of the company wealthy and nobody loses out is just pie in the sky. I have never seen a compelling set of facts and figures that back up this theory. For theory is all it has ever been. Nobody has ever tried giving a boss of a government agency a free hand to truly reform his department and therefore there is no direct comparison. Selling something off is the easy option and easy options is what it's all about.

[LJAR]

I might point out that all those in politics believe they have a right to other people's property and should decide how to spend it.

I cam across an interesting exercise the other day. For each policy we should ask the questions:

At what cost?

Compared to what?

and Do you have any empirical evidence?

For the HB changes.

£21k to spend on rent is quite a lot to be having as a "cap" That is equivalent to ALL of my take-home pay at the moment. There is plenty of accommodation even in London at that sort of rate, or that + whatever someone can afford.

People will have to move from nice areas to less nice areas. But what is wrong with Shoeburyness or Hastings? Plenty of working people commute in.

Do we have any evidence that there will be a "cleansing" of the city? Probably not, but it seems to be a plausible outcome.

If the wages paid in London are not enough to afford the rents, and this causes a recruitment problem, then the employers will have to pay more to allow people to work close enough to home.

If there are fewer people looking for places to rent - then the rents will drop until they can be afforded, or the landlord will go bust.

It is not pleasant or easy, but the current situation is untenable in the long term.

[dhpcza]

The need for low wage subsidies is a symptom of the problem of high shelter costs and probably helps keep shelter costs higher than they would otherwise be. Old HB rules drive shelter costs up which create the need for low wage subsidies which then enable people to pay more rent which drives up HB further etc etc.

Solving the problem of high shelter costs removes the need for low wage subsisies.

Forcing businesses to pay enough that low wage subsidies are no longer required, makes our current high shelter costs permanent and probably causes more unemployment as businesses would be even more motivated to outsource, automate etc.

The transition to lower shelter costs is going to bumpy and horrible for some people, especially as high HB and low wage subsidies are amongst the root causes of high shelter costs. I cannot think of a painless way to unwind the viscious circle of rising shelter costs, rising HB and rising low wage subsidies. I wish that I could.

What makes you think that they want to lower shelter costs? The HB reform, as far as I can see, affects mainly prime London real estate. Landlords and tenants in such areas will be affected. In other proposals, the government plan to raise the cost of council rents up to 90% of the "market rate" for a given area. That is an inflationary rent pressure and more to the point, it increases the cost of shelter for poor people (who are the one who tend to live in council housing). There is going to be less social housing built and what there is is going to become more expensive to rent. It would seem that this government could not care less about reducing housing costs.

Therefore, there will still be a need for low-wage subsidies and again, this will not be debated by them; they will not have a pop at Tesco when they announce their record profits while their low-wage workers claim millions in wage subsidy. Tesco can't out-source the warehouse staff, they can automate some checkouts perhaps.

Edited October 26, 2010 by dazw01842

[Authoritarian]

This is another aspect of right wing politics. Being told that something is being done for a reason that is not the real reason.

We get sold the idea of handing things over to the private sector because it would be more efficient. The reality IMO is that it is just another business opportunity for the folk who support the Tories. Efficiency is only a side issue for those who take over.

The idea that you can run something for less money, make the owner of the company wealthy and nobody loses out is just pie in the sky. I have never seen a compelling set of facts and figures that back up this theory. For theory is all it has ever been. Nobody has ever tried giving a boss of a government agency a free hand to truly reform his department and therefore there is no direct comparison. Selling something off is the easy option and easy options is what it's all about.

So we could renationalise BA for example and expect the same level of output for the same price?

[LuckyOne]

This is another aspect of right wing politics. Being told that something is being done for a reason that is not the real reason.

We get sold the idea of handing things over to the private sector because it would be more efficient. The reality IMO is that it is just another business opportunity for the folk who support the Tories. Efficiency is only a side issue for those who take over.

The idea that you can run something for less money, make the owner of the company wealthy and nobody loses out is just pie in the sky. I have never seen a compelling set of facts and figures that back up this theory. For theory is all it has ever been. Nobody has ever tried giving a boss of a government agency a free hand to truly reform his department and therefore there is no direct comparison. Selling something off is the easy option and easy options is what it's all about.

I agree with you in areas such as essential infrastructure, health and education. A privately funded alternative, where possible, for those who desire a level of quality and service above that which the state can provide can co-exist with the publicly funded bodies.

I would say that being "told that something is being done for a reason that is not the real reason" by politicians knows no party or idelogical boundaries.

I keep getting back to Germany : their state as a percentage of GDP is about the same as ours after adjusting for reunification costs yet the value for taxpayer money that Germans receive is a quantum higher than ours. I wish that I understood why as it would be a good framework to use to adjust the way that we run our country.

[Nickolarge]

So to recast it slightly, we all crave power.

The right enter politics to set up rules that allow them to retain their money as it is the source of power. The left enter into politics as it allows them to gain power without necessarily having money.

There are exceptions to this rule but not many.

That pretty much sums it up. Which is why the man in the street should not be voting right wing. The right wing will offer things to the lower orders with no intention of ever delivering. When in power we hear far more "It's for your own good" explanations than good news announcements. Smoke and mirrors springs to mind. And strangely enough, this is what the public expect from them and as a result they get off relatively lightly for actually doing quite badly. Last time it took something as bad as the ERM fiasco to really damage the brand image.

The left, on the other hand, are under constant attack with regard to economic competence and delivery of promised improvements. They are far more likely to be rated as 'disappointing' by their supporters within a very short period of gaining power.

Despite being unhappy with many aspects of the last Labour government I still feel that the best overall deal for me and my family comes with the Tories in opposition, not in power.

[LuckyOne]

That pretty much sums it up. Which is why the man in the street should not be voting right wing. The right wing will offer things to the lower orders with no intention of ever delivering. When in power we hear far more "It's for your own good" explanations than good news announcements. Smoke and mirrors springs to mind. And strangely enough, this is what the public expect from them and as a result they get off relatively lightly for actually doing quite badly. Last time it took something as bad as the ERM fiasco to really damage the brand image.

The left, on the other hand, are under constant attack with regard to economic competence and delivery of promised improvements. They are far more likely to be rated as 'disappointing' by their supporters within a very short period of gaining power.

Despite being unhappy with many aspects of the last Labour government I still feel that the best overall deal for me and my family comes with the Tories in opposition, not in power.

It's funny how differently two people can see the same thing. To me, Blair / Brown was all about : "It's for your own good, we know better than you do". One of the unfortunate consequences is that fringe parties came into existance and gained some undeserved credibility as people became frustrated with being ignored and fringe parties were their only outlet.

[Sonic the Hedge Fund]

Their proposals to raise the rents of many other council tenants far outstrip their "top-end" housing benefit removal, imo. That is an inflationary pressure on rents, surely? From that, I'd assume that reducing the cost of shelter is not a great concern to this government.

I don't think you are quite getting it

The proposal is to allow HAs to charge increased rents on NEW tenancies, to allow leveraged purchase or construction of additional social housing units.

This will not affect existing social tenants, but it will provide funding for additional, NEW social homes, at 80% of private market rents. So some social rents will rise - but the difference will be picked up by HB for those that can't afford it.

Private rents will fall however, because the BTL sector (and most particularly the HB slum-lord sector) will be faced with stiff new competition from a sharp increase in social housing units, offered at a rent level that is set below the 'market' rate. Given the overhang of unsold apartments, such capacity could become available very quickly.

[Nickolarge]

So we could renationalise BA for example and expect the same level of output for the same price?

Are you aware of the fact that that I worked at BA between 1976 and 1984? I was one of those who was given a years pay, tax free, to leave. If my memory serves me well BA made huge profits back then. Bigger in real terms than now.

How do you define output? And what is the price you refer to? The price of a ticket? Air travel has got cheaper all round the world and that has nothing to do with the ownership of one airline. When I flew to Oz the cheapest ticket was on the only publicly owned airline on offer, Olympic. BA and Quantas were over 50% dearer.

[dhpcza]

I don't think you are quite getting it

The proposal is to allow HAs to charge increased rents on NEW tenancies, to allow leveraged purchase or construction of additional social housing units.

This will not affect existing social tenants, but it will provide funding for additional, NEW social homes, at 80% of private market rents. So some social rents will rise - but the difference will be picked up by HB for those that can't afford it.

Private rents will fall however, because the BTL sector (and most particularly the HB slum-lord sector) will be faced with stiff new competition from a sharp increase in social housing units, offered at a rent level that is set below the 'market' rate. Given the overhang of unsold apartments, such capacity could become available very quickly.

I stand corrected, it is only NEW council tenants that are to be shafted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923

"The private rented sector would also be expected to take up more of the burden of housing the poor, although campaigners have questioned whether this will happen."

That's how I read it: less money spent on social housing; higher rents for new social housing tenants; more people expected to rent in the private sector. I cannot fathom how this is spun as lowering rents for the poorer classes. Nearly everybody that I know who is poor and rents wishes that they had a council tenancy instead of a private one. Now, if they are lucky enough to get a council place (which is going to be harder, what with the budget for social housing being halved) then they will have to pay a higher rent than they used to. Great.

[dhpcza]

And if anybody is kind enough to reply to any of my posts, then apologies, I'm off to bed now. But as always, it's been a pleasure gents.

[Nickolarge]

It's funny how differently two people can see the same thing. To me, Blair / Brown was all about : "It's for your own good, we know better than you do". One of the unfortunate consequences is that fringe parties came into existance and gained some undeserved credibility as people became frustrated with being ignored and fringe parties were their only outlet.

Well, for a start you are comparing two different types of "It's for your own good".

I was talking about people losing jobs, income, possibly their houses and many public services. Properly bad things that will noticeably damage their lives. But because this is supposedly going to put UK PLC on a better footing we are meant to accept it as for our own good. I wouldn't mind quite so much if I thought they believed it themselves.

You are talking about the multitude of laws that Labour bought in. Smoking bans and the like. Not that I agreed with a lot of them but at least they were mostly things that they genuinely thought were for our own good.

[LuckyOne]

<Snip>

When I flew to Oz the cheapest ticket was on the only publicly owned airline on offer, Olympic. BA and Quantas were over 50% dearer.

Interesting.

From the sounds of it, you flew on the publicly owned airline. Your choice gives rise to a few questions :

- Which airline was it?

- How do their cabin and flight crews' terms and conditions compare to BA's?

- How do you feel about directly supporting the regime of the state that owns the airline on which you flew?

- Are you in favour of all globalisation or only in air travel?

- Is there a non-zero price difference between BA and the ailine that you chose which would make you choose to support British jobs for British people?

Edited for clarity

Edited October 27, 2010 by LuckyOne