Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

The ONS has been been measuring public sector productivity since then, and it’s those figures that public sector productivity static and even falling under Labour but picking up under the coalition.

Looking at that graph - Were Labour not in office in 2009 when the trend started then ?

ONS Key Points from your source

Estimated growth rates of total public service productivity are 2.5% in 2011 and 1.2% in 2012, the two largest growth rates in productivity since the series began in 1997.

There are four consecutive years of total public service productivity growth from 2009 to 2012. Average total public service productivity growth in 2011 and 2012 is 1.8% per year, compared to an average of 0.4% per year in 2009 and 2010.

Positive productivity growth for total public services in 2011 and 2012 is driven by falling volume of inputs, the first two falls in the volume of inputs since the series began in 1997.

Total public service output growth slowed down substantially from 4.0% in 2008 to 0.4% in 2011 and 0.1% in 2012, the smallest output growth rate in the series. Output includes an element of quality adjustment for healthcare and education which is positive in all years except 2012.

Healthcare and education have the greatest combined share of estimated government expenditure on public services at 54% in 2012; therefore, growth rates for healthcare and education have the greatest influence on estimated growth rates for total public services.

Falling Inputs were the main drivers for positive productivity growth.

Probably services being withdrawn, and people giving up on shit because everything's being closed down.

[pogo]

As the bit you quote notes, output continued growing, though at a lower pace, during 2011 and 2012 when austerity was greatest. So the cuts did not result in worsening service, i.e. outputs, as some asserted they would. Despite the cuts government departments were able to maintain and even improve outputs.

Cuts were unavoidable and would have happened whoever was elected in 2010. But it was important that despite the cuts government services did not suffer, and the ONS confirms they didn’t, at least overall.

[(o)(o)]

As the bit you quote notes, output continued growing, though at a lower pace, during 2011 and 2012 when austerity was greatest. So the cuts did not result in worsening service

LOL the quote does not note 'austerity was greatest in 11-12' or 'services did not worsen'

Worst of the cuts are yet to come :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31126283

Cuts were unavoidable and would have happened whoever was elected in 2010. But it was important that despite the cuts government services did not suffer, and the ONS confirms they didn’t, at least overall.

Only if you judge the quality of services from a single metric - totally mental !

Other measures show services in sharp decline.

Public are feeling it too you can the public sentiment on the voting on this piece.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 48951.html

Quit lying about "everyone had to make the same cuts"

Labours proposal was to cut at half the rate of CONDEMs failed targets

[pogo]

Labours proposal was to cut at half the rate of CONDEMs failed targets

Actually Labour projected they would cut the deficit further than the coalition managed. I.e. to meet their targets they would have had to cut even more. Of course we will never know how far Labour would have gotten in achieving that target. My guess is they would have struggled to make any headway, with inflation hitting 5% and unions protesting that index linked increases were theirs by right. It could have become as messy as the 1970s which cumulated in the winter of discontent. But that’s just a guess, and we can never know for sure.

[(o)(o)]

Labours proposal was to cut at half the rate of CONDEMs failed targets

Actually Labour projected they would cut the deficit further than the coalition managed. I.e. to meet their targets they would have had to cut even more.

No NOT "ie to meet the targets they would HAVE HAD to cut more"

As per Pickles leaked letter to IDS - ideological CUTS like 'benefit cap' generate a NET COST

[pogo]

Yes, to meet their targets they would have had to cut more. That’s just arithmetic. Labour’s target for the deficit was to reduce it more than the coalition achieved, and that would have needed greater cuts. It’s another question whether they would have achieved those targets. I think they would have found it at least as difficult as the coalition.

As for benefits the coalition has made significant savings in the benefits bill, and that includes the benefit cap, which has saved money (about £100m according to the IFS) and is encouraging people back into work, which will in the medium to long term benefit the economy more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30470116

But even if it had no effect there was a need to do something, while both public and private sector wages were falling in real terms, to address the unfairness of people getting more than the median wage, so more than most workers, from the state.

[(o)(o)]

Yes, to meet their targets they would have had to cut more. That’s just arithmetic.

If you completely IGNORE the effects and impact of cuts.

Sadly for you, it doesn't work like that.

As for benefits the coalition has made significant savings in the benefits bill, and that includes the benefit cap, which has saved money (about £100m according to the IFS)

Significant ? IFS quote "the overall fiscal consequences are small."

But even if it had no effect there was a need to do something, while both public and private sector wages were falling in real terms, to address the unfairness of people getting more than the median wage, so more than most workers, from the state.

Yes the right and proper way to address this rotten unfairness is to policies that are prejudicial against single parents, mostly women, victims of domestic violence, and children in poverty and has no meaningful benefit to the economy.

HIP HIP HOORAH !!

Enjoy this classic Duncan Smith BLATANT LIE from the party of LIARS



The court said nothing of the sort.

[VNVObit]

Yes, to meet their targets they would have had to cut more. That’s just arithmetic. Labour’s target for the deficit was to reduce it more than the coalition achieved, and that would have needed greater cuts. It’s another question whether they would have achieved those targets. I think they would have found it at least as difficult as the coalition.

As for benefits the coalition has made significant savings in the benefits bill, and that includes the benefit cap, which has saved money (about £100m according to the IFS) and is encouraging people back into work, which will in the medium to long term benefit the economy more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30470116

But even if it had no effect there was a need to do something, while both public and private sector wages were falling in real terms, to address the unfairness of people getting more than the median wage, so more than most workers, from the state.

Actually they've added to the benefit bill over the life by much greater amounts than you realise and the cap is just a sticking plaster.

In terms of housing their preferred (affordable housing , 80% of Market rent) option means people are more reliant on housing benefit than previous social rents. Even when people manage to get into work they are still reliant on benefits whereas under social rent employment would have meant many more would no longer been entitled or needed it. In addition it's poorer financial return for the state than were achieved under social rent.

On top of this they've increased the right to buy discount which in principle should be an anathema to their stated views (i.e. people should be able to stand on their own 2 feet) as the individuals who can obtain it are already economically active so there is no increasing in mixed communities. On top of that it is impossible to replace a house under the current rules where the treasury get a fair chunk, science are up to £100k and only 30% of the cost of a new home can be funded through this money while the borrowing cap remains static. Financially that's structured to ensure the reduction in number of homes provided.
The argument this is to keep national debt under control does not wash either as the debt would be covered by housing benefit that the state would be paying in any event. If they really wanted to reduced the nation debt in respect of housing they should just transfer all social housing to private housing associations and thereby remove the debt from the government's books.

A full breakdown of the national debt in absolute terms and where it is invested would give people a more transparent picture of what governments (not just the last one) are up to (and the national accounts don't provide that)


As to the input/output stats from ONS I have some genuine scepticism about it as it effectively postulates that for every £1 spent on I get £1.025 back. Looking at the theory that can't be accurate as if i spend a £1 on something I deem it to be worth a £1 not £1.025. Added to this is my experience of the care sector where contracts have been awarded a significantly lower cost and at significantly lower quality/service levels than before. These have increased costs elsewhere in the public sector (NHS in the main) but that is unlikely to be captured in the model the ONS use as it can only see the volume and price. This is in addition to the fact that the espoused living wage commitment the Tories have given in London is not achievable under the contracts that get awarded as they are chasing the lowest bid (despite the fig leaf of quality scores).

[VNVObit]

Yes, to meet their targets they would have had to cut more. That’s just arithmetic. Labour’s target for the deficit was to reduce it more than the coalition achieved, and that would have needed greater cuts. It’s another question whether they would have achieved those targets. I think they would have found it at least as difficult as the coalition.

As for benefits the coalition has made significant savings in the benefits bill, and that includes the benefit cap, which has saved money (about £100m according to the IFS) and is encouraging people back into work, which will in the medium to long term benefit the economy more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30470116

But even if it had no effect there was a need to do something, while both public and private sector wages were falling in real terms, to address the unfairness of people getting more than the median wage, so more than most workers, from the state.

Actually they've added to the benefit bill over the life by much greater amounts than you realise and the cap is just a sticking plaster.

In terms of housing their preferred (affordable housing , 80% of Market rent) option means people are more reliant on housing benefit than previous social rents. Even when people manage to get into work they are still reliant on benefits whereas under social rent employment would have meant many more would no longer been entitled or needed it. In addition it's poorer financial return for the state than were achieved under social rent.

On top of this they've increased the right to buy discount which in principle should be an anathema to their stated views (i.e. people should be able to stand on their own 2 feet) as the individuals who can obtain it are already economically active so there is no increasing in mixed communities. On top of that it is impossible to replace a house under the current rules where the treasury get a fair chunk, science are up to £100k and only 30% of the cost of a new home can be funded through this money while the borrowing cap remains static. Financially that's structured to ensure the reduction in number of homes provided.
The argument this is to keep national debt under control does not wash either as the debt would be covered by housing benefit that the state would be paying in any event. If they really wanted to reduced the nation debt in respect of housing they should just transfer all social housing to private housing associations and thereby remove the debt from the government's books.

A full breakdown of the national debt in absolute terms and where it is invested would give people a more transparent picture of what governments (not just the last one) are up to (and the national accounts don't provide that)


As to the input/output stats from ONS I have some genuine scepticism about it as it effectively postulates that for every £1 spent on I get £1.025 back. Looking at the theory that can't be accurate as if i spend a £1 on something I deem it to be worth a £1 not £1.025. Added to this is my experience of the care sector where contracts have been awarded a significantly lower cost and at significantly lower quality/service levels than before. These have increased costs elsewhere in the public sector (NHS in the main) but that is unlikely to be captured in the model the ONS use as it can only see the volume and price. This is in addition to the fact that the espoused living wage commitment the Tories have given in London is not achievable under the contracts that get awarded as they are chasing the lowest bid (despite the fig leaf of quality scores).

[pogo]

Re Boobies, actually the court said precisely that the benefit cap is legal and fair. Legal as that’s what the court decides, matters of law. And fair as the appeal to the high court was on the grounds of unfairness (to women), according to the ECHR, and that appeal was rejected. It’s the ECHR that applies in our courts, not the UN convention on children’s rights. They further said its aims were legitimate, i.e. that it was right for parliament to try to cut the benefit bill improve the incentives to work.

Housing benefit is a different matter. The biggest problem in the UK housing market, and arguably the biggest unaddressed economic problem in the UK, is the housing shortage. Not enough are being built, and haven’t been for many years. It has improved slightly in the last two years but by far too little. You need only look at house prices; despite the worst recession since the 1930s they barely paused.

This affects everyone. Those looking for their first home. Those looking to move for work, especially closer to or into London. It particularly affects the low paid in two ways. It drives more towards social housing, increasing the pressure on social housing due to the greater numbers in need of it. And it increases the housing benefit bill – it probably has more effect on it than any recent government policy.

Other policies such as right to buy, help to buy and the recently announced ISAs for house buyers either do nothing to help or make things worse. Right to buy by reducing the stock of social housing. The other measures by helping people to buy without improving supply it will just push up prices for everyone else. And no mainstream party looks willing to tackle this. Labour didn’t, the Tories have actually done a little but their headline polices such as help to buy actually make things worse.

(UKIP actually have policies which would help with housing costs for everyone. Pulling us out of the EU and slashing immigration would reduce population growth. It would also wreck the economy, causing a slump worse even than the recent one, and a housing crash, about the worst way imaginable to make housing more affordable)

[merman]

Yet again, Labour come up with a good policy and all the Tories can do is trash it.

The first-time buyer ISA Osborne announced? Labour want that money to be put into house building, so that supply keeps up with demand. Based on Osborne's own figures, the ISAs would generate £5 billion over the next Parliament.

But of course, because the Tories didn't come up with it, it's a bad idea, uncosted (even when it is based on the Tories' own figures? How does that work?) and would not help.

But here's the point - under the Tory plans, the banks get all that money AND NO OBLIGATION TO PUT IT INTO HOUSING. So where are the extra homes for all those first-time buyers going to magically appear from?

[pogo]

But it doesn’t need the government to put money in, whether via help to buy or directly. £5 bn sounds like a lot but it’s only 50,000 £100,000 houses. A fraction of the extra number needed each year, never mind over the whole parliament.

All the government needs to do is remove barriers to development. Limit local authorities ability to slow or veto developments. Rethink the green belt policy, which is long outlived its purpose. Create more new towns, entirely bypassing existing town and village councils. This all costs nothing, except for the costs associated with the political and decision making process. Houses in particular need no government money to build when there are so many people desperate to get on the housing ladder.

[gravy]

The tricky bit is not having a short term bubble of people buying up houses at too high prices because they don't realise a glut of supply actually means devaluation in the longer term.

[(o)(o)]

Re Boobies, actually the court said precisely that the benefit cap is legal and fair. Legal as that’s what the court decides, matters of law. And fair as the appeal to the high court was on the grounds of unfairness (to women), according to the ECHR, and that appeal was rejected.

https://fullfact.org/factcheck/law/supr ... _cap-40983



That IDS was delighted with the verdict he's breaching children's rights just shows what a sick fuck he is!

[pogo]

The tricky bit is not having a short term bubble of people buying up houses at too high prices because they don't realise a glut of supply actually means devaluation in the longer term.

The aim has to be to bring prices down to normal levels, which means yes devaluation in cash terms. It does not need a crash, just for prices to stop rising ahead of inflation. Given how low interest rates are a 5% annual fall in real terms would stop people falling into negative equity with e.g. a 100% 20 year mortgage that gets paid off at 5% a year.

Housing policy doesn’t need to help those with homes. It’s those without homes, or stuck renting when they would rather buy, who need help. Even those who own a house suffer because excessive regional price variations stop them moving for family or work, or because high prices drive up prices where they live.

Sometimes in the recent past politicians have looked at rising house prices as a sign of success, of their economic policies. There was some truth in that as prices follow the economic cycle, but as recent history showed house prices now are largely immune to downturns, due to pent up demand far exceeding even the effect of the downturn. As a simple mismatch of supply and demand the obvious thing to do is fix the supply problem.

That IDS was delighted with the verdict he's breaching children's rights just shows what a sick fuck he is!

The UN convention on children’s rights isn’t part of UK law. The European Convention on Human Rights is part of UK law, and the benefit cap was found not to breach that, so not to be unfair, or more precisely “unjustifiably discriminatory” under the ECHR.