The first two years of this Westminster coalition have been an abject failure on a scale I cannot recall in my lifetime. The Tories and the Lib Dems have turned out to be practically as authoritarian as their Labour predecessors, they’re as anti-wind as everyone predicted despite the husky moment, and they’ve attacked the people with disabilities while forcing the poorest to take non-jobs for non-money. Education at school and university has become even more divided by class. Nick Clegg’s piss-poor efforts to bring the British constitution into the 1910s have failed completely, with his “miserable little compromise” perhaps having set back a chance of change by a generation. And the privatisation agenda rolls on.
On tax, the richest have done very well, while the increase in the personal allowance is at least dubiously progressive, and probably worse. It’d be hard to see a more blatant spot of class war than cutting the 50p rate while forcing a quarter of a million people out of work in one year alone, with all the squeezed public services that means, plus sundry other offences like selling off playing fields in defiance of a pledge to the contrary.
Ah, but it’s all about the economy, they keep saying. We came together in the national interest, they say. You might think that means Nick Clegg lying back and thinking of England, but this austerity regime was their idea too. And on their own measure they could hardly have made a more spectacular mess. If you believe in growth, a double-dip recession and a -0.7% quarter two years after the last lot left surely marks you down as a failure, especially when it’s not even having the impact promised on the deficit or the ratings. It’s not just as though they disagree with Keynes, it’s like they’ve never heard of him. This entire economic experiment, like some brutal IMF programme imposed on the UK, is as likely to fix the economy as a dose of leeches is to fix syphilis. Even for those of us opposed to the standard growth model, these aren’t the alternatives to growth we were looking for.
So, as the coalition agreement starts to fray, as Cameron loses his right to UKIP-lite delusions and homophobia, and as Clegg loses a quarter of his members in one year, the worst may now be over. The less they can achieve, the better off we will all be. At least if a programme of economic, social and environmental suicide is attempted by an incompetent and divided administration, there may be something left for the next lot to pick up (not that it would make sense to have any faith in Labour after their last go).
#1 by Paul on August 8, 2012 - 11:15 am
“things can only get better”
#2 by Doug Daniel on August 8, 2012 - 12:29 pm
In 2015, I think Labour should maybe go with the similar, but slightly more blatant, “how could we possibly be any worse?”
#3 by EyeEdinburgh on August 8, 2012 - 12:12 pm
If you believe in growth, a double-dip recession and a -0.7% quarter two years after the last lot left surely marks you down as a failure, especially when it’s not even having the impact promised on the deficit or the ratings. It’s not just as though they disagree with Keynes, it’s like they’ve never heard of him.
Wouldn’t surprise me if George Osborne never had.
This entire economic experiment, like some brutal IMF programme imposed on the UK, is as likely to fix the economy as a dose of leeches is to fix syphilis.
Brilliant.
#4 by Doug Daniel on August 8, 2012 - 12:27 pm
It’s amazing how spectacularly they’ve failed, on even the very narrow measure of success they wished to be judged by, namely keeping the markets happy. It makes you wonder why they persist, and it comes down to one of two options:
a) blind belligerence, making them incapable of admitting they were wrong, thus condemning the UK just for the sake of being able to keep face (although they’re even failing in that regard);
b) there’s an ulterior motive which they refuse to tell us. Something like, oh I dunno, selling off as much as possible before the electorate boot them out?
I just can’t understand why the Lib Dems don’t just do the decent thing, and perhaps get at least some respect back from the public. Again, I can only assume it is either a case of not wanting to admit defeat, or they just like the ministerial cars and salaries a bit too much.
Or they quite simply agree with the Tories, which is probably worse than either of the above.
#5 by Allan on August 8, 2012 - 7:22 pm
I suppose they’s got to be beligerent about something considering how many U-turns they have made.
The Lib Dems’ problem is that the “Orange Book” wing occupy key positions in the Lib Dem heirarchy, and are politically close to Cameron’s Tories policy-wise.
#6 by Doug Daniel on August 9, 2012 - 9:52 am
I naively thought Simon Hughes’ election as deputy Lib Dem leader provided a possible outlet for non-Orange Bookers to ensure the party didn’t just become the Mini Tory Party, but that’s not happened. I had hoped we might even see them split into Clegg’s Liberals and Hughes’ Social Democrats by the end of this term, but it looks increasingly unlikely.
Seems people like Charles Kennedy would rather not rock the boat then stick up for what they truly believe in…
#7 by Ben Achie on August 8, 2012 - 1:05 pm
Remember all the speculation about Cable being first to go? What happened there then? Clegg and Alexander are joined at the hip, but Clegg is financially independent with plenty to do in his leisure time, and a stint as Treasury Secretary can only be good for young Alexander’s career prospects. So it comes down to: what happened to Cable? Why has he stuck with it?
As for the Tories, the guys with the clout are so rich and well-connected that it is very plausible to argue that they are simply maintaining Thatcherism in an economy where private sector trade unionism has vanished as an effective counterforce. The irony is that she destroyed world leading manufacturing sectors thirty years ago and thus removed Britain’s long term global competitiveness.
Roll on the referendum………There’s a structural wealth and social imbalance in the England dominated UK that only independence can resolve for Scotland. I don’t foresee a revolution happening south of the border any time soon, and the only force for change seems to be UKIP, which is predicated on English exceptionalism.
#8 by Alec on August 8, 2012 - 4:16 pm
Now, I know you must remember the 80s, James!
Even trying to do that was a failure for Clegg. That he hitched his reputation to something which has so little relevance to people’s everyday lives (see, not least, the absence of interest for the AV referendum) showed how unserious he was.
I personally am glad that both constituency boundary changes (with primary concern being a raw equanimity of population sizes, with geographical and social and historical aspects coming a distant second) and Lords reform have been lost. In the latter case, a non-elected second chamber is the best thing about our unwritten constitution… members who, in theory at least, have done something in their lives, and not another bunch of hacks on the make.
Of course, I’d slash the numbers and get rid of the heredity members and various bishops (including the ones who, when they say something which Better Nationers approve of, get cited approvingly) and set defined terms for the appointed ones.
~alec
#9 by James on August 8, 2012 - 4:23 pm
The Thatcher government wasn’t a failure like this. They consistently got stuff done. Bad stuff, plus Channel Four. They were, I believe, a success in their own terms. Not so this lot.
Of course, I totally disagree with you about the Lords. I don’t want anyone actually voting on laws who’s not got a democratic mandate. I also can’t think of a bishop having said anything that I’ve cited approvingly.
#10 by Alec on August 8, 2012 - 4:53 pm
As late as early 1982, Thatcher’s Government was looking like a one termer. Then something unrelated to domestic policy – which easily could have gone the other way – happened.
By the terms you laid out, the previous Government failed on its own terms (to avoid near criminal mismanagement of the economy).
The HoC currently has the means to over-rule the HoL. The latter should act more as scrutiny function, and arguably is in keeping with the great many democratic liberal Governments in which the head of the Executive appoints advizers and so forth.
#11 by EyeEdinburgh on August 8, 2012 - 4:59 pm
Do you remember Richard Holloway? Of course, he wasn’t a bishop with a seat in the House of Lords… and I suspect would never have accepted that even if he had been a English bishop.
Other people have noted that part of David Cameron’s PR problem is that when he and his coterie talk of “austerity”, it comes from the background of men who’ve quite literally never had to deny themselves anything. Margaret Thatcher was a very wealthy woman, married to an even wealthier man, but she didn’t come from the kind of rich-bastard background as the PM, the Deputy PM, and most of the current Cabinet.
#12 by Alec on August 8, 2012 - 5:05 pm
I remember his sisters, EE!
(I was raised in the Scottish Episcopal Church, specifically St. Mungo in Alexandria where he grew-up.)
I’m quite happy to describe Cameron in those terms, but similar could be said of the pseudo-aristrocracy and career jockeys in Labour. I simply do not believe that an elected second chamber would change that… simply create another means for foul nobodies and plain old nobodies to rise from the youth wing to to constituency assistant to spad to candidate to MP to superannuated public salary.
~alec
#13 by Alec on August 8, 2012 - 6:07 pm
Then again:
This should be taken only so far. The more important point is whether they understand macro-economics. Individual finances are of secondary importance.
I have lots of experience of denying myself things financially. You still wouldn’t want me in charge of your finances. Trust me.
~alec
#14 by EyeEdinburgh on August 8, 2012 - 6:16 pm
I’m no fan of Ed or David Miliband, but they’re not from the web of privilege as so many of the current Cabinet are.
Agree there’s a problem with career politicians becoming MPs – I’d be happy if one of the qualifications for being selected as a PPC is that you have to have done something for at least five years consecutively after leaving full-time education that had no connection with party politics. Not that this would resolve all our problems with corruption – Chris Grayling, Iain Duncan-Smith, both held down jobs before going on to become Tory MPs – but it would stop some of the rot.
As for the House of Lords, my pet resolution for that problem is to clear out the current lot and replace with anyone who wins over a million in a National Lottery jackpot. Then we’d have a second house to scrutinise legislation who had been randomly chosen from the entire population and who were financially independent.
#15 by Barbarian on August 8, 2012 - 6:00 pm
I don’t even trust the SNP now, not after their ongoing debacle with NATO and Sturgeon’s attempt to hide the data for 18 NHS trusts, in defiance of the information commissioner.
While the SNP aren’t quite selling off playing fields, they are planting windfarms everywhere and interfering with democratically elected councils. That is authoritarian as anything Westminster does.
Power certainly corrupts.
#16 by Doug Daniel on August 9, 2012 - 9:47 am
Eh? The “debacle” over NATO is a political party engaging in a policy debate out in the open. I don’t understand why that makes them untrustworthy.
As for planting windfarms everywhere, we need to start harnessing renewable energy now, rather than waiting for fossil fuels to run out. There’s a target for renewable energy, and they’re trying to meet it. In contrast, Westminster is going backwards by cancelling renewable projects and basically showing up the “greenest government ever” line for the lie that it so obviously was.
The Scottish Government are just as democratically elected as councils. Far better to have them overturning some decisions than to see the country stagnate because of NIMBYism.
#17 by Iain Menzies on August 10, 2012 - 7:43 am
The greenest government ever stuff wasnt a lie….but it was nonsense. And they are quite right to be pulling back on subsidies.
Quite what evidence there is that we are about to run out of fossil fuels i dont know, hell there were people predicting that we were about to run out of coal in the 1860’s! You will not ethat that didnt happen. And anyway if we are about to run out shouldnt the SNP shut up about north sea oil? Or is that just a lie to make scots think we will all be loaded after the dissolution of the union? Never mind that windmills only work when its windy. Sorry when the wind is above a certain speed….but not so fast as to wreck the turbine. Which means you need other generators in place (which generally have to be fossil fueled) to cover when there isnt enough/too much wind.
As for interferring in local councils…..it goes beyond planning, tho if local residents dont want something in their area why should they have it forced on them? Just because it might possibly make things better for the rest of the country? well if it does why cant you offer incentives to local residents rather than making it clear that it doesnt matter who they vote for locally they will get what they are told and had better jolly well like it.
#18 by Allan on August 8, 2012 - 7:17 pm
You ar right in saying that the current Tory-led (for that is what it is) government is a failure. However, there were some of us who thought that whoever won power in May 2010 would not be much cop.
Brown’s time in Downing Street was essentially 3 years of chickens coming home to roost for the decisions he took whilst Chancellor. There was nothing to suggest that Cameron & Osborne were government material, which is why Cameron consistently failed to “seal the deal” as many blog pieces speculated that Cameron should. Indeed it could be argued that had Brown not taken a trip to Rochdale, then we would have had a Labour led Coalition government at least.
The problem with George’s Scorched Earth Policy (which is what I have been calling Osborne’s austerity plans since… oh… early 2010) is that it’s sole objective is to keep the money markets onside… growth and anything else that would aid recovery has been sacrificed. Put simply, Gideon is like someone asked to fix a car that doesn’t know anything abour cars.
Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, rather like Labour, they let the Neo-Thatcherites take charge and will now pay a heavy electorial price for letting the “Orange-Bookers” take charge, in particular they let a man take charge who palpiably was not ready for high office.
Not that any of this will help the “Yes” camp.
BTW James, if memory serves Clegg didn’t mention his agreement with Osborne’s Scorched Earth Policy until just after the Election, though there was that quote he came out with that escape’s me. Rather like the pledge to resist Tuition Fees.
#19 by James on August 8, 2012 - 9:50 pm
The Telegraph link in there is from April before the election and sets out their support for Scorching The Earth.
#20 by Daveinmaryburgh on August 8, 2012 - 9:35 pm
“as likely to fix the economy as a dose of leeches is to fix syphilis”
cheers James
#21 by Topher Dawson on August 9, 2012 - 9:52 am
I agree they are making a disastrous gubbins of it but why be gleeful? It’s our future they are banjaxing.
#22 by James on August 9, 2012 - 10:44 am
Because they’re starting to be too divided and too incompetent to continue with as much of the banjaxing. Years one and two were full of the banjax, though, obviously.
#23 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on August 10, 2012 - 12:23 am
I remember not having much in the fifties ,and the end of rationing,then working in the sixties and working 60-70 hours a week,making money and spending it,thought it would never end,then it ended.Times became hard because we were used to plenty for about 10-15 years.Since we did all this the rich became afraid that us with no class could catch up with them and afford what they could.So they screwed us all sacrificed the country for their personal greed.
#24 by Iain Menzies on August 10, 2012 - 7:57 am
See here is the thing.
Unemployment is down.
Employment is up.
The deficiet id coming down (tho not quickly enough).
Interest rates on Gilts at managable levels.
Education is being refromed (in england) to promote inovation (which is upsetting the unions double plus good).
Welfare is being reformed to promote work.
The Civil Service is being reformed and costs reduced.
Defence spending is under control.
Health spending is being maintained (mostly).
Really stupid HoL reforms have been dumped.
The people got a say (oh what a say) on AV.
More powers have been transfered to Holyrood.
No third runway at heathrow (thought you would like that James)
Investment in highspeed rail (which is, granted, questionable).
A helluva Olympics going on as we type.
Supported the removal of a nutcase dictator from Libya.
Is everything perfect, no. Of course not there are lib dems in government. But considering the state of the public finances before the election. And the State of the European and US economies, and the difficulties we face in getting properly into the African, Asian and Latin American Markets due to EU membership well things aint all that bad.
Taking people out of paying income tax is a good thing. I dont know anyone who i have the chance to ask in person if they would rather the thresholds had stayed where they are that would.
You dont like the dropping of the top rate of tax, well since it didnt bring in much. COmplicated the tax code even more, and would, most likely have seen diminishing returns, the only reason to keep it is if you just dont like that people earn enough to be paying at that rate. Which is, to be frank, a bit on the mean side.
Dont get me wrong there are things that are being done which i wouldnt do (international aid) and there are things that are not being done which i would do (cutting health spending).
The big Failing of this government is that they arent pushing supply side reforms.
Oh and one last thing, your point about the ratings would have been better if you could have found a report that wasnt almost s months old and shown to be wrong.
#25 by Allan on August 10, 2012 - 11:48 pm
“You dont like the dropping of the top rate of tax, well since it didnt bring in much. COmplicated the tax code even more, and would, most likely have seen diminishing returns, the only reason to keep it is if you just dont like that people earn enough to be paying at that rate. Which is, to be frank, a bit on the mean side.”
Is it any wonder the 50% rate didn’t bring in very much when A) Those that could afford to could avoid paying it and B) Really should have been set at £100,000 and above rather than the £150,000 and above (which shows that New Labour’s heart was never really in this measure).