Weekly Poll Lowdown

If you could advise Dave on whose seat from the Cabinet table should be broken and thrown out it seems your choice would be Michael Gove, the Education Secretary. Although Gove is clearly the loser in the poll, the vote was quite close amongst all other Cabinet Ministers, most picked up 10% or 3% of the vote. The only person without a single vote is Philip Hammond, I'm sure he is very pleased.

Which Major Conservative should Dave sack from his Cabinet?

William Hague	7%
George Osborne	10%
Theresa May	10%
Philip Hammond	0%
Ian Duncan Smith	10%
Chris Grayling	7%
Michael Gove	23%
Eric Pickles	3%
Jeremy Hunt	13%
Ken Clarke	10%
Sir George Young	3%
Dominic Grieve	3%

Total votes: 30

The decision to sack Michael Gove from the Cabinet is poor and beyond belief (his 1st position is probably the result of sneaky left wingers). In my opinion, closely followed by Eric Pickles, Michael Gove is the best minister around the cabinet table. His education reforms are the best thing that has happened under the government. His drive to make sure education is improved drastically across the country in our global race, which we must compete in for people to have jobs and prosperity, is going very well. The quality of education is up under this government. The ideas of free schools and academies are really working because they offer choice to students and parents. Wisbech people can see how well Gove is doing locally with Thomas Clarkson secondary school, which used to be the worst school in the County. Now after 1 year of officially being an academy it is right at the top being one of the best schools in the County. 

 Michael Gove is doing really well as Education Secretary.

Michael Gove probably came top in this poll because he is reviled by the Left. Gove's idea of choice and making every school a good school insults every fibre of left wing dogma. Under the last Labour government it was simply get 5 Cs at GCSE level and that's it. To add insult to this idea GCSEs were inflated so it looked like there were improvements, which is shown clear to be not the case when looking at how much Britain fell in the international rankings. The Left believes students education should be kept at an easy level where the Government looks good but the students do poorly. The results are that for most pupils their education is poor and they become low skilled workers or on benefits and thus vote Labour. What a good system if you want to win elections, not a good system if you want to aspire and have a better life.

 Labour lied when they said their focus was on improving Education.

 

So who should go? To me there are many contenders in my mind. Jeremy Hunt hasn't be a great health secretary and represents style over substance as he is much of a blank page. I would have preferred Andrew Lansley to stay as Health Secretary. Arguably Andrew is very bad at presentation but he was made a scapegoat by the Government and Lib Dems for the health reforms which was a very good policy. It is however hard to sack Jeremy Hunt for not doing much when the Government needs health to not create anymore big issues.

A triumph of style over substance.

George Osborne hasn't done amazingly because he has stuck to a Brownite consensus in economics. Yes, he is tied by the Liberal Democrats but he hasn't pushed for cuts to taxes where it is plainly obvious growth and greater government income would be achieved. We really need a more liberal economic chancellor to bring real and sustainable growth. However, Getting rid of Osborne would seem like a reversal of government deficit reduction policy, which should not happen under any circumstances as it is bad for market confidence (that's 'markets' as in all businesses and people across the country and not a few stockbrokers in the city left wingers). 

Alistair Darling and George Osborne follow similar policies. Osborne is so much better than Ed Balls though.

William Hague has a strong case against him for being partially behind the disastrous foreign policy of the last two months. Why on Earth did he think that invading Syria was factually a good idea when we can only create more problems and solve none? William Hague is starting to look much like a statesmen during the easy times but when the pressure is really on bad decisions are made. This is not a good quality for a Foreign Secretary considering the international bust ups that need defusing.

Not going well for William Hague at the moment.

But the person who I would sack is Ken Clarke. Ken is someone with great gravitas and someone I actually like a lot. But his policy ideas are terrible. His handling of the justice department was woeful. Ken didn't reform the ECHR when he had a great chance and changed the emphasis of the courts and jails from deterrence, justice and punishment. Both of these were awful moves. At this moment Ken is advising Osborne on the economy. I certainly wouldn't take advice from the man who still wants to join the Euro and become more closely integrated in a protectionist racket. 

I love Ken's cigars but not his policies.

So Dave if you're reading, Sack Ken.

Please Vote in the next poll on the Sidebar.

Poor Old Chancellor

Poor old George Osborne he's taking a lot of rather irrelevant hate today. To be honest I'm not George Osborne's biggest fan. This is not because he is grinding the face of the poor but because he isn't helping them enough by cutting the deficit and growing the economy enough. People also hate the Chancellor always because he is one who is charge of taking half of a person's income only to waste it on some stupid project. Gideon is probably very much used to people hating him in a minor sort of way for being the Chancellor.

But today he is being linked by insinuation to the 'desolate' North East question that Lord Howell of Guildford made when talking about fracking. I don't agree with what Lord Howell said about the North East because it is not 'desolate'. All-right, it has a lower density of population and thus it may be easier to frack there without complaint but the North East is not devoid of human civilisation. He has rightly apologised for these remarks.

 Lord Howell just happens to be the a peer and George Osborne's father.

What I don't particularly get is why Osborne is so linked to this other than Lord Howell being his father in law. It's not like he is Osborne's mouth piece on earth or that Lord Howell isn't a public figure and should bare responsibility. But the media have been having a field day on it so that Osborne receives some association to these unthoughtful words. I'm all for blaming people but not for things they haven't done. All father in laws are embarrassing, maybe Lord Howell doesn't do dodgy dances at weddings but insults everybody being talked about.  

Breaking News From Sky, George Osborne has father in law because he is married. 

So don't take it out on the Chancellor irrelevantly.

Spend, Spend, Spend

Today was, as you should know, the spending review for 2015/2016. Theoretically this doesn't really need to happen mostly because it is timetabling cuts during the next Parliament, but this is a very politically savy move by the Chancellor to show a plan of action to the Great British public and put Labour on the spot. 59% of the public believe cuts are necessary (up 3 % since the Coalition came to power) but more importantly only 27% of the public think austerity is wrong (down 7% since the Coalition came in). This puts Labour in a tight spot because they can longer credibly say to the public that they will increase spending. The thing the Government is bending the truth a bit on making cuts.

Osborne is being shown up by the Labour Party of the past. I would point out though that the Labour Party at this moment would come no where near to what Healey cut in his time. 

In real terms government expenditure, despite the cuts, is projected to be slightly higher in 2015 than it was in 2011. The broad cut message apart from in 2010 is that in real terms we have stayed very much the same and even went up slightly this year compared to last. But how can this be? It is true that we are cutting lots off government departments, some like Communities and Local Government is going to have over 1/3rd taken off their budget.

We are making real cuts to budgets but overall government spending is going up this year.

So what has gone wrong? Well put simply we haven't seen the growth expected by George Osborne in 2010 and thus tax revenues have been down. Thus to keep our economy going Jeffrey Gideon the Chancellor has decided we need to stimulate the economy to make sure we don't lose the tiny percentage of growth we have at the moment. Because our economy, like somebody dependant on drugs, is so addicted to state spending if we were to start to fix it there would be serious downers experienced, which are politically unpalatable according to the Chancellor.

However the growth problem and lack of revenue can be fixed by lowering tax. At a lower level more people are willing to pay and the economy grows creating even more revenue. In the medium term this will get things going again although we would have to cut a lot more at this moment. Overall however, when comparing it over the 20 or more years it will take if noting changes, we wouldn't have to cut so much because debts and deficits are being paid off more by tax income and less by cuts. Short sharp shock treatment that produces confidence by giving people more money in their pocket.

When we cut the 50p tax rate to 45p the government brought in much more revenue than we did when it was higher. 

The thing is, the public actually think we are cutting way more than is actually going on. 39% of people, a lot higher if we discount the 18% who have no idea about this in the polling data, think we are cutting too far and too fast implying that the Government is cutting spending by several percentage points each year at least. Essentially we are taking a big political hit for no real gain. The debt, which is actually the main issue is increasing too much, there is too little growth and government is still the biggest part of the economy. The deficit is borrowing for borrowings sake an important but nonetheless a side symptom of our problem. What the Government has done so far is good, but it could do better.

There is however one piece of good news. The last budget had some very tactical tax cuts. There is a new feeling of slight optimism. It will not be as great as giving people more money to spend but somehow words such as aspiration and growth mentioned very often have inspired enough confidence to possibly start some sort of private sector led growth in the country. 

The words 'aspiration nation' may just save the UK economy.

The Budgie

It's budget day, and now the dust is beginning to settle let me tell you what I thought about it. George Osborne has done an alright job but don't let it cover up the underlying message is that Britain is not in great shape.

First the Good Stuff. The TPA must be pleased as they can now change their hashtag to #mashedbeertax with the alcohol escalator now axed. Sin taxes never bring in any money so just let people drink what they want. Good news for York University as their Hagueathon (an attempt to drink 14 pints like William Hague) is now 55p cheaper*. Also petrol is not going to be put up. Horray!! It is 15p cheaper to fill up under this government than it would be if Labour were still power. There is a continued Capital Gains Tax holiday. There are quite a few things to like.

Also there is this:

 

But now the overall picture of the British economy. Well borrowing is going to go UP again this year, oh dear. By 2017/2018 this country's debt will stand at 85% of GDP!!!!!!! Also growth is predicted to be just 0.6% this year, not very good either. Makes you wonder whether Mervyn King is right when he says 'there is underlying growth in the economy'. There are also no net cuts again. This is the worst bit as we are cutting £2.5 billion from department budgets to spend on programmes that are not needed. This is so stupid it's unbelievable, all wasted on projects like HS2 that make no money. What a loss.

So overall. We have No Net Cuts. No huge tax cuts. But we do have some good things on the side which may make a difference. Mind you the average family is still £700 better off than under Labour.

Also wait till next week. By then Labour may have picked out a sex tax or something.

*I would like to point out this is NUCA's idea first with the campus 14.

‘Man Up’

The pressure is now on in the Tory Party. The parliamentary party, who are more loyal to David Cameron than the rest of party, have made sure the heat is now on George Osborne to produce a budget that could not have been written by Ed Balls.

Tories of all places are calling for tax cuts and to cut the debt and deficit. Last year, as well as this year, the debt will rise. This year the deficit will do so too. George Osborne has not achieved what he set out to do. There is also only 0.2% growth to boot. Alistair Darling had a better record with about 1% of growth at the end of his time. This is directly effecting the Conservatives performance for 2015 with many UKIP voters basing their swap on economic issues (see http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/eastleigh.html)

Priti Patel has said "that our economy is struggling. Growth is sluggish, rising living costs mean families have to tighten their belts … the truth is that the taxes and regulation are a large part of the problem."

Even Kwasi Kwarteng, who chairs the free enterprise select committee, has said "We are still borrowing £120bn. We are not in a fit state to be spending money in this way … We have got to address this, and if we don't, what will happen is that we will have another government which will probably not address it and we will end up being a basket case."

"I'm quite happy to say that publicly. This is a big, big problem, and unless we can actually man up and deal with it, I think we've got big problems ahead of us."

People who have spoken out include Ben Gummer, Theresa Coffey and David Rutley, people who do not usually speak in such a disapproving tone. They are piling on Conservative pressure to have a more Conservative economic policy.

David Cameron recently said that "there would be no shift to the right" under his government. Tory MPs aren't asking for this. They are asking for a shift from Brownite economics to that of a liberal government. The problem for George Osborne is that he is too, small c, conservative. He refuses to change from the path left by the last government, indeed those that advised Mr Darling still advise him. The pressure is on to ‘man up and deal with it’ if not Mr Osborne may find that he’s out of a job (if it becomes so bad the PM will throw him off first). 

Where is the growth?

GDP figures came out recently showing -0.3% economic growth. Overall 2012 saw just 0.1% growth in the economy.  Why is this so considering the government says it is tackling the debt and deficit coupled with tax cuts? Obviously partially responsible is the amount of uncertainty in Europe at the moment. This is not just directly because of debt crises in Greece, Spain etc but because the exchange rates for the Euro are fluctuating, ironic for a currency that was specifically designed to be stable. But it’s no good just pointing over the Channel because other countries are growing.

So what’s up with the UK? Well Mr Osborne is bending the truth quite a bit when he says what I have laid out above. There are/will be some tax cuts, notably the decreasing amount for corporation tax, enterprise zones, dropping the 50p tax rate and the personal rate for income tax rising to £9,000. But where are the incentives for local government to decrease their business rates (particularly important due to the government wanting an emphasis on small business growth)? Why is VAT, capital gains tax and overall the tax level for the highest earners, who have the most capital to spend, up? The debt is going up, not down. The lack of cutting by the government means they are spending more on stimulus than Gordon Brown leading to the deficit falling slower than first predicted in 2010. No wonder there isn't any growth the Treasury hasn't got a clue what it is doing. Is it trying Keynesian stimulus methods that will in the short term create economic growth but accumulate more debt making the problem worse in the future or is the focus on market liberation by cutting spending and lowering tax?

There is also another element of a lack of capital in the UK with any left being spent on depreciation and not investment creating growth. The UK banks have to keep a high proportion of their capital stored in case of another crisis, helped out by quantitative easing. The low interest rate too means there is a lack of savings. Government stimulus as replacement for this capital shortfall is not appropriate, not only because it’s piling on the debt mountain, but because government is clueless to what is sound investment i.e. HS2 and wind turbines. We need to examine firstly lowering the amount of money the banks keep in case of a crisis and then, possibly sooner rather than later, raise interest rates so people can create capital through savings. It’s going to have to happen sometime.

So how can we get growth? Well firstly Government needs to decide to cut taxes and actually reduce government expenditure instead of trying half-heartedly to stimulate short term growth by Keynesian spending. After this is set in place we must then examine the lack of capital in the UK by reducing bank emergency funds and beginning to raise interest rates, because despite this making borrowing for investment less attractive there is little capital to borrow from anyway with fewer savings.

Advice to No.11

For a man who is trying to cut the debt Mr Osborne isn’t very good at it. Today it was announced that borrowing went up by £15.4 billion pounds in December which isn’t very good really, to put it bluntly. Our national debt is now £1.1 Trillion. Osborne is doing far better than Balls, Darling, Cable would have ever done as chancellor. But I think he isn’t taking cutting that seriously and seems to be relying on weak growth to bring down the deficit rather than sorting out the problem.

Now you could argue that the debt isn’t that big a deal, if we continue to cut the deficit with a stronger economy or small cuts then our country will be alright. I don’t believe this. Even if this model was economically sound, which it’s not, it would be totally destroyed when Labour comes back into power. Sadly they will do some time in the future, as they will borrow more and more till bankruptcy.

So where would I cut alternately. Well I’d leave the EU so that’s a big chunk, foreign aid would virtually all go, HS2 would be gone, I’d privatise many services like bin collection and that’s just to start. We seriously need to examine the amount the welfare takes up. I’d also switch the NHS to focus dramatically to prevention, which is much cheaper and more effective than cure. The government has committed itself to a rise in the NHS budget this parliament and it has carried it out. But my own personal view is that such a policy may be unsustainable and should be re-examined in 2015. Benefits wise there should be a reduction virtually everywhere with a lower benefits cap to minimum wage level.

We seriously need to decide what government does otherwise we’ll never escape from the austerity.