@Tom

I do apologise old chap, try the bromide.

Good news: this website (======= http://www.clothes6.us =======) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.

Laurie. One of your best yet. Thank you for articulating things so concisely.

@terrywhite

perhaps they should sort the bankers out? insted of sorting out students and benefits. i wonder what would of happend if we hadnt bailed out the banks and payed off our debts insted, allthough england might not be erning enough therefore it gets wiped out yay!!! .......... oh no wait a minitue if we pay our debts that have been LOOMING for years we get a penality fine ........... hmmmmmmm best not to then......

secondly students do pay for there universitiy they get in lots of debt doing so are we really going to incresse it to 9000???? all coursess WILL be 90000 a year!!!>!?!?! really!?!?!?!?!
its obserd , hell if where so in debt lets ship alll the poor people out of london , there a bunch of benefit scum anywhay then we can bulid great walls on our metropolis hey we can charge a kind of charge to come into our kingdom ...... some kind of............ congestion cahrge thingy......... make LOADS of money ..ectectecetect

the divde between the rich and poor is growning THATS BAD

NONE of our political parties are worth ANYTHING insted of doing as suggested above somewherer lets NOT make our own party let 'REFORM ' the politiacl system.................
lets have our own "cuts" and get rid of the knobs in charge ... lets get the dead foutume telling octpuss in charge

anotherthing about benefits how is it (at the very lest) mathmatcly fair for a single parent whos erning 40 thasond to LOse their benefits but a couple on 39 thoundsend each KEEP their benefits??????

arrrrr yes i see the couple erning 78, is a nice airyan couple the kind we want to survive , but single parents????

@um

I think we should sort it all out, and that includes the banks.

The gap between the richest and the poorest has been growing for the last 30 years and the rate of growth did not reduce under 13 years of Liebour.

Get rid of one set of 'knobs' and you will get another set by a different name (...'New' Labour).

PS: with respect there's no need to shout. I can hear you well enough. And please do believe that I share some of your concerns.

terrywhite

Firstly, I agree SHOUTING and eccentric punctuation is irritating!

OK. You 'don't deny' anything I say, it's just that you completely endorse everything in Durkin's dog and pony show. Are you therefore (1) being disingenuous or (2) completely without critical faculties?

Let's start with some econ 101 (I'm not being patronising - Durkin needs this too).

As Mr Divine points out, one man's debt is another's asset. Durkin ignores this completely, and it looks like you do too.

Over 80 percent of UK government debt is held by you. and me. and out domestic banks. and the bank of england. The proportion of debt that is domestically-held (safe from the fictional "bond vigilantes" Durkin would have us fear) is growing.

This country's financial system is not going to bankrupt itself, and the rest do own own enough of our debt to affect in any big way the credit conditions for UK gilts.

So fiscal disciple is needed (and I agree Labour wasted *a lot* of money - PFI esp annoys me), but it is a long-term project, and - pay attention - *not the same thing as regenerating ecology of businesses, individuals and so on that we call "the economy"*.

You need to grow the economy to shrink the deficit. The Tories, and Durkin, are putting the cart before the horse, on the basis that people will want to buy things again because the state spends less money. There is no evidence for this position at all. None.

Durkin either cannot understand, or wilfully ignores, fundamental differences between debt in a an open system (i.e. a person, a business) and in a closed one (a national economy with a fiat currency, the global economy).

Even putting aside the wholesale conceptual misunderstandings in the documentary and the dark allusions to discredited voodoo economics like the Laffer Curve, the specific errors and gross omissions are too numerous to mention here: they deserve a full-blown fisking which I hope someone is doing.

I will point out one specific canard that should make you re-evaluate your's and Durkin's parable of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has *no* private freehold land ownership. None at all. It all belongs to the state.

The state sells longish leases to private parties by charging very large up-front premiums, and annual rents. They also make a charge to give permission change lease terms, grant lease extensions, and so on.

The rents etc from the leases the dreaded state sells are a significant de facto land tax: no private enterprise in Hong Kong can avoid them.

Additionally, owners of income-yielding land leases or buildings are charged a specific rental income tax, set at 15 percent on the annual rental income of sub-leased properties.

It is only because of this significant revenue from state rents and a tax on private rental income that corporation tax and personal taxes in Hong Kong are so low. Without these measures, Hong Kong would be running large deficits.

Moreover, when property taxes (rents plus rental income tax) are included in comparions, the rent - which is, remember, mandatory, and which all tenants-in-chief pay - brings the tax burden on companies and individuals in close allignment with other advanced economies (and not far behind our own).

But Durkin ignores this significant fact, because it clashes with the story he wants to tell.

He also ignores that Hong Kong has introduced many things he (as a member of the RCP brigade) and dullards like Mark Littlewood (a all-pro shill, and a uniquely unpleasant little man) would have us all do away with, such as: export credit guarantees (state trade!), a compulsory pension scheme, a minimum wage, and a state mortgage backer (state finance!). Even the bloated UK doesnlt have all these. The state in HK has introduced these *as it has got richer and bigger* and none signal imminent decline.

Durkin's polemic has nothing to do with facts or sound economics (I repeat, not one of his "experts" was other than a grubby, imperfectly-educated shill) and everything to do with popularising the wish list on the lips of every head of every big business that demonstrably failed in 2007-2008.

The piece was a shabby and shrill prayer for the goose of capitalism to start laying golden eggs again. It - and the people on it - should be treated with the contempt such a prayer deserves.

Read up on Durkin and you'll see he has little credibility.

@Buckskins

Your banality of a reply to my comment addresses not one of the points I made. Indeed it demonstrates you didn't really understand what I wrote. 'Objectivity' and 'spin' indeed---are these the limits of your conceptual tools for argument? Good luck with that.

More top quality stuff Laurie.

(As for the typical bourgeois reaction when the reality of a protest doesn't fit their twee ideal of merely registering distanced discontent, it might be well to remember that the only reason we have democracy today is because large numbers of people were prepared to break 'laws of the land'. Men and women have died in prisons for our freedoms---what an insult to get attached to a broken pane of glass and a security camera... belonging to a tax-dodging enclave of corporatists, at the end of the day. To ask a classic question of political theory, how legitimate is it to unswervingly follow to the law when the law is the first recourse of the government and the resource it has demonstrated itself to have near-unlimited access to? Every instance of emancipatory politics throughout history was deemed in some sense illegal by the existing regime it improved upon. This is about more than petty commodities, it is about whether or not *we* legitimate our governments' wild and pernicious behaviour. Or is the meaning of democracy lost...?)

Having lived (on the 27th floor) and worked in Hong Kong I can assure you that the place is no paradise. However it is a great place to make money. Try Midland Holding (1200) and Angang New Steel (347) ... Hang Seng. China is going full pelt and Hong Kong is nicely tucked into its wake.

As Laurie Penny knows, the difference between the Suffragettes and Some SWSS Students Who Tried To Kill A Police Officer is that the former did not have the vote, and were excluded from the political process, while the latter are not.

Laurie gets around this by saying that the SWSS Students are "Feeling that they no longer have a voice or a stake in the political process"

They may be "feeling" that, but they actually have precisely the same voice and stake in the political process as any other voter.

Obviously, they think that their voice is worth more, and that this entitles them to attempt to kill police officers.

Not the least benefit of the ejection of the Labour government in May has been that it has legimitimised protest. Why were there no riots under Labour? The policies were practically identical, after all. Yet because it was Labour, not the evil Tories, in power, students, unions and the poor played nice.

Now, at least, the forces of leftish opposition have given themselves permission to demonstrate. And they will tell themselves, no doubt, that they are demonstrating against "the Tories". UNDER LABOUR, THE POLICIES WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST THE SAME. Please don't forget that.

@Lorna

"In fact I think most people who do a PhD get a grant to live on (of varying size) and their fees paid."

That's a slightly deceptive way of putting it. There are a number of grants to apply for from the various research boards and from universities. For most people, not winning one of these coveted grants means not being able to do the PhD, particularly as parental support is likely to have dried up long before. So the end effect is that most people doing a PhD have a grant, yes, but they represent many more who had to give up on the idea.

It's fair enough to ask why the line about "rights" to education is drawn where it is.

Homo Sapiens:
'even though society is actually considerably more wealthy now ' ... Get a grip on reality please. BRITAIN's TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS IS NOW £4.8 TRILLION. We cannot carry on like this and action is essential. It has ballooned massively beyond comprehension under 13 years of New-Age LabourOf course banking lost it's way and screwed up but the total bill for banking in terms of actual loans is a minute proportion of our overall debt. What is more it will eventually be repaid with interest and the taxpayer will in all likelihood make a profit on it. This does not address the burning question of our debt and the fact that we are paying husge somes every month in debt interest which could otherwise be used for investment in people and infrastructure. How idiotic can it be therefore to argue that we should continue to borrow like it's going out of fashion and increase this debt and the debt repayments, not seek to reduce it. Gor God's sake, look at Ireland, which had its credit rating slashed and owes even more now because it is even less able to repay its debt. The Labour government was warned by the IMF that it too would have its credit rating slashed as in 1975 if firm action was not taken to put in place a plan to reduce its massive and out-of-control debt-reliance.
Anyone with a modicum of both intelligence and honesty can see that taking action to tackle this nightmare, which will always be unpopular, is unavoidable. All the Labour party and the Left do is tell people they have a right to everything and anything but they never tell you how it will really be paid, when and by whom.
So I will tell you now: the how is by higher taxes and massive borrowing from interntaional finance houses, the who is primarily the children not yet conceived who will purportedly benefit from 'free' education (nonsense) but will have to pay for the debt interest and the when is 'manyana, manyana'.
It is politically inexpedient for the Left and Labour to be truthful with their supporters. Likewise that this generation of selfish, small-minded scroungers are ever-prepared not to secure 'free' (joke) education for their kids but to off-load the cost of providing education as with all other things onto future generations. And the whole debate is based at best on a lack of awareness of these realities (NB: nothing in life is free, it is all paid for, but by whom and how and when) and at worst on complete and utter dishonesty on the part of people who peddle such nonsense.
Here's the thing: Socialists, and the Labour Party, have yet to show throughout history that they can be responsible, and honest, where the nation's finances are concerned.
I am well-travelled and have visited socialist states. The economy is always not so much on its knees but permanently screwed and 'the people' are always dirt poor. The only ones that do well are the ghastly party apparachiks who govern over them and keep close control lest they get kicked out and lose all their privilages. That is how it works.
Understand this: every time a politician promises something they are doing it with other peoples' money. "We will increase funding on..." No they won't, someone else will by having to pay the loan back or by having the money taken from them in direct or indirect taxes.
Personally I believe the right to protest is an important democratic right. But it must be peaceful, which is frustrating because it is easier to ignore than violent destruction. But if you allow violent unrest then there is no law at all and anyone can do anything at any time. The anarchists would love it of course but they are tiny in number. The rest of us would hate it and we will not accept it.
The charge of attempted murder is sadly appropriate for the fool who threw that fire extinguisher off a sever-story roof at police. What else did he expect? Had it hit someone thay would certainly have died.
Labour are caught in a web of their own lies. Their supporters, like many of their MPs, simply do not understand the way finance works (note: you don't have to like it, but understand it). Stop referring to something as 'FREE'. It gets paid for somewhere and by someone.

The great shame for me is that I share many of the concerns of people on blogs like this and would otherwise agree at least in part with some of the views. But there is a virulent strain that runs through so many on the Left. It is like a disease and it reminds me of Orwell's '1984'.Where is your honesty. It takes that to confront harsh realities and not simply twist things to suit your arguments and frequently your prejudices. It also takes courage.
Labour take you all for fools. They borrowed Briatin into oblivion, deliberately deferred the Comprehensive Spending Review that was due in the year prior to the election so they could hide the awful truth from the people. They said 'we will cut the deficit but more gradually, by 50% over the next 5 years'. but of course we have had precious few examples of how they would do it. Personally I don't believe a word they say. They would do no such thing and continue as before. And as sure as night follows day Briatin would end up losing its AAA-rating, whereupon interest rates would soar and we would have entered into a downward spiral with attendant higher unemployment. It would ony have been sorted out, and not without a lot of pain bacause that is unavoidable, when Labour were kicked out and someone else got in and started to tackle the gigantic problem.

@terrywhite: Where do you get that 4 trillion figure from? What debt are you talking about?

You know when you look at the anger vented in just the graffitti, that alone, is very powerful. It can't be cleaned off immediately, so it is photographed and published, point made.
I hope the students take plenty of spraycans next time.

Great article If the windows wern't smashed the media would not have coverd the story in spite of the protest, property and profit makes better news than people ?
To add salt to the wound the owners of Millbank towers are registerd in the British Virgin Islands hence forth they are TAX DODGERS and the goverment is complicit by renting them, no wonder they attack the population with deep finacial cuts they are meant to serve rather than close the tax loopholes, if they recieve donations from them, We are all in this together, I think not

@sciamachy
re £7billion - You forget one further fact: current net cost of bailing out banks is less than £3bn (according to Radio 4's More or Less) as the substantial guarantees were not called upon, and the shares in the banks are almost worth what was put in (and will exceed this soon as the share prices continue to recover)

To put this in context - £3bn is one week's worth of the current record overspend.

Disclaimer: not a banker, just numerate.

@Sciamachy:
'welfare budget this year slashed by 7 billion. Bankers' bonus pot, after we bailed them out - 7 billion. Vodafone's tax bill the government let them off - 6 billion'.
I am no apologist for banks and have attacked their recklessness and failure as strongly as anyone else, but please re-read my earlier comment viz a viz the eventual cost, or possible profit, to the nation, however unpleasant the whole episode has been. And whilst it is still abhorrent to me I have just heard that the bonus pot has been reduced to £3 billion this year. It is in the nature of banking (wrongly in my view) that a large % of what they are paid is performance-based (yes, the irony is not lost on me as regards recent failures to perform well). My understanding of the situation regarding Vodafone's tax bill is that the HMRC issued a statement recently (I read it) that denied the £6 billion figure was ever accurate in the first place. End of the day though jobs would go if they had to find such a figure I would imagine.

@Mr. Divine
£4.8 Trillion is apparently the total of our entire national indebtedness upon which we have to make payments with interest every month, and is set to continue rising exponentially. I use that term 'entire national indebtedness' carefully. I am open to hearing as to whether you disagree but do please back it up and not just descend as so many do in the NS blogs into hate and vitreol, particularly because the figure I got from a programme on Channel 4 last week which I think it is fair to say was made by someone who does not shical platform. The point is, is it accurate? I would argie that if it is even half that we are up a river without a paddle, and Labour just want to keep 'spen, spen, spending'. I copy in here the Ch.4 link and the blurb about the programme for the benefit of yourself and others and I suggest those that missed it or didn't bother to watch do so poste haste:
-----
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/...
'Film maker Martin Durkin explains the full extent of the financial mess we are in: an estimated £4.8 trillion of national debt and counting. It's so big that even if every home in the UK was sold it wouldn't raise enough cash to pay it off.
Durkin argues that to put Britain back on track we need to radically rethink the role of the state, stop politicians spending money in our name and introduce, among other measures, flat taxes to make Britain's economy boom again.
This polemical film presented by Martin Durkin, brings economic theory to life and makes it hit home. It includes interviews with academics, economic experts, entrepreneurs, no less than four ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer and the biggest stack of £50 notes you'll never see'.
-----

Terrywhite - of course the HMRC would say that now. Now, it's politically expedient for them to justify the written-off amount & to do so they'll try their best to minimise it, but at the time Vodafone were let off the bill, that's what it was. You can be pretty sure that if they decided you or I owed X amount, that's what they'd go for & that's what they'd get.

Sadly, the Tories have *always* valued private property above social justice. It's one reason I utterly despise them.

I wish our young people well but they need to be careful. This lot will think nothing of smashing heads in order to protect their long held priviledges

The young and the dispossessed.... And we don't like the sums.

Penny, you are neither young nor dispossessed.

Excellent piece. 'Tens of thousands of pounds of damage' is a clear-cut example of how to make a trivial commodity sounds more important (and 'mathematically' magniloquent) than any individual or even collective human future.

Against this rhetoric the Tories should be advised 'tread softy, because you tread on my dreams'.

Ash, she is young - in her early twenties, I think. She is also not wrong to note that even as a middle-class person, she is being 'dispossessed' by the government's cuts to the public sector. These measures hit both the most vulnerable and the middle classes. Why not direct your hostility more constructively - towards the policymakers who seek to implement these measures?