It's the policy, stupid

If only David had won and we could have Ed as the Chancellor!!! What a team that would have been.

Hmmm. Deafening silence....

I really think that the number of comments about Alan Johnson having been a postman shows that those making them snobs who are stuck in the 1920s and 1930s. It should not matter what your job was or where you were educated. Going to Eton provides no qulaification for chancellor or PM
There are many people in the past that could not stay on at school for economic reasons and so could not go to university.
I used to be a milkman but managed to get a 1st in Archeology and an MBA.

Surely your headline should have been:

"it's the stupid policy, stupid."

"Labour will now stick with the Darling plan"

Will this now join the pantheon alongside "there is no coup" and "David Miliband has won"?

Alan Johnson has now said 4 times in 2 mins that Darling plan "is our starting point". Also says it's not "cast in aspic"

Suggests departure from the plan to me.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So if Labour are going to be all for halving the deficit, how are they going to be able to challenge a govt which is trying to do just that?

Ed's Milli-band and the rest of the 'Drifters' ... Can they all sing?
'Sleepie Johnson' as Chancellor .... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I wonder if Sleepie is still relaxed about the UK population going to 70 million ... now he's shadow Chancellor, the BBC can ask him how much he expects the increased cost to the taxpayer to be of e.g. (assuming he has 'any idea') of the additional UK infrastructural requirement, in order to accommodate this Labour forecasted UK mass immigration fuelled population 'explosion'.

Go on Sleepie! ... How much will it cost/add to the National Debt ... another couple of £'s Goondog Trillion ... that's 'Peanuts' to 'the Drifters?'

Not sure Darling's "plan" is too relevant, Labour aren't in power now. If I were them, I'd accept the need for cuts - and at the same time fight the "clearing up Labour's mess" nonsense, keep ramming home the point that it's a global crisis caused in the main by feckless practice in the banking sector - accept the need for cuts (would look unreal to do otherwise) but NOT in the ratio (to tax rises) planned by "callow young man on the make" George Osborne. Stress that the fiscal consolidation should be effected via a 50/50 mix of spending cuts and tax rises. Also, oppose very strongly any cut which falls on the poor - so not the CB removal from HR taxpayers, for example, go easy on things like this. Support them even.

As to choosing AJ as Chancellor, guess it's okay. Given we now have a bona fide member of the intellectual elite as Labour leader, I personally would have preferred another member (of the IE) in the money role - Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls spring to mind. But perhaps the idea here is to keep the seat warm for when David returns. If so, we'd then have both Milibands and plus Balls and Coop in the top 4 jobs - precisely the scenario which was exciting me a few days ago. Combined brain power of this quartet would be quite frightening - certainly difficult for the somewhat dull tory equivalents to cope with. Let's see how it all pans out, anyway.

It would, they argued, allow the coalition to label any cuts it made "Labour cuts" - made necessary by the failures of the last government.

That stigma is going to stay for many many years , the economy is far from safe, and any recovery we see is only due to the massive bail out the banks are getting , we are a long way yet from moving backwards and i dont see it happening in the lifetime of this parliament,and i also believe that the worst for this country is still to come when the figures are added up properly.

People wont forgive and forget and having the same team with different wrapping paper is just going to continually remind people who the culprits were....

I wanted to make this comment on the last post but was too late.

Hold on a moment - people are describing Alan Johnson as a man with no qualifications, few credentials and little significant experience. This is a man who has held Cabinet posts in Home Affairs, Health, Education, Work & Pensions and Trade & Industry - he therefore has by far the broadest range of high-level ministerial experience of anyone in the shadow cabinet (and, as with most of its new members, an advantage of several years of governmental experience over their opposite numbers). That he only did most of these jobs for a year or so may be a pro or a con but whichever, it's not his fault but that of his former bosses.

A concern about his appointment though is his age, and related to that the notion that this is his last shot, his last senior political position. It seems inconceivable that AJ could desert Miliband ahead of the nexdt election, and unless he makes a hash of it (and winning the election would imply he hadn't), it would be difficult for Ed to justify leaving Johnson behind on the march into Downing St in favour of someone coming in afresh. After that... recent history would suggest that the resident of No. 11 may be notoriously hard to shift.

An interesting choice, and perhaps an unexpected one, but given the scale of the policy clash between Miliband and Balls/Cooper, perhaps one that is easier to explain than some are making out.

And one final thought on the 'experience' question. Blair walked into No.10 with no government and little senior-Opposition time on his CV. Brown stepped up from 10 years as Chancellor. Who was the more effective PM?

Ed, by appointing Alan Johnson, one of the most autocratic of the Blairites, - ID cards, DNA data base, CCTV cameras etc., to be shadow chancellor you are continuing to drive away many of the core Labour supporters. You may attract a few 'fly by nights' but they will desert you at the drop of a hat.

3#

True, it shouldnt make any difference. At least he did have a job of some sort prior to going into politics.

However.

1) He made a pigs ear of the top up cancer treatment fiasco at Health

2) He made a pigs ear of re-classifying cannabis for political reasons losing 80% of the advisory board to resignations in the process.

3) He is on record as saying that he would lose no sleep over the UK population reaching 71 million.

4) And then there was the Binyam Mohamed Gitmo/MI5 torture scandal, where he misled parliament.

These are the political decisions amongst others that, to my mind, render him unsuitable for the job of holding responsibility for the nations finances in a time of crisis that his party, his government, of which he was a fairly senior player, were party to.

He's simply a placeman who will not rock the Miliboat and challenge the new leader.

You wait and see how much time Balls spends in the treasury instead of his own department. Same as what he did as Education secretary under Brown. This is going to be no different.

7. At 5:37pm on 08 Oct 2010, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
So if Labour are going to be all for halving the deficit, how are they going to be able to challenge a govt which is trying to do just that?

==================================

Because the governments policy is to completely remove the structural part of the deficit during the current parliament not just halve it.

At least sticking to the Darling position of halving the structural part it is a more defensible position politically - Labour can plough on with opposing any cuts proposed (because we would have cut by half just not that bit) whilst still claiming to have recognised the deficit as a problem.

Osbornes policy is politically risky, he is rolling the dice and hoping for better than 10 - if the economy stops growing and tanks as a result of the cuts or sentiment linked to the cuts - then his deficit plan will collapse in tatters with it.

"As to choosing AJ as Chancellor, guess it's okay. Given we now have a bona fide member of the intellectual elite as Labour leader, I personally would have preferred another member (of the IE) in the money role - Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls spring to mind."

So, your elitism is OK, everybody elses is not. Your animals are more equal.

What a load of old horsepap. You spend so much time wringing your hands mate, I'm surprised you havent got stumps for wrists.

Alan Johnson "deploying .. connection with the real world to portray George Osborne as an out-of-touch rich kid."
====================================================

Or Labour playing the class card ? Very progressive.

Johnson, Balls or Cooper - it doesn't really matter really, and the best that can be said of them is that neither of them are in aposition to cause any further damage to the economy and the country. If Mr Balls and Ms Cooper know all the answers - any they have that patronising smugness about them which suggests that they think they do - why didn't they implement then when they were in government ?

Actually, I quite like Alan Johnson, but even helooked a bit surprised and bewildered by it all on TV. He jokingly said he would look for a "beginners guide to economics" - which wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't true.

Still, Ms Cooper has got a senior position, and I'm sure she'll do a good job of unwaveringly repeating the party line, even when events around tell her otherwise.

And Mr Balls, one former number 10 advisor described him as a "headkicker", and it says much for the culture of Labour, when this term can be used in a complimentary manner.

11 joe

"It seems inconceivable that AJ could desert Miliband ahead of the nexdt election, and unless he makes a hash of it "
===================================================

He'll be gone long before then. His appointment looks like a caretaker role to me.

8. nautonier:

Better off asking Ozzy & chums these questions since the last time I checked they were still in charge.
Since the Non EU Immigration cap is turning out to be a bit of a joke, what exactly are the ConDems going to do about future immigration (if anything) anyway?
Leave it on the back burner along with the Child Benefit changes until 2014 perhaps?

NuLabour are dead in the water & old news – time for the new guys to get to work.

Ed, stop it, you've now appointed Jim Murphy, another of the Blairite toadies, to a top position. He's the man who tried to drive through the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill otherwise known as the 'Totalitarianism Bill' which in its original form would have allowed politicians to make laws without recourse to Parliament.

Rather than a shadow cabinet you've got yourself a 'shallow cabinet'

Never seen so much interest and comment about a Shaddow Cabinet.

The actual cabinet was announced with deafening silence even though it was the first Coalition Government for 60 odd years.

All sounds a bit panicky to me.

I think AJ will be a very safe pair of hands as shadow CE. Generally liked amongst the non partisan bacause he is easy to "relate to" for most people. Add that to bags of experience in Gov't and he will not be easily dismissed.

I expect a very pragmatic and plausible opposition to the current economic policy. Cuts, yes but at a more measured pace, offering a ballance between fiscal retrenchment and protecting essential services. It will sound calm and unpanicked compared to Osbornes shrill (has his voice broken yet) hacking at anything that moves.

BtW anyone seen the reports today regarding the complete lack of any savings (for at least 10 years) from the great bonfire of the Quangos?

What a con.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

18. At 6:33pm on 08 Oct 2010, forgottenukcitizen wrote:

8. nautonier:

Better off asking Ozzy & chums these questions since the last time I checked they were still in charge.
Since the Non EU Immigration cap is turning out to be a bit of a joke, what exactly are the ConDems going to do about future immigration (if anything) anyway?
Leave it on the back burner along with the Child Benefit changes until 2014 perhaps?

NuLabour are dead in the water & old news – time for the new guys to get to work.

....................................

Believe it or not, but the UK Shadow Chancellor ... is supposed to have some idea about resource planning and budgets etc ... this is the guy who (at the same time as the UK having the largest budget deficit and infrastructural deficits in history) said that he would not lose any sleep regarding the UK population going to 70 - 80 million (mainly from mass immigration) within the next 15 years (obviously without any idea at all about e.g. how much this will cost the UK taxpayer and other massive problems).

Ha ha ha ha ha ... Its like a sketch from Monty Pythons but only better ... if it wasn't all so damned serious and damaging ... hasn't 'Sleepie' done enough damage along with the rest of the 'Drifters'.

17. At 6:33pm on 08 Oct 2010, StrictlyPickled wrote:
11 joe

"It seems inconceivable that AJ could desert Miliband ahead of the nexdt election, and unless he makes a hash of it "
===================================================

He'll be gone long before then. His appointment looks like a caretaker role to me.

===========================================

Agree with that, Johnsons role has been to look after portfolios whilst others are unavailable as an affable but innocuos replacement.
He's very personable but will just trawl the line he is told to loyally.

No point sacrificing a long term prospect to shadow chancellor just in case George gets it right and opposing it will be shown to be wrong.

Since Kenneth Clarke gave up the position as Shadow Chancellor in 1997. The position of SC has bheld been held with anyone of great esteem.

Peter Lilley
Francis Maude
Michael Portillo
Michael Howard
Oliver Letwin (yes I know, even he was given a bash)
George Osbourne

So Alan Johnson should be considered a good appointment.

Eatonrifle @ 20.

Ahhh yes the great QANGO farce, coming soon to a posh boy who can't do his sums properly...

"So, your elitism is OK, everybody elses is not." - fs @ 15

Wouldn't put it like that. Elitism in politics, or in anything, isn't really a good thing but to the extent we have it - and perhaps it's inevitable that to some extent we do - it's preferable that it's based on grey matter and a well developed progressive sensibility, rather than, for example, which school you went to.

very good choice ed. when i heard the news i broke into a wry smile. the thought of that light weight moron osborne v heavyweight aj. no contest and simply another step toward getting rid of this appaling coalition.
aj was a postman and has represented and worked for ordinary working class people most of his adult life... from the trade union movement, mp and as a govt minister. his background, career and strong links with working class people are distinctly different from osbornes (born into wealth and aristocracy (life experience..... conservative researcher then mp.

9. sagamix

"Not sure Darling's "plan" is too relevant, Labour aren't in power now. If I were them, I'd accept the need for cuts - and at the same time fight the "clearing up Labour's mess" nonsense, keep ramming home the point that it's a global crisis caused in the main by feckless practice in the banking sector"
======================================================
Err...... no it wasn't, the banks certainly account for some of it, but it's a fraction of the overall mess - and that is certainly down to the last Labour government. I know you don't like the "clearing up labours mess" but that doesn't make it any less true I'm afraid.

"If so, we'd then have both Milibands and plus Balls and Coop in the top 4 jobs - precisely the scenario which was exciting me a few days ago. Combined brain power of this quartet would be quite frightening - certainly difficult for the somewhat dull tory equivalents to cope with. Let's see how it all pans out, anyway."
=============================================================
I seem to remember that the quartet above were all key players in the last government - and for all the "brainpower" as you like to call it - they failed in such a spectacular manner - and I'm not only talking about the so global bankning crisis. Their "brainpower", and that of others like them in Gordy's PG Tips advert of a government really was frightening !

Still, I enjoyed reading your post, so keep 'em coming ! And Ed Miliband can't be all bad, as your favourite - the neice of countess Longford - is being gently eased out.

26#

Yeah, right. You're still making excuses for your kind of elitism that sets you apart from the proles that you claim to be so concerned about. Otherwise, you'd be ordinary, just like them and we cant possibly have that, can we?

If anyone but you had said it, you'd be all over them like a rash.

Pull the other one mate. You might fool the plebs in the less gentrified parts of Islington and Kilburn, but not me.

27#

Doesnt that chain around your neck hurt when the local party secretary yanks it that hard, Lefty?

Ed has certainly fluffed his first big decision. Good move on Yvette though. The Opposition rarely opposes the Govt of the day on foreign affairs so we won`t be hearing too much from her. Hooray! As far as Mr Balls is concerned. He cannot make too many waves as Ed Milliband has already admitted that Labour made big mistakes on immigration etc. As Mr Balls was in Govt when those decisions were made, Teresa will make mincemeat of him. Although Postman Pat might be the most affable guy in the Shadow Cabinet he is no economist. For months now, even well before the election, Labour only ever had a very vague plan to tackle the deficit, - repeated time and again - "we will cut the deficit in 4 years" Never how. As many others have commented it seems AJ is just there to keep the seat warm. He will obviously peddle the union line, the govts cuts are too deep, too quick. To be taken seriously he must come up with a plan of his own. Don`t hold your breath though. Ed obviously thinks AJ is indispensable. He got the job because Ed didn`t want to be shown up by the Balls couple habit of being on the telly from morning to night. AJ is now the most important person in the cabinet and the Balls are just a side show. Suits his purpose down to the ground. Maybe rather a sensible move after all.

Oh and by the way Saga.... arent all four of those towering members of your intellectual elite Oxford PPPE graduates?

Saying something about non elitist education were we?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The new Justice Secretary has more than a few questions to answer as well...


https://order-order.com/2010/10/08/5-things-you-should-know-about-the-shadow-justice-secretary/

Gratuitous pee in there, Fubar (32) - not for the first time.

35#

Perhaps so Saga, doesnt make the point any less valid, which I note, you ducked.

Nobody needs to ask Labour those two questions. We all know what the answers are...!

"Although Postman Pat might be the most affable guy in the Shadow Cabinet he is no economist." - brian @ 31

Be able to relate well to Osborne then, won't he?

I'm not bowled over by this appointment (would have preferred either Balls or Coop) but where it might work for Labour is the contrast with GO. Not the lack of economic expertise - no contrast at all there - but the "mature man of the people" versus "callow young man on the make" aspect; the one pointed up by lefty @ 27.

Let's see how it spools out over the next few weeks and months.

#33 Sagamix

Why were Labour running a structural budget deficit during an asset boom?

This is one of the indictments, is it not?

Something to think about:

"There is no domestic solution to a global crisis."

Strauss-Kahn (IMF)

Anyone who has come from being a postie to hold several of the highest offices in the land must have something about him. IMHO I think that if the Coalition underestimate him, they could be making a serious mistake.

Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor: The Peter Principle in action.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

thought it was really good to see alot of women in the shadow cabinet. more female voices in the labour party is very welcomed. a womens touch. absolutely essential.

Not guilty, just in case you might have thought it was. Not this time.

43#

Hmm. Looks like you've upset someone Saga.

Well John, and Strictly P, I'm trying my level best to reply to your posts - setting out in brief what Labour got wrong, what the banks got wrong, the relative importance of each - but somebody out there is deciding you won't get the benefit.

Catch you later, since no point when this sort of stuff happens.

Let's look at this scientifically.

If Alan Johnson were an animal, what would he be? Some kind of panda, probably, or a small, vegetarian bear.

If George Osborne were an animal, what would he be? A gecko or maybe a rattlesnake.

The appointment is a stroke of genius because AJ has all the qualities that GO conspicuously lacks. And to cap it all, GO won't be able to attack AJ in the commons without looking like a snooty Eton prefect bullying the grammar school boy for getting his Latin declensions wrong.

So what cuts are Labour going to offer that won't incur displeasing noises from the unions on whose support Red Ed depends? This lacks coherence. And has Ed Balls now changed his mind on the need for cuts? What a farce!

Nick Robinson has demonstrated just how little insight he has into Labour politics. I was discussing this last night and suggested that Alan Johnson would be a good choice. He's capable, he's human and he can relate to ordinary people. He was a senior figure in the last government and his appointment naturally wrong-foots the media obsessionists who first sought to drive a rift between the Milibands and would now have preferred to do that between Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper.

Ed is not in a weak position at all - this Shadow Cabinet was elected for him to organise under established rules but those of us who knew he would be Labour's best leader were always sure that he would also reach out to supporters of all the leadership candidates. Give it up please Mr Robinson... if you can't say anything sensible, don't say it at all.

Nick, I'm a little confused. This morning when the received wisdom was it would be Cooper you rehearsed the then current Tory attack line that the Balls-Cooper combo might undermine the new leader and cause splits and indicated that Johnson was the brave choice. Now that it's Johnson you've switched lines and are saying this is a safe choice - not brave but safe, something again uncannily close to the Tory attack line - that shows weakness. I guess like defeating the annointed successor and sacking the chief whip, that kind of weakness ? I'm just interested in what happened between the two posts ? Maybe a nice chat with someone helpful from no.10 who told you you'd gone off message ?

Well we at least now know where we are.

A cabinet without a single heavyweight opposed by a shadow cabinet without a single heavyweight.

Heaven help the UK!

I've no idea how it can be achieved but we really do need to move away from a system of government that is driven entirely by "career" politicians.

The collective lack of real life experience on both sides of the political spectrum (AJ apart I suppose) is truly astonishing.

I'm beginning to find the whole situation quite depressing.

I see the outcome of the CSR leading to a position where the LibDems will be unable to hold their current position. A split seems, to me, ineviatable.

This will allow Clegg, and his fellow LibDems with their feet under the cabinet table, to defect to their true home with the Tories.

The current coalition may be able to hang on by its fingertips, time will tell.

The remaining LibDems will then either float across to Labour, their more natural allies, or become a minor irritant on the political scene, such as UKIP or the BNP.

Heaven help the UK!

47 sagamix

Well John, and Strictly P, I'm trying my level best to reply to your posts - setting out in brief what Labour got wrong, what the banks got wrong, the relative importance of each - but somebody out there is deciding you won't get the benefit.

Catch you later, since no point when this sort of stuff happens.
=================================================================

I'd like you to know it isn't me.

.
I know that AJ isn't one of the PPE Brigade and that his maths training probably finished with O level (GCSE, in modern money).
He did, however, earn a place in a Grammar School so he was, at the time, by no means stupid.
.
But I feel sure a firm grasp of monitory economics would be good for a (Shadow) Chancellor of the Exchequer ...... if only because of the responsibilities of being in charge of hundreds of billions in expenditure and trillions in debt.
.
I know 'How to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer' isn't an elective course in The University Of The Third Age but, even at his age, AJ still has learning options:
.
I guess it still takes 2 years to get an A level or two ( or, preferably, a Business Studies NVQ level 3 with on-the-job training), so there is still time for him to learn the rudiments of Managing The Finances Of The United Kingdom before he gets a chance to 'move out of the shadow'.
.
Perhaps he could do a work experience year alongside George Osborne, and they could both be trained together on-the-job; hell, they could both go head-to-head on a modern apprenticeship in Accounting!
Best man wins, and gets to be called Prudence.
.

Do any of you really believe in this red/yellow/blue team BS narrative?

Look back into Darling's past and you will find that he was an affiliated Trotskyist (aka 4th International). BOTH PARTIES WERE/ARE GOING TO MAKE MASSIVE CUTS! A few months between how quickly they intended to carry them out doesn't make one jot of difference.

.
"Since Kenneth Clarke gave up the position as Shadow Chancellor in 1997. The position of SC has (not)b(een) held been held with anyone of great esteem. (my amendments GW):
Peter Lilley, Francis Maude, Michael Portillo, Michael Howard, Oliver Letwin ... (&) George Osbourne
So Alan Johnson should be considered a good appointment." (mrnaughty, @24)

...............................

No, mrnaughty2,

there have been shadows and there have been those that were (Sir K.C.) and are (G.O.) the 'real deal'.
Sir Kenneth Clarke was, indeed, the Real Deal, and mere mortals (inc. AJ) will forever be in his shadow.

PS. Sir Kenneth Clarke is our Government's Secretary of State for Justice AND Lord Chancellor

Geoff.

Every Labour Party needs to have a 'salt of the earth' in its senior ranks - otherwise it can not claim to be the party of the people.

AJ is the modern day version of Lord Prescott (The Man Of The People with the working man's Northern accent and vocabulary).
Unfortunately AJ was Southernized from birth, and can never be 'The One'.

At least Al is being honest when he says he will need to "pick up a primer in economics for beginners"

He shouldn't worry. Gordon Brown didn't know anything about economics either!

58. At 01:09am on 09 Oct 2010, DistantTraveller wrote:

At least Al is being honest when he says he will need to "pick up a primer in economics for beginners"

He shouldn't worry. Gordon Brown didn't know anything about economics either!

Gideon, the historian, doesn't know anything about economics either.

His view is an article of faith. He ignores the supply side. John Maynard Keynes got it about right. The chances are that the Conservatives are going to get it quite wrong simply because they disagree with the ramifications of Keynes.

Had Gideon not got himself into the position of being able to run D. Cameron's campaign for leadership of the Tory party it is highly unlikely he would be Chancellor now. He was kept out of the general election campaign because he was viewed as the weak link. He still is.

Alan Johnson is honest. Beware.

Labour has to have a plan to reduce the deficit. All the country knows this must take place and to change course would leave to many attack line and lack credibility.

A plan to say the cuts the government make would be 50% less painfull under a labour government might just gain support once the real cut kick into the system next year.

I also think its important that labour do not oppose every cut and in some cases support some changes like the max £26,000 benefits. Defending this just makes us look like we are not supporting hard working tax payers, especially those who are not earning huge amounts, the kind of people that labour should be supporting.

#58 and #59

Do economists know much about economics? Aren't they the same as artists who think great art is a dead cow floating in formaldehyde?

The proof of the pudding .........

I think too much energy is being expended on the Shadow Cabinet. Their leader has been elected and they have got their posts so let's see how they perform. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are is because there was a weak opposition during the labour years. Labour felt unchallenged so they became blind to the perils ahead. The thing is that in poltics and economics, even if you set off on a promising course, circumstances change and the course needs alterations. Often the people at the helm just don't see the icebergs ahead. This is mainly their own fault, but having believable lookouts can help. This is where a good opposition could come in.

The issue, then, is do they act like some writers on this blog and just suck lemons, making criticism for the sake of it, or do they come up with viable alternatives? Viable alternatives is the high risk approach for an oppostion as the government might 'steal' their policies and stay in power, but if they don't come up with viable alternatives why should someone vote for them anyway? So we end up with a dithering oppostion and that is not good for the country.

55. At 11:46pm on 08 Oct 2010, DebtJuggler wrote:
"Do any of you really believe in this red/yellow/blue team BS narrative?"

Careful DJ, there are people on here who still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. They just vote for whoever panders to their prejudices and who tickles their tummy the best.

Some, its fluffy bunnies and trying to be all things to all people even though they really dont know what it is they really want to be.

Others, its those damn rich people who have kept them down all their lives and committed them to a life of purdah and how fate has dealt them a crappy hand.

Others its a yearning to get just that little bit further away from the crappy side of the tracks you really came from and into a social strata you really dont belong in, but caters to your ego.

They all just listen to what they want to hear and Teams Red, Blue and Yellow are all very accomplished retailers of thier own particular brands of synthetic Snake Oil.

The realisation that all three are "Same Sssshhhh, Different Wrapper" is one they're all trying to put off as long as possible.

Dont go bursting their bubble, will you? They'll never forgive you!

"A plan to say the cuts the government make would be 50% less painfull under a labour government might just gain support once the real cut kick into the system next year."

Yeah, you could say it.... and chances are, whilst you're not going to have to prove it, the useful idiots would probably believe you for a while. Make you very popular for a bit.

Actually doing it might be a bit more tricky though and the plebs might not be best pleased when they find out you cant deliver.

Then again, half of them cant remember what day of the week it is, never mind what you promised and didnt deliver on.

Might just get away with it. Dishonesty does pay, after all.

63 Fubes

If I understand you rightly Fubar you're saying that what is said in opposition or particularly in the run up to an election is kown to be untrue but used to con the gullible into voting for you?

Then when you have power you do the exact opposite, having taken the mugs for a ride?

Seen any recent examples? Clue; re-arrange the following, "Benefit Child"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Let's face it, we're in a Phoney War phase at the moment. Most of the economic changes haven't been announced yet (coming on October 20th), and none of those announced are implemented, apart from the government recruitment ban (one of those "victimless crime" options where no one can claim they personally were disadvantaged). So the media are filling in our time with a spot of Kremlin-watching (Balls marginalised? Blarites up? Brownites down?)
It starts to get real between now and the next conference season - living standards eroding with tax changes and pay freezes, savings delivering less than inflation, public sector workers sacked (more likely contractors losing work, another victimless crime).
Some possibilities that will concentrate minds:
If this month's 3.6% drop in house prices is a trend, not a blip.
If anyone in the media notices that some of benefit claimants want to be in work (a million people haven't suddenly become workshy since 2008).
If we see a couple of months where tax revenues fall and the deficit rises (the danger Darling identifies in the governments budget)

64#

If you want to use that particular example Eaton, yes. That wasnt quite what I had in mind - I was thinking more of the Libs who used to find opposing policies from any government or HMLO quite easy.

As we're all aware, its dead easy to pick holes in something when you're not under any obligation whatsoever to a) come up with a different solution and b) ever be put in a position where you'd have to put your idea into action.

I suppose you could say "the effect of the law of unintended consequences is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the policy being implemented."

Or something along those lines.

But, if it find it cathartic to use Child Benefit as an example, yes, fine. There are a litany of pre-election promises over the last 50 years that have been cast by the wayside. Such is domestic politics, I guess.

In fact Eaton, on reflection, 63 is probably more like an allusion to a surreal version of Bruce Forsyth's Play Your Cards right.

Bruce asks them both what the level of cuts that the public will tolerate without resorting to armed insurrection and they have to give a figure.

Doesnt matter whether its achievable or not, he's never going to get called on it. He's never going to be put on the spot. He's not the one in the hot seat.

The general public dont know, they're mostly too dim to understand and dont look beyond their own front doors. They barely have any interest in the political system, they have absolutely no comprehension of what things cost government, what the government pays for goods and services, the mistakes that are made, the half truths that are told (I learned an absolute corker this week by the way, cant tell anyone until after the SDSR), the money that is wasted, the inefficiences in the system - So long as it doesnt directly affect them, they couldnt give a monkeys. They just keep on handing over their tax, fat, dumb and happy and so long as their occasional whims are pandered to, they couldnt care less.

Now, back to Brucie.

The player with everything to lose is Osborne - as he's in the hot seat, he gets asked the question first by Brucie. He has to think about the figure a lot more than the postie.

All Johnson has to do is pick a lower figure than Osborne, isnt it? Easy. A chimp could do it. In fact, thats probably insulting the intelligence of the chimp, but never mind.

And more interestingly, the funniest thing is, it doesnt even matter who gets the correct answer!

You know why?

Because over the lifetime of this parliament, the amount of government spending is actually going to go UP by 15%, 92 Billion Pounds, even under a coalition whose senior partner is, allegedly, a small state, privitisation-mad, big business friendly party. Can you believe that?

To quote John Redwood:

"In the government Budget Red Book we learn that the public sector net borrowing requirement was £154.7 billion in 2009-10. This falls to £37 billion by 2014-15 on the government’s plans. Over that time period tax revenue rises by £176 billion and total public spending by £68 billion (currrent spending plus £92 billion, capital spending minus £24 billion)."

Johnson doesnt have to cost his cuts. There was an alleged 40bn black hole in the Brown/Darling ones to be made over the lifetime of this parliament had they won. But, it didnt matter, they knew they were going to lose. They knew by February this year that the jig was up.

Thing is, in this case, for poor ol' Joe Public, this time it IS going to affect him. Pity he wasnt paying attention years ago, but never mind. There was something more interesting on ITV or he was too busy maxing out his credit card on cheap imported tat he didnt need.

The unknown bit is whether we're going to end up having a re-run of the fun and games of 1981... But ultimately, its all about who can scare the bejezus out of the natives the most and keep them in fear so they dont look to hard below the surface to see whats really going on.

The Big Society, been brooding about this.

(a) Message of empowerment. Saying to the public, “C’mon (!) life is for living. Don’t just lounge around on the sofa in front of the goggle box. Dare to dream.” A transfer of influence from government to the people.

(b) Subliminal suggestion of small state. The dubious linking of active government to a small society. Running interference for the cutting of public services.

(c) Something deemed to sound nice. Chosen for this reason alone rather than for any practical implications. A vacuous slogan with no meaning at all.

Could be (a) I suppose - could be that Pope Benedict supports Blackburn Rovers – but for me it’s either (b) or (c). Not sure which, so I’m going to see how it pans out before coming to a firm and settled verdict.

Sagamix,

The Labour Intellectual Elite you speak of, will the be known as the LIEbour party ?

#69 Sagamix

Couple of other aspects of the Big Society:
- it's another way of breaking the link between doing something useful, and expecting to be paid for it (like all those in-work benefits)
- it's applicable only to activities which finance and central govt. really can't be bothered with - help for youth, the elderly, the unemployed, cleaning up the civic environment. No-one is expected to volunteer to be tax advisers, equity fund managers, press officers etc. Although if we could get those done for free, that would release lots of cash to pay for more care assistants and council workers.

69#

And it took you that much brooding to come to that predictable half baked conclusion?

Sheesh.

Put plainly, mate, even though I dont think it'll happen because the public have become too insular, there is no community spirit left to speak of, the concept was meant to be that by doing things FOR your local community, WITH your local community, you get to have a positive say and make a positive contribution to YOUR local community. You've put more of yourself into it, you're more of a part of it. And, if you all do it together, it brings people together, breaks down barriers.

Complete anathema to the socialist view that people are completely incapable of wiping their own backsides without a minimum waged state appointed enforcement inspector to do it for them.

Anything to keep the gums of the proletariat firmly around the golden teat of the state, eh? The more they need you, the more they cant possibly do without you, the more they figure they're entitled to you, the more likely you are to be able to build and hold onto your precious little empires.

Heaven forbid that they should have the temerity of independent thought, or collective thought that doesnt involve you, the state. Thats tantamount to being counter-revolutionary. Do you think a gathering of any more than three people is a mutiny waiting to happen?

Brooding, my @ss.

#3 Zivache

Nonsense. The fact that Labourites constantly play the "snobs" and "toffs" and "posh" cards shows class consciousness, however, pointing out that a postman is not qualified to run a country nor it's economy is at worst, a fair point.

It is a point based on an assessment of his level of learning when compared to the level of learning required for the job. You wouldn't expect a postman to become professor of mathematics so why do you find it acceptable that he should be (shadow) Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other senior government position for that matter with absolutely no background in economics or... much of anything else.

It is quite sensible to expect the people given the difficult task of running the country to be drawn from our most highly educated. Labour spinning this into all the above class-war words is just that: spin.

Johnson clearly knows nothing about being Chancellor, he is simply there to be annoying and play politics with the role (which is what Nick said in slightly more diplomatic terms).

'only by challenging the need to make deep cuts now can Labour escape the questions - "Aren't these cuts your fault?" and "What would you do?"

Or.. they could just 'close for comments'.

Works a treat.

Big society.

Unfortunate attempt to compress an idea into a few words, as per the modern way for the largely attention-challenged world in which we now live.

It just means "if you don't like it then get off you @ss and do something about it instead of waiting for the government to fix it for you".

I saw a woman on TV a while ago who was standing in the front "garden" of her council house complaining about the state of services embodied in the fact that council hadn't sent anyone round "for ages" to trim the 4-foot tree/bush thing she was standing next to.

It made me think just how small a society she was living in when she is given a council house for life and she can't even trim the one piece of greenery in her gravelled from garden.

It's bad enough that money is deducted from my earnings to pay for her housing without also paying for her to have servants too.

What planet are these people living on? They seem to think that the "rich" are to fund their entire lives, from paying from their housing and their servants even to paying for their kids. I am so glad to see a line being drawn under this - or drawn through it.

"Complete anathema to the socialist view that people are completely incapable of wiping their own backsides without a minimum waged state appointed enforcement inspector to do it for them." fubar @ 72

Typical right winger's misunderstanding of left wing views. Also the distinctly odd inference that such a job - rear end refreshment operative - should only pay minimum wage. Just a slip of the tongue?

It's the Progressive Intellectual Elite, Mr P (70), and you can be part of it - be a piece of the PIE - without being Labour. We have all sorts. Although not that many tories, truth be told. None, in fact.

I think Johnson has from a purely political perspective an easy task -simple message he would not have cut this fiscal year, he would have cut after that at half the rate the Tories will -and that fiscal judgement is looking much better by the day as world economy slows.
Bigger issue which neither Labour or Coalition wants to face is that the core problem is the NHS -Labour over inflated it (7% per annum real growth for 10yrs , although that exaggerates, as a lot was carted away as extra pay for the already well paid) and it has performed dismally, but now Cameron has turned it into a giant sacred cow -although in reality it has been turned by the cuts from sacred cow to sacred cuckoo squeezing out lots of other valuable public services. Police, schools, Universities all seem to have made much better use of the resources they received. Someone needs to calculate what the output of the NHS would be if productivity growth were in line wth the national average prod growth from 1999 to 2009 -the output gap revealed would indicate the extent to which the NHS was over-resourced and could provide the basis for reducing resources over time to force the closing of the gap. The present policies of the Coalition and Labour before them, effectively reward the NHS for its failure -continue down that path and we wll soon have a huge, bloated poorly performing NHS and not much else.

76. sagamix

"Complete anathema to the socialist view that people are completely incapable of wiping their own backsides without a minimum waged state appointed enforcement inspector to do it for them." fubar @ 72

Typical right winger's misunderstanding of left wing views. Also the distinctly odd inference that such a job - rear end refreshment operative - should only pay minimum wage. Just a slip of the tongue?
=====================================================================

rear end refreshment operative followed by "Just a slip of the tongue" - an unfortunate image conjured up here..... mind you there's plenty of them in politics.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"It is quite sensible to expect the people given the difficult task of running the country to be drawn from our most highly educated." - 911 @ 73

Sure, so long as we don't equate highly educated with going to a top public school; the embodiment of a noxious and sterile form of elitism based on family money. So let's hear it for Haverstock Comp - the progressive (no fees) Eton. We also do very much need plenty of University of Life people. They can be better than those who've been processed through the wonk machine.

Musings on The Big Society...

Those sensible people that lean to the left obviously think this is merely a return to victorian philanthropism. The recent attack on universal benefits and the whole debate around welfare reform which has seen a return of the idea of the "undeserving poor" does little to allay these fears.

The problem from Cameron's viewpoint is one of communication. He has now had a number of cracks at it and still people (many in his own party)struggle to grasp what exactly he means. I suppose Fubar's post at 72 is as good as anything.

Why so few grasp it is that the big society is already here and has been around for quite along time. People have always come together to do more than they can achieve individually: Trade unions, mutual insurance schemes,co-operatives, the welfare state...

The problem with Cameron's vision is that he opposes many things that the big society has brought about such as trade unionism (another argument about trade unions their history and changing role beckons !).

Already people are involved in schools as governers,in PCTs and can form Community Partnerships. What new ideas does Cameron bring to the table...that is the question.

My suspicion is not a lot. He is merely asking the "third sector" to do more...in the absence of and as a substitute for adequate public provision...

Whether you agree depends on your politics but Big Society ? Nah... Thats already here.

chris911t 73 & 75.
what you have written here is nonsense.
please take some time away from right wing broadsheets to study some FACTS.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/
note also on the site, detailed answers to right wing critiques.

so firstly chris, the view of many "left wingers" is to see a more caring and equal society. of course hard work should be rewarded but unfortunately there are many who work very hard and yet get paid minimum wage. nothing wrong with people earning good money..that is as long as it is not so much that it is at the expense of others who struggle to survive despite working hard themselves. of course there are some who are lazy and on benefits. others who are lazy and have inherited money. but more money is lost by tax avoidance/havens than what is paid out to those on benefits and who choose that as a lifestyle. but so much focus is targeted towards this group of people. and i know its not much fun being in that situation to say the least. of course people can get promoted and progress but there will always be hundreds and thousands of people who empty bins, clean windows, sweep streets, works as sales assistants etc. these jobs will always need to be done. and a wage should be paid that is enough to live to a decent standard of living. perhaps at the very least we should expect GREAT BRITAIN to have monetary equality stats to be proud of. not one of the worst in Europe and the rich western world. why do other countries do much better in regard to monetary equality?
and that brings me nicely onto politics and the conservative party. all these over-zealous cuts that will devastate many peoples lives...and yet the bonus pot for bankers this year is nearly 7 BILLION POUNDS. and more expected next year.
A party who despite scrutiny of his tax affairs ...appointed a spending/savings csar who is worth thousands of millions of pounds. I wonder what the wage is for a top shop sales assistant. (and yes im well aware of who made him a SIR)
A party who has along history of replacing community spirit with individualism and materialism.
of course chris, maybe you just don't care about reality. or perhaps you have lived on benefits or tried to raise a family on minimum wage. if this is the case it would be good to hear about it and your experience in order to give your view SOME sort of gravitas. Or perhaps you are just reading out tory mantra from the top of an ivory tower. A tower you have never set foot out of.
im all ears......

"Nonsense. The fact that Labourites constantly play the "snobs" and "toffs" and "posh" cards shows class consciousness, however, pointing out that a postman is not qualified to run a country nor it's economy is at worst, a fair point."

Says it all really...

sagamix 81

"So let's hear it for Haverstock Comp - the progressive (no fees) Eton."

Not the first time you have brought up the Miliband alma mater in this way (Nick's "Appeal for national unity" blog, your post 264). So let's have a look.

First of all, it's actually called Haverstock School Business and Enterprise College - so you couldn't even get the name right!

Exam results? Here we go.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/09/school_tables/secondary_schools/html/202_4104.stm

So what we find is that this school is doing, not only less well than the national average, but less well than its local neighbours. And not just now, but consistently for at least the last three years. So why do you keep calling it "Eton"? Is it your ignorance on display once more, or are you trying to make some sort of a nasty off-colour joke about a school which is clearly having some quite serious problems?

That's a different school, JR - "Haverstock School Business and Enterprise College" - no idea about that one (except for I'm not keen on the name ... sounds a bit sweaty). No, I'm talking about the one and only (no fees) Haverstock Comp - where the Milibands* went. Enough said.

* also Oona King.

"sticking to the Darling plan was dangerous not only economically but politically too.

It would, they argued, allow the coalition to label any cuts it made "Labour cuts" - made necessary by the failures of the last government."

Nick, it doesn't matter whether Labour stick to Darlings plan or Balls plan, or Ed Millibands plan or even AJ's p[lan, at least 17 million of the electorate (at the last election) know that any cuts are directly due to Labours mishandling of the economy amongst all the other problems they caused to the UK.

Trillions of debt (including PFI's and public sector pensions), PLUS a current deficit of billions is down to the Labour Party, not the coalition. perhaps the bbc could provide a public service and tell the whole electorate this truth, instead of concentrating on the Milliband brothers or any differences between Conservative and LibDem ministers.

83 - "more money is lost by tax avoidance/havens than what is paid out to those on benefits"

poor old Lefty. he stil hasn't got it. Tax avoidance is things like ISAs and pension contributions. Are you going to stop those?

And you, a businessman (of sorts, you tell us) suppose your business becomes succesful enough to afford you a car. SOME cars have lower car tax and benefit charges as they are low emission. The same money could be spendt on two different cars but one would have a lower tax charge than the other. Chosing the low tax-cost car is what we call 'tax avoidance'. Are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't consider such things in order to save tax? Or do you spend every penny in your business in the least tax efficient way you can?

"and that brings me nicely onto politics and the conservative party. all these over-zealous cuts that will devastate many peoples lives...and yet the bonus pot for bankers this year is nearly 7 BILLION POUNDS. and more expected next year."

What's that got to do with 'politics'? No Government has the right to ban private companies from rewarding their employees.

Do YOU employ anyone? Do YOU pay them to reward and encourage them? Would you like it if some numskull screaming lefty came screeching into your workplace trying to tell you your business and what you could and couldn't pay your employees?

Besides, do you not think the £3.5 billion + in tax and NIC the Government will get is needed?

"We also do very much need plenty of University of Life people. They can be better than those who've been processed through the wonk machine."

So you'd be against a shadow cabinet stuffed full of career politicians and career union leaders? You'd like to see lots of 'real world' people?

You must be disapointed.

sagamix 86

"That's a different school, JR - "Haverstock School Business and Enterprise College""

No it isn't, as you know VERY WELL.

"Haverstock School, Business & Enterprise College (formerly Haverstock Comprehensive School)..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haverstock_School_Business_%26_Enterprise_College

Now, quit fooling around, apologise for your nasty little "Eton" "joke" and move on.

"zivache wrote:
I really think that the number of comments about Alan Johnson having been a postman shows that those making them snobs who are stuck in the 1920s and 1930s. It should not matter what your job was or where you were educated. Going to Eton provides no qulaification for chancellor or PM"

So what you're saying is that you shouldn't make judgements about where somone went to school, unless they went to Eton, when you can make judgments about it.

I mean, if someone said that going to Grange Hill Comp provides no qualifications for chancellor or PM, you screech with outrage at the assumption, wouldn't you?

89. c55555
Do YOU employe anyone?
-----------
yes


Do YOU pay them to reward and encourage them?
-----------
yes


Besides, do you not think the £3.5 billion + in tax and NIC the Government will get is needed?
-------------
yes. the tax take would also be increased if lower paid jobs paid more. and huge amounts of money would be saved on the cost of dealing with social problems as a result of low pay.




Would you like it if some numskull screaming lefty came screeching into your workplace trying to tell you your business and what you could and couldn't pay your employees?
-----------

it wouldnt ever happen. there are industry guidlines in my line of work for pay. i pay well above this. had the same guy for 10 years.



now five questions for you. dont worry about being over specific.
1. do you feel ashamed that the uk has for many years under various govts had some of the worst stats in regard to monetary equality in europe and the rich western world.
2. can you explain the process and outcome of our current system of capitalism which involves at its core the process of ever increasing production against the background of the world having finite resources.
3. do you think it is right that someone who looks after the elderly or disabled people or young children gets paid £5.80- £6.20 per hour while some bankers get paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
4.do you think the tax scheme that you worked out which got 50% rate taxpayers paying around 5% which earnt you £180 per hour is worthwhile and what benefit did it have to society as a whole especially in our current climate where public sevice finances are already facing cuts.
5. you previously suggested building camps for unemployed people. please can you expand on this idea and give a policy example for your idea so we can discuss.
thanks andy.

"No Government has the right to ban private companies from rewarding their employees." - andy @ 89

Of course not. But the size of bonus payments prevailing in a failed industry (so soon after it required government support to avoid collapse) is a legitimate cause for concern. It is also, if one takes the view (as informed opinion does) that the flawed remuneration models were a material cause of the banking crisis, a matter for regulatory attention. Even George Osborne thinks so.

@3 I really think that the number of comments about Alan Johnson having been a postman shows that those making them snobs who are stuck in the 1920s and 1930s.

===========================================================================

Mentioning the education of the present Chancellor makes you a similar snob stuck in the class wars of the early 70s.

I would rather have my future decided by those who are openly wealthy than those who feign concern for the disadvantaged from their champagne socialist bunker. Hypocrites do not make good leaders

jrp @ 91

Sorry, JR, no apology from me for being pleased that the leader of the Labour Party was educated, and well, at a comprehensive school. Bet Ralph and Marion were pleased too - no fees to pay! Doesn't necessarily make him a better person (or better at the job of politics) than someone who was packaged off to privilege ... to Eton, say, or Fettes ... but it's symbolically important, especially in this day and age when people who can afford it are prone to opt out of the mainstream sector - often for no great tangible gain, as we've discussed before.

Britain's net public debt in 1997 was £348 Billion.
This came down to £312 Billion by 2001 while GB was committed to Ken Clarke's spending plans.
In 2002 it went up by 3 Billion and then in 2003 it stated going up on an accelerating basis even though the Treasury was collecting record tax receipts.
At the end of 2009 public net debt had risen to £616 billion and fiscal period 2010 saw a rise to £771 Billion
View https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/classic to see how welfare and pension payments have had a marked influence on this spending.
Cost of bailing out the banks (hard cash not guarantees and QE) about £130 Billion.
The bankers did not cause this mess, it is only the result of global financial melt down in that this derailed Labour's financial services gravy train: it is the result of labour giving away too much tax payer's cash over a sustained period.
Usually they get voted out after 5 years and the damage is smaller.

lefty10 93

"1. do you feel ashamed that the uk has for many years under various govts had some of the worst stats in regard to monetary equality in europe and the rich western world."

Lefty, as you know, I am not a big fan of the "equality" initiative. I think it is a sloppy con, to try to convince relatively less well-off people that their lives can be improved simply through decreasing the wealth of the better-off: a con perpetrated by individuals too lazy, too incompetent (or in some cases, too corrupt) to devise policies that have direct positive impact on the wealth-creating capabilities of the less well-off. A nice local example of that integrity gulf was the scoffing that my advocating a policy of improving literacy skills among the poor received from one of the more prolific advocates of "equality" on this blog, just a few days ago. Since that policy didn't inherently involve taxing the rich until their pips squeaked, it was asserted not to be "respectable".

Nonetheless, I remain interested in the expression of the "equality" problem, even if we might never agree on the solution. And so we arrive at your summary of the statistics, which I quoted.

I have never seen any credible UK monetary statistics, or comparatives with other nations, that unequivocally support your summary.

I have seen historical statistics of income after housing costs, which inherently gloss over differences across time and between nations on quality of housing stock and ownership of one's home. For example, as a matter of choice and traditional aspiration, many more British people (including many of below average or quite low income) own their own homes, with associated debt, than do people of more-or-less any other major nation. As such, because owning one's home costs more (at least in the short term) than renting it, they increase their housing costs, and decrease their income after housing costs, as a matter of pure personal choice. Comparing income after housing costs glosses over this very important distinction.

I have also seen comparative statistics with other nations of personal capital wealth. In detail, however, the raw data was manipulated to ignore the value of people's personal stakes in their own homes, and to ignore the capital value of public pension provision (but to include private pension provision). These statistics therefore gloss over the reasonable considerations that housing is higher-valued here than in most other nations, and public pension provision (which would be an important element of individual wealth among the less-wealthy, if it were to be included) is relatively good in the UK, compared to other nations.

In short, the only statistics I have seen comparing inequality in the UK with other nations, appear to be skewed to exaggerate inequality in the UK.

As a minor point, the Gini coefficient, as a measure of inequality in a distribution, is specifically designed to exaggerate small differences between very similar distributions, compared to more conventional measures like the standard deviation. The notion that a big difference between the Gini coefficients of two distributions implies a genuine corresponding big difference between those distributions themselves, is fundamentally incorrect.

So, the inevitable question is, can you direct me towards studies of inequality that have been conducted with greater integrity than those from the overtly political domain, and which might actually support your prime assertion?

sagamix 96

So, no apology from you for your sarcastic "Eton" jibe against a struggling school, but you tacitly withdraw it nonetheless. As good as one can hope for from a scoundrel such as yourself, I suppose.

doh 97

Just a technical point for clarification, and not intending to weaken your point at all, the cost of bailing out the banks is not included in the £771bn current public debt figure that you quote (as explained in successive budget reports, because the Treasury acquired assets of high value from the banks, in exchange for the bailout).