Here are three stories which are more closely related than they seem. First:
Osborne’s claim that selling bank shares at a discount “would reward taxpayers” is simply an insult to the intelligence. The only reason anyone would buy bank shares - even at full price - would be if they offer a higher expected return than gilts. But if this is the case, then the taxpayer loses money by selling bank shares and using the money to reduce public debt - because such debt reductions are, in effect, purchases of gilts.
The only way the taxpayer can gain by selling bank shares is if they are sold at an over-inflated price, such that subsequent returns on them are lower than the returns to gilts.
So, let’s be clear. What Osborne is proposing here is nothing other than a Russian-style privatisation* - the plundering of public assets for the benefit of friends of the government.
If that’s bad, though, Labour’s proposals are unspeakable. What they amount to is simply the harassment of lonely single parents, and those wrestling with mental health problems; who’ll be snitched upon under Murphy’s rules - the popular guy in the pub, the semi-gangster, or the “weirdo”? This is using the state not only to undermine community and to build distrust, but to entrench injustice by making lives even worse for the worst-off.
Taken together - as they should be - these stories tell us how mainstream politicians envisage the state - as an instrument not of economic rationality nor of justice, but as a means for increasing inequality, by giving handouts to its friends whilst destroying the lives of the weakest.
* The analogy is appropriate. Russian privatizations involved giving assets to the poor, who promptly sold at knock-down prices to the rich - which is pretty much what Osborne’s proposing.
Workers judged to be lonely and to have a chaotic home life could be barred from working with vulnerable people, even though there is no evidence that they pose a risk, according to guidelines from the Government's new vetting agency…Second:
If a teaching assistant was believed to be "unable to sustain emotionally intimate relationships" and also had a "chaotic, unstable lifestyle" they could be barred from ever working with children.
If a nurse was judged to suffer from "severe emotional loneliness" and believed to have "poor coping skills" their career could also be ended.
People who inform on benefit cheats could be given a share of the resulting savings to the state under proposals being examined by Labour’s manifesto team.Third:
Shares in state-owned banks would be offered to voters at a discount as part of a Tory effort to encourage young people and those on modest incomes to invest, George Osborne has announced.The common theme here is that these stories show that the state is not a rational force for justice, but rather a means of bullying the vulnerable whilst handing cash over to its favourites.
The shadow chancellor said his "people's bank bonus" would reward taxpayers for the £850 billion ploughed by the Government into propping up crisis-hit financial institutions.
Osborne’s claim that selling bank shares at a discount “would reward taxpayers” is simply an insult to the intelligence. The only reason anyone would buy bank shares - even at full price - would be if they offer a higher expected return than gilts. But if this is the case, then the taxpayer loses money by selling bank shares and using the money to reduce public debt - because such debt reductions are, in effect, purchases of gilts.
The only way the taxpayer can gain by selling bank shares is if they are sold at an over-inflated price, such that subsequent returns on them are lower than the returns to gilts.
So, let’s be clear. What Osborne is proposing here is nothing other than a Russian-style privatisation* - the plundering of public assets for the benefit of friends of the government.
If that’s bad, though, Labour’s proposals are unspeakable. What they amount to is simply the harassment of lonely single parents, and those wrestling with mental health problems; who’ll be snitched upon under Murphy’s rules - the popular guy in the pub, the semi-gangster, or the “weirdo”? This is using the state not only to undermine community and to build distrust, but to entrench injustice by making lives even worse for the worst-off.
Taken together - as they should be - these stories tell us how mainstream politicians envisage the state - as an instrument not of economic rationality nor of justice, but as a means for increasing inequality, by giving handouts to its friends whilst destroying the lives of the weakest.
* The analogy is appropriate. Russian privatizations involved giving assets to the poor, who promptly sold at knock-down prices to the rich - which is pretty much what Osborne’s proposing.
Unbelievable.
I lived in the UK for 6 years before moving to Scandinavia.
What an a horrible society the UK is becoming. A place unfit human habitation.
The decline is tragic.
Posted by: John Terry's Mum | February 21, 2010 at 01:00 PM
The state is not your friend.
But as long as people vote for extra police powers to supposedly reduce crime, for benefits to remove the risk of poverty, for "free" healthcare, for "free" education, for "free" news and generally expect the state to solve their problems for them the state will continue to gain power- and abuse it. Eventually enough people will come round to this view- I just hope that they can then muster enough power to do something about it
Freedom comes at a price- it means taking your own lumps- and if you're not prepared to do this then expect the state to take not only your liberty but also your money- and don't think that they will actually help the poor, despite their loud protestations.
Posted by: Pat | February 21, 2010 at 01:57 PM
"The common theme here is that these stories show that the state is not a rational force for justice, but rather a means of bullying the vulnerable whilst handing cash over to its favourites."
Yes, welcome to politics.
"The modern state is a form of association which successfully claims the monopoly of a legitimate use of force over a given territory".
Posted by: Paul Sagar | February 21, 2010 at 04:14 PM
Well, Osborne is a buddy of more than a few Russian "oligarchs" so promoting policies that led to their enrichment seems consistent at least.
Posted by: william | February 21, 2010 at 09:20 PM
About informing on benefit cheats -- what a great idea! I think I can see my way to making a few bob here. All I have to do is "inform" on every person I can locate who is on benefits, whether I know they're cheating or not.
Statistically, a couple of them are bound to prove to be slightly bent, and I get a slice of the deal, at no cost to me.
The honest ones are a bust, but again, no cost to me. So its profit, profit, profit all the way.
Just going to pop off and lock my conscience in the safe for a while...
Posted by: lenko | February 22, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Wasn't it bad enough last time Lloyds decided to take so many risks it almost went bust and several of its Joe Public shareholders complained that they had put their life savings into it and wanted some compensation, having assumed that a bank was a sure thing?
If politicians can't even learn from recent history, we may be in trouble, for surely the warning "Share prices may go down as well as up" won't sink in any further this time round, having roughly the same impact as the phrase "Smoking kills", which most people hear only as an empty threat that might only happen at some point in the distant future, and probably to someone else at that.
Posted by: Laura | February 22, 2010 at 04:50 PM
Quite. And no party's friends ever include the unemployed whatever they say.
Posted by: Bialik | February 26, 2010 at 05:55 PM
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa d fs
Posted by: دار التميمي حمد | June 13, 2010 at 05:40 PM