Thursday 15 September 2022

Is "outrage" enough?

 The outrageous actions of the last three Tory governments have come so thick and fast that the Opposition parties are running out of words with which to describe them.  From the blatant lie of £350m weekly for the NHS if we left the EU through the illegal proroguing of parliament and threats to break international law to the denials of "Partygate"  we've thought again and again that we had reached the nadir and things could not possibly get any worse.

But the Truss government keeps up the tradition, and they do.  With less than a fortnight gone here are already four examples.

 1.  The decision to cap gas and electricity prices but still to pay the  energy companies  the full price in order to allow their shareholders to continue to receive excessive dividends,  and to finance it by borrowing (which the "public" are going to have to pay back in some so far unspecified way)

My benchmark is to try to imagine what the reaction of the media, and in particular the "Mail" and the "Express," would have been if a Jeremy Corbyn Government had proposed something similar.  Say, simply increasing social security payments to maintain the standards of living  of the poorest and making no plans whatsoever as to how this would be financed.  

Outrage: an end to our AAA rating (I think actually we've already lost it) provoking a run on United Kingdom  "paper," and national insolvency?

2.  The decision to sack the permanent Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Tom Scholar, who is presumed to question the viability of M/s Truss's determination to cut taxes at the very time that the NHS, Care Service, Local Governmental services and much else are on their beam ends.  

Sir Tom might very well have argued that this was based on a discredited  theory and that tax cuts alone would probably not  prove the magic wand which would l regenerate the stagnant British economy.  He would have hoped that his boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would listen, but in the end he would have implemented whatever the government instructed.  That is the tradition of the British Civil Service.

Again applying the Corbyn test, what  would have been the reaction if he had sacked the key officials who challenged his views?

3. It is a proposed to remove the cap  on bonuses for bankers.  This was originally imposed by the EU, with UK agreement, in order to discourage the reckless behaviour which led to the Financial Crash of 2008.  The insensitiveness of suggesting that those who already receive  shedloads should be allowed to receive even more while nurses, railway workers, teachers and even barristers  are urged to exercise restraint is beyond belief. *

4. This could be a threat to distract us from  the above matters, but  we are told that the government is planning to scrap the Johnson government's"anti-obesity strategy,"  The strategy incudes such things as the ban on sugary products being displayed at checkouts,  and "buy one get one free" deals which encourage the over-consumption "bads" which make us unhealthy.  

One can see the logic: it is an example of the "nanny state" which interferes with the freedom of businesses to exploit our weaknesses (and those of our children.).  Much the same was said about  speed limits,  compulsory set-belt wearing, measures to discourage smoking, and somebody probably complained  abut being forced to derive on one side of the road only.  

But two-thirds of adult Britons are overweight or obese and the treatment of their resulting health problems cost the NHS about £6.1b a year.

* Post script, added 17/09/22

A friend has passed on to me an article by Phillip Inman in last month's Observer (14/08/22) which contains information which adds flesh and bones to this outrage:

In this year up to May total pay including bonuses in finance and insurance was up 13.6%.  The bottom 20 per cent [in all sectors]received just 1% extra.

Pay and bonuses in the finance sector have exaggerated  average earnings data [making it look as though the majority are doing rather better than we really are.]

In February the Governor of the Bank of England urged  workers to show "quite clear restraint" and in May that they (we) should "think and reflect."  [Presumably in an effort to set an example,]  he capped his own salary at  £575 000.

 There's probably more to come.  Without seeming to turn these issues into a linguistic joke, here are a few descriptive synonyms culled from Roget's Thesaurus:

 Arrant; arrogant; despicable; flagrant; monstrous; preposterous; scandalous.

9 comments:

  1. 1. The decision to cap gas and electricity prices but still to pay the energy companies the full price in order to allow their shareholders to continue to receive excessive dividends, and to finance it by borrowing (which the "public" are going to have to pay back in some so far unspecified way)

    I wonder how you expect the UK to get any energy at all if the government doesn't pay the energy companies the full price, given that energy is a global market, the companies which extract the gas are mainly based in places like Qatar or the USA over which the UK government has no jurisdiction, and they sell to the highest bidder?

    I mean the government could simply announce that it will not pay more than £X per unit of gas, but all that would achieve s that all the gas goes to other countries instead of the UK and we have blackouts and rationing this winter (which we might have anyway, but that policy would guarantee it).

    Sir Tom might very well have argued that this was based on a discredited theory and that tax cuts alone would probably not prove the magic wand which would l regenerate the stagnant British economy. He would have hoped that his boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would listen, but in the end he would have implemented whatever the government instructed. That is the tradition of the British Civil Service.

    That's certainly the tradition and the ideal, but it's a fact that not everyone in the civil service, not even everyone in the senior civil service, lives up to the ideal. See for example https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/12/whitehall-civil-servants-complain-bullying-sexual-harassment

    Scholar has had serious accusations levied at him, that when ordered to implement policies that he disagrees with he drags his feet and delays, doesn't follow up, etc. Perhaps nothing that would rise to the level of deliberate obstruction, but certainly that he does not carry out his instructions to the absolute best of his ability. Do you have evidence that these accusations are false?

    ReplyDelete

  2. It is a proposed to remove the cap on bonuses for bankers. This was originally imposed by the EU, with UK agreement, in order to discourage the reckless behaviour which led to the Financial Crash of 2008. The insensitiveness of suggesting that those who already receive shedloads should be allowed to receive even more while nurses, railway workers, teachers and even barristers are urged to exercise restraint is beyond belief.

    Heaven preserve us from a government trying to be 'sensitive'! It's not the job of the government to be 'sensitive'. Not the job of any government and especially not the job of the British government. We are suposed to be the land of the stiff upper lip, so let us honour that grand tradition and not pollute our government with attempts to be 'sensitive'!

    On the specific matter of banker's bonuses, what exactly business of yours is it what a private company chooses to pay its staff? If the concern is that bonuses could encourage risky behaviour, then that should be addressed through such mechanisms as delayed payment conditional on long-term success, not a sledgehammer cap on amounts.

    This could be a threat to distract us from the above matters, but we are told that the government is planning to scrap the Johnson government's"anti-obesity strategy,"

    The best news I have heard for years. Just like what private businesses choose to pay their staff, it is no business of yours what people choose to eat. If someone wants to be obese and suffer the ill health that comes with that decision, then that is up to them; just like if someone wants to smoke and die a horrific death form lung cancer, they should be allowed to. The government's only role is to step in if they might be harming someone else, such as with second-hand smoke. But as far as I am aware the medical profession has yet been unable to discover such a thing as second-hand obesity, and I'm sure its not for want of research.

    And on a personal note, I fervently hope that abolishing the sugary drinks tax will mean that manufacturers will once again start selling lemonade that doesn't taste like soap.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This was originally imposed by the EU, with UK agreement

    Actually it wasn't imposed 'with UK agreement'; it was imposed on the UK over strenuous UK objections. See: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-bonus-idUKBRE92400F20130306

    'Isolated Britain fails to avert EU bank bonus cap

    By John O’Donnell, Robin Emmott

    BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Britain was left isolated in Europe on Tuesday after it failed to secure backing to water down new EU rules limiting bankers’ bonuses, a measure that could threaten London’s dominance as a financial centre.'

    And a prophetic paragraph:

    'Osborne’s inability to fend off the reform, the first of its kind globally, underscores Britain’s waning influence in the EU and is also likely to fuel deepening euroscepticism in Britain.'

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm sorry I've failed to respond to your comments for so long, but I have been much preoccupied not just the the national mourning for the queen but also a personal bereavement. However, here goes:

    1. Yes we do have to pay the world price for energy. The question is how to finance it: by taking the excess profits (or most of them) or by imposing the cost on the public. I should actually prefer to pay the full price myself (I can afford it and so can most "comfortable" people but believe that the cost of helping those who can't afford it should be borne by the companies when they're enjoying such a bonanza.
    2.Sacking of Scholar: Democracy has been defined as "government by discussion." Refusing to talk to those who disagree with you leads to poor government.
    3. No, governments do have to be sensitive. All effective leaders need to carry their "followers" with them, and rewarding some but asking for restraint from others is not conducive to securing willing c-operation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a personal bereavement.

      I'm very sorry to hear that.

      Yes we do have to pay the world price for energy. The question is how to finance it: by taking the excess profits (or most of them) or by imposing the cost on the public.

      But that's the whole point. The companies making the profits (surely you can't believe there is such a thing as 'excess' profits? Profit is simply, definitionally, the difference between the cost of production of a commodity and the market clearing price of that commodity; how can that be 'excess'?) are, for the most part, outside the UK government's jurisdiction. They are based in Qatar, in the USA, in Canada, Iran and Norway. How can the UK government take their profits?

      Sacking of Scholar: Democracy has been defined as "government by discussion." Refusing to talk to those who disagree with you leads to poor government.

      True but hard to see the relevance. It is a necessary condition of the British system that when a minister, who has a democratic mandate, gives an order to a civil servant, who doesn't, that the civil servant will carry that order out to the best of their ability, regardless of their own personal opinion of either the order or the minister. You yourself wrote that above: 'in the end he would have implemented whatever the government instructed. That is the tradition of the British Civil Service'.

      If Scholar wasn't doing that — if he was dragging his feet when given orders he disagreed with, if he was not implementing whatever the government instructed to the best of his ability, then he was not acting in what you yourself have called 'the best tradition of the British Civil Service' and what I would say is a necessary precondition of the system of having a non-political civil service.

      So surely you would agree that if he was doing that then he had to go? So the disagreement is not over principle — we agree on the principle, that civil servants should implement the orders of the democratically elected government whatever their personal opinions — but simply over whether he was acting according to the principle or not?

      No, governments do have to be sensitive. All effective leaders need to carry their "followers" with them, and rewarding some but asking for restraint from others is not conducive to securing willing c-operation

      They need to carry the population with them, yes, but they don't need to be mawkish, emotional, sentimental or 'sensitive'. We're British, for goodness' sake. Stiffen your upper lip! Churchill carried the nation with him through the second world war, and I don't think anyone in a million years would accuse him of being 'sensitive'!

      Delete
  5. Obesity: As a Liberal I have some sympathy for your point of view here, but I do feel the government has some responsibility for protecting us from our selves (especially from "pester power" from out children.) I'd like to see more restrictions on gambling, for example.

    EU regulation on bonuses. Yes, you're right, mea culpa: we had not agreed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do feel the government has some responsibility for protecting us from our selves

      Why? The government is not our nanny. It is not our parent.

      (especially from "pester power" from out children.)

      It is one of the basic jobs of a parent not to give in to their children's pestering. Someone who does so give in is a failure as a parent. Not only is it not the government's job to prevent people failing to be good parents, I'd question whether it's even within the government's ability to do so.

      I'd like to see more restrictions on gambling, for example.

      I'd like to see people resist the temptation to gamble. How can they do that if the government steps in to nanny them every moment of their lives?

      Delete
  6. There is no answer to this one: it's a question of where to draw the line. For example, most Liberals are pretty gung-ho about legalising drugs: I'm not so keen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no answer to this one: it's a question of where to draw the line.

      Isn't that just all of politics?

      For example, most Liberals are pretty gung-ho about legalising drugs: I'm not so keen.

      And I would be on your side, because taking drugs is morally wrong (however we have got our drugs policy backwards; where we try to outlaw supply while effectively decriminalising demand, when we should be doing the opposite. If a few nice middle-class festival-goers got chucked in chokey for five to ten every week, that would do wonders.

      But there's nothing intrinstically morally wrong about eating food that tastes nice; the only problem is when people eat too much of it, and don't do enough exercise. So it's utterly wrong — actually immoral — that I, who am in no danger whatsoever of being obese, am not allowed to buy food that tastes nice (the result of the sugary drinks tax, for example, is that there is no fizzy drink on the general market* that doesn't tatse like soap) because of some other people who can't control their appetites.

      * the one exception is Coca-Cola, thank goodness for them, but it gets a bit samey when that is the only non-alcoholic thing you can drink unless you are willing to pay for premium brands all the time

      Delete