D
Departed
Guest
Because it is based on old realpolitik ideas......
[youtube=zuAj2F54bdo]
[youtube=zuAj2F54bdo]
D
Departed
Guest
And as your needs change and the bureaucrats ram membership restrictions down your throats you become more polarized and less effective at governing yourselves. When you start arguing about whether or not issues can even be discussed you must ask yourself what and whose purpose it serves to restrict self determination (on multiple levels) and even the discussion of issues.
NEVER was the phrase divide and conquer so appropo.
I don't believe in conspiracy but there are unintended consequences that need to be addressed PDQ before they can be taken full advantage of.
NEVER was the phrase divide and conquer so appropo.
I don't believe in conspiracy but there are unintended consequences that need to be addressed PDQ before they can be taken full advantage of.
Spursex
Alert Team
And here is an example of how the EU is cutting democracy's throat:
Immigration: Britain’s doors are wide open, and we can’t even talk about it
A wave of Romanians and Bulgarians is heading our way, thanks to the EU’s lack of democracy
They have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been cruelly persecuted and are often viewed as criminals
A Roma landworker in Bulgaria: the Roma have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been persecuted and are often viewed as criminals Photo: ALAMY
By Peter Oborne
8:18PM GMT 13 Nov 2013
Few decent people would question the nobility of the original European idea. Almost all of us value free trade, international cooperation and mutual goodwill. None of us wants to return to the bloodshed of earlier centuries.
In recent years, however, Europe has fallen under the control of a new ruling class that has obtained powers which it has no democratic right to exercise.
Think of it like this: the European Union has abolished politics. Highly susceptible to lobby groups and large corporations, it is now out of reach to political parties and national politicians. This is far more dangerous than has yet been realised. Again and again national leaders are finding themselves accountable for decisions they haven’t made and can’t alter.
Let’s take the example of the single currency, which seemed such a good idea to EU bosses. The abolition of national currencies means that states can no longer manage their own economies, and are governed instead by international bankers, in cooperation with Brussels commissioners. This is the cause of social and political collapse in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
Another case in point has been freedom of movement, in essence such a wonderful idea, which makes perfect sense between convergent economies such as Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany.
Related Articles
Debt and dishonour
14 Nov 2013
Labour made a 'spectacular mistake' on immigration, admits Jack Straw
13 Nov 2013
'Roma migrants could cause riots in cities'
11 Nov 2013
Nigel Farage says Tory attack on his 'prejudice' shows they are 'terrified'
08 Nov 2013
Eric Pickles: Immigrants must learn English
13 Nov 2013
But freedom of movement between advanced economies such as Britain and underdeveloped countries causes grotesque distortions. On January 1 transitional controls are to be lifted, meaning that migrants from Bulgaria and Romania will be free to move around the rest of the European Union.
The facts are eloquent: the average wage in Britain is about £20,000 a year, compared with just over £3,000 in Bulgaria and £4,000 in Romania. This means that the vast majority of Bulgarians are living far below what we in Britain are privileged to regard as the poverty line. The average earnings in these deprived Eastern European states are considerably less than half our minimum wage.
This enormous disparity means that it would be economic madness for Bulgarians and Romanians not to take advantage of the freedoms they are suddenly being offered. A large number of them are certain to travel to Britain (and other EU states) next year. Exactly how many it is difficult to say. Ten years ago, when transitional controls were lifted for Poles, Labour ministers said that no more than 13,000 would enter Britain every year. In the event around one million came.
There are reasons to doubt that the influx will be so large this time. Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch (disgracefully treated by the BBC as a Right-wing alarmist 10 years ago) has provided more accurate, responsible and truthful predictions than anyone else. He guesses that around 250,000 additional migrants will travel to Britain over the next five years.
Among them will be an unknown number of Roma, a wandering people who are thought by some scholars to have come to Europe after a long migration from the modern Indian state of Rajastan. They have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been cruelly persecuted and are often viewed as criminals. Whether they receive a warm welcome in Britain remains to be seen. Earlier this week, David Blunkett, a former Labour home secretary, warned that their arrival might spark riots.
I wonder whether Mr Blunkett, who was speaking out on the basis of problems with Roma in his Sheffield constituency, was wise to make his inflammatory remarks. Yet, he is a politician. He surely has a duty to speak up for his voters. Nobody in Britain – or any other European country – has voted for this fresh wave of immigration. Nobody asked for it, and almost nobody wants it.
This is the trouble with the European Union. Decisions are made, no one knows where, which have enormous consequences for the lives of ordinary people, and local politicians are helpless.
The new migrants will be hungry for jobs, and are bound to price some British workers out of the market. They will have the right to use our schools and NHS, which are already creaking. They will need housing, and welfare benefits.
This is not a selfish Right-wing cause, as some still assert. The British Labour Party, backed by the trade union movement, fought a great, honourable battle in the last century for dignity of labour and fair pay. This is all being lost, thanks in part to the arrival of waves of cheap labour from the east. Big business benefits hugely, and the affluent middle classes get access to cheap domestic help. But there is a cost to the social fabric, and it is always the poor and powerless who pay the highest price.
The decision will be enforced by anonymous officials and jurists. Without intending to, the European Union is turning into the enemy of democracy.
David Cameron is reduced to the role of a spectator in a country that he has been elected to govern. Ed Miliband may be Labour leader, but he is an observer as well. Neither politician has tried to defend the influx of migrant workers, which is understandable because it wasn’t their decision. But they can’t attack it either. As a result, an important issue that is likely viscerally to affect the lives of many British citizens has been sucked out of public discourse and the democratic arena. Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are united in impotence and uselessness.
There is no way out. Free movement of people is one of the core principles of the European Union. The relevant directive gives limited scope to exclude individuals on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health” but no scope at all to impede the kind of large-scale migration which may occur next year.
This is madness. It brings politics into grave disrepute, and thus grants legitimacy to extremists. This makes me wonder whether Mr Cameron, after all, might be right to attempt some sort of action. It would probably have to be unilateral, and it would certainly mean taking a huge risk.
It is open to the Prime Minister to introduce primary legislation declaring that Bulgarians and Romanians will not be allowed into Britain until suitable arrangements have been made to smooth their arrival.
Mr Cameron should also seek the support of fellow European leaders, almost all of whom have just as much reason to fear further migration. He could urge them to hold an emergency Intergovernmental Conference, which could extend the transitional period by a few years.
The moral case for such drastic action is very strong. Despite tentative signs of recovery, Britain still faces an economic emergency. Nearly one million young people, almost 20 per cent of the labour force under 25, are out of work. Some of their jobs would surely go to the new Eastern European migrants. Mr Cameron should argue that this is a situation no civilised government can tolerate.
The Commission would take Britain to court, and we would lose. But I guess Mr Cameron would enjoy great sympathy among his fellow European national leaders. They too are victims of the European crisis of democracy. If the Prime Minister does not act, only Ukip will be left speaking in a language that makes any kind of sense to ordinary voters.
Immigration: Britain’s doors are wide open, and we can’t even talk about it
A wave of Romanians and Bulgarians is heading our way, thanks to the EU’s lack of democracy
They have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been cruelly persecuted and are often viewed as criminals
A Roma landworker in Bulgaria: the Roma have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been persecuted and are often viewed as criminals Photo: ALAMY
By Peter Oborne
8:18PM GMT 13 Nov 2013
Few decent people would question the nobility of the original European idea. Almost all of us value free trade, international cooperation and mutual goodwill. None of us wants to return to the bloodshed of earlier centuries.
In recent years, however, Europe has fallen under the control of a new ruling class that has obtained powers which it has no democratic right to exercise.
Think of it like this: the European Union has abolished politics. Highly susceptible to lobby groups and large corporations, it is now out of reach to political parties and national politicians. This is far more dangerous than has yet been realised. Again and again national leaders are finding themselves accountable for decisions they haven’t made and can’t alter.
Let’s take the example of the single currency, which seemed such a good idea to EU bosses. The abolition of national currencies means that states can no longer manage their own economies, and are governed instead by international bankers, in cooperation with Brussels commissioners. This is the cause of social and political collapse in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
Another case in point has been freedom of movement, in essence such a wonderful idea, which makes perfect sense between convergent economies such as Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany.
Related Articles
Debt and dishonour
14 Nov 2013
Labour made a 'spectacular mistake' on immigration, admits Jack Straw
13 Nov 2013
'Roma migrants could cause riots in cities'
11 Nov 2013
Nigel Farage says Tory attack on his 'prejudice' shows they are 'terrified'
08 Nov 2013
Eric Pickles: Immigrants must learn English
13 Nov 2013
But freedom of movement between advanced economies such as Britain and underdeveloped countries causes grotesque distortions. On January 1 transitional controls are to be lifted, meaning that migrants from Bulgaria and Romania will be free to move around the rest of the European Union.
The facts are eloquent: the average wage in Britain is about £20,000 a year, compared with just over £3,000 in Bulgaria and £4,000 in Romania. This means that the vast majority of Bulgarians are living far below what we in Britain are privileged to regard as the poverty line. The average earnings in these deprived Eastern European states are considerably less than half our minimum wage.
This enormous disparity means that it would be economic madness for Bulgarians and Romanians not to take advantage of the freedoms they are suddenly being offered. A large number of them are certain to travel to Britain (and other EU states) next year. Exactly how many it is difficult to say. Ten years ago, when transitional controls were lifted for Poles, Labour ministers said that no more than 13,000 would enter Britain every year. In the event around one million came.
There are reasons to doubt that the influx will be so large this time. Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch (disgracefully treated by the BBC as a Right-wing alarmist 10 years ago) has provided more accurate, responsible and truthful predictions than anyone else. He guesses that around 250,000 additional migrants will travel to Britain over the next five years.
Among them will be an unknown number of Roma, a wandering people who are thought by some scholars to have come to Europe after a long migration from the modern Indian state of Rajastan. They have every incentive to escape from Eastern Europe, where they have been cruelly persecuted and are often viewed as criminals. Whether they receive a warm welcome in Britain remains to be seen. Earlier this week, David Blunkett, a former Labour home secretary, warned that their arrival might spark riots.
I wonder whether Mr Blunkett, who was speaking out on the basis of problems with Roma in his Sheffield constituency, was wise to make his inflammatory remarks. Yet, he is a politician. He surely has a duty to speak up for his voters. Nobody in Britain – or any other European country – has voted for this fresh wave of immigration. Nobody asked for it, and almost nobody wants it.
This is the trouble with the European Union. Decisions are made, no one knows where, which have enormous consequences for the lives of ordinary people, and local politicians are helpless.
The new migrants will be hungry for jobs, and are bound to price some British workers out of the market. They will have the right to use our schools and NHS, which are already creaking. They will need housing, and welfare benefits.
This is not a selfish Right-wing cause, as some still assert. The British Labour Party, backed by the trade union movement, fought a great, honourable battle in the last century for dignity of labour and fair pay. This is all being lost, thanks in part to the arrival of waves of cheap labour from the east. Big business benefits hugely, and the affluent middle classes get access to cheap domestic help. But there is a cost to the social fabric, and it is always the poor and powerless who pay the highest price.
The decision will be enforced by anonymous officials and jurists. Without intending to, the European Union is turning into the enemy of democracy.
David Cameron is reduced to the role of a spectator in a country that he has been elected to govern. Ed Miliband may be Labour leader, but he is an observer as well. Neither politician has tried to defend the influx of migrant workers, which is understandable because it wasn’t their decision. But they can’t attack it either. As a result, an important issue that is likely viscerally to affect the lives of many British citizens has been sucked out of public discourse and the democratic arena. Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative are united in impotence and uselessness.
There is no way out. Free movement of people is one of the core principles of the European Union. The relevant directive gives limited scope to exclude individuals on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health” but no scope at all to impede the kind of large-scale migration which may occur next year.
This is madness. It brings politics into grave disrepute, and thus grants legitimacy to extremists. This makes me wonder whether Mr Cameron, after all, might be right to attempt some sort of action. It would probably have to be unilateral, and it would certainly mean taking a huge risk.
It is open to the Prime Minister to introduce primary legislation declaring that Bulgarians and Romanians will not be allowed into Britain until suitable arrangements have been made to smooth their arrival.
Mr Cameron should also seek the support of fellow European leaders, almost all of whom have just as much reason to fear further migration. He could urge them to hold an emergency Intergovernmental Conference, which could extend the transitional period by a few years.
The moral case for such drastic action is very strong. Despite tentative signs of recovery, Britain still faces an economic emergency. Nearly one million young people, almost 20 per cent of the labour force under 25, are out of work. Some of their jobs would surely go to the new Eastern European migrants. Mr Cameron should argue that this is a situation no civilised government can tolerate.
The Commission would take Britain to court, and we would lose. But I guess Mr Cameron would enjoy great sympathy among his fellow European national leaders. They too are victims of the European crisis of democracy. If the Prime Minister does not act, only Ukip will be left speaking in a language that makes any kind of sense to ordinary voters.
4 November 2013 Last updated at 00:45
CBI says staying in EU 'overwhelmingly' best for business
CBI director general John Cridland says EU membership is worth £3,000 a year to every household in Britain
Continue reading the main story
UK Economy
Staying in the European Union is worth between 4-5% of UK annual output and "overwhelmingly" best for business - but reforms are needed, the CBI says.
Ahead of its national conference, the business group said research found EU membership is worth £62-78bn to the UK.
It calls for barriers to e-commerce to be removed by the EU, for it to become more outward-looking and for a "re-focus" in the work of EU commissioners.
It also wants to see a permanent opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The CBI report, compiled after questioning its members, also said business wanted a moratorium on legislation which could be made at national level.
New deal
The CBI's director general, John Cridland, said: "We have looked beyond the political rhetoric to examine the pros and cons of EU membership and British business is unequivocal - the Single Market is fundamental to our future.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
This compelling report makes a powerful business case for the UK's continued membership of the EU”
Danny Alexander Chief secretary to Treasury
"We are better off in a reformed EU than outside with no influence. Each year, membership is worth £3,000 to every household in this country."
The government wants to negotiate a new deal with the EU.
Mr Cameron has said the EU needs to change to allow Britain, or other member states, not to be bound by all its decisions.
If he can secure a new deal, Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU by 2017 should the Conservative Party win an outright majority.
The Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said: "This compelling report makes a powerful business case for the UK's continued membership of the EU."
He said he had been told on a visit to India last week that EU membership was one of the reasons why the UK was an attractive place to invest.
The comments come after the group suggested the UK economy was recovering at a "slow and steady" pace.
"The UK is now set fair for growth with confidence returning to Britain's entrepreneurs," Mr Cridland added.
"The recovery won't be spectacular, just slow and steady, but appears more solid and better-rooted."
Shadow minister for Europe Gareth Thomas said: "The CBI's report clearly shows that the business community doesn't want to see Britain sleepwalk out of the EU.
"Today's report shows that Europe brings each UK household £3,000 a year. David Cameron is willing to put this at risk because his approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest, not Britain's national interest."
"Labour believes that a commitment to staying at the heart of the EU, along with a clear programme of deliverable reforms is the best course for Britain.
"Labour has long called for reforms to make Europe work better, including a new EU Commissioner for Growth to help focus Europe on delivering the jobs and prosperity that our country needs."
CBI says staying in EU 'overwhelmingly' best for business
CBI director general John Cridland says EU membership is worth £3,000 a year to every household in Britain
Continue reading the main story
UK Economy
Staying in the European Union is worth between 4-5% of UK annual output and "overwhelmingly" best for business - but reforms are needed, the CBI says.
Ahead of its national conference, the business group said research found EU membership is worth £62-78bn to the UK.
It calls for barriers to e-commerce to be removed by the EU, for it to become more outward-looking and for a "re-focus" in the work of EU commissioners.
It also wants to see a permanent opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
The CBI report, compiled after questioning its members, also said business wanted a moratorium on legislation which could be made at national level.
New deal
The CBI's director general, John Cridland, said: "We have looked beyond the political rhetoric to examine the pros and cons of EU membership and British business is unequivocal - the Single Market is fundamental to our future.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
This compelling report makes a powerful business case for the UK's continued membership of the EU”
Danny Alexander Chief secretary to Treasury
"We are better off in a reformed EU than outside with no influence. Each year, membership is worth £3,000 to every household in this country."
The government wants to negotiate a new deal with the EU.
Mr Cameron has said the EU needs to change to allow Britain, or other member states, not to be bound by all its decisions.
If he can secure a new deal, Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged a referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU by 2017 should the Conservative Party win an outright majority.
The Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said: "This compelling report makes a powerful business case for the UK's continued membership of the EU."
He said he had been told on a visit to India last week that EU membership was one of the reasons why the UK was an attractive place to invest.
The comments come after the group suggested the UK economy was recovering at a "slow and steady" pace.
"The UK is now set fair for growth with confidence returning to Britain's entrepreneurs," Mr Cridland added.
"The recovery won't be spectacular, just slow and steady, but appears more solid and better-rooted."
Shadow minister for Europe Gareth Thomas said: "The CBI's report clearly shows that the business community doesn't want to see Britain sleepwalk out of the EU.
"Today's report shows that Europe brings each UK household £3,000 a year. David Cameron is willing to put this at risk because his approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest, not Britain's national interest."
"Labour believes that a commitment to staying at the heart of the EU, along with a clear programme of deliverable reforms is the best course for Britain.
"Labour has long called for reforms to make Europe work better, including a new EU Commissioner for Growth to help focus Europe on delivering the jobs and prosperity that our country needs."
D
Departed
Guest
"We are better off in a reformed EU than outside with no influence. Each year, membership is worth £3,000 to every household in this country."
Read more: http://www.spurs.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=37566&posts=4#M955237#ixzz2kjnQ6U44
At what cost?
Read more: http://www.spurs.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=37566&posts=4#M955237#ixzz2kjnQ6U44
At what cost?
Read the full article again, 80 and if you still need to ask that tautological question, I'd suggest you address it to the CBI. Not an organisation I would normally see myself in agreement with but that just shows how out on the extreme margins you are along with Ex and the UKIP moon buggies!
D
Departed
Guest
When you base assumptions on anachronistic models your numbers will always be questioned.
What happens when the UK needs to align with China, or any other country, on policy and can't because the EC says no?
What happens when the one size fits all approach threatens the viability of your infrastructure?
Whenever there is a duplication of administration, which the EU is undoubtedly, there is a hidden but very real cost. Whenever something (including the financial sector) gets too big or concentrates too much power there is an exponential increase in systemic risk. It used to be that economies of scale would hit the law of diminishing returns, now there is a law of negative returns when control becomes too remote. Smaller is better. Smaller means the people involved have more impact on outcomes and as such have a more vested interest in delivering appropriate services well. Our country of 33 million people has 10 provinces and 3 territories that are governed federally. None of those entities has the same overall requirements. That is reflected in voting patterns. Our federal leaders will be from the west for the foreseeable future. A sea change in our political landscape.
The education systems of most of the former industrialized nations are caught in bureaucratic gridlock unable to change and address the current reality. The tools are there to allow them to become much more effective but again, no one wants to let go and will statistically, selectively mind you, justify their hold on the system. This is not a left/right issue. Ideological policy just gets in the way. But in your simplistic view everyone has to be labelled.
And as far as repeating myself, I think it is more a case of you not understanding what is really going on. People have to be allowed to find the most effective way for their local culture to deal with issues with out you forcing your view on them. Or me mine. You can't do that with an ivory tower approach to policy that covers every aspect of their lives. Let go Innis. People don't need you to tell them how to live.
The EU would have been a great idea 100 years ago. It isn't now.
What happens when the UK needs to align with China, or any other country, on policy and can't because the EC says no?
What happens when the one size fits all approach threatens the viability of your infrastructure?
Whenever there is a duplication of administration, which the EU is undoubtedly, there is a hidden but very real cost. Whenever something (including the financial sector) gets too big or concentrates too much power there is an exponential increase in systemic risk. It used to be that economies of scale would hit the law of diminishing returns, now there is a law of negative returns when control becomes too remote. Smaller is better. Smaller means the people involved have more impact on outcomes and as such have a more vested interest in delivering appropriate services well. Our country of 33 million people has 10 provinces and 3 territories that are governed federally. None of those entities has the same overall requirements. That is reflected in voting patterns. Our federal leaders will be from the west for the foreseeable future. A sea change in our political landscape.
The education systems of most of the former industrialized nations are caught in bureaucratic gridlock unable to change and address the current reality. The tools are there to allow them to become much more effective but again, no one wants to let go and will statistically, selectively mind you, justify their hold on the system. This is not a left/right issue. Ideological policy just gets in the way. But in your simplistic view everyone has to be labelled.
And as far as repeating myself, I think it is more a case of you not understanding what is really going on. People have to be allowed to find the most effective way for their local culture to deal with issues with out you forcing your view on them. Or me mine. You can't do that with an ivory tower approach to policy that covers every aspect of their lives. Let go Innis. People don't need you to tell them how to live.
The EU would have been a great idea 100 years ago. It isn't now.
Spursex
Alert Team
It's true the EU is worth £3000k to every household, but the CBI is also being totally disingenuious - does anyone seriously think that the EU countries would stop buying our goods and services if we weren't in the EU?!!
It's a nonsense of course, because it simply wouldn't happen.
The gullible will get sucked in by these sort of statements; the 'single' market isn't essential to our future at all - if anything it's been a disaster being so EU focused (as they went down the tubes so it dragged us and vice versa) it's time to think and act more globably and concentrate on doing more business with China, the far east and the middle east - all which funnily enough have continued with decent growth whilst the EU didn't.
The cost of the EU is too much to pay, the cost of the migrants it has forced us to and will force us to in the future will keep taking jobs and depressing wages for years to come - it's time politicians got that little bit more honest yet again and told people what it means to leave the status quo as it is..
It's a nonsense of course, because it simply wouldn't happen.
The gullible will get sucked in by these sort of statements; the 'single' market isn't essential to our future at all - if anything it's been a disaster being so EU focused (as they went down the tubes so it dragged us and vice versa) it's time to think and act more globably and concentrate on doing more business with China, the far east and the middle east - all which funnily enough have continued with decent growth whilst the EU didn't.
The cost of the EU is too much to pay, the cost of the migrants it has forced us to and will force us to in the future will keep taking jobs and depressing wages for years to come - it's time politicians got that little bit more honest yet again and told people what it means to leave the status quo as it is..
D
Departed
Guest
The underlying issue is diversity, or more importantly lack of it. Any "system" that lacks diversity is inherently at more risk. Doesn't matter what type of system.
An interesting piece on the inter-dependence of national economies in a global economic system.
The Real Heroes Of The Global Economy
15/11/2013 by Dani Rodrik
Economic policymakers seeking successful models to emulate apparently have an abundance of choices nowadays. Led by China, scores of emerging and developing countries have registered record-high growth rates over recent decades, setting precedents for others to follow. While advanced economies have performed far worse on average, there are notable exceptions, such as Germany and Sweden. “Do as we do,” these countries’ leaders often say, “and you will prosper, too.”
Look more closely, however, and you will discover that these countries’ vaunted growth models cannot possibly be replicated everywhere, because they rely on large external surpluses to stimulate the tradable sector and the rest of the economy. Sweden’s current-account surplus has averaged above a whopping 7% of GDP over the last decade; Germany’s has averaged close to 6% during the same period.
China’s large external surplus – above 10% of GDP in 2007 – has narrowed significantly in recent years, with the trade imbalance falling to about 2.5% of GDP. As the surplus came down, so did the economy’s growth rate – indeed, almost point for point. To be sure, China’s annual growth remains comparatively high, at above 7%. But growth at this level reflects an unprecedented – and unsustainable – rise in domestic investment to nearly 50% of GDP. When investment returns to normal levels, economic growth will slow further.
Obviously, not all countries can run trade surpluses at the same time. In fact, the successful economies’ superlative growth performance has been enabled by other countries’ choice not to emulate them.
But one would never know that from listening, for example, to Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, extolling his country’s virtues. “In the late 1990’s, [Germany] was the undisputed ‘sick man’ of Europe,” Schäuble wrote recently. What turned the country around, he claims, was labor-market liberalization and restrained public spending.
In fact, while Germany did undertake some reforms, so did others, and its labor market does not look substantially more flexible than what one finds in other European economies. A big difference, however, was the turnaround in Germany’s external balance, with annual deficits in the 1990’s swinging to a substantial surplus in recent years, thanks to its trade partners in the eurozone and, more recently, the rest of the world. As the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, among others, has pointed out, the German economy has been free-riding on global demand.
Other countries have grown rapidly in recent decades without relying on external surpluses. But most have suffered from the opposite syndrome: excessive reliance on capital inflows, which, by spurring domestic credit and consumption, generate temporary growth. But recipient economies are vulnerable to financial-market sentiment and sudden capital flight – as happened recently when investors anticipated monetary-policy tightening in the United States.
Consider India, until recently another much-celebrated success story. India’s growth during the past decade had much to do with loose macroeconomic policies and a deteriorating current account – which recorded a deficit of more than 5% of GDP in 2012, having been in surplus in the early 2000’s. Turkey, another country whose star has faded, also relied on large annual current-account deficits, reaching 10% of GDP in 2011.
Elsewhere, small, formerly socialist economies – Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Lithuania, and Kosovo – have grown very rapidly since the early 2000’s. But look at their average current-account deficits from 2000 to 2013 – which range from a low of 5.5% of GDP in Lithuania to a high of 13.4% in Kosovo – and it becomes evident that these are not countries to emulate.
The story is similar in Africa. The continent’s fastest-growing economies are those that have been willing and able to allow yawning external gaps from 2000 to 2013: 26% of GDP, on average, in Liberia, 17% in Mozambique, 14% in Chad, 11% in Sierra Leone, and 7% in Ghana. Rwanda’s current account has deteriorated steadily, with the deficit now exceeding 10% of GDP.
The world’s current-account balances must ultimately sum up to zero. In an optimal world, the surpluses of countries pursuing export-led growth would be willingly matched by the deficits of those pursuing debt-led growth. In the real world, there is no mechanism to ensure such an equilibrium on a continuous basis; national economic policies can be (and often are) mutually incompatible.
When some countries want to run smaller deficits without a corresponding desire by others to reduce surpluses, the result is the exportation of unemployment and a bias toward deflation (as is the case now). When some want to reduce their surpluses without a corresponding desire by others to reduce deficits, the result is a “sudden stop” in capital flows and financial crisis. As external imbalances grow larger, each phase of this cycle becomes more painful.
The real heroes of the world economy – the role models that others should emulate – are countries that have done relatively well while running only small external imbalances. Countries like Austria, Canada, the Philippines, Lesotho, and Uruguay cannot match the world’s growth champions, because they do not over-borrow or sustain a mercantilist economic model. Theirs are unremarkable economies that do not garner many headlines. But without them, the global economy would be even less manageable than it already is.
The Real Heroes Of The Global Economy
15/11/2013 by Dani Rodrik
Economic policymakers seeking successful models to emulate apparently have an abundance of choices nowadays. Led by China, scores of emerging and developing countries have registered record-high growth rates over recent decades, setting precedents for others to follow. While advanced economies have performed far worse on average, there are notable exceptions, such as Germany and Sweden. “Do as we do,” these countries’ leaders often say, “and you will prosper, too.”
Look more closely, however, and you will discover that these countries’ vaunted growth models cannot possibly be replicated everywhere, because they rely on large external surpluses to stimulate the tradable sector and the rest of the economy. Sweden’s current-account surplus has averaged above a whopping 7% of GDP over the last decade; Germany’s has averaged close to 6% during the same period.
China’s large external surplus – above 10% of GDP in 2007 – has narrowed significantly in recent years, with the trade imbalance falling to about 2.5% of GDP. As the surplus came down, so did the economy’s growth rate – indeed, almost point for point. To be sure, China’s annual growth remains comparatively high, at above 7%. But growth at this level reflects an unprecedented – and unsustainable – rise in domestic investment to nearly 50% of GDP. When investment returns to normal levels, economic growth will slow further.
Obviously, not all countries can run trade surpluses at the same time. In fact, the successful economies’ superlative growth performance has been enabled by other countries’ choice not to emulate them.
But one would never know that from listening, for example, to Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, extolling his country’s virtues. “In the late 1990’s, [Germany] was the undisputed ‘sick man’ of Europe,” Schäuble wrote recently. What turned the country around, he claims, was labor-market liberalization and restrained public spending.
In fact, while Germany did undertake some reforms, so did others, and its labor market does not look substantially more flexible than what one finds in other European economies. A big difference, however, was the turnaround in Germany’s external balance, with annual deficits in the 1990’s swinging to a substantial surplus in recent years, thanks to its trade partners in the eurozone and, more recently, the rest of the world. As the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf, among others, has pointed out, the German economy has been free-riding on global demand.
Other countries have grown rapidly in recent decades without relying on external surpluses. But most have suffered from the opposite syndrome: excessive reliance on capital inflows, which, by spurring domestic credit and consumption, generate temporary growth. But recipient economies are vulnerable to financial-market sentiment and sudden capital flight – as happened recently when investors anticipated monetary-policy tightening in the United States.
Consider India, until recently another much-celebrated success story. India’s growth during the past decade had much to do with loose macroeconomic policies and a deteriorating current account – which recorded a deficit of more than 5% of GDP in 2012, having been in surplus in the early 2000’s. Turkey, another country whose star has faded, also relied on large annual current-account deficits, reaching 10% of GDP in 2011.
Elsewhere, small, formerly socialist economies – Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Lithuania, and Kosovo – have grown very rapidly since the early 2000’s. But look at their average current-account deficits from 2000 to 2013 – which range from a low of 5.5% of GDP in Lithuania to a high of 13.4% in Kosovo – and it becomes evident that these are not countries to emulate.
The story is similar in Africa. The continent’s fastest-growing economies are those that have been willing and able to allow yawning external gaps from 2000 to 2013: 26% of GDP, on average, in Liberia, 17% in Mozambique, 14% in Chad, 11% in Sierra Leone, and 7% in Ghana. Rwanda’s current account has deteriorated steadily, with the deficit now exceeding 10% of GDP.
The world’s current-account balances must ultimately sum up to zero. In an optimal world, the surpluses of countries pursuing export-led growth would be willingly matched by the deficits of those pursuing debt-led growth. In the real world, there is no mechanism to ensure such an equilibrium on a continuous basis; national economic policies can be (and often are) mutually incompatible.
When some countries want to run smaller deficits without a corresponding desire by others to reduce surpluses, the result is the exportation of unemployment and a bias toward deflation (as is the case now). When some want to reduce their surpluses without a corresponding desire by others to reduce deficits, the result is a “sudden stop” in capital flows and financial crisis. As external imbalances grow larger, each phase of this cycle becomes more painful.
The real heroes of the world economy – the role models that others should emulate – are countries that have done relatively well while running only small external imbalances. Countries like Austria, Canada, the Philippines, Lesotho, and Uruguay cannot match the world’s growth champions, because they do not over-borrow or sustain a mercantilist economic model. Theirs are unremarkable economies that do not garner many headlines. But without them, the global economy would be even less manageable than it already is.
Welshtel
Vital Football Hero
Good notes 'EX'.
The people who will see Europe as a failure will be those who pour Billions into the Union but get nothing but hardship out of it. The 'wonderful' (I'm trying hard not to exhibit sarcasm) 'Free Trade' has a nasty sting in it's tail, such as all those swarming onto our shores who either steal our jobs or our social welfare provisions which the EU has not paid a penny (cent) into and when it comes to Romanians and the like who are just here to cause havoc to our society by their free use of our facilities without caring a fig for our idea of society or for putting their hands in their pockets to pay for it. Rape and pillaging is still fit and well and soon to be arriving in bulk in Britain.
The trouble is, those who will be spoiling Britain have had no history of it and don't care about this land as we do, who have held their lineage here.
There have always been wars about land ownership. To think that people will soon arrive on our streets and be allowed to plunder our funds and will not expect to be reprimanded for it is abhorrent to most indigenous British people. If you want to wonder why the EU HAS failed, look no further than here.
OK, British people land in Spain and other places for holidays and make huge fools of themselves and turn towns and cities into places to be avoided by normal folk but AT LEAST THEY PAY for the experience and leave after a fortnight or so.
Paul Sykes is wealthy, he can do what he likes with his money but what I wonder is, how is this one man, representing himself, and trying to influence the election so much more acceptable than the unions, representing millions of working voters, trying to influence the election through supporting Labour? Oh yes, because the wealthy handful of men who own the national press say so!!
Paul Sykes bankrolls Ukip campaign for European elections
Wealthy eurosceptic businessman promises to do 'whatever it takes' to make Ukip the largest UK party in the parliament
Press Association
theguardian.com, Monday 18 November 2013 03.57 GMT
One of Britain's wealthiest men, Paul Sykes, has pledged to do "whatever it takes" to ensure Nigel Farage's UK Independence party triumphs in next year's elections to the European parliament.
The Eurosceptic businessman, a former Conservative Party backer, is promising to bankroll Ukip's campaign in an election in which it is already expected to do well.
His intervention will heighten concerns in the Tory ranks that the seemingly inexorable rise of Ukip could scupper any hopes they have of securing an outright majority in the 2015 general election.
In his last significant foray into the political arena he donated a reported £1.5m to Ukip's 2004 European election campaign. His backing helped secure a stunning result for the party, which increased its number of seats from three to 12.
Sykes, who has previously been estimated to be worth £650m, has given no indication of how much he is prepared to donate this time other than to say he will do "whatever it takes" to ensure Ukip is the largest UK party in the European parliament.
"I believe we have one last chance to stop the gradual erosion of our national independence. And that chance comes with the European elections," he said in a statement.
"If, as I hope and believe, Ukip score a stunning national victory, then the leaders of the other main parties will have no choice but to abandon their slavish support for the EU.
"Nigel Farage and Ukip are the last best hope for Britain. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to propel them to victory next year."
Farage said the backing of Sykes would help his party cause an "intended earthquake" in British politics.
"Paul Sykes has a long record of defending British democracy, "he said. "His involvement in this campaign is a significant boost for Ukip and will help us to cause our intended earthquake in British politics in the European elections next May."
There will be concern among Conservatives that a strong showing by Ukip next year will give them renewed momentum going into the general election. Many Tories fear that they will draw enough votes to deny the Conservatives any chance an overall majority.
Sykes was a strong supporter and backer of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s but broke with the party in 1991 over John Major's stance on the Maastricht Treaty. In the 1997 general election he selectively funded individual eurosceptic candidates.
In 2000 he briefly returned to the Tory fold under William Hague only to be expelled the following year over his hardline views on Europe. He is reported to have given millions of pounds to various eurosceptic causes over the years.
He said that he hoped success for Ukip in next year's election would compel the other parties to accede to calls for an early referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
"So far they have stubbornly refused to listen. Maybe a comprehensive thrashing at the polls will bring them to their senses. Far better would be to accelerate the whole process and have that in/out referendum on the day of the general election in 2015," he said.
Paul Sykes bankrolls Ukip campaign for European elections
Wealthy eurosceptic businessman promises to do 'whatever it takes' to make Ukip the largest UK party in the parliament
Press Association
theguardian.com, Monday 18 November 2013 03.57 GMT
One of Britain's wealthiest men, Paul Sykes, has pledged to do "whatever it takes" to ensure Nigel Farage's UK Independence party triumphs in next year's elections to the European parliament.
The Eurosceptic businessman, a former Conservative Party backer, is promising to bankroll Ukip's campaign in an election in which it is already expected to do well.
His intervention will heighten concerns in the Tory ranks that the seemingly inexorable rise of Ukip could scupper any hopes they have of securing an outright majority in the 2015 general election.
In his last significant foray into the political arena he donated a reported £1.5m to Ukip's 2004 European election campaign. His backing helped secure a stunning result for the party, which increased its number of seats from three to 12.
Sykes, who has previously been estimated to be worth £650m, has given no indication of how much he is prepared to donate this time other than to say he will do "whatever it takes" to ensure Ukip is the largest UK party in the European parliament.
"I believe we have one last chance to stop the gradual erosion of our national independence. And that chance comes with the European elections," he said in a statement.
"If, as I hope and believe, Ukip score a stunning national victory, then the leaders of the other main parties will have no choice but to abandon their slavish support for the EU.
"Nigel Farage and Ukip are the last best hope for Britain. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to propel them to victory next year."
Farage said the backing of Sykes would help his party cause an "intended earthquake" in British politics.
"Paul Sykes has a long record of defending British democracy, "he said. "His involvement in this campaign is a significant boost for Ukip and will help us to cause our intended earthquake in British politics in the European elections next May."
There will be concern among Conservatives that a strong showing by Ukip next year will give them renewed momentum going into the general election. Many Tories fear that they will draw enough votes to deny the Conservatives any chance an overall majority.
Sykes was a strong supporter and backer of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s but broke with the party in 1991 over John Major's stance on the Maastricht Treaty. In the 1997 general election he selectively funded individual eurosceptic candidates.
In 2000 he briefly returned to the Tory fold under William Hague only to be expelled the following year over his hardline views on Europe. He is reported to have given millions of pounds to various eurosceptic causes over the years.
He said that he hoped success for Ukip in next year's election would compel the other parties to accede to calls for an early referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.
"So far they have stubbornly refused to listen. Maybe a comprehensive thrashing at the polls will bring them to their senses. Far better would be to accelerate the whole process and have that in/out referendum on the day of the general election in 2015," he said.
Spursex
Alert Team
Paul is a top class bloke, a self made man who asks nothing from anyone and who both publically and privately supports many many worthy causes.
He funds UKIP because no party reflects how he feels about the EU and the damage it does - he does so because Labour is fully funded by the Unions and the conservatives (which he once funded) by business...
nature abhors a vacuum - he's helped fill it with UKIP, who like or not continue to attract voters who don't believe they have a voice, or didn't have..
In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK, he took over where Goldsmith left off.
The left should be grateful for him; UKIP look like they're steady on arund 12% -18 % of the vote, which will be enough to stop the conservatives from being an outright winning party at the next election...
Besides, at least he and UKIP aren't reverting to fraud to 'influence' the next election..
He funds UKIP because no party reflects how he feels about the EU and the damage it does - he does so because Labour is fully funded by the Unions and the conservatives (which he once funded) by business...
nature abhors a vacuum - he's helped fill it with UKIP, who like or not continue to attract voters who don't believe they have a voice, or didn't have..
In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK, he took over where Goldsmith left off.
The left should be grateful for him; UKIP look like they're steady on arund 12% -18 % of the vote, which will be enough to stop the conservatives from being an outright winning party at the next election...
Besides, at least he and UKIP aren't reverting to fraud to 'influence' the next election..
Spursex
Alert Team
Paul is a top class bloke, a self made man who asks nothing from anyone and who both publically and privately supports many many worthy causes.
He funds UKIP because no party reflects how he feels about the EU and the damage it does - he does so because Labour is fully funded by the Unions and the conservatives (which he once funded) by business...
nature abhors a vacuum - he's helped fill it with UKIP, who like or not continue to attract voters who don't believe they have a voice, or didn't have..
In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK, he took over where Goldsmith left off.
The left should be grateful for him; UKIP look like they're steady on arund 12% -18 % of the vote, which will be enough to stop the conservatives from being an outright winning party at the next election...
Besides, at least he and UKIP aren't reverting to fraud to 'influence' the next election..
He funds UKIP because no party reflects how he feels about the EU and the damage it does - he does so because Labour is fully funded by the Unions and the conservatives (which he once funded) by business...
nature abhors a vacuum - he's helped fill it with UKIP, who like or not continue to attract voters who don't believe they have a voice, or didn't have..
In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK, he took over where Goldsmith left off.
The left should be grateful for him; UKIP look like they're steady on arund 12% -18 % of the vote, which will be enough to stop the conservatives from being an outright winning party at the next election...
Besides, at least he and UKIP aren't reverting to fraud to 'influence' the next election..
'Paul', eh? Know him well, Ex ?
The point here, dismissing your tiresome jibe about 'fraud', proven to be a nonsense anyway, is that a handful of very wealthy men, owning the press, bankrolling the right wing parties, is not a cause for concern but the Unions, founding members of the Labour Party and representing millions of working voters, is a cause for concern.
You don't see an irony here, a bit of double-think, a downright hypocrisy???
The point here, dismissing your tiresome jibe about 'fraud', proven to be a nonsense anyway, is that a handful of very wealthy men, owning the press, bankrolling the right wing parties, is not a cause for concern but the Unions, founding members of the Labour Party and representing millions of working voters, is a cause for concern.
You don't see an irony here, a bit of double-think, a downright hypocrisy???
Spursex
Alert Team
I know him pretty well - we've done business together...:-)
Your left wing bias missed the point I made yet again...
I said "In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK..."
Whilst a greater degree of transaparency has come to the funding of political parties as well as press affiliation to political support, it isn't perfect (It always amuses me how easily the left ignore the papers that support it - is it because they aren't relevant anymore?)
So, I'd made it clear that a 'proper system of funding for political parties' would be my preferrence..(as I've said here many times before)..
As for the 'fraud' once again being conducted by UNITE (well, that seems to be the view/conclusion of the labour party investigation) how you can claim it to be a'nonsense' is quite funny - do you have an inside track on the fraud that's alleged?!
So, the 'double-think' and the irony seems to have rebounded on you, as my post was as clear as it needed to be!
Get your Union UNITEs house in order first and then your claim of 'hypocrisy' might have some merit.. :14:
Your left wing bias missed the point I made yet again...
I said "In the absence of a proper system of funding in the UK..."
Whilst a greater degree of transaparency has come to the funding of political parties as well as press affiliation to political support, it isn't perfect (It always amuses me how easily the left ignore the papers that support it - is it because they aren't relevant anymore?)
So, I'd made it clear that a 'proper system of funding for political parties' would be my preferrence..(as I've said here many times before)..
As for the 'fraud' once again being conducted by UNITE (well, that seems to be the view/conclusion of the labour party investigation) how you can claim it to be a'nonsense' is quite funny - do you have an inside track on the fraud that's alleged?!
So, the 'double-think' and the irony seems to have rebounded on you, as my post was as clear as it needed to be!
Get your Union UNITEs house in order first and then your claim of 'hypocrisy' might have some merit.. :14:
Living in London, eh? You wouldn't think that this kind of property boom brought the world economy to its knees in 2007/08.
London is a property developers' paradise. And ordinary people are being priced out
That we are heading for a crisis is not in doubt, but the huge rents on the government's Build to Rent scheme are hardly going to help
Owen Hatherley
Owen Hatherley
theguardian.com, Monday 18 November 2013 09.30 GMT
Tower blocks, once considered an evil social experiment foisted by bureaucrats and architects on the working classes, are being built at a rapid rate in London today. They're not called that any more, obviously – they're apartments, residences, stunning developments or luxury living solutions – and they lack the things that tower blocks used to have, such as open space, double-aspect flats, lots of storage space or low rents. But residential, tower-shaped buildings are, after a short gap from 2009-2012, rising. On the Isle of Dogs, the 74-storey Hertsmere Tower has just been unveiled by the Irish developer Tom Ryan, which will actually be taller than the adjacent office blocks of Canary Wharf. Given that London is in the middle of a housing crisis, with rents rising as fast as they were during the boom, an argument might well be made that this could ease the problem. The simplistic call of "build more homes!" appearing on both benches of parliament, is visibly being answered, as the cranes from Vauxhall to Woolwich erect the latest concrete-framed high rise. Is all this conspicuous construction going to solve London's housing problem?
The answer is yes, if you think that the crisis is undersupply of buy-to-let flats aimed at the affluent, but no, if you entertain the notion that the crisis might be one of rising rents, pressure on social and council housing and its tenants and rampant gentrification. None of these towers are social, affordable or (obviously) council housing, but explicitly for private renters. Naturally, their defenders might say, these things cost public money, and in this time of heightened austerity we have to let the market sort it out for us. So you might be surprised to find that these towers are being specifically encouraged by the government, and are often in receipt of rather large sums of state subsidy. The government recently introduced, along with Help to Buy to encourage homeowners, a scheme called Build to Rent, which offers loans or equity to "a varied mix of developers" to build private homes to be sold at market rents. Some 43 developers have already applied for the scheme, and £1bn is being allocated for this purpose. Several housing associations in the north of England that were initially keen to sign up to the scheme have pulled out, citing regulations that require that the Homes and Communities Agency receives annual returns on their investment, something which is hardly certain with social renting. It's becoming clear that this is basically an equity scheme for yuppie flats, underwritten by the state at preferential terms.
It's doubtful they'll be funnelling money into Tom Ryan's Canary Wharf skyscraper, as it's aimed at millionaires rather than the merely upwardly mobile; but dozens of more mundane towers are getting money from Build to Rent already. One recipient, the delightfully named Stratford Halo, a few stops away on the DLR, has rents that begin at £1,700 per month. In order for this to qualify as affordable, (defined by Shelter as 35% of income), a family would have to be earning £76,000 a year. This is what made it a target for Let Down, a group bringing together several tenants' rights organisations across London, who occupied the Halo on Saturday, by posing as potential tenants – as one of them pointed out, "in order to be allowed to view this publicly subsidised zone 3 flat, four of us had to pretend to have an annual income of more than £150,000". On seizing the tower for a day, they unfurled banners across it, one of which reads "£90m public fund for unaffordable housing scheme".
As always, the invisible hand is being given a great deal of help in London, with the current demographic shift where the rich move in and the poor move out encouraged first by the restrictions on council tenure, then by the bedroom tax, and now by a fund being thrown at private developers. The Hertsmere Tower is the more obviously gross part of this equation, its most luxurious end, towering over a borough with 23,000 people on its waiting list, where neighbouring social housing such as Balfron Tower and Robin Hood Gardens are both being prepared for a better class of resident. This isn't happening automatically, inexorably or accidentally – it's public policy. Londoners are literally paying for the transformation of their city into a property developer's paradise.
London is a property developers' paradise. And ordinary people are being priced out
That we are heading for a crisis is not in doubt, but the huge rents on the government's Build to Rent scheme are hardly going to help
Owen Hatherley
Owen Hatherley
theguardian.com, Monday 18 November 2013 09.30 GMT
Tower blocks, once considered an evil social experiment foisted by bureaucrats and architects on the working classes, are being built at a rapid rate in London today. They're not called that any more, obviously – they're apartments, residences, stunning developments or luxury living solutions – and they lack the things that tower blocks used to have, such as open space, double-aspect flats, lots of storage space or low rents. But residential, tower-shaped buildings are, after a short gap from 2009-2012, rising. On the Isle of Dogs, the 74-storey Hertsmere Tower has just been unveiled by the Irish developer Tom Ryan, which will actually be taller than the adjacent office blocks of Canary Wharf. Given that London is in the middle of a housing crisis, with rents rising as fast as they were during the boom, an argument might well be made that this could ease the problem. The simplistic call of "build more homes!" appearing on both benches of parliament, is visibly being answered, as the cranes from Vauxhall to Woolwich erect the latest concrete-framed high rise. Is all this conspicuous construction going to solve London's housing problem?
The answer is yes, if you think that the crisis is undersupply of buy-to-let flats aimed at the affluent, but no, if you entertain the notion that the crisis might be one of rising rents, pressure on social and council housing and its tenants and rampant gentrification. None of these towers are social, affordable or (obviously) council housing, but explicitly for private renters. Naturally, their defenders might say, these things cost public money, and in this time of heightened austerity we have to let the market sort it out for us. So you might be surprised to find that these towers are being specifically encouraged by the government, and are often in receipt of rather large sums of state subsidy. The government recently introduced, along with Help to Buy to encourage homeowners, a scheme called Build to Rent, which offers loans or equity to "a varied mix of developers" to build private homes to be sold at market rents. Some 43 developers have already applied for the scheme, and £1bn is being allocated for this purpose. Several housing associations in the north of England that were initially keen to sign up to the scheme have pulled out, citing regulations that require that the Homes and Communities Agency receives annual returns on their investment, something which is hardly certain with social renting. It's becoming clear that this is basically an equity scheme for yuppie flats, underwritten by the state at preferential terms.
It's doubtful they'll be funnelling money into Tom Ryan's Canary Wharf skyscraper, as it's aimed at millionaires rather than the merely upwardly mobile; but dozens of more mundane towers are getting money from Build to Rent already. One recipient, the delightfully named Stratford Halo, a few stops away on the DLR, has rents that begin at £1,700 per month. In order for this to qualify as affordable, (defined by Shelter as 35% of income), a family would have to be earning £76,000 a year. This is what made it a target for Let Down, a group bringing together several tenants' rights organisations across London, who occupied the Halo on Saturday, by posing as potential tenants – as one of them pointed out, "in order to be allowed to view this publicly subsidised zone 3 flat, four of us had to pretend to have an annual income of more than £150,000". On seizing the tower for a day, they unfurled banners across it, one of which reads "£90m public fund for unaffordable housing scheme".
As always, the invisible hand is being given a great deal of help in London, with the current demographic shift where the rich move in and the poor move out encouraged first by the restrictions on council tenure, then by the bedroom tax, and now by a fund being thrown at private developers. The Hertsmere Tower is the more obviously gross part of this equation, its most luxurious end, towering over a borough with 23,000 people on its waiting list, where neighbouring social housing such as Balfron Tower and Robin Hood Gardens are both being prepared for a better class of resident. This isn't happening automatically, inexorably or accidentally – it's public policy. Londoners are literally paying for the transformation of their city into a property developer's paradise.
Unite can't be left to resist Cameron's smear campaign alone
David Cameron and the Tory press have launched a retro anti-union drive to damage Ed Miliband. But it won't fly in today's Britain
Seumas Milne
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 November 2013 22.00 GMT
Living standards may be falling and Labour's poll lead widening on the back of Ed Miliband's pledge to freeze energy prices. But to judge by the outpouring of poison from David Cameron and his media friends, the Conservatives have finally come up with a strategy to win the next election. Their plan can be summed up in one word: Unite.
For the past few months, the prime minister has lost no opportunity to denounce the country's largest union (and Labour's biggest affiliate) in the most lurid terms. He has poured vitriol over its general secretary, Len McCluskey, portraying the former docker as a scouse Svengali and Miliband's puppet-master. A fortnight ago he went lower still, branding Unite's sacked convenor at Grangemouth, the respected Stevie Deans, a "rogue trade unionist who nearly brought the Scottish petrochemical industry to its knees".
In one Prime Minister's Questions, Cameron mentioned Unite and McCluskey eight times. But this is just the warm-up. Egged on by his election strategist, Lynton Crosby, Cameron – government sources say – plans to ratchet up the campaignagainst Unite still further. It's the ideal device, Tories reckon, to paint Labour's leader as a weak 1970s throwback.
Cameron's press outriders have been preparing the ground for weeks. Outraged that Miliband dropped Labour's suspension of Deans and the Unite-backed candidate, Karie Murphy, in the Falkirk parliamentary selection after claims of rigging fell apart, the Murdoch press and the Mail group have declared open season on the union.
The Sunday Times and Daily Mail have led the field, splashing stories of supposed Unite skullduggery week after week. Murdoch's weekend flagship has tried to revive the Falkirk row, using emails culled from Deans's Grangemouth computer, and cast spurious doubt on McCluskey's own re-election this year – with 144,570 votes, more than 60,000 ahead of his rival.
The Mail has widened the field of attack to Unite's industrial tactics, slipping into full 1980s revival mode. Under the headline "Terrorised by union bullies", the paper claimed the union was running a "sinister" campaign of "intimidation" and "dirty tricks", after Unite activists staged a silent protest with a giant inflatable rat outside the homes of Ineos executives.
The media onslaught has dovetailed with the corporate attack on the union at Grangemouth. Far from the union closing down the plant, it was the employer that locked out the workforce last month until they accepted worse terms and conditions. Unite had threatened to strike after Ineos used the Falkirk controversy to suspend Deans. The Ineos owner, Jim Ratcliffe, has now made clear that he repeatedly put off confrontation with Unite until the company was ready.
Just as striking is the fact that emails from Deans's computer were given to the Sunday Times the day after his disciplinary hearing and effective dismissal three weeks ago. An Ineos spokesman told me yesterday that the company had passed them to the police and information commissioner, but would neither confirm nor deny if it had also arranged for the emails to be given to the press.
Either way, a company about to benefit from a £125m government loan guarantee has certainly given a helpful boost to Cameron's campaign. The emails confirm what we knew already: that Unite recruited a large number of industrial workers to a moribund local Labour party and supported the progressive Murphy to be Labour's candidate.
Beyond that, the partial and potentially libellous internal Labour report that triggered Miliband's intervention and call to reform Labour's union link has been shown to be at best misleading. Its main allegation, that a handful of people were signed up without their knowledge by other family members, has been superseded by new evidence. Affidavits from members of the Kane family, at the centre of the dispute, have been passed to the Guardian. They confirm that none had a problem about joining, none was a union member or paid for by Unite, and one was actually planning to vote for Murphy's opponent.
What were in fact the kind of cock-ups and local disputes that are, as Labour's report puts it, "not unusual" in such contests have been transformed into an ugly smear campaign – used to break the resistance of a well-organised industrial workforce and now being relentlessly exploited to try to derail Miliband's growing political momentum. The aim is clear enough: to portray the Labour leader as hopelessly in hock to trade unions (which in reality have remarkably little influence on Labour policy), while diverting attention from falling living standards – and the commanding grip of the far more powerful City and corporate interests on the funding of the Conservative party.
But the onslaught on Unite isn't only about Labour, let alone the storm in a Falkirk teacup. McCluskey's union, the strongest in the private sector, has shown that its combative tactics have delivered results. Its "leverage strategy" – what the Mail calls terrorism – aims to offset industrial weakness by targeting the suppliers, customers and shareholders of recalcitrant employers with lobbying and demonstrations. To their dismay, it has proved effective: from Honda and London buses to construction and Crossrail.
Not only that, but Unite has gone out on a limb to demand the collective working class political voice squeezed out of the Westminster and media magic circle for a generation – which is what lies behind Falkirk. And, with other unions, it is one of the only organisations with real social weight and resources that opposes an entrenched neoliberal consensus and corporate elite.
So it's no wonder those vested interests that benefit want to cut Unite down to size. The Sunday Times worries about the "shift to the left" in public opinion it fears Miliband is tapping into. The only way the Labour leader can head off Cameron's Unite propaganda war is to get off the back foot and turn the tables on the City and big business lobbyists that stand behind the prime minister and his party.
In any case, there's little sign that Cameron and Crosby's Unite baiting is going to work. It's a retro 1980s strategy that doesn't chime with people's experience of Britain in 2013: falling real wages, shrinking public services, insecure jobs and corporate profiteering, not overweening unions. But it won't be seen off if Unite is left to fight alone.
