Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

From 13/ 6
Odysseanproject @ Odysseanproject
New blog: what Apollo program management tells us re Tory failure & how to deal with EU negotiations & civil service [link not included here]
1 of Heywood's many disastrous decisions was creating the shambles of DEXU. Whitehall is exact OPPOSITE structure to what Brexit talks need
Doesn't matter what ministers you shuffle in/out, when the management structure as fkd as Downing St/DEXU individuals = irrelevant
Top Whitehall officials are screaming that DEXU under Heywood/DD is total shambles & disaster likely: news today just tip of iceberg
If Leave MPs don't assert themselves to force MANAGEMENT changes on No10/DEXU, Brexit talks = guaranteed debacle as Ive said for a year

Replying to thread from 13/6
David Allen Green @ davidallengreen
Dominic, may I ask if this is still your view - or has anything happened since 13/6 to change it?

Odysseanproject @ Odysseanproject
Still. Eg after a yr they still haven't established a regular mtng for main ministers/officials, all chaotic bilats etc. Farce
But I also think importance of talks/deal greatly overstated & how we shape domestic institutions by far most important longterm...
Ie odds high theyll screw talks & get worse deal for all than shd have done but also won't matter much to longterm j/ment re good/bad idea
What will determine that is whether we can reform Whitehall / science / education / real productivity etc. Brexit nec, obv not sufficient

David Allen Green @ davidallengreen
Is there anything which could now happen (or not happen) which would make you now wish Leave had not won the referendum result?

Odysseanproject @ Odysseanproject
Lots! I said before REF was dumb idea, other things shdve been tried 1st. In some possible branches of the future leaving will be an error

David Allen Green @ davidallengreen
In which the architect of the Leave vote commendably says the referendum win could turn out to be an error. Refreshing openness.

(((John))) @ el_ snoop
Reads to me like he sees Brexit as one interdependent step in radically reforming the British state - others necessary but no obvious levers

David Allen Green @ davidallengreen
That is a good summary.

Other people reading the thread have not been quite so complementary:

Cricketfan @ batanball
So, the #Leave prick who lied to voters about £350m pw now concedes #Brexit might be an error

It does rather sound like Cummings had a problem with unelected bueaucrats and is now irritate at other unelected bueaucrats. And didn't see this coming.

It also makes me wonder if Brexit in Cummings mind was about doing a Trump in the same way departments there have been totally gutted (and are not functioning at all). It makes you wonder what his intentions about government institutions actually were. The potential to remove accountability is inherent in this.

Either way seeing this beauty from Dominic Cummings really is quite something to behold. He really does get a gold star wanker award doesn't he?

'Oh I thought we could fix things by destroying them and then rebuilding it. Unfortunately my plan for to take a sledge hammer to everything was ignored and instead we are just going to blow things up. I have not idea where all the pieces go. They are all in the wrong shape and I don't know how we rebuild it. I'll ignore the glaringly obvious that I didn't have a plan to fix it if we'd taken my preferred sledge hammer option either. But hey the government are fucking it up and my idea was better' not that I didn't have a fucking plan in the first place.

Tosser.

www.thebalance.com/sale-of-your-home-3193496
CGT and home sale in the US.

I am subject to taxation without representation here in the US - I have a green card. I cannot vote at all. Apart from some local tax votes, that is fine with me. (I am all in favour of taxes to support local services and I am happy that money is not misspent.)

My state always votes for the Democratic candidate so early and often overwhelmingly they don't need my vote. The individual vote doesn't matter in the US except in certain counties of large swing states.

I do get out of jury duty through not being a citizen, so that is a plus..

The real problem is that we have chosen to develop a taxation structure, with no sovereign wealth fund, which pays for pensions out of current income. Therefore as the population gets older, we have a reducing tax base with which to cover the costs.

In other words, a Ponzi scheme.

howabout

whenshewasbad my sense is that this approach would just stoke an inflation / wage spiral disproportionately affecting lower earners

Economics is not my strength. Surely if companies increased wages the increase would bed mostly eaten up by the tax rises. Therefore it shouldn't have too much effect on inflation.

"Every 1% increase in public sector pay costs about £1.5bn a year" (i.e. the cost of the grubby DUP deal), according to The Guardian this morning. Despite defeating the Labour motion to end the pay cap (323 MPs opposing the amendment versus 309 in favour), Johnson et al now apparently putting pressure on Hammond to do just that. Economy back where Darling and Brown left it? Low interest rates, enormous deficit?

I quite like the lib dems idea of 1p on income tax for everyone.
And I like more VAT
But mostly I want the loopholes closed. I thought the Tories in 2010 said they were going to streamline tax rules but they don't seem to have bothered.
This is the main reason why I was so annoyed about their social care proposal in the GE. Because I would bet that rich people would be able to set up some kind of trust fund that meant their houses were safe, and it would be low to middle earners who don't have accountants that would end up paying.
My other big gripe was I suspect it has a backstop of getting women back where they belong ie caring, I can see a lot of women "choosing" to give up work to care for elderly relatives so they can inherit the house. But not a lot of men

Somerville
Seeing what my DD1 is having to do to be in any with any shot of an Ivy League place in a few years time, I can't say I'm a fan of the US system. So much stress around proving 'world class' extra-Curriculars, as well as all the extra exams and essays. I'm hoping she goes off the idea.

I have one last DC yet to start the application process in the US. The other four put in the hard slog and got what they were aiming for.

(Just a hint - if you're in the US, move to a state where the state school is excellent. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, NY, Michigan, Illinois, California, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin are all good. Georgia Tech too. They don't require half as much by way of personal essays and long resumes illustrating what a good egg you are.)

I far prefer the Irish system with the Central Applications Office computers sucking in Leaving Cert exam results and spitting out university places. It's impersonal and very efficient and it doesn't matter how much your parents can afford by way of extra curricular trips to save the rain forest, etc, etc.

The most basic problem with increasing taxes is as the tax burden rises, so does the political pressure as to where it goes.

If you lose 10% of your income in tax, you can afford to be quite philosophical as to where it goes.

Start to raise that to - say - 50% and all of a sudden you start asking "does really deserve my money"

In such cases, political choice is illusory.

For myself, I object strongly on spunking billions of pounds on Trident - whether 1,2, or 99. But, where do I vote to stop that.

I also object strongly that a single penny of my tax goes towards any form of faith school.

Plus it's axiomatic that the higher the tax rate, the more people will do to avoid paying.

The most basic problem with increasing taxes is as the tax burden rises, so does the political pressure as to where it goes.

If you lose 10% of your income in tax, you can afford to be quite philosophical as to where it goes.

The average pensioners has a higher incomes the average working age person.

There are more of them than young people.

It's difficult to argue that young people will have greater earning potential over the course of their lives and even with career progression due to wages being so stagnant for so long. Certainly their pension provision is worse.

And with home ownership within pensioners being so high, it's difficult to make an argument about living costs too because most of them own their properties out right.

Yes they might have care consideration to think about in the future, but then so do young people. Plus much of any increase is going to go straight back to pensioners for health and social care anyway. It seems much fairer way to do that then dementia tax for this reasons.

The people who lose out on this are pensioners who are on low income or are not home owners. Perhaps income tax exceptions for renters or higher income pensioners is where it is at.

The big problem with this is popularism. Even if it's a sound idea, MPs won't want to support it because of their own careers and Corbyn is wanting to gain a foothold in the pensioner vote so he'll never go for it and will have a field day with misinformation if the Tories do.

There is a reason only the LD are willing to consider putting income tax up and be honest about it. It's cos they are unlikely to win an election.

inflation / tax / wage spiral. VAT, fuel tax rises have direct impact on inflation and income taxes depress wages. Result is increased pressure to raise wages to keep up with rising costs. This in turn increases effect of increased income taxes and puts pressure on prices to protect profit margins which then feed through to VAT etc and so it goes on.

In the good news scenario rising costs drive productivity and growth accelerates. In the bad news scenario rising costs stifle consumption and lead to a downward spiral of depressed growth and living standards. However I would also argue that "austerity" wage freezes coupled with tax cuts have stifled consumption and growth and to that extent should be reversed.

So as with all economics questions there are no straightforward answers.

jackofkent.com/2017/07/in-some-possible-branches-of-the-future-leaving-will-be-an-error-an-exchange-about-brexit-with-dominic-cummings/

Here's David Allen Green's blog about that Cummings tweet exchange. DAG is far kinder about DC than I would be. He really does come across as an absolute arsehole - "I'm clever so my view is more valid". That same unappealing tone of Pete North.

www.melaniephillips.com/irexit-no-brainer/

Oh, and Melanie Phillips thinks Ireland should leave the EU (because it will make it easier for the UK and Leavers never thought about that). Yep, OK Melanie.

Oh, and Melanie Phillips

can fuck right off.

What if all taxes (maybe a few exceptions) were increased by a small amount?

VAT
Council tax
Fuel

Research has shown that this disproportionately affects low income households and I think with the current shower of shit in power theyve suffered enough as it is.

The entire Ireland should leave is like when your mate gets himself involved in a bad deal and needs you to bail him out so he pressures you into making a really bad choice. If you're stupid enough to fall for it the mate probably gets off barely touched whilst you're shafted for life.
Thankfully it's ridiculously transparent.

The discussion in this thread shows that we're not really equipped for radical ideas ... they all suggest tinkering with the existing system ... where's our revolutionary spirit ?

Why not a sliding tax rate dependent on age ? The younger you are, the more tax you pay, easing off as you age (and need more money for housing and families).

Or why not a social infrastructure where you can trade your wages - whatever they are - for a guaranteed home and income to cover living. It may sound exploitative, but it would provide lifetime security for some people, against their paying more into the system than they take ?

If I freewheeled a bit, I could probably come up with 5 more suggestions that are not just rearranging the deckchairs.

I thought desperate times foster radical ideas ? Of course my 5 ideas could be total pants. But the second rule of brainstorming is that you never reject anything out of hand - some ideas are so crazy they might just work

(Of course the first rule of brainstorming is you don't talk about brainstorming).

(with the caveat that I am not an economist ...)

Ultimately, I think we need to face the fact that the days of a "growing economy " are over. Simply because for any economy to keep growing it must at some fundamental level be consuming more resources. And it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that we (as in "the human race") are not sitting on an infinite store of resources.

Really we should be asking how we can make a static economy work ?

Even though it slightly sticks in my craw, Nigel Farage did ask an interesting question ages ago which I have never heard or seen adequately answered. It could be that it's so facile that it doesn't need answering. But generally unanswered questions stick in my mind - I am not a big fan of "received" wisdom. I prefer it spelt out (in alphabetti spaghetti if needs be). That question was in regards of the UK needing immigration to drive growth. Farage just asked "why is there this obsession with growth ? Could we not accept a stable economy at the expense of growth ?". I presume the underlying sentiment was to reduce immigration, which might trip the racist ! flag. But given that not talking about certain subjects has done more damage than talking about them, it struck me as an interesting challenge. Personally I don't like the sentiment - immigration adds a lot more to the UK than economic growth. But I would have liked a serious rebuttal based on economics.

And if we are doomed to scrabble forever for "growth" at what point will the planet give way under our feet ?

I was chatting with an economics Prof last week and asked him for his radical ideas about what Govts should do. One was to impose a 40% tax on all advertising on the basis that most adverts are purely to make us consume stuff we don't need. I like it.

Note Jolson Maugham responded to DAG's piece on Cumming's view that he was giving it an 'intellectual dignity' it didn't deserve.

Cumming is very clearly spinning for his life. I don't believe he really believes that institutional change within the UK is more important than the deal. He can see we will get a shit deal and is looking for something to blame Brexit failure on.

I like DAG but he can sometimes be a bit naive.

Jolyon. Scuz autocorrect.

Is that the same Melanie Philipps who thinks that Ireland isn't really a nation as (part of it) has only been independent for less than 100 years? As though being invaded and oppressed means that a people ceases to be a people?

F. off indeed, imperialist twat.

Cummings problem: he wants instant change and a 'revolution'. Revolutions have a habit of having a large human cost attached.

This revolution he seems to be seeking is one that most things that Leave represents are counter to that. The people leading Brexit ATM don't have an understanding about social change. They are the biggest resisters. We've 'had enough of experts' is a direct Cummings thought.

The issue there is you have to have a large number of quality people who offer alternative ideas and skills to fill the void of 'experts' for that to work. A different kind of expert if you will. With a proper knowledge of problems and a range of imaginative and practical potential solutions. Who are these people? You can't just tell people to think differently. They either think differently or they don't and that's a long term thing not a revolutionary one. The people filling the vacuums forming are just vocal pushy people who don't have a fucking clue about anything. Cummings old friend, Gove is the very best case in point. Others are just doing what they are told because May's management style is autocratic and discourages free thinking.

Cummings wants to up end the old ways and heirarchy but it's lead by people who might be outside the liberal bubble but are still very firmly - if not more so - within the elite bubble who have little if any life experience outside that. People who are not careerists with bare naked personal ambition. It's the ones who think they are outside this elite, but are the very definition of it who are often the most disturbing ones. The 'i've worked on zero hours contracts' types who were lawyers on £250 a hour, type thinking.

I think I know what Cummings is getting at in terms of being frustrated at how government works. Perhaps in different ways, but certainly it's at least in part structural. It's about who is attracted to the profession and who is able to get jobs and a lack of decent accountability.

How the logic of going after the EU as a means to achieve that works I don't know. It's a particularly British and domestic problem.

Using leaving the EU as a vehicle to do it is akin to amputating you head because you have a head ache.

'Outside the box' thinkers are there to influence rather than be central pillars in my opinion. They have value. Give them too much influence and the danger is they get carried away and an over inflated ego. The balance is fine. It works for entrepreneurs because they carry the risk. In government with vulnerable carrying the burden of risk? That's your great leader supported by a wealth of supporting visionaries of which there is no sign. They are the rarest of the rare. You need a Churchill figure with a bunch of Norman Lambs walking behind. People with long term single issue passions and campaign experience, who have a good understanding of lots of things under the radar and not being tackled with a desire to change the system with practical advice and knowledge they have gained from other frustrated campaigners further down the chain. Where personal ambition comes secondary to this goal.

Instead we have a great mediocrity of politicians (to be generous about it) many of whom are just out for themselves.

The very idea that anything like what Cummings wants could be achieved in two years is away with the fairies. Even with a 5-10 year transition it'll struggle. It requires people to have fully developed ideas and principles to achieving problems. Aka a plan.

This is what Cummings is waking up to. He was asked repeatedly what the plan was. Now he's lamenting the lack of plan. It was fucking obvious you needed that and needed good people and leadership to pull it off.

I really don't think he understood the scale of the problem.

Red: "Either way seeing this beauty from Dominic Cummings really is quite something to behold. He really does get a gold star wanker award doesn't he?

'Oh I thought we could fix things by destroying them and then rebuilding it. Unfortunately my plan for to take a sledge hammer to everything was ignored and instead we are just going to blow things up. I have not idea where all the pieces go. They are all in the wrong shape and I don't know how we rebuild it. I'll ignore the glaringly obvious that I didn't have a plan to fix it if we'd taken my preferred sledge hammer option either. But hey the government are fucking it up and my idea was better' not that I didn't have a fucking plan in the first place.

Tosser."

That was basically his role at the DfE in the Gove era too - taking a sledgehammer to the state education system with academies and free schools and whatnot.

Quoting fail above, but you get the gist.

Few if any other Brexiters are on board with Cummings' plans for revolution. It's very much in his head.

The idealism and immaturity involved in the idea that the new order will automatically be better than the old is marked. Particularly, if the reforms are enacted against the clock.

Gove's idiotic 'reforms' are a good example, as are Andrew Lansley's.