The negotiation of discussion on the price rise has stalled the parliament for a week. There were debates on the issue in the recent past too. The MP's don't subscribe to the view of Milton Friedman that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.Subsidy cuts, public distribution, hoarders and black-marketeers were blamed for the price rise, when monetary policy wasn't, writes M R Madhavan in The Indian Express.
Read the whole article here.
Parliament was stalled for a week as the government and opposition negotiated a discussion on the price rise of essential commodities.
Finally, Lok Sabha had the debate on Tuesday, and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
There have been several debates in Parliament on this issue in recent years. Indeed, this issue has been debated in each of the previous three full sessions of the current Lok Sabha. It is interesting to see what issues were brought up in these debates.
Monetarist economists, such as Milton Friedman, believed that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Not all economists agree with this view but almost all of them will say that change in money supply is an important contributor to price changes. However, our MPs do not seem to subscribe to this view. In nine debates since 2004 in the Lok Sabha, 224 speeches were made by MPs. Hardly any speech connected monetary policy with inflationary pressures. Subsidy cuts were mentioned 94 times while the public distribution system was blamed 43 times.
Another favourite scapegoat was hoarders and black-marketeers who were responsible for driving up prices — mentioned 42 times. A few speeches mentioned failure of monsoon and shortfall in crop output.
Note that all these issues are related to supply bottlenecks. There is hardly any mention of demand-led factors. This may be the politically expedient position. Loose monetary policy and a high fiscal deficit are not mentioned, possibly as no one wants to be seen as criticising either a pro-growth stance or rising government expenditure.
The debate this week saw a similar pattern. Fifty-five MPs expressed their views. Just one of them mentioned monetary policy as a possible tool to manage inflation. It is interesting to see that the content of parliamentary debates on inflation have not changed over the years, regardless of the actual inflation situation.
Showing posts with label price rise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label price rise. Show all posts
Monday, August 9, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Speaker's logic for rejection of adjournment motion, makes Opposition task tougher
Speaker Meira Kumar's logic for rejection of adjournment motion makes the task of the Opposition tougher. She said that the adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law", reports The Times Of India.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Speaker Meira Kumar's decision to disallow adjournment notices given by the Opposition for discussion on price rise can be trend-setting as it clarifies that the said section cannot be an instrument to force discussions on routine issues.
Kumar, while agreeing in her ruling on Wednesday that rise in prices of essential commodities was a matter of concern, said adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law". Quoting former Speaker G S Dhillon's ruling, she said the government's decision (to hike fuel prices) was its executive function and did not involve any failure of constitutional or legal duties.
The chair promised to consider notices under other sections for discussion on price rise.
The ruling may prove a dampner for the Opposition as it raises the bar on what constitutes a fit case for adjournment motion. While a similar demand by the Opposition in the last session was dismissed on the grounds that the issue raised had to be specific and of immediate occurrence, the fresh ground laid adds to the criteria for adjournment -- failure of government to discharge its constitutional and legal duties.
Observers feel this will test the Opposition when it next thinks of invoking this section. A conscious BJP drew lessons from the earlier rejection and, as Sushma Swaraj said, limited the notice to hike in LPG and kerosene prices.
Now on, to have a realistic chance of having its way on discussions, the Opposition may have to look at other possible options.
As the deadlock in Parliament persisted, Kumar on Thursday said she was trying to find a "way out" by taking all parties along. "It is the issue of price rise... it is a serious issue... and people also want something to happen. Let us see how we find a way out by taking everyone together," she told reporters.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Speaker Meira Kumar's decision to disallow adjournment notices given by the Opposition for discussion on price rise can be trend-setting as it clarifies that the said section cannot be an instrument to force discussions on routine issues.
Kumar, while agreeing in her ruling on Wednesday that rise in prices of essential commodities was a matter of concern, said adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law". Quoting former Speaker G S Dhillon's ruling, she said the government's decision (to hike fuel prices) was its executive function and did not involve any failure of constitutional or legal duties.
The chair promised to consider notices under other sections for discussion on price rise.
The ruling may prove a dampner for the Opposition as it raises the bar on what constitutes a fit case for adjournment motion. While a similar demand by the Opposition in the last session was dismissed on the grounds that the issue raised had to be specific and of immediate occurrence, the fresh ground laid adds to the criteria for adjournment -- failure of government to discharge its constitutional and legal duties.
Observers feel this will test the Opposition when it next thinks of invoking this section. A conscious BJP drew lessons from the earlier rejection and, as Sushma Swaraj said, limited the notice to hike in LPG and kerosene prices.
Now on, to have a realistic chance of having its way on discussions, the Opposition may have to look at other possible options.
As the deadlock in Parliament persisted, Kumar on Thursday said she was trying to find a "way out" by taking all parties along. "It is the issue of price rise... it is a serious issue... and people also want something to happen. Let us see how we find a way out by taking everyone together," she told reporters.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Parliament impasse ends, Lok Sabha to discuss, without voting, price rise
The parliament will discuss price rise under rule 342.BJP opposed a debate not followed by voting. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added. Both sides claimed victory.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Parliament disrupted for the third day in row
The Parliament was disrupted for the third day in a row with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting. Sharad Yadav appealed that the opposition should be heard, and the Government didn't comply, reports The Hindu.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Proceedings in both Houses of Parliament were disrupted for the third day on Thursday with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting.
However, the statutory resolution granting approval for imposition of President's rule in Jharkhand was passed without debate.
Raising the demand in the Lok Sabha for a discussion under Rule 184 after the demand for an adjournment motion was rejected by Speaker Meira Kumar on Wednesday, Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said the Opposition was “hurt and disappointed” by her ruling, and hence sought a discussion under Rule 184 — as suggested by her — which should be taken up after doing away with question hour. “The matter should be taken up immediately so that the House functions normally,” Ms. Swaraj said.
Sharad Yadav's plea
Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav also appealed to the Speaker to ensure that the Opposition was heard, as the government had refused to do so. The Opposition sought a discussion under the new rule after deliberating on the issue overnight. “Even the people were pained at your decision, but we have accepted it, and now demand that the discussion be taken up.” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that this was the first time the entire Opposition had come together on one issue. “If the House is not functioning, it is because of the government and not us.”
Ms. Kumar said the notices she received for discussion under Rule 184 were being examined, and would have to be sent to the Business Advisory Committee for approval.
Intervening, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government was not shying away from discussing any issue, but notices under Rule 193 (not entailing voting) received earlier would be taken up first.
His remarks evoked a sharp reaction from the Opposition members, who trooped into the well. The House was adjourned soon after.
The scene was no better when the House re-assembled at noon. The Opposition members, including those of the SP and the BSP, stormed into the well. But the Speaker went ahead with the laying of papers and even getting approval for the proclamation that put Jharkhand under President's rule under Article 356 (1) on June 1.
In the Rajya Sabha too, the Opposition members made the same demand, leading to two adjournments. It was adjourned for the day at noon after papers were tabled and approval was granted for President's rule in Jharkhand. Again, without any discussion.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Proceedings in both Houses of Parliament were disrupted for the third day on Thursday with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting.
However, the statutory resolution granting approval for imposition of President's rule in Jharkhand was passed without debate.
Raising the demand in the Lok Sabha for a discussion under Rule 184 after the demand for an adjournment motion was rejected by Speaker Meira Kumar on Wednesday, Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said the Opposition was “hurt and disappointed” by her ruling, and hence sought a discussion under Rule 184 — as suggested by her — which should be taken up after doing away with question hour. “The matter should be taken up immediately so that the House functions normally,” Ms. Swaraj said.
Sharad Yadav's plea
Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav also appealed to the Speaker to ensure that the Opposition was heard, as the government had refused to do so. The Opposition sought a discussion under the new rule after deliberating on the issue overnight. “Even the people were pained at your decision, but we have accepted it, and now demand that the discussion be taken up.” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that this was the first time the entire Opposition had come together on one issue. “If the House is not functioning, it is because of the government and not us.”
Ms. Kumar said the notices she received for discussion under Rule 184 were being examined, and would have to be sent to the Business Advisory Committee for approval.
Intervening, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government was not shying away from discussing any issue, but notices under Rule 193 (not entailing voting) received earlier would be taken up first.
His remarks evoked a sharp reaction from the Opposition members, who trooped into the well. The House was adjourned soon after.
The scene was no better when the House re-assembled at noon. The Opposition members, including those of the SP and the BSP, stormed into the well. But the Speaker went ahead with the laying of papers and even getting approval for the proclamation that put Jharkhand under President's rule under Article 356 (1) on June 1.
In the Rajya Sabha too, the Opposition members made the same demand, leading to two adjournments. It was adjourned for the day at noon after papers were tabled and approval was granted for President's rule in Jharkhand. Again, without any discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
