Politics Thread!

[Harlequin]

More on Scotland. I noted last week that Scotland has two real choices, using the pound without monetary union, "Sterlingisation", and a new currency. Here's the FT on the same subject:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/09/10/1 ... it-anyway/
They agree that Scotland can't 'share the pound', or at least not with a negotiated agreement with the rest of the UK (rUK) over common financial policies, bank policies, transfers, etc. I.e. the sort of thing that's failed in the eurozone and what they'll be rejecting if they vote yes.

Did Ireland not do this for about fifty years?

[gravy]

Ireland pegged its own currency to the pound. It didn't share it.

It's a pretty important distinction

EDIT: sorry that's actually what you're saying, misread

[pogo]

Yes, Ireland had its own currency. It also had a currency board. This is a system where the government maintains a peg to another currency by stockpiling enough of that currency to buy all of its own in circulation. So the Irish board would have enough GP£ for all the IE£ in circulation. If someone tried to sell off IE£ to force it down then the board had enough GB£ to buy them. All of them if necessary. Which makes it unnecessary to actually do so most of the time: the markets knowing the currency is adequately defended don't attack it. It's the system Hong Kong uses to peg the HK$ to the US$.

The problem is it's very expensive. You need a stock of currency at least equal to your own money supply, sitting in an account ready for use. It's only really possible for countries able to run large surpluses for a number of years. So it's not an option for Scotland.

Besides its unclear a peg would benefit them. If they have their own currency, which is the only sensible option, then letting it float freely makes a lot of sense. It makes it easier to adjust to asymmetries between countries, in particular between the rUK and Scotland. The example of the eurozone shows how much damage poorly designed pegged/shared currencies can have; the countries there would be much better off with varying exchange rates.

[Jimaroid]

So then, Labour Party conference time. Can anyone now claim this lot aren't utterly fucking useless?

We may as well not even bother having an election next year.

[VNVObit]

So then, Labour Party conference time. Can anyone now claim this lot aren't utterly fucking useless?

We may as well not even bother having an election next year.

The election ceases to be about who you think can best run the country to the party you least detest.

[Darkflame]

Sometimes clueless people might be better then those going in a direction you don't want too.
Clueless you can hope they don't actually manage to get much done.

Detestable is probably the biggest factor though these days. Its hard to think rationally about overall policy and "leaser evil" when you have specific things the current guy in charge has said you think are disgusting.

-sigh-
If we all got together can we vote in another countries government to run this place?

[VNVObit]

[merman]

And there it is.

The typical Tory tax bribe before an election.

Only... Osborne has now had to admit the £7bn in cuts (which benefit the rich more than the poor, because that's how it works when you change the thresholds) have not been fully costed.

Why make £3bn in cuts and then give away £7bn?

[Dio]

They haven't promised any cuts.

They've said they will make cuts, if the shortfall is sorted out, in 2020.

It's not a bribe for this election, it's a bribe for the next one.

Quite clever really, none of the press seem to have picked it up.

(and, to be completely fair, every government puts the bribe on before the election. It's clearly visible in the GDP / tax figures since about 1920. Indeed, Brown's biggest and perhaps only fuckup is he put the bribe on in 2008 but then bottled the election but had to leave the bribe on an extra two years in a drastically worsening economic situation, which left us at least an extra £20bn in the hole, maybe £40bn. And still bloody lost).

[merman]

They haven't promised any cuts.

They've said they will make cuts, if the shortfall is sorted out, in 2020.

It's not a bribe for this election, it's a bribe for the next one.

Quite clever really, none of the press seem to have picked it up.

(and, to be completely fair, every government puts the bribe on before the election. It's clearly visible in the GDP / tax figures since about 1920. Indeed, Brown's biggest and perhaps only fuckup is he put the bribe on in 2008 but then bottled the election but had to leave the bribe on an extra two years in a drastically worsening economic situation, which left us at least an extra £20bn in the hole, maybe £40bn. And still bloody lost).

They announced up to £25bn in "savings" during the next Parliament, and the Civil Service is telling them it will have to be in cuts.

And don't forget, Government debt is now 79% of GDP (even allowing for the recalculation that includes drug dealing & prostitution as economic activity).

[Dio]

Sure. The cut at the upper end of the scale is pretty unpleasant. At least we know exactly what we're not voting for. It's knowing what we are voting for that's the problem.

[VNVObit]

And don't forget, Government debt is now 79% of GDP (even allowing for the recalculation that includes drug dealing & prostitution as economic activity).

They really should tax those IIRC they're taxable income in Ireland, estimates raised then individuals have to disprove the income

[(o)(o)]

At least we know exactly what we're not voting for. It's knowing what we are voting for that's the problem.

The main problem is every political party in the running is 100% COCK.

A. Festering cunts B. Simpering charlatans or C. Monster raving loonies (UKIP) it's your "free choice". Simply tick the relevant box.

Funny how when people detect genuine democratic process - eg Scottish independence vote - people come out in their droves.

[VNVObit]

Cuts are meant to happen in the first 2 years

Thought Larry Elliot's pieces on what Cameron's Speech actually means was quite good as was the one on on Osborne's better position despite failing to deliver on some of his earlier pledges

[merman]

So, not only have the Tories not worked out how they are going to pay for their tax cuts, now Caameron is saying they will bring the cuts in before the economy is back in the black - as early as 2018.

So Gideon Osborne was going to clear the deficit in four years... I mean, before the next election... I mean, during the second term... I mean, before 2020. Gee, anyone would think he's been irresponsibly borrowing MORE MONEY IN FOUR YEARS THAN LABOUR BORROWED IN THIRTEEN YEARS IN POWER.