Politics Thread!

[F-ZeroOne]

A new challenger appears!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32531750

[merman]

For whatever the politics, the economics of austerity are no different in Britain from what they are in the rest of the advanced world. Harsh austerity in depressed economies isn’t necessary, and does major damage when it is imposed. That was true of Britain five years ago – and it’s still true today.

Read that yesterday. Yes, just as predicted in 2010 by 50 economists (including Mr Wren-Lewis), austerity:

At a time when recovery is delicate it could even affect confidence to the degree that we are tipped back into recession – with much larger job consequences.

But it didn’t happen. There wasn’t a second recession, there wasn’t major damage to the economy, the job market is doing well, by some measures (e.g. the % in employment) the best ever. The disastrous damage austerity was predicted to do didn’t happen. What’s surprising is some on the left, rather than admitting they were wrong, are doubling down and trying to find damage that isn’t there.

The narrative I’m talking about goes like this: In the years before the financial crisis, the British government borrowed irresponsibly, so that the country was living far beyond its means. As a result, by 2010 Britain was at imminent risk of a Greek-style crisis; austerity policies, slashing spending in particular, were essential. And this turn to austerity is vindicated by Britain’s low borrowing costs, coupled with the fact that the economy, after several rough years, is now growing quite quickly.

And most of this is correct. The one thing that is wrong is that we were not at risk of a Greek-style crisis (though we thought so at the time); not only is Greek one of a kind but with our own currency we are not in danger of the sort of problems faced by eurozone countries. Instead though if the government had kept on spending and borrowing at such a rate it would have put further pressure on the pound, causing markets to shun it causing further rises in inflation, having a greater impact on standards of living. And the debt would keep rising, requiring even steeper cuts to bring it under control later. That’s something we can learn from Greece: rolling over and putting off repaying debt just means more debt, higher repayment costs down the road.

BUT the Tories continue to campaign on the basis that they saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis caused by Labour spending. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Major borrowed and borrowed. Brown spent four years of prudence paying off the debt. Yes, things went wrong from there - but it was THE BANK BAILOUT that led to the deficit.

[tufty]

He and you can assert that, but it does not make it right. I invite you to explain how I am wrong if you think it evidently so.

It's not that the assertion (or any of the other lines you run) is necessarily right or wrong, it's that you are parroting it as though it were some sort of unalienable truth, despite the existence of a whole load of ifs, buts, maybes, mights and coulds.. The same goes for the bullshit you spout about rent controls and mansion tax and inheritance tax and ...

In this case, Krugman (someone you've previously taken as preaching god's holy word, if I'm not mistaken) is pointing out that austerity has hitherto been shown to be almost exclusively bad for everyone except for the rich, and that it's never saved anyone from anything; the fact that the UK has somehow managed to limp though it is not proof that austerity works and that, ipso facto, everything that comes from Osborne is economic gold, it's just proof that the UK's economy managed to keep itself alive despite austerity.

It's not like you have a pony in the race anyway. You have repeatedly claimed that the policies the Tories have inflicted on the UK weren't austerity. And that austerity was bad, come to that.

[pogo]

As I recall I have agreed with Krugman where he has laid into the stupidity of our European partners and their misadventure of a currency union. And it was then I noticed him being less than careful at clarifying whether he meant just the eurozone (not including us) or Europe (including us). I have tried to make the distinction clear in my own writing.

Austerity is not automatically better for the rich. As far as it involves lower interest rates, lower company profits and lower growth it’s bad for those with assets such as bonds and shares. It has of course been very bad for many involved in banking. The detail of this government’s programs have been broadly progressive, with tax cuts especially for the low paid, as well as cuts falling on well paid civil servants but avoiding cuts to services.

I have never said we had no cuts here, which would be silly. I don’t like to use the word austerity because of its association with the failed policies in the eurozone, which are of an entirely different nature to the limited cuts here, and so the negative association of the word. Also much of the austerity experienced by people, due to stagnant wages and high inflation, was due to the recession, not any policy of this government. “Cuts” makes it much clearer what is being referred to.

[gravy]

Wonder if this is going to blow up big?

http://www.channel4.com/news/cameron-da ... servatives

[VNVObit]

Wonder if this is going to blow up big?

http://www.channel4.com/news/cameron-da ... servatives

brief look at newspaper headlines suggests not yet
more obsessed with last night's question time

[Cloudane]

Wow, dat QT episode

Alright, people aren't picking on Miliband because of his appearance or that he bumbles a bit. He genuinely did seem completely useless there
It's a shame - I tend to agree with Labour's general principles and policies (and Greens but they can be a bit extreme) but in my view he demonstrated comprehensively that they've learned absolutely nothing from the mistakes that got them kicked out in 2010. They're really not making themselves easy to vote for.

Hilariously, because I supported them a while ago I still get Labour emails. Today's starts out:

I don't know about you, but watching Ed's brilliant performance on Question Time just now, I felt so proud to be on his team

Did I subscribe to a satirical newsletter by mistake?


In all seriousness I still don't know for sure who I'll be voting for and just basically want a box that says "anything but UKIP". Most other eventualities seem like something we can get through, and I don't think the Tories have done all that badly - though whether that's because they had the Lib Dems breathing down their neck is another question. Something like a Tory/UKIP coalition could be more of a cause for concern. OTOH I'm not sure even that would be a terrible thing - it'd appease the UKIP support crowd a bit, rather than making them louder and angrier and shouting more about being repressed by the liberals. Better to vent it than let it build, maybe *shrug*. I'm just concerned how many I've heard saying they're going to vote for them because they like beer.

[VNVObit]

Thought Cameron was slick and a little oily. Evasive with his answers which were confidently given albeit to the questions he would like to have been asked rather than the ones he actually was.

Milliband was obviously passionate about what he believes but his media training really got in the way
Telling people he's glad they asked ... Became quite grating after a short while.

Clegg 28 minutes 220c well roasted. Took the open hostility well but came across as someone who's learnt from last time so won't have any principles that could be compromised. Naturally only one hoping for another coalition


If I was floating none of them would have changed my mind.

[Cloudane]

Slick an oily was a pretty good description of Cameron really. I'd say he did the best of the 3, but there was one particular question towards the end that he evaded at least 3 times.

Felt for Clegg a bit when some guy just gloated "any plans for when you're unemployed next week", bit of a dick comment really.

[phattslagg]

The people who gave Miliband such a grilling last might have been exposed as Tory plants, today.

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-tha ... -audience/

Cameron was given a relatively easy ride, I thought. Switched over when Clegg came on.

[gravy]

Milliband was okay but Cameron played his hand the best for sure. That seems borne out by the post debate polls as well.

It's all looking hyper fucked right now, if everyone sticks to their NO COALITION OR DEALS WITH X rules we'll be without a government for a while

[gravy]

Some of the SNP supporters on my FB feed are getting on my tits a bit.

Lots of piss-whinging about Milliband saying he will not deal with them.

For my money that's fair enough, if that's what he believes and the platform he's standing then that's what it is. Labour have repeatedly said they don't believe in the UK being broken up you can't moan that they won't hand leverage to a party created specifically to do that.

Conversely the SNP why would the SNP want to work with a party where a United Kingdom and keeping Trident are pretty fundamental principles?

[pogo]

It’s understandable the SNP are unhappy: Miliband has ruled out any deal or partnership with the SNP. He’s going to dare the SNP to support him as PM, or vote him down and trigger another election and risk the Tories winning outright. Not sure the SNP will play along though: with up to 50% of the vote in Scotland they will feel they have a strong mandate.

After all the Lib-Dems were able to get many of their policies adopted. But the Lib Dems were centrist, broadly in line with the British electorate. The SNP are very Scottish and to the left even of the Labour party (which itself is well to the left of Tony Blair’s government, so is set to be the most left-wing government since the 1970s). Anything the SNP wants will be deeply unpopular in England, and giving in to them would be terrible for Labour’s support. Puts both Labour and the SNP on the spot really. Can they really work together and find common ground that won’t look like surrender to their supporters?

[Dio]

Anything the SNP wants will be deeply unpopular in England

You can speak for your bit of England if you want, but in the north, there's probably a great deal of sympathy for it. Hence Mrs. Gove's suggestion that England might be better off without Scotland, and the northern bits of it.

[pogo]

Anything the SNP wants will be deeply unpopular in England

You can speak for your bit of England if you want, but in the north, there's probably a great deal of sympathy for it. Hence Mrs. Gove's suggestion that England might be better off without Scotland, and the northern bits of it.

England would be better off financially, though not so much we’d notice. I mean it would be a big deal for Scotland if they had independence, or even just full fiscal authority. Even if you take a high figure of the difference in the deficit being 3% of the GDP which the Scottish government would have to find that’s only 0.3% of GDP of the UK as a whole, i.e. a rounding error in the normal scheme of things. That’s just Scotland; there’s no support for bits of England splitting off as well.

Labour, or at least Ed Miliband, seems to think that the problem with the Brown/Blair government was they weren’t radical enough. I remember it differently – they were far more radical, in particular in their expansion of the state, than most people realised at the time. So a Labour government seems set to be the most left wing since the 1970s. And I don’t think that will go down well with voters if it happens; politically I think the UK centre is somewhere between the Labour of Blair and Brown and the Conservatism of Cameron and Osborne, as can be seen in the split of the votes.

So the SNP if they manage to drag Labour even further left will drag it even further from the political centre. Not only will such policies not go down well in themselves, but they will be especially disliked if Labour is seen to be giving in to the SNP to stay in power.

The only thing worse would be things purely to benefit Scotland. An even larger subsidy, scrapping Trident, HS2/3 starting in Scotland, even another referendum so soon after the last. That would go down like a lead balloon in England, and be a gift to all of the opposition parties who would make sure Labour paid an electoral price for every one of such policies.