Politics Thread!

[offyoutoddle]

The passed a law a little while back meaning that welfare spending is capped. If they want to spend more they have to go back to parliament to get permission.

They have a majority and they could probably secure that vote. However it'd be a very public climbdown and something, I think, they'd have to do anually.

do you know if that includes the 12bn off the top or not?

[offyoutoddle]

Here’s the Labour MP for Streatham on where Labour went wrong and what it should do next:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-we-made

This is the same guy who is named as a possible leader to replace Miliband.

There seems to be much more that speaks to his party than speaking to country at large. I hope they have greater thinkers than that hidden away.

BTW, moving parliament hardly seems to be much of a priority to my mind. Speaks more of the needs of the politicians again rather than those of the people, since any benefits to the local economies are largely difficult to measure.

[pogo]

Well, yes. And that is a clear statement of intent on where he stands. Labour need to have that internal conversation first, as they can hardly lay out a programme for government if they don’t know know where they stand. Good luck to him as from what I’ve seen he seems to be just what Labour needs.

You should know by now I keep banging on about building more houses as a simple way to deal with both the social problems and the economic problems caused by the housing shortage. But London is harder to solve: hard to build more houses without radical surgery to the green belt which is politically expensive, while new infrastructure (e.g. Crossrail) is economically very expensive and has only a marginal effect.

So tackling demand is an obvious way forward. And the government has a large say over that as accounts for much of it, both directly with all the people it employs in London and indirectly with all the people there because London is the centre of government. It would also seem an ideal time to do it, part of an overhaul of the institutions of government such as properly reforming the House of Lords.

[Cloudane]

My stream is full of people trying to equate "lefties" - i.e. anyone not far right, and basically any Labour supporters - with Nazis (although most of it is from the same guy who seems to be on an endless right wing ranting and retweeting spree). Thanks to the idiots doing a violent protest in London and defacing a war memorial for giving them ammunition! This is why we can't have nice things.

It's interesting how a bit of anger and speaking up about a particular side of an issue (meaning on social media here, not the riot) can so easily be spun by opponents as "big mean fascists denying me any political opinions". It's like when people call out religious extremists for being dicks towards the LGBT community e.g. trying to deny gays the freedom to get married (note: churches are not forced into it. They're just no longer prevented by law) or yelling in their faces that God hates them and they'll all burn in Hell, and when challenged on this the religious extremists are all "these goddam liberal LGBT SJWs denying me muh religious freedom!"

You're free to be batshit horrible levels of religious or right wing. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to stop. Just don't act all surprised and "help help I'm being repressed!" if people push back with an opposing view.

hounding the vulnerable to the point of killing them isn't cheap.

Wouldn't that depend on whether their family can afford to take legal action against them? I'd have thought hounding them to death means they don't have to pay for them existing any more.

What may have done the most harm was turning up on TV and stating in the run up to the election that Labour didn't wreck the economy last time round. I beleve he specifically defended their record on overspending, but it was to most peoples mind a technicality, because it was under their stewardship the economy ran aground, and arguing that it wasn't because of so-and-so a reason just came across as less politically wise than, say an apology and statement of lessons learned might of.

It was probably that, yeah. I had the same knee-jerk reaction, but there have been some pretty convincing arguments suggesting that he was quite right, they didn't ruin the economy. There have also been a lot of fair suggestions that the banks did though, and that having to bail them out didn't help.

Unfortunately a key problem may be that most of us know fuck-all about economics on this scale and so can only jump to various conclusions based on our world views (e.g. the greedy rich and reckless banks as one view vs. self-entitled scrounging hug-an-immigrant lefties etc as the other). If the economy is not a compulsory, unbiased class in schools (wasn't in my day) then it really should be made to be so that future generations are more informed with their choices.
It doesn't help that giving there are two strongly opposing views between even the actual political leaders, it must mean that one of them doesn't know anything about how the economy works either. We should be able to tell which one it is, and most can't. There are plenty of people on both sides of the argument swearing blind that they do know, one set of which is either lying or misguided, and so the only way to know which one to listen to is to know yourself. I admit to being pretty clueless. Consider that most people wouldn't care to admit that, and yet we all have an equal vote and it seems pretty important to have compulsory education on these matters.

[zip accident]

Unfortunately a key problem may be that most of us know fuck-all about economics on this scale and so can only jump to various conclusions based on our world views (e.g. the greedy rich and reckless banks as one view vs. self-entitled scrounging hug-an-immigrant lefties etc as the other). If the economy is not a compulsory, unbiased class in schools (wasn't in my day) then it really should be made to be so that future generations are more informed with their choices.
It doesn't help that giving there are two strongly opposing views between even the actual political leaders, it must mean that one of them doesn't know anything about how the economy works either. We should be able to tell which one it is, and most can't. There are plenty of people on both sides of the argument swearing blind that they do know, one set of which is either lying or misguided, and so the only way to know which one to listen to is to know yourself. I admit to being pretty clueless. Consider that most people wouldn't care to admit that, and yet we all have an equal vote and it seems pretty important to have compulsory education on these matters.

I think it comes down to they're both wrong.

Classic economics assumes that violence isn't part of life, which is unfortunately false.

Marxist economics assumes that it's all predestined to end up in a worker's paradise, and nothing anyone can do will in any way change that.

Those, as far as I can tell, are the main economic theories, and they're both bunk.

[VNVObit]

hounding the vulnerable to the point of killing them isn't cheap.

Wouldn't that depend on whether their family can afford to take legal action against them? I'd have thought hounding them to death means they don't have to pay for them existing any more.

Even if the family cannot afford to take legal action it still costs the state money as undoubtedly they will become ill before hand (additional unnecessary demand on NHS resources)

[pogo]

What may have done the most harm was turning up on TV and stating in the run up to the election that Labour didn't wreck the economy last time round. I beleve he specifically defended their record on overspending, but it was to most peoples mind a technicality, because it was under their stewardship the economy ran aground, and arguing that it wasn't because of so-and-so a reason just came across as less politically wise than, say an apology and statement of lessons learned might of.

I’m pretty sure he didn’t defend Labour’s record on overspending. I mean when challenged about the deficit and the fiscal hole, and given every opportunity to either defend or apologise for Labour’s record, he blamed it entirely on the banks. He owned up to not regulating the banks, but that just came across at another attempt to pass the buck, and bash bankers in the process. Besides it was wrong: the crisis had little to do with UK bank regulation, judging by the number of other countries that had or are having similar crises. Our regulation regime worked very well to bring a swift end to the banking crisis and close down, merge or recapitalise banks.

His problem is the facts since 2010 refute his argument. The Conservatives have found it hard to cut benefits. Education and health have escaped cuts. But they have been able to save billions by cutting waste in the civil service, without impacting services. I.e. they have been able to undo much of Labour’s expansion of government, without causing damage. Which suggests that much of the borrowing-fueled spending spree undertaken by Blair and Brown was not useful investment but unnecessary, wasteful overspend. In any case it certainly happened and Miliband repeatedly denying it just made him look stupid.

[tufty]

it must mean that one of them doesn't know anything about how the economy works either.

false.

Even if we assume that all economies behave the same way under all conditions, which is the kind of wild overgeneralisation even pogo might balk at, all you can say is that *at least* one of them must be wrong. This does not preclude "they are all wrong"

If we do away with that assumption, we are left with the possibility that, within specific operating conditions, they could all be right. Or wrong. Or both.

[pogo]

Classic economics assumes that violence isn't part of life, which is unfortunately false.

Not sure what you mean by “Classic economics” but economists certainly are able to describe violence, even if it’s hard to include in their models. Gives me an excuse to post this, from Interfluidity, an only occasionally updated blog which when it is updated is essential reading. This particular post in only a few minutes demolishes all the popular theories about the recent Baltimore disturbances/protests/riots. Warning, contains language:

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html

[zip accident]

Classic economics assumes that violence isn't part of life, which is unfortunately false.

Not sure what you mean by “Classic economics” but economists certainly are able to describe violence, even if it’s hard to include in their models.

Their models assume there is no violence. Their models assume violence is an aberation that all right thinking people reject as wrong, except as a reaction to other previous violence. 1066 was robbers taking over the bank and owning it, because they beat the owners, and there were no higher authorities. The divine right of kings is the failure of religion to defeat violence without using violence themselves.

The models of classic economics come from Locke's idea that I make something my property by mixing my labour with it. No, in a state of nature I make something my property by saying "this is mine and I'll fight to keep it".

Gives me an excuse to post this, from Interfluidity, an only occasionally updated blog which when it is updated is essential reading. This particular post in only a few minutes demolishes all the popular theories about the recent Baltimore disturbances/protests/riots. Warning, contains language:

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html

Actually, I think he's nearer to agreeing with me, than agreeing with classical economics.

[F-ZeroOne]

My stream is full of people trying to equate "lefties" - i.e. anyone not far right, and basically any Labour supporters - with Nazis (although most of it is from the same guy who seems to be on an endless right wing ranting and retweeting spree). Thanks to the idiots doing a violent protest in London and defacing a war memorial for giving them ammunition! This is why we can't have nice things.

It's interesting how a bit of anger and speaking up about a particular side of an issue (meaning on social media here, not the riot) can so easily be spun by opponents as "big mean fascists denying me any political opinions".

I think the short version is, people who claim "facism" have absolutely no idea what that means, because they've never had to experience it. If it really was facism, you would only get to express your opinion once - after that, you are then shot, transported to a concentration camp, or strung up with piano wire. [1]

[1] I suppose, strictly speaking, a facist government doesn't have to respond in that way, but the historical precedent is not good.

[offyoutoddle]

I’m pretty sure he didn’t defend Labour’s record on overspending.

I'm pretty sure he did:

http://news.sky.com/video/1475524/milib ... r-spending

http://www.msn.com/en-za/news/other/mil ... vp-BBiZ3MJ

https://www.politicshome.com/economy-an ... -overspend


the main point however is not which detail he wanted to argue on - rather, that politically he would have been far better advised to take a line of 'mistakes were made and this is what we will do to avoid such things happening again'. The failure to do so leaves the inescapable conclusion that they would make the same mistakes all over again, with similar results.

[pogo]

"Ed Miliband: Last Labour government did not overspend"

Which is what I remember him saying too. That’s not defending it, or apologising for it. That’s denying it happened, in other words denying reality. But people are not stupid. Some complained that Miliband suffered from an unusually hostile audience that night, but that’s what you get when you insult people’s intelligence.

[offyoutoddle]

I really don't have an appetite for semantics to be honest. The point was , ironically, people trying to make a discussion about something they felt more comfortable about when they knew what was meant.

[(o)(o)]