Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Again, 2010 or 1992 would have have been very different results. 2010 would have seen a outright Tory majority, 1992 a much larger one; the Tories narrow win in 1992 set them up for five fractious years over Europe.

[gravy]

1992 Conservative govt (Major)
———————————————
Conservative majority: 21
Without Scottish MPs: 71
NO CHANGE


2010's Scottish votes didn't deliver a majority for Labour that had fewer vores than the Tories.

It would have been a Conservative majority without Scottish Labour votes but that has nothing to do with this:

Even worse for Labour the loss of Scotland eliminates their main source of electoral bias, which let them win a majority with fewer votes than the Tories.

Which is a lie. Or ignorance. To be fair I would have thought the same as you if we hadn't just gone through the Scottish independance refferendum. After that? I don't understand how it's possible to claim to have an interest in politics yet be unaware of Scottish Labour voting's effect on the UK in modern times.

[(o)(o)]

But the other point from the last election: it shows that the politics of this country is mostly centre right.

Politics that appears right leaning doesn't necessarily correspond with what informed people vote for. Cultural hegemony is endemic naturally those that are brainwashed or have their heads rammed up their own arses have difficulty seeing this.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpubl ... wrong.aspx

FPTP is a particularly effective tool for homogenizing and shoehorning dissenting opinion.



We haven't got real democracy in the UK. 83% didn't back this cunt of a government.

There isn’t broad or strong support for left wing policies. In particular very few support the “no more austerity” message of the marchers that turned out in London. It’s not even supported by a majority of the Labour party.

Tell you who opposes austerity. Fucking only the worlds top leading economists, that's who.

For someone so vocal you minced off double quick when this was posted.....

The chancellor’s plans, announced in his Mansion House speech, for “permanent budget surpluses” are nothing more than an attempt to outmanoeuvre his opponents (Report, 10 June). They have no basis in economics. Osborne’s proposals are not fit for the complexity of a modern 21st-century economy and, as such, they risk a liquidity crisis that could also trigger banking problems, a fall in GDP, a crash, or all three.

Economies rely on the principle of sectoral balancing, which states that sectors of the economy borrow and lend from and to each other, and their surpluses and debts must arithmetically balance out in monetary terms, because every credit has a corresponding debit. In other words, if one sector of the economy lends to another, it must be in debt by the same amount as the borrower is in credit. The economy is always in balance as a result, if just not at the right place. The government’s budget position is not independent of the rest of the economy, and if it chooses to try to inflexibly run surpluses, and therefore no longer borrow, the knock-on effect to the rest of the economy will be significant. Households, consumers and businesses may have to borrow more overall, and the risk of a personal debt crisis to rival 2008 could be very real indeed.

These plans tie the government’s hands, meaning it won’t be able to respond appropriately to constantly evolving economic circumstances, good or bad. The plan actually takes away one of the central purposes of modern government: to deliver a stable economy in which all can prosper. It is irresponsible for the chancellor to take such risky experiments with the economy to score political points. This policy requires an urgent rethink.

Dr Ha-Joon Chang University of Cambridge
Thomas Piketty Paris School of Economics
David Blanchflower Bruce V Rauner professor of economics at Dartmouth College and ex-monetary policy committee
Prof Mariana Mazzucato RM Phillips professor in the economics of innovation, University of Sussex
Jared Bernstein Former chief economist and economic adviser to vice-president Joe Biden
Prof Simon Wren-Lewis University of Oxford
Prof Victoria Chick University College London
Prof Ozlem Onaran Department of international business and economics, University of Greenwich
Prof Engelbert Stockhammer Professor of economics, University of Kingston
Howard Reed Director, Landman Economics
Richard Murphy Tax Research UK
Stewart Lansley Visiting fellow, Bristol University Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
Prof Andrew Cumbers Professor of political economy, Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Prof Malcolm Sawyer, Emeritus professor of economics, Leeds University Business School
Prof George Irvin Professorial research fellow, Soas, University of London
Prof John Weeks Emeritus professor, Soas, University of London
Prof Prem Sikka, Professor of accounting, University of Essex
Prof Christine Cooper Accounting and finance, Strathclyde Business School
Prof Diane Elson, Emeritus professor, University of Essex and chair of UK Women’s Budget Group
Professor Jonathan Michie University of Oxford
Prof Robert McMaster Professor of political economy, Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Dr Jo Michell Senior lecturer in economics, University of the West of England, Bristol
Prof Sheila Dow Emeritus professor of economics, University of Stirling
Prof John Grahl Professor of European integration, University of Middlesex
Prof Jan Toporowski Professor of economics, Soas, University of London
Prof Philip Arestis University of Cambridge
Prof Giuseppe Fontana Professor of monetary economics, Leeds University Business School
Prof David Spencer Professor of economics and political economy, Leeds University Business School
Prof Alfredo Saad Filho Professor of political economy, Soas, University of London
Prof Mary Mellor Professor emeritus, Northumbria University
Dr Craig Berry Deputy director, Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (speri)
Prof David Newbery Emeritus professor of Economics, Cambridge University
Prof Hugh Willmott Cass Business School
Prof Steve Keen Professor of economics, Kingston University
Dr Henning Meyer Research associate, Public Policy Group, London School of Economics
Prof John Van Reenen Professor of economics, London School of Economics
Prof Ismail Ertürk Senior lecturer in banking, University of Manchester
Prof Susan Himmelweit Emeritus professor of economics, Open University
Prof Valpy FitzGerald Emeritus professor of international development finance, University of Oxford
Prof Simon Mohun, Emeritus professor of political economy, Queen Mary, University of London
Stewart Wallis, Executive director, New Economics Foundation
Prof Klaus Nielsen, Professor of institutional economics, Birkbeck, University of London
Prof Pritam Singh Professor of economics, Oxford Brookes University
Dr Andrew Mearman Associate professor in economics, UWE Bristol
Prof Matthew Watson Professor of political economy, University of Warwick
Prof Grazia Ietto-Gillies Emeritus professor of applied economics, London South Bank University
Dr Mary V Wrenn Joan Robinson research fellow in heterodox economics, Girton College, University of Cambridge
Geoffrey Hodgson Research professor, University of Hertfordshire
Dr Daniela Gabor Associate professor, UWE Bristol
Prof Bruce Cronin Director, Centre for Business Network Analysis, University of Greenwich
Dr Annina Kaltenbrunner Lecturer in the economics of globalisation & the international economy, Leeds University Business School
Prof Gary Dymski Professor of applied economics, Leeds University Business School
Michael Burke Economist
Dr Russell Smith Senior lecturer in economics, Cardiff School of Management
Prof Philip B. Whyman Professor of economics, University of Central Lancashire
Prof Tony Thirlwall Professor of applied economics, University of Kent
Michael Kitson Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
Dr Abigail McKnight Senior research fellow, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics
Dr Ken Coutts Assistant director of Research, faculty of economics, University of Cambridge
Prof Robert H Wade London School of Economics
Dr Kalim Siddiqui Department of strategy, marketing and economics, University of Huddersfield
Prof Stuart Holland University of Coimbra
Dr Alberto Paloni Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Ewa Karwowski Lecturer in economics, Kingston University
Professor Marcus Miller University of Warwick
Dr Gary Slater Leeds University Business School
Professor David Bailey Aston Business School
Dr David Harvie Senior lecturer in finance and political economy, University of Leicester
Barbara Harriss-White Emeritus professor and senior research fellow, area studies, Oxford University
Dr Bruce Philp Head of department, strategy, marketing and economics, Birmingham City Business School
Roberto Veneziani School of economics and finance, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr Julian Wells Principal lecturer in economics, Kingston University, London
Dr Neil Lancastle Department of accounting and finance, De Montfort University
Mimoza Shabani Lecturer in financial economics, University of East London
Dr Ashley L Carreras Principal lecturer in economics and decision analysis, faculty of business and law, De Montfort University
Prof Michael Lipton Research professor of economics, Sussex University
Dr Graham Gudgin Research associate, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge and senior economic advisor, Oxford Economics
Prof Geraint Johnes Professor of economics, Lancaster University Management School
Andrew Simms Fellow, New Economics Foundation

[pogo]

We haven't got real democracy in the UK. 83% didn't back this cunt of a government.

Tell you who opposes austerity. Fucking only the worlds top leading economists, that's who.

83% of what? The whole population? Many can’t vote, many more choose not to vote. It’s nonsensical to lump them together with people that actually voted against the government, implying that opposition to the government is much higher. More people voted for the Tories than any other party; they did so knowing exactly what to expect, exactly what they stood for.

And that letter is just like the one signed by 77 economists in 2010:

Dear Sir,
As expected, a key election issue concerns how much to cut government expenditure in 2010/11.
The main opposition party now proposes to cut an extra £6 billion, on top of the measures already planned by the government.
This cut is described as efficiency savings. But in macroeconomic terms it is just a cut by another name. It will lead directly to job losses and indirectly to further falls in spending through the standard multiplier process.
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.
This is not the time for such a destabilising action. The recovery is still fragile. Firms and households are saving more to rebuild their balance sheets, so that firms are investing less and households are spending less.
Only when the recovery is well underway, will it be safe to have extra cuts in government expenditure. The first step is to make sure that growth returns and thus that tax receipts recover.
Rash action now could imperil not only jobs but also the prospects for reducing the deficit.

And their dire predictions about being tipped back into recession, about job losses, and not reducing the deficit, turned out to be completely wrong. Plus it’s hardly the worlds leading economists; it’s mostly lefty British academics each time.

[pogo]

Politics that appears right leaning doesn't necessarily correspond with what informed people vote for.

And your “informed” aside has it exactly the wrong way round. People who voted Tory knew exactly what they were voting for. More of the same basically, and the Tories never hid what the main points of their platform were. Labour voters on the other hand voted for a collection of vague policies that didn’t add up, and really did not know what they would get if Labour were elected. The information deficit was primarily on the left in the last election.

[(o)(o)]

We haven't got real democracy in the UK. 83% didn't back this cunt of a government.

83% of what? The whole population?

17% backed the government by voting for them.

Ergo, 83% did not back it.

Pretty simple stuff.

More people voted for the Tories than any other party; they did so knowing exactly what to expect, exactly what they stood for.

I've just posted a MORI poll that shows evidence to the contrary - voters are uninformed and brainwashed on a range of issues that just so happen to correlate with widespread propaganda.

And that letter is just like the one signed by 77 economists in 2010:

Dear Sir,
As expected, a key election issue concerns how much to cut government expenditure in 2010/11.
The main opposition party now proposes to cut an extra £6 billion, on top of the measures already planned by the government.
This cut is described as efficiency savings. But in macroeconomic terms it is just a cut by another name. It will lead directly to job losses and indirectly to further falls in spending through the standard multiplier process.
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.
This is not the time for such a destabilising action. The recovery is still fragile. Firms and households are saving more to rebuild their balance sheets, so that firms are investing less and households are spending less.
Only when the recovery is well underway, will it be safe to have extra cuts in government expenditure. The first step is to make sure that growth returns and thus that tax receipts recover.
Rash action now could imperil not only jobs but also the prospects for reducing the deficit.

Sickening to see that letter now knowing how right they were.

Osbourne strangled growth which was rising in all sectors when he took on the job - only pulling back a moment b efore we slipped into double dip recession. Trashed the AAA rating which he said we should judge him on.

There's facade of tons of jobs and growth, but it's unremitting bollocks.

[Mayhem]

17% backed the government by voting for them.

Ergo, 83% did not back it.

Pretty simple stuff.

In 2005, 15.8% backed the Labour government by voting for them. Ergo, 84.2% did not back it. Pretty simply stuff.

(aka <Arnie> STOP WHINING! </Arnie>)

[Absolute_Zero]

Politics that appears right leaning doesn't necessarily correspond with what informed people vote for. Cultural hegemony is endemic naturally those that are brainwashed or have their heads rammed up their own arses have difficulty seeing this.

Clearly the misdirected Lumpenproletariat are in urgent need of re-education regards what informed people should be allowed to vote for.

Whilst a typical, individual pleb would oft' be handily outwitted by a box of rocks, I suspect the whole possess a collective wit and intelligence that can spot [variously] blowhard loons, psychopaths and the economically clueless from light-years distant.

[(o)(o)]

In 2005, 15.8% backed the Labour government by voting for them. Ergo, 84.2% did not back it.

It's a totally broken system.

[pogo]

Osbourne strangled growth which was rising in all sectors when he took on the job - only pulling back a moment b efore we slipped into double dip recession. Trashed the AAA rating which he said we should judge him on.

That’s nonsense and you know it. The AAA rating is/was a debt rating. We lost it as some ratings agencies doubted, however slightly, that we would not repay the debt. I.e. we lost it because of the size of the debt burden. It’s not a problem though; we are in very good company a notch below AAA, a grade only a handful of countries manage, typically those with no deficit or debt problems:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/eco ... -the-grade

If we had followed a different policy, such as the one advocated by many on the left of “no cuts” then the deficit would be far worse, our credit rating would have been been cut sooner and further, the pound would have fallen even more, pushing up inflation and so making things even worse for people. The markets would have eventually forced the government to make even greater cuts, almost certainly putting us into recession again. Making the cuts as early as possible meant they could be limited and short term, minimising their economic impact.

[venusian]

Making the cuts as early as possible meant they could be limited and short term, minimising their economic impact.

The cuts have hardly started yet. Is this still "as early as possible" or are we still in the "short term"?

[pogo]

Most of the cuts have happened: the cuts still expected are less than those that have already taken place.

As for “as early as possible” the coalition initially planned to eliminate the deficit by 2015. This proved impossible because of the crisis in Europe, which stopped us benefitting from the pound devaluing. Normally such a rapid devaluation boosts growth as exports are suddenly cheaper and more competitive, but that was stopped by our main trading partners being still in recession.

[merman]

Most of the cuts have happened: the cuts still expected are less than those that have already taken place.

As for “as early as possible” the coalition initially planned to eliminate the deficit by 2015. This proved impossible because of the crisis in Europe, which stopped us benefitting from the pound devaluing. Normally such a rapid devaluation boosts growth as exports are suddenly cheaper and more competitive, but that was stopped by our main trading partners being still in recession.

It proved impossible because GROWTH FELL thanks to Osborne's first budget, reducing the tax income and forcing him to borrow. And borrow. And borrow.

He only borrowed £10 billion last month and we are expected to accept that as good news.

£12 billion in welfare cuts are on the way, hitting the vulnerable hardest.

[(o)(o)]

The AAA rating is/was a debt rating. We lost it as some ratings agencies doubted, however slightly, that we would not repay the debt. I.e. we lost it because of the size of the debt burden.

Nothing to do with growth then?

It’s not a problem though

Protecting the rating was a manifesto pledge.

As for that slowest-recovery-since-records-began "amazing growth" stuff?

Parallel universe... where facts and opinion do not collide

[zip accident]

And their dire predictions about being tipped back into recession, about job losses, and not reducing the deficit, turned out to be completely wrong.

I could have been mistaken, but I thought that happened.