DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

not many of them in the labour party iirc, but whatever gets you through the night

Not really comparable though is it?

Or what Suzy said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1278266/COALITION-GOVERNMENT-The-new-politics-More-like-Brokeback-Mountain.html

^^^still got it.

too much fraser nelson on tv lately

He is such an odious little cunt. Genuinely the worst.

worrrrrd

I mean, at least James Delingpole is regarded as a freaky outsider even by Tories. Nelson is right in the centre of the establishment.

Seumas Milne (No new era, 13 May) will no doubt be the first of many pontificating Guardian columnists and leader writers telling us who to choose as the new Labour leader. Given the Guardian's disastrous election, how about minding your own business?

David Wotherspoon

Downholland, West Lancashire

ohh snap

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/12/elite-sharpening-axe-era

Labour has lost five million votes since 1997, four million of them under Tony Blair.

Did not know that. Well done Gordon, you only lost a million voters in under 3 years.

and they were the hardcore ones that even tony couldn't shake.

someone quoting from the future in that article

hotcheddar
12 May 2010, 8:53PM

At least now its only the pro-Chavez/Farc hardline Trot's who simply refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room - the very dangerous budget deficit.

Politics and changed and the good news is the authoritarian far Left is even more isolated than before.

Wake up fools!

"Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s."
(25th May, 2010)

News coming in that Respect has just officially gone under. Rejoice.

The Tories lost 4.5 million in one go between 1992 and 1997 and then lost over a million more in 2001.(xpost)

yeah but that's because tony blair killed them by liberating sussex.

Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s.

this is true, tbf. he said it in the chancellors' debate. wish there had been more debate on the "how". don't think regular folk should bear the brunt of it, but kinda rely on politicians to bring ideas to the table in re balancing the books.

Still really fucking angry about the way all three parties dodged the issue throughout the campaign.

HM is on the money, even if we agree that the national finances need repairing - unsure exactly how much of a given this is - the collusion of all 3 main parties in offering the same solutions is depressing bullshit.

Can someone explain to me what happens to the economy if, as seems likely,

- Wages stay flat
- House prices stay flat
- Unemployment stays flat or gets worse
- Bank lending stays sluggish
- The government raises taxes
- The government institutes massive cuts in every department

?? Where is the light at the end of this tunnel?

I'm pretty sure that the economic orthodoxy is now some deep ideological poison disguised as historical inevitability, but hey, maybe that's cos I'm a Trot.

- and the white man get paid offa alla that

too much fraser nelson on tv lately

What's with that accent too? What is that exactly? 'Orrible bastard.

unsure exactly how much of a given this is

me too. would appreciate being told why the following is wrong: deficit jumped from ~£30bn p.a. pre-crisis to ~£150bn last year. but £130bn of that was the bank bailout which is a one-off cost, you'd hope, and some of which will be recouped in the big bank sell-off.

so why can't we make relatively modest cuts, wait for tax receipts to return to former levels (and eventually exceed them) and pay down the debt slowly without dumping a load of public sector workers on the dole? genuine question for people who understand finance.

general and prolonged strikes tbh

so why can't we make relatively modest cuts, wait for tax receipts to return to former levels (and eventually exceed them) and pay down the debt slowly without dumping a load of public sector workers on the dole? genuine question for people who understand finance.

all govts running pretty huge current deficits because their spending levels grew so much during boom times, is my basic understanding. 'modest cuts' won't cover it.

Re Frazzle Nelson: I know a couple of privately-educated Edinburgh types with a roughly similar accent so I think it's that.

but £130bn of that was the bank bailout which is a one-off cost, you'd hope, and some of which will be recouped in the big bank sell-off.

i *think* that this is wrong: i think the increase is owing to the slump in tax receipts owing to the recession owing to the banking collapse

but i mean yeah the fundamental question is why the rich get bailed out!

and yeah, again, taking people out of work will surely stiff the economy? right?

but basically we have this big-ass debt, and lenders, being out-of-control bastards, will yank up interest rates unless we offer them great sacrifices (i.e. privatizations etc). which sucks, and is why we need an opposition party able to provide a different economic model.

xpost to self: Though I see he went to Dollar Academy and the only other dude I know who went there doesn't speak like that. Hmm.

but i mean yeah the fundamental question is why the rich get bailed out!

because the market will eat us all if not fed with public cash instead. haven't you been listening?

nelson's accent is something else

something alien

Interesting interview with Galbraith Jr

Since the 1790s, how often has the federal government not run a deficit? Six short periods, all leading to recession. Why? Because the government needs to run a deficit, it's the only way to inject financial resources into the economy. If you're not running a deficit, it's draining the pockets of the private sector. I was at a meeting in Cambridge last month where the managing director of the IMF said he was against deficits but in favor of saving, but they're exactly the same thing! A government deficit means more money in private pockets.

The way people suggest they can cut spending without cutting activity is completely fallacious. This is appalling in Europe right now. The Greeks are being asked to cut 10 percent from spending in a few years. And the assumption is that this won't affect GDP. But of course it will! It will cut at least 10 percent! And so they won't have the tax collections to fund the new lower level of spending. Spain was forced to make the same announcement yesterday. So the Eurozone is going down the tubes.

On the other hand, look at Japan. They've had enormous deficits ever since the crash in 1988. What's been the interest rate on government bonds ever since? It's zero! They've had no problem funding themselves. The best asset to own in Japan is cash, because the price level is falling. It gets you 4 percent return. The idea that funding difficulties are driven by deficits is an argument backed by a very powerful metaphor, but not much in the way of fact, theory or current experience.

(xpost to Joe) I asked something like this a while back and the verdict seemed to be that if and when interest rates rise we will have to quite a lot of interest on the large national debt and this will contribute to making the annual deficit even bigger, so maybe the idea is to make a dent in the debt before the interest becomes too much of a problem.
(this post is kind of redundant now as so many other people have answered the question)

but £130bn of that was the bank bailout which is a one-off cost, you'd hope, and some of which will be recouped in the big bank sell-off.

i *think* that this is wrong: i think the increase is owing to the slump in tax receipts owing to the recession owing to the banking collapse

that seems to be what everyone says, but the bank bailout did cost that much, and it's not going to happen again, so most of your deficit disappears doesn't it? still got the debt, but you can pay it off more slowly.

take the point about interest rates.

like galbraith's attitude there.

wd have to defer to galbraith jr, but i'd assume that a deficit can't be expanded indefinitely. the vig would come to take a large chunk out of day-to-day expenditure eventually, no? i dunno, the british state has been running on a deficit since forever iirc, but within the present world system it presumably has to have some limits.

from galbraith again

What is the nature of the danger? The only possible answer is that this larger deficit would cause a rise in the interest rate. Well, if the markets thought that was a serious risk, the rate on 20-year treasury bonds wouldn't be 4 percent and change now. If the markets thought that the interest rate would be forced up by funding difficulties 10 year from now, it would show up in the 20-year rate. That rate has actually been coming down in the wake of the European crisis.

arguing against myself & g jr, one other possibility is that the markets are convinced that govts will cut spending and deficits and have priced that in, but if the political environment changed so would the markets. think there was some big bonanza on uk bonds after the libcon deal, which would make sense.

the markets are convinced that govts will cut spending and deficits and have priced that in

yeah. well, this is the thing. over a five-year span all three parties aimed to get to the same place, deficit-wise. they aim to half it in that time iirc. the markets claimed not to be that arsed who got in as a result. but if labour had not promised to cut the deficit, i can imagine interest rates going up? it's not like lenders need that much of an excuse is it?

There was an article in the Guardian by someone just before the election arguing that no cuts were needed but I'm buggered if I can find it now. (very helpful I know).

It was something along the lines of this one (but no this one).
big.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/07/deficit-debt-hysteria-spend-recession

Seems pretty redundant now.

that reads to me like extremely wishful thinking

Several Labour candidates have explicitly said that we need to get ready for a lower level of private spending in general and be more like Sweden, where the state shoulders more of the spending burden in the economy. i.e. the "stimulus" should be permanent. How you finance that is an interesting question of course.

55% now up front centre on the BBC website.

Front page of the Metro too - "Coalition is on the ropes on day one"

Fuck this giant banner on the new BBC site btw

sweet

They've got to lend to somebody, though (xp to hm) - there's so much money around and has been for the last fifteen years that anyone who doesn't look like a basket case has been able to borrow cheaply, brief liquidity crises apart.

Japan is a bad example of a success story too because their ease of borrowing is a bit artificial - largely down to demographics meaning oceans of pension money have to be lent domestically to keep it as riskless as possible.

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy, along with various Labour MPs and constitutional 'experts' who should (and do) know better.

The policy moves power of dissolution from the executive to the legislature. If anything it makes dissolution too easy, so the percentage should be higher - 66% for instance.

David Howarth's Bill didn't have any such provision, so in order to undo the fixed term Parliament would have to pass another Act - a much higher threshold for dissolution, and a genuinely fixed term Parliament.

You will not be surprised to learn this was not even being mentioned on Sky News earlier this morning

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy

Privatise the lefty bastards

The BBC is apparently persisting in its wilful misinterpretation of the policy, along with various Labour MPs and constitutional 'experts' who should (and do) know better.

The policy moves power of dissolution from the executive to the legislature. If anything it makes dissolution too easy, so the percentage should be higher - 66% for instance.

David Howarth's Bill didn't have any such provision, so in order to undo the fixed term Parliament would have to pass another Act - a much higher threshold for dissolution, and a genuinely fixed term Parliament.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Friday, May 14, 2010 1:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

you are wilfully obscuring the fact that it raises the bar for dissolution by bypassing the old way -- the vote of no confidence.

it also makes no sense in our system to bring down the government but *not* call a new election.

+ ne ways we do not need a five year fixed-term parliament.

ne ways we do not need a five year fixed-term parliament.

We don't but they do

I don't think it is a misinterpretation, currently 50%+1 can vote no confidence after which the PM can try and form a new government or dissolve parliament, in effect parliament can force the PM to go to the queen for a dissolution.

Under the 55% rule, parliament can dissolve itself, but only if it gets a 55% vote, a 50%+1 vote of no confidence basically allows the PM to cling on to power until the fixed term is up or until the PM or enough rebel MP decide enough is enough and put the government out of its misery.