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

I got there eventually

ed, no disrespect, but you have no idea about/consistency in what you're talking about

it was the liberal party that pushed for universal state-provided education, consistently

Fordism is only one possible version of economic Liberalism tho and I don't think it applies so easily in our exciting post-manufacturing economy. Cameron seems much more of a Thatcherite/Monetarist and both those schools are too busy misreading Adam Smith to worry much about keeping a replaceable workforce content.

Private sector unprivatised Fordism back to the Govt in the guise of mass education for vocation, really.

cadbury's were quakers iirc -- i dunno what people are trying to argue, though, really. basically that victorian capitalism was bad and instead we should have had ________________? super

profit

Yeah they were Quakers. I lolled a little when somebody upthread said the ConDems are Victorian Liberalism plus Temperance I mean JEEZ.

Keeping a contented, productive workforce is only really an issue if you need to hang onto your workers. I don't see any valid points of comparison between 19th century and 21st century UK. Even Marx's critiques have been undone a lot by the fact that Capitalism didn't quite play out how he guessed.

xpost to history mayne - not sure it's an either Victorian capitalism or ... tho is it? (ignoring the counterfactual aspects). It's more a case of Victorian capitalism, plus a helluva lot more controls, checks and legislative protection for the unprotected ie not laissez faire (as indeed, through a mixture of evangelical concern, market necessity, social pressure in various forms, began, in a haphazard way, to happen, if I remember my history correctly)

ConDems are Victorian Liberalism plus Temperance I mean JEEZ.

I think that's you misreading me (or my poor phrasing). I was trying to think just what Cameron had in mind when he was talking about the Big Society (remember that?), I wasn't trying to suggest he was interested in bringing back temperance.

ed, no disrespect, but you have no idea about/consistency in what you're talking about

it was the liberal party that pushed for universal state-provided education, consistently

― long time listener, first time balla (history mayne), Wednesday, 26 May 2010 06:48 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I think I have been very consistent on this point. Religious/economically motivated philanthropy -> universal education is a very short mental leap. It's all about the state providing a happy, healthy, skilled and compliant workforce. I'm not saying Cameron is a Fordist, I'm saying that Titus Salt was a progenitor of Fordism. There is no room for that kind of industrialist in today's world. I think that Cameron accepts that the state has to facilitate new actors to play the roles once played by Patrician Liberal Capitalists. He's not pure Thatcherite either, possibly only by necessity, vouchers haven't reared their ugly head again, there's no evidence of any moves to tempt people to abandon state provision.

Self interest is being played upon to give the opportunity to people who have the time and resources to be proactive to create the kind of schools where the middle classes can isolate their children, (possibly with the deserving poor), from the harsh realities of Broken Britain. In return Business and the state gets a class of better educated labour, whilst the class that always gets left behind, gets left behind.

I don't see any valid points of comparison between 19th century and 21st century UK.

This is of course precisely the point, but the idea that the market (or a benevolent company) can solve all ills, now as then, holds sway in large parts of the conservative party. It's a bit like the good job BP is doing with that oil spill, it's just a matter of getting the right people in place with the right tools. Easy.

well, we're not getting laissez-faire (a phrase i don't agree with), but some kind of private raid on the 'public' purse, so far as i can tell. public purse being controlled by corporate interests. hey maybe someone should start some kind of labour representation committee or s.thing.

re. cadbury: would we have crunchies under socialism?

xpost

Religious/economically motivated philanthropy -> universal education is a very short mental leap. It's all about the state providing a happy, healthy, skilled and compliant workforce.

this is just too conspiratorial/reductive for me, and again, what are you counter-proposing? how should the course of history have run? in any advanced economic system, education would be there to produce disciplined/healthy workers. that's not specific to capitalism. i doubt you'd argue that the NHS exists only to keep the workforce going. i mean, you could but...

well, we're not getting laissez-faire (a phrase i don't agree with), but some kind of private raid on the 'public' purse, so far as i can tell. public purse being controlled by corporate interests.

Yep, wd agree on both points (l-f was always a bit bullshit as a historiographical phrase because it suggested a sort of natural order of things, whereas of course, it was a policy oriented towards the already wealthy keeping that wealth). And that private raid on public purse thing makes me weep hot tears of rage every time I see examples of it.

We've paid about a thousand times over and over again for the bloody rail network + bailouts.

Don't forget the rental hospitals/schools.

I wouldn't argue that the NHS was founded on that principle but there was a similar to trajectory in healthcare. Philanthropic institutions -> State provision which has come to be seen as an unarguable necessity in the modern state. The difference between Health and education is we haven't (as yet) invited have a go heroes to found their own hospitals. Liberalism provided the necessary progressive steps that allowed social democracy to flourish and then, quite rightly withered. Now that which "conservatism" seeks to conserve is the LIberal state that evolved over the last 2 centuries. It is testament to the endurance of Liberalism that both left and right in the UK are tempered by the desire of the population to maintain a social contract that was born in Liberalism. The NHS is the only institution left from the socialism of the mid 20th century and there has been no particular desire to revive any of the other institutions.

The difference between NewLabour/CodDem Liberalism and a more left wing attitude is that the former is focussed on a two tier system which allows the best to succeed at the expense of those with the least opportunities to start with.

I am not opposed to a multi-streamed educational system but part of that has to be the enabling mechanism that allows any individual the opportunity to go down any stream. I have no confidence that this education policy will do anything for the most disadvantaged in society.

The NHS is the only institution left from the socialism of the mid 20th century

Also the modern social security system plus comprehensive education?

What else was there?

Nationalised industries

Or perhaps, more accurately, Nationalised industries

Incidentally a man has climbed up the scaffolding on the HofP and is sitting outside the Speaker's kitchen window while Mrs Speaker tweets from inside and fields calls from journos trying to get an interview with him. Modern world, eh?

If he isn't wearing a 10 bob superhero costume I ain't innerested.

By the way, I wish the Coalition of Cunts would be honest enough to admit it's not Big Society vs. Big Government, it's Big Society vs. Local Government

Big Government vs. Local Society

Ignoring the 24 hour news cycle and celebrity politics, and getting on with the business of government:

Grant Shapps MP, the Minister of State for Housing & Local Government, is set to join author and broadcaster Kevin McCloud and environmentalist Jonathon Porritt for the launch of a new housing development in Swindon tomorrow.

The Triangle, a 42-home development in Swindon, is the first scheme by Hab Oakus, the joint venture between Kevin McCloud’s development company, Hab, and housing group GreenSquare.

Still difficult to see where this government is going and how bad it's going to be. What happens with the banking levy will be the acid test, I think - the "polluter pays" principle seems to be very popular and a no-brainer in terms of the voters but will the government go for it or just fudge the issue?

Where exactly is Vince Cable these days? Remember him? Face on side of Lib Dem battle bus with Cleggy? The People's Chancellor? Most popular Liberal (Democrat) politician since Lloyd George? Then David "Toryboy" Laws gets his job in the new government and Vince gets shunted sideways into a department which has its budget slashed immediately by Osborne? Oh, here he is now.

Yet more of the business of government: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8707000/8707921.stm

He wouldn't be getting us to back a pair of donkeys there, would he?

Poor choices, should have gone with Mr Optimistic at Ayr and Looks The Business at Wetherby.

I take it Fuck the Poor isn't running today then.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polopoly_fs/cameron-and-clegg-1.1029394!image/3243539318.JPG_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/3243539318.JPG

http://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/Beavis_and_Butt-head.gif

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3104cYmh01qzd5deo1_500.jpg

it's nice that they got the person on the bench behind to work out an ensemble that would accent both of their ties

Also the modern social security system plus comprehensive education?

― every time i pull a j/k off the shelf (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 26 May 2010 07:31 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Comprehensive education was never fully implemented and has been slowly dismantled from the National Curriculum onwards. I'll accept the Social Security system as being pretty resilient as well.

Is Labour handing Tower Hamlets back to the Islamists?, asks Andrew Gilligan.

tbh i don't think we had socialism at any time, which is not to do down the achievements of attlee, just to say that these not very well defined large categories don't fit reality. we've basically had a mixed economy, and the form of the british state was pretty much unchanged throughout the epochs you're talking about.

xp

Wouldn't mind hearing from Shirley Williams on her Coalition Government's education policy

Only been in power for a coupla weeks and already not fit for purpose

'Don't give up day job', bookies tell PM:
CAMERON LOSERS SAVE BOOKIES MILLION POUND PAYOUT

BOOKMAKERS WILLIAM HILL say that the two losers David Cameron tipped listeners to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme have given the industry a million pound-plus fillip.

'Had both of Mr Cameron's horses won, bookies would have paid out over 1million to winning punters who followed his tips' said Hill's spokesman Graham Sharpe.

Mr Cameron selected Midnight Fantasy at Wolverhampton; and Daring Dream at Ayr. The former finished unplaced and the latter was runner-up.

'Punters were keen to back the PM's tips to the extent that we had to create a special section on our website enabling them to place bets on both horses. We can only sympathise, and advise him not to give up the day job - any plans to gamble the country out of recession are prsumably now on hold - maybe he should let Mr Clegg have a go next!' added Sharpe.

WILLIAM HILL HAD PLACED A 600 CHARITY BET ON THE TWO HORSES AND WILL NOW DONATE THE 600 STAKE MONEY TO MR CAMERON'S NOMINATED CHARITY.

LibDem vote actually up in Thirsk & Malton, Labour way down. Tories win obviously. So the LibDem defection hasn't actually happened there, possibly they're benefitting from being in government, for the honeymoon period at least, while I suppose a lot of people just didn't see the point in voting Labour.

Apologies for the long post but it's interesting reading that you have to register for. Not pretending to understand it all, but after hearing several beeb interviewers virtually screaming "there is no alternative" at anyone who suggests otherwise it's good to read.

Spare Britain the policy hair shirt

By Martin Wolf

The UK should tighten fiscal and monetary policy now, in the depths of a slump. That, in essence, is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calls for in its latest Economic Outlook. I wonder what John Maynard Keynes would have written in response. It would have been savage, I imagine.

The OECD argues: “A weak fiscal position and the risk of significant increases in bond yields make further fiscal consolidation essential. The fragile state of the economy should be weighed against the need to maintain credibility when deciding the initial pace of consolidation, but a concrete and far-reaching consolidation plan needs to be announced upfront.” Furthermore, monetary tightening should begin no later than the fourth quarter of this year, with rates rising to 3.5 per cent by the end of 2011.

Let us translate this proposal into ordinary language: “If you are unwilling to starve yourself when desperately ill, nobody will believe you would adopt a sensible diet when well.” But might it not make sense to get better first?

Here are some facts, to keep the hysteria in check: the UK economy is operating at least 10 per cent below its pre-crisis trend; the OECD estimates the “output gap” – or excess capacity – at slightly over half of this lost output; the UK government is able to borrow at a real interest rate of below 1 per cent, as shown by yields on index-linked gilts; the yield on conventional 10-year gilts is 3.6 per cent; the ratio of gross debt to gross domestic product was 68 per cent at the end of last year, against 73 per cent in Germany and 77 per cent in France and an average of 87 per cent since 1855; the average maturity of UK debt is 13 years, according to the International Monetary Fund’s Fiscal Monitor; and, yes, core inflation has risen to 3.2 per cent, but that is hardly a surprise, given the large – and essential – sterling depreciation.

Above all, the private sector is forecast by the OECD to run a surplus – an excess of income over spending – of 10 per cent of GDP this year. On a consolidated basis, the UK’s private surplus funds nearly 90 per cent of the fiscal deficit. Thus, fiscal tightening would only work if it coincided with a robust private recovery. Otherwise, it would drive the economy into deeper recession. Yes, that is a Keynesian argument. But this is a Keynesian situation.

I agree that there needs to be a credible path for fiscal consolidation that would lead to a balanced budget, if not a surplus. That will be essential if the UK is to cope with an ageing population in the long term. I agree, too, that the path needs to be spelled out. Given the high ratios of spending to GDP – close to 50 per cent – the best way to proceed is via tight, broad-based, long-term control over expenditure. But a substantially faster pace than envisaged by the last government might threaten recovery: the OECD, for example, forecasts economic growth at 1.3 per cent this year and 2.5 per cent in 2011. Even this would imply next to no reduction in excess capacity.

Of course, one might argue that ultra-loose monetary policy should be used as an offset. But the OECD wants to remove that support, too. Why the OECD makes this recommendation is beyond me.

A good argument might be that monetary policy is a damaging way of refloat the economy, since it tends to weaken the exchange rate (and so raise inflation), increase prices of houses and other assets, and encourage borrowing by a grossly over-indebted private sector. But if one took this line, one should surely argue against rapid fiscal tightening. Thus, while the conventional wisdom is that the best combination is tight fiscal policy and ultra-loose monetary policy, that might be a mistake.

Against the background of rapid fiscal tightening, even ultra-loose monetary policy might prove ineffective. The growth of broad money and credit remains very low, for example. Moreover, sterling’s real effective exchange rate has stabilised since early 2009 and the pound has recently strengthened against the euro. None of this suggests that monetary policy is now too loose. That would be still more true after a big fiscal contraction. If there were a sharp monetary tightening as well, the chances of renewed recession are very high, particularly now that the eurozone seems likely to be more feeble than hoped a few months ago.

The OECD seems to take the view that the only big risk is a loss of fiscal and monetary “credibility”. It is not. The other and – in my view, more serious – risk is that the economy flounders for years. If that happened, eliminating the fiscal deficit would be very hard.

If, as the OECD and Britain’s coalition government believe, fiscal tightening must be accelerated, the corollary is ultra-loose monetary policy, until recovery is established. If, alternatively, monetary policy is ineffective, as it may be, fiscal tightening should be announced, but implementation should be postponed until recovery is secure. I have now lost faith in the view that giving the markets what we think they may want in future – even though they show little sign of insisting on it now – should be the ruling idea in policy. So now should the OECD.

I trust Martin Wolf to talk sense about economics more than anyone in the government. You can't cut the deficit if public spending sends the company back into recession, that much seems screamingly obvious.

Assuming that cutting the deficit is the Tories' main motivation here, which I doubt.

Floella Benjamin is being given a peerage. Floella Benjamin!

See what happens when you let Liberal Democrats in government? She's a big Lib Dem supporter.

You can't cut the deficit if public spending sends the company back into recession, that much seems screamingly obvious.

That's Scylla. Charibdis is if there's no job growth, and the private sector isn't ready to fill the gap left by a retreating fiscal stimulus, that also will send the country back into recession.

Or actually looking again I may have misread you.

Assuming that cutting the deficit is the Tories' main motivation here, which I doubt.

And the Lib Dems? Other than the obvious, we've-got-power-now-so-we-don't-care?

No, I just phrased it badly, I meant you can't cut the deficit if CUTTING public spending sends the country back into recession. It's been a long week.

Clegg is pretty anti-statist from what I understand.

Oh yes, I'm wondering what Vince Cable is saying about it these days