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

if they knew/suspected all along then why wasn't it being insinuated by the coulsons of whichever tory factions were trying to unsettle hague at the time?

they had enough to do so at the time anyway?

tbh, I don't buy the "he's gay" thing at all.

Don't ask me why, I dunno.

hague lasted for 4 yrs iirc? and he was obviously terrible

I assume Cameron hired Coulson because the value of his Murdoch links outweighed the potential damage of this story blowing up, which it predictably has.

Murdoch to Coulson: "You resign, point of principle, it wasn't you but you bear responsibilty, right? I'll put in a word with CONTROV MOD ED and he'll see you right"

Just ran into a posse of gay friends on the main drag near my flat - while we were sitting there chatting, Rupert Everett emerged from his flat in various outfits over a 30-minute period, trying to be noticed - and they call BS on Hague and the not-boyfriend.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eDCpmQFGYxQ/SDFyjIAx3uI/AAAAAAAAAC4/kG3vZMdzesE/s200/200px-ErnieBertStorm.jpg

BS on they nobbed or BS on they didn't?

They liked my joke about 'honey, what would you like from Firetrap?' and reckoned WH is Mildred and his friend is George, knaaamsayin'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11094468

Our responsible media will presumably report that immigration is down, rather than presenting the data in a way that will exacerbate racial tensions.

I haven't posted in an age, but anyway, last time I did I was getting flak for saying that the recession/bank collapse etc represented an intellectual victory for the left, if not a political one.

I was struck by Sunder Katwala on the radio saying that the coalition had lost the argument on fairness over the cuts, but were winning the one on inevitability. In the wake of the Balls speech I thought I'd link to a few articles that show we might be fighting back on that one. Because they have persisted in their there is no alternative/money left argument, we don't actually have to win. We just have to get it into the public debate that there IS a choice, that economists disagree, but plenty accept Balls's critique etc.

Anyway, here we go:

Fab Boris Johnson column in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/7983652/The-bonus-season-is-coming-and-Ed-Balls-is-right-to-foresee-a-train-crash.html
"The consensus around drastic and immediate deficit reduction is in danger of breaking down."

Nice Larry Elliott article making my wider point
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/06/employment-core-economic-recovery
"In other words, we need to junk the right-wing dogma that has dominated economic thinking for the past 30 years. And, in the case of the UK government, still does."

And this is Martin Wolf behind the paywall in the FT, so I'll post the whole thing:
"Ed Balls is not going to become leader of the Labour Party. But, as an economist, he deserves our attention. I say this not because he is a former Financial Times colleague. As adviser to Gordon Brown, he played a big role in two huge decisions: granting independence to the Bank of England and rejecting euro membership. Yet, above all, his critique of the coalition’s policy is basically right.

This is not a minor matter. If the government were wrong on its gamble on recovery through retrenchment, the result would be a disaster for the country, not to mention the coalition. Economics offers no certainties: the bet that the UK can cut its way to prosperity may yet pay off if the confidence fairy sprinkles enough magic dust. Yet growth has to be achieved, despite a structural fiscal tightening averaging 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product a year, over five years. I consider this a foolhardy bet.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
More from Martin Wolf - Sep-02
Martin Wolf’s Exchange - Sep-02
Economists’ Forum - Oct-01

So does Mr Balls. In his argument against the “growth deniers”, he makes two fundamental points: first, time and again, conventional wisdom on macroeconomic policy has proved misguided; and, second, the propositions advanced by the chancellor are wrong: Those are that Labour is entirely responsible for the current mess; that the demand for fiscal consolidation from the markets is overwhelming; that the plan for a deficit reduction will generate sustainable growth; and that those who disagree are “deficit deniers” who would wreck recovery.

I will ignore Labour’s culpability, which I looked at on May 13 2010.

On confidence, Mr Balls argues that promises of unending austerity do not add to confidence, but undermine it. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that spreads over German interest rates remain very elevated for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. What makes these cases different from that of the UK is that the latter has the freedom to pursue demand-supporting monetary and fiscal policies. Eurozone members are forced to deflate their way to competitiveness. Markets rightly doubt this is going to happen.

Yet the market is screaming its lack of concern about UK fiscal credibility. UK government 10-year bonds are yielding 2.9 per cent and the real interest rate on index-linked bonds is below 1 per cent. Yes, markets can be wrong. But these are the most liquid and transparent markets of all. Moreover, those now doubting the wisdom of markets are the strongest believers. Why do they have these doubts? Furthermore, there is no sign of crowding out of private spending by government borrowing. Finally, UK government debt is long-term with an average maturity of 14 years and denominated in the domestic currency. We are terrified of a confidence bogey who is asleep.

On growth, Mr Balls states that “I would like [the chancellor] to point to the precedent from British economic history which says that, with slowing growth in our main trading partners and companies de-leveraging, it is possible for public sector retrenchment to stimulate private sector growth and job creation.” An influential paper by Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna of Harvard University argues that deficit reduction via spending cuts is associated with growth and declining ratios of debt to GDP. But analysis from the Roosevelt Institute counters that seldom “are countries able to cut successfully during a slump, and this happens only when either interest rates and/or the exchange rates fall sharply”. UK interest rates are already at the floor. Ironically, the greater the confidence in George Osborne, the less likely sterling is to fall.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts seem remarkably optimistic on the ability of net exports and business investment to offset fiscal contraction. But I would also stress the sheer uncertainty, as shown in its probability “fan charts”. How would the government respond if its plans generated a recession, as is possible and, in my view, probable? I have no idea. It would presumably rely on the Bank of England. There are reasons to doubt whether the latter would be very effective.

So what, finally, are the alternatives? Mr Balls agrees that “Labour does need a credible and medium-term plan to reduce the deficit and to reduce our level of national debt, but only once growth is fully secured and over a markedly longer period than Mr Osborne is currently planning”. Reasonable people can argue about how fast those cuts should be and when they should begin. I am more hawkish than Mr Balls. Reasonable people can differ, too, over how much of the deficit reduction should come from tax rises, instead of spending cuts.

Yet Mr Balls is right on two central points. First, a parliamentary term is a political reality, not an economic one. Second, plans for cuts must respond to the economy itself.

The “Treasury View” of the 1930s is back. If the government could not borrow, there would indeed be no alternative. But it does; so there is. Mr Balls is quite right to say so. He is right, too, to warn of the risks. The economic ”hurricane” he foretells might arrive rather soon."

wolf otm

the recession/bank collapse etc represented an intellectual victory for the left

can't remember the discussion, but how? which left? the left was pretty much silent on the big economic questions throughout the 2000s iirc.

Martin Wolf has been consistently OTM on deficit hawkishness for the last year or so.

xpost

Ah yes, not any actual leftists, but basic ideas about the role of the state and the market.

an't remember the discussion, but how? which left? the left was pretty much silent on the big economic questions throughout the 2000s iirc

The argument that massive govt intervention in the markets (ie by bailing out the banks) effectively killed the laissez-faire consensus of the previous 30 years. The counter-argument was that the public sector/welfare state were likely to be decimated as a result.

Ed Balls is proving much better as a killing machine in opposition than he ever was a minister, incidentally.

Well he's not he's trying to kill his own side for a start

tbf he is kinda bulldozer-shaped

Nice to see my old homie Tom Watson on Sky News with the sound turned down in the pub last night

speaking of bulldozer-shaped, I mean

... and equally adept at plunging the old dagger between the shoulder blades I believe

Tom's always been Mr Right-side but he's a nice guy

The counter-argument was that the public sector/welfare state were likely to be decimated as a result.

And just to clarify, of course I agree that that is a BAD outcome. But an unneccesary one, in my view. Of course Labour were always going to lose the election, but if we imagine they had won the argument and were putting the Balls approach into effect, the cuts would be quite manageable, both in macroeconomic and public services/jobs terms.

So it's losing the election, not the financial crisis and the response to it, that leads to the carnage. Of course you could argue the two were related, but a fourth term was never going to happen,imo, regardless.

Since then the Tories have done a very good, and dishonest, job of twisting the facts to fit their narrative, that overspending actually somehow led to the crisis, pretending that a once in 60 years catastrophe didn't just happen.

On which point, this is good:
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/09/the-source-of-the-deficit/

I say of course too much.

Since then the Tories have done a very good, and dishonest, job of twisting the facts to fit their narrative

I think I said this upthread but it's true, insidious how many times during the course of a day, in the media or IRL, you hear about the necessity of making cuts and how we've all got to accept it, "We're All In This Together"

Man, when some cunt on 100 million a year and me both have to take a 5 percent hit to the groin, we're all in this together

hollow lol

it's gonna get hollower and hollower and the lulz from proving to my old man that these fuckers can be worse than NU LABÖR have worn off already.

Man, when some cunt on 100 million a year and me both have to take a 5 percent hit to the groin, we're all in this together

Of course, but the level of unquestioning acceptance of the argument is a bit depressing

are you familiar with human beings at all Tom?

I know not their ways

i dunno if people do accept it!

they don't have much choice but to keep going

give the cunt a break he's looking at missing out on five million pounds I don't think you realise how much money that is

fair point

Welfare spending to be cut by £4bn, says George Osborne

Mr Osborne told BBC political editor Nick Robinson that those making a "lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits" would be affected.

Uh, how do you tell who these people are and make sure they're the only ones who will have their benefits cut?

Also, I note that the hideous phrase "out-of-work benefits" seems to have arrived from somewhere or other, Osborne used it constantly in his interview.

i was half asleep for the interview on today but it finished with someone saying "what about the £100 billion lost due to tax evasion, why isn't that a priority?", and then BZZT SORRY NO TIME FOR THAT.

They've been dropping "sitting at home watching television" all the time as well so presumably if you avoid work to read 19th century Russian novels they're cool with that.

There are a million points to raise but here's one: what do these twats seriously think wd happen to these awful television watchers if the state suddenly decided they get nothing? Comedy Dickensian starving in the streets/collecting dog turds in a bucket for the tanning industry?

So either this is total fucking front or a warm-up routine for chain-gangs of doleites doing all the jobs that sacked council employees used to do.

Also, and I'm sure I've said this before, Full Employment = Spiralling Wage Costs = Poor Businessmen Not Earning Quite As Much Money. So LIKE FUCK is any Tory gov seriously interested in having everybody in work.

Also heard one of those charming right wing thinktank fellows on the telly the other day, describe public sector jobs as "non-jobs", which I suppose they will be soon enough

Also this idea that the Public Sector "squeezes" the Private Sector was rolled out as if were gospel, does it though?

Every Tory minister interviewed now has to mention "the mess they've been left with" every third sentence. Kudos to the on-messageness.

I know I shdn't be surprised but they are gonna pull off a really staggeringly right wing reshape of the country and 95 percent of the populace - including the people paid to report about it - aren't even gonna blink?

Thanks once again, Liberal Democrat voters wherever you are

Don't worry tho, I'm sure Nu Nu Old Labour will get on the job once they've got a leader in place. October 2011, isn't it?

xpost hey, they weren't to know, were they?

Royal Mail to be privatised or sold, government says

Here's hoping nobody in the Hebrides needs any letters delivered in future.

The ones who voted SNP and Labour are fucked, some compromise can no doubt be found to deliver Liberal Democrat voters' mail. No-one voted Tory.

Privatisation of Royal Mail has been on the cards for, what, three or four years now? Does anyone actually want to buy it?

It would be nice if Osborne waited until there were actually some jobs in this country before pretending that millions of people are on the dole for shits and giggles. He seems utterly unapologetic about the fact that he's only doing it for the sake of saving money, the justifications seem increasingly half arsed. At some point he'll just ask Cameron if he's allowed to stop bothering with them.

A few LibDems MPs have finally started going "hang on, this isn't what we signed up for". Surprised we haven't had a defection yet.

I'm told one or two might be in the offing (from what you might call left-ish LD sources) but they might just be saying that. You know, like all that stuff they said before the election. One or two is not enough though is it?