FAO clegg and cameron

[AgentDaleCooper]

stop talking about change. i don't believe you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

stop talking about change. i don't believe you.

and neither does my wife.

[Jonnyboy]

How about detailing your own policies rather than slagging off the oppositions? That's always a favourite ploy at elections and it does my brain in :greengrin No wonder folk don't bother voting

[steakbake]

stop talking about change. i don't believe you.

We should aspire to remain the same... forever and ever and ever and ever!

I would like Clegg to clarify what he means by a mandate. Does he mean the party with the most seats, or is he being more tricky than that? If he pins his colours to the mast, he'll alienate voters whichever way he goes. Classic LibDem fencesittery.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Clegg's 'change' seems to involve advocating swingeing cuts above the level of even the Tories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher)

The loveable scamps.

[hibsbollah]

Clegg's 'change' seems to involve advocating swingeing cuts above the level of even the Tories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher)

The loveable scamps.

This has to be the first UK election in memory that people (like me)who support progressive tax increases to fund improved services have no-one left to vote for:confused: I'm disenfranchised but I refuse not to vote. I think i'll make up my mind on the day. Or burn down the polling station.:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

We should aspire to remain the same... forever and ever and ever and ever!

I would like Clegg to clarify what he means by a mandate. Does he mean the party with the most seats, or is he being more tricky than that? If he pins his colours to the mast, he'll alienate voters whichever way he goes. Classic LibDem fencesittery.


Clegg's 'change' seems to involve advocating swingeing cuts above the level of even the Tories.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/11/nick-clegg-praises-margaret-thatcher)

The loveable scamps.

Firstly what do you expect the Lib Dems to do...say they would support Labour in a coalition and not the Tories or vice versa??? Seems to me that since they are likely to be fighting both of these parties in the North and South respectfully that there is zero chance they will commit to anything but fighting their own policies and will wait to see where that leaves them.....is this any different from any other party (excluding the SNP which has already declared their intention of making Westminster 'dance to a Scottish jig')

Secondly is there any doubt that the Lib Dems are actually being honest with their statement saying further cuts will be required. It's pretty clear they will be but when the Tories tried to look tough and spell that out their polls dropped so the quickly changed their tune....any government will need to shrink the deficit through cuts much deeper than they have stated yet it's the Lib Dems that are somehow the bad guys for actually telling it like it is rather than pretending everything is actually OK (Labour) or that we can fix a double digit annual defict without cutting too much (Tories)

No lover of Clegg to be honest but considering not one Lib Dem MP was done for house flipping and that they have at least some integrity to spell out the tough decisions that should be taken to get Britiains finances under control then I think they at least deserve some credit where it is due.

[RyeSloan]

This has to be the first UK election in memory that people (like me)who support progressive tax increases to fund improved services have no-one left to vote for:confused: I'm disenfranchised but I refuse not to vote. I think i'll make up my mind on the day. Or burn down the polling station.:greengrin

Have we not just had about 15 years of that and by some reckoning is to rise to it's highest level in 25 years...maybe time to stop taxing taxing and then taxing some more and give people some more of their hard earned back in their own pocket??

[IndieHibby]

This has to be the first UK election in memory that people (like me)who support progressive tax increases...

...indefinitely?

[IndieHibby]

Firstly what do you expect the Lib Dems to do...say they would support Labour in a coalition and not the Tories or vice versa??? Seems to me that since they are likely to be fighting both of these parties in the North and South respectfully that there is zero chance they will commit to anything but fighting their own policies and will wait to see where that leaves them.....is this any different from any other party (excluding the SNP which has already declared their intention of making Westminster 'dance to a Scottish jig')

Secondly is there any doubt that the Lib Dems are actually being honest with their statement saying further cuts will be required. It's pretty clear they will be but when the Tories tried to look tough and spell that out their polls dropped so the quickly changed their tune....any government will need to shrink the deficit through cuts much deeper than they have stated yet it's the Lib Dems that are somehow the bad guys for actually telling it like it is rather than pretending everything is actually OK (Labour) or that we can fix a double digit annual defict without cutting too much (Tories)

No lover of Clegg to be honest but considering not one Lib Dem MP was done for house flipping and that they have at least some integrity to spell out the tough decisions that should be taken to get Britiains finances under control then I think they at least deserve some credit where it is due.

would you agree with the statement:

"flirting with the idea of voting Lib Dem is merely entertaining the possibility of a hung parliament"

Especially seeing as Labour has a hugh core vote advantage, compared to, say, the Tories?

FWIW, I am considering where my vote is going to go, as at present, I am not convinced by anyone.....

[hibsbollah]

Have we not just had about 15 years of that and by some reckoning is to rise to it's highest level in 25 years...maybe time to stop taxing taxing and then taxing some more and give people some more of their hard earned back in their own pocket??

Well it depends on what 'people' you're talking about. Under Charles Kennedy the Lib Dems used to be the party that proposed the highest taxes on 100k+ pa earners. This is no longer the case. With Clegg now moving further fiscally to the right, the British electorate now has less 'choice' than ever.

[Speedy]

How about detailing your own policies rather than slagging off the oppositions? That's always a favourite ploy at elections and it does my brain in :greengrin No wonder folk don't bother voting

:agree:

It's the main reason I wouldn't vote for the Tories, I can't remember hearing David Cameron talking about what he's going to do because he's always talking about Labour policies.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This has to be the first UK election in memory that people (like me)who support progressive tax increases to fund improved services have no-one left to vote for:confused: I'm disenfranchised but I refuse not to vote. I think i'll make up my mind on the day. Or burn down the polling station.:greengrin

TUSC are still announcing candidates, I'd imagine they'll eventually get round to standing in some Newcastle seats.

I'm operating on the 'left where you can, Labour where you must' principle - depending on where I am come election time.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Secondly is there any doubt that the Lib Dems are actually being honest with their statement saying further cuts will be required. It's pretty clear they will be but when the Tories tried to look tough and spell that out their polls dropped so the quickly changed their tune....any government will need to shrink the deficit through cuts much deeper than they have stated yet it's the Lib Dems that are somehow the bad guys for actually telling it like it is rather than pretending everything is actually OK (Labour) or that we can fix a double digit annual defict without cutting too much (Tories)

I don't accept the paradigm within which you're arguing, I'm afraid.

The effect of public service cuts is one of the final steps in what has been, fundamentally, a redistribution of wealth from the worst off in society to the best off. The cost of the economic crisis that has made such cuts 'necessary' should be borne by those responsible for bringing it about.

Within this paradigm public service cuts should be resisted as strongly as possible. A bit of righteous ire is the order of the day.

[Leicester Fan]

The cost of the economic crisis that has made such cuts 'necessary' should be borne by those responsible for bringing it about.

The Labour govt and the people who voted for them?

[LiverpoolHibs]

The Labour govt

How do you make a government pay for something?

And you'd have to have a fairly poor understanding of what has happened to think that New Labour's involvement has gone much above complicity.


and the people who voted for them?

No.

[steakbake]

Firstly what do you expect the Lib Dems to do...say they would support Labour in a coalition and not the Tories or vice versa??? Seems to me that since they are likely to be fighting both of these parties in the North and South respectfully that there is zero chance they will commit to anything but fighting their own policies and will wait to see where that leaves them.....is this any different from any other party (excluding the SNP which has already declared their intention of making Westminster 'dance to a Scottish jig')

Secondly is there any doubt that the Lib Dems are actually being honest with their statement saying further cuts will be required. It's pretty clear they will be but when the Tories tried to look tough and spell that out their polls dropped so the quickly changed their tune....any government will need to shrink the deficit through cuts much deeper than they have stated yet it's the Lib Dems that are somehow the bad guys for actually telling it like it is rather than pretending everything is actually OK (Labour) or that we can fix a double digit annual defict without cutting too much (Tories)

No lover of Clegg to be honest but considering not one Lib Dem MP was done for house flipping and that they have at least some integrity to spell out the tough decisions that should be taken to get Britiains finances under control then I think they at least deserve some credit where it is due.

Not at all - I'm not suggesting Clegg should name which party he would support. But listening to LibDems being slippery over the simple issue of what they consider to be a "mandate" is pretty laughable.

I was listening to some lad who is MP for Inverness or suchlike and is Clegg's election adviser. He was asked no fewer than 6 times: when Nick Clegg says he will consider working with the party with the clearest mandate, does he mean the party with the biggest parliamentary majority or the party with the most votes in the election? He wouldn't give an answer which didn't involve sitting on the fence.

Thing is, I am probably going to vote LibDem in the election, because I want Labour and Gordon Brown especially, out. I find LibDems less offensive than Labour just now. I would like to see a change of government. Even if that is the Tories because I think after 13 years, it is in the interests of democracy (such as it is) to see a different direction of government, even though I will disagree with most of the things they bring forward.

The LibDems are genuinely second in my area - unlike many of their flyers which have very misleading graphs etc. I've met the sitting Labour MP a few times through work and he seems to be an alright guy. However, I have no loyalty to him or to Labour, no real fear of the Tories becoming the government at Westminster and I feel that he doesn't do anything which another MP of any party wouldn't do anyway.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not at all - I'm not suggesting Clegg should name which party he would support. But listening to LibDems being slippery over the simple issue of what they consider to be a "mandate" is pretty laughable.

I was listening to some lad who is MP for Inverness or suchlike and is Clegg's election adviser. He was asked no fewer than 6 times: when Nick Clegg says he will consider working with the party with the clearest mandate, does he mean the party with the biggest parliamentary majority or the party with the most votes in the election? He wouldn't give an answer which didn't involve sitting on the fence.

Thing is, I am probably going to vote LibDem in the election, because I want Labour and Gordon Brown especially, out. I find LibDems less offensive than Labour just now. I would like to see a change of government. Even if that is the Tories because I think after 13 years, it is in the interests of democracy (such as it is) to see a different direction of government, even though I will disagree with most of the things they bring forward.

The LibDems are genuinely second in my area - unlike many of their flyers which have very misleading graphs etc. I've met the sitting Labour MP a few times through work and he seems to be an alright guy. However, I have no loyalty to him or to Labour, no real fear of the Tories becoming the government at Westminster and I feel that he doesn't do anything which another MP of any party wouldn't do anyway.

Ha, you've got to love those Lib Dem bar-charts.

[steakbake]

Ha, you've got to love those Lib Dem bar-charts.

Usually about as reliable as a Chick Young "exclusive".

[Woody1985]

I wouldn't vote for any of them. The country is in a mess and not one of them will fix it or make it better. They're pathetic bickering is a joke.

One of them could detail a plan tomorrow that would eradicate poverty in the world, cure every disease known to man, ensure affordable housing for everyone etc etc etc and one of the other drivelling creeps would argue against it.

If only we had politicians that could agree on the best policies or thoughts from each party and help each other it would be so much better. But none of them will ever do it because they are pathetic.

[RyeSloan]

I don't accept the paradigm within which you're arguing, I'm afraid.

The effect of public service cuts is one of the final steps in what has been, fundamentally, a redistribution of wealth from the worst off in society to the best off. The cost of the economic crisis that has made such cuts 'necessary' should be borne by those responsible for bringing it about.

Within this paradigm public service cuts should be resisted as strongly as possible. A bit of righteous ire is the order of the day.

Fair enough, I don't happen to agree with your paradigm either!

The amount of money given to public services like the NHS has substantially increased under Labour. I also think that there has been significant strides in trying to ensure people and especially families have a 'miniumum income' through working and children tax credits....to say this has been a fundamental redistribution of wealth to the best off in society is not correct IMHO. I'm NOT saying that the rich may have got richer just that under Labout the total tax taken has risen for the last 15 years and is projected to be it's highest for 25 and that they have put in place a significant amount of measures and money to help the lower end of society (in income terms).

I'm saying it's time to stop taking more and more tax from the working man who is hard working and honest enough not to need governement subsidies or does not cheat the system. To me it's clear we are asking too few to pay for too many and it simply can't go on.

You seem to be advocating even more tax to be taken so it can be 'redistributed', I'm more than willing to admit that I'm dead opposed to such a notion and that while I am happy to fulfill my social obligation of paying tax to help those 'not so well off' that I do not agree that this should be at punative levels and be increased year on year on year on year.

I saw this small nugget on line:

"In 2000, three years into the Labour administration, the government spent £343 billion. This year it plans to spend £653bn: nearly twice as much.
If it had only grown in line with inflation since 2000, government spending would now be £407bn – £246bn less than this year's proposal"

Now this tells an interesting story, Government spending is out of control and quite simply should be cutting spending to take account of it's populations ability to provide it's income.

[RyeSloan]

would you agree with the statement:

"flirting with the idea of voting Lib Dem is merely entertaining the possibility of a hung parliament"

Especially seeing as Labour has a hugh core vote advantage, compared to, say, the Tories?

FWIW, I am considering where my vote is going to go, as at present, I am not convinced by anyone.....


No I do not.

I do not see any vote for any party as "merely entertaining the possibility of a hung parliament" I think this is simply an argument put over by the big two to try and secure even more of the vote.

The SNP have given a perfect UK example of why a 'hung parliament' is not the disaster that some like to try and portray and is perfectly normal for a lot of the worlds developed economies..Germany for example has no party with a straight majoirty but seems to have been able to survive and prosper easily enough.

Therefore I would encourage all voters to vote for whoever they prefer and if the outcome is a hung parliament then so be it....there will be a minoirty government, a coalition or a reasonably quick 2nd election. This is how our democracy works and I think it's typical politiking from the Tories and Labour to try and create a fear around these outcomes.

Fact is though that the UK's system actually makes hung parliaments pretty unlikely and a lot of commentators are actually saying that it's not too likely this time either.

[poolman]

stop talking about change. i don't believe you.


So I take it that you believe all the spin that comes out Brown's gob then :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

Not at all - I'm not suggesting Clegg should name which party he would support. But listening to LibDems being slippery over the simple issue of what they consider to be a "mandate" is pretty laughable.

I was listening to some lad who is MP for Inverness or suchlike and is Clegg's election adviser. He was asked no fewer than 6 times: when Nick Clegg says he will consider working with the party with the clearest mandate, does he mean the party with the biggest parliamentary majority or the party with the most votes in the election? He wouldn't give an answer which didn't involve sitting on the fence.

Thing is, I am probably going to vote LibDem in the election, because I want Labour and Gordon Brown especially, out. I find LibDems less offensive than Labour just now. I would like to see a change of government. Even if that is the Tories because I think after 13 years, it is in the interests of democracy (such as it is) to see a different direction of government, even though I will disagree with most of the things they bring forward.

The LibDems are genuinely second in my area - unlike many of their flyers which have very misleading graphs etc. I've met the sitting Labour MP a few times through work and he seems to be an alright guy. However, I have no loyalty to him or to Labour, no real fear of the Tories becoming the government at Westminster and I feel that he doesn't do anything which another MP of any party wouldn't do anyway.


OK take your point. I would say though that it's hard to say who would have the mandate if say the Tories had slightly more seats but Labour slightly more of the vote or vice versa as I'm sure both of them woudl be claiming that mantle!!
Maybe Clegg should never have raised the point about supporting the party with 'a mandate' in the first place and simply foccused on getting votes for his party first and his adviser should have had the balls to say so!!

[Leicester Fan]

And you'd have to have a fairly poor understanding of what has happened to think that New Labour's involvement has gone much above complicity.


But this govt was running a deficit at the height of the boom. If you can't cover your expenses at the top of your earning potential how can you pay the bills in a recession?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Fair enough, I don't happen to agree with your paradigm either!

I had an inkling you might. :greengrin


The amount of money given to public services like the NHS has substantially increased under Labour. I also think that there has been significant strides in trying to ensure people and especially families have a 'miniumum income' through working and children tax credits....to say this has been a fundamental redistribution of wealth to the best off in society is not correct IMHO. I'm NOT saying that the rich may have got richer just that under Labout the total tax taken has risen for the last 15 years and is projected to be it's highest for 25 and that they have put in place a significant amount of measures and money to help the lower end of society (in income terms).

I was referring explicitly to the period of time since the beginning of the recession, not the entire tenure of the Blair and Brown governments.

Prior to the crisis there was a very modest redistribution of wealth towards some sections of the worse off in society (the bottom quintile have become increasingly poor during the New Labour years), I won't disagree with that - it's all that they intended to do. The continued attachment between the unions and the party have ensured that they've had to mitigate the worst excesses of neoliberalism with initiatives such as the minimum wage, tax credits etc.


I'm saying it's time to stop taking more and more tax from the working man who is hard working and honest enough not to need governement subsidies or does not cheat the system. To me it's clear we are asking too few to pay for too many and it simply can't go on.

I'm not really sure what any of this means.


You seem to be advocating even more tax to be taken so it can be 'redistributed', I'm more than willing to admit that I'm dead opposed to such a notion and that while I am happy to fulfill my social obligation of paying tax to help those 'not so well off' that I do not agree that this should be at punative levels and be increased year on year on year on year.

I saw this small nugget on line:

"In 2000, three years into the Labour administration, the government spent £343 billion. This year it plans to spend £653bn: nearly twice as much.
If it had only grown in line with inflation since 2000, government spending would now be £407bn – £246bn less than this year's proposal"

Now this tells an interesting story, Government spending is out of control and quite simply should be cutting spending to take account of it's populations ability to provide it's income.

The thing about your post, and discussion over cuts more generally, that I find absolutely bizarre is the switch from the fundamental challenge to the economic system entailed in the crisis to a discussion over further ways in which to entrench the system responsible for the crisis in the first place; so that the debt level, rather than being a result of the intractable contradictions at the heart of capitalism, is seen as the fundamental problem with the system and that everything will be hunky-dory once we chuck a load of people on the dole (oh, hold on, are we getting rid of that as well?) to bring it down. In a sense, it's a pretty remarkable feat to have achieved. It's the ideological equivalent of the same process that has occurred in economic reality - private capital transferring its debt to the general public.

Cuts in public spending will impact to the greatest extent on the previously mentioned bottom quintile of the population who have suffered greatest under the New Labour project whilst having no impact whatsoever on the top quintile whose wealth has grown exponentially as a result of the same project. I see no moral, ethical, logical or economic justification for allowing that to happen.

N.B. And, of course, there's not even that much of a consensus that public spending cuts are the way to go within orthodox economic opinion.

[GlesgaeHibby]

N.B. And, of course, there's not even that much of a consensus that public spending cuts are the way to go within orthodox economic opinion.

How else do we cut government spending? Or do you not agree that we need to make cuts?

[steakbake]

How else do we cut government spending? Or do you not agree that we need to make cuts?

I think cuts are essential. Problem is though that a lot of the money has already been spent on various projects.

Despite the apparent illusion of economic success over the past few years, which was really all built on sand (or more accurately, credit and borrowing), I reckon in retrospect, people will still consider Labour the party which spends the country into a crisis and the Tories the ones who cut the country into a crisis.

It's not a perfect system, but a bit like the ebb and flow and changing seasons, it is necessary and has a purpose, to sort of quote Ecclesiastes. and The Byrds.

[LiverpoolHibs]

How else do we cut government spending? Or do you not agree that we need to make cuts?

Eh? That was just an aside that there's disagreement between orthodox economists over whether spending cuts are actually going to be benificial to the economic recovery - Joseph Stiglitz, Samuel Brittain, David Blanchflower, Paul Krugman, Will Hutton and Chris Dillow all insisting it would be incredibly dangerous. The thinking being something along the lines that spending cuts will lead to rampant unemployment, reduction in wages and casualisation of labour leading to a massive reduction in economic demand sinking the economy into an even deeper depression.

My opposition to cuts is, I think, explained in the post above.

[hibsbollah]

Eh? That was just an aside that there's disagreement between orthodox economists over whether spending cuts are actually going to be benificial to the economic recovery - Joseph Stiglitz, Samuel Brittain, David Blanchflower, Paul Krugman, Will Hutton and Chris Dillow all insisting it would be incredibly dangerous. The thinking being something along the lines that spending cuts will lead to rampant unemployment, reduction in wages and casualisation of labour leading to a massive reduction in economic demand sinking the economy into an even deeper depression.

My opposition to cuts is, I think, explained in the post above.

I heard Stiglitz on the radio the other week, promoting his new book. (2010, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy). He was very very persuasive:agree:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/business/2009/03/090302_stiglitz_nationalise.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/business/2009/03/090302_stiglitz_nationalise.shtml)

[RyeSloan]

Cheers for the response LH.

I see where your are coming from and respect your view....as you will know already I don't have a fundamental problem with our economic system so will accept that we will always have quite differing views there. :greengrin

Just to be clear (or an attempt to be so!) when I stated
"I'm saying it's time to stop taking more and more tax from the working man who is hard working and honest enough not to need governement subsidies or does not cheat the system. To me it's clear we are asking too few to pay for too many and it simply can't go on."

I was trying to say that in our current system and with view to the current situation that further ramping up taxation on the ever shrinking rump of economically active population would be grossly unfair and that I think that in general we are being taxed enough and it is time for the government to cut it's cloth accordingly rather than trying to squeeze the sponge for more time and time again.

I would specifically like the governemnt to commit itself to a set limit of involvement in our economy by setting a limit on it's % tax take compared to national income levels. This would prevent the eternal desire of governments to forever expand their sphere of influence and give them huge incentive to be efficient and effective with their spending, something that is quite noticable by it's absence!!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Cheers for the response LH.

I see where your are coming from and respect your view....as you will know already I don't have a fundamental problem with our economic system so will accept that we will always have quite differing views there. :greengrin

Just to be clear (or an attempt to be so!) when I stated
"I'm saying it's time to stop taking more and more tax from the working man who is hard working and honest enough not to need governement subsidies or does not cheat the system. To me it's clear we are asking too few to pay for too many and it simply can't go on."

I was trying to say that in our current system and with view to the current situation that further ramping up taxation on the ever shrinking rump of economically active population would be grossly unfair and that I think that in general we are being taxed enough and it is time for the government to cut it's cloth accordingly rather than trying to squeeze the sponge for more time and time again.

I would specifically like the governemnt to commit itself to a set limit of involvement in our economy by setting a limit on it's % tax take compared to national income levels. This would prevent the eternal desire of governments to forever expand their sphere of influence and give them huge incentive to be efficient and effective with their spending, something that is quite noticable by it's absence!!

Fair enough, and obviously we're not going to find a great deal of common ground. However, I think to describe the 'economically active population' as an 'ever shrinking rump' is a little over the top!

Again, I'd suggest that the policies that you advocate are part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude to political economy that brought about the crisis. the 'rolling back' of the state under Reagan, Thatcher et. al., the assault on the organised working class and everything that went with that (slashing wages, weakening collective bargaining, outsourcing of jobs, corporate tax-cuts, massive economic deregulation, attacking the welfare state) created the economic conditions - ie. a huge downturn in consumption and economic demand - in which large scale borrowing and credit generally became necessary to continue the accumulation of capital.

Focus on government debt - which, again, is a result of the crisis not a cause of it - is a handy cover for the fact that there's been nothing proposed to sort that problem out.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The thing about your post, and discussion over cuts more generally, that I find absolutely bizarre is the switch from the fundamental challenge to the economic system entailed in the crisis to a discussion over further ways in which to entrench the system responsible for the crisis in the first place; so that the debt level, rather than being a result of the intractable contradictions at the heart of capitalism, is seen as the fundamental problem with the system and that everything will be hunky-dory once we chuck a load of people on the dole (oh, hold on, are we getting rid of that as well?) to bring it down. In a sense, it's a pretty remarkable feat to have achieved. It's the ideological equivalent of the same process that has occurred in economic reality - private capital transferring its debt to the general public.

Cuts in public spending will impact to the greatest extent on the previously mentioned bottom quintile of the population who have suffered greatest under the New Labour project whilst having no impact whatsoever on the top quintile whose wealth has grown exponentially as a result of the same project. I see no moral, ethical, logical or economic justification for allowing that to happen.

N.B. And, of course, there's not even that much of a consensus that public spending cuts are the way to go within orthodox economic opinion.


Fair enough, and obviously we're not going to find a great deal of common ground. However, I think to describe the 'economically active population' as an 'ever shrinking rump' is a little over the top!

Again, I'd suggest that the policies that you advocate are part and parcel of the neoliberal attitude to political economy that brought about the crisis. the 'rolling back' of the state under Reagan, Thatcher et. al., the assault on the organised working class and everything that went with that (slashing wages, weakening collective bargaining, outsourcing of jobs, corporate tax-cuts, massive economic deregulation, attacking the welfare state) created the economic conditions - ie. a huge downturn in consumption and economic demand - in which large scale borrowing and credit generally became necessary to continue the accumulation of capital.

Focus on government debt - which, again, is a result of the crisis not a cause of it - is a handy cover for the fact that there's been nothing proposed to sort that problem out.

And just as an addendum to this. I also don't think that the course of action taken in each case (the crisis of the late seventies and the crisis we're experiencing now) by way of a 'resolution' are just to do with what I see as incorrect but ideologically neutral economic policy; but are themselves strongly ideologically motivated - capital always has and always will use its inevitable crises to restructure itself to its own short-term benefit.

I've been re-watching Adam Curtis' Pandora's Box (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8639026381197734332&ei=sESiS8_yAZPk2gKH8PnRCg&q=pandora%27s+box#)series recently as it's superbly pertinent given what's going on at the moment. One of the episodes is about the wholesale adoption of monetarism by Thatcher's goverment and has a range of interviews with Alan Budd (economic advisor to the government), in one of which he discusses what may have brought about this conversion to a nonsense doctrine,

The nightmare I sometimes have about this whole experience runs as follows: I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. My worry is as follows; that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them, or people behind them, who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did however see that this would be a very very good way to raise unemployment.

And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes; if you like, that what was engineered there – in Marxist terms – was a crisis of capitalism which recreated the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalist to make high profits ever since.”

[Leicester Fan]

You know what they say about economists. They know how to make love to a woman but they don't any women.

[da-robster]

The problem is all three parties are drifting together, as that's where the votes are, everyone agrees on the major issues, to make any difference they have to continually argue over the smallest points, they have to put themselves forward based on image and personality, and not there policies.

The change which Cameron and Clegg pretend to represent, is the same thing as Brown but with a more fashionable suit on.

[hibsdaft]

a plague on all their houses.

[Hainan Hibs]

The problem is all three parties are drifting together, as that's where the votes are, everyone agrees on the major issues, to make any difference they have to continually argue over the smallest points, they have to put themselves forward based on image and personality, and not there policies.

The change which Cameron and Clegg pretend to represent, is the same thing as Brown but with a more fashionable suit on.

Don't forget the nae tie look too. The look that shows Cameron is down with the kids:greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Very long so I can't cut n paste but its worth a read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/20/tony-judt-manifesto-for-a-new-politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/20/tony-judt-manifesto-for-a-new-politics)

[LiverpoolHibs]

Very long so I can't cut n paste but its worth a read.

[/URL][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/20/tony-judt-manifesto-for-a-new-politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/20/tony-judt-manifesto-for-a-new-politics)

Read that earlier today, absolutely excellent. There's a fantastic interview with him in the most recent London Review of Books as well.

Not only is it a brilliant analysis; it should, if we have any sense, act as an ideological blueprint for a new broad-base workers' party alongside Die Linke and the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste.

[hibsbollah]

Read that earlier today, absolutely excellent. There's a fantastic interview with him in the most recent London Review of Books as well.

Not only is it a brilliant analysis; it should, if we have any sense, act as an ideological blueprint for a new broad-base workers' party alongside Die Linke and the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste.

I was similarly inspired:agree: although I thought it might be a bit 'SDP' for your tastes:greengrin

Would you agree with him that "Social democracy does not represent an ideal future; it does not even represent the ideal past. But among the options available to us today, it is better than anything else to hand"?

[LiverpoolHibs]

I was similarly inspired:agree: although I thought it might be a bit 'SDP' for your tastes:greengrin

Would you agree with him that "Social democracy does not represent an ideal future; it does not even represent the ideal past. But among the options available to us today, it is better than anything else to hand"?

I possibly went a little over the top, probably because his LRB interview was a little less, erm, accomodating. An excellent transitional document then. :greengrin

Depending on what he means by 'the options available to us today' I would just about agree with it. Social democracy does not, however, offer any kind of solution to the (apparently intractable) problems of modern, Western capitalism - and I'd suggest it will inevitably be drawn to an abandoning of its 'social' side in crises such as the one faced now. And that seems demonstrably true when looking at social democratic parties around Europe today.

[BEEJ]

Secondly is there any doubt that the Lib Dems are actually being honest with their statement saying further cuts will be required. It's pretty clear they will be but when the Tories tried to look tough and spell that out their polls dropped so the quickly changed their tune....any government will need to shrink the deficit through cuts much deeper than they have stated yet it's the Lib Dems that are somehow the bad guys for actually telling it like it is rather than pretending everything is actually OK (Labour) or that we can fix a double digit annual defict without cutting too much (Tories)


I think cuts are essential. Problem is though that a lot of the money has already been spent on various projects.

Despite the apparent illusion of economic success over the past few years, which was really all built on sand (or more accurately, credit and borrowing), I reckon in retrospect, people will still consider Labour the party which spends the country into a crisis and the Tories the ones who cut the country into a crisis.

It's not a perfect system, but a bit like the ebb and flow and changing seasons, it is necessary and has a purpose, to sort of quote Ecclesiastes. and The Byrds.
The problem is that due to the imminent general election we're living in a false economy just now, where we seem to be in denial about the magnitude of the debt problems that we face as a nation.

This side of the election it is all too convenient unfortunately to advocate a softly - softly approach to cost-cutting (as it will undermine the economic upturn) and to use hopelessly optimistic growth projections to back up that policy. That is bound to win you votes as the party of compassion.

But should Brown get back in, we will see a magical transformation within a few weeks. Growth projections will start to not look quite so rosey, the economy will look "a lot less strong than they had hoped" and Labour will start to make cuts in public expenditure that weeks before they would have vehemently denied even contemplating.

That is the very nature of Brown and Mandy and is one reason why, whatever I decide to vote, it will not be for Labour.

[hibsbollah]

I possibly went a little over the top, probably because his LRB interview was a little less, erm, accomodating. An excellent transitional document then. :greengrin

Depending on what he means by 'the options available to us today' I would just about agree with it. Social democracy does not, however, offer any kind of solution to the (apparently intractable) problems of modern, Western capitalism - and I'd suggest it will inevitably be drawn to an abandoning of its 'social' side in crises such as the one faced now. And that seems demonstrably true when looking at social democratic parties around Europe today.

I suppose the strength of the essay was that it dealt with broad questions about ethics and morality, and so it rises above the usual ideological arguments. I also really liked the historical parallels he drew.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I suppose the strength of the essay was that it dealt with broad questions about ethics and morality, and so it rises above the usual ideological arguments. I also really liked the historical parallels he drew.

This (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-fares-the-land/?page=1) is great (well, perhaps great isn't the right word...).

Essay in the New York Review of Books on the social impact of the inequality unleashed by neoliberalism, taken from the opening chapter of Judt's new book.

[Sylar]

Cameron gives me the heave!

Perfectly though, he's actually being laughed at in Unison by both Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown - I'm not a fan of any of the 3 really, but Cameron is a complete c***.

[JimBHibees]

Clegg won by a mile despite Sky trying to push the Cameron Tory agenda with the you gov Sun poll declaring Cameron a winner. Brown came over appallingly IMO especially with regard to the Pensioner with £59 a week after 13 years in power.

[marinello59]

Clegg won by a mile despite Sky trying to push the Cameron Tory agenda with the you gov Sun poll declaring Cameron a winner. Brown came over appallingly IMO especially with regard to the Pensioner with £59 a week after 13 years in power.

They ain't subtle are they? :greengrin

[Hainan Hibs]

I actually thought Brown came over well, came over strong on many of the issues.

[stevensons-fan]

Who was the confirmed winner of this second debate then?

[Beefster]

Who was the confirmed winner of this second debate then?

4 proper polls done.

Clegg ahead in 2 polls. Cameron ahead in 1 poll. Cameron / Clegg tied in 1 poll.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I actually thought Brown came over well, came over strong on many of the issues.

So did I - then when I watched the aftermath he was being dismissed. Although even though the polls say he lost it was only by few % - not much.

BTW how much of a pain in the arse is Kay Burley?

[marinello59]

So did I - then when I watched the aftermath he was being dismissed. Although even though the polls say he lost it was only by few % - not much.

BTW how much of a pain in the arse is Kay Burley?

She was dreadful. Repeating ad nauseum to the LibDems and Labour that their man lost is not balanced reporting.

[JimBHibees]

So did I - then when I watched the aftermath he was being dismissed. Although even though the polls say he lost it was only by few % - not much.

BTW how much of a pain in the arse is Kay Burley?

Massive pain and IMO very biased. When Cameron and his wife came in she was fawning like a pubescent schoolgirl, "Hi Sam" etc. After the debate in the interviews Cameron apparently wins the totally unbiased :greengrin You Gov Sun Murdoch Empire debate and all she could say for the next half hour was Cameron won even though other polls had others winning. Embarressing.

In her questioning of Milliband, Byrne and Ashdown she asks the first 2 how do you think your guy did? When asking Ashdown it was so is your man a one trick pony. Truly cringeworthy biased USA Fox like reporting which this country could do without.

[ballengeich]

I was listening on radio last night. Does anyone else think that Clegg and Cameron have completely indistinguishable voices? They look quite similar too. The result of inbreeding among southern English toffs:wink:

[Beefster]

Massive pain and IMO very biased. When Cameron and his wife came in she was fawning like a pubescent schoolgirl, "Hi Sam" etc. After the debate in the interviews Cameron apparently wins the totally unbiased :greengrin You Gov Sun Murdoch Empire debate and all she could say for the next half hour was Cameron won even though other polls had others winning. Embarressing.

In her questioning of Milliband, Byrne and Ashdown she asks the first 2 how do you think your guy did? When asking Ashdown it was so is your man a one trick pony. Truly cringeworthy biased USA Fox like reporting which this country could do without.

The paranoia on here is something else.

- Burley (who I agree is crap) did exactly the same when Brown and his wife arrived. I didn't see Clegg arrive so I've no idea if he got the same treatment.

- It's not worth YouGov's reputation to bring out a biased poll, irrespective of who has commissioned it. The first YouGov/Sun poll had Clegg with a huge win.

- I saw Tory, Lib Dem and Labour politicians get fairly rough questions from Burley. The only party I saw get an easy ride and a rant for free was the SNP.

[Danderhall Hibs]

The paranoia on here is something else.

- Burley (who I agree is crap) did exactly the same when Brown and his wife arrived. I didn't see Clegg arrive so I've no idea if he got the same treatment.

- It's not worth YouGov's reputation to bring out a biased poll, irrespective of who has commissioned it. The same goes for ComRes and the rest.

- I saw Tory, Lib Dem and Labour politicians get fairly rough questions from Burley. The only party I saw get an easy ride and a rant for free was the SNP.

I wasn't saying she was being biased and agree about the polls - I was talking about her interviewing style. She butts in when someone's in full flow to say "but your guy got pumped" (or some such) - it's like a playground argument at times.

I didn't see how many folk were part of the polls but due to the differences in them I assume that it wasn't 10s of thousands? I like Alistair Campbell's answer when gleefully told his "guy had been shafted" (or something like that).

[Beefster]

I wasn't saying she was being biased and agree about the polls - I was talking about her interviewing style. She butts in when someone's in full flow to say "but your guy got pumped" (or some such) - it's like a playground argument at times.

I didn't see how many folk were part of the polls but due to the differences in them I assume that it wasn't 10s of thousands? I like Alistair Campbell's answer when gleefully told his "guy had been shafted" (or something like that).

Aye, she's terrible. I'd rather have had her doing the moderating and Boulton doing the proper questioning.

Not sure about the rest but I think YouGov are generally around 1,100. I think the differences last night are purely down to how 'close' it was. Natural centre-right folk will tend to gravitate to Cameron when there's no clear winner (unlike last week) whereas centre-left will gravitate towards the better of Clegg or Brown, I'd imagine.

[JimBHibees]

The paranoia on here is something else.

- Burley (who I agree is crap) did exactly the same when Brown and his wife arrived. I didn't see Clegg arrive so I've no idea if he got the same treatment.

- It's not worth YouGov's reputation to bring out a biased poll, irrespective of who has commissioned it. The first YouGov/Sun poll had Clegg with a huge win.

- I saw Tory, Lib Dem and Labour politicians get fairly rough questions from Burley. The only party I saw get an easy ride and a rant for free was the SNP.


You may be right however the fact the Sun was linked to it and Burley endlessly felt the need to bring it up when other polls stated Clegg was the winner IMO means she was working to her paymasters very clear political agenda.

[Beefster]

You may be right however the fact the Sun was linked to it and Burley endlessly felt the need to bring it up when other polls stated Clegg was the winner IMO means she was working to her paymasters very clear political agenda.

Once all 4 polls had been released, how many times was the YouGov poll mentioned and the others ignored?

[marinello59]

Once all 4 polls had been released, how many times was the YouGov poll mentioned and the others ignored?

There was a gap between the BBC mentioning other polls and Sky mentioning them. The Beeb was reporting that there was no clear winner yet Sky were still proclaiming Cameron as the winner by some margin. Given the difference betwen the YouGov poll and the others it would be fair to describe it as something of a rogue poll yet Sky still led with the YouGov poll this morning.

[heretoday]

stop talking about change. i don't believe you.

Change and Fairness. These are the watchwords of the Election.

Fat chance of either coming about!

[Ed De Gramo]

Is the YouGov poll something to do with The Sun? If so, is it any surprise they listed the Tories top?

Only saw the highlights (if you can call it that) on the Sky mobile site but thought Nick Clegg was fantastic again! Lib Dems getting my vote :thumbsup:

[Beefster]

There was a gap between the BBC mentioning other polls and Sky mentioning them. The Beeb was reporting that there was no clear winner yet Sky were still proclaiming Cameron as the winner by some margin. Given the difference betwen the YouGov poll and the others it would be fair to describe it as something of a rogue poll yet Sky still led with the YouGov poll this morning.

Populus had Cameron winning too so YouGov aren't alone.

Sky reporting the 'Poll of Poll' results now. Tied Cameron/Clegg. Brown trailing.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-Nick-Clegg-And-David-Cameron-Joint-Winners-In-Sky-News-Poll-Of-Polls/Article/201004415613588?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Arti cle_Teaser_Regi_2&lid=ARTICLE_15613588_Leaders_Debate%3A_Nick_Clegg_ And_David_Cameron_Joint_Winners_In_Sky_News_Poll_O f_Polls

[marinello59]

Populus had Cameron winning too so YouGov aren't alone.

Sky reporting the 'Poll of Poll' results now. Tied Cameron/Clegg. Brown trailing.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-Nick-Clegg-And-David-Cameron-Joint-Winners-In-Sky-News-Poll-Of-Polls/Article/201004415613588?lpos=Politics_First_Poilitics_Arti cle_Teaser_Regi_2&lid=ARTICLE_15613588_Leaders_Debate%3A_Nick_Clegg_ And_David_Cameron_Joint_Winners_In_Sky_News_Poll_O f_Polls

I am not saying YouGov were alone though the gap in their poll was a lot bigger enabling Sky to claim that Cameron had been a clear winner. Burley was certainly treating it as a definite win.