Personalities vs Policies - Which one is REALLY the deciding factor??

[lyonhibs]

Since the beginning of this election, as with every election I can remember, all the major parties have peddled the line "This election is not about personalities, it's about policies" to encourage the idea that you aren't voting for a person, but for a culture, "way" of doing things/whatever you want to call it.

For me, they can bluster on this path as much as they want, but I genuinely turned over the leader's debate after 5 minutes because it was the SAME pish from all 3:

Clegg: "Change, change, a new of doing things"

Cameron "Big society, cut out waste"

Brown: "Support the economy this year, avoid a double dip recession"

:blah: :blah: :blah:

I think there will be a decent portion of the UK populace, who will have watched these debates, because they've been heavily advertised and are so easily accessible (some might say this is a bad thing, but the British populace has become a disenfranchised slothful beast recently, in the main). But I don't think they would have taken an interest or even voted without these debates.

Additionally, as the overall message/policies of all 3 parties in these debates seems to merge into 1 morasse of pish (Change, they are the baddies, we will protect frontline services but cuts are needed), I think there will be a decent chunk of people going to polling stations on Thursday who a) wouldn't have been going without these debates, and b) will be making their decision based primarily on the people they've seen and how they've come across on the debates.

Anyone else agree?

For those people that find themselves in this position - and I'm not far of being one of them - who do you think they'll vote for?

Cameron is *****ed - he looks and talks like a programmed Madame Tussaud's waxwork model - he genuinely gives me the creeps, and Osborne (who would be charged with the Economy) is even worse.

Brown may be a decent guy, but he really isn't cut out for these debates. He was the worst at just repeating the same lines over and over again.

Not that I'll be voting for him, but I think Clegg might receive more of a bounce than predicted when 1st time/returning voters, who haven't - and honestly, who has time to read all the manifestos?? - researched the finer points of the policies come to vote, because on an aesthetic/superficial level, he has - IMO - come across the best in these debates.

[Betty Boop]

Since the beginning of this election, as with every election I can remember, all the major parties have peddled the line "This election is not about personalities, it's about policies" to encourage the idea that you aren't voting for a person, but for a culture, "way" of doing things/whatever you want to call it.

For me, they can bluster on this path as much as they want, but I genuinely turned over the leader's debate after 5 minutes because it was the SAME pish from all 3:

Clegg: "Change, change, a new of doing things"

Cameron "Big society, cut out waste"

Brown: "Support the economy this year, avoid a double dip recession"

:blah: :blah: :blah:

I think there will be a decent portion of the UK populace, who will have watched these debates, because they've been heavily advertised and are so easily accessible (some might say this is a bad thing, but the British populace has become a disenfranchised slothful beast recently, in the main). But I don't think they would have taken an interest or even voted without these debates.

Additionally, as the overall message/policies of all 3 parties in these debates seems to merge into 1 morasse of pish (Change, they are the baddies, we will protect frontline services but cuts are needed), I think there will be a decent chunk of people going to polling stations on Thursday who a) wouldn't have been going without these debates, and b) will be making their decision based primarily on the people they've seen and how they've come across on the debates.

Anyone else agree?

For those people that find themselves in this position - and I'm not far of being one of them - who do you think they'll vote for?

Cameron is *****ed - he looks and talks like a programmed Madame Tussaud's waxwork model - he genuinely gives me the creeps, and Osborne (who would be charged with the Economy) is even worse.

Brown may be a decent guy, but he really isn't cut out for these debates. He was the worst at just repeating the same lines over and over again.

Not that I'll be voting for him, but I think Clegg might receive more of a bounce than predicted when 1st time/returning voters, who haven't - and honestly, who has time to read all the manifestos?? - researched the finer points of the policies come to vote, because on an aesthetic/superficial level, he has - IMO - come across the best in these debates.

Not a fan of the Tories by any stretch of the imagination, however I thought that Cameron came across the best out of the three last night. Clegg gave his weakest performance of the three debates, and Brown looked manic, that thing he does with his mouth, and the forced grins. I think it is worrying that we are going down the road of these American Presidential style debates.

[Mon Dieu4]

In my opinion each one has pretty much been a dead heat for me, I didnt learn anything I didnt know before & it has not changed the way I will be voting, however out of the 3 I would rather have Brown again, he may not be the best debator or personality you have ever seen, but I trust him to make the hard decisions more than the more style than substance other pair.

Clegg has come over really well at times & I really like Vince Cable as I think he speaks alot of sense but Brown was the only one that really seemed like an elder statesman for me.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not a fan of the Tories by any stretch of the imagination, however I thought that Cameron came across the best out of the three last night. Clegg gave his weakest performance of the three debates, and Brown looked manic, that thing he does with his mouth, and the forced grins. I think it is worrying that we are going down the road of these American Presidential style debates.

i found myelf getting very angry with Cameron last night - a typical "politicians" approach of setting up a straw man to argue against Clegg with on immigration, and then continue to attack the straw man and scare monger. To paraphrase:

DC: You'll have an amnesty on immigrants and alllow all those here to stay
NC: The reality is they are here: Better to have them as part of society paying taxes rather than having them as part of criminal gangs
DC: 600,000 of them + a family member
NC: No, those who have been here ten years and can speak english
DC: Open door! Millions of people! Using British taxpayers services! Welfare!

If I needed any more reason never to consider voting for that oily ******* and his party of vile, self-centred *****s this exchange offered it in spades.

[The_Todd]

The fact one poll gave Cameron 41% says it all. Substance is not an issue. As long as Cameron has baby smooth skin and keeps saying not very much of anything, the viewing public will vote for him.

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------


i found myelf getting very angry with Cameron last night - a typical "politicians" approach of setting up a straw man to argue against Clegg with on immigration, and then continue to attack the straw man and scare monger. To paraphrase:

DC: You'll have an amnesty on immigrants and alllow all those here to stay
NC: The reality is they are here: Better to have them as part of society paying taxes rather than having them as part of criminal gangs
DC: 600,000 of them + a family member
NC: No,mthose who have been here ten years and can speak english
DC: Open door! Millions of people! Using British taxpayers services! Welfare!

If I needed any more reason never to consider voting for that oily ******* and his party of vile, self-centred *****s this exchange offered it in spades.

Though I did enjoy Cleggs knockout response: "How do you deport people when you don't even know where they are?"

DC seemed to drop the subject after that.

[Beefster]

The fact one poll gave Cameron 41% says it all. Substance is not an issue. As long as Cameron has baby smooth skin and keeps saying not very much of anything, the viewing public will vote for him.

---------- Post added at 09:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------



Though I did enjoy Cleggs knockout response: "How do you deport people when you don't even know where they are?"

DC seemed to drop the subject after that.

How do you check that illegal immigrants don't have a criminal record and speak English before giving them the right to stay if you don't know where they are?

By the way, neither Cameron or Brown dropped it after Clegg said that. It went on for about another 5 minutes before Dimbleby moved the debate on. I've no problem with arguing my views with folk but some are just posting stuff that is evidently untrue.

[PeeJay]

How do you check that illegal immigrants don't have a criminal record and speak English before giving them the right to stay if you don't know where they are?

By the way, neither Cameron or Brown dropped it after Clegg said that. It went on for about another 5 minutes before Dimbleby moved the debate on.


Forgive me for asking BUT if no-one knows where they are, how does anyone know how many there are and if they are indeed actually where peope say that they are although no-one knows where that actually is?
Who is counting ... and how?

[Twa Cairpets]

Forgive me for asking BUT if no-one knows where they are, how does anyone know how many there are and if they are indeed actually where peope say that they are although no-one knows where that actually is?
Who is counting ... and how?

I think thats the point, you dont (know where the people are). its guess work, and the idea of the amnesty draws a line regarding a certain number of specific cases, so resources are focussed on the criminal elements.

Cameron lobbing 600,000 and 1.2 million into the mix are big numbers that stick in peoples mind when the dust settles on the debate. It is a deliberate policy and technique, and one that to my mind is of the most dishonest and underhand that any of them bring out. Essentially verbal Daily-Mailing.

[Beefster]

Forgive me for asking BUT if no-one knows where they are, how does anyone know how many there are and if they are indeed actually where peope say that they are although no-one knows where that actually is?
Who is counting ... and how?

It's all estimates.

500k - 700k : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration#United_Kingdom

Up to 1m : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7107598.ece

Govt says up to 600k in 2005 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4637273.stm

[lyonhibs]

I think thats the point, you dont. its guess work, and the idea of the amnesty draws a line regarding a certain number of specific cases, so resources are focussed on the criminal elements.

Cameron lobbing 600,000 and 1.2 million into the mix are big numbers that stick in peoples mind when the dust settles on the debate. It is a deliberate policy and technique, and one that to my mind is of the most dishonest and underhand that any of them bring out. Essentially verbal Daily-Mailing.

:agree:

David Cameron's quantitative cap on net immigration is literally the most ******ed, unworkable idea put forward by any of the 3 parties in this debate. Complete scaremongering.

Although, it's jolly decent that he's been so precise as to say he wants it to be a "5 figure amount" - it doesn't take a genuis to work out that leaves him quite a wide margin for error, from 10,000 all the way to 99,999.

Why can't he give a vaguely more precise ball park figure??

Because he doesn't have a scooby what the figure would be, which in turn implies that he doesn't know how his cap would be implemented, policed or monitored.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Additionally, as the overall message/policies of all 3 parties in these debates seems to merge into 1 morasse of pish (Change, they are the baddies, we will protect frontline services but cuts are needed), I think there will be a decent chunk of people going to polling stations on Thursday who a) wouldn't have been going without these debates, and b) will be making their decision based primarily on the people they've seen and how they've come across on the debates.

Anyone else agree?

Yes, but I think this idea of personality superseding policy in the decision making of the electorate is a bit of a canard. The question is what is creating this situation in which it appears to be the case that personality is of greater importance; and I think it's down to a fairly radical process of 'depoliticising' politics in which anything outside of a very narrow remit is permanently kept outside of any mainstream political discourse through the transfer of decision making to unelected and unaccountable bodies from the IMF to the World Bank to the Bank of England to the Federal Reserve to the E.U. (largely unelected and largely unaccountable in this case). So the usual argument that the parties merge together in order to best suit the character of the electorate is disingenuous, it's because only this narrow set of ideas can actually operate within this depoliticised and de-ideologised politics.

So what you get is a sort of anti-politics of feeling and sentiment; Gordon Brown isn't 'personable', David Cameron is 'smarmy', Nick Clegg seems 'genuine' etc. etc. It's nothing to do with actually believing in anything but about how you 'relate' to the assorted managerial styles. Because, of course, There Is No Alternative...


For those people that find themselves in this position - and I'm not far of being one of them - who do you think they'll vote for?

Labour without much hesitation, purely on a fairly uninspired and uninspiring rationale that the Tories will be worse when tallied against the things that I believe in.

[RyeSloan]

Yes, but I think this idea of personality superseding policy in the decision making of the electorate is a bit of a canard. The question is what is creating this situation in which it appears to be the case that personality is of greater importance; and I think it's down to a fairly radical process of 'depoliticising' politics in which anything outside of a very narrow remit is permanently kept outside of any mainstream political discourse through the transfer of decision making to unelected and unaccountable bodies from the IMF to the World Bank to the Bank of England to the Federal Reserve to the E.U. (largely unelected and largely unaccountable in this case). So the usual argument that the parties merge together in order to best suit the character of the electorate is disingenuous, it's because only this narrow set of ideas can actually operate within this depoliticised and de-ideologised politics.

So what you get is a sort of anti-politics of feeling and sentiment; Gordon Brown isn't 'personable', David Cameron is 'smarmy', Nick Clegg seems 'genuine' etc. etc. It's nothing to do with actually believing in anything but about how you 'relate' to the assorted managerial styles. Because, of course, There Is No Alternative...



Labour without much hesitation, purely on a fairly uninspired and uninspiring rationale that the Tories will be worse when tallied against the things that I believe in.

Gosh you never tire of it LH do you!!! :greengrin

Considering these guys have to run the country next month I suppose you could say that they have little option but to put across how they would do this when dealing with the reality that the BoE etc do exist rather than posturing on some unachievable and unworkable ideals....

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have come across some really nice people, who get on with everybody. The only problem they are worse than a man short when it comes to getting anything done.

Brown's biggest error has to be that horrible smile he has affected in recent months. It just looks insencere.

I'd much rather he said, "shut it the *****ing lot of you, you don't know anything about the economy, that's why you elected me in the first place. now just ***** off".

Or maybe:
"Everybody's the big man till it comes to doing something, if any of you were any use at all you'd be running the country. But you're a bunch of *****ing numpties. Doesn't say much for me I know, but it says even less for you.
Will this do Peter?"

[LiverpoolHibs]

Gosh you never tire of it LH do you!!! :greengrin

Considering these guys have to run the country next month I suppose you could say that they have little option but to put across how they would do this when dealing with the reality that the BoE etc do exist rather than posturing on some unachievable and unworkable ideals....

Absolutely, that's the point...

[JimBHibees]

I have come across some really nice people, who get on with everybody. The only problem they are worse than a man short when it comes to getting anything done.

Brown's biggest error has to be that horrible smile he has affected in recent months. It just looks insencere.

I'd much rather he said, "shut it the *****ing lot of you, you don't know anything about the economy, that's why you elected me in the first place. now just ***** off".

Or maybe:
"Everybody's the big man till it comes to doing something, if any of you were any use at all you'd be running the country. But you're a bunch of *****ing numpties. Doesn't say much for me I know, but it says even less for you.
Will this do Peter?"

I think that is part of the problem the country didnt elect him as PM.

Agree about the smile at the end of the debate, was glad the kids had been put to bed as they would have had nightmares. Like something out of a Ealing Horror movie. :greengrin

[steakbake]

I thought Brown sounded defeated last night. His final statement to the electorate was basically, vote for who you like but if you don't vote for me, you'll ruin everything. Fears, smears and half truths.

Cameron and Clegg both made statements about change, going forward etc Not that I particularly think either of them are being straight with people, but at least they did not hit the desperate low of the fear tactics. Fear is the sort of tactic used by regimes just before they fall.

I really, really hope that Brown is given the kicking he very richly deserves off the electorate next week. He'll go on to his retirement thinking that we're ungrateful and didn't understand all the good things he did for us.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think that is part of the problem the country didnt elect him as PM.

Agree about the smile at the end of the debate, was glad the kids had been put to bed as they would have had nightmares. Like something out of a Ealing Horror movie. :greengrin

:agree: He looks like a ventriloquists dummy.

[The_Todd]

Cameron and Clegg both made statements about change, going forward etc Not that I particularly think either of them are being straight with people, but at least they did not hit the desperate low of the fear tactics. Fear is the sort of tactic used by regimes just before they fall.


The Tories and the Tory Press have used plenty of fear tactics, be it against Labour or the Lib Dems

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47274000/jpg/_47274061_-1.jpg

Tories try to scare electorate of a Hung Parliament by making spurious claims of instability: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/cameron+warns+of+ampaposbig+mistakeampapos+voting+ changes/3626187

The Tory influenced Sun at it: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2942266/Hung-Parliament-bad-for-Britain.html

The Express scare the non-Tory voters silly: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15612475.jpg

The Daily Mail doing Tory bidding against the Lib Dems: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/m15612524.jpg

All of which has backfired. To say the Tories keep their messages "positive" is so far removed from truth it's not funny

[PeeJay]

I thought Brown sounded defeated last night. His final statement to the electorate was basically, vote for who you like but if you don't vote for me, you'll ruin everything. Fears, smears and half truths.


It's certainly interesting how people view the debates differently: who won/lost, performed well/badly. For me Brown was the most competent one yesterday evening, Clegg good again, but slightly shakier than on the two previous debates - but I do worry for the UK when I consider how awful Cameron appeared on all three debates! That's my take on it of course, but he does not look like a man with a vision to me. He offers nothing to get the UK out of the mess - and I'm too long in the tooth to fall into the trap of believing in caring, compassionate Conservatives. He introduced a latent fear factor with his veiled threat to deal with people who do not "...save and do the right thing" - I assume he was not meaning those Tories with offshore accounts?

If people vote Clegg into some decision-making position, I wonder if they have considered his Lib-Dem Shadow Cabinet - are they as up to the task at hand as Clegg appears to be? I'm not sure - is anyone out there?

[Leicester Fan]

The Tories and the Tory Press have used plenty of fear tactics, be it against Labour or the Lib Dems

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47274000/jpg/_47274061_-1.jpg (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47274000/jpg/_47274061_-1.jpg)

Tories try to scare electorate of a Hung Parliament by making spurious claims of instability: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/cameron+warns+of+ampaposbig+mistakeampapos+voting+ changes/3626187 (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/cameron+warns+of+ampaposbig+mistakeampapos+voting+ changes/3626187)

The Tory influenced Sun at it: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2942266/Hung-Parliament-bad-for-Britain.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2942266/Hung-Parliament-bad-for-Britain.html)

The Express scare the non-Tory voters silly: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15612475.jpg (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15612475.jpg)

The Daily Mail doing Tory bidding against the Lib Dems: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/m15612524.jpg (http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/m15612524.jpg)

All of which has backfired. To say the Tories keep their messages "positive" is so far removed from truth it's not funny

Most of the readers of those papers are likely to be Tory voters anyway.

Just a point on the Mail, Roy Hattersly has a column in the Daily Mail and Vince Cable has one in the Mail on Sunday so it's not all scaremongering against the other parties.

Also lets not pretend that the other parties don't scaremonger too.

[steakbake]

The Tories and the Tory Press have used plenty of fear tactics, be it against Labour or the Lib Dems

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47274000/jpg/_47274061_-1.jpg

Tories try to scare electorate of a Hung Parliament by making spurious claims of instability: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/cameron+warns+of+ampaposbig+mistakeampapos+voting+ changes/3626187

The Tory influenced Sun at it: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2942266/Hung-Parliament-bad-for-Britain.html

The Express scare the non-Tory voters silly: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15612475.jpg

The Daily Mail doing Tory bidding against the Lib Dems: http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/m15612524.jpg

All of which has backfired. To say the Tories keep their messages "positive" is so far removed from truth it's not funny

I didn't say that at all.

All I said and meant was that Clegg and Cameron finished on positives - reasons to vote for their parties. Brown finished on the negative: why we shouldn't vote for the other two. After 13 years, has he got nothing better to say?

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------


:agree: He looks like a ventriloquists dummy.

...and Mandelson is in up to his elbow... for now.

[steakbake]

If people vote Clegg into some decision-making position, I wonder if they have considered his Lib-Dem Shadow Cabinet - are they as up to the task at hand as Clegg appears to be? I'm not sure - is anyone out there?

You can say that about all the parties.

Who is there behind Cameron? Just the usual Cons with their euroskeptic craziness and the market-will-fix-it superstitions.

Behind Brown is an ever shrinking band of loyalists. Ed Balls and Milliband... Harriet Harmann?

To be honest, none of the 3 main parties I would say, have any more than perhaps 2 or 3 front benchers of any consequence.

[WindyMiller]

These "Debates" have been just a beauty contest, the presenter should have been able to query their "facts".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html)

[One Day Soon]

Yes, but I think this idea of personality superseding policy in the decision making of the electorate is a bit of a canard. The question is what is creating this situation in which it appears to be the case that personality is of greater importance; and I think it's down to a fairly radical process of 'depoliticising' politics in which anything outside of a very narrow remit is permanently kept outside of any mainstream political discourse through the transfer of decision making to unelected and unaccountable bodies from the IMF to the World Bank to the Bank of England to the Federal Reserve to the E.U. (largely unelected and largely unaccountable in this case). So the usual argument that the parties merge together in order to best suit the character of the electorate is disingenuous, it's because only this narrow set of ideas can actually operate within this depoliticised and de-ideologised politics.

So what you get is a sort of anti-politics of feeling and sentiment; Gordon Brown isn't 'personable', David Cameron is 'smarmy', Nick Clegg seems 'genuine' etc. etc. It's nothing to do with actually believing in anything but about how you 'relate' to the assorted managerial styles. Because, of course, There Is No Alternative...



Labour without much hesitation, purely on a fairly uninspired and uninspiring rationale that the Tories will be worse when tallied against the things that I believe in.


That's all wrong. What is creating the situtation in which personality is more important than politics is the fact that an increasingly dumb electorate just cannae be bothered with politics - its too much effort, it requires them to think for more than a few minutes and they have to make choices which are quite hard in terms of the consequences that their votes will have. And all that is far too much like hard work and far too little like celebrity Come Dancing.

There was nothing depoliticising about the various raging arguments on - for example - the EU which ravaged the Tories, the Iraq war, the Poll Tax, high unemployment, the global banking failure, world recession, the case for and against independence or the MPs expenses. These were/are all big and ugly enough issues to anger and engage an electorate that cared enough. There are those who get fired up, think about the issues and get engaged in debate - a fair amount of that goes on in this section of Hibs.net even if we rarely agree - and then there are the sullen, bored, uninterested masses who just want this boring political stuff off the telly so that they can go back to consuming things, reproducing and occasionally wondering why their lives aren't better and the world isn't a happier place.

There absolutely are alternatives in the choices between the parties in this election. For example, if Scotland were to return a majority of SNP MPs at this election it would be certain that a referendum on independence would take place within a year. That's about as fundamental as it gets.

By pretending that there is no real choice you are helping to dumb down the whole thing. But doing that supports the paradigm you do believe in doesn't it?

[LiverpoolHibs]

That's all wrong.

There's a surprise!


What is creating the situtation in which personality is more important than politics is the fact that an increasingly dumb electorate just cannae be bothered with politics - its too much effort, it requires them to think for more than a few minutes and they have to make choices which are quite hard in terms of the consequences that their votes will have. And all that is far too much like hard work and far too little like celebrity Come Dancing.

Well, if you treat the disengagement of the electorate as the root cause rather than as a symptom then that all makes sense. But I don't think that's true; you have to ask what has brought about an atrophying of party membership, voting levels, trade union membership etc. etc.


There was nothing depoliticising about the various raging arguments on - for example - the EU which ravaged the Tories, the Iraq war, the Poll Tax, high unemployment, the global banking failure, world recession, the case for and against independence or the MPs expenses. These were/are all big and ugly enough issues to anger and engage an electorate that cared enough. There are those who get fired up, think about the issues and get engaged in debate - a fair amount of that goes on in this section of Hibs.net even if we rarely agree - and then there are the sullen, bored, uninterested masses who just want this boring political stuff off the telly so that they can go back to consuming things, reproducing and occasionally wondering why their lives aren't better and the world isn't a happier place.

On the contrary, I think most of them are pretty textbook examples of depoliticised 'issues'. None more so the most recent crisis - quite incredibly so. It's absolutely astonishing that a massive crisis of capitalism has been almost completely reduced to people talking about a budget deficit largely the result of the crisis. That amazes me, but ho-hum.


There absolutely are alternatives in the choices between the parties in this election. For example, if Scotland were to return a majority of SNP MPs at this election it would be certain that a referendum on independence would take place within a year. That's about as fundamental as it gets.

I didn't say there weren't alternatives though, did I? Otherwise saying I was voting Labour and the reason I gave wouldn't have made any sense.


By pretending that there is no real choice you are helping to dumb down the whole thing. But doing that supports the paradigm you do believe in doesn't it?

I'm fairly sure you don't even know what that means. What a strange sentence.

[PeeJay]

I'm fairly sure you don't even know what that means. What a strange sentence.

"Another use of the word paradigm is in the sense of Weltanschauung (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Weltanschauung) (German for ideology). For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception."

Maybe he meant something like this? Of course, maybe I don't understand it either. :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

"Another use of the word paradigm is in the sense of Weltanschauung (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Weltanschauung) (German for ideology). For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception."

Maybe he meant something like this? Of course, maybe I don't understand it either. :confused:

Ha, nah. It's just he seems rather taken with a post of mine from a while back in which I used the word 'paradigm', so he's taken to repeating it quite often - even crowbarring it into his posts when it doesn't really make any sense.

[One Day Soon]

There's a surprise!

A surprise to you perhaps.



Well, if you treat the disengagement of the electorate as the root cause rather than as a symptom then that all makes sense. But I don't think that's true; you have to ask what has brought about an atrophying of party membership, voting levels, trade union membership etc. etc.

The emergence of a consumerist society in which people by and large have plenty of means to be consumerist is a fairly central reason. If you spend most days worrying about where your next pound is coming from that is a pretty strong incentive to think about why things are the way they are and how they might change. If your are lardily sitting around in a pool of relative wealth with nothing much to worry about other than where your next consumer durable is coming from the propensity to engage in political thought is going to be lessened. But all that aside the essential human condition is not a pretty one. Self interest and self absorption tend to be king and in a society that has not had to seriously go without since WW2 the ability or will to think collectively about common purpose and endeavour is virtually non existent. These people can get off their jacksies to organise their mortgage, book their holidays, find a partner, buy a new car or argue for themselves in shops or at work. But they can't pause to think sensibly about the political choice they are asked to make less than once a year. They deserve everything they get.

On the contrary, I think most of them are pretty textbook examples of depoliticised 'issues'. None more so the most recent crisis - quite incredibly so. It's absolutely astonishing that a massive crisis of capitalism has been almost completely reduced to people talking about a budget deficit largely the result of the crisis. That amazes me, but ho-hum.

If you think that the war in Iraq is or was a depoliticised issue then you are barking mad. What crisis of Capitalism? There isn't one. Your presumably Marxist analysis wants there to be one, but there isn't. And the budget deficit is also not largely the result of the banking crisis either. It pre-dated that by some margin.

I didn't say there weren't alternatives though, did I? Otherwise saying I was voting Labour and the reason I gave wouldn't have made any sense.

You said this "So what you get is a sort of anti-politics of feeling and sentiment; Gordon Brown isn't 'personable', David Cameron is 'smarmy', Nick Clegg seems 'genuine' etc. etc. It's nothing to do with actually believing in anything but about how you 'relate' to the assorted managerial styles. Because, of course, There Is No Alternative..." which I took (perhaps wrongly) to be sarcastically implying that of course there was an alternative to all this stuff from the main parties with their indistinguishable managerial politics. My point was that there is an alternative but that contrary to what you imply it is contained within the real choices to be made between the parties.

I'm fairly sure you don't even know what that means. What a strange sentence.

I know exactly what that means and so, contrary to your assertions I think, do you. It means that you are pretending that all the parties are the same and that the only real alternative lies with an analysis rooted somewhere in or around a Marxist interpretation. So by promoting the myth that there is no real choice between the parties you advance your broader (unstated) case that a frontal attack on capitalism is the only route to real change. Which is what I describe as "supports the paradigm you do believe in".

I anticipate your usual medley of responses ranging from 'I have no idea what that sentence means' through to 'here are some wordy abstract arguments which don't actually answer any of the questions'.

[One Day Soon]

Ha, nah. It's just he seems rather taken with a post of mine from a while back in which I used the word 'paradigm', so he's taken to repeating it quite often - even crowbarring it into his posts when it doesn't really make any sense.

Bit touchy about that aren't we? I think you will find I have used that term just three times - including the post above in which I only do so in response to your assertion that the sentence in which it is contained is meaningless.

And for what its worth Peejay seems to have the term - and by extension you - pegged correctly.

[Mibbes Aye]

I thought Brown sounded defeated last night. His final statement to the electorate was basically, vote for who you like but if you don't vote for me, you'll ruin everything. Fears, smears and half truths.

Cameron and Clegg both made statements about change, going forward etc Not that I particularly think either of them are being straight with people, but at least they did not hit the desperate low of the fear tactics. Fear is the sort of tactic used by regimes just before they fall.

I really, really hope that Brown is given the kicking he very richly deserves off the electorate next week. He'll go on to his retirement thinking that we're ungrateful and didn't understand all the good things he did for us.

If I'm not mistaken Steakbake, you're a man, in your thirties, decently-educated. Yes?

To be quite honest, you've got **** all to fear from Cameron. You won't lose out. Certainly no more than anyone else.

Have you got children though?

Or have you got elderly parents who aren't that well off?

A lot of us have.

I'm terrified of what the Conservatives would unleash on the vulnerable in our country. They've spelled out their position. It's no future....

[Beefster]

If I'm not mistaken Steakbake, you're a man, in your thirties, decently-educated. Yes?

To be quite honest, you've got **** all to fear from Cameron. You won't lose out. Certainly no more than anyone else.

Have you got children though?

Or have you got elderly parents who aren't that well off?

A lot of us have.

I'm terrified of what the Conservatives would unleash on the vulnerable in our country. They've spelled out their position. It's no future....

Is your fear based on Labour scaremongering or something in the Tories manifesto?

[One Day Soon]

Is your fear based on Labour scaremongering or something in the Tories manifesto?

My fear is based upon their in-year cuts proposal which virtually guarantees a double dip recession, the fact that George Osborne thought during the banking crisis that it would be a good idea to let one of the big banks go down and their track records of both using mass unemployment as an economic management tool and running down core public services by underinvesting in them.

Aside from that I think Cameron is a pretty shallow fake whose Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker but every time he's interviewed for more than three minutes he just comes apart at the seams.

There is just no sense that he has any deep policy grasp or that he has a clear idea of where he wants the country to go. Or to put it another way, I'm very concerned about what isn't in his manifesto.

[Beefster]

My fear is based upon their in-year cuts proposal which virtually guarantees a double dip recession, the fact that George Osborne thought during the banking crisis that it would be a good idea to let one of the big banks go down and their track records of both using mass unemployment as an economic management tool and running down core public services by underinvesting in them.

Aside from that I think Cameron is a pretty shallow fake whose Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker but every time he's interviewed for more than three minutes he just comes apart at the seams.

There is just no sense that he has any deep policy grasp or that he has a clear idea of where he wants the country to go. Or to put it another way, I'm very concerned about what isn't in his manifesto.

You're reflecting the current desperation of the Labour Party.

"Don't vote for them, they'll be worse than us"

It's understandable though when, after 13 years in power, you're sitting third in the polls and nothing else you do, positive or negative, will change that.

PS The 'in-year' cuts is waste that the government has admitted exists but doesn't want to deal with this year. The Conservatives are suggesting that they deal with the waste now and save the taxpayers some tax. The only way that could possibly be viewed as 'removing £6bn from the economy' is if you think that consumers and private sector are not part of the economy.

[One Day Soon]

You're reflecting the current desperation of the Labour Party.

"Don't vote for them, they'll be worse than us"

It's understandable though when, after 13 years in power, you're sitting third in the polls and nothing else you do, positive or negative, will change that.

PS The 'in-year' cuts is waste that the government has admitted exists but doesn't want to deal with this year. The Conservatives are suggesting that they deal with the waste now and save the taxpayers some tax. The only way that could possibly be viewed as 'removing £6bn from the economy' is if you think that consumers and private sector are not part of the economy.

No, I'm reflecting what I think about a prospective Tory government. So we can either debate the points or swap assertions.

I'm not sitting third in anything - I'm not a political party. Labour - according to the most recent poll - is level with the Lib Dems, not third.

To return to the points I made:

1. My fear is based upon their in-year cuts proposal which virtually guarantees a double dip recession. I don't know if you have ever run a public sector budget or not, but I have. I can tell you now that all party allegiances aside the only way they can realise the level of cuts they are looking for in year, and after two to three months of the financial year has passed, is by cutting in areas largely involving staff. The 'waste' they want to cut cannot guarantee to deliver the savings in year - this policy will result directly in departments freezing recruitment and possibly looking to get even more people out of the door under voluntary redundancy.

2. The fact that George Osborne thought during the banking crisis that it would be a good idea to let one of the big banks go down. Do you dispute this? He is after all on record saying it. It suggests to me a worrying level of lack of economic competence to consider that this might be an acceptable approach.

3. Their track records of both using mass unemployment as an economic management tool and running down core public services by underinvesting in them. This is exactly the model used by first Thatcher and then Major between 1979 and 1997 - do you dispute that?

4. I think Cameron is a pretty shallow fake whose Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker but every time he's interviewed for more than three minutes he just comes apart at the seams. This I accept is a matter of opinion but for what its worth this is what I think of him.

5. You assert that "The 'in-year' cuts is waste that the government has admitted exists but doesn't want to deal with this year. The Conservatives are suggesting that they deal with the waste now and save the taxpayers some tax. The only way that could possibly be viewed as 'removing £6bn from the economy' is if you think that consumers and private sector are not part of the economy."

First, even if the waste exists it will be almost impossible to achieve the savings represented in year without cutting into more readily achievable savings like jobs. Second, even if the cuts are made it will not save anybody any tax since tax will at best be remaining the same and far more likely will be increased. The purpose of the proposed savings is to help reduce the deficit - ie the amount by which we are spending more than we have available to spend - and in particular to pay for not increasing NI next year. So the savings will result in net less spending.

This is a measure that will take £6 billion out of circulation in the economy and will serve to further deflate an already extremely fragile recovery. The way in which we recover from recession and get into solid growth is for confidence to return which in turn will encourage individuals and private companies to start spending again. The measure proposed has to happen at some point soon along with a range of wider savings, but to do it now will cost public sector jobs initially and will then cost private sector jobs as we go back into recession or as the recovery just stalls on a flat line. It is a classic Tory approach - wield the axe early and hard and let the cards fall where they may. I think Norman Lamont sat in his bath singing 'Je ne regrette rien' when he did his version and I can't remember which Tory it was who said that unemployment was a price worth paying.

[Beefster]

No, I'm reflecting what I think about a prospective Tory government. So we can either debate the points or swap assertions.

I'm not sitting third in anything - I'm not a political party. Labour - according to the most recent poll - is level with the Lib Dems, not third.

To return to the points I made:

1. My fear is based upon their in-year cuts proposal which virtually guarantees a double dip recession. I don't know if you have ever run a public sector budget or not, but I have. I can tell you now that all party allegiances aside the only way they can realise the level of cuts they are looking for in year, and after two to three months of the financial year has passed, is by cutting in areas largely involving staff. The 'waste' they want to cut cannot guarantee to deliver the savings in year - this policy will result directly in departments freezing recruitment and possibly looking to get even more people out of the door under voluntary redundancy.

2. The fact that George Osborne thought during the banking crisis that it would be a good idea to let one of the big banks go down. Do you dispute this? He is after all on record saying it. It suggests to me a worrying level of lack of economic competence to consider that this might be an acceptable approach.

3. Their track records of both using mass unemployment as an economic management tool and running down core public services by underinvesting in them. This is exactly the model used by first Thatcher and then Major between 1979 and 1997 - do you dispute that?

4. I think Cameron is a pretty shallow fake whose Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker but every time he's interviewed for more than three minutes he just comes apart at the seams. This I accept is a matter of opinion but for what its worth this is what I think of him.

5. You assert that "The 'in-year' cuts is waste that the government has admitted exists but doesn't want to deal with this year. The Conservatives are suggesting that they deal with the waste now and save the taxpayers some tax. The only way that could possibly be viewed as 'removing £6bn from the economy' is if you think that consumers and private sector are not part of the economy."

First, even if the waste exists it will be almost impossible to achieve the savings represented in year without cutting into more readily achievable savings like jobs. Second, even if the cuts are made it will not save anybody any tax since tax will at best be remaining the same and far more likely will be increased. The purpose of the proposed savings is to help reduce the deficit - ie the amount by which we are spending more than we have available to spend - and in particular to pay for not increasing NI next year. So the savings will result in net less spending.

This is a measure that will take £6 billion out of circulation in the economy and will serve to further deflate an already extremely fragile recovery. The way in which we recover from recession and get into solid growth is for confidence to return which in turn will encourage individuals and private companies to start spending again. The measure proposed has to happen at some point soon along with a range of wider savings, but to do it now will cost public sector jobs initially and will then cost private sector jobs as we go back into recession or as the recovery just stalls on a flat line. It is a classic Tory approach - wield the axe early and hard and let the cards fall where they may. I think Norman Lamont sat in his bath singing 'Je ne regrette rien' when he did his version and I can't remember which Tory it was who said that unemployment was a price worth paying.

1. All parties have said that some jobs will go, although they mainly say through not replacing those who leave. It's sad but most private companies have had to do the same.

2. He did indeed and has admitted that he got it wrong as far as I know. Incidentally, Gordon Brown changed his mind about the 10p tax and Vince Cable changed his mind about most things. It happens.

3. I was a kid in the eighties and didn't do history so I have no idea. You're comparing apples with oranges though. Would it have been reasonable in 1997 to say "don't vote new Labour, they made mistakes in 1976" or now to say "don't vote Liberals, they made mistakes in 1912"?

4. Inverted snobbery IMO. Blair went to Fettes, Darling went to Loretto, Balls went to some elite school, Woodward's a multi-millionaire with a butler. Doesn't make them 'shallow' though, does it? Calling Cameron shallow is an easy way to defend how bad Gordon Brown is at communicating.

5. It'll save taxpayers and businesses from the NI tax rise from next April so yes, ultimately, it will save folk money. Again, we've got fundamentally different ideologies. I think that money in folk's pockets and businesses balance sheets is more of a stimulant to the economy than it being used to fund waste in the public services that the government has already acknowledged. We've never going to agree on the state being the economy or otherwise though.

Ultimately, you keep harking back to the previous Tory government. I never voted when they were in power so I'm not going to start defending something that I didn't give a **** about when I was a kid.

[heretoday]

I'm afraid it's personality that does it - especially when there is so little clear water between them. Whoever gets in, it's gonna be a tough time for us all.

[One Day Soon]

1. All parties have said that some jobs will go, although they mainly say through not replacing those who leave. It's sad but most private companies have had to do the same.

There is a difference between planned reductions over time and in-year reductions arising from an Osborne emergency budget in 30 days time. That will take existing programmes of staffing reduction in the public sector based on early retirment and natural wastage and turn it into a chaotic mess. Its too early a cut for the economy in the fragile recovery we have and the only reason they want to do it is to avoid NI rises next year for electoral reasons.

Private companies have and I work in one.

2. He did indeed and has admitted that he got it wrong as far as I know. Incidentally, Gordon Brown changed his mind about the 10p tax and Vince Cable changed his mind about most things. It happens.

It is a huge misjudgment to make and not one that can be lightly dismissed. in the middle of the greatest banking crisis in 100 years he was prepared to let a bank go to the wall. If that had happened he would have put a bullseye on every other bank perceived as vulnerable which would have created a run on each and every one of them. By that time the government wouldn't have been able to keep them afloat even if it wanted to, assuming that he then changed his mind after the disaster of the first failure he was willing to let happen. He's not fit to run the economy and neither is his boss who was happy to support the position - David Cameron.

3. I was a kid in the eighties and didn't do history so I have no idea. You're comparing apples with oranges though. Would it have been reasonable in 1997 to say "don't vote new Labour, they made mistakes in 1976" or now to say "don't vote Liberals, they made mistakes in 1912"?

I wasn't a kid in the eighties and I remember exactly how they did it. There is no apples and oranges about it, the economic policy is the same - administer some tough economic medicine fast and unemployment will be a price worth paying. Its short sighted and unnecessary.

4. Inverted snobbery IMO. Blair went to Fettes, Darling went to Loretto, Balls went to some elite school, Woodward's a multi-millionaire with a butler. Doesn't make them 'shallow' though, does it? Calling Cameron shallow is an easy way to defend how bad Gordon Brown is at communicating.

I said this: "I think Cameron is a pretty shallow fake whose Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker but every time he's interviewed for more than three minutes he just comes apart at the seams. This I accept is a matter of opinion but for what its worth this is what I think of him."

There is no inverted snobbery there (though I'm more than capable of it I admit). I think he is a shallow fake. That is to do with who he is, not where he was educated. I think his Etonian education gives him a very plausible veneer as a speaker. That is actually a compliment and is directly to do with his education. I think that every time he is interviewed for more than three minutes he comes apart at the seams. That is a reflection on his lack of serious policy and big picture thinking which reflects his party and not his education.

I'm not trying to defend how bad Gordon Brown is at communicating. Why would I - he's bad at communicating. I'm more interested in the substance than the spin.

5. It'll save taxpayers and businesses from the NI tax rise from next April so yes, ultimately, it will save folk money. Again, we've got fundamentally different ideologies. I think that money in folk's pockets and businesses balance sheets is more of a stimulant to the economy than it being used to fund waste in the public services that the government has already acknowledged. We've never going to agree on the state being the economy or otherwise though.

No it won't because the savings and tax rises are going to have to come anyway. It is just a matter of where, when and how. We do have completely different ideologies but actually I agree that the money is better in people's pockets and business balance sheets if possible. I am not arguing that the state is the economy, though it is clearly a significant part of the economy. I repeat though that this will take £6 billion out of circulation in the economy a year earlier than is wise for the recovery, for jobs or indeed for planned reduction in public spending. Its just a Frankenstein proposal that is half virility test and half electoral inducement and the economy will pay the price for it.

Ultimately, you keep harking back to the previous Tory government. I never voted when they were in power so I'm not going to start defending something that I didn't give a **** about when I was a kid.

I don't expect you to defend previous Tory governments. But history is important because we can learn from it. Norman Lamont crashed the UK economy as John Major's Chancellor on Black Wednesday in 1992. We had to drop out of the ERM at enormous cost to the treasury, public finances and our economic credibility. Who do you suppose was the special advisor to Norman Lamont at the time and on the day in question? David Cameron. Plus ca change.....

[LiverpoolHibs]

A surprise to you perhaps.

No, it wasn't a surprise - that was sort of the point...


The emergence of a consumerist society in which people by and large have plenty of means to be consumerist is a fairly central reason. If you spend most days worrying about where your next pound is coming from that is a pretty strong incentive to think about why things are the way they are and how they might change. If your are lardily sitting around in a pool of relative wealth with nothing much to worry about other than where your next consumer durable is coming from the propensity to engage in political thought is going to be lessened. But all that aside the essential human condition is not a pretty one. Self interest and self absorption tend to be king and in a society that has not had to seriously go without since WW2 the ability or will to think collectively about common purpose and endeavour is virtually non existent. These people can get off their jacksies to organise their mortgage, book their holidays, find a partner, buy a new car or argue for themselves in shops or at work. But they can't pause to think sensibly about the political choice they are asked to make less than once a year. They deserve everything they get.

Oh, there's definitely an extent to which relative prosperity breeds apathy, that pretty much goes without saying but it's only a smallish proportion of the story.

I was just saying that if you have a situation in which you have removed - or have had removed - a considerable amount of your ability to make substantive decisions in whatever policy area (which presumably you can't deny has taken place?) you necessarily then have a situation in which mainstream politics has to operate within fairly narrow ideological boundaries.

None of which is to say, as you've reduced my argument, that 'there is no difference between thelorrathum'.


If you think that the war in Iraq is or was a depoliticised issue then you are barking mad. What crisis of Capitalism? There isn't one. Your presumably Marxist analysis wants there to be one, but there isn't. And the budget deficit is also not largely the result of the banking crisis either. It pre-dated that by some margin.

You must have missed the bit where I said 'most of them are pretty textbook examples...'

Now then, if you think that a crisis of capitalism hasn't occurred over the last couple of years then you are barking mad. It's got nothing to do with whether I want there to be one, they are inevitable and one has happened. If you can find me a reference of anyone worth reading who thinks that a crisis hasn't taken place, I'd be interested to read it.

The budget deficit is largely the result of the most recent crisis, when you fund banks to the tune of £500 billion then that will tend to happen.


You said this "So what you get is a sort of anti-politics of feeling and sentiment; Gordon Brown isn't 'personable', David Cameron is 'smarmy', Nick Clegg seems 'genuine' etc. etc. It's nothing to do with actually believing in anything but about how you 'relate' to the assorted managerial styles. Because, of course, There Is No Alternative..." which I took (perhaps wrongly) to be sarcastically implying that of course there was an alternative to all this stuff from the main parties with their indistinguishable managerial politics. My point was that there is an alternative but that contrary to what you imply it is contained within the real choices to be made between the parties.

But that doesn't make any sense. The alternative to the problem people are annoyed at is contained within the problem itself?


I know exactly what that means and so, contrary to your assertions I think, do you. It means that you are pretending that all the parties are the same and that the only real alternative lies with an analysis rooted somewhere in or around a Marxist interpretation. So by promoting the myth that there is no real choice between the parties you advance your broader (unstated) case that a frontal attack on capitalism is the only route to real change. Which is what I describe as "supports the paradigm you do believe in".

I anticipate your usual medley of responses ranging from 'I have no idea what that sentence means' through to 'here are some wordy abstract arguments which don't actually answer any of the questions'.

So despite me saying that there is, to whatever degree, a substantial difference between the three main parties - hence why I'll be voting Labour on Thursday - you've decided that I just don't really mean it?

You seem to think I'm somehow trying to hide the fact that I'm a socialist and that you're the only one who's noticed, why's that? As a socialist that's always going to be my broader case (that, again, goes without saying), I believe that capitalism is inherently exploitative and inequitable and that the human race can do a lot better.

Why would I pretend that 'all the parties are the same' (which I've never said, mainly because it would be a stupendously boring thing to say)?

I hope that fulfills at least one of your criteria.


Bit touchy about that aren't we? I think you will find I have used that term just three times - including the post above in which I only do so in response to your assertion that the sentence in which it is contained is meaningless.

I'm not touchy about it at all, you feel free to continue with it.

I think that counts as 'quite often'.


And for what its worth Peejay seems to have the term - and by extension you - pegged correctly.

I'm confused, how does a dictionary definition of the word 'paradigm' have me 'pegged'?

[RyeSloan]

Now then, if you think that a crisis of capitalism hasn't occurred over the last couple of years then you are barking mad. It's got nothing to do with whether I want there to be one, they are inevitable and one has happened. If you can find me a reference of anyone worth reading who thinks that a crisis hasn't taken place, I'd be interested to read it.

The budget deficit is largely the result of the most recent crisis, when you fund banks to the tune of £500 billion then that will tend to happen.

LH you confuse a crisis within the system as a crisis of the system itself.

It is quite clear that the Capitalist system will have substantial shocks from time to time but the fact that the world is now almost totally out of recession and in some parts growing rapidly again does somewhat indicate that the Capitalism itself was not in crisis merely a part of the system was.

The budgit defecit is not "largely the result of the most recent crisis" it is directly related to the fact that the Government overspent in the decade long growth period and did not save for the relativley short lean period...if it had (see Denmark for a good example of real prudence at work) then there would not be a huge defecit and Britain would be in a much stronger position....this has nothing to do with a crisis of Capitalism but more a crisis of Government.

£500bn was not 'given' to banks and disappeared, Goverment overreach and persistant overspending is the reason behind the defecit, the banking crisis merely showed just how exposed they were.

[One Day Soon]

LH you confuse a crisis within the system as a crisis of the system itself.

It is quite clear that the Capitalist system will have substantial shocks from time to time but the fact that the world is now almost totally out of recession and in some parts growing rapidly again does somewhat indicate that the Capitalism itself was not in crisis merely a part of the system was.

The budgit defecit is not "largely the result of the most recent crisis" it is directly related to the fact that the Government overspent in the decade long growth period and did not save for the relativley short lean period...if it had (see Denmark for a good example of real prudence at work) then there would not be a huge defecit and Britain would be in a much stronger position....this has nothing to do with a crisis of Capitalism but more a crisis of Government.

£500bn was not 'given' to banks and disappeared, Goverment overreach and persistant overspending is the reason behind the defecit, the banking crisis merely showed just how exposed they were.

I can tell you now, he's not going to like that. He's not going to like that at all.

[LiverpoolHibs]

LH you confuse a crisis within the system as a crisis of the system itself.

It is quite clear that the Capitalist system will have substantial shocks from time to time but the fact that the world is now almost totally out of recession and in some parts growing rapidly again does somewhat indicate that the Capitalism itself was not in crisis merely a part of the system was.

I've not confused anything.

The fact that there's been some form of reconstitution and a recovery of sorts has no bearing whatsoever on whether a crisis has occurred. A 'crisis of capitalism' doesn’t mean that the system itself is beyond repair or anything like that – it means that the cycle of boom and bust has been 'upset' by a particularly large event which would lead to a recession/depression if measures are not taken to stop it (ie. the bailing out of the banks).

It isn't true that just part of the system was in crisis. It was a crisis of the entire model of capital accumulation that was established in the late seventies. The much more interesting question is what form the reconstitution takes or whether there is just a shift back to credit generated growth.


The budgit defecit is not "largely the result of the most recent crisis" it is directly related to the fact that the Government overspent in the decade long growth period and did not save for the relativley short lean period...if it had (see Denmark for a good example of real prudence at work) then there would not be a huge defecit and Britain would be in a much stronger position....this has nothing to do with a crisis of Capitalism but more a crisis of Government.

£500bn was not 'given' to banks and disappeared, Goverment overreach and persistant overspending is the reason behind the defecit, the banking crisis merely showed just how exposed they were.

Why have you put 'given' in inverted commas when I didn't use that word?

Both the budget deficit and the public debt are, to a significant extent, the result of the crisis, that is absolutely undeniable - you just have to look at the spiking of the deficit and of public debt from 2008 onwards. The bailout, the massive drop in income from tax, and all the assorted effects of the recession. I'd be really interested to know how that isn't the result of the crisis.


I can tell you now, he's not going to like that. He's not going to like that at all.

What am I not going to like? It's an interesting subject and SiMar is generally someone pretty interesting to discuss things like this with.

[Dashing Bob S]

I have to confess that I haven't see much evidence of either this election.

[RyeSloan]

I've not confused anything.

The fact that there's been some form of reconstitution and a recovery of sorts has no bearing whatsoever on whether a crisis has occurred. A 'crisis of capitalism' doesn’t mean that the system itself is beyond repair or anything like that – it means that the cycle of boom and bust has been 'upset' by a particularly large event which would lead to a recession/depression if measures are not taken to stop it (ie. the bailing out of the banks).

Fair enough if that's what you meant. I read it that you consdered the whole ideal of capitalism was in crisis...I was merely trying to point out that just beacuse the system has had a (massive) shock does not automatically mean that the basic ideal of the effective allocation of capital and division of labour had been proven to be incorrect .


[It isn't true that just part of the system was in crisis. It was a crisis of the entire model of capital accumulation that was established in the late seventies. The much more interesting question is what form the reconstitution takes or whether there is just a shift back to credit generated growth.

There is nothing wrong in credit generated growth per se...most companies borrow to invest to provide larger returns later on but I assume you are talking about the fact the a number of the large economies relied upon consumer credit to continue their growth....in this I agree but again I don't see this as a fundamental flaw of the system, more that the system was falsely skewed by the very people entrusted with keeping it's excesses in line. Again it could be argued that Goverment and or Central Bank intervention to create the bubble in the first place substantially exacerbated events.




Why have you put 'given' in inverted commas when I didn't use that word?

Both the budget deficit and the public debt are, to a significant extent, the result of the crisis, that is absolutely undeniable - you just have to look at the spiking of the deficit and of public debt from 2008 onwards. The bailout, the massive drop in income from tax, and all the assorted effects of the recession. I'd be really interested to know how that isn't the result of the crisis.

The point I was trying to make is that when you say "fund banks to the tune of £500 billion" you are clearly trying to intiamte that the banks recieved £500bn, this is simply not true, they recieved nothing like that and in fact the BoE has been making handsome profits from the interest it charged on the emergency loans.

Of course the crisis caused significant drop in tax revenue but the point I was making is that the British Governement had outspent it's tax revenues by tens of billions each year for years and years and signficantly even during the 'boom years', this is what left Britain so exposed, it already had a massive deficit before the crisis.
There was zero thought put into saving for future lean times, if there had then sensible borrowing to support the economy through could have been easily acheived against a back drop of retained surpluses. Again I stress that although the crisis clearly effected the economy and the amout the goverment recieved and needed to pay out it is the fact that the Goverment had basically borrowed and spent too much already that is the real problem now, not the fact that the underlying economic system had a convulsion.




What am I not going to like? It's an interesting subject and SiMar is generally someone pretty interesting to discuss things like this with.

Yup mainly due to us having rather different paradigms :wink: :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Fair enough if that's what you meant. I read it that you consdered the whole ideal of capitalism was in crisis...I was merely trying to point out that just beacuse the system has had a (massive) shock does not automatically mean that the basic ideal of the effective allocation of capital and division of labour had been proven to be incorrect .

Only if you consider the fact that crises are absolutely inherent in the operation of capitalism and that they seem to be happening with increasing frequency (for a variety of reasons), or that it has fundamental and intractable contradictions to mean the above. I consider that to be true, but I also consider capitalism to have the most incredible capacity for reconstitution and resolution. 'All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned', and all that...


There is nothing wrong in credit generated growth per se...most companies borrow to invest to provide larger returns later on but I assume you are talking about the fact the a number of the large economies relied upon consumer credit to continue their growth....in this I agree but again I don't see this as a fundamental flaw of the system, more that the system was falsely skewed by the very people entrusted with keeping it's excesses in line. Again it could be argued that Goverment and or Central Bank intervention to create the bubble in the first place substantially exacerbated events.

I was referring to that, yeah.

I don't see it as a fundamental flaw of the system (ie. capitalism) either. I do, however, see it as a fundamental flaw of the sytem of flexible accumulation that has existed since the mid-to-late-seventies, ie. of a particular form of capitalism. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the response to the crisis seems to be a retrenchment of the same ideas - driving down wages and conditions, driving down the bargaining power of labour, exploitation of migrant labour, outsourcing, cutting public spending, mobility of capital, deregulation and easy availability of consumer credit to make up the short-fall in consumer spending caused by low wages etc.

I can't see much of a reconstitution happening here unless saying 'we're going to do everything we've done already again, but do it more stringently and more exploitatively' counts as one.


The point I was trying to make is that when you say "fund banks to the tune of £500 billion" you are clearly trying to intiamte that the banks recieved £500bn, this is simply not true, they recieved nothing like that and in fact the BoE has been making handsome profits from the interest it charged on the emergency loans.

Of course the crisis caused significant drop in tax revenue but the point I was making is that the British Governement had outspent it's tax revenues by tens of billions each year for years and years and signficantly even during the 'boom years', this is what left Britain so exposed, it already had a massive deficit before the crisis.
There was zero thought put into saving for future lean times, if there had then sensible borrowing to support the economy through could have been easily acheived against a back drop of retained surpluses. Again I stress that although the crisis clearly effected the economy and the amout the goverment recieved and needed to pay out it is the fact that the Goverment had basically borrowed and spent too much already that is the real problem now, not the fact that the underlying economic system had a convulsion.

But that doesn't stand up to scrutiny of levels of public spending across Europe and the impact of the crisis on economies. There seems to be little corrolation between the two. Irish and Spanish public spending was well below the European average in the decade leading up to the crisis, Portuguese about average and Greek and Italian above average but well below the top levels of Sweden, France, Hungary, Denmark et. al. who have coped considerably better under recession.

This bizarre 'common sense' focus on public spending and the deficit really needs to be challenged at every opportunity as the next few years are going to be pretty unpleasant if it isn't.


Yup mainly due to us having rather different paradigms :wink: :greengrin

*Makes note to self to avoid use of the word 'paradigm' in future* :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Only if you consider the fact that crises are absolutely inherent in the operation of capitalism and that they seem to be happening with increasing frequency (for a variety of reasons), or that it has fundamental and intractable contradictions to mean the above. I consider that to be true, but I also consider capitalism to have the most incredible capacity for reconstitution and resolution. 'All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned', and all that...



I was referring to that, yeah.

I don't see it as a fundamental flaw of the system (ie. capitalism) either. I do, however, see it as a fundamental flaw of the sytem of flexible accumulation that has existed since the mid-to-late-seventies, ie. of a particular form of capitalism. The problem is that, as far as I can see, the response to the crisis seems to be a retrenchment of the same ideas - driving down wages and conditions, driving down the bargaining power of labour, exploitation of migrant labour, outsourcing, cutting public spending, mobility of capital, deregulation and easy availability of consumer credit to make up the short-fall in consumer spending caused by low wages etc.

I can't see much of a reconstitution happening here unless saying 'we're going to do everything we've done already again, but do it more stringently and more exploitatively' counts as one.



But that doesn't stand up to scrutiny of levels of public spending across Europe and the impact of the crisis on economies. There seems to be little corrolation between the two. Irish and Spanish public spending was well below the European average in the decade leading up to the crisis, Portuguese about average and Greek and Italian above average but well below the top levels of Sweden, France, Hungary, Denmark et. al. who have coped considerably better under recession.

This bizarre 'common sense' focus on public spending and the deficit really needs to be challenged at every opportunity as the next few years are going to be pretty unpleasant if it isn't.



*Makes note to self to avoid use of the word 'paradigm' in future* :greengrin

Tee hee