POLITICS CORNER

[plaques]

There's nothing for it now I'll just have to do what they did in the old days, change my religion. Instead of a Protestant atheist I'll become a Catholic atheist. or the equivalent in politics.

[Stanley]

No you won;'t P.... You'll do what I shall do, pick yourself up, have a dust down and continue proclaiming sense. Start by having a read of what Paul Krugman has said in today's NY Times....

Triumph of the Unthinking

MAY 8, 2015

Paul Krugman

“Words,” wrote John Maynard Keynes, “ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.” I’ve always loved that quote, and have tried to apply it to my own writing. But I have to admit that in the long slump that followed the 2008 financial crisis — a slump that we had both the tools and the knowledge to end quickly, but didn’t — the unthinking were quite successful in fending off unwelcome thoughts.
And nowhere was the triumph of inanity more complete than in Keynes’s homeland, which is going to the polls as I write this. Britain’s election should be a referendum on a failed economic doctrine, but it isn’t, because nobody with influence is challenging transparently false claims and bad ideas.
Before I bash the Brits, however, let me admit that we’ve done pretty badly ourselves.

It began very early. President Obama inherited an economy in free fall; what we needed, above all, was more spending to support demand. Yet much of Mr. Obama’s inaugural address was given over to boilerplate about the need to make hard choices, which was the last thing we needed right then.

It’s true that in practice Mr. Obama pushed through a stimulus that, while too small and short-lived, helped diminish the depth and duration of the slump. But when Republicans began talking nonsense, declaring that the government should match the belt-tightening of ordinary families — a recipe for full-on depression — Mr. Obama didn’t challenge their position. Instead, within a few months the very same nonsense became a standard line in his speeches, even though his economists knew better, and so did he.

So I guess we shouldn’t be too harsh on Ed Miliband, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, for failing to challenge the economic nonsense peddled by the Conservatives. Like Mr. Obama and company, Labour’s leaders probably know better, but have decided that it’s too hard to overcome the easy appeal of bad economics, especially when most of the British news media report this bad economics as truth. But it has still been deeply disheartening to watch.

What nonsense am I talking about? Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford, who has been a tireless but lonely crusader for economic sense, calls it “mediamacro.” It’s a story about Britain that runs like this: First, the Labour government that ruled Britain until 2010 was wildly irresponsible, spending far beyond its means. Second, this fiscal profligacy caused the economic crisis of 2008-2009. Third, this in turn left the coalition that took power in 2010 with no choice except to impose austerity policies despite the depressed state of the economy. Finally, Britain’s return to economic growth in 2013 vindicated austerity and proved its critics wrong.

Now, every piece of this story is demonstrably, ludicrously wrong. Pre-crisis Britain wasn’t fiscally profligate. Debt and deficits were low, and at the time everyone expected them to stay that way; big deficits only arose as a result of the crisis. The crisis, which was a global phenomenon, was driven by runaway banks and private debt, not government deficits. There was no urgency about austerity: financial markets never showed any concern about British solvency. And Britain, which returned to growth only after a pause in the austerity drive, has made up none of the ground it lost during the coalition’s first two years.

Yet this nonsense narrative completely dominates news reporting, where it is treated as a fact rather than a hypothesis. And Labour hasn’t tried to push back, probably because they considered this a political fight they couldn’t win. But why?

Mr. Wren-Lewis suggests that it has a lot to do with the power of misleading analogies between governments and households, and also with the malign influence of economists working for the financial industry, who in Britain as in America constantly peddle scare stories about deficits and pay no price for being consistently wrong. If U.S. experience is any guide, my guess is that Britain also suffers from the desire of public figures to sound serious, a pose which they associate with stern talk about the need to make hard choices (at other people’s expense, of course.)

Still, it’s quite amazing. The fact is that Britain and America didn’t need to make hard choices in the aftermath of crisis. What they needed, instead, was hard thinking — a willingness to understand that this was a special environment, that the usual rules don’t apply in a persistently depressed economy, one in which government borrowing doesn’t compete with private investment and costs next to nothing.

But hard thinking has been virtually excluded from British public discourse. As a result, we just have to hope that whoever ends up running Britain’s economy isn’t as foolish as he pretends to be.

[Tizer]

I agree with all that, Pluggy. And some of Clegg's punishment today was coming from David Steele who made some snide comments and capped it all with something like "Of course, I didn't say anything while he was in government or I might have been thought to be interfering". Well if Steele had all the `right' answers then he should have interfered!

[PanBiker]

Farage has resigned yes but with a caveat. After his announcement he said he was going away to think. UKIP is dead without him as it's prime mouthpiece despite his speech declaration that it was a young party in waiting. He'll probably be back spouting more rubbish before we know it.

[Stanley]

Forget Farage, he is history.
I think I'm recovering from the earthquake....
Later... as Jack and I walked round the really important political questions surfaced in my mind.... Did the porn baron Desmond's £1miilion ever get through to to UKIP? Will the SNP have a regular flight from Edinburgh to London for their MPs? How long will it be before the shock wears off and the backbenchers start to assert their new power in opposition. Do the Liberals need a whip and a leader now they can all get in two black cabs? Why (If the noble lord Ashdown is to be believed ) did 1000 people join the Liberal Party as members yesterday? Will the said noble lord be eating his hat? When will Jim Naughtie stop saying that 'it is astounding'. Is Scotland now, effectively, independent?
So many questions, so few answers.

[Tizer]

"When will Jim Naughtie stop saying that 'it is astounding'" (Stanley)
Here in the West Country there are many people who, like Jim Naughtie, are astounded. They find themselves suddenly in Tory seats after so long being LibDem, and Liberal before that. They'll be worrying about the Tories boosting the tax on cider! From here we can see Burton Pynsent Monument which was erected in 1767 by William Pitt the Elder (Whig) as a monument to Sir William Pynsent. Pynsent was grateful to Pitt for opposing a ten shilling tax on a hogshead of cider (1763 Cider Bill), so on his death he left his entire estate to Pitt.

The 2015 election result will probably boost calls for proportional representation, or at least some modification of the system of representation.

[Tripps]

"did 1000 people join the Liberal Party as members yesterday?

Ken Livingstone just said - "that's because Nick Clegg's gone"

[PanBiker]

The 2015 election result will probably boost calls for proportional representation, or at least some modification of the system of representation.

I think the 2018 boundary changes that have already been voted through will suit the Tories in retaining first past the post. I would agree that some form of PR should be on the cards but whichever system we have I am still in support of introducing compulsory voting.

68% turnout thereabouts overall in a General Election still leaves over 30% who did not vote. Looking at it another way, with the Tory clear majority on roughly 50% of the vote they are governing on the behest of only 34% of the electorate. It's not good enough and cannot be seen as fair by any right minded person. Suits them though and they will hang on to the present loaded system as long as the wheeze continues to work for them.

[Stanley]

I'm still trying to get a mental map of the rubble..... I said a while ago that I detected the shifting of the tectonic plates but never envisaged anything on this scale. Was the expenses scandal the trigger? Will Cameron and the Tories try to use this as a mandate to push us further towards the old days of Laissez Faire? Will we at last see the publication of Chilcot?
As for PR, forget it, no chance....
The biggest danger I see at the moment (leaving aside Osborne and his economically illiterate policies on austerity and cuts) is that we are going to see so much attention paid to the dreaded referendum on the EU that other more pressing matters will suffer.
And then there is Gove in charge of Justice..... God knows what that will mean....
Blair advises Labour to move towards the centre. The same tired strategy that ruined the party's core vote. I wish he'd shut up and go away! Bring back Clause Four!!!!

[Tizer]

I agree with Ian about compulsory voting. I copied part of this table from the BBC web site and it makes for interesting reading and analysis.

[Pluggy]

I disagree, to me, forcing people to vote flies in the face of the whole concept of democracy. Would you then outlaw the spoiling of ballot papers as well ?

[Stanley]

I don't like compulsion of any sort. I agree that low turnouts are bad but would prefer education over coercion....

[PanBiker]

I disagree, to me, forcing people to vote flies in the face of the whole concept of democracy. Would you then outlaw the spoiling of ballot papers as well ?

Plenty of countries already have compulsory voting and get a consensus from 90% or above. I would propose and abstention box on every ballot and you always have the choice to spoil your paper if you feel the need, what's to stop you?

We have a number of compulsory acts that as citizens we have to comply with, such as Tax returns and indeed the laws of the land. I don't think its too much to ask to expect everyone to vote when necessary. I get the education angle which indeed would be preferable but that approach has not worked for as long as we have been able to vote.

Since when does a majority on the support of just a tad over 30% of the electorate equate to fairness. It would not happen on any other committee.

[Bruff]

Well it’s nice to see that Krugman is saying essentially what I said the other week with regards to the facile equating of national budget to household budgets……..

I think I knew the game was up when at the Leaders’ Question Time event Mr Miliband was faced with people who had absolutely no clue save for spouting the easy cliches of the media and the unthinking (to reference Krugman above). The problem when you are faced with this, which Krugman does not touch on, is that in taking on this view (which Mr Miliband would be more than capable of doing) you must directly question the integrity, understanding and intelligence of the questioner or person making the point. That is, if you are going to bang on about ‘selling the gold’, or ‘there being no money left’, then you need to be pretty sure of the premise to your argument or you will look a buffoon when challenged. And rightly or wrongly it’s never a good look to show folk up as buffoons.

We are in for interesting times. As someone noted, in this dis-United Kingdom Scotland is SNP, Wales is Labour, Northern Ireland is Unionist and England is Tory (except for the major [large Northern] cities and London, which are Labour). I simply do not believe the Union will hold.

On justice matters, the first thing will be the ripping up of the Human Rights Act to be replaced presumably by some British Bill of Rights because as we know the British are different to all other ‘humans’, requiring therefore that British ‘rights’ be different to another’s ‘human’ rights. I’m joking, but you have to laugh. I think it’s being scrapped because it’s all a blessed French plot and Teresa said some chap had a cat once which meant he had to feed him him or something and………oh I don’t know, I’ve given up.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Since when does a majority on the support of just a tad over 30% of the electorate equate to fairness.

Somewhere I saw a comment that wee Alec is wrong to say "The Scottish lion has roared" because only half the lion has roared. (And someone else asked "What about the lioness Alec?")

The `future Labour Party'...since Friday I keep hearing Labour politicians and supporters banging on about this. It just shows how out of touch they are, the Labour Party is past its sell by date, there's no more sense in trying to update the Labour Party than there is in trying to uncurdle a bottle of curdled milk. The Monty Python dead parrot sketch comes to mind..."It's dead, deceased...". It's time for a new party that can appeal to those with both social concerns *and* aspirations. Well, that's my two-penneth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the forest...
There's a lot of talk now about migration into the EU and which countries should shoulder the burden. This question will become more significant as we have now have passed the 400ppm global CO2 mark and it'll get even hotter and more tense in the present `hot' countries'. As an aid I've drawn up a list of European countries (and a few of the large non-European ones) to allow comparison of the area, population and population density. I know there is more to the discussion than simply population density, but it's still a very important factor. (Source: I selected data from: http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_density1.aspx) but had to make it into a graphic rather than text because I didn't know how to do tabs in the OG posting box.)

[PanBiker]

The `future Labour Party'...since Friday I keep hearing Labour politicians and supporters banging on about this. It just shows how out of touch they are, the Labour Party is past its sell by date, there's no more sense in trying to update the Labour Party than there is in trying to uncurdle a bottle of curdled milk. The Monty Python dead parrot sketch comes to mind..."It's dead, deceased...". It's time for a new party that can appeal to those with both social concerns *and* aspirations. Well, that's my two-penneth!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think what you may be looking for may be socialism, the founding principles of the Labour movement. This after all is what gave us the welfare state and the NHS which everyone (apparently even the Tories) hold so dear. Most of the commentators are saying that the party should look back to "New Labour" as an instant fix for the party not recognising that when the party morphed into that watered down version the resultant policies alienated the vast majority of grass roots activists (myself included) that basically ensured that by abandoning the very principles that the party is based on it could never survive.
There is nothing wrong with socialism apart from the fact that the word has been demonised in the eyes of the electorate who no longer know what it truly represents. The SNP in Scotland are now carrying the socialist banner and look what that got them, unfortunately I cant vote for them.

[plaques]

Since we have now moved into a post mortem analysis of the election I will offer up my two pennyworth. George Orwell made it quite clear, (1984), that in dealing with the general public you first need to identify an enemy. The parties that did well created an 'enemy' that people could relate to. For political purposes the enemy does not have to be absolutely true it can be a perception of fact or even a downright lie. To appeal to logic or common sense requires some degree of intellect something that appears to be in short supply. Those parties that relied on this approach didn't fare very well in today's bruising politics. My quick breakdown of enemies is shown below.
SNP. The Tory party. Austerity. Not really viewed as part of the UK.
Tory. The Labour party. Financial ineptitude caused the need for austerity. Benefit scroungers.
UKIP. Immigration. Excessive EU regulation.
Labour. The Tory party. NHS sell off. Tax loopholes.

Liberals, Greens, Plaid Cymru. Tended to rely on common sense.

[PanBiker]

Forget Farage, he is history.

Not exactly, four day retirement and unfortunately it looks like we'll have to put up with his rubbish (effective or not) for the foreseeable future. I did say there was a caveat.

[Stanley]

What good posts.....
Richard, Paul Krugman is a good man, he is also consistent, he has been plugging this line since 2008.
I agree about the need for 'Labour' to start from Day One. When Blair et al scrapped Clause Four I saw which way the wind was blowing and when they centralised membership and funding I resigned my membership as I could see it was the end of the local parties. From that point on I started describing my politics as social democrat.
I get annoyed when I hear commentators glibly saying that the Labour vote in Scotland is dead. Nonsense, the voters are still there but overwhelmed by the first past the post system. I agree that SNP are now the effective social democrat party and I too would vote for them if I could.
As for the way back for 'The Labour Party', I don't think there is one. All I am hearing at the moment is the old clichés based on fears of a repetition of the left/right schisms of the past. They should go back further in history and recognise that the trigger for the formation of the new radical party, led by the unions, was the gradual metamorphosis of the old Liberals from a radical reforming party to the watered down centrist party it became. They should be looking back not with the idea of regaining power but reverting to a solid base of core principles aimed at equality and improvement of society. A constant refrain of mine has been the lack of ethical principles driving political policies. Today the only objective is to gain seats, pure politics. It was this that drove Blair to the middle ground, remember how he was congratulated by Thatcher?
Meanwhile, we watch as Cameron builds his pure Tory administration. We are about to see a massive increase in policies that will lead to more inequality. Joseph Stiglitz was correct when he described inequality as the most pressing problem as in the end it will destroy society. How repressive will the Tories have to be to keep the lid on this as protect grows? Piketty came to the depressing conclusion that unless this was addressed, social unrest is inevitable. Tin hats on Lads!

[Tizer]

Ian, I agree with what you say about socialism. I have no problem with socialism itself, it's definitely a worthy cause. But socialism is the `content', the problem is with the `package', the Labour Party. Even the name is wrong in 21st Century Britain. The younger generations don't see themselves as downtrodden miners and shipbuilders, they want to be seen as modern professionals working in clean offices and driving shiny motor cars and communicating with their friends through social media on their smartphones. (Don't think for one minute that I'm suggesting Blair's New Labour, his approach was just spin.)

[Tripps]

Let's get it all off my chest.

This is from 'cunning wheezes' but I think belongs here.....

"Have you noticed that the Tory Party is now 'the party of the workers'? A cunning wheeze because it excludes those not working, that is the majority of people dependent on welfare benefits. "

I heard a vox pop quote after the vote, along the lines that - 'I voted Tory because they are the party for workers - Labour is for those who have fallen on hard times.' I now think it will become a theme, and was planted.

I also read that the opinion that Labour voters consisted of
Ethnic minorities and immigrants.
People on benefits.
Faux socialist luvvies.

A big generalisation, but it was said that accounted for their success in the London area. I haven't been to London for a long time but I'm told it is barely recognisable as being an English city.

Farage's return seems to have upset a lot of people. It reminds me of an episode during the wrestling on ITV a long time ago when a character who 'fought' under the name Chicken George had enough and submitted. This did not fit with the programme schedule, so "submission refused" was proclaimed, and the bout went on.
"Submission refused " is still a catch phrase in the family.

"Fight and fight again said Hugh Gaitskell - better than getting on the next plane to Ibiza though, I'd say.

Finally (hooray) I still think the Labour Party has outlived its usefulness - surely all its reasons for being have been achieved. They have had to redefine poverty in order to attack it. In the 19thC I'd have been a Marxist. and for most of the 20th I'd have been Labour. Now however it is time for all to think deeply about where the country is going, and assess, and accept the changes which have happened.

I've amused myself today by wondering what - say - Ed Miliband and Boris Johnson would have done in life, if not politics, or quangos. I can't think of anything for which they would be suitable.

[Stanley]

Very well put David, you and I share the same misgivings. The problem is of course that Cameron et al, driven by Tory DNA are moving us back into the 19th century as fast as possible. Look at the present attack on strikes for a good example....
The bottom line is, and always has been, the distribution of wealth and even more importantly, opportunity. In today's wealth obsessed consumer society the people who control wealth also control political policies and surprise surprise, these policies reinforce their position and increase the gap between those with access to a reasonable life and those who are disadvantaged for any reason. If you are poor in Britain now there is only one way, downwards into absolute poverty. This government tells us it is the party of the workers, nowt wrong with that as long as it is accompanied by proper safety nets for those who have not got the advantages of good health, good education and opportunity to improve their lot. If there is one lesson that history teaches us it is that this combination always leads to a breakdown in society and unrest which, in the end, damages the rich as well as the poor. Have we learned nothing?
That's right, I am depressed and angry.......

[Bruff]

Hmmm….

‘…..it excludes those not working, that is the majority of people dependent on welfare benefits… "

There needs to be some care in the interpretation of that statement.

The unemployed (short term and long term) receive somewhat less that 3p in every pound spent on welfare, or benefits (call it what you will). So if the term ‘not working’ is taken to be the unemployed then they are simply nowhere near, at all, a majority of those dependent on benefits. They are in fact an arguably vanishingly small minority. So who are these ‘people dependent on welfare benefits?

Well for a start we have pensioners, who account for the bulk of spending. Now many of these folk are ‘not working’, but of course the purpose of the phrase ‘not working’ is as we have noted to draw attention to the ‘unemployed’ and not the pensioners. The other mighty recipients of benefits are those in work but who are unable to put a roof over their head and so get housing benefit (lots of pensioners get this too), and other in-work credits too, all because they are not paid enough to get by, day-to-day, in this country. So I think that the ‘majority’ of people in this country who are ‘dependent on benefits’ are actually workers and pensioners, and indirectly businesses and employers who rather than being called ‘businesses’ might be better labelled as Government-sponsored workfare schemes. Oh, the landlords are big recipients tool.

All this sort of stuff is readily available from the ONS website and the IFS too is a good source.

I lived and worked in London for a long time and left 6 years ago and loved every minute of it and regularly go back. It’s a very vibrant place and if there is anything you want to do or see then you can do it in London on any day of the week. It’s true that it’s quite the melting pot, but ‘twas ever thus. I’m not sure why anyone would say it’s barely recognisable as being an English city (what’s an English city?) as the main change I see is the wholesale buying-up of neighbourhoods by the oligarch class (for want of a better term) such that are like ghost towns at some times.

If we want to generalise, Labour’s vote to me seemed young, urban, better educated, public sector, relaxed. It won’t be folk on benefits as the main recipients here are pensioners as we’ve seen and many of them vote Tory. The scroungers……

Richard Broughton

[Tripps]

Richard - forgive me if I don't respond to the points you made. I just post 'from the hip' whatever is on my mind at the time. Anyone is free to agree or disagree.
I don't agree with a lot on here - even Stanley sometimes - but I just read it and think about it. When I compare this site to others - I think that's the best way.

[Tizer]

We can all air our views on here and know they'll be viewed critically but with sensitivity. When I compared the present state of the Labour Party to the Monty Python dead parrot sketch I would have been flamed on many forums and comment sites but I knew it wouldn't get that response here.

I've noticed a similarity between the current state of the political parties and that of the big supermarkets. The chairman of Morrisons pointed out recently that the big supermarkets have made the mistake of concentrating on fighting each other instead of attending to their customers and this is why they've lost so much trade to the discounters and are now making losses. Sounds familiar?