peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
It was a wish list.....
Current Affairs The Labour Party
- Thread starter Number_25
- Start date
- Status
It was a wish list.....
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Ah yes, the Swabian housewife fallacy: https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu...es/the_political_economy_of_ideas.pdf#page=31
(aka the idea that governments should behave like ordinary households and at all times balance their books).
This reasoning is often invoked by demagogues who wish to cut public spending in order to enrich their powerful friends, as in Britain. But it's nonsense, and premised on a misunderstanding of basic macroeconomics.
It does resonate, however, because it is a simple story that makes emotional sense to people forced to endure austerity. People who fancy themselves hard-headed, and moderate, and practical are also particularly susceptible, as this thread demonstrates - but a self-styled wise man such as yourself should probably be a bit more skeptical ; )
The reason why it is this incorrect is because of the principle of sectoral balances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secto...in_the_view_of_the_sectoral_balances_approach wherein public surpluses effectively by definition result in private deficits. Or in simpler terms, when government runs a surplus, households and businesses lose out. And we can see this borne out time and again: in the Eurozone, where budget deficits are legally prohibited beyond a trivial amount, and where Germany, the Netherlands and some Nordic countries are all racking up huge surpluses, economic growth has been neglible since the crash. Germany, despite likely the largest per capita public surplus in the world, is probably already in recession, yet again. This also explains why UK austerity always failed to meet its own deficit targets, because the economy contracted from the cuts faster than the Tories and Lib Dems could cut further.
Meanwhile, in China, Australia, Japan, and to a lesser extent the US, countries which stimulated growth through deficit spending, the economy recovered far more quickly than in the UK, which famously had the worst response to a recession since Napoleon, precisely because of Tory/Lib Dem austerity.
It might sound counter-intuitive, but it's one of the most basic principles of macroeconomics: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm and the divergent responses to the crisis once again bear it out.
Now it is true that deficits can become a problem, but usually only in developing countries which tend to borrow money in foreign currencies. It is just about unheard of, however, for countries like Britain or America, which control their own currency and which are regarded as safe by the financial community, to get into this sort of trouble. You might have missed it, but the Bloomberg post I shared describes how most Western governments can now effectively borrow at a profit!, because interest rates are lower than inflation and in some cases actually negative. As it states, there has essentially never been a better time for government to borrow, in order to pursue necessary reforms addressing poor infrastructure and public services, climate change, and inequality. Or, in other words, we can easily fund substantial and sorely-needed investment, and still be well within our means.
Labour is the only party in the UK that understands this, and its deficit spending on infrastructure is exactly what is needed, not least because the UK economy is stalled from Brexit, and likely to enter recession (and in case there has been any confusion, my support for Labour is based on this, and not any cultish love of Corbyn). That said, it is encouraging to see the Tories finally lurching toward basic economic competence, at least if the Javid budget is anything to go be.
Labour has admittedly been a bit creative in their infrastructure accounting, on the grounds that it is too important to be interrupted whenever right-wing demagogues or free market ideologues get back into power - but I'm sure a man such as yourself, who fanices himself wise and everyone around him stupid, should appreciate the logic ; )
If you don't want to take my word for it, you might give this a listen - I would be curious to know what you think. He explains all of this much more clearly than I can: https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/the-labour-party.104565/page-418#post-7302654
Last edited by a moderator:
dannyboy
Player Valuation: £70m
I think a lot of the cult like image stems from the siege mentality that´s been created. We live in a country where 80% of the national media are hostile towards the party, supporters are therefore more inclined to defend what they believe in. If they don´t, who will?
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
I know it busts my blood vessels thinking about it.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
It's a fair point but again the more insular the party looks the more it will turn away the softer left/centre/Tories who feel their party has turned into the EDL. That in turn makes it more likely the inequality and the homelessness crisis etc. will continue. Someone needs to have a word.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
They used to be able to whip up the ‘us and them’ by using fox hunting, until it was banned of course, so now it’s private schools, but no one cares......
dannyboy
Player Valuation: £70m
It is like that but you´ve got to try and understand where that stems from. To say the press are hostile towards the party is an understatement. That´s fine, the press are within their rights to be like that but it does create a them vs us attitude. As a Labour member you do feel voiceless a lot of the time when it comes to the media, you´re therefore more inclined to be less critical despite having misgivings.
dannyboy
Player Valuation: £70m
The idea seems to be that these are our policies and we´ll drag you with us into liking them. It´s a ballsy strategy and similar to what Thatcher did when she changed the landscape of UK politics.
I would accept a middle of the road Labour Party if I thought it would win and be a vehicle for progressive change but as we saw under Miliband even that is difficult to sell. There isn´t a magic solution to getting a centre left party into power right now. It´s a very hostile environment for whoever the leader is.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
For all those who think that Corbyn is useless and that any other leader would be far ahead in the polls - what exactly is the magic Brexit formula for Labour which doesn't either risk losing votes to the Greens or even Lib Dems, and risk losing northern Leave voters to UKIP or even the Tories? What would a different leader have done more successfully instead?
I've yet to hear a plausible alternative approach to what is surely by far the biggest factor in any party's recent polling.
Who is the "we" he refers to though (I believe he means "you"). My presumption are he means people who are supportive of Labour.
It is a lazy caricature made by MP's who are exceptionally well paid towards ordinary people. We live in a grossly unequal society, in part due to what their previous New Labour undertook (and were widely rejected at the ballot box for) and want to turn the clock back. Morally it's indefensible and tactically continually harping on about things from 25 years ago doesn't make sense.
I do not want mediocrity or laziness and I doubt any Labour supporters do. It's a bit of a cheek that an MP believes they are in a position to go doling out such insults. Maybe they need to get back to defending the supporters of the party, rather than insulting them, and they may do a bit better?
Or if they are certain their way is better,put it to the test. Have a bit of courage, resign, stand against a Labour MP in the constituency and see how they get on.
It's normally the same people who told us, if only he'd commit to a 2nd referendum he'd be miles ahead in the polls. These people haven't got a clue about politics, how to win an election in 2019 or how the public feel. They take no responsibility for the continual nonsense policy directions they are taking. They have the best job in the world really, make suggestions, when they go well claim all the credit (which is rare) and when they go badly blame someone else. It's not serious politics.
"We" is the Labour party, obviously. He's talking about societal traits that the party seems to support - e.g. it's the party of anti-aspiration. Again, he's not calling any person lazy or mediocre; he's saying that it's a symptom of Labour as a party being suspicious of or outright loathing wealth and aspiration.
What we know from private schools, is they dominate all aspects of public life and disproportionately get given all of the top jobs etc. I don't think this is even questioned by supporters of the system.
There is some sense of inevitability about this. However you do have to ask should the education system we have compound and greatly re-enforce those expectations, or try where possible to be a meritocratic system whereby you succeed in life based upon your motivation, talent, drive, ambition, intelligence etc as opposed to your parents ability to pay. If you believe it is the latter, I do find it hard to see how you cannot both support the proposal, and see there is an enormous sense of urgency as social mobility grows less and less by the year.
We should also add, very few countries have an independent sector as we do. Ie it is not in existence to segregate the wealthy and prepare them for leadership away from ordinary people. It is no coincidence to me you have heartless, and often incompetent leaders as a result of this by comparison to other countries.
The best education system in the world (Finland and the Nordic countries) have no private education, and no OFSTED. They have had a mixture of right, left and centre governments during that time, but each of them understands if you want a world class education system it is not compatible with an independent sector nor a body like OFSTED.
I can respect the issue that people don't see having a world class education system as a priority. People's priorities are there own. However I think it's the most important thing any government can do. We can't create a utopia. We can't always have perfect hospitals, or stop death, or entirely prevent crime, or get rid of inequality and corruption etc. However we can and should have a commitment that opportunities for everyone should be as fair as possible going forward. People will not always take the opportunities provided, but we should strive to give everyone as fair a chance as possible.
I have no idea where he has got that from. As a Labour supporter, I don't like mediocrity and nor do I loathe wealth or aspiration. Hence why I am supportive of the different positions Labour has taken. It seems a cheap and underhand attack on members of the party. Maybe he is correct though and if they feel so strongly, why not put their convictions to the test via an bi-election? I suspect I would be proven correct.
Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the party membership - they're talking about the ideology Labour have undertaken and the public perception of it.
And they are 100% correct and, unfortunately, I think it'll be proven so at a General Election, when the Momentum bubble is ruthlessly exposed.
- Status