|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The last thing you need in a crisis is a right wing government
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Point of Order:
The Environment Agency's equivalent in Canada, like the US, spans many different Departments and indeed levels of government. Much of its work is done by Provincial Ministries of Natural Resources. Flood Protection is done by MNR's, mainly in Manitoba and New Brunswick, the two seriously floodprone areas in this country.
Pesticides are regulated by Health Canada and rivers and canals are handled by Transport Canada if they are commercially navigable, Parks Canada for the recreational canals and provincial MNR's for the rest.
I call bullshit on Anglican't.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
He was using Guido as a a source - it's hardly surprising it's bullshit. Might as well rely on Pravda for tractor production figures.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The private sector will bail us out using the laws of the free market economy.
I think this is at the heart of a lot of problems with government these days (and frankly it doesn't always matter what 'wing' the government is), because it assumes that a free market economy will get everything done.
Exactly.
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
Are those two thoughts necessarily contradictory? Libertarians sometimes speak of a 'nightwatchman state'. A nightwatchman's job, presumably, is to keep a look out for trouble and, if there is some, to do something about it.
This libertarian position is probably an extreme one, but I don't think a moderate position necessarily makes these two thoughts irreconcilable, does it?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems to lead to an ambivalence about the state amongst some people, who want a small one, that doesn't interfere in people's lives, (nanny state), until the water is bubbling up through their floor, when suddenly there is a great need for some kind of state help. I suppose deregulation is all very well, as long as things are going well, but when they go pear-shaped, you can feel awfully alone.
Are those two thoughts necessarily contradictory? Libertarians sometimes speak of a 'nightwatchman state'. A nightwatchman's job, presumably, is to keep a look out for trouble and, if there is some, to do something about it.
This libertarian position is probably an extreme one, but I don't think a moderate position necessarily makes these two thoughts irreconcilable, does it?
No, I agree. I just see the right-wing as bouncing between the two positions, as deregulation sometimes brings havoc in its wake, and then deregulation is abandoned, for a while, and then picked up again, when things have calmed down. It's rather like government by crisis, which I suppose is rather exciting! But TINA, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Some would ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But you can't cut public service personnel and at the same time expect them to be in every flooded part of the country - something has to give. This government needs to make up its mind - as quetzalcoatl says.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also about joined-up thinking, isn't it? The more I read about floods, the cause of, the more confusing it seems.
I read that the EU has been paying upland farmers to strip the hills of trees and vegetation, for some reason, which I haven't yet fathomed; on the other hand, hydrologists seem to be saying that that stops the uplands from holding water, rather like a sponge, thus increasing floods lower down.
But government in the UK tends to be for the short term - i.e. what can we do to win the next election?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Essentials like water provision etc should not be subject to market forces (fear and greed).
Would you regard lavatory paper as an 'essential'?
Not if you have an adequate supply of Daily Mails...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
No, no, the Daily Mail should be buried in the garden as fertilizer. It brings the rhubarb up a treat; no other newspaper is as good (rhubarb likes acid soil).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also good mixed with manure. There is some kind of reciprocal action, or mutual recognition going on.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's well known that when there's some kind of disaster or tragedy, people suddenly think it's the government's job to do so something about it, and politicians are terribly keen to be seen to 'do something'.
This is still my favourite piece from the Onion News Network
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Interesting that when wealthy homes in middle England are flooded, money’s suddenly no object after years of "difficult decisions have to be made and extra bedrooms must be taxed".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the TV news has taken on a whole different appearance, now they start dramatically with a famous news reader standing in water in an affluent area.
Did they do this in Somerset? Maybe they did, but my impression is that there is a sort of gasp, horror, at the idea that water is lapping at the doors of London suburbs.
But I suppose there is some sense in this also, there is a danger of a political snowball gathering, whereby people get angry, blame the government, and it could get out of control. Pickles is the man for the job! (*Sarcasm alert*).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Boogie
You said ...wealthy homes in middle England...: do you think the floods are only affecting owner-occupiers who've paid off their mortgage? Or perhaps think there is no social housing along the Thames Valley?
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
[fixed code]
[ 13. February 2014, 09:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
And the reason why money is suddenly no object is?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The floods are affecting everyone: the reason why its more newsworthy when it hits the Thames Valley is the sheer numbers of people involved and the knock-on effect on infrastructure for people elsewhere in the country when rail services are crippled.
And the reason why money is suddenly no object is?
Because Cameron is shitting himself, that people might get very angry, and then they might vote UKIP, or even, quelle horreur, Labour. So send for the mighty Pickles to fill the dykes! Not lesbians, I hasten to add.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh please!
Mr Cameron has announced that money will be found because it is patently obvious that the damage to be repaired will be huge.
Government making available emergency funds to homeowners forced out of their houses means that people either without insurance, or experiencing delays, can relax about paying for the (emergency) roof over their head.
The cost of Government probably paying for repairs to property where the homeowner is not insured is, in the greater scheme of things, peanuts.
As for the "where did they suddenly find the money" chorus: UK governments have always kept a reserve fund to cope with emergencies.
All those of you sniping at the PM: are you seriously suggesting things would be any different if someone else headed up the government? Ed Miliband could stop the rain, magically prevent floods, still the gales, etc, etc, etc.
Grow up. The country is experiencing unprecedented wind and rain - if you want to blame someone, try God.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Interesting that when wealthy homes in middle England are flooded, money’s suddenly no object after years of "difficult decisions have to be made and extra bedrooms must be taxed".
This did strike me as a skightly odd thing for the Prime Minister to say, particularly given the general themes of this government (even if no bedrooms have been taxed...)
There was an interesting piece by Dan Hodges in the Telegraph recently saying how at some unspecified point last weekend the floods went from being a common or garden incident (albeit a serious one) to a political crisis. Once that happened, the politicians had to spring into action.
[ 13. February 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh please!
Mr Cameron has announced that money will be found because it is patently obvious that the damage to be repaired will be huge.
Government making available emergency funds to homeowners forced out of their houses means that people either without insurance, or experiencing delays, can relax about paying for the (emergency) roof over their head.
Like other 'emergency' announcements Cameron has made, we should not expect this to amount to a plate of beans. Why should the state pay for people who have no insurance? Of course it won't.
quote:
The cost of Government probably paying for repairs to property where the homeowner is not insured is, in the greater scheme of things, peanuts.
And, of course, will not actually happen. Householders will have to apply to a fund of money set up with great fanfare, and it will turn out down the line that about 2 have actually received any money.
quote:
As for the "where did they suddenly find the money" chorus: UK governments have always kept a reserve fund to cope with emergencies.
I'm pretty sure they haven't got reserves to do more than clean up the mess. Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to cut the costs of running flood protection services, would they?
quote:
All those of you sniping at the PM: are you seriously suggesting things would be any different if someone else headed up the government? Ed Miliband could stop the rain, magically prevent floods, still the gales, etc, etc, etc.
Nope. But at the very least, I do not believe that Labour would have cut budgets as hard as the Tories have - because economic theories of Shock therapy are ingrained into the DNA of many Tories.
quote:
Grow up. The country is experiencing unprecedented wind and rain - if you want to blame someone, try God.
Or perhaps blame those who ignored the warnings about climate change, reduced budgets which would have reduced the effects of this storm and so on.
[ 13. February 2014, 09:33: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is it shock therapy? It's to do with deregulation, isn't it? This tends to produce government by crisis, since when you deregulate, you sometimes get crises arising, and then you have to leap in and put your finger in the dyke (!). Thus the small state suddenly has to become nanny state.
I certainly would not expect Mr Miliband to do any better - they are all deregulators now. I suppose we get the politicians that we deserve.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
pydseybare
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
The Environment Agency was set up under a Labour administration as an umbrella organisation, taking in the old Ministry of Agriculture, National Rivers Authority, etc.
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
They have decided in some instances to spend it on removing sea walls, allowing the sea to flood inland, providing a 'soft' defence. An example of this is at Selsey in West Sussex which, with the removal of a large section of shingle bank and sea wall, is now once again really an island.
Friends down there note that the single road over the causeway needs renewing and a second route provided but the EA - wearing its conservation hat - won't give permission... so local residents expect the old Seal Island to become a reality fairly soon.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
Sorry, I thought others would get the reference. Shock therapy is largely associated with Milton Freedman and the Chicago School of economics. Basically they believe in unfetted private markets and work towards absolutely minimal regulation.
In particular, it refers to the idea that a crisis is a good time to break down regulation and cut out red-tape.
In the view of many, the theory has never been shown to work out, but the ideas hang around for a long time because it fits in so well with Conservative/Tory dogmas.
(sorry, I can never remember which is left and which is right wing. Can't even remember which hand is which. Sue me) Shock therapy
[ 13. February 2014, 09:53: Message edited by: pydseybare ]
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
pydseybare
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
I'm sorry, they absolute have. Staff have been cut and the overall budget for flood defence has been cut. The overall budget for the EA, which has a number of important regulatory functions, has been cut.
quote:
The Environment Agency was set up under a Labour administration as an umbrella organisation, taking in the old Ministry of Agriculture, National Rivers Authority, etc.
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
Rubbish.
quote:
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
Well that might be true, but in cutting the budgets available for infrastructure, the effect is to cut the costs of flood defences, which are a major part of the EA capital budget.
quote:
They have decided in some instances to spend it on removing sea walls, allowing the sea to flood inland, providing a 'soft' defence. An example of this is at Selsey in West Sussex which, with the removal of a large section of shingle bank and sea wall, is now once again really an island.
True but irrelevant.
quote:
Friends down there note that the single road over the causeway needs renewing and a second route provided but the EA - wearing its conservation hat - won't give permission... so local residents expect the old Seal Island to become a reality fairly soon.
The thing that is widely ignored in this debate is that the Environment Agency almost single-handedly has the flood protection expertise in England. There are no other experts - even the few academics left in universities are largely funded by the EA to do fundamental research.
If the EA cannot protect low-lying areas with the budget that they have, it is reasonable to assume that it cannot be done by anyone. If they can't do it with an increased budget, it is for sure that they can't do it with less people and less money.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
pydseybare
Thanks for that. I should have remembered that, small state, mucho privatization, deregulation, chaos.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
There is a rule that says that every £1 spent on flood defence must produce £8 of economic benefit. This supposedly penalises small rural communities, relative to (for example) central London. Perhaps there wasn't taken to be enough economic justification for doing anything else on the Somerset Levels.
It seems to me that such benefits would be quite hard to quantify, but I really couldn't say.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I was just replying to the idea that the EA sets its own budget, when Smith appears to contradict this, and actually said that spending on the Levels was constrained by government. Or as he put it, £400, 000 was the 'maximum amount the Treasury rules allowed us to do'. I suppose he must be right.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also good mixed with manure. There is some kind of reciprocal action, or mutual recognition going on.
Other newspapers need to be mixed with manure. The Daily Mail comes complete with shit in the pages
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Its rather hard to imagine the Treasury allowing any government agency to set its own budget.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I saw Lord Smith say that they were constrained in terms of what they could spend by government decree - the EA, I mean. For example, they could spend £400, 000 on the Levels, and no more. Of course, I have no idea if this is true.
There is a rule that says that every £1 spent on flood defence must produce £8 of economic benefit. This supposedly penalises small rural communities, relative to (for example) central London. Perhaps there wasn't taken to be enough economic justification for doing anything else on the Somerset Levels.
It seems to me that such benefits would be quite hard to quantify, but I really couldn't say.
The regulation about £8 benefit per £1 spent has been quoted in the media sufficiently for me to believe it to be true. Also, that the figure of £8 was increased from £5 some while ago, and as a result a large number of proposed flood defence schemes had to be shelved because they did not meet the cost benefit requirement imposed by central government.
So whether or not the overall budget for the EA has been maintained, what they are allowed to spend it on has definitely diminished, contrary to what L'organist posted:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
NO ONE reduced the amount available for flood defences.
...
The EA is given a budget and it is the EA which decides how and where to spend the money.
No government minister, of whatever political hue, has demanded that spending on dredging, flood walls, etc, be cut. The people who run the EA have decided where to spend their money.
...
So we have the typical political disingenous deceit: 'We haven't cut the budget for the EA' [but we've changed the rules so they can't spend the money the way they want to].
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Here is a good article. It is a national embarrassment that the only decent pumps in use are borrowed from Holland. We need to pour real money into upgrading all our infrastructure. With the added bonus of lots of jobs created. The money can come from projects which are pure waste - trident, banker's bonuses, huge unnecessary profits for utilities etc etc. the list is endless.
From the article - "On Newsnight the other evening, confronted by an audience of flood victims, Philip Hammond, the cabinet's God of Defence, reiterated what many in his party have suddenly started to say. Individuals have some responsibility for protecting themselves against floods. Local councils have some responsibility for protecting their boroughs against floods. But infrastructural protection against floods is a huge job, a national job, a job that the state has to oversee. There is no private-sector solution here, not even in the spacious realm of neoliberal fantasy."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The money can come from projects which are pure waste - trident, banker's bonuses, huge unnecessary profits for utilities etc etc. the list is endless.
Putting aside the question whether these things really are 'pure waste', some of the money in this list isn't even the government's to spend.
[code]
[ 15. February 2014, 11:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The money can come from projects which are pure waste - trident, banker's bonuses, huge unnecessary profits for utilities etc etc. the list is endless.
Putting aside the question whether these things really are 'pure waste', some of the money in this list isn't even the government's to spend.
[code]
To a great many lefties though, all money is for the government to spend, as though being "a government" somehow makes them know better. Silly but there you go.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The money can come from projects which are pure waste - trident, banker's bonuses, huge unnecessary profits for utilities etc etc. the list is endless.
Putting aside the question whether these things really are 'pure waste', some of the money in this list isn't even the government's to spend.
[code]
To a great many lefties though, all money is for the government to spend, as though being "a government" somehow makes them know better. Silly but there you go.
Bollocks. Many lefties, and not a few elsewhere, want higher government spending as an alternative to Osborne's ideological attachment to Friedmanomics, but precious few anywhere want to leave you with nothing more than pocket money.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
With Osborne you are getting higher government spending year on year.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
With Osborne you are getting higher government spending year on year.
And the budget deficit is increasing too, AFAICT. That increased spending isn't funded by tax receipts, it's the consequence of the continued recession. Can't Osborne achieve anything?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
With Osborne you are getting higher government spending year on year.
And the budget deficit is increasing too, AFAICT. That increased spending isn't funded by tax receipts, it's the consequence of the continued recession. Can't Osborne achieve anything?
The deficit is falling, though debt is rising. If nothing else, he's doing better than Balls would.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
With Osborne you are getting higher government spending year on year.
And the budget deficit is increasing too, AFAICT. That increased spending isn't funded by tax receipts, it's the consequence of the continued recession. Can't Osborne achieve anything?
The deficit is falling, though debt is rising. If nothing else, he's doing better than Balls would.
Of course, you have absolutely no means of knowing that.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The deficit is falling, though debt is rising. If nothing else, he's doing better than Balls would.
There's a reasonable case to be made - except amongst those who confuse household and government spending - that the deficit is falling for entirely the wrong reasons.
Cutting back on maintaining infrastructure - for example - makes very little sense. You have to spend on it eventually, the costs balloon over time, and in the meantime you leave yourself open to outlying events.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
I have no comment to offer on right wing governments, but on governments too focussed on London and the South East. It took 6 weeks of Somerset (my County) being under water before a minister turned up to see what all the fuss was about. But once the Thames flooded part of the Home Counties, within 24 hours the Prime Minister is running round like a headless chicken promising that money will be no object to sort it all out.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's the numbers - 40 houses in the Levels, around 1000 houses in the Thames Valley, 25 times the scale of damage. Plus the transport network being taken out for huge swathes of the country.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The deficit is falling, though debt is rising. If nothing else, he's doing better than Balls would.
Of course, you have absolutely no means of knowing that.
The same could be said for quite a lot of comments made on this site.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
With Osborne you are getting higher government spending year on year.
And the budget deficit is increasing too, AFAICT. That increased spending isn't funded by tax receipts, it's the consequence of the continued recession. Can't Osborne achieve anything?
The deficit is falling, though debt is rising. If nothing else, he's doing better than Balls would.
An expert's critique of Mr Osborne
If you look at the predictions made in 2010/11 about the effects of Osborne's economic policies by Mr Osborne himself and by Mr Balls, one of them has been consistently wrong, one has been significantly vindicated. Care to guess which is which?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think, at best, both have been wrong.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's an interesting argument, though, which has several planks:
1. You can't cut your way out of a depression, since the cuts depress the economy.
2. Economies eventually tend to grow again, but it's false logic to claim that it's your policies which did it.
However, one has to issue a warning here - politics has never been about logic, so point 2 is pretty much irrelevant. Of course, politicians are going to claim post hoc ergo propter hoc*, and they'd be damn fools if they didn't.
Of course, if something bad happened, you can always blame the previous government, which is a kind of delayed post hoc.
*a fallacy of the structure, 'if A occurs after B, then it is caused by B'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an interesting argument, though, which has several planks:
1. You can't cut your way out of a depression, since the cuts depress the economy.
2. Economies eventually tend to grow again, but it's false logic to claim that it's your policies which did it.
However, one has to issue a warning here - politics has never been about logic, so point 2 is pretty much irrelevant. Of course, politicians are going to claim post hoc ergo propter hoc*, and they'd be damn fools if they didn't.
Of course, if something bad happened, you can always blame the previous government, which is a kind of delayed post hoc.
*a fallacy of the structure, 'if A occurs after B, then it is caused by B'.
Politics isn't really been about economics either. It's mostly about getting elected and once elected, getting re-elected.
Or, as I read years ago "Good economics is bad politics, bad economics is good politics, bad politics is good economics and good politics is bad economics".
And the idea that the national economy is like a household is less sound than comparing the electricity in a Duracell battery to that in HT cables.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
