|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The David Cameron pig thing is (or should be) completely irrelevant to politics.
Indeed. Conversely, the way he handled Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status really stinks. But don't expect a substantive answer from Mr Cameron. He'll be snide and dismissive.
Ultimately, for a wealthy individual who spent years avoiding UK tax to give to the Conservative party large amounts of money is democratic but for the leader of the opposition to have links with the unions (current membership around 60x that of the Conservative party) and for the unions to give money to Labour is bad for democracy.
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think it's bad for democracy for any individual or organisation to fund political campaigns and therefore expect special treatment. Whether that's a rich individual funding the Conservative Party election campaign and expecting a senior position within government (and getting pissed off when given a junior position) or a trade union expecting a policy package that favours them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The David Cameron pig thing is (or should be) completely irrelevant to politics.
(Since writing the above I've changed my mind but have posted in the pig thread so as not to derail.)
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suspect that Pig-Gate will now work very much in his favour over the next few months. Replacing Cameron more quickly with Osborne (which might happen) will still leave the taint of "the posh and what they get up to".
Jeremy Corbyn has had an unexpected (to me at least) filip both to his settling in to the job and Labour's future prospects. Sometimes it's all about being in the right place at the right time.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
A recent opinion poll on this (to the extent that we can trust polls these days, especially rapid reaction ones) suggested that about 60% of respondent said this alleged incident didn't change their view and a further 13% or so didn't know whether it changed their view. I'd query the extent to which this is a 'filip'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Have there been any headlines in the last two days about how Corbyn is a threat to national security because he doesn't do his top button up? No?
I'd look on that as a result.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Corbyn should have expected the press to examine every action and decision he makes in the first few weeks with minute detail for any little thing that's out of place. Instead the press are talking about what may turn out to be a load of porkies about Cameron. When it blows over, if the press turns back to Corbyn they'll have to get over the "old news" factor of his being in the leadership seat for a few weeks. If Corbyn keeps his head, gets on with making solid and hard to discredit statements, asking good questions in PMQs, avoids any major social gaffs etc then the next time the press spot light falls on him will be Labour Party Conference and at that point he can concentrate on policies - which is his strength, like or hate what he believes he can speak coherently and passionately in defence of those beliefs.
[which is a long winded version of what Doc Tor said]
[ 22. September 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I do sort of feel sorry for Corbyn's fans. Barely a fortnight after welcoming a new politics based solely on principled policy discussion that is oh-so-serious, along comes a juicy personality driven story.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I do sort of feel sorry for Corbyn's fans. Barely a fortnight after welcoming a new politics based solely on principled policy discussion that is oh-so-serious, along comes a juicy personality driven story.
I don't think they care.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Corbyn's given a brief interview to the New Statesman, refused to comment on the pig claim which is pleasing. Has ended up with someone in his team who worked for both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnston - interesting.
[ 23. September 2015, 19:33: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
To continue on from what doublethink just posted...
Nailed it:
quote:
But to the political story of the week – the allegation that David Cameron put “a private part of his anatomy” into a dead pig’s mouth – Corbyn has “absolutely no response at all”. He adds, however, “I am concerned about the alleged knowledge, or not, of the non-dom status of some of his friends in the House of Lords.”
Corbyn interview.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Hardly a ringing endorsement from Peter Mandelson. It looks like he is still trying to pull strings and makes him look a bitter middle-aged man.
Then again, the comments are in The Guardian. If the Labour Party loses its association with that paper, maybe it will gain credibility overall, which will piss-off the slacktivists who will probably turn to supporting the Green Party.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, I wouldn't have expected Mandy to be pro-Corbyn. On the otherhand, a relatively senior party figure well known as having opposed Corbyn during the leadership campaign saying "wait and see" is a move towards preventing an implosion in the party. Whether he's right that Corbyn makes Labour unelectable or not, an internal war and party splintering certainly will make Labour unelectable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... If the Labour Party loses its association with that paper, maybe it will gain credibility overall, which will piss-off the slacktivists who will probably turn to supporting the Green Party.
Can any party afford to lose its less enthusiastic voters? Is discouraging those not of the true faith ever a good political strategy in a system where you have to win elections? Never forget there's everything to play for.
As I keep on trying to remind people, the Conservatives have an overall majority with only 37% of the vote. That's hardly a mandate to govern rather than just administer. The LibDems have recently said they're going to ignore a convention that is alleged to exist that opposition parties aren't supposed to vote against policies in the governing party's manifesto, on the grounds that a party that ⅔ of the voters voted for someone else, doesn't have a mandate for its manifesto. I agree with that argument.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
That seems a very unusual convention. If they aren't supposed to vote against the governing party, you have to wonder what an opposition is for...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
It's a convention for the House of Lords which arises because the Lords have no democratic legitimacy.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Presumably the notion is that everyone who voted (in this case) Conservative voted for everything in the manifesto, and therefore the Conservatives have a mandate from the people to enact those policies. Therefore, to vote against those policies is to vote against the wishes of the electorate who voted the Conservatives into government.
The mandate argument can be seen to be valid if a party gets a large majority. But, in that case presumably their MPs will vote for that policy and it doesn't make any difference what the Opposition do. Conversely, if the government majority is very small such that they need to whip all their members through the vote then an effective Opposition can potentially overturn a manifesto policy. But, in that situation a claim for a mandate from the electorate is very weak.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
On the otherhand, such a convention for the Lords makes more sense. Which is an additional comment following a cross-post.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
But the government can always trump the House Of Lords by using the parliament act can't it? Or perhaps there are some other stupid conventions about using that, or they are humiliated by having to or something...
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
and here's a link to a dodgy Wikipedia page to give background and explanation.
Salisbury Convention
According to this the Lib Dems have been backing away from the convention for some time.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
It's a convention for the House of Lords which arises because the Lords have no democratic legitimacy.
It's bizarre that a party which wins about 25% of the possible votes wins > 50% of the available seats.
Then again, why should there be any convention for any opposition to not vote against manifesto promises when the government party or parties can't.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've always been puzzled by parties which claim a mandate (I first noticed it with Mrs Thatcher) when they have not commanded the majority of the electorate. I am left to assume that this is under the Strephon principle, and they got it from the Queen of the Fairies.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Whenever I hear the term mandate I recall the dozen or so handed out by the League of Nations after the War To End All Wars. They were no more than a marginal improvement on old-fashioned colonialism, so I'm very sceptical and cynical whenever anyone claims a mandate.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've always been puzzled by parties which claim a mandate (I first noticed it with Mrs Thatcher) when they have not commanded the majority of the electorate. I am left to assume that this is under the Strephon principle, and they got it from the Queen of the Fairies.
I don't know how much it was used before that, but it was a favourite phrase for Harold Wilson.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The concept of a mandate on manifesto policies from a general election fails on at least three points IMO
- It is almost unheard of for a party to get more than 50% of votes cast, certainly the support of more than 50% of the electorate would be so unlikely as to be impossible.
- It is highly unlikely that anyone voting for the party agrees with everything in the manifesto. I would be surprised if even David Cameron doesn't think there are a few minor policies that were put in for party unity that he personally disagrees with.
- It is unlikely that there is a single policy in the manifesto that 100% of the people voting for that party agree with. That would even be true for apparently defining policies (eg: I doubt that all the people who voted SNP agree with Independence.
About the only way a policy could be said to have a mandate from the electorate is if they were asked directly in a referendum with a two option (ie: yes/no) question. Even then there would be circumstances when it would be reasonable to question whether that does actually represent what the people want.
AIUI, Corbyn has been seeking to establish cross-party consensus politics. Which is an act of negotiation on each policy, with what was in the party manifesto as a starting position rather than a non-negotiable fixed point. Which is a way of conducting business that I find commendable. But it does run the risk of alienating supporters for whom that policy was of such importance that it is almost non-negotiable (which is what happened with the LibDems over tuition fees).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Anyone else catch the Andrew Marr interview ? I think he did well.
[ 27. September 2015, 09:42: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog regularly but I think this is pertinent.
quote:
Wren-Lewis:
What a strange world we are now in. The government goes for rapid deficit reduction as a smokescreen for reducing the size of the state. No less than a former cabinet secretary accuses the Chancellor of this deceit. Yet when a Labour leadership contender adopts an anti-austerity policy he is told it is extreme and committing electoral suicide.
My reservations about Corbyn have always been primarily principled-pragmatism. By which I mean, I am genuinely deeply concerned by the damage this Conservative government are causing to my country and they need to be beaten. I do wonder if the Overton window means Corbyn is too far out of the box but...
As Wren-Lewis observes there is a massive disconnect between the reality of Osborne's dishonesty and radical right wing agenda and its representation in the media as mainstream. Which is mirrored by how close Corbyn is to mainstream economics and how he is presented as deeply radical. Allowing for the fact that Wren-Lewis's whole Stitcht is the huge gap between what economic research actually shows to be sound policy and what the media presents as such, this is still a big deal. The media is silent on Osborne.
Now here's the thing, the smug condescension of many Conservatives about Corbyn's electability... what if they're wrong? What if people will see through the lies and then see this man of principal with whom they may not fully agree but he will be offering something very different and - by that point - clearly desperately needed. In which case, we are at the beginning of a big change in the political landscape.
I am not yet ready to predict that. Much as I hope for it, in the same way I hoped Blair would be more left than he was, I am realistic about the challenges that lay ahead.
However I have a folder of all the newspaper front pages that greeted Corbyn's election as leader. I am keeping them to bring out when (if) the complacent certainties are shown to be as foolish in electoral terms as they are in policy terms.
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Anyone else catch the Andrew Marr interview ? I think he did well.
I found I could watch it via the BBC website, even though iPlayer gives me a "you can't watch that" usually.
I don't think Andrew Marr is the most aggressive of the political interviewers. But, Corbyn responded to all the questions - even though on a couple of occasions his response was "a colleague is addressing that in conference this week, wait and see", which was good support for his colleagues rather than attempting to steal their thunder. Stuck to his guns (even though he probably hates that expression) over the opening of democratic processes through consultation when pressed on what would be the situation when (eg: over Trident) there may be a difference in opinion between Corbyn and his cabinet and conference.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
This is a very smart move.
If they do the PR right, it will become much more difficult for Osborne to get away with his fantasies.
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.
Er isn't your last point the key bit here? Surely the Tories unless they take leave of their political senses will be working very hard to ensure the public aren't allowed to forget it's a Labour appointed group?
Not for the first time, it reminds me of the great Dad's Army 17 stage plan to attack a tank:
Mainwaring: "Any questions?"
Walker: "Yeah. While we're doing all this, what's the tank going to be doing?"
Meanwhile, all George has to do is cherry pick some good quotes from the IMF and say "the IMF say this, Labour's advisors say...."
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
It might be useful (genuinely) as a way of taking some of the heat of John McDonnell, but otherwise the line to take from every other party in Westminster may as well be "Labour contracts out economic decision making because its own team don't have any credibility/can't decide for themselves."
That may well be hugely and gratuitously unfair, but it also probably what's going to happen.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
For most of the other parties and the hostile press (i.e. pretty much all of it with the exception of the Morning Star and the possible exception of the Mirror) any stick is good enough to beat Corbyn with and if it breaks, well, you've got two.
'Ha! Look how dangerous this lot are with their untested and amateurish economic policy!'
'OK, we'll get Stiglitz and some other signiifcant people in to advise, and we'll ask for access to the Bank of England and the OBR so that we can get some independent economic modelling'.
'Ha! Look how indecisive this lot are with their contracted out policymaking!'
As Harold Wilson used to say, always remember, comrades, that the Tories are bastards.
[ 28. September 2015, 10:17: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?
ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think the committee of economists is a smart move even though the Tories could find a different group, and even though they can characterise it as 'Labour need advice,' (not a strong argument, as it is hard to portray taking advice as weakness rather than responsibility).
Labour wants to attack the Tory claim that austerity is required by the implacable logic of the economic situation. Demonstrating that there is an alternative, but well-informed view, is sufficient. You don't have to show that it is a better supported view, simply that it is a reasonable view and that therefore austerity is a choice, and one we needn't make.
Unfortunately the Shadow Chancellor has already committed himself to deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Unfortunately the Shadow Chancellor has already committed himself to deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
But, austerity isn't the only route to a balanced budget and deficit reduction.
Stimulation of the economy to generate growth will do it as well. A growing economy means more people in work and earning more, and hence more tax income and less welfare payments. That should lead to balanced budgets if you're reasonably careful where you spend your money. And, a growing economy also reduces your deficit - both relative to GDP (which will rise), but also in real terms if you manage a small budget surplus to pay off more than just the interest.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.
[ 28. September 2015, 13:06: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.
But that's why the austerity argument holds water in enough people's eyes. Most people cannot easily or simply earn more, and probably aren't owed anything by others.
Hence they always do (i), and think the government should too.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The PR should always be "an internationally renowned committee of economists has recommended that ... the Labour Party will incorporate these recommendations into our economic policy". In fact, they could drop the second part. Just have the group produce recommendations and criticisms of Tory economic policy, if people forget they're a Labour appointed group then come questions to the Chancellor and other opportunities Labour simply keep quoting the group.
It's about as persuasive as the Falconer Commission on Assisted Dying. That was founded on the hope that people would think that because he'd been Lord Chancellor, they would not notice that he wasn't Lord Chancellor any more. It was no more than his personal collection of kite-flyers chosen because they already agreed with the conclusion he wanted them to reach - which surprise, surprise, they did.
i.e. It fools those who want to be fooled or those who can't be bothered to check.
Incidentally, this name, Wren-Lewis that keeps getting quoted on this and other threads - is he objectively a well-known and respected economist that we all ought to have heard of? Or is he just someone that Alienfromzog happens to like, went to school with or was taught by?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Precisely so. Domestic analogies often do not work in national economics but if you are running into debt you can (i) eat less, turn off the heating, give the dog away or (ii) earn more money (if you are able to) and call in what others owe you, which seems to be essentially what is being proposed.
But that's why the austerity argument holds water in enough people's eyes. Most people cannot easily or simply earn more, and probably aren't owed anything by others.
Hence they always do (i), and think the government should too.
Sure. But, to but it bluntly, they're being dumb.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?
ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"
I may be mistaken (but I don't think I am this time) but I'm sure economics was originally titled "Political Economy" or even "Political Economics", which gives a clue as to the origin of the craft, namely a statistical tool for politicians.
Economists are about as objective as football fans.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Simon Wren-Lewis is an Oxford professor of economics, who formerly had government jobs. He worked for the Treasury from 74-81. He has a Wikipedia page and a blog called Mainly Macro, which is quite readable.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, this name, Wren-Lewis that keeps getting quoted on this and other threads - is he objectively a well-known and respected economist that we all ought to have heard of? Or is he just someone that Alienfromzog happens to like, went to school with or was taught by?
I just like his blog a lot - he explains his assertions with numbers and charts and stuff. I have no formal training in economics but I have read a lot in the last few years. More to the point he is an internationally renowned Oxford Prof of economics so he is a very credible person. Similarly Stiglitz carries significant gravitas.
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
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Just tuned in for his speech....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
His speech long on utopian hoped-for principle; vacuous accommadatory phrases and empty of all specific proposals.
Its one thing to say we will listen to everyone. But there comes a point in real life when some hard decisions have to be taken and the "all things to all men" approach will not suffice.
Corbyn is a man of principle. Trouble is that his principles, put into practice, are not acceptable to the majority of the electorate. So he prevaricates. In 4 years time such prevarication will not wash and he will, at last, have to nail his colours to the mast.
Scrap Trident. Abolish the Monarchy. Print money to finance expenditure on housing etc; tax the rich and middle classes out of existence and create a Marxist-Leninist heaven on earth. Why not come clean at the outset?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Really? You don't believe him, but what the press invent?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
His speech long on utopian hoped-for principle; vacuous accommadatory phrases and empty of all specific proposals.
I haven't had time to listen to it in full, but one of my FB friends was in the hall. He said: quote:
Just back from Labour conference. Jezza's speech was packed with ideas - from sick pay for the self employed, through investment in council housing and deficit reduction to better mental health service and improving the army. The spin from the right wing press? He said nothing. Incredible.
What am I going to hear when I listen to it? No specific proposals, or what my mate said?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Just as a total aside, and this goes for all parties frankly, is anyone else remotely bothered by the fact that anyone pays much heed to one economist over another?
ISTM that if one lot can whistle up a list of "eminent" economists who agree, the other can ring round a group that don't. In the immortal words of Withnail's Danny, "why trust one drug and not the other?"
I'd say more that if a significant number of economists are against austerity, it makes sense for that debate to be reflected in Parliament. Or rather, something is wrong with our legislators if nearly all of them support policies whose support is far less overwhelming among those people whose job is to guess whether they'd work or not.
Also, one of the accusations against Mr Corbyn is that he is stuck in the 1980s. Dr Stiglitz certainly is not. (In fact I believe in the 1980s he would have been on the opposite side to Mr Corbyn.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What am I going to hear when I listen to it? No specific proposals, or what my mate said?
I imagine you could take the same speech and spin it as either "lots of specifics" or "lots of platitudes but no specifics" depending on your mood.
In truth? I expect there weren't any "specifics" because nobody puts the level of detail I'd call "specific" in a policy speech. Policy speeches are full of big pictures and guideposts, not nitty-gritty. This is true whatever the political persuasion of the speaker.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
