Forum menu
The Eurosystem consists of the European Central Bank and the national central banks (NCB) of the 19 member states that are part of the eurozone. [b]The national central banks apply the monetary policy of the ECB.[/b]
MY bold .
Basically its sort of true
You could argue it either way but probably fairer to say it some sort of [weak]mutual fiscal policy centrally controlled and locally administered. Is it a pure one probably not but its not true to say there is [b]no[/b] common fiscal policy.
I dont think he does want to help anyone understand he just wants you to be certain his knowledge is greater than yours on economics.Broadly accepted to be correct but doesn't explain the process or evidence to support it and would leave most people no better informed.
He does have a tendency to make statements without explaining them, but in the past when asked nicely he does explain.
This thread is better when people are playing nice. And whilst we are on the subject, apologies for the nob comment 🙂
Here a bit of reasoning that you chose to ignore - admittedly with some tongue in cheekThe € cannot and doesn't not work by design. But to make it fail less of course you need full fiscal and political union
Nope, not ignored, taken on board but this is just you making a statement not reasoning.
Why can the euro not work by design?
Why would full fiscal and political union make it fail less rather than actually work?
but it's a list of "answers"
Yep, note the speech marks. If this were an exam you may or may not have got the right answer but no one can see your working. 😉
The better question is how long it has to last before folk stop saying this
An inquiring mind only has to search. The four characterisitcs are according to Wiki
(1) Labor mobility across the region. What if we suppose instead that Home and Foreign have an integrated labor market, so that labor is free to move between them: What effect will this have on the decision to form an optimum currency area? This includes physical ability to travel (visas, workers' rights, etc.), lack of cultural barriers to free movement (such as different languages) and institutional arrangements (such as the ability to have pensions transferred throughout the region).[3] For example, suppose Home and Foreign initially have equal output and unemployment. Suppose further that a negative shock hits Home, but not Foreign. If output falls and unemployment rises in Home, then labor will start to migrate to Foreign, where unemployment is lower. If this migration can occur with ease, the impact of the negative shock on Home will be less painful. Furthermore, there will be less need for Home to implement an independent monetary policy response for stabilization purposes. With an excess supply of labor in one region, adjustment can occur through migration.[7]
(2) Openness with capital mobility and price and wage flexibility across the region. This is so that the market forces of supply and demand automatically distribute money and goods to where they are needed. In practice this does not work perfectly as there is no true wage flexibility.[8] The Eurozone members trade heavily with each other (intra-European trade is greater than international trade), and most recent empirical analyses of the 'euro effect' suggest that the single currency has increased trade by 5 to 15 percent in the euro-zone when compared to trade between non-euro countries.[9]
(3) A risk sharing system such as an automatic fiscal transfer mechanism to redistribute money to areas/sectors which have been adversely affected by the first two characteristics. This usually takes the form of taxation redistribution to less developed areas of a country/region. This policy, though theoretically accepted, is politically difficult to implement as the better-off regions rarely give up their revenue easily. Theoretically, Europe has a no-bailout clause in the Stability and Growth Pact, meaning that fiscal transfers are not allowed. During the 2010 Eurozone crisis (relating to government debt), the no-bailout clause was de facto abandoned in April 2010.[10]
(4) Participant countries have similar business cycles. When one country experiences a boom or recession, other countries in the union are likely to follow. This allows the shared central bank to promote growth in downturns and to contain inflation in booms. Should countries in a currency union have idiosyncratic business cycles, then optimal monetary policy may diverge and union participants may be made worse off under a joint central bank.
EU before fiscal and political union fails (1) and (3) but one is being generous on (4). (2) does happen with unacceptable social consequences - see youth unemployment.
EU after, (1) would still be an issue and the consequences of (3) would be very unpopular.
Am I allowed to see exchange rates like the differential in a transmission?
When all wheels are driven in the same way then you can lock it up (single currency) and you get better traction.
But if you need to manoeuvre, then different wheels (economies) turn at different rates and something needs to give.
If you have a working differential (the exchange rate) everything works, but if it’s locked up either you skid / manoeuvre poorly o something brakes.
Single currencies are for economies which are essentially all travelling at the same speed to the same place. Doesn’t mean you can’t do it with a locked transmission; it just means there are better less damaging ways - close enough analogy?
Thank you mefty. I posted v similar 00s of pages ago but it gets a bit long for an Internet forum - and Shaks is hoping for full explanations on 10 answers on a forum page!!!
One is being very very generous on 4 - hence the sticking plaster that was Maastricht. Oddly though now the EU recovery and business cycle is possible as synchronised as it has ever been.
An inquiring mind - and google (applied sensibly!)
An interesting analogy IGM (and I am on an early train!!) My favourite is a system of water pipes and taps. If you turn all the taps off and increase the pressure of the water (you scientists might talk about energy and pressure here) you need release valves. One of which is the currency. If you shut that valve off, you need to open another or else face the inevitable flood.
Mol in the competition to post inaccurate things last night, there may have been an accusation made that I was wrong about the common fiscal policy and the idea that it currently exists. The accusation and the point were incorrect. But I take it that there was just some fun and games going on to see who could make the most incorrect statements in each post
Perhaps the closest we come to a system of transfers is the slightly technical Target 2 system. Those of an enquiringly mind can look this up and the latest views from ECB. This is one tap IGM albeit one largely hidden away in the background.
So Shaks the simple anology is a bike with no wheels - there are certain prerequisites for things to work. Without them the ride is very uncomfortable 😉
Does plumbing make you a Keynesian?
It's pretty obvious that THM is full of bluster but there's nothing under it. He can read and parrot stuff that suits his prejudices but not actually understand or discuss it.
Morning captain. So nothing under it
1. Link to economic theory
2. Examples of how in practice € has failed
3. Reference to nobel winning economist who agrees with me - including a direct quote from him
In contrast, let's see what you said to support your arguments....,
....
IGM no - but don't start on JMK as he is one of the most misquoted economist ever. He must be turning in his grave.
I have some considerably sympathy with Keynes. But my economic bias is towards modern monetary theory which basically turns most accepted ideas on their heads. There is a nice book which explains their stuff in water diagrams too - although the water pipes was originally some bloke at LSE IIRC - which is why I believe that debt reduction at a time of private sector delveragjng is BS and why I was pleased that the Tories - despite their BS rhetoric - abandoned the notion of austerity early on and replaced it with the loosest fiscal policy in the developed world - and it worked. FA to do with their rhetoric in fact exactly the opposite - which is why it's so funny to read all the anti austerity BS
You have to go to Ed,s example of € success - Greece - to see real austerity not work and how that was imposed on a country by its creditors who accepted no responsibility for their part in the catastrophe. It's brilliantly awful.
It seems I got have been getting gthe terms fiscal policy and monetary policy mixed up.
The EZ does not share fiscal policy but does share monetary policy? But the wiki page on EMU says that it has coordinated fiscal policy too. Taxation rates in EZ countries are not set independently?
When you say "loosest fiscal policy" you mean lowest taxation?
Yes they are two separate things
Monetary policy is uniform
Fiscal isn't although there are rules that are "supposed" to be followed - google Macron today and Italy soon )as they agree their budget with guess who)
Tax is one part of fiscal policy. No it don't mean lowest tax rates.
There were so many differences between the currencies and economies pre euro that it was always going to create issues. Hopefully, it is levelling out à little bit. I think people. , at least in France, are used to the Euro and don't want to go back.
funny to read all the anti austerity BS
You know very well thm that millions in this country have experienced austerity,
in the unprecedented cuts to council funding, benefits sanctions, collapse of social care, record unfilled NHS positions, prisons disaster, policing cuts, legal aid cuts, library, sure start, swimming pool closures, huge rise in food bank dependency and homelessness....
And the Brexit vote was in part a kickback against that,(as immigrants & the EU were easy scapegoats)
dont encourage him he will be going on about how we stole from savers whilst admonishing us for accuracy 😉
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.
Going to be hard to argue against that one but i am sure he will give it go.
Going to be hard to argue against that one but i am sure he will give it go.
It is sort of accurate in that the government were completely incompetent at it. So we got all the fun downside without much of the, theoretical, benefits.
Kimbers - it's important not to confuse events at the micro and macro level. There are always winners and losers - especially if some areas are ring fenced and protected. By defintion, this means other areas have to be losers in a fixed pool.
Someone might decide to refer to the budget deficit. That is a good start - what is the difference between spending and revenue (tax and borrowing). In the U.K.'s case this has been large and larger than most deleveloped economies. At the stage in the economic cycle this is exactly what should be happening. Of course this runs completely counter to the narrative that we have been in a period of austerity. That's tosh
If you want to see austerity at work, go to the EZ and look what's creditors imposed on Greece and the catastrophic results. Then with a straight face try coming back and arguing that we have been though austerity
THM, I've repeatedly asked you to define what you mean by the euro having failed. You've repeatedly refused to do so. I don't just want a laundry list of what you think is bad about the euro or the EU, but what actually makes the difference (in your mind) between having failed and not having failed. You keep on asserting it as fact. It isn't anything of the sort.
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.
Does this mean that if such official actions, taken in the name of austerity, do not actually result in a reduction in deficit for any reason (including a collapse of tax revenues due to economic downturn) that there wasn't any austerity?
How convenient!
Inconvenient more like.
If you want to see austerity at work, go to the EZ and look what's creditors imposed on Greece and the catastrophic results. Then with a straight face try coming back and arguing that we have been though austerity
That's a rubbish comparison and you know it. Just because the levels imposed have been different doesn't mean that the outcomes of similar policies haven't hit hard the very people who can least afford it.
whether another country has had harder austerity than us and clearly Greece has- it has no bearing on whether we have or not had austerity It a complete red herring non sequitur.
The definition is up there form the Ft explain how it has not been govt policy to reduce the deficit without this bizarre whatabouterry obfuscation that havs no bearing on whether we have or have not experienced austerity.
Its like claiming I am not ill as my pneumonia is not as bad as my neighbours cancer. It makes literally no sense. There situation is worse mine is not false.
😀
I think Krugman (as per) explains it:
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion ]The Austerity Delusion[/url]
"The key point to understand about fiscal policy under Cameron and Osborne is that British austerity, while very real and quite severe, was mostly imposed during the coalition’s first two years in power. Chart 3 shows estimates of our old friend the cyclically adjusted primary balance since 2009. I’ve included three sources – the IMF, the OECD, and Britain’s own Office of Budget Responsibility – just in case someone wants to argue that any one of these sources is biased. In fact, every one tells the same story: big spending cuts and a large tax rise between 2009 and 2011, not much change thereafter."
And:
"Given the fact that the coalition essentially stopped imposing new austerity measures after its first two years, there’s nothing at all surprising about seeing a revival of economic growth in 2013."
I would agree with THM- austerity is not what we're seeing here. We're being [i]told[/i] that's what it is, and why we're getting it, but its in fact something else.
What then is happening to us?
"Which brings me, finally, to the role of interests in distorting economic debate.
.....I’ve already suggested one answer: scare talk about debt and deficits is often used as a cover for a very different agenda, namely an attempt to reduce the overall size of government and especially spending on social insurance. This has been transparently obvious in the United States, where many supposed deficit-reduction plans just happen to include sharp cuts in tax rates on corporations and the wealthy even as they take away healthcare and nutritional aid for the poor. But it’s also a fairly obvious motivation in the UK, if not so crudely expressed. The “primary purpose” of austerity, the Telegraph admitted in 2013, “is to shrink the size of government spending” – or, as Cameron put it in a speech later that year, to make the state “leaner ... not just now, but permanently”.
Nice link Cody - lets see if people believe what is in front of them instead of what they think is in front of them!
The coalition pulled off a very smart trick but probably more by accident than by design. Doesn't help the Tories though because they lost the austerity narrative. It's a bit like blaming the foreigners - total BS but remarkable effective as this thread shows very well
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-border-guy-verhofstadt-single-market-customs-union-european-parliament-a7972596.html ]Could NI remain in single market?[/url]
I think that would piss a lot of Scots off.
The usual response in the press and the chattering classes alike to austerity is look at xxxx - they're getting things that you're not.
It's no wonder that the loudest voices from a politically illiterate minority called for closing the door to migration, humiliating the poor and sick and of course leveraging more money for public services by leaving the EU.
It's going to take generations to repair our neglected infrastructure. Even the most rabid Tory politicians have given up their "better tomorrow" patter, knowing full well that life for a significant chunk of the population is going to get worse, but so long as divisive opinions proliferate, they'll get away with it.
It's a great shame that modern conservatism has moved so very far from the days of Balfour. It's worth remembering that the Conservative party has not been able to command an overwhelming majority in parliament since before the 1992 general election. This is where forty years of divisive politics have taken us, it's no wonder that the long term survival of the Conservative Party has become inextricably tied to the lunacy of Brexit.
I see May is whinging
"I was unprepared for a snap election"
"I wish there'd been more coming together for debate
Hmm, now who wasn't "coming together"
It's complete bull**** that the party was "unprepared". The campaign was expensive, but very hit and miss. Almost as though some Conservative MPs scarcely bothered trying.
The next door constituency to mine is Canterbury. The then incumbent MP was a rabid brexiteer, despite the fact that the local economy benefits hugely from two universities with a high proportion of overseas students (thank you Erasmus). The local A&E was being downgraded, but he refused outright to represent increasingly angry residents and debate the matter in parliament.
Meanwhile, every single Vote Tory banner between Ashford and Canterbury was vandalised. Every single one. Not by students apparently, but a growing number disaffected ex-Tory voters angry at the potential impact of Brexit on the local economy.
A colleague reports that the MP turned up at his door canvassing for a vote on the Sunday immediately before the election. He looked rattled and desperate. Good riddance.
Moly - never mind the Scots, the DUP would be on the streets - and May needs them.
No, for sure NI can and will stay in the single market.
Along with the rest of us.
Nice link Cody - lets see if people believe what is in front of them instead of what they think is in front of them!
Probably the issue is that the word "austerity" means different things to different people. To you, I imagine, it means a policy of overall spending cuts, or some such, whereas to others it may refer to a policy of specific cuts falling mainly on people who are already struggling.
It's misuse suits people's agenda as we see all the time.
And people claim that brexshitteers make things up!!
"Given the fact that the coalition essentially stopped imposing new austerity measures after its first two years, there’s nothing at all surprising about seeing a revival of economic growth in 2013
If Cameron closed your sure start centre or library or your council cut its meals on wheels in the first 2 years of his term, they were gone for good, just because there were no further losses in your community the damage done was only compounded as the years ground on
https://www.ft.com/content/5fcbd0c4-2948-11e5-8db8-c033edba8a6e?mhq5j=e5
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/5fcbd0c4-2948-11e5-8db8-c033edba8a6e?mhq5j=e5A detailed breakdown by the FT of council spending over the past five years has revealed that local government services are creaking under the weight of growing demand as local authority budgets have been cut by £18bn in real terms since 2010 — with at least another £9.5bn expected by the end of the decade.
This is equivalent to a fifth of spending by England’s 300-plus local authorities, whose budget for running services, from social care to road sweeping, has been reduced at twice the rate of cuts to UK public spending as a whole.
Councils’ attempts to meet rising demand with diminishing resources are illustrated by the number of children forced to stay in bed-and-breakfasts or shared hostels for more than six weeks at a time — a breach of the law since 2003.
English councils broke that law 701 times on December 31 2014, affecting an estimated 1,000 children — a sevenfold increase on the same day in 2009 — as they struggled to accommodate the growing number of families caught by Britain’s housing crisis.
And people claim that brexshitteers make things up!!
I dont think I am making this up, please correct me if Im wrong
Thank you kimbers - we know that by ring fencing some big departments, other had to face cuts e.g. Local gov
That is not the same as austerity. Your logic is like saying that if one segment suffers (motorists?) in an overall positive and expansionsary budget, then it's a negative budget. That's illogical and misleading - deliberately or not 😉
It's very simple that the UK recovered rel quicker and earlier because we abandoned austerity early. But you deniers can carry on with your false narratives. Makes no difference either way
You might be tempted to say that this is all water under the bridge, given that the coalition, whatever it may claim, effectively called a halt to fiscal tightening midway through its term. But this story isn’t over. Cameron is campaigning largely on a spurious claim to have “rescued” the British economy – [b]and promising[/b], if he stays in power, [b]to continue making substantial cuts in the years ahead[/b]. Labour, sad to say, are echoing that position. So both major parties are in effect promising a new round of austerity that might well hold back a recovery that has, so far, come nowhere near to making up the ground lost during the recession and the initial phase of austerity.
from the article that you thanked Cody for posting which you clearly either a) didn't understand or b) didn't read.
It's misuse suits people's agenda as we see all the time.And people claim that brexshitteers make things up!!
As I said - it's not necessarily "misuse" unless you accept that the common English word has no definition except a narrow economics-oriented one. If you use the word as per dictionary to mean "living without comfort" then taking 100 quid from orphans while giving 100 quid to the gentry is arguably "austerity", notwithstanding that it's cash-neutral.
So everyone chooses the convenient definition.
They do - and few use the correct one. But carry on.
the correct one
"correct" according to ... you ??
There is only one correct opinion round here.
Correct for understanding what went on - see krugmann above - and what is going on now
But feel free to misuse - most do.
Let's get Dismal Davis to find out who is right.
Come back in 2020.
But feel free to misuse - most do.
Yawn.
I'm with THM on this one, DrJ- the term 'austerity' has been co-opted, certainly since 2013 in the UK, to suit the agenda of a kind of politics which wants a reduction or elimination of the state.
Its more than a question of semantics; but of course if you control the language, you control the discussion and agenda.
Its far too late now, unfortunately, to get people to call it what it is, and anyway, the press and other media would just continue to use the term. So ultimately this may seem pointless.
But this is just why its important for us to call it out here. Keep calling it 'austerity' and it perpetuates the idea that its necessary.
Anyway-
Never let facts get in the way of a good story, Cody
I'm with THM on this one
Your choice. I'm with the dictionary.
But this is just why its important for us to call it out here. Keep calling it 'austerity' and it perpetuates the idea that its necessary.
That's not what thm is doing - he's saying "the overall spending hasn't reduced hence there is no austerity", whereas the truth is that though overall spending has not been reduced there have nevertheless been cuts to vulnerable people. His implication is that since there is no austerity _sensu_bean-counters_ there is no hardship _sensu_real-people_, which is false.
That's not what thm is doing - he's saying "the overall spending hasn't reduced hence there is no austerity", whereas the truth is that though overall spending has not been reduced there have nevertheless been cuts to vulnerable people. His implication is that since there is no austerity _sensu_bean-counters_ there is no hardship _sensu_real-people_, which is false.
agreed
No I am not Dr - you are simply not bothering to read in you haste to post
Spending is one half of the deficit as I have made very clear.
Still I am using a proper dictionary not a made up one
Ooh,my early flounce radar just went off the scale.
THM cite.
If it helps you, Chambers (2014) defines austerity as"a lower standard of living associated with the curtailment of government spending"It certainly feels like that to a lot of us.
Those folks at the Cambridge University Press will be disappointed, but still - keep on with your "special" dictionary. As you say, it makes no difference to anything in the real world.
Have a look at real austerity - I have given you a good example which is linked to this thread (Europe)
If it offends our previous sensibilities that we are being left out if real austerity, then we can keep up abusing language. We don't want to be left out after all!
SO Chambers is wrong? It's not "real" austerity ? Are you the sole owner of the true definition ?
Or would you care to cite the dictionary you are using ?
I'm getting really confused.
Is it basically that while the government are no longer pursuing a program of austerity (in the strict economic definition) more people are experiencing actual austerity (in the common usage sense) than before due to knock on effects of the previous economic austerity lowering overall government spending coupled with changes in the direction of government spending?
Apparently only economists know what austerity is.
Most people are suffering because of a lack of wage growth
Wage growth is determined by productivity levels which are shite in the U.K. over a long period
Then inflation - made worse by Brexshit - hits us harder on top - hence crap real wage growth
None of this is related to the fact that we [s]dont [/s] have austerity in the U.K.
But let's not worry about what is really happening let's blame it on either Johnny Foreigner or Austerity - both are equally [s]in[/s]valid and hence very popular
My wife and I are both nurses,what helpful advice do you have for us on how to increase our productivity in order to earn more?
Right, I've read the article, I think I now understand what is meant by "economic austerity" and how it is very different from actual deprivation austerity that people are experiencing.
Quite why many people on here insist on being obtuse and deliberately unhelpful I really don't know.
THM - I sincerely hope that you are not involved in teaching others.....
EDIT - actually, your last post was informative.
EDIT2 - just to avoid arguments the definition of obtuse above is neither the one meaning blunt. nor an angle between 90 and 180 degree.
Lol
Try getting you head around a fiscal surplus and what that means for Greece
Then we can have proper discussion about austerity rather than rants
Have you found the dictionary yet?
So disabled people who had their benefits cut are suffering because they are not productive ?
Some of them can't even work in the first place.
I reckon productivity (in IT at least) is harmed by outsourcing, which is a response to the squeeze for efficiency.
So disabled people who had their benefits cut are suffering because they are not productive ?
Yes, they really need to try harder - those work shy disabled people.
THM - I sincerely hope that you are not involved in teaching others.....
EDIT - actually, your last post was informative.
Even worse - Imagine if I was involved in something that required reading, understanding and learning 😉
We do not need to imagine as we cannot compete with you on that front.
Oh the irony the reality remain that by the definition I provided [ from the FT] we are in austerityThen we can have proper discussion about austerity rather than rants
NO matter what is happening in greece it has no bearing on whether we are or we are not having an austerity. It still irrelevant and whether true or false that greece is in austerity it tells you nothing at all about here
You must know this is irrelevant to what is happening here so I dont know why you keep saying it
IT HAS NO BEARING ON AUSTERITY HERE WHAT HAPPENS THERE - just to get the full rant in 😉 - does it lead to you accepting indisputable facts of logic?
Even worse - Imagine if I was involved in something that required reading, understanding and learning
I have no doubt that you can do that. It is transferring that knowledge to others without boiling their piss where things seem to break down. 😉
Well if people have the lack of shame to post things on a public forum like
its not true to say there is no common fiscal policy.
Then it's no surprise that the boiling point of their piss is so low - possibly below 0C?
Odd that having to click links, read what experts say, and buy the odd book is such a combustible mix
But bravo on "actual deprivation austerity " - I did have to look that one up. Good old Chambers....every day is a learning day
Shackleton - Member
I'm getting really confused.Is it basically that while the government are no longer pursuing a program of austerity (in the strict economic definition) more people are experiencing actual austerity (in the common usage sense) than before due to knock on effects of the previous economic austerity lowering overall government spending [b]coupled with changes in the direction of government spending?[/b]
Exactly that. Apologies for the pedantry, it seems almost irrelevant and 'obtuse' for me to be doing this, but when people buy into the myth that this 'austerity' is some kind of necessary deficit reduction measure caused by an overgrowth in the public sector, they'll then support (tacitly or otherwise) a reduction in the state. Hence why I think its important to call it out for what it really is; a small-state land-grab.
when people buy into the myth that this 'austerity' is some kind of necessary deficit reduction measure caused by an overgrowth in the public sector, they'll then support (tacitly or otherwise) a reduction in the state.
True, but conversely (or in addition) other people say that as there is no (economic) austerity there can be nobody suffering from (real world) austerity.
Given that gov spending as % of GDP is only just getting back to pre crisis levels, these nasty Tories are not very good at this small state land grab idea are they?
Did anyone say that on here Dr or was that just made up ?
DrJ - Member
when people buy into the myth that this 'austerity' is some kind of necessary deficit reduction measure caused by an overgrowth in the public sector, they'll then support (tacitly or otherwise) a reduction in the state.
True, but conversely (or in addition) other people say that as there is no (economic) austerity there can be nobody suffering from (real world) austerity.
True. I'm probably not making my point very well, and coming across as arsey, so apols for beating this drum- but the general, joe-public accepted definition of 'austerity' as a fiscal measure hasn't been with us since '13, and more people need to know this. From this, they need to learn that what we've got now is wholly unnecessary and becoming dangerously close to irreversible.
Control the terms and you control the discourse. I take your point about the dictionary definitions of the word 'austerity', but would observe that it now means- something more technical- if you were to ask the man in the street.
That was it. I'm broadly in agreement with you on other matters....
Perfect excuse for the great Inigo Montoya
Language is dynamic, that narrow definition used by a handful of economists has long been supplanted by the modern usage,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Austerity
ie the decimation* of local services by a bunch of Eton toffs
* In the same way that [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) ]decimation no longer means randomly selecting 10% of your army for execution as a form of collective punishment for desertion[/url]
How many members of the current cabinet went to Eton? All of them? More than 10? More than 5? Less than 2?
When was the last OE chancellor of the exchequer ?
When was the last OE chancellor of the exchequer ?
Heathcote-Amory under MacMillan
EDIT: the most common schools since then have both been Scottish on 2 each: Fettes and Loretto. The latter having two relatively recent Chancellors: Lamont and Darling.
Just BoJo I think in the current cabinet.
To be honest, whenever I see the phrase Etonian, it makes me think of an arch-tory attitude (JRMesque) rather than place of education.
Not that that seems to be the present government. They are ****ing things up through incompetence rather than contempt for the little people.