Labour's "deputy chancellor" 😉 is a self-confessed Keynesian economist who ignored history and what he was taught by abandoning the basic principles of his mentor while in office - and he now lectures the coalition. You have to admire his bravado and cheek if nothing else.
Don't expect an accurate explanation of (the multiple causes of) the recession from any politician - nor of the recovery for that matter.
The main cause - excess leverage - remains as true today as ever and will continue to constrain growth going forward. Today's budget gives some promise in relation to one aspect - the level of gov debt - but this is one part of a much bigger story.
Anyway, Grexit is coming back soon.....
Arse to the Politics..
Anyfink on Beer N Fags ?
T's all I'm interested in... Beer N Fags..
Oh N Petrol, any fink on Petrol.
So vats Beer, Fags N Petrol..
??
Saves watchin da bloody News..
You have to admire his bravado and cheek if nothing else.
This is one area where they are all the same. I often wonder if that politics degree at Oxford has a module called 'How to argue that black is white'. It's probably why Miliband is so unpopular, he comes across as distinctly uncomfortable when arguing against either his beliefs (whatever they are), or the plain truth, where the rest of them are perfectly confident and happy to lie through their teeth and deny reality. In this respect Ed Balls probably would have been a better labour leader. Apparently he gets on quite well with Gideon, maybe this is why?
Balls writes very well and is a bright guy - IMO one of the more able economists on the two front benches (and not a historian!). But then the dark mist of politics descends and he acts and talks like an arse - real BS.
Having said that, his "flatlining" was spot on.
But they are pretty close on most policy stuff these days, which makes the politics so depressing (take that whichever way!)
Insert false and libellous joke about cocaine and hookers here.
Kryton57 - Member
So. I'm a little bit better off, if I vote for and the party with a visible track record of reducing the defecit and decreasing joblessness vs those that caused it & the racists?Seems all to obvious. [b]What have I missed?[/b]
Pudding?
Now that is funny... 😆
Sorry, was there something serious going on to cause this circus to be broadcast live?
Seems all to obvious. What have I missed?
Pudding?
Very good!!!
Proffessor Brian Cox and some irish bloke are tonight and for the next 3 nights, will be looking at stars and planets on bbc tv,using scientific methods, visual displays, diagrams and futuristic computer generated effects, and not once in the series will they be able to explain what planet this gang of tory idiots live on, because its not the one most of see every day.
Only a few weeks to go before theyre jetisoned into orbit around some far off world, never to return.
Junkyard - lazarus
isn't that what the majority do...?Can I blame thatcher, please
Please do. I'm looking for a new gaff and apparently I can [i]just[/i] afford the council house I left 15 years ago.
Some buy to let monkey getting out now his yields are falling... 🙄
Only a few weeks to go before theyre jetisoned into orbit around some far off world, never to return.
Don't be too sure. Polls very close and plenty of undecided. The Tory wild card (the economy) is looking increasingly like the last trump defeating Labs main arguments. Ed^2 strategy of just playing safe to hit 35 might just backfire and then the SNP intentions might just become slightly different!!!
All starting to get a lot more interesting all of a sudden.
is a self-confessed Keynesian economist
Surely that's a good thing?
The main cause - excess leverage - remains as true today as ever and will continue to constrain growth going forward.
But surely one of the biggest fans of excesses leverage is Mr Osbourne. He has twice used tax payers money to maintain and even increase inflated house prices (help to buy and now his deposit isa thing). If that isn't stoking the flames of a bubble, I don't know what is.....
Yes and no. But at least behave like one if you claim to be one - Balls ignored the teachings of JMK and that was a major error which compounded the problem. He should (and did) know better. So for that, he deserves the criticism. When his boss blew a parting kiss to sensible economics (aka Prudence) in a fit of hubris, he should have intervened.
Edit - I agree govs distorting the housing market is not a good thing IMO. We need less leverage not more. Someone needs to remind Uncle Vince of this too. He's gone very quiet? A smouldering volcano or a lost soul?
But GO was less friendly to his mates in canary wharf/Lombard street. An extra tax on their balance sheets is not encouraging more leverage.
Only a few weeks to go before theyre jetisoned into orbit around some far off world, never to return.
I've very little confidence this will be the case. And I hate to say it, but I'm not even sure it would be the best outcome. Ed Miliband will be a terrible PM. Cameron isn't a very good one, but if he loses we risk worse in Boris or Theresa May becoming PM once Miliband inevitably f*** it up. Whereas if Cameron wins, the labour party have an opportunity to sort themselves out and put someone like Burnham in place for the next one. Not that they will of course. They'll probably go for that careerist automaton Umunna or some other gentile londonista.
How long can the BBC pretend that Peston is an economics editor? Becoming a characature of himself. Where is Flanders when you need her?
(JP Morgan AM I know)
Bloody Tories, their only aim seems to be to make policy which UKIP supporters will like
[img] 
[/img]
Junkyard - lazarus
I'd agree with voting for the best outcome for the country, but I've a family to support so if doing that made me personally troubled why would I? Seems daft.
Its also seems daft that you wont vote for the party you most agree with whilst telling us you agree with voting for the best interests of the conutry whilst telling us you wont.
So I spent some time last night on four different versions of that websites (a political alignment calculator) plus I also read some of each party's content. Each calculator gave me the same result - a massive majority for the Green party. I'd have never guessed, and I'll do some more reading of the detail but I will remain true to myself and vote for my belief's I guess, rather than the face value headline grabber.
Good work that man, plus sorry for being snippy.
teamhurtmore - Member
Where is Flanders when you need her?
Phew, writing in the FT today
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f4654dc-cd88-11e4-9144-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3UkSx0IDm
Makes the most important point that all this political noise avoids the real issue (pls note Ed "cost of living" Milliband) - there is a 10 percentage point productivity gap between now and pre-crisis. For all the talk of more jobs being created in Yorkshire by GO, the average worker there produces less in five days than the French do in four. And yet we have a so-called wage crisis?????
Oh for a manefesto which focuses on proper supply-side reforms instead of headline grabbing gimmicks.
Kryton - so you read the Green manefesto and still admit to that conclusion? 😉
Kryton - so you read the Green manefesto and still admit to that conclusion?
Yes, but for the life of me I haven't worked out how the Greens will pay for all the stuff they want to do, including stopping austerity cuts.
More reading required.
Well numbers are not exactly Nathalie's strong point by the looks of things. Perhaps they will outsource/privatise the Treasury to people who can do sums!!! Now that's a radical policy!! 😉
[quote=Kryton57]Yes, but for the life of me I haven't worked out how the Greens will pay for all the stuff they want to do, including stopping austerity cuts.
You don't have to work it out, you don't have to worry about stuff that isn't important on a universal scale. Deficit? So what. National debt? Meh. Trident? 😆 Growth? Bigger? Better? Faster? More? That's what cancers do. Why is it important that the UK is the most successful developed nation by 2020 (or whatever words were used yesterday)? It just doesn't. F-ing. Matter.
Vote for who will give us [u]all[/u] a better chance at a higher quality of living long term, not just for who will make you 50p a week better off for the next five years before the next lot of old, grey men take over.
As most people are discovering, it's the Greens (or Plaid Cymru or the SNP if you live in a constituency where they have a candidate) who are offering that.
Kryton57 - Member
Yes, but for the life of me I haven't worked out how the Greens will pay for all the stuff they want to do.
Don't worry, they haven't either.
[url= http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31956459 ]Balls won't reverse any of the budget[/url]
The last vestige of any hint of ability to run the country's economy has been surrendered. If Ball's ego ever deserts him he's going to be shocked at how utterly incompetent he is.
All together now "We'll keep the white flag flying here".
Vote for who will give us all a better chance at a higher quality of living long term
How are you defining 'higher quality'?
All together now "We'll keep the white flag flying here".
There's not exactly much to reverse though is there? If each new govt simply reversed all the policies of the previous govt then it'd be pretty chaotic, not to mention impossibly expensive. And they're so close anyway these days that they agree on most things.
and I'll do some more reading of the detail but I will remain true to myself and vote for my belief's I guess, rather than the face value headline grabber.
I dont know what you mean by true to yourself. Do you mean ignore the websites or agree with them?
Not meant as a dig [ and of course voting is secret s no need to answer]. IMHO its commendable to actually do what you have done and however you end up voting, which is clearly your choice, you have given it some serious thought, which is more than most will do, myself included. I know I will vote for the person most likely to beat the Tory where I currently reside just like I do on every non PR vote.
BBC pretend that Peston is an economics editor
Did yo hear him on erm,welll erm urm its well erm ok so its erm well, the Today programme discussing the budget?
To be fair, the article doesn't have his exact words but the full article seems to say that he's talking only of the immediate changes, not the "in the next government we will" stuff which is where the big cuts are. That puts a totally different light on it.
How are you defining 'higher quality'?
Possibly different to you! For me, a high quality of life is where I don't have to be somewhere I don't want to be for 8 hours a day, maybe a fully-functioning health service that's free for everyone might also be quite nice. An energy 'industry' that doesn't hold its clients captive and where the end user is encouraged to be an '[url= http://www.goenergyshopping.co.uk/en-gb ]energy shopper[/url]' in order to get the best deal would be really rather spanky too.
For me quality of life isn't about how much stuff or money I can get and how others perceive me, it's about how much I enjoy my time while I'm alive and, of course, adhering to rule #1* where possible. As I said up there ^, your definition of 'quality of life' might be different to mine.
* don't be a ****.
Possibly different to you! For me, a high quality of life is where I don't have to be somewhere I don't want to be for 8 hours a day, maybe a fully-functioning health service that's free for everyone might also be quite nice...
We're not that far apart. I'd probably go even further though and [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/resource-based-economy-utopian-nirvana-or-eco-fascism ]dismantle the entire system and rebuild it from the ground up[/url]. I'm not sure the greens present a particularly attractive alternative though. Green capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron IMO.
I missed that thread, thanks for the link! For what it's worth, I agree with you but I think that voting for the Green party (or your local alternative) within our current system is the best way to achieve it.
It would be interesting if someone put together a programme of events following the Green Party's election to Government. Plus, on the basis they got re elected for next 25 years, where we would all be after that?
Would it be like one of those end of the world disaster movies or would we all be a happier nation?
Dunno. I'll be 65 in twenty five years' time so possibly dead. I'd hope that my sister's kids might grow up in a fairer, more equal society though.
Would it be like one of those end of the world disaster movies
Climate change research would suggest that we're already on that path with the status quo. Maybe not in 25 years, but likely within 50.
I dont know what you mean by true to yourself. Do you mean ignore the websites or agree with them?
So what I've done is use the tools to see where my generic political aligment is. Now what I'm doing is studying the detail so see/spot the smaller issues and look into the detail. As mentioned, at face value I agree with a lot of what the Greens want to do, but can't work out the source of the funding. All schools & public buildings will have solar / reusuable energy sources. Ok, well how is it funded? They say they are scrapping austerity cuts so are they about to re-borrow and add to Uk debt for the sale of being "green"? Its not clear, and if they didnt know or are about to dig a bigger hole for us I might change my vote on that basis. So despite the fact I agree with thier headline policies how could I vote for a party with no substance? It's be easy to vote that way without a care knowing they won't get in, but thats blinkered.
So I'll continue with that and do the same for my second recommended party which is Conservative and so on until I can reach a majority blance that I'm compelled - or perhaps "satisfied" is a better word - enough with to tick their box on a ballot form.
Edit: I can see why people don't vote though - if your intelligent enough to see beyond that what is on the tellybox then it needs a fair amount of effort to come to a conclusion IMO.
kayla1 - MemberDunno. I'll be 65 in twenty five years' time so possibly dead. I'd hope that my sister's kids might grow up in a fairer, more equal society though.
Almost certainly they (like the current kids) will have significantly more opportunities than our generation - that's progress for you.
As for more equal, equality of what - opportunity or outcome? If the latter (which has not absolute moral basis IMO) then don't forget that despite trends over the past 50-60 years, current society is more equal in terms of outcome than most of the last 1000 or so years. Current levels of outcome inequality (ie income) are not exceptional, they are more the LT norm. The mid-section of the 20C was the exception.
I have no idea what you just typed so I'll answer the question I think you asked.
I'd like them, and other people's kids, to grow up in a world that doesn't just consume, consume, consume. A place with no nuclear weapons, with a free-for-all health service, somewhere without the need (or the drive) for anti-homeless spikes, a drugs policy that works, you know, somewhere nice because what we have now isn't very nice.
I maybe have to make it clear that I'd like things to change not because you* have 'stuff' that I don't (big telly, white Audi, detached house, 'good'** job, three holidays a year or whatever) but because there are people born into privilege and people who are born into abject poverty through no virtue or fault of their own. The current system, ie capitalism, is flawed. It makes no allowance for people who don't want anything to do with it and just want to potter on and grow their own veg and have a few chickens, figuratively speaking, but can't because they don't have the means to go about it. I think this post is making me sound angrier than I am, I'm not, I'm really quite content with our current situation within the current system 😀
* 'you' generally, not 'you' personally.
** I have no idea how to define this one. I think my job's pretty good for example- I don't earn much but I don't have to work much because I have very little going out = more time to ride my bike or potter in the allotment = 😀 You might have a different take on what a 'good' job is.
[i]** I have no idea how to define this one. I think my job's pretty good for example- I don't earn much but I don't have to work much because I have very little going out = more time to ride my bike or potter in the allotment = You might have a different take on what a 'good' job is.[/i]
We're all different Kayla and that's fine by me...the world would be a boring place if we were all the same. The trouble is if everyone thought like you do, there would be no money being raised to pay for all the infrastructure required to run a 21st century 1st world country. We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying 'stuff' even if half of it is meaningless.
Then we need to start again, as a world/species.
We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying 'stuff' even if half of it is meaningless.
Define "need"
there would be no money being raised to pay for all the infrastructure required to run a 21st century 1st world country. We need people in good jobs, earning top money, paying their tax etc to keep it all going. We need people buying 'stuff' even if half of it is meaningless.
We're back to the resource based economy stuff. It is technically possible to have a technologically developed complex society without money. Money like most things is an abstract concept invented by humans. It's not essential to life or wellbeing. Given our current reliance on it though, it would be exceedingly difficult to abandon it now.
It's an interesting discussion, isn't it? It'd need everyone, everywhere, to say 'stop' (Hammer time!) and just go about living for the common good rather than being paid to live for themselves, as is the case at the minute. If they did, what'd happen? Nothing. The world would still turn, the sun would rise tomorrow and the universe would grind on.
[i]It's an interesting discussion, isn't it? It'd need everyone, everywhere, to say 'stop' (Hammer time!) and just go about living for the common good rather than being paid to live for themselves, as is the case at the minute. If they did, what'd happen? Nothing. The world would still turn, the sun would rise tomorrow and the universe would grind on.[/i]
Have you ever read about the middle ages....thats where we'd be back to!
[i]Define 'need'?[/i]
Its part of Human nature to 'aspire'...as I say we're all different. Some of us don't want to return to the middle ages, but want to live in a reasonable level of comfort, be able to afford to travel and see parts of the world, give our Children things we never had. Doesn't make us bad people.
There's no insinuation that anybody is a bad person for wanting a decent level of comfort for them or their offspring 😀 I'm enjoying a level-headed discussion on t'interweb.
So then, the middle ages. A feudal society with kings and princes and dukes and nobles and commoners. When the majority were ruled over by a minority. Not [i]that[/i] much different to what we have now, really. If you meant from a technological point of view, there's no reason that there couldn't be progression in a society where everybody works towards the common good- if the whole world is working together, with no borders or boundaries, no inequality or prejudice, then maybe we could pool our collective knowledge for constructive positives rather than separately for destructive negatives. Imagine if all of the millions (billions?) wasted in/on the cosmetics industry was channeled into medical research, for example.
