the Austerity Con or Con

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er no ta [none of the above]

[amateur51]

Or Conservative.

Or Green - you'll be certain about what you'll (not) get.

Or UKIP - ditto

The theoretical/philosophical aspect to this is why 'all parties are the same' or don't stand a chance of being elected. (Otherwise it's Politics & Current Affairs)

The news from Green-led Brighton is that they're about to enter a third week of a bin-operatives' strike, streets strewn with litter (inc used disposable nappies ) and the gulls, and foxes and pigeons are having a field day

[scottycelt]

Probably not. But you can vote for Labour (we'll cap welfare, we won't borrow to reverse spending cuts - we will end the concept of universal benefits, however ...)

... the thoroughly entertaining Mr Balls (when pressed for about the 100th time by the lovely Sophie Raworth on TV this morning ) says a Lab Govt might actually increase borrowing. He can't say for certain, you see, and is not prepared to commit himself to answering hypothetical questions at this stage, and merely says a future Labour Govt will inherit a horrible debt situation from the Coalition and will have to take 'some really tough decisions' in order to sort out the economic mess.

[teamsaint]

Or Conservative.

Or Green - you'll be certain about what you'll (not) get.

Or UKIP - ditto

The theoretical/philosophical aspect to this is why 'all parties are the same' or don't stand a chance of being elected. (Otherwise it's Politics & Current Affairs)

Is that a theoretical or philosophical aspect?

I would have thought that people who want something different to that on offer currently might begin by looking at how we have got where we are. I would have thought that was about how power and money have been manipulated by vested interests to produce the situation where three shades of blue and "no difficult questions allowed" has arisen.
That surely is "political" at some level?

But I expect I am wrong....for now.

[french frank]

The news from Green-led Brighton is that they're about to enter a third week of a bin-operatives' strike, streets strewn with litter (inc used disposable nappies ) and the gulls, and foxes and pigeons are having a field day

I would say that that gives me no pleasure at all to hear and I wonder how it could have come about. But that also leads back to the philosophical rather than political angle. The Greens have become blue too? How would that have come about?

[Beef Oven]

I would say that that gives me no pleasure at all to hear and I wonder how it could have come about. But that also leads back to the philosophical rather than political angle. The Greens have become blue too? How would that have come about?

Because they have electoral aspirations.

[french frank]

Because they have electoral aspirations.

But that in itself (if correct) would have implications - that they felt that in order to get elected (to parliament, do you mean? they already had been elected) they had to take actions that would displease those who elected them. I posted a quote some time back from Machiavelli - to the effect that even when the Prince is placed in power he will follow policies that will displease those who put him in power. Why?
(I'll have to look up the actual quote - somewhere on the What Are You Reading thread. I'll add it here if I find it.)

Quote: 'What happens is that men willingly change their ruler, expecting to fare better. This expectation induces them to take up arms against him; but they only deceive themselves, and they learn from experience that they have made matters worse. This follows from another common and natural necessity: a prince is always compelled to injure those who have made him the new ruler, subjecting them to the troops and imposing the endless other hardships which his new conquest entails. As a result, you are opposed by all those you have injured in occupying the principality and you cannot keep the friendship of those who have put you there; you cannot satisfy them in the way they had taken for granted ...'

[Beef Oven]

But that in itself (if correct) would have implications - that they felt that in order to get elected (to parliament, do you mean? they already had been elected) they had to take actions that would displease those who elected them. I posted a quote some time back from Machiavelli - to the effect that even when the Prince is placed in power he will follow policies that will displease those who put him in power. Why?
(I'll have to look up the actual quote - somewhere on the What Are You Reading thread. I'll add it here if I find it.)

Quote: 'What happens is that men willingly change their ruler, expecting to fare better. This expectation induces them to take up arms against him; but they only deceive themselves, and they learn from experience that they have made matters worse. This follows from another common and natural necessity: a prince is always compelled to injure those who have made him the new ruler, subjecting them to the troops and imposing the endless other hardships which his new conquest entails. As a result, you are opposed by all those you have injured in occupying the principality and you cannot keep the friendship of those who have put you there; you cannot satisfy them in the way they had taken for granted ...'

To parliament, yes. The Machiavelli observation sums it up. Those people who have developed and supported the Greens from the mid 70s to now, will not be the ones who will expand the local authority presence and consolidate the parliamentary standing (in the eyes of the leadership, and in my view).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

The Office for National Statistics made it clear that, despite all of the Chancellor’s attempts to fiddle the data, borrowing rose last year. Excluding one-offs such as the transfer of the Royal Mail pension fund and the Bank of England’s gilt holdings under quantitative easing, borrowing was £118.8bn in 2012-13, up from £118.5bn the year before.

Blanchflower Indie

[scottycelt]

Blanchflower Indie

Damned statistics! Hardly a great leap upwards even on these figures.

To be fair to Boy George, Blanchflower has been on a personal crusade against UK (and European) austerity programmes ever since the start of the recent recession. He keeps claiming austerity hasn't worked (as he, of course, always warned it wouldn't). I hesitate to say this again on this forum but it is rather too early to judge, and there are clear signs that things are now beginning to head in the right direction. It was never likely to be any sort of quick, easy fix sorting out the economic mess.

What we don't know, of course, is what would have happened if Blanchflower's advice had been followed? Would the UK now be much better off or alternatively, as most other economists warned, in a dire Greece-type situation?

We shall never know!

[amateur51]

Damned statistics! Hardly a great leap upwards even on these figures.

To be fair to Boy George, Blanchflower has been on a personal crusade against UK (and European) austerity programmes ever since the start of the recent recession. He keeps claiming austerity hasn't worked (as he, of course, always warned it wouldn't). I hesitate to say this again on this forum but it is rather too early to judge, and there are clear signs that things are now beginning to head in the right direction. It was never likely to be any sort of quick, easy fix sorting out the economic mess.

What we don't know, of course, is what would have happened if Blanchflower's advice had been followed? Would the UK now be much better off or alternatively, as most other economists warned, in a dire Greece-type situation?

We shall never know!

What we do know is that compared, say, to USA we've been advancing out of recession far more slowly.

What's your favoured time-scale for signs of austerity policy success, then scotty?

[scottycelt]

What we do know is that compared, say, to USA we've been advancing out of recession far more slowly.

What's your favoured time-scale for signs of austerity policy success, then scotty?

I don't have a particular time-scale, amsey, but we seem to be much in line with our peers in the rest of Europe which is the only real comparison. We can hardly expect to race ahead whilst our nearest neighbours and main trading partners are struggling at least as much as ourselves?

The US is the world's largest and most vibrant economy and is always ahead in the global economic game. No change this time.

[amateur51]

I don't have a particular time-scale, amsey, but we seem to be much in line with our peers in the rest of Europe which is the only real comparison. We can hardly expect to race ahead whilst our nearest neighbours and main trading partners are struggling at least as much as ourselves?

The US is the world's largest and most vibrant economy and is always ahead in the global economic game. No change this time.

Oh I see scotty, a case of 'yours is all hasty inadequacy, mine is unspecified perfection'

As Keynes might have said "Leave it out!"

Isn't that nice Mr Obama keen on USA/EU trade these days?

[teamsaint]

Oh I see scotty, a case of 'yours is all hasty inadequacy, mine is unspecified perfection'

As Keynes might have said "Leave it out!"

Isn't that nice Mr Obama keen on USA/EU trade these days?

well he is quite keen on the arms trade. Does that help answer your question Ams?

[Serial_Apologist]

well he is quite keen on the arms trade. Does that help answer your question Ams?

I should think that intervention is the equivalent of a coitus interruptus!