Alf Bentley Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 Mrs Thatcher abandoned monetarism after a couple of years as it was taking to long to work. You can probably make it work in a police state like Chile was but in a democracy you can't endure that level of hardship for the time needed to for it to be a success. The problem with Gordon Brown was that he believed his own publicity, he genuinely thought he was a financial genius who had eradicated boom and bust when all he was doing was borrowing more and more money. If he had used the boom years to eradicate the deficit and pay down the debt this country would be in such a strong economic position now. As for PFI they a bit dishonest but okay in small doses. I can't comment on the ones put forward by the coalition because I never heard anything about them but some of the stories we hear about the schemes negotiated by Labour suggest that we were took to the cleaner in a big way. I don't understand monetarism well enough to comment on that, though I suppose all the recent quantitative easing is a weird form of monetarism or inverse monetarism (?) - controlling the economy by expanding the money supply, as opposed to reducing it as monetarists mainly seem to want to do. I agree that Brown's "no more boom and bust" comments were cringeworthy and a hostage to fortune, though most politicians love a bit of bullshit. He wasn't borrowing "more and more money", though. Borrowing in 2006 & 2007 was lower than in 2004-05, and lower than in most of the Major years. I note that you've yet again dodged commenting on the deficits run by Thatcher and Major! Yes, if Brown had used the boom years to eradicate the deficit and pay down the debt, the finances would be a little bit better now (they'd still be pretty shite due to the banking crash)....but we'd have more schools with leaking roofs, longer hospital waiting lists, and more people in poverty if tax credits (or an equivalent) hadn't been introduced. Political preferences..... I entirely agree about Labour PFI schemes, many of which are a licence for private contractors to rip off the taxpayer and future generations to a mindblowing extent, though Tory schemes don't sound any better. "Private Eye" is a good source for reports about stuff like this.
Parafox Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 Moose is right though. You can't claim to be Keynesian and increase the deficit during a boom like Labour did during their time in office. We're experiencing strong growth now and Labour still want to increase spending, it's not Keynesian, it's not any kind of economic policy. I don't see how you can claim this when, as Alf has made clear, with supporting evidence, that the deficit was higher during Thatcher/Major governments.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 I don't understand monetarism well enough to comment on that, though I suppose all the recent quantitative easing is a weird form of monetarism or inverse monetarism (?) - controlling the economy by expanding the money supply, as opposed to reducing it as monetarists mainly seem to want to do. I agree that Brown's "no more boom and bust" comments were cringeworthy and a hostage to fortune, though most politicians love a bit of bullshit. He wasn't borrowing "more and more money", though. Borrowing in 2006 & 2007 was lower than in 2004-05, and lower than in most of the Major years. I note that you've yet again dodged commenting on the deficits run by Thatcher and Major! Yes, if Brown had used the boom years to eradicate the deficit and pay down the debt, the finances would be a little bit better now (they'd still be pretty shite due to the banking crash)....but we'd have more schools with leaking roofs, longer hospital waiting lists, and more people in poverty if tax credits (or an equivalent) hadn't been introduced. Political preferences..... I entirely agree about Labour PFI schemes, many of which are a licence for private contractors to rip off the taxpayer and future generations to a mindblowing extent, though Tory schemes don't sound any better. "Private Eye" is a good source for reports about stuff like this. QE would have worked if it had followed Hayek's true monetarism belief, whereby you let the banks fail. QE just went towards suring up the bank's assets rather than actually going into the economy. Monetarism has never really been tried because people aren't willing to go through the short term hardship for the long term gain. I think its a shame really Look at this for some basic Hayek v Keyneshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14366054
Webbo Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 I don't see how you can claim this when, as Alf has made clear, with supporting evidence, that the deficit was higher during Thatcher/Major governments. Keynesianism in a nut shell. During a recession the govt borrows and spends to stimulate the economy, during a boom it cuts spending to dampen demand and pay down the debt you've accrued during the recession. The theory is that it smooths out the peaks and troughs of the economic cycle. You can't have 1 without the other, you can't claim to be Keynesian if you only do the spending bit. The theory is out of date anyway. It might have worked in the 30s pre-globalisation when we still manufactured things in this country but stimulating demand nowadays mainly means importing tat from abroad, it doesn't help anybody but the shops.
Harry - LCFC Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 Tbf you ought to respond properly if you disagree with someone. Better for everyone if we discuss things rather than dismiss people. I thought ADK had it about right tbh
Strokes Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 Tbf you ought to respond properly if you disagree with someone. Better for everyone if we discuss things rather than dismiss people. I thought ADK had it about right tbh Thanks for your input Harry, duly noted.
Rincewind Posted 13 May 2015 Posted 13 May 2015 Possibly, sorry Ken. Interested to hear though how exactly the governments have/are shafting him? Metathorically. And not just me.
Alf Bentley Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 Metathorically. And not just me. Metathorically? Behind the thorax? You mean the government is shafting you right through the heart? They're doing that to us all, metaphorically...
Alf Bentley Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 Douglas Carswell yet again showing just how principled he is, I wish all MP's behaved like he did. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32707357 Fair dos to Carswell, but I wonder if he's regretting his defection? From his perspective, surely he'd be better off in the Tory party, fighting for a tough line on the EU renegotiation and referendum? Sounds like the Kippers are getting a bit overheated under the grill: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-is-snarling-thinskinned-and-aggressive-claims-ukips-campaign-director-10248636.html "Nigel Farage is a “snarling, thin-skinned, aggressive” man and his reappearance as the leader of Ukip leaves it looking like a “personality cult”, according to the party’s campaign director. In a sign of the internal bickering within the party, Patrick O’Flynn, the Ukip economic spokesman and an MEP, told The Times that he believed Mr Farage had changed from being “cheerful, ebullient, cheeky, daring” under the influence of his advisers". That's the problem with oily fish: as soon as the heat gets turned up, they start spitting everywhere! As an outside who obviously wants UKIP to fail, it seems to me that they face a dilemma. As a populist rabble rouser, Farage is better equipped to rally the troops for the referendum (though Carswell at the helm would promote a better quality debate). As a party of protest and dissatisfaction, they'd probably do better under Farage. As a serious party seeking power, they'd potentially have wider appeal under the more cerebral, reasonable Carswell....but might lose their high media profile. Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Alf Bentley Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 QE would have worked if it had followed Hayek's true monetarism belief, whereby you let the banks fail. QE just went towards suring up the bank's assets rather than actually going into the economy. Monetarism has never really been tried because people aren't willing to go through the short term hardship for the long term gain. I think its a shame really Look at this for some basic Hayek v Keyneshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14366054 Thanks for the link. Interesting to note that even Hayek thought public spending should be maintained (not increased) during a downturn - though, of course, Tories would claim that we're out of the downturn. Your criticism of QE seems well justified. The banks have indeed just lined their balance sheets without any great boost in lending to small businesses, it seems. However, I doubt whether it would have been a good idea to let banks as big as Lloyds or RBS fail. Surely the country would then either face a truly massive bill bailing out their savers/customers or face seeing thousands of firms go bust and thousands of individuals in penury, causing massive economic/social problems? It would hardly have been helpful to long-term competition in the banking sector, either. The "Big 4/5" are already seen as too dominant, so reducing that to a "Big 2/3" would hardly help long-term.... Surely what might have been better would have been to attach more conditions to the QE money doled out (e.g. that a certain percentage had to be lent, particularly to small/medium-sized businesses, rather than stacked up in bank balance sheets)? Introducing more meaningful regulation of banks might also help avoid a repeat of the 2007-08 crash: e.g. a proper division between investment banking and retail banking, so that if speculators at investment banks lend irresponsibly and get into financial trouble, they could indeed be allowed to fail without the risk of crashing retail banking and the real economy? As Webbo pointed out, during her first term Thatcher did apply monetarist economic policy, but is generally seen as having abandoned it after a couple of years in the face of collapsing output, mass unemployment and opinion polls suggesting that she might even lose the 1983 election to Michael Foot. Doubtless, fanatics of monetarism would claim that she'd have bequeathed us an even greater wonderland if she had persisted with that policy....
Rincewind Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 Metathorically? Behind the thorax? You mean the government is shafting you right through the heart? They're doing that to us all, metaphorically... Thanks for the spellcheck.
Claridge Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 I don't understand monetarism well enough to comment on that, though I suppose all the recent quantitative easing is a weird form of monetarism or inverse monetarism (?) - controlling the economy by expanding the money supply, as opposed to reducing it as monetarists mainly seem to want to do. I agree that Brown's "no more boom and bust" comments were cringeworthy and a hostage to fortune, though most politicians love a bit of bullshit. He wasn't borrowing "more and more money", though. Borrowing in 2006 & 2007 was lower than in 2004-05, and lower than in most of the Major years. I note that you've yet again dodged commenting on the deficits run by Thatcher and Major! Yes, if Brown had used the boom years to eradicate the deficit and pay down the debt, the finances would be a little bit better now (they'd still be pretty shite due to the banking crash)....but we'd have more schools with leaking roofs, longer hospital waiting lists, and more people in poverty if tax credits (or an equivalent) hadn't been introduced. Political preferences..... I entirely agree about Labour PFI schemes, many of which are a licence for private contractors to rip off the taxpayer and future generations to a mindblowing extent, though Tory schemes don't sound any better. "Private Eye" is a good source for reports about stuff like this.[/quote Thatcher had to deal with previous idiotic labour policies. Labour ****s up the economy,Tories do sex scandals or dodgy city deals.history shows us this
Alf Bentley Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 Thanks for the spellcheck. You're welcome, Ken. I like to seize every possible opportunity to present myself as a smart-arse.
Voll Blau Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 Been mucking about with this PR calculator thing... http://icon.cat/util/elections Worked out (roughly) what the seats would've been under a national PR system (assuming the number of MPs stayed at 650): Conservative (36.9%): 242 Labour (30.5%): 199 UKIP (12.6%): 83 Lib Dem (7.9%): 51 SNP (4.7%): 31 Green (3.8%): 24 Others (1.1%): 7 DUP (0.6%): 3 Plaid Cymru (0.6%): 3 Sinn Fein (0.6%): 3 UUP (0.4%): 2 SDLP (0.3%): 2
Stadt Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 It's weird that people want a PR system as its more democratic but surely it would result in smaller parties being kingmakers more often so you'd get parties with a small vote share with a disproportionate amount of power. Say the Tories formed a coalition with UKIP who got 12.6% whereas Labour would get 30.5% and not be involved, it's not really more representative in that situation.
Rincewind Posted 14 May 2015 Posted 14 May 2015 No one can say this is out of date15th May 2015 I'll post it to save Moose doing it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disabled-charity-that-helped-camerons-son-loses-out-in-cuts-2269618.html
MooseBreath Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 No one can say this is out of date15th May 2015 I'll post it to save Moose doing it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disabled-charity-that-helped-camerons-son-loses-out-in-cuts-2269618.html Hmm...
filbertway Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 No one can say this is out of date15th May 2015 I'll post it to save Moose doing it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disabled-charity-that-helped-camerons-son-loses-out-in-cuts-2269618.html Tuesday 19th April 2011...
Sir Fynwy Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 No one can say this is out of date15th May 2015 I'll post it to save Moose doing it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disabled-charity-that-helped-camerons-son-loses-out-in-cuts-2269618.html Top bombing there Ken, I hear the Crimean war might have ended as well
The Blur Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 How will we determine which MPs get to be in HOP under PR system- Do we pick from top performing 242 Tory candidates with the most votes then top performing 199 Labour candidates and so on? This could result in two candidates from same constituency being picked for HOP?
Jon the Hat Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 You make an important point though Ken - councils which cut funding like this without getting their house in order internally are letting people down.
Voll Blau Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 How will we determine which MPs get to be in HOP under PR system- Do we pick from top performing 242 Tory candidates with the most votes then top performing 199 Labour candidates and so on? This could result in two candidates from same constituency being picked for HOP? That's my biggest issue with PR, losing the local link. Guess you could hold closed primaries among the constituency parties of each party, with each selecting a candidate for the list. Candidates' ranking in the list could then be determined by the proportion of people who voted for each party within each constituency, so the Tory candidate selected in the constituency which had the nighest number/proportion of Tory votes would be first to be elected from his/her party's list etc. I'm sure there's a massive flaw with that idea so look forwar dto someone pointing it out, whatever it is.
Alf Bentley Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 It's weird that people want a PR system as its more democratic but surely it would result in smaller parties being kingmakers more often so you'd get parties with a small vote share with a disproportionate amount of power. Say the Tories formed a coalition with UKIP who got 12.6% whereas Labour would get 30.5% and not be involved, it's not really more representative in that situation. That can happen with any system. Indeed, it nearly happened with this election - and, if they lose a few byelections, the Tories could end up dependent on the DUP or Carswell in 2-3 years time. It is a strong argument against the "national list" system of PR, though. If the BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party won 1% nationally, they could hold the balance under the list system. That's one of the reasons I favour "Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Multi-Member Constituencies" (like the European elections). That way, a party has to be racking up at least 8-10% across quite a large area (e.g. county) to get any MPs. That's my biggest issue with PR, losing the local link. Guess you could hold closed primaries among the constituency parties of each party, with each selecting a candidate for the list. Candidates' ranking in the list could then be determined by the proportion of people who voted for each party within each constituency, so the Tory candidate selected in the constituency which had the nighest number/proportion of Tory votes would be first to be elected from his/her party's list etc. I'm sure there's a massive flaw with that idea so look forwar dto someone pointing it out, whatever it is. STV in Multi-Member Constituencies also addresses the local link issue. Constituencies would have to be larger than now, but you'd retain a local link - and it would be more likely that one of the MPs would be sympathetic to your issues (though MPs are supposed to raise individual problems even-handedly, and generally do). Your suggestion is an interesting alternative, though. There is also the option of being able to express a preference for individual party candidates: e.g. if you liked Jon Ashworth but not Keith Vaz or vice-versa....
Guest Posted 15 May 2015 Posted 15 May 2015 Been mucking about with this PR calculator thing... http://icon.cat/util/elections Worked out (roughly) what the seats would've been under a national PR system (assuming the number of MPs stayed at 650): Conservative (36.9%): 242 Labour (30.5%): 199 UKIP (12.6%): 83 Lib Dem (7.9%): 51 SNP (4.7%): 31 Green (3.8%): 24 Others (1.1%): 7 DUP (0.6%): 3 Plaid Cymru (0.6%): 3 Sinn Fein (0.6%): 3 UUP (0.4%): 2 SDLP (0.3%): 2 why waste your time? People would have voted differently under a different system.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.