Also in the news

[Buce]

Johnson says he is prepared to increase public borrowing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/30/johnson-prepared-increase-public-borrowing

 

So, there we have it.

 

Nine years of crippling austerity to 'balance the books'; nine years of slashing benefits to the bone; nine years of closing libraries and Sure Start centres; nine years of telling us only the Tories can be trusted with the economy and Labour would increase public borrowing...

 

It was all ideological from the start.

Edited 30 June 2019 by Buce

[urban.spaceman]

The year is 2019.

Gameshow host Donald Trump is the US President.

Britain is supposedly leaving the EU. 

Record numbers of people are watching the WOMEN’s World Cup.

Everyone is obsessed with expensive rectangles in their pockets.

Cars can now drive themselves.

And now Captain ****ing Kirk is endorsing Jedward. 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

What a time to be alive. 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The year is 2019.

Gameshow host Donald Trump is the US President.

Britain is supposedly leaving the EU. 

Record numbers of people are watching the WOMEN’s World Cup.

Everyone is obsessed with expensive rectangles in their pockets.

Cars can now drive themselves.

And now Captain ****ing Kirk is endorsing Jedward. 

 

 

 

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it...

[fuchsntf]

17 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The year is 2019.

Gameshow host Donald Trump is the US President.

Britain is supposedly leaving the EU. 

Record numbers of people are watching the WOMEN’s World Cup.

Everyone is obsessed with expensive rectangles in their pockets.

Cars can now drive themselves.

And now Captain ****ing Kirk is endorsing Jedward. 

 

 

You forgot to Add ,in Notes of Weird Insanity the Real Danger of UK having a BJ....buffoon for PM

[the fox]

I don't really know the full situation of brexit apart from reading about it here but, wasn't the main "positive goal" of people who want brexit is to strengthen the economy of England, not cripple it? This just reeks of stubbornness by the party.

Edited 30 June 2019 by the fox

[Kopfkino]

47 minutes ago, Buce said:

Johnson says he is prepared to increase public borrowing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/30/johnson-prepared-increase-public-borrowing

 

So, there we have it.

 

Nine years of crippling austerity to 'balance the books'; nine years of slashing benefits to the bone; nine years of closing libraries and Sure Start centres; nine years of telling us only the Tories can be trusted with the economy and Labour would increase public borrowing...

 

It was all ideological from the start.

 

It was never ideological, Cameron and Osborne were political chancers rather than ideologues. You do them a favour by calling them ideological. They were rudderless without an electoral strategy until Labour's profligacy presented itself on a plate, all they did before that was match or even go beyond Labour spending promises. I know it suits your agenda (anything with a blue rosette is bad) to say it was ideological but that's not reality. It should have been ideological because it probably would have been done better. 

Edited 30 June 2019 by Kopfkino

[Buce]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

I don't really know the full situation of brexit apart from reading about it here but, wasn't the main "positive goal" of people who want brexit is to strengthen the economy of England, not cripple it? This just reeks of stubbornness by the party.

 

That's exactly it.

 

No one is even pretending Brexit is going to be a positive thing any more, it's just a stubborn insistence of implementing the result of a flawed vote because 'Brexit means Brexit'. And everything will be fine because we once won a war.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It was never ideological, Cameron and Osborne were political chancers rather than ideologues. You do them a favour by calling them ideological. They were rudderless without an electoral strategy until Labour's profligacy presented itself on a plate, all they did before that was match or even go beyond Labour spending promises. I know it suits your agenda (anything with a blue rosette is bad) to say it was ideological but that's not reality. It should have been ideological because it probably would have been done better. 

 

Does it suit the agenda of the UN?

 

UN tears into Tory-led austerity as 'ideological project causing pain and misery' in devastating report on UK poverty crisis

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-poverty-austerity-uk-universal-credit-report-philip-alston-a8924576.html

Edited 30 June 2019 by Buce

[the fox]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That's exactly it.

 

No one is even pretending Brexit is going to be a positive thing any more, it's just a stubborn insistence of implementing the result of a flawed vote because 'Brexit means Brexit'. And everything will be fine because we once won a war.

Ruining the life's of locals and immigrants alike because of ego. Boris and co should contribute with their own money if they choose to take the matter personally instead of looking after the public.

 

I always thought that the public didn't get a thoroughly comprehensive guide to what they were getting themselves into before the vote and it led to this disaster.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Does it suit the agenda of the UN?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/un-poverty-austerity-uk-universal-credit-report-philip-alston-a8924576.html

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat whether you work for the UN or not. The report itself offers no evidence for why it's ideological rather than playing politics, in fact it treats it as a binary ideological vs economics and completely ignores any other motivation. 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, the fox said:

Ruining the life's of locals and immigrants alike because of ego. Boris and co should contribute with their own money if they choose to take the matter personally instead of looking after the public.

 

I always thought that the public didn't get a thoroughly comprehensive guide to what they were getting themselves into before the vote and it led to this disaster.

 

The really sad thing is it's the ordinary working class people who will suffer the consequences of Brexit - particularly a 'No Deal' Brexit - and it was largely on the back of their votes that the referendum was won. They will be the ones to lose their livelihoods when companies go bust (the 'price worth paying') or the big employers move their operations abroad; they will be the ones least able to cope with rising food prices; they will be the ones struggling to afford foreign holidays because of a devalued pound; they will be the ones to do without medicines that are stuck in a lorry park in Dover. Bozo and his ilk will be fine - millionaires just get richer, whatever happens.

 

Some Brexiteers speak of 'patriotism'; I'd love to know what's patriotic about wilfully fvcking up your country.

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat whether you work for the UN or not. The report itself offers no evidence for why it's ideological rather than playing politics, in fact it treats it as a binary ideological vs economics and completely ignores any other motivation. 

 

 

And I'm the one with the agenda.

[Alf Bentley]

51 minutes ago, Buce said:

Johnson says he is prepared to increase public borrowing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/30/johnson-prepared-increase-public-borrowing

 

So, there we have it.

 

Nine years of crippling austerity to 'balance the books'; nine years of slashing benefits to the bone; nine years of closing libraries and Sure Start centres; nine years of telling us only the Tories can be trusted with the economy and Labour would increase public borrowing...

 

It was all ideological from the start.

 

Similar from Hunt when interviewed on Marr this morning. He's promising all sorts of tax cuts and public spending increases, clearly funded from increased borrowing (though he prefers to pretend that it is from "headroom" assigned by Hammond - actually an allowance for increased borrowing, which would be insufficient for all Hunt's promises, anyway). When asked as to what he'd do if that "headroom" was actually needed for its designated purpose, namely to cover massive extra costs generated by No Deal, Hunt said that his public spending promises would have to wait.....but he'd go ahead and cut Corporation Tax to 12.5%. This would inevitably send UK growth through the roof as per the Celtic Tiger in Ireland.... 

 

If it were as simple as that, makes you wonder why they've not tried it in the previous 9 years. There's also the little matter of the Irish cut in Corporation Tax proving so beneficial (temporarily) precisely because Ireland was in the Single Market! Mind you, Hunt reckons that No Deal won't happen because the EU will inevitably and immediately offer him a great deal that it didn't offer to May, because he's an "entrepreneur".... 

 

Of course, there's a certain purely economic logic to slashing Corporation Tax in the event of No Deal. Any half-sane Tory must know that No Deal would do major economic damage and that we wouldn't be getting the much-promised "great new free trade deals" any time soon, only poorer trade deals than in the EU that might take a long time to negotiate (unless on terms grossly beneficial to the USA, China or whoever). I've long thought that, in terms of the national economy, the only way of making Hard Brexit an economic success in the short-term would be precisely that: slash public spending & social conditions and slash corporate taxation to attract foreign investment (doubtless offering "flexible labour conditions" into the bargain).

 

In other words, Brexit means Brexit Brexit means "Shaft the British people so as to boost global capital". Who's going to be the one to tell Brexit voters in Sunderland the truth..... 

 

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It was never ideological, Cameron and Osborne were political chancers rather than ideologues. You do them a favour by calling them ideological. They were rudderless without an electoral strategy until profligacy presented itself on a plate, all they did before that was match or even go beyond Labour spending promises. I know it suits your agenda (anything with a blue rosette is bad) to say it was ideological but that's not reality. It should have been ideological because it probably would have been done better. 

 

I take your point that Cameron & Osborne were initially promising to match or outdo Labour spending plans, but that was mainly while they were still in Opposition, wasn't it?

So, just typical responsibility-free bullshit from politicians, saying what they thought the electorate wanted to hear ("low taxes & great public services")......but then doing something different once in office?

 

They made certain exceptions (e.g. increasing NHS nominal expenditure - though not by as much as was needed in real terms, given increased demand from aging population etc.) and cut less at certain times than at others.....

But while in office for 9 years, they were mostly cutting public spending at an eye-watering rate so as to eliminate the deficit & reduce public spending to 35% or whatever.....at a time of growing real need. That's ideological, even if their rhetoric in opposition did indeed show them to be political chancers....

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

I don't really know the full situation of brexit apart from reading about it here but, wasn't the main "positive goal" of people who want brexit is to strengthen the economy of England, not cripple it? This just reeks of stubbornness by the party.

Tbf a lot of people have claimed they don't mind if Brexit makes the economy weaker. 

 

It makes sense when you think about it:  These people want to go back to a very specific idea of Britain ie. a WWII winning island nation with no shared autonomy.  That gives us the 28 years from 1945 to 1973 when we were finally accepted into the EEC after about a decade trying to get in.  It's a period where we experienced a noticeable boom once post-WWII austerity ended yet at the same time we were always lagging behind our European counterparts.  So it's only natural these people wish to weaken the economy a bit and restore Europe's natural economic order that got so badly shaken up by the demon of international cooperation.

[Buce]

 

You can see why we're going to be so much better off striking out on our own...

EU signs landmark trade deal with Vietnam

Agreement to cut 99% of tariffs is first with developing country in Asia and swiftly follows deal with South American bloc

 

The European Union has signed a landmark free-trade deal with Vietnam, the first of its kind with a developing country in Asia, paving the way for tariff cuts on almost all goods.

The EU has described the deal as “the most ambitious free trade deal ever concluded with a developing country”.

The agreement was signed in Hanoi, three-and-a-half years after trade negotiations ended in December 2015.

 

The free trade agreement will eventually eliminate 99% of tariffs, with some items cut over a 10-year period and other goods, notably agricultural products, limited by quotas. It is also expected to open up the public procurement and services markets, such as for the postal, banking and maritime sectors.

The deal still needs the approval of the European parliament, which is by no means a certainty given some lawmakers’ concerns over Vietnam’s human rights record.

Vietnam has one of the region’s fastest-growing economies, backed by robust exports and foreign investment, It has already signed about a dozen free trade pacts, including an 11-country deal to slash tariffs across much of the Asia-Pacific region, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific.

The EU is Vietnam’s second-largest export market after the US, with main exports including garment and footwear products. In 2018, it exported $42.5bn worth of goods and services to the EU, with $13.8bn worth of goods coming the other way, official data shows.

On Friday, the EU and South American trade bloc Mercosur agreed a free-trade treaty following two decades of talks.

In Asia, the EU now has deals with South Korea, Japan and Singapore, and has embarked on talks with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Singapore deal is due to come into force this year.

[Kopfkino]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I take your point that Cameron & Osborne were initially promising to match or outdo Labour spending plans, but that was mainly while they were still in Opposition, wasn't it?

So, just typical responsibility-free bullshit from politicians, saying what they thought the electorate wanted to hear ("low taxes & great public services")......but then doing something different once in office?

 

They made certain exceptions (e.g. increasing NHS nominal expenditure - though not by as much as was needed in real terms, given increased demand from aging population etc.) and cut less at certain times than at others.....

But while in office for 9 years, they were mostly cutting public spending at an eye-watering rate so as to eliminate the deficit & reduce public spending to 35% or whatever.....at a time of growing real need. That's ideological, even if their rhetoric in opposition did indeed show them to be political chancers....

You offer no evidence for it being ideological other than they kept cutting which must mean they were ideological. Where is there anything to say that it was delivered because of an idea about shrinking the role of the state as a direct economic actor? Actually, just what were the beliefs and ideas that underpinned it? The Reinhart-Rogoff paper was the economic underpinning but you couldn't call that ideological. 

 

Tbf thinking about it you actually do them a favour, it suggests they actually had an idea about how the government and country should look rather than just doing what was necessary to be in power.

 

Your eyes must be like Niagara Falls when you chop an onion if that's eye-watering. The change in government expenditure for the Cameron-Osborne era (real terms): +6.1% (+1.6%), +0.9% (-1.9%), +2.7% (+0.1%), +0.3% (-1.2%), +2.1% (+2.1%), +0.7% (0%).

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

Johnson says he is prepared to increase public borrowing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/30/johnson-prepared-increase-public-borrowing

 

So, there we have it.

 

Nine years of crippling austerity to 'balance the books'; nine years of slashing benefits to the bone; nine years of closing libraries and Sure Start centres; nine years of telling us only the Tories can be trusted with the economy and Labour would increase public borrowing...

 

It was all ideological from the start.

And borrowing has been increasing since they've been in power anyway. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You can see why we're going to be so much better off striking out on our own...

EU signs landmark trade deal with Vietnam

Agreement to cut 99% of tariffs is first with developing country in Asia and swiftly follows deal with South American bloc

 

The European Union has signed a landmark free-trade deal with Vietnam, the first of its kind with a developing country in Asia, paving the way for tariff cuts on almost all goods.

The EU has described the deal as “the most ambitious free trade deal ever concluded with a developing country”.

The agreement was signed in Hanoi, three-and-a-half years after trade negotiations ended in December 2015.

 

The free trade agreement will eventually eliminate 99% of tariffs, with some items cut over a 10-year period and other goods, notably agricultural products, limited by quotas. It is also expected to open up the public procurement and services markets, such as for the postal, banking and maritime sectors.

The deal still needs the approval of the European parliament, which is by no means a certainty given some lawmakers’ concerns over Vietnam’s human rights record.

Vietnam has one of the region’s fastest-growing economies, backed by robust exports and foreign investment, It has already signed about a dozen free trade pacts, including an 11-country deal to slash tariffs across much of the Asia-Pacific region, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific.

The EU is Vietnam’s second-largest export market after the US, with main exports including garment and footwear products. In 2018, it exported $42.5bn worth of goods and services to the EU, with $13.8bn worth of goods coming the other way, official data shows.

On Friday, the EU and South American trade bloc Mercosur agreed a free-trade treaty following two decades of talks.

In Asia, the EU now has deals with South Korea, Japan and Singapore, and has embarked on talks with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Singapore deal is due to come into force this year.

If only we could get involved in this.

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You can see why we're going to be so much better off striking out on our own...

EU signs landmark trade deal with Vietnam

Agreement to cut 99% of tariffs is first with developing country in Asia and swiftly follows deal with South American bloc

 

The European Union has signed a landmark free-trade deal with Vietnam, the first of its kind with a developing country in Asia, paving the way for tariff cuts on almost all goods.

The EU has described the deal as “the most ambitious free trade deal ever concluded with a developing country”.

The agreement was signed in Hanoi, three-and-a-half years after trade negotiations ended in December 2015.

 

The free trade agreement will eventually eliminate 99% of tariffs, with some items cut over a 10-year period and other goods, notably agricultural products, limited by quotas. It is also expected to open up the public procurement and services markets, such as for the postal, banking and maritime sectors.

The deal still needs the approval of the European parliament, which is by no means a certainty given some lawmakers’ concerns over Vietnam’s human rights record.

Vietnam has one of the region’s fastest-growing economies, backed by robust exports and foreign investment, It has already signed about a dozen free trade pacts, including an 11-country deal to slash tariffs across much of the Asia-Pacific region, known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific.

The EU is Vietnam’s second-largest export market after the US, with main exports including garment and footwear products. In 2018, it exported $42.5bn worth of goods and services to the EU, with $13.8bn worth of goods coming the other way, official data shows.

On Friday, the EU and South American trade bloc Mercosur agreed a free-trade treaty following two decades of talks.

In Asia, the EU now has deals with South Korea, Japan and Singapore, and has embarked on talks with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. The Singapore deal is due to come into force this year.

 

I wonder if the people that get their knickers in a twist about a trade deal with the US actually have any idea what's included in these, particularly the Mercosur deal (clue it won't be good for beef farmers and the environment) and will they be up in arms about it. Of course I need not wonder, cos they won't and nor do they care. 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

If only we could get involved in this.

 

It's OK, we got a wicked deal with the Faroe Isles.

 

And wait till we tell the world about how our bulldog spirit won a war 80 years ago - they'll be queueing up to do a deal.

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You offer no evidence for it being ideological other than they kept cutting which must mean they were ideological. Where is there anything to say that it was delivered because of an idea about shrinking the role of the state as a direct economic actor? Actually, just what were the beliefs and ideas that underpinned it? The Reinhart-Rogoff paper was the economic underpinning but you couldn't call that ideological. 

 

Here's Camerons talking ideology, back in 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/31/big-society-coalition-david-cameron

 

"My great passion is building the 'big society'.Then he tried to explain what the "big society" was, outlining three strands – social action, public service reform and community empowerment. Where the state steps back and allows people to take control of their of their lives; a shift from "state action to social action". Labour remains scornful, pointing to plans to cut back public spending by 25%-40% in unprotected departments as evidence of their thesis".

 

How is "the Big Society" going now? Haven't heard about it for years, though we got the cuts.......eye-watering in unprotected departments.

 

44 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Tbf thinking about it you actually do them a favour, it suggests they actually had an idea about how the government and country should look rather than just doing what was necessary to be in power.

 

I certainly agree with you that "doing what was necessary to be in power" was part of the equation. Hence the pre-2010 (or pre-2008?) promises to match Labour spending plans. Hence, too, the relative protection of NHS spending, the NHS being seen as iconic by the electorate. Hence, also, the protection of spending on pensions, given the importance of the grey vote to the Tories.

 

44 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your eyes must be like Niagara Falls when you chop an onion if that's eye-watering. The change in government expenditure for the Cameron-Osborne era (real terms): +6.1% (+1.6%), +0.9% (-1.9%), +2.7% (+0.1%), +0.3% (-1.2%), +2.1% (+2.1%), +0.7% (0%).

 

 

The IFS explains how overall figures can seem moderate, while cuts in "unprotected areas" (picking up on the Labour prediction in 2010) can indeed be eye-watering: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9180

 

"Cuts to large parts of government spending have only resulted in the size of the state being broadly unchanged for three reasons. First, the financial crisis pushed spending as a share of national income up sharply, and this increase has been undone. Second, continued weak economic growth in recent years has meant that a given real-terms cut to spending has delivered a smaller reduction in spending as a share of national income relative to both history and expectation. Third, some elements of spending have risen as a fraction of national income – most notably, spending on health, pensions and overseas aid – and so cuts have been required elsewhere".

 

So, the net figures (I'm assuming your figures are correct - haven't checked) are dragged up by policy to protect the NHS (though still inadequately, given aging population), maintain pensions & maintain overseas aid 0.7% promise.....offsetting, yes, eye-watering cuts elsewhere....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/council-spending-on-local-services-down

"In a reflection of the austerity drive imposed on local authorities by Conservative-led governments during the past decade, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said spending on services in England had fallen by 21% between 2009-10 and 2017-18".

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-angela-rayner-funding-cuts-department-for-education-damian-hinds-a8726151.html

"Analysis by the House of Commons Library found that real-terms spending on schools and colleges had slumped from £95.5bn in 2011/12 to £87.8bn last year, a total fall of £7.7bn. The figures show education spending as a share of GDP fell from 5.69 per cent to 4.27 per cent, a decline of 25 per cent in only seven years". [....and that's at a time when there are GROWING numbers of young people]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/policing-at-tipping-point-over-budget-cuts-warns-police-chief

"“The government [...]was very interested in terrorism and high-end threats but less focused on local crimes, which had been left for forces and police and crime commissioners to manage amid steep budget cuts.“This more local agenda has many positives in setting priorities but it has come with steep budget reductions and a widening mission,” [the W. Midlands Chief Constable] said. “There has been a real-term reduction of police budgets of 19% since 2010, but ranging between 11- 25% across forces.” Thompson said police had improved in the fight against terrorism and serious and organised crime. “But the gains we’ve made have come at a cost to perhaps the most important parts of policing for the public.“Crime is rising and so is the demand on our service". 

[Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The IFS explains how overall figures can seem moderate, while cuts in "unprotected areas" (picking up on the Labour prediction in 2010) can indeed be eye-watering: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9180

 

"Cuts to large parts of government spending have only resulted in the size of the state being broadly unchanged for three reasons. First, the financial crisis pushed spending as a share of national income up sharply, and this increase has been undone. Second, continued weak economic growth in recent years has meant that a given real-terms cut to spending has delivered a smaller reduction in spending as a share of national income relative to both history and expectation. Third, some elements of spending have risen as a fraction of national income – most notably, spending on health, pensions and overseas aid – and so cuts have been required elsewhere".

 

So, the net figures (I'm assuming your figures are correct - haven't checked) are dragged up by policy to protect the NHS (though still inadequately, given aging population), maintain pensions & maintain overseas aid 0.7% promise.....offsetting, yes, eye-watering cuts elsewhere....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/29/council-spending-on-local-services-down

"In a reflection of the austerity drive imposed on local authorities by Conservative-led governments during the past decade, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said spending on services in England had fallen by 21% between 2009-10 and 2017-18".

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-angela-rayner-funding-cuts-department-for-education-damian-hinds-a8726151.html

"Analysis by the House of Commons Library found that real-terms spending on schools and colleges had slumped from £95.5bn in 2011/12 to £87.8bn last year, a total fall of £7.7bn. The figures show education spending as a share of GDP fell from 5.69 per cent to 4.27 per cent, a decline of 25 per cent in only seven years". [....and that's at a time when there are GROWING numbers of young people]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/policing-at-tipping-point-over-budget-cuts-warns-police-chief

"“The government [...]was very interested in terrorism and high-end threats but less focused on local crimes, which had been left for forces and police and crime commissioners to manage amid steep budget cuts.“This more local agenda has many positives in setting priorities but it has come with steep budget reductions and a widening mission,” [the W. Midlands Chief Constable] said. “There has been a real-term reduction of police budgets of 19% since 2010, but ranging between 11- 25% across forces.” Thompson said police had improved in the fight against terrorism and serious and organised crime. “But the gains we’ve made have come at a cost to perhaps the most important parts of policing for the public.“Crime is rising and so is the demand on our service". 

 

Your exact words were "they were mostly cutting public spending at an eye-watering rate so as to eliminate the deficit & reduce public spending to 35%", not eye-watering cuts for unprotected areas. You referred to public spending as a whole hence you spoke of 35% of GDP. But yes if you move the goalposts I can accept it could be eye-watering in some areas. 

 

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here's Camerons talking ideology, back in 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jul/31/big-society-coalition-david-cameron

 

"My great passion is building the 'big society'.Then he tried to explain what the "big society" was, outlining three strands – social action, public service reform and community empowerment. Where the state steps back and allows people to take control of their of their lives; a shift from "state action to social action". Labour remains scornful, pointing to plans to cut back public spending by 25%-40% in unprotected departments as evidence of their thesis".

 

How is "the Big Society" going now? Haven't heard about it for years, though we got the cuts.......eye-watering in unprotected departments.

 

Presumably therefore you're struggling for evidence given that you managed 4 'sources' on eye-watering cuts but one supposedly on ideology which is about about the state taking a step back from people's lives (you can have a higher spending state without interfering in people's lives, it's what the Nordics do), not explicitly about economic policy (he never had much interest in economic policy himself) and makes perfect sense when matched up to Cameron's words about being as "radical a social reformer as Thatcher an economic reformer". In fact his social 'reforms' show, him floating with the wind rather than having an idea of what society should look like. His most reform on this was same-sex marriage despite him having previously been 'squeamish' on the matter. Which fits with Cameron's own words "that I'm not a deeply ideological person" and "I'm a practical person" and his stated preference for instinct rather than introspection. Rupert Murdoch said that "he doesn't believe in anything, he's a PR guy" and a tutor at uni said he didn't concern himself with philosophy. As for Osborne, his biographer described him as "an extreme pragmatist, even less ideological than David Cameron". Alistair Darling said he was a cynical opportunist. He was always seen as the political strategist of the operation and he followed public opinion; the public at the time believing cuts were necessary and that Labour policy (despite barely opposing it at the time) was the reason for economic woe. 

 

Yeah the Big Society was a slogan without a policy, its almost as if it backs up the idea they were media politicians rather than ideological. 

[Alf Bentley]

Thought-provoking article, bringing together ideas about the state of the UK & West, globalisation, populism, inequality, nationalism, Brexit etc.: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/closing-conservative-mind-towards-new-left-conservatism

 

Some nuggets....

 

"Back then Labour was, in effect, a nationalist party. Its 1945 and 1950 manifestos were national programmes of economic development".

 

"The 1980s was a period in which capitalism was freed from national government and national democracy. [...] Capitalism now governed states. The impact, argues Streeck, has been national disintegration. “Markets had been embedded in states, now states came to be embedded in markets.”

 

"Global supply chains transformed economic and political international relations. “What drives global trade are not the relationships between national economies but multinational corporations co-ordinating far-flung ‘value chains’.”

 

"Globalisation promoted the corporation over the nation state and the market over democracy".

 

"The seismic shocks of the banking crisis and its long, painful aftermath travelled along the new cultural and political fault lines of Western democracies, destabilising what were already deeply inequitable, often brittle societies".

 

"Across democratic nations the elites and professional middle class in the metropolitan cities increasingly live a life detached from most of the rest of the country. The provinces, the “peripheral” spaces within cities, the urban hinterlands and ex-industrial regions have reacted against this concentration of cultural, economic and political power. The governing classes are accused of abandoning them to global capital and failing to safeguard national sovereignty. Protest is not principally organised around economic injustice and redistribution but in the name of local cultures and national democratic self-determination".

 

"The Brexit Party’s Thatcherite constitution and pursuit of a small state is precisely the wrong politics. But Labour is being captured by the progressive politics and interests of the professional classes, with their obsession with identity liberalism. Can the party rebuild its coalition by telling a compelling story about England and the development of a national economy? To do so it will need to be both radical and conservative".

 

@Kopfkino @bovril @MattP @Carl the Llama @Buce @Strokes @David Guiza

 

Edited 30 June 2019 by Alf Bentley