tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post1064887024945899654..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Delusions on the UK leftMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-5722555323491512282015-03-03T21:01:05.620+00:002015-03-03T21:01:05.620+00:00"Neoliberalism did not triumph because the le..."Neoliberalism did not triumph because the left decided to compromise."<br /><br />What a bunch of nonsense. Only Nixon could go to China, only centre-leftists like Clinton and Blair could give legitimacy to the neoliberal revolutions in the eighties. So whether you like it or not, the betrayal of the centre-left is one of the key reasons of the success of neoliberalism.<br /><br />Gee, I am German and over here it was a social democratic government which implemented delayed neoliberal reforms during the naughties while the previous conservative government did nothing of the kind. You really gotta have gigantic centrist blinders on if you think that Labour will seriously question the austerity dogma.<br /><br />About strategical voting, it assumes that all other people will vote strategically as well. If everybody just voted for the best platform and ignored other people leftists parties would be far more successful. Of course you are right that in an election system without proportional representation small parties have a harder time so it makes more sense to vote strategically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33050700976153099122015-02-18T20:24:15.214+00:002015-02-18T20:24:15.214+00:00Ah, I have seen Labour have a different definition...Ah, I have seen Labour have a different definition of "deficit" now that excludes investment spending.<br />More supply side problems caused by crony Keynesian corporate welfare spending then and no job guarantee. Yay, higher house prices.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-57483282306172017322015-02-17T16:14:36.965+00:002015-02-17T16:14:36.965+00:00Nice guilt trip and shifting of blame.
Actually if...Nice guilt trip and shifting of blame.<br />Actually if I don't vote, it means your vote is worth more. Actually if you vote for Labour and they try to achieve a budget surplus with trade deficit and it crashes the economy it is your fault Simon.<br />Until we have range voting the system will still be flawed.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-69277991875488281912015-02-04T08:23:13.429+00:002015-02-04T08:23:13.429+00:00Currently seems the election will be decided in Sc...Currently seems the election will be decided in Scotland not England. Early twentieth century shows how swiftly a party can fail. Will this be Labour's fate in Scotland first?Bill Doddshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04999316648840074840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-90095432798695812632015-02-03T13:31:16.400+00:002015-02-03T13:31:16.400+00:00This is why we need range voting Simon:
http://ran...This is why we need range voting Simon:<br />http://rangevoting.org/Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-9927251559184126102015-02-02T21:24:52.517+00:002015-02-02T21:24:52.517+00:00Blissex:
You do not seem to be aware that politic...Blissex:<br /><br />You do not seem to be aware that political or moral preferences influence what one believes in macroeconomics. SWL is a clear example. <br /><br />You find SW'Ls approach silly, There may be something to that, and one could leave it at that. Of course, he believes what he says. My explanation is that he someteimes lets his moral and political preferences run away with him and that he is less critical than he should be. <br /><br />Can we agree on that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-27982506239785771522015-02-02T18:14:44.709+00:002015-02-02T18:14:44.709+00:00Those who vote Green in such seats may become &quo...Those who vote Green in such seats may become "responsible" for a Tory government if they may have otherwise voted for Labour (although in itself this is, far from being a normative claim, little more than an impartial description of the facts). Equally, if a person chooses to vote tactically, they are presumably also responsible if this act makes a small contribution to the subsequent development a cynical personality that serves them very poorly in their life's endeavours.jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873225508662264305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1849920532767700982015-02-02T14:04:32.364+00:002015-02-02T14:04:32.364+00:00"anyone voting Green (or failing to vote) in ..."anyone voting Green (or failing to vote) in a seat that Labour can win but the Greens cannot will in part be responsible for the consequences of a future Conservative government"<br /><br />A rather silly argument if you ask me. You could equally say that anyone voting Green in a seat that the Conservatives can win but the Greens cannot will in part be responsible for the consequences of a future Labour government.<br /><br />I'm not sure either of those is true. The people who are responsible for the consequences of a future Labour or Conservative government are the ones who vote for it or who fail to vote altogether. I really don't see any moral obligation to vote tactically for a party whose policies you fundamentally disagree with.Adam Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12417717196253838789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-80909209962483341312015-02-02T12:13:39.646+00:002015-02-02T12:13:39.646+00:00The taking benefits away from the under 25s thing ...The taking benefits away from the under 25s thing seems to have developed a life of it's own I've had a few arguments with people on twitter about it. It's certainly not actual Labour policy (it's been emphatically denies by Rachel Reeves) but it could have been spun that way by Labour spinners or by the Telegraph who printed the original story.<br /><br />This kind of story worries me as it will no doubt be dutifully repeated by the Greens and Labour's other opponents on the left and will feeds a "they're all the same" narrative that seems to be depriving Labour of votes.Andreas Patersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06431120459465519240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-23090649235733779782015-02-02T11:06:42.250+00:002015-02-02T11:06:42.250+00:00I don't think it's accurate to say anyone ...I don't think it's accurate to say anyone voting green in an SNP v Lab seat is voting for a Tory government.<br /><br />The same goes for Lib Lab actually. You increase the risk of a Tory lib coalition but also increase the chance of a Lib Lab coalition v a Lab majority. Which you might prefer.donniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13809052984282157093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-14133583963644019332015-02-02T08:43:45.087+00:002015-02-02T08:43:45.087+00:00Labour is utterly rotten IMO. Just look at what Bl...Labour is utterly rotten IMO. Just look at what Blair has done since he left office to explain what he did when in office. They are nowadays simply the party of financialization with bureaucracy as against the Tories who are the party of financialization without so much bureaucracy. stonehttp://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87896125756647934902015-02-01T20:30:37.027+00:002015-02-01T20:30:37.027+00:00" I don't know about that. We had eight y..." I don't know about that. We had eight years of Bush and all we got was Obama. You're saying we needed twelve years of Republican misrule? We had twelve years under Reagan-Bush and all we got was Clinton."<br /><br />You've made my point. By 2008 , we'd had 28 years of Reaganomics , no matter which party held the presidency. My counterfactual is based on the premise that this is a trend that must change , with a return to a more social democratic economy such as the one that existed post-WWII , under which the economy and most citizens thrived , relatively speaking.<br /><br />The reason 2008 was the best election to lose in order to set up a regime change election in 2012 was that the crisis took away the option of using additional debt to paper over the fundamental flaws in the economic system. Debt was what made Reaganomics work , to the limited extent it did work.<br /><br />Imagine if Nader had received 15-20% of the vote in 2008 , coming mostly from Dems and Independents , and maybe even some Repubs , it would have swung the election to McCain , but by 2012 , with the economy in the tank , both parties would have recognized the need for a major shift to the left in order to win the election. The Dems would not have been able to nominate another Bush/Clinton clone in Obama , because to do so would guarantee either a loss or a single-term president. Thus 2012 would have been our chance for a transformational candidate , a la Tsipras in Greece , or FDR.<br /><br />What transpired , of course , is that Dems who believed in Nader's message voted for Obama , reasoning ( wrongly , just like SWL ) that one should vote strategically , rather than according to one's deeply-held beliefs. Your vote is an expression of your desires , and signals your intentions in future elections. The system gave us exactly what we asked for every time over the last 3 decades - " More Reagonomics , please."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-9556321433859782012015-02-01T20:08:45.383+00:002015-02-01T20:08:45.383+00:00If the public is so stupid the they really don'...If the public is so stupid the they really don't deserve the vote. The orignal landed aristocracy Tories understood this well, as do most modern socialist and facist dictatorships. They have much in common, all these paternalistic brothers in arms. James in Londonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08392235894752150063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87620721257149826812015-02-01T19:06:13.470+00:002015-02-01T19:06:13.470+00:00«The proposed benefits shift for under-25s hasn...«The proposed benefits shift for under-25s hasn't been decided yet, but is in the context of a guaranteed job after a period of unemployment.»<br /><br />My summary (in another blog) of Labour vs. Conservative party politics is that both are pandering to the desire of swing voters in marginal seats to go back to Jane Austen's "neoliberal" world, and the main difference between the two is that Labour want to go back to the Speenhamland Poor Laws and the Conservatives want to go back to the 1834 Poor Laws and the workhouses.<br /><br />Unfortunately the 1834 Poor Laws and the workhouses are popular with swing voters in margin seats, so just as the Conservatives tried to use Tescos as workhouses by requiring unemployed people to work there for benefits lower than the minimum wages, in effect using Tesco as workhouses, so does in effect Labour want to bring back something that can be sold as being akin to the workhouses for under 25s.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-5472361353292204992015-02-01T18:51:16.703+00:002015-02-01T18:51:16.703+00:00«When it comes to the broad trend of ever greater ...«When it comes to the broad trend of ever greater inequality there really is no meaningful difference between the main parties. [ ... ] A Labour government may serve up some smaller victories in battles over specific spending and taxation priorities, but the greater war is still going to be lost.»<br /><br />But that is still pretty a pretty big thing. SimonWL's argument is anyhow quite narrow: that the labour macroeconomic programme is *better*, not that Labour is a better party or that its macroeconomic programme is the best.<br /><br />And his suggestion to would-be Green voters in Labour marginals seems to me to be "something is better than nothing". That nihilism and maximalism can be very expensive luxuries.<br /><br />«If your best defence of a terrible Labour policy is "it's basically what we have now" then the party really is facing PASOKification.»<br /><br />Labour has been PASOKified decades ago. Because like in Greece the voters have become PASOKified. I'll mention again Blair's "Sierra man" revelation and Radice's earlier and subsequent "Southern discomfort" pamphlets.<br /><br />«Whilst the neoliberal consensus prevails there can be no significantly meaningful change»<br /><br />The neoliberal consensus has prevailed because both Labour and Consevatives are fighting over the same swing voters in the same marginals, and these voters are middle aged and older property speculator rentiers, that is "tories" with a small "t", who vote tactically for whichever party promises them the biggest tax-free capital gains. Same as in the USA, Australia, Canada (largely) and New Zealand.<br /><br />UK politics are in effect the dictatorship of the middle aged or retired landladies.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-16951330619722977452015-02-01T18:49:33.930+00:002015-02-01T18:49:33.930+00:00"New Labour as people know they were largely ..."New Labour as people know they were largely the ones (along with bankers) who created the mess in the first place"<br /><br />As SWL showed, "mess" and all, the economy performed well under New Labour. No fan of New Labour for its approach to public service provision, but it wasn't an economic disaster.<br /><br />"Mess" is a Tory meme. <br /><br />Tubby Isaacsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7314366407305783342015-02-01T18:45:11.136+00:002015-02-01T18:45:11.136+00:00"We'll still be as far away as ever from ..."We'll still be as far away as ever from implementing the kind of radical policies necessitated by broken dynamic between labour and capital."<br /><br />How about compared to where we will be if they don't win?<br /><br />You skate over that.Tubby Isaacsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-13989620803771151592015-02-01T18:44:00.928+00:002015-02-01T18:44:00.928+00:00"Obomba butchered the bank bailout, giving co..."Obomba butchered the bank bailout, giving corrupt bankers who caused the meltdown sweetheart deals. This started the right-wing Tea Party movement"<br /><br />Ha ha, really?<br /><br />Wasn't that a load of people didn't like a black non-Republican president, and a load of rich people provided cash and media backing.Tubby Isaacsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79674285362296277562015-02-01T18:41:39.953+00:002015-02-01T18:41:39.953+00:00So Labour didn't shift the Tories massively on...So Labour didn't shift the Tories massively on Education and NHS spending?<br /><br />Tories had to lie to get elected.Tubby Isaacsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-22022635024997806662015-02-01T18:31:19.450+00:002015-02-01T18:31:19.450+00:00it seems to me that this is a huge misrepresentati...it seems to me that this is a huge misrepresentation of that SImonWL has said.<br /><br />He has invited people who would not want to vote Tory *anyhow* to vote for a better macroeconomic programme that has a chance to be enacted.<br /><br />It just happens that the better macroeconomic programme is Labour's, and that Labour has a chance of being elected.<br /><br />He is not at all advocating voting Labour as such: simply for the best chance to have a better macroeconomic programme:<br /><br />«pointed out that there is a huge difference between Labour and Conservative fiscal plans beyond 2015. It is quite possible that we will see very little additional fiscal tightening under Labour, and a lot more public investment»<br /><br />That is a judgement by an economist (who follows a theoretical approach that I find silly BTW :->) that one macroeconomic programme is much better than another, and that is what matters, because it is «the consequences of a future Conservative government» that may matter to those that may want to be «voting Green (or failing to vote) in a seat that Labour can win but the Greens cannot».<br /><br />These are people who have already rejecting what SimonWL regards as a bad macroeconomic programme.<br /><br />I don't see anywhere a call for voting for one party or another regardless of the merit of their macroeconomic programme. If perchance it were the Tories that had come up with what SimonWL regarded a better programme I have little doubt that he would recommend to UKIP voters to vote Tory in Tory-winnable seats.Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91817603790064497982015-02-01T16:14:34.873+00:002015-02-01T16:14:34.873+00:00The point that Professor Wren-Lewis is missing is ...The point that Professor Wren-Lewis is missing is that with only 2 major parties, the political centre moves to the right. As explained in this article for the US - the Republicans do not budge on their positions or move right. The Democrats negotiate with them and so accept a rightward shift. <br />http://bigstory.ap.org/article/republican-losses-obscure-us-drift-right<br />The Lib Dems in the UK accepted a rightward shift to obtain power. Labour policies are "sensible" centrist/business friendly rather than being true to their origins.Cheryl & ethnovethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17061009112004529673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-43148716128872217572015-02-01T15:12:10.042+00:002015-02-01T15:12:10.042+00:00When it comes to the broad trend of ever greater i...When it comes to the broad trend of ever greater inequality there really is no meaningful difference between the main parties. Let's try a thought experiment; Labour wins a massive majority at the general election. 5 years hence the following will be true...<br /><br /><br />1. The rich will be richer<br /><br />2. Britain will still be a low wage economy enjoined in an insane race to the bottom<br /><br />3. We'll still have an economy massively reliant on the buying and selling of grossly overpriced housing stock.<br /><br />4. We'll still be as far away as ever from implementing the kind of radical policies necessitated by broken dynamic between labour and capital.<br /><br /><br />A Labour government may serve up some smaller victories in battles over specific spending and taxation priorities, but the greater war is still going to be lost. Whilst the neoliberal consensus prevails there can be no significantly meaningful change,.Ross https://www.blogger.com/profile/18083602933586936654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-6125830475764635682015-02-01T15:06:38.046+00:002015-02-01T15:06:38.046+00:00Ralph,
“His famous spreadsheet error is neither h...Ralph,<br /><br />“His famous spreadsheet error is neither here nor there. His other mistakes are much more serous.”<br /><br />Yes I know. That's why, as I said, I was shocked by that paper. In fact I would find what you say about Rogoff and Reinhart extremely implausible if I hadn't read it and seen those errors for myself! Paul Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04309125585593320043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-20862059503541295962015-02-01T14:59:41.471+00:002015-02-01T14:59:41.471+00:00I don't know about that. We had eight years of...I don't know about that. We had eight years of Bush and all we got was Obama. You're saying we needed twelve years of Republican misrule? We had twelve years under Reagan-Bush and all we got was Clinton.<br /><br />You seem awfully cavalier about the lives ruined under your scheme. Plus Bush was able to install Judge Roberts on a majority Republican Supreme Court and we got Citizens United. Obama criticized it to the faces of those Republican Supreme Court members during his SOTU and Alito mouthed off to him never to attend another SOTU. And this year we have the Koch brothers and their friends vowing to spend $890 million on the 2016 campaign to make Anonymous's plans come true. It may be too late for American democracy.<br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08272747870634233567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79077158425102739942015-02-01T12:41:47.535+00:002015-02-01T12:41:47.535+00:00Paul,
You ask, “Rogoff isn't swallowing it bu...Paul,<br /><br />You ask, “Rogoff isn't swallowing it but surely that's not because he's struggling to understand it but because he's rejecting it?” Nope. I’ve read plenty of the material written by Rogoff and Reinhart and I regard them as seriously ignorant. I.e. it really is a case of “he’s struggling to understand it”. <br /><br />His famous spreadsheet error is neither here nor there. His other mistakes are much more serous.<br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.com