tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post2866050422179681195..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Will Trident be Corbyn’s undoing? Mainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-456532863445652372016-01-13T18:41:04.318+00:002016-01-13T18:41:04.318+00:00"Voters views on the issue of Trident are not..."Voters views on the issue of Trident are not as clear as some Trident supporters like to pretend, and any poll that does not make the opportunity cost clear in any question (how many less teachers, nurses …) is meaningless anyway."<br /><br />Trident workers can be transformed into nurses? WTF? Take your push polls and go away.Randomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04445772572707818311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26256231474172450842016-01-13T17:22:28.911+00:002016-01-13T17:22:28.911+00:00That's one very hungry little troll if ever I ...That's one very hungry little troll if ever I saw one. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1305059040429401602016-01-12T22:26:27.219+00:002016-01-12T22:26:27.219+00:00SWL is a leftie if I ever saw one.SWL is a leftie if I ever saw one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-80060412911789314562016-01-11T17:50:52.990+00:002016-01-11T17:50:52.990+00:00Excellent joke, and, as such,not to be taken serio...Excellent joke, and, as such,not to be taken seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-34892899453246895262016-01-11T17:37:51.372+00:002016-01-11T17:37:51.372+00:00I think you have completely failed to understand t...I think you have completely failed to understand the nature of the current Labour party membership. Go along to your local CLP and see. It really isn't like, say, 1995 any longer. The best meetings for you to attend are here<br /><br />http://www.oxfordlabour.org.uk/upcoming_branch_agms<br /><br />Don't go to the North Oxford one: it is unrepresentative. Try East Oxford or Leys.SpinningHugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-33274110546633113302016-01-11T16:56:01.416+00:002016-01-11T16:56:01.416+00:00And the point I'm making here, which as ever y...And the point I'm making here, which as ever you ignore in favour of repeating yourself, is that if he does what he says 'he' will lose the next leadership election. So it will not work as a strategy.Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-81982331839909367452016-01-11T16:51:24.583+00:002016-01-11T16:51:24.583+00:00But that is where you are wrong. I'm concerned...But that is where you are wrong. I'm concerned that the Conservatives - assuming current policies continue - lose the next election. I have no particular attachment to Labour.<br /><br />However you have to admit what has happened this year has been interesting, so it is hard not to write about it. Lets look forward to similar splits within the Conservatives, and I will happily write about that too. Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-43816501711900292382016-01-11T11:10:24.011+00:002016-01-11T11:10:24.011+00:00With all due respect, Simon, you're getting a ...With all due respect, Simon, you're getting a long way away from your area of expertise here. When you say "any poll that does not make the opportunity cost clear in any question (how many less teachers, nurses …) is meaningless anyway", you're literally saying that only an overt push poll can possibly be valid, which is absurd. A supporter of Trident could equally well argue that the preceding question should highlight the arguments in favour of Trident, which would produce results that would be equally unreflective of public opinion. Loading a survey with leading questions is a good way of producing meaningless data that is only good for telling you what you want to hear rather than being reflective of reality.Tsubutaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01976127362206757589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-69399308672450526222016-01-11T10:09:13.653+00:002016-01-11T10:09:13.653+00:00I think this is a strong argument, but aren't ...I think this is a strong argument, but aren't there cheaper options like for example paying the USA a fee for nuclear deterrent services that would be cheaper than duplicating launch capabilities etc.?Luis Enriquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373244720653497312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-1225718372280565132016-01-11T00:50:44.511+00:002016-01-11T00:50:44.511+00:00When you have to argue that a party leader, who ru...When you have to argue that a party leader, who runs on sincerity, should also run on policies he does not believe in, so that some day in the undefined future he might get to run on policies he does believe in, what kind of party leader are you talking about?<br /><br />Is Corbyn supposed to be some sort of sleeper agent left over from the Cold War?jon liveseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45946983802152819822016-01-10T11:36:49.162+00:002016-01-10T11:36:49.162+00:00What you also fail to mention in the above critici...What you also fail to mention in the above criticism of the alternative candidates to Corbyn, is that the economic policy platform Corbyn stood on has been completely abandoned by him. Rightly, of course, because it made no sense whatsoever. So we hear no more about the foolish "People's QE" and the laughable claims about Corporate Welfare and the Tax Gap have been dropped.<br /><br />It is one thing to fail to win an election by proposing policies that were rather bland and uninspiring.<br /><br />It is quite another to win an election by promising that there were lots of free lunches that were there to be eaten, only then to quickly abandon such nonsense once the election has been won.<br />SpinningHugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-36991945607802792962016-01-10T11:27:11.032+00:002016-01-10T11:27:11.032+00:00"Corbyn/McDonnell are likely to play a long g..."Corbyn/McDonnell are likely to play a long game: to adopt for now policies that the majority of Labour MPs can unite behind, and try and gradually change the platform once they had shown that they could competently lead this majority (which means after 2020)."<br /><br />This is quite wrong.<br /><br />The Corbyn/McDonnell/Milne programme is to reverse the changes brought in by Neil Kinnock and to transform the Labour party into a party of the hard left. To do this they need cover for now, which is provided by those who are not of the Hard Left but are (usually naively) prepared to work with them. (Yvette Cooper's judgment not to do so appears vindicated to me). What the Labour policy programme here and now is is irrelevant in relation to domestic policy (that can be changed in a moment). What is really important to them is that they take control of the party machinery. This mainly involves giving power to the members (who are well to the left of MPs). As with the Bennite reforms of the 80s, this will be justified by the call for greater democracy.<br /><br />See<br /><br /><br />http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-jeremy-corbyn-hopes-to-alter-labours-stance-on-nuclear-weapons-by-stripping-shadow-cabinet-a6804376.html<br /><br />I too think Trident should not be replaced (the issue is not about scrapping it as you rather oddly seem to think). I also think it would be electoral suicide for Labour to adopt that policy. Not that it matters much. Labour lost the 2020 election on 12 September 2015.<br />SpinningHugonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-26229863712231323222016-01-09T17:00:31.988+00:002016-01-09T17:00:31.988+00:00Mainly Macro9 January 2016 at 02:13
"Why?&qu...<br /><br />Mainly Macro9 January 2016 at 02:13<br /><br />"Why?"<br /><br />Because you are always busying your head how Labour could win the next election-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-3661509079628865502016-01-09T16:54:20.747+00:002016-01-09T16:54:20.747+00:00SWL: Don't feed the trolls. Engage with those ...SWL: Don't feed the trolls. Engage with those who make engage in the discussion on an adult level rather than wasting your time. Another great post by the way. <br />Ps. On a different issue I wonder if you read Andrew Sentence last weekend discussing UK and EZ macro economic performance since 2010, and the various factors which impacted on growth. He did so without once mentioning austerity and its impact, which is quite a feat in itself I thought!Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453060744510427275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-90346814819049717892016-01-09T16:20:52.117+00:002016-01-09T16:20:52.117+00:00Would a good compromise be to keep the missiles bu...Would a good compromise be to keep the missiles but fill them with sawdust? After all, the story is that by having them they will never need to be used.<br />Michael G<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-23831267514236928802016-01-09T14:48:41.558+00:002016-01-09T14:48:41.558+00:00Oh dear, if you have to ask...Oh dear, if you have to ask...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21327095757324635582016-01-09T11:35:40.371+00:002016-01-09T11:35:40.371+00:00Corey Robin in 'Yours, Mine, but Not Ours'...Corey Robin in 'Yours, Mine, but Not Ours' (2012) published in Jacobin, link from his website, is a historical reassessment of the idea of 'security' as put forward by liberalism since the early modern era, and the way that liberalism has put 'security' as a body of thought which exists outside political discourse. <br /><br />If you listen to the resignation of the Labour MP on the Daily Politics he talks exactly about 'security' being bigger than party politics. <br /><br />As Robin says to finish his essay:<br /><br />"Unlike religion, morality, and politics, in other words, security offered [to liberals] the basis for an uncontroversial exercise of coercive state power. As we have seen, this assumption has not been borne out by reality. But that failure has not stopped liberals from arguing, as the saying goes, that politics stops at the water’s edge. And so when they have tried to chastise conservatives for using security for political ends (even though they do the same thing themselves), they have often found themselves, particularly since the Reagan years, hopelessly outgunned. Having endorsed — indeed, invented — the idea that security is not, properly speaking, a subject of and for the political arena, liberals cannot possibly hope to beat their opponents at a game which their chief theoreticians claim does not even exist."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-17237246471483523062016-01-09T10:17:09.761+00:002016-01-09T10:17:09.761+00:00I certainly think his style was important, but in ...I certainly think his style was important, but in a way that is just a manifestation of the problem ABCs had. They had learnt how to talk in platitudes to avoid making gaffes in front of the TV, and forgotten how to talk from the heart. They began to learn during the campaign, but by then it was too late.<br /><br />But I think your central premise is wrong. Most Labour party members want to be in government.Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-25451870727679782862016-01-09T10:10:39.506+00:002016-01-09T10:10:39.506+00:00Read this http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-f...Read this http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-21258243859722551962016-01-09T06:49:51.285+00:002016-01-09T06:49:51.285+00:00.
2 questions:
1) Has there been a look a....<br /> 2 questions:<br /><br /> 1) Has there been a look at what the multiplier is of Trident spending? Weaponized Keynsianism is still anti-austerity. The mere psychology of Trident may also have a multiplier and that is a component that should have been evaluated as well.<br /><br /> 2) Corbyn was, I think, the first major party candidate to propose central bank funding of infrastructure. This is an idea that is finally getting traction with more reputable economists and Corbyn did a service to get it it out there. Regardless of whatever else you feel about Corbyn, his support on that issue is very helpful.<br />.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01098498673510354088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-37142019008097873722016-01-08T20:04:12.672+00:002016-01-08T20:04:12.672+00:00"Not being a Labour Party person ..."
No..."Not being a Labour Party person ..."<br />No, just a fellow traveller.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-89524884142954001312016-01-08T18:39:36.033+00:002016-01-08T18:39:36.033+00:00I think you are being unkind by saying Corbyn won ...I think you are being unkind by saying Corbyn won "by default". A default win would not have inspired so many new members (or supporters) to join. Further, Liz Kendall at least articulated as much of a policy programme as Corbyn - it's just the Labour membership didn't want what she was offering. <br /><br />And I also disagree with the thrust of your argument - that it is in Corbyn's best interest to let the Trident issue lie for now. The only thing stopping Labour MPs deposing Corbyn at the moment is the fact he is overwhelmingly popular with the Labour selectorate. Part of the reason for this is that he is seen as authentic, and moral. And the reason he opposes both austerity and Trident is because he clearly believes that both are immoral. Compromising on his authenticity could undermine him among the membership, and risk removing the only barrier to being deposed (you only have to look at how Kinnock was ridiculed for reversing his unilateralist position to see what might happen here). Imagine how ridiculous it would look if he whipped his MPs to support Trident. Even if he gives a free vote, unless he does it under duress (as with Syria) it will look very much at odds with his record. It is partly true that he won due to his opposition to austerity, but he also won due to his anti-imperialist/pacifist foreign policy stance (think about the continuing anger over Iraq). Opposing Trident is part of that for him. <br /><br />Further, suppose that the primary objective of Corbyn (or those around him) is first to change the Labour Party (to make it more left wing) and only then to win a General Election. Then internal fights within the PLP on Syria and Trident are very useful for the leadership in tacitly signalling to the various CLPs which MPs should be deselected. blenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09958041567058351874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-6449532374133253792016-01-08T18:08:07.623+00:002016-01-08T18:08:07.623+00:00I suppose it's just whether you think Great Br...I suppose it's just whether you think Great Britain should have a nuclear arsenal that's not dependent on US or NATO goodwill. If you don't, that's fine. If you do, then submarines are the best way to do it. <br /><br />The problem for Great Britain is that it's just too close to any countries that might want to hit it with nuclear weapons to base them at home. You either need submarines or negotiated basing rights offshore, and the latter is much more politically difficult because those sites would then become prime targets in a nuclear conflict. Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741738070067590221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7908145068683943262016-01-08T17:37:13.829+00:002016-01-08T17:37:13.829+00:00"I have never heard a convincing argument for..."I have never heard a convincing argument for keeping Trident"<br /><br />Imagine we're not allied with NATO or the United States or any nuclear power. However we are still hostile to the same nations as today. Would you want a nuclear deterrent in this situation - given so many other hostile nations posses nuclear capabilities?<br /><br />If the answer is yes, then you have a classic free rider problem. If we want a nuclear deterrent it's unethical to free ride off of the United States' & other NATO countries protection. Things like this probably led to a ridiculously bloated US defence budget relative to other western nations in the first place.<br /><br />If you answer 'no', then you have to endorse the prospect of a world where only countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea etc.. have nuclear weapons while western nations have no matching armaments (or find some way to show that the west removing their nuclear stockpiles would somehow lead to hostile nations to do the same).Britonomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12221647029208839668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-38245113891670071302016-01-08T16:54:10.182+00:002016-01-08T16:54:10.182+00:00Hi Simon,
I like this blog for many reasons, but ...Hi Simon,<br /><br />I like this blog for many reasons, but one is its relatively plain speaking. "Nuclear deterrent" is a euphemism, albeit one that pretty much the entire press repeats. Trident is the name for Britain's nuclear weapons. They can be used as a deterrent, but they don't have to be. To see how odd it looks to use the phrase "nuclear deterrent", imagine that reports on other countries used the phrase - " China's nuclear deterrent " or "Pakistan's nuclear deterrent," or even "North Korea's nuclear deterrent".<br /><br />Much better to just call them weapons, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com