Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

You know what? I don't like politicians doing daft photoshoots. Just let them get on with being boring. I'd much rather the country is run by dull steady Eddies (well, not those Eddies...) than media savvy, photo ready twerps.

Edited June 27, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[markavfc40]

"...and so if you cut spending when the private sector is flat, it can only result in a decline in overall economic activity, or a fall in aggregate income Y, as in this graph.  That in turn causes reduced government income and increased government expenditure, which you then try to cut again.  Do you see, George?"

 

 

 

 

I don't think they want the economy to grow.  Whilst the deficit is still high they can hide behind that to continue to make the ideological cuts they'd have wanted to make anyway.

 

Have to say I was 23 the last time the Tory Government was thrown out and not long after brought my first house and we had our first child. With the responsibility that brings I started taking an interest in politics. I knew the Tories had a reputation for being a bunch of nasty c**ts who will look after the rich at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable in society and that they were anti public services that the poorest and most vulnerable rely heaviest on but they are arguably much bigger c**ts than I'd envisaged. It is now easy to see why it is over 20 year since they last won an overall majority and why it will be at least that until they do so again.

Edited June 27, 2013 by markavfc40

[tonyh29]

You know what? I don't like politicians doing daft photoshoots. Just let them get on with being boring. I'd much rather the country is run by dull steady Eddies (well, not those Eddies...) than media savvy, photo ready twerps.

 

 

I suspect 99.9% of the country have no interest in politics and the policies  ... their X will go where it's always gone because Dad used to rant against Thatcher at the dinner table , or it will go with that bloke who made them laugh the other week on the TV

 

so MP's have become media whores in a bid to win votes from a public who vote on X factor , Big brother and so forth  ..

[tonyh29]

 

"...and so if you cut spending when the private sector is flat, it can only result in a decline in overall economic activity, or a fall in aggregate income Y, as in this graph.  That in turn causes reduced government income and increased government expenditure, which you then try to cut again.  Do you see, George?"

 

 

 

 who will look after the rich at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable in society

 

New Labour say "Hi "

[AVFCforever1991]

 

You know what? I don't like politicians doing daft photoshoots. Just let them get on with being boring. I'd much rather the country is run by dull steady Eddies (well, not those Eddies...) than media savvy, photo ready twerps.

 

 

I suspect 99.9% of the country have no interest in politics and the policies  ... their X will go where it's always gone because Dad used to rant against Thatcher at the dinner table , or it will go with that bloke who made them laugh the other week on the TV

 

so MP's have become media whores in a bid to win votes from a public who vote on X factor , Big brother and so forth  ..

 

 

That's why is why Farage is appealing I imagine, because he's very charismatic..

Edited June 27, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[colhint]

 

I don't think thats the best argument against having one. If I understand correctly you think it will be flawed based on the authors support. Well aren't all government statistics like that? Surely its better than having to rely on either the Mail or Guardian for our information

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

 

 

Sorry, could you explain it please.

[Risso]

 

Surely the two of you can manage a more intelligent response than that, can't you?

 

The main argument for membership advanced by pro EU people is the associated trade benefits of the single market. That claim would therefore be tested by a thorough cost benefit analysis. If the intention of membership is instead overtly political i.e. towards a United States of Europe, then that has never been voted on (previous General Elections don't count as apparent benefit of UK membership is invariably advanced in primarily economic terms).

 

If as you seem to suggest the economic argument is 'so 20 years ago' then what is the argument for membership?

Trouble is any cost benefit analysis will be flawed and biased in favour of whichever argument the analyser wishes to support. Unless someone has a set of 100% guarantee crystal balls. The whole idea that CBA can prove anything is silly. The argument is always going to be a philosophical and ideological one not a financial one

 

 

Sorry Bicks I think that's nonsense.  Of course there are financial implications, it's why there have been arguments about subsidies, the CAP, rebates and so on since the common market was established. 

[tonyh29]

 

 

Surely the two of you can manage a more intelligent response than that, can't you?

 

The main argument for membership advanced by pro EU people is the associated trade benefits of the single market. That claim would therefore be tested by a thorough cost benefit analysis. If the intention of membership is instead overtly political i.e. towards a United States of Europe, then that has never been voted on (previous General Elections don't count as apparent benefit of UK membership is invariably advanced in primarily economic terms).

 

If as you seem to suggest the economic argument is 'so 20 years ago' then what is the argument for membership?

Trouble is any cost benefit analysis will be flawed and biased in favour of whichever argument the analyser wishes to support. Unless someone has a set of 100% guarantee crystal balls. The whole idea that CBA can prove anything is silly. The argument is always going to be a philosophical and ideological one not a financial one

 

 

Sorry Bicks I think that's nonsense.  Of course there are financial implications, it's why there have been arguments about subsidies, the CAP, rebates and so on since the common market was established. 

 

agreed

 

and also why the "In " mob always say , opting out would mean 100000000000 people lose their jobs as a result of lost trade  when the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us 

[Risso]

Yes, Germany will refuse to sell us any more cars made by BMW, Audi and Mercedes.  That'll learn us..

[snowychap]

...when the EU suddenly refuses to do any business with us

Do many people say that?

Or do people say that leaving the EU (and having to negotiate other trade agreements or rejoin EFTA) would have some effect upon trade (I'll grant that some/most of those 'ins' believe it's would be a negative effect)?

...Germany will refuse to sell us any more cars made by BMW, Audi and Mercedes

Our balance of trade figures may not imply that we do much more than import their motors but I'd guess it's a little more diverse than that.

Edited June 27, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

Isn't that what Awol was suggesting all along ? A cost benefit analysis

[Demitri_C]

i have seen some stupid stuff written but the front page of that rag the sun today has to be the most ridiculous thing ive seen. so what if he is eating a poxy burger!

[Chindie]

A cost benefit analysis would also neglect the side effects of the EU's existence. While it was initially a trade union (and at heart effectively still is) financial benefit wasn't it's only aim (or depending on your viewpoint, it's only benefit). It also had the effect of preventing Europe trying to wipe itself out again by putting everyone in each others pockets, for example.

Looking at it solely in terms of numbers neglects everything else, and arguably actively actively attempts to skew things to a less useful, simplistic conclusion.

[snowychap]

Isn't that what Awol was suggesting all along ? A cost benefit analysis

To whom is that addressed?

[colhint]

No one in particular. Just an observation on the last few pages, where Awol suggested a CBA was useful, then a couple of pages of to and fro. I agree with your point, that everything is not a simple choice of in or out and the balance of trade can't just be measured in merc's. So some analysis of the pro's and cons might be needed

[peterms]

i have seen some stupid stuff written but the front page of that rag the sun today has to be the most ridiculous thing ive seen. so what if he is eating a poxy burger!

 

Well, the point is that he posted a carefully staged photo entirely aimed at getting across the message "I'm just an ordinary guy, like you" and then managed to undermine it completely through using a burger at a price that "ordinary guys" generally don't want to pay.  So he's underlined his wealth and remoteness, while attempting to do the exact opposite.  A bit like his handling of the economy, then.  Do something which has the entirely opposite set of consequences to what you imagined.

 

Mind you, the Today programme on R4 were clutching at straws suggesting he should have walked to the nearest McDonalds.  First, it's vile shite, which I wouldn't feed to a dog.  Second, it would be a remarkably poor use of the time of someone in his role.  As a cost-benefit analysis would show, in fact.

[peterms]

On second thoughts, if walking to McDonalds kept him away from arsing about with the economy for even a few minutes, then a cost-benefit analysis would show it was a resoundingly good thing to do.

[chrisp65]

A cost benefit analysis would also neglect the side effects of the EU's existence. While it was initially a trade union (and at heart effectively still is) financial benefit wasn't it's only aim (or depending on your viewpoint, it's only benefit). It also had the effect of preventing Europe trying to wipe itself out again by putting everyone in each others pockets, for example.

Looking at it solely in terms of numbers neglects everything else, and arguably actively actively attempts to skew things to a less useful, simplistic conclusion.

 

We can now spend the next generation all arguing over what should be 'in' any audit of worth of the EU and how you financially quantify Spain not going to war over Gibralta and Germany not annexing Greece.

[snowychap]

No one in particular. Just an observation on the last few pages, where Awol suggested a CBA was useful, then a couple of pages of to and fro. I agree with your point, that everything is not a simple choice of in or out and the balance of trade can't just be measured in merc's. So some analysis of the pro's and cons might be needed

Analysis by whom (R&R, the 'independent' OBR, UKIP, Deloittes, PwC, the TUC)?

And, even if the analysis were to be unpartisan and omnisciently accurate, it would be cherry-picked by each side of the debate to reinforce their belief in their own position.

 

Edit: I'm not sure that Jon only suggested the analysis would be useful but rather that the claim of trade benefits of the single market would be thoroughly tested. That's almost ceding the decision making to the people doing the analysis, isn't it? I'm not sure I'd care much for that considering how much of the analysis would have to accomodate future economic forecasts. We don't still have faith in them, do we?

Edited June 27, 2013 by snowychap

[colhint]

yes, but all we really have now is what the Mail on one side and the Guardian on the other report,