The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I don't know who invented the notion that democracies don't go to war with each other. It has not been tested outside the realms of the American security alliances, and there was a war between democracies in 1995:
In my opinion it's that Allies do not go to war with each other, the political system is irrelevant.
Allies derive from shared interests and to an extent, shared values; they cannot be forced. One of the strongest reasons that NATO is not what it was is that there is no need for it to be what it was.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I don't know about most, certainly some - nobody is responsible for every nutter who pretends to agree with you. Most would I think subscribe to the view which is financial orthodoxy that you don't need to pay off every penny if the debt is under control and you have more productive uses for money than paying off every penny, in the same way that you might choose to expand your business rather than pay off your mortgage. The relevant comparison is people (from McDonnell to the Economist) who argue that investment shouldn't necessarily be cut in the same breath as current spending.
Fanatical "we must pay every penny" policies in recent years have been limited to Ceaucescu, who indeed succeeded in paying off the national debt, but is not generally seen as an example of good government.Obviously another exception is Norway, but they sensibly decided they had so much dosh they might as well pay it off.
Incidentally @initforthemoney (hello, by the way, not sure we have crossed paths on here before) you sound very much like a fan of Mr Money Mustache. Has his fanclub crossed the Atlantic?
Not heard of that site before, but I was into that sort of thing when I was younger (coincidentally when I lived in the US). A key flaw in my strategy has been having lots of children though, although the latest one will come before Osborne's April 2017 deadline so it should run at a profit at least initially. Without the kids I'd probably be living in a one bedroom flat somewhere with a very low cost of living elsewhere in the EU at this point having made enough from gambling to forget about work. Then again my "interesting" CV seems good insurance against ever finding work anyway....
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
Let me explain.
Saving and borrowing are different sides of the same coin. When you borrow, you consume today, in return for work tomorrow. When you save, you work today in return for consumption tomorrow.
Any borrower needs someone on the other side: someone who is willing to defer consumption. And every saver needs a borrower: someone who wishes to consume today.
When we talk about debt forgiveness, we are talking about - one way or another - taking somebody's savings and getting rid of them. Of course, there are times when debt burdens (i.e. the amount of future work pledged) become too great, and then adjustments need to be made.
But the point that Yanis consistently seems to misunderstand is that he thinks that debt forgiveness is somehow "free". It's not. It comes at the expense of someone's savings.
In the case of the Eurozone crisis (and to a lesser extent the subprime mortgage crisis in the US), responsibility for the repayment of debt (i.e. the entity responsible for handing over of future work) moved from the borrower to the government (or set of governments through the IMF and the ECB). The future work is still delivered to the saver, but it is done so through the tax bills of the general population.
Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
I agree that Varoufakis has little clue of the real world, game theory was a cold war red herring, never to be implemented in the real world.
However I disagree with the notion that savers should be automatically treated as lenders or investors, if people thought that the money in their savings accounts was really used to fund dodgy lending and investments, they would have withdrawn their money.
Savers want to save their money, not lend it and invest it.
Try to explain to savers that their money is gone and they wont get it back, because they are investors and the investment has gone bad.
Has anyone considered that Cameron is now "demob-happy" as it used to be called, and is loosening his grip on the reins. Not that it was ever tight anyway.
Has anyone considered that Cameron is now "demob-happy" as it used to be called, and is loosening his grip on the reins. Not that it was ever tight anyway.
"Apres moi, le deluge."
It didn't look very happy, demob or otherwise, for most of this week...
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I don't know about most, certainly some - nobody is responsible for every nutter who pretends to agree with you. Most would I think subscribe to the view which is financial orthodoxy that you don't need to pay off every penny if the debt is under control and you have more productive uses for money than paying off every penny, in the same way that you might choose to expand your business rather than pay off your mortgage. The relevant comparison is people (from McDonnell to the Economist) who argue that investment shouldn't necessarily be cut in the same breath as current spending.
Fanatical "we must pay every penny" policies in recent years have been limited to Ceaucescu, who indeed succeeded in paying off the national debt, but is not generally seen as an example of good government.Obviously another exception is Norway, but they sensibly decided they had so much dosh they might as well pay it off.
How is debt ever under control? Unless you have locked in all the interest rates for many many years to come, you will always have uncertainty on the costs and likewise it will be uncertain that the income/tax coming in today is going to continue to come in at expected levels in the future. In the 2008 shocks, part of our tax base from finance simply dissappeared. We should have made a permanent cut in Govt costs at that time to adjust for it. The Irish did.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
Let me explain.
Saving and borrowing are different sides of the same coin. When you borrow, you consume today, in return for work tomorrow. When you save, you work today in return for consumption tomorrow.
Any borrower needs someone on the other side: someone who is willing to defer consumption. And every saver needs a borrower: someone who wishes to consume today.
When we talk about debt forgiveness, we are talking about - one way or another - taking somebody's savings and getting rid of them. Of course, there are times when debt burdens (i.e. the amount of future work pledged) become too great, and then adjustments need to be made.
But the point that Yanis consistently seems to misunderstand is that he thinks that debt forgiveness is somehow "free". It's not. It comes at the expense of someone's savings.
In the case of the Eurozone crisis (and to a lesser extent the subprime mortgage crisis in the US), responsibility for the repayment of debt (i.e. the entity responsible for handing over of future work) moved from the borrower to the government (or set of governments through the IMF and the ECB). The future work is still delivered to the saver, but it is done so through the tax bills of the general population.
Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
I agree that Varoufakis has little clue of the real world, game theory was a cold war red herring, never to be implemented in the real world.
However I disagree with the notion that savers should be automatically treated as lenders or investors, if people thought that the money in their savings accounts was really used to fund dodgy lending and investments, they would have withdrawn their money.
Savers want to save their money, not lend it and invest it.
Try to explain to savers that their money is gone and they wont get it back, because they are investors and the investment has gone bad.
But that's what saving is.
Saving is deferring the fruits of work. And to defer the fruits of work, you need someone to do work for you in the future.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
Liberal democracies do not go to war against each other. The risk is not that the absence of the EU would lead to conflict, it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
Does the EU help or hinder that process? A bit of both, to be quite honest. But its neither a necessary nor a sufficient thing to prevent war.
I don't know who invented the notion that democracies don't go to war with each other. It has not been tested outside the realms of the American security alliances, and there was a war between democracies in 1995:
In my opinion it's that Allies do not go to war with each other, the political system is irrelevant.
Allies derive from shared interests and to an extent, shared values; they cannot be forced. One of the strongest reasons that NATO is not what it was is that there is no need for it to be what it was.
True, without Communism as a threat, NATO is practically a looser organisation.
But the notion that Allies do not fight each other is strong enough within NATO and in east Asia to prevent a war between Greece and Turkey, and S.Korea and Japan.
The problem is that the alliances if too large will have a lot of internal tension between members and render it an alliance in name only.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
Let me explain.
Saving and borrowing are different sides of the same coin. When you borrow, you consume today, in return for work tomorrow. When you save, you work today in return for consumption tomorrow.
Any borrower needs someone on the other side: someone who is willing to defer consumption. And every saver needs a borrower: someone who wishes to consume today.
When we talk about debt forgiveness, we are talking about - one way or another - taking somebody's savings and getting rid of them. Of course, there are times when debt burdens (i.e. the amount of future work pledged) become too great, and then adjustments need to be made.
But the point that Yanis consistently seems to misunderstand is that he thinks that debt forgiveness is somehow "free". It's not. It comes at the expense of someone's savings.
In the case of the Eurozone crisis (and to a lesser extent the subprime mortgage crisis in the US), responsibility for the repayment of debt (i.e. the entity responsible for handing over of future work) moved from the borrower to the government (or set of governments through the IMF and the ECB). The future work is still delivered to the saver, but it is done so through the tax bills of the general population.
Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
I agree that Varoufakis has little clue of the real world, game theory was a cold war red herring, never to be implemented in the real world.
However I disagree with the notion that savers should be automatically treated as lenders or investors, if people thought that the money in their savings accounts was really used to fund dodgy lending and investments, they would have withdrawn their money.
Savers want to save their money, not lend it and invest it.
Try to explain to savers that their money is gone and they wont get it back, because they are investors and the investment has gone bad.
But that's what saving is.
Saving is deferring the fruits of work. And to defer the fruits of work, you need someone to do work for you in the future.
As I said try to explain this to a saver in the street, and without scaring him into running to the closest bank.
To 99% of the population, saving is saving, not investment or lending.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
Keynes work on economies being in equilibrium at sub-optimal levels was brilliant and correct.
Keynesianism demand management, as practiced by successive UK governments in the post-War period, was a disaster that stole the savings of the prudent as surely as a Greek default.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
My personal view - and it's one I've articulated on here before - is that both us and the EU would benefit from our exit.
I am, I admit, slightly unusual about Leave-ers in that I wish the EU well. For the Eurozone to survive, it needs to have Euro-bonds (as in bonds guaranteed severally and jointly by the entire bloc), it needs to have mechanisms for ensuring that risk sharing is agreed, and it needs to have democratic oversight of all this. All these things will happen easier if we are not in the EU.
We are, basically, a poor fit in every way except geography for the EU. Our history and culture is different. Our politics are different. Our legal system(s) is different.
We will never be happy members of the EU.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
Really, the EU should only really comprise those States that wish to forge a new country called Europe.
We are, basically, a poor fit in every way except geography for the EU. Our history and culture is different. Our politics are different. Our legal system(s) is different.
Why isn't the BBC Parliament Channel reshowing the 1992 Election night coverage.
Twenty years to the day that John Major became the country's most popular PM, a record that has never been bettered.
I had a look and see there is a lecture on 1976 and the IMF intervention. Will be watching that later.
The 1976 IMF intervention is one of two episodes of economic history that is sadly barely remembered, let alone understood.
The other one is that during the Great Depression in the US, the US dollar currency union came close to collapse, and people wouldn't accept US dollars from different parts of the country. (Essentially a New York dollar and a Lousiana dollar had different values.)
Philip Hammond has the unique ability to make Jezza (as dull as dishwater) Corbyn appear to be exhilarating and witty. Could you imagine the snoozefest- the debates, Jezza versus Hammond. Unbearable.
I really do think Corbyn's unique selling point during last years crazy summer- he was straight talking and all that- it lasts for a bit, but now he really does come across as insipid and just exceptionally boring and humourless. He really is grating.
You need to have some form of charisma, wit and charm to be any kind of leader in anything. Hammond and May have zilch. Hillary suffers too from being a bit boring- or corporate as Nick Palmer wisely said yesterday.
Gove for me is the one to watch, but I would still be amazed if Boris doesn't get it.
How is debt ever under control? Unless you have locked in all the interest rates for many many years to come, you will always have uncertainty on the costs and likewise it will be uncertain that the income/tax coming in today is going to continue to come in at expected levels in the future. In the 2008 shocks, part of our tax base from finance simply dissappeared. We should have made a permanent cut in Govt costs at that time to adjust for it. The Irish did.
I'm not sure if you're arguing for sensible control of national debt under best available assessments (which I agree with, but which do remain vulnerable to the assessments being wrong, as you say), or for abolition of the national debt. The Irish did the former. The latter is IMO neither realistic nor sensible.
The problem I have with Yanis is that he seems to truly not understand what debt is.
...
Yes, I agree - it's why ultimately he split from the Syriza government, who when push came to shove accepted that, and it's why I said that I'm not normally a fan.
But at a human level his story is very evocative and his outlook is understandable. And I think his point about breaking up the EU is worth a little consideration. I don't think that Britain's withdrawal would in fact lead to that. But if it did, I for one would feel less secure. The idea of conflict in Western Europe - real lizard stuff - has become inconceivable because we're so used to working together on a daily basis. If we were 28 rival countries with no organic links...I'm not quite so sure.
My personal view - and it's one I've articulated on here before - is that both us and the EU would benefit from our exit.
I am, I admit, slightly unusual about Leave-ers in that I wish the EU well. For the Eurozone to survive, it needs to have Euro-bonds (as in bonds guaranteed severally and jointly by the entire bloc), it needs to have mechanisms for ensuring that risk sharing is agreed, and it needs to have democratic oversight of all this. All these things will happen easier if we are not in the EU.
We are, basically, a poor fit in every way except geography for the EU. Our history and culture is different. Our politics are different. Our legal system(s) is different.
We will never be happy members of the EU.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
Really, the EU should only really comprise those States that wish to forge a new country called Europe.
Those states are easy to find, they comprised the 16th century Habsburg Empire.
It's the final nail in Labour's coffin in Edinburgh. while they were already outside bets to actually win any of the three and four way constituencies, this is a stark reminder of the mess Labour created with practically every area of public spending but particular their ridiculous PFI deals.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
I've just thrown 20 quid each way on Aachen. Pulps pointed his way the other day.
I've got Dustin Johnson for the masters at 60's with 50 notes- worth waiting until until the last round when he usually blows it. I cannot believe though just how good Speith actually is though. He has all the traits to become the greatest of the greatest and to dominate golf for 20 years or so.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
It is better for us and for them that we simply go our separate ways, and that we wish them well with their project.
I dont think you are unique in that, I would agree with almost all of that, but the extent to which there is a perception that the EU is actively conspiring to stop that happen, it gets people's backs up and makes them feel that the EU is sufficiently self-obsessed that it is not acting in its own best interests or that of our country, the former is their business, the later can be taken personally by a lot of people.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
I believe that is where a constitution and a supreme court is warranted.
Although a constitution can still be overridden by supermajorities in the legislature, a strong constitution and supreme court like in the USA can be in force for centuries without being overridden.
On illegitimacy, what's the ruling if, say, you were conceived when your parents were married, but they had divorced before your birth? Or divorced, and later had a liaison which conceived you?
Come to that, I don't actually know a lot of the rules on this issue - I assume it's based off when you are born, not conceived, hence quickfire weddings - and I seem to recall the Church in ancient ages past getting a lot of nobles annoyed by declaring certain levels of distant cousinship marriages and the births thereof as illegitimate.
Given that the archbishop has no reason to be upset, so he says, I therefore appreciate this story making a break from the rather less fun stories otherwise out there.
A child is legitimate if the parents were married at the time of conception or at any time thereafter, including after the birth of the child. This has changed a little over the years. Originally the parents had to be married at the time of conception or the time of birth, so children conceived before divorce but born afterwards were legitimate. From 1926 an illegitimate child became legitimate if the parents married after the birth provided neither of them had been married to someone else at the time of birth - being married to someone else at the time of conception did not make the child illegitimate. From 1959 an illegitimate child became legitimate if the parents married after the birth even if one of them had been married to someone else at the time of birth. The 1959 Act also extended legitimacy to those children whose parents believed they were married even though the marriage was in fact void.
Nick Palmer - out of interest- what percentage of MP's genuinely believe that they have the skills and ability to lead their parties? And do you think this varies between parties- i.e. with the Tories do more MP's think they have what it takes?
And what percentage of MP's genuinely have the skills and ability to lead their parties?
Kind of three questions in one, but I'd be interested to know just how ambitious, narcissistic, or delusional MP's actually are.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
In the circumstances 1.44 on Betfair for SLab most seats without SNP seems reasonable value, though one can never legislate against their talent for ****ing up, or events e.g. the PFI balls up.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Total LD seats in Scotland I'd reckon at 1-3; any thoughts?
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
In the circumstances 1.44 on Betfair for SLab most seats without SNP seems reasonable value, though one can never legislate against their talent for ****ing up, or events e.g. the PFI balls up.
TUD, yes, crap as they are it is hard to see them not being a distant second.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
That is a good explanation for the internal political developments of Labour.
However there was a genuine moment in the population after the 2008 crash against overspending and borrowing, suddenly conceptions like midnight shopping and consumer loans became morally reprehensible for a few years. That was also reflected on the acceptance of government austerity by the public at the time.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Total LD seats in Scotland I'd reckon at 1-3; any thoughts?
They are certainly very dire , Carmichel's lying has really put the tin hat on their reputation, could well get that low
On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Total LD seats in Scotland I'd reckon at 1-3; any thoughts?
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Total LD seats in Scotland I'd reckon at 1-3; any thoughts?
After the LD Pig incident yesterday I agree.
Rennie is a real plonker for sure, an annoying wee man.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
Unless they wish to follow Labour , you would hope so. Not much talent popping up though.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
That would be a risk. Is there someone really that young that can unify the Tories after a bitterly divisive referendum and be popular enough with the public ?
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
Yes, but to be fair to Ed Balls, he did initially argue against it. At some point he was 'persuaded' to change. I doubt many PBers would agree but his absence from Parliament is a pretty big loss as far as level of economic debate goes.
It's really tricky, we're in need of an old pope, not a new priest right now - but we can't have another leadership election either.
So I'm hoping for a well respected safe pair of hands to support a la Willie Whitelaw someone with a bit of sparkle. I need to have a look at the younger intake.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
The problem was deficit. If Brown had funded his spending from taxation then there would be a different story, as indeed if a govt now sorted the deficit by taxation rather than austerity.
The problem is that people do not want to pay for things, they want others to pay the bill.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
The problem was deficit. If Brown had funded his spending from taxation then there would be a different story, as indeed if a govt now sorted the deficit by taxation rather than austerity.
The problem is that people do not want to pay for things, they want others to pay the bill.
The old issue, the British want Scandinavian levels of public welfare and US levels of taxation.
It's really tricky, we're in need of an old pope, not a new priest right now - but we can't have another leadership election either.
So I'm hoping for a well respected safe pair of hands to support a la Willie Whitelaw someone with a bit of sparkle. I need to have a look at the younger intake.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
I have doubts about the trend to younger people being given top jobs in politics. The inexperience and lack of wisdom is all too apparent. Personally I'm more at ease with a PM in his/her 60s than 40s
Labour was spending what it could afford- national debt was low and manageable (40% or so) and public spending as GDP was early 40's- for a European social, democratic country the public finances were in a pretty healthy shape. Even Osborne and Cameron committed themselves to the same.
And then came the banking crisis and the floor fell out. And the UK was heavily exposed to the financial sector.
And very cleverly the Tories and their cheerleaders managed to turn the whole debate skilfully onto Labour profligacy which pervades to this day rather than what is was which was a banking and financial crisis that whacked a huge chunk out of the public finances.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
As you know I am a bit biased
I was thinking more in terms of how it would affect English/Welsh voters.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
As you know I am a bit biased
I was thinking more in terms of how it would affect English/Welsh voters.
I doubt many will consider Scotland and independence in their thoughts on EU vote. Will be down to money and immigration.
On Grand National day, it would be great to have the benefit of Peter_the_Punter's wise words on the big race, but sadly he's still not around, having been absent during the Cheltenham Festival. Was he perchance at the PB drinks party in the City earlier this week?
No, he didn't turn up last night. Haven't seen him in over a year. Hope he is well.
Why isn't the BBC Parliament Channel reshowing the 1992 Election night coverage.
Twenty years to the day that John Major became the country's most popular PM, a record that has never been bettered.
That was a devastating night - I remember watching it with a group of uni friends ready to pop the bubbly then Basildon happened - 2015 was bad but 1992 is still the the Daddy of election night nightmares...
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
That is a good explanation for the internal political developments of Labour.
However there was a genuine moment in the population after the 2008 crash against overspending and borrowing, suddenly conceptions like midnight shopping and consumer loans became morally reprehensible for a few years. That was also reflected on the acceptance of government austerity by the public at the time.
Interesting points which nail down how opinion evolved, something which it's very hard to do, especially years later (e.g. I'm not sure that any of us fully understand what it was like to live in the era of prewar hyperinflation and depression in Germany).
Labour was spending what it could afford- national debt was low and manageable (40% or so) and public spending as GDP was early 40's- for a European social, democratic country the public finances were in a pretty healthy shape. Even Osborne and Cameron committed themselves to the same.
And then came the banking crisis and the floor fell out. And the UK was heavily exposed to the financial sector.
And very cleverly the Tories and their cheerleaders managed to turn the whole debate skilfully onto Labour profligacy which pervades to this day rather than what is was which was a banking and financial crisis that whacked a huge chunk out of the public finances.
Debt was low and manageable because debt had been well-managed previously. For instance when the previous recession hit under the Tories the government was running a surplus which allowed reasonable deficit spending during the recession.
Instead when this recession hit the deficit was already maxed out meaning that it blew out of all control when inevitably the finances worsened due to the recession.
It was idiocy of the highest order and for you to still not recognise anything was wrong just shows that lessons haven't been learnt and your type will repeat the mistakes all over again.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
We shouldn't need an ECHR we should write it into the nation's constitution or bill of rights. And make constitutions changeable only through a significant majority. The problem with off-shore bodies that they try to make universal declarations which don't leave wriggle room for national democracies and upset people who will ask that all HR issues be abolished.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
I now regret not becoming a Tory MP in 2005
Really? Were you actually offered a winnable seat in 2005 .... from scratch so to speak? They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
it is that democracies might fall to authoritarian governments and that the principles of liberal tolerance and free speech would be subverted with the active encouragement of a large part of the population.
One of the key points about democracy surely is that the people must be free to elect what would be seen by some as stupid choices for their government, which could include the hard-left or the authoritarian right, or indeed a populist like Trump, so long as they learn from their dalliance, and so long as there is a democratic route back to saner parties, that is democracy acting as it should. As soon as people start to decide which politicians and views are "worthy" of forming a government, you are on a slippery slope.
Of course.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
Exactly. Some principles of democracy, such as universal adult suffrage and the holding of free elections, should not be subject to override by government, even democratically-elected government. That's why we need the ECHR or another court able to override an elected government that goes (or even if authorised by popular vote to go) mad.
Nick please explain which other Anglo-Saxon democracies are subject to the ECHR and if they're not why don't they need to be?
Is America subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is Canada subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is Australia subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be? Is New Zealand subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
America has a different tradition to us. But why are we so very different in your eyes to Canada, Australia or New Zealand all of whom have very similar Westminster Parliament based democracies?
EDIT: Besides we have a court that can override even democratically-elected governments. It's now called the Supreme Court.
All this revision of history- Labour was hardly overspending- what 40% of GDP. Hardly breaking the book. It is just that receipts catastrophically collapsed after the banking crisis, bank bailouts etc...
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
@NickPalmer ..... Anyway: this is all by-the-by. Nevertheless, I feel that Yanis - as a professional economic, albeit one who is the game theory space - should know and understand this. His writings suggest he is woefully ignorant of the nature of debt, and it makes it very hard for me to take him seriously.
Is it not the problem of most folk who say they are followers of Keynes, ignore the need to pay back debt at some time rather than never?
I think that's a fair assessment.
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
As I understand Keynes argued for government spending (via debt) during periods when the aggregate level of demand was low (i.e. recessions/depressions), not all the time.
A critical issue is the austerity argument. It was not necessary for us in 2010 but its promotion tapped into the public's reaction against the excess spending over the preceding Lab years.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
Revision of history LOL
When the socialists finally come to terms that their party, the Labour Party, despite numerous warnings from many, the EU, the IMF even the bloody Tories yet still ploughed on and created the scenario allowing this to happen. When Labour accept responsibility, apologise then they just might start winning some seats. Until then ........no. It's always someone else's fault when Labour feck up the economy yet again.
On topic, whoever takes over from Cameron is the leader the Party is putting forward for the 2020's. That person is not Hammond. Nor do I really see it as being May.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
I now regret not becoming a Tory MP in 2005
Really? Were you actually offered a winnable seat in 2005 .... from scratch so to speak? They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
(I previously replied to the wrong post - i.e. to Tyson instead of to TSE.
That is partly right Fox. Brown's biggest mistake was believing his own hubris of no more boom and bust and thinking that the country could just carrying on milking the cash cows- the financial sector, and the housing and personal debt boom that was powering economic growth whilst keeping taxes low. Win win- we could improve public services, and keep public debt and personal taxation low- this largely happened until the banking crash.
In hindsight Labour should have taxed a little more and spent a little less and then it could have absorbed the banking crisis better. That said, it would have been worse if the Tories had been in power. They would undoubtedly have used the boom years to reduce taxes further making our public services even more reliant on the income provided from the financial sector and household debt.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
The problem was deficit. If Brown had funded his spending from taxation then there would be a different story, as indeed if a govt now sorted the deficit by taxation rather than austerity.
The problem is that people do not want to pay for things, they want others to pay the bill.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You think if England votes to leave and the Scots vote to stay then Scotland would demand another referendum and vote to leave the UK? Even though that none of the very real issues that were around last time (e.g. currency) have been resolved? As an Englishman I can see very few downsides to such an event, but I very much doubt it will happen.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?
Labour was spending what it could afford- national debt was low and manageable (40% or so) and public spending as GDP was early 40's- for a European social, democratic country the public finances were in a pretty healthy shape. Even Osborne and Cameron committed themselves to the same.
And then came the banking crisis and the floor fell out. And the UK was heavily exposed to the financial sector.
And very cleverly the Tories and their cheerleaders managed to turn the whole debate skilfully onto Labour profligacy which pervades to this day rather than what is was which was a banking and financial crisis that whacked a huge chunk out of the public finances.
Since it was Brown (and his advisors Balls and Miliband) who left the public finances dependent on the financial sector and (because of their hubris in believing they had abolished the economic cycle) exposed to external financial shocks, that seems only fair.
For what it is worth , and back these at your own risk, my National horses.
1 Silviniaco Conti
2 Holywell
3 The Last Samuri
4 Many Clouds
I have backed about half the field, but none of those
Gallant Oscar
First Lieutenant
Sir Des Champs
Ballynagour
Onenightinvienna
Surely between us we must have the winner
One of you will LEAVE happy, whilst the other will REMAIN unfulfilled.
LOL
Any tips for the Holyrood elections?
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
Fox, I cannot see there being much value this year unless there is a market on how many list seats the parties get. I expect Labour to be also rans but still get 20-25 list seats. Tories I hope very few but likely to be 13-18. Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit. Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
Sounds pretty much as I expected . I got reasonable odds on Tories second place last year but haven't dabbled since.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
I have not seen much activity re the EU referendum, will only be big if England votes LEAVE. That would really put the cat among the pigeons with the SNP just re-elected with a majority and Scotland almost certain to have voted REMAIN. Would make for interesting times.
I think so too.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
iScot is going to be a tougher sell after Brexit, though. Assuming that Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU (and it would be difficult to arrange sooner) could Scotland then (re)join the EU without joining Schengen? If not, that gives independent Scotland a major headache as HMG (and quite possibly the Irish government too) would surely see participation in Schengen as incompatible with participation in the CTS.
I agree that iScot unfortunately will be a near impossible sell in an era with a sub $80 price of an oil barrel.
Comments
(I think Keynesianism tends to lead to erosion of the purchasing power of the currency. Which is, of course, just mass default by another name.)
Fanatical "we must pay every penny" policies in recent years have been limited to Ceaucescu, who indeed succeeded in paying off the national debt, but is not generally seen as an example of good government.Obviously another exception is Norway, but they sensibly decided they had so much dosh they might as well pay it off.
Why isn't the BBC Parliament Channel reshowing the 1992 Election night coverage.
Twenty years to the day that John Major became the country's most popular PM, a record that has never been bettered.
But what if the authoritarian government - democratically elected - decides to strip women or Jews of the vote?
However I disagree with the notion that savers should be automatically treated as lenders or investors, if people thought that the money in their savings accounts was really used to fund dodgy lending and investments, they would have withdrawn their money.
Savers want to save their money, not lend it and invest it.
Try to explain to savers that their money is gone and they wont get it back, because they are investors and the investment has gone bad.
"Apres moi, le deluge."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-36001065
Mr. Mark, what's the land grab aspect?
Holywell
Druids Nephew
Saint Are
On PP ew goes to 5 places so I went ew.
I know nothing about horses, but my secretary is keen on point to point and follows these things, so I took her tips.
Going to be fascinating to see if there is any correlation between this map and turnout...
Saving is deferring the fruits of work. And to defer the fruits of work, you need someone to do work for you in the future.
But the notion that Allies do not fight each other is strong enough within NATO and in east Asia to prevent a war between Greece and Turkey, and S.Korea and Japan.
The problem is that the alliances if too large will have a lot of internal tension between members and render it an alliance in name only.
To 99% of the population, saving is saving, not investment or lending.
Keynesianism demand management, as practiced by successive UK governments in the post-War period, was a disaster that stole the savings of the prudent as surely as a Greek default.
I cannot see much value out there, and with Brexit as the bull in the political china shop down here, very little news of Scotland.
The other one is that during the Great Depression in the US, the US dollar currency union came close to collapse, and people wouldn't accept US dollars from different parts of the country. (Essentially a New York dollar and a Lousiana dollar had different values.)
I really do think Corbyn's unique selling point during last years crazy summer- he was straight talking and all that- it lasts for a bit, but now he really does come across as insipid and just exceptionally boring and humourless. He really is grating.
You need to have some form of charisma, wit and charm to be any kind of leader in anything. Hammond and May have zilch. Hillary suffers too from being a bit boring- or corporate as Nick Palmer wisely said yesterday.
Gove for me is the one to watch, but I would still be amazed if Boris doesn't get it.
Always looking for the next Mon Mome.
I've got Dustin Johnson for the masters at 60's with 50 notes- worth waiting until until the last round when he usually blows it. I cannot believe though just how good Speith actually is though. He has all the traits to become the greatest of the greatest and to dominate golf for 20 years or so.
Lib Dems are toast. Greens may do well as they are seen as left wing and for Yes so given SNP are sure to win , they are most likely to pick up votes for people who want someone to keep SNP in check a bit.
Tories and Labour are both running pathetic campaigns.
And of course Lab, as culpable overspenders, felt they couldn't argue against it, thus depriving the UK from a real choice of approach.
So we had EdM in his no-win debate and then nothing except Tory-lite from the leadership contenders and hence, eventually, Jezza.
Although a constitution can still be overridden by supermajorities in the legislature, a strong constitution and supreme court like in the USA can be in force for centuries without being overridden.
- out of interest- what percentage of MP's genuinely believe that they have the skills and ability to lead their parties? And do you think this varies between parties- i.e. with the Tories do more MP's think they have what it takes?
And what percentage of MP's genuinely have the skills and ability to lead their parties?
Kind of three questions in one, but I'd be interested to know just how ambitious, narcissistic, or delusional MP's actually are.
2. For proper big odds but capable of doing well First Lieutenant
3. Sir Des Champs
There is an interesting runner in the 3.00 Alisier D'Irlande. Its up against Cheltenham Arkle winner Douvan hence the stupid odds.
However there was a genuine moment in the population after the 2008 crash against overspending and borrowing, suddenly conceptions like midnight shopping and consumer loans became morally reprehensible for a few years.
That was also reflected on the acceptance of government austerity by the public at the time.
2008 the UK was simply spending as a two person employed household- but suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, one got the sack.
After the election, will there be a big Brexit Remain campaign up there with indyref 2 if Scotland does not get its way?
Would make for interesting times.
I expect it to be somebody in their early 40's.
Is there someone really that young that can unify the Tories after a bitterly divisive referendum and be popular enough with the public ?
I have no idea what I'm doing though :-)
He is the most hated man in the world, but he sells:
https://twitter.com/sunriseon7/status/718726907307499520
So I'm hoping for a well respected safe pair of hands to support a la Willie Whitelaw someone with a bit of sparkle. I need to have a look at the younger intake.
I think it very likely that Brexit would break up the UK. How that affects the Leave/Remain vote in England, I am not sure. Some would be happy and others unhappy to end the UK.
You shouldn't have regrets TSE. Life is too short and then it's over. Enjoy the Muse tonight- I'm sure you'll have a great night.
The problem is that people do not want to pay for things, they want others to pay the bill.
And then came the banking crisis and the floor fell out. And the UK was heavily exposed to the financial sector.
And very cleverly the Tories and their cheerleaders managed to turn the whole debate skilfully onto Labour profligacy which pervades to this day rather than what is was which was a banking and financial crisis that whacked a huge chunk out of the public finances.
Instead when this recession hit the deficit was already maxed out meaning that it blew out of all control when inevitably the finances worsened due to the recession.
It was idiocy of the highest order and for you to still not recognise anything was wrong just shows that lessons haven't been learnt and your type will repeat the mistakes all over again.
They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
Is America subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
Is Canada subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
Is Australia subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
Is New Zealand subject to the ECHR? Does it need to be?
America has a different tradition to us. But why are we so very different in your eyes to Canada, Australia or New Zealand all of whom have very similar Westminster Parliament based democracies?
EDIT: Besides we have a court that can override even democratically-elected governments. It's now called the Supreme Court.
When the socialists finally come to terms that their party, the Labour Party, despite numerous warnings from many, the EU, the IMF even the bloody Tories yet still ploughed on and created the scenario allowing this to happen. When Labour accept responsibility, apologise then they just might start winning some seats. Until then ........no. It's always someone else's fault when Labour feck up the economy yet again.
We won't mention PFI.
They must indeed have identified you as a William Hague Mk II and no mistake!
(I previously replied to the wrong post - i.e. to Tyson instead of to TSE.
In hindsight Labour should have taxed a little more and spent a little less and then it could have absorbed the banking crisis better. That said, it would have been worse if the Tories had been in power. They would undoubtedly have used the boom years to reduce taxes further making our public services even more reliant on the income provided from the financial sector and household debt.
The expansion of the state under GB was frightening. No one on the Lab side would dispute that GB spent too much.
The problem was deficit. If Brown had funded his spending from taxation then there would be a different story, as indeed if a govt now sorted the deficit by taxation rather than austerity.
The problem is that people do not want to pay for things, they want others to pay the bill.
To enter the realms of fantasy for a moment, if there were to be a real break-up of the UK then Wales and Northern Ireland would have to declare independence too (though the latter could vote to join the Republic, but I doubt they would be welcome there). Can you honestly see that happening?