I grew up in Denmark and have been back many times - we all see what we want, perhaps, but I'd call it classic social democratic high taxes, high social care and benefits, but almost exclusively private enterprise. Tony Blair likes it, I'd think, and Gorbachev said that on reflection their version of socialism was better than what the Soviets did.
When I lived there I was further left, still am. But the basic insight that people will pay higher tax for good services is important.
Yep, the Danes - like all the Nordics - seem to accept that redistribution of wealth works. They also have a strong entrepreneurial culture. My kind of place!
It is the land of Janteloven. Don't stand out, don't be different, do as your told and don't dare try to be exceptional. Not my kind of world though I fully accept some like it. .
Yep. A Year of Living Danishly was very revealing. For example, you can't fly the flag of a foreign nation. What a bloody bizarre infringement on freedom.
It is when May calls the Tories and the Conservatives 'sister parties', and holds Trump's hand.
Like Blair cosying up to George W Bush, perhaps? Your understanding seems a bit selective.
Your reading seems a bit selective.
I literally criticised Labour for that very thing yesterday on here. I certainly thought the party betrayed its principles of social democracy when it cosied up to Bush and the GOP.
So all you are saying is that you don't like the Republican Party. That's fair enough, but it's got nothing much to do with UK politics, where both main parties cosy up to whichever party is in power in the US - and quite right too, they are a democracy, the most powerful nation on earth, and our principal ally, of course we want to work with them. Do you really think that if Hillary was president that Theresa May wouldn't have cosied up to her?
Admittedly Blair's cosying to Bush up was a cosy too far, but somehow you STILL manage to think that the Conservatives are somehow tainted by association, but Labour aren't.
You appear to have misread my post.
I do think Labour were tainted by association. That was the point I was trying to make in my reply to you.
Not all leaders cosy up to US Presidents to the extent Blair and May have. Cameron definitely didn't do what Blair did, and I don't he'd have been as keen to cuddle up with Trump as May has been.
@glw The Cameron/Obama relationship was quite different Blair/Bush one and the May/Trump one. Of course there's always the special relationship rhetoric, but there are levels of cosying up, and it can (and has) gone too far.
I wonder what deficit Scandinavian countries typically run, and what deficit McDonnell was proposing to run?
Denmark: budget surpluses of 5% before the financial crash, back to approx zero now. Sweden: about 3% surplus pre-crash, and back in surplus now. Norway: permanently in surplus, although not as silly as it used to be (was almost +20% at one point)
Quite a bit different from our -3% for multiple years at the height of a bubble. Unsurprisingly, we've had more trouble returning to fiscal sanity.
Because they tax more than us. Simple.
Indeed. And they don't pretend that 'the rich' and 'big business' can finance all that spending, without ordinary people paying more.
If that was Labour's position, we could have a sensible political debate in this country about what we want to raise in tax and what we want to spend it on. That would also encourage much more focus on getting value for taxpayers' money. If someone else, or no-one, is paying, who cares about value for money?
I wonder what deficit Scandinavian countries typically run, and what deficit McDonnell was proposing to run?
Denmark: budget surpluses of 5% before the financial crash, back to approx zero now. Sweden: about 3% surplus pre-crash, and back in surplus now. Norway: permanently in surplus, although not as silly as it used to be (was almost +20% at one point)
Quite a bit different from our -3% for multiple years at the height of a bubble. Unsurprisingly, we've had more trouble returning to fiscal sanity.
Because they tax more than us. Simple.
You were just a few minutes ago advocating never getting rid of a deficit. You realise that means our national debt will forever rise. Which means the interest payments share of our tax take will continue to rise, too...
Unless the economy grows, that is, The deficit hawks always discount that, though probably not because their policies would make growth harder to achieve. Leaving aside the economics and simple arithmetic to consider the politics, Labour has run more surpluses and the Conservatives more deficits over the past several decades. And if the Tories ever did get close to a surplus, they'd face calls from their own supporters for tax cuts, not budget surpluses.
Not all leaders cosy up to US Presidents to the extent Blair and May have. Cameron definitely didn't do what Blair did, and I don't he'd have been as keen to cuddle up with Trump as May has been.
What's this cuddling whereof you speak? Are we helping him build a wall, or encouraging him to dismantle ObamaCare, or interfering in US race relations, or on abortion, or working with him to dismantle the deal with Iran?
Theresa May visited the US president and didn't insult him, that is all. I understand you're probably not President Trump's greatest fan. Nor am I. Nor, for that matter, is Theresa May, I'm pretty sure. But he is the democratically-elected President of the US, and was the candidate of one of the two great political parties of the US.
I must say though, I am envious of the young lads who idolise Jez. Until the age of about 30 I would have been lapping this bullshit up with gusto. Imagine the birds they must pull!
I must say though, I am envious of the young lads who idolise Jez. Until the age of about 30 I would have been lapping this bullshit up with gusto. Imagine the birds they must pull!
Not all leaders cosy up to US Presidents to the extent Blair and May have. Cameron definitely didn't do what Blair did, and I don't he'd have been as keen to cuddle up with Trump as May has been.
What's this cuddling whereof you speak? Are we helping him build a wall, or encouraging him to dismantle ObamaCare, or interfering in US race relations, or on abortion, or working with him to dismantle the deal with Iran?
Theresa May visited the US president and didn't insult him, that is all. I understand you're probably not President Trump's greatest fan. Nor am I. Nor, for that matter, is Theresa May, I'm pretty sure. But he is the democratically-elected President of the US, and was the candidate of one of the two great political parties of the US.
I'm not expecting her to insult him. Re cuddling: that state-invite for a start.
Is there some new protocol which dictates that it's OK to invite Ceaușescu or Putin but not the President of the US? If so, when did the Guardian create this new rule?
I don't always bring up Republicans - I've mostly talked about Corbyn and May on here for the last couple of months. I mentioned them a few times in the last couple of days, main reason is that on my Twitter timeline I've been seeing American reactions to our GE over the past couple of weeks and some misguided American Conservative takes on our situation.
Very few Americans understand UK politics, because it simply isn't that interesting or meaningful to them as their politics is for us. For us it would be like the politics of Australia, we'd think we can understand it because of a common language and a lot of shared culture but in reality we pay no attention to what is going on politically in Australia, and when we talk about it we get a lot wrong.
That's an interesting observation, and I think largely true. Politically sophisticated types like most here are probably an exception. FWIW though, in rsponse to Richard N, my Democrat friends tell me that they are thrilled by Corbyn and see Britain as leading the way for the US next time round. I've never met a Democrat (and I know dozens) who liked what they heard of the Conservative Party, though I agree that when in power they have traditionally been well to the right of Corbyn. But you could say that of Labour too, couldn't you?
A lot of pragmatic leftists simply want to be as left-wing as they think electorally feasible. Clinton was a good example, and so are much of the PLP. It wasn't that they objected to Corbyn or his policies so much as they feared the impact on electability. If Labour continues to prosper in polls, we shan't hear much of the rebels; if not, we will.
One thing that liberalism has got right is loose labour restrictions. I can't stand all this mandating employers to do things like paternal leave, high minimum wage etc. Create a system that allows for strong growth and the market will provide employers that have to compete for the best workers.
Except if you have a bizarre free movement policy that draws in millions from Europe to stifle wage inflation....
I'm a pro immigration person, because I value the freedom of other people, including people who where not lucky enough to be born in a nation as free as this.
But I can not argue with or disagree with your last point.
The argument against it is that when actual economists get actual data and find out what happens to wages when people migrate to a country, they variously find the impact on wages of the non-migrants already there to be minimal, non-existent or positive.
This happens because the people coming in aren't exact substitutes for the people already there, and economic activity is generally positive-sum.
Hopefully McDonnells disgraceful politicising of the Grenfell disaster will be the end of him
I wonder how long before someone asks him how many of the 60 tower blocks are in Labour controlled councils.....
The "bonfire of the regulations" party have seriously f*cked up, Carlotta.
Smearing won't get the tories out of this mess. It didn't work with Corbyn, it won't work with McDonnell.
So tower with flammable cladding in Tory council = "Evil Tories" Multiple towers with flammable cladding in Labour councils = 'nothing to do with Labour'
Comments
I do think Labour were tainted by association. That was the point I was trying to make in my reply to you.
Not all leaders cosy up to US Presidents to the extent Blair and May have. Cameron definitely didn't do what Blair did, and I don't he'd have been as keen to cuddle up with Trump as May has been.
@glw The Cameron/Obama relationship was quite different Blair/Bush one and the May/Trump one. Of course there's always the special relationship rhetoric, but there are levels of cosying up, and it can (and has) gone too far.
If that was Labour's position, we could have a sensible political debate in this country about what we want to raise in tax and what we want to spend it on. That would also encourage much more focus on getting value for taxpayers' money. If someone else, or no-one, is paying, who cares about value for money?
Theresa May visited the US president and didn't insult him, that is all. I understand you're probably not President Trump's greatest fan. Nor am I. Nor, for that matter, is Theresa May, I'm pretty sure. But he is the democratically-elected President of the US, and was the candidate of one of the two great political parties of the US.
Old age, what a swine!
True (or broadly true): 1/2
Aftertiming: 2/1
We'll see.
Re cuddling: that state-invite for a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_visits_received_by_Queen_Elizabeth_II
Is there some new protocol which dictates that it's OK to invite Ceaușescu or Putin but not the President of the US? If so, when did the Guardian create this new rule?
A lot of pragmatic leftists simply want to be as left-wing as they think electorally feasible. Clinton was a good example, and so are much of the PLP. It wasn't that they objected to Corbyn or his policies so much as they feared the impact on electability. If Labour continues to prosper in polls, we shan't hear much of the rebels; if not, we will.
http://68.media.tumblr.com/45e2d793e13d9d14f2853f0e4af4e78d/tumblr_os4glkb52o1u5f06vo1_1280.jpg
This happens because the people coming in aren't exact substitutes for the people already there, and economic activity is generally positive-sum.
Smearing won't get the tories out of this mess. It didn't work with Corbyn, it won't work with McDonnell.
Is there a public policy argument why it's better if your criminals are native? Lower translation costs or something?
Multiple towers with flammable cladding in Labour councils = 'nothing to do with Labour'
Thanks for clearing that up.
There goes your Knighthood.....
https://www.ft.com/content/73f73f3a-5997-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b