I'm not saying 2015 is that year, or that we need to turn 100% to hour reduction rather than increase in output. To the first point, I'd say you need to look a lot further back to at least the 80s. To the second, I'd say you can do both just fine.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
I'm not saying 2015 is that year, or that we need to turn 100% to hour reduction rather than increase in output. To the first point, I'd say you need to look a lot further back to at least the 80s. To the second, I'd say you can do both just fine.
They could just add it to the rotation:
Mon- Princess Di
Tue- Health miracle
Wed- Find Madelaine
Thu- Weather
Fri- Pensions
Sat- Vote conservative
CyclopsRock
Member
No, but you are saying that if people's choices won't deliver the outcome you want*, then the government should do it. So... I mean, there needs to be something defining when, why, how, what etc.
* = By this I mean that right now, people "reward", say, Sony for making a PS4. This is because they'd rather play that compared to the PS3, because it offers them something better. If you get to the point where people cease to consider the new products better than the old ones - say, for example, the market in USB cables, where you'll note there's not really a "brand name" because no one gives a shit; Buying a more expensive brand doesn't give a better outcome and so such things are culled by the market - then you won't need to mandate anything - businesses will simply ratchet down employment as they see that increasing the input of labour doesn't deliver tangible results in sales. In this sense, the market's all ready to capitalise (heheheheh) on markets that have reached the point where continued technological advancement doesn't bring about tangible benefits. It's just that most markets aren't there.
Slight jump sideways, but I have to ask why people consider that Ed back stabbed his brother for the leadership.
There was no deal. The labour leadership isn't a primogeniture monarchy. Why is it Ed has to wait until his brother has a go first? How exactly did he backstab him? Are we all so dreadfully shallow people that being born a few years earlier means he should automatically win?
(Note - I wouldn't have voted for Ed, I would have voted for David were I voting so am not defending Ed here, just honestly puzzled why the 'backstabbing' thing keeps coming up).
There was no deal. The labour leadership isn't a primogeniture monarchy. Why is it Ed has to wait until his brother has a go first? How exactly did he backstab him? Are we all so dreadfully shallow people that being born a few years earlier means he should automatically win?
(Note - I wouldn't have voted for Ed, I would have voted for David were I voting so am not defending Ed here, just honestly puzzled why the 'backstabbing' thing keeps coming up).
Yeah, it was a very odd line. We can't trust our nuclear arsenal to a man who... legitimately won an election of his party by getting more votes than people who he's a blood relative of! I mean... what about that is bad, exactly?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
The answer is quite simple. It is a convenient reason to attack him. David would havr seen similar attacks just to a lesser extent because hes closer aligned to their values. The right wing tabloids have spent the last three years smearing ed to promote their values. They have largely failed. Yes, ed is seen as a joke but it hasn't won an election for them (and won't). It would have taken a miraculous leader to overturn the situation labour was in, re: Scotland, the labour party internally and the failures of New Labour.
Normal people don't care. The press doesn't want him to win so they try make him look bad, it's that simple.
PJV3
Member
Because it's election season, anything to demonise the competition.
-
It's quite sad how, in recent years, the election campaign seems to have become a "presidential election".
I know a lot of people (including myself) find Ed MIlliband to be a terrible leader, maybe a great politician behind closed doors, but certainly lacking the charisma of the other leaders. Thankfully it doesn't matter because they're not voting for Ed they'd be voting for a local MP and Labour's policies.
I'm pretty sure I'll vote labour come May 7th not because Ed Milliband but because my local MP (the person I am voting for) does an excellent job, listens to constituents to the point of breaking the party line. Labour's policies and continued austerity measures still concern me. Sometimes I wish there was a more popular Socialist party here in England, but I guess the rest of England doesn't feel the same.
IdreamofHIME
Member
The party of the perpetually deluded.
You're thinking of Alan Johnson, who was Miliband's Shadow Chancellor for about two months, who said he knew nothing about economics.
Balls studied PPE, went to Harvard and became matey with the likes of Larry Summers. Then he worked at the FT before becoming chief economic advisor to Brown in '94.
I found this article from 1998: "the whiz-kid who has shaped New Labour's economic revolution"
I think he's crap (and hey, there's nothing leftist or anti-austerity or really Keynesian about him, which is what I would want from a Lab Chancellor) but he has the credentials.
jamieson87
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
The general consensus even amongst labour supporters is that Ed is notoriously indecisive. This made him a decent enough SpAd but is a potential problem in a leader, especially in the parliament we are likely to have, with various factions dragging him left and right.
Also, I think Red Ed is a much more legitimate "stick" than the backstabbing stuff. In many areas he isn't left wing at all, but then he comes out with price ceilings and talk of a "reckoning" with the banks that make him sound like he could be on the picket line with Arthur. I dont imagine much would come of it in government but it's not entirely fabricated either.
Also, I think Red Ed is a much more legitimate "stick" than the backstabbing stuff. In many areas he isn't left wing at all, but then he comes out with price ceilings and talk of a "reckoning" with the banks that make him sound like he could be on the picket line with Arthur. I dont imagine much would come of it in government but it's not entirely fabricated either.
Looks like the Tories have been reading this thread - "positive Dave" rebounds from the asinine volunteer pledge to offer the NHS £8bn by 2020.
Whether they can pull it off or not I'd say that's the angle they've been looking for - Labour's defence is pretty much just "you can't trust a Tory" which isn't going to convince anyone who's not convinced already. Also, seems like the mansion tax is going to end up paying for a LOT of different things at this rate...
Whether they can pull it off or not I'd say that's the angle they've been looking for - Labour's defence is pretty much just "you can't trust a Tory" which isn't going to convince anyone who's not convinced already. Also, seems like the mansion tax is going to end up paying for a LOT of different things at this rate...
Latest YouGov poll (09 10 Apr):
LAB 35% (+1)
CON 33% (-2)
UKIP 13% (+1)
LDEM 8% (-)
GRN 5% (+1)
More MOE churn. But that's 8 of the last 10 polls with a Labour lead and the two Tory leads were only 1% whereas the Labour leads over those polls averages out at 2.75%
Still too soon to say if there's any real separation happening, but if it continues over the weekend polls then Tory arses will be making buttons with the manifesto launches next week. We might see a bit of indiscipline creeping into the Tory ranks, some journos are murmuring about hearing more and more discontent about how the Tory campaign is going from the ranks.
LAB 35% (+1)
CON 33% (-2)
UKIP 13% (+1)
LDEM 8% (-)
GRN 5% (+1)
More MOE churn. But that's 8 of the last 10 polls with a Labour lead and the two Tory leads were only 1% whereas the Labour leads over those polls averages out at 2.75%
Still too soon to say if there's any real separation happening, but if it continues over the weekend polls then Tory arses will be making buttons with the manifesto launches next week. We might see a bit of indiscipline creeping into the Tory ranks, some journos are murmuring about hearing more and more discontent about how the Tory campaign is going from the ranks.
That's not really new though, and they'll have to subtract what ever amount 3 extra days off will cost the NHS.
Norwegian_Imposter
Member
The conservatives cannot win with that plum head in charge. As a Brit living abroad during his near entire tenure, he has been nothing but a laughing stock outside the UK.
I always find it odd that it successfully gets used as an insult. With the price gouging from the energy companies and the rewards the banks received for causing the recession, it's needed. I wish he was way more left than he is tbh.
Well, it's not like they're gonna have a much superior plan B, is it? It's the general election, you don't hold your best stuff back. A slight lead for labour won't make a huge deal of difference anyway. They basically just need to make sure that Labour seats plus SNP ones total more than Conservative ones and Lib Dem ones, right?
They've moved their manifesto launch back one day, presumably to give them more time to rejig it. Parties can promise a lot when their backs are up against the wall, especially when they look likely to best case end up in a coalition or minority government they can just blame their coalition partners on any undelivered promises. I half expect a super soaring giveaway Tory manifesto offering blowjobs and cheeseburgers to any one who'll vote for them.
Wouldn't be surprised to hear about discontent from the Tory ranks. The campaign so far seems to have been little more than an sustained attack on Ed Miliband. They've probably mentioned Ed more times than the Labour campaign has. Depressing really.
Is anyone going to trust them though? This is a party that changed their logo to a tree, then tried to sell the forests as soon as it got into government. I think a lot of their votes are down to people believing Cameron would be a stronger leader, rather than down to any policies they are proposing.
QuicheFontaine
Member
These latest polls have been enough to push the UK polling report rolling average back to a one point Labour lead. Time is running out...I think the release of the manifestos next week is really the last chance to meaningfully shift it.
JonathanEx
Member
Psychotext
Member
Yup. I live in a key marginal and I've had about five letters from them so far (god knows how many leaflets) and in each they go on about Miliband specifically, with very little mention of their own plans.
It's weak, but I wouldn't be surprised if it works, because as mentioned by others the UK election seems to be turning into more of a presidential style race.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
YouGOV is one of the stronger pollsters here. For some reason, lots of companies struggle to translate across the Atlantic. Gallup, for example, has some of the worst UK performances on record for any UK pollster despite performing relatively well in the US.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
If anything, Yougov are biased toward the Conservatives, as they're basically the polling arm of the Sun.
MrS
Banned
Completely stupid but, big picture, wholly irrelevant as they're never going to have power. That party is arguably more extreme than UKIP in their views.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's... not how it works. The Sun currently commissions YouGOV polls, yes; they've been commissioned by other people in the past. Their ability to retain commissions depends on their accuracy. Nobody wants to employ the company that was obviously wrong. As a member of the British Polling Council, all of their methodology and samples are made open access; you can criticize their methodology and sampling accordingly. It would be wrong to accuse them of deliberate bias, though.
As it happens, they give slightly more Conservative scores than the other pollsters, but they're by no means the most extreme in that regard. They also tend to give slightly higher Labour figures than other pollsters, just not to the same extent. This is because of how much they downweigh UKIP samples, which split roughly 2/3rds to the Conservatives and 1/3 to Labour.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I wish it were law that parties making pledges actually had to have a 'How we intend to fund this' part of their manifesto with actual breakdowns.
£## billion from x will be used to fund y.
At the moment everyone is promising the earth but pulling the earth out of their arse.
I know it is so that they don't have to be held to things from their manifesto, but that is the entire point of a manifesto. I really don't feel I can make an informed choice at all.
£## billion from x will be used to fund y.
At the moment everyone is promising the earth but pulling the earth out of their arse.
I know it is so that they don't have to be held to things from their manifesto, but that is the entire point of a manifesto. I really don't feel I can make an informed choice at all.
benjipwns
Banned
That's impossible. X and Y aren't known values or if they're even variables really.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No party can accurately predict x or y; particularly x. Government revenue comes from tax receipts. How much tax is made depends on the tax rate, but also how much income people are earning and how much capital people own. Those last two things vary very strongly with the economy. When the economy is bad, the government gets less in tax receipts, when the economy is good, the government gets more in tax receipts. You can guesstimate with different degrees of accuracy, but that's about it.
People give economists a lot of flak for getting things wrong, but I think that's unfair. When you make a prediction, you need two things: you need a theory, and you need observations. When you take the observations and apply the theory to them, you get a prediction. Increasingly, the trouble is less that the theories are wrong, and more that the observations are wrong, or just simply missing. You couldn't predict the 2008 recession unless you had a fairly intimate knowledge of collateral debt obligation risk security; and this knowledge is something that the only people who knew it (financial institutions) had a big reason not to impart.
In hindsight, once you have this observation, you can plug it into the theories and they give the right output about what would happen in 2008 and beyond - a collapse in liquidity leading to recession. But we only really have these observations in hindsight. When economists predict recessions, we probably won't have them; institutions make the necessary changes to avert them (I mean, they'd be useless otherwise). If they don't predict recessions, you're fine as long as all of they have an accurate picture of all the relevant variables. But that's very difficult, and that makes predictions very difficult, and that makes costing governments very difficult indeed.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's a saying along the lines of "Economists only make predictions to show they have a sense of humour".
Miles Quaritch
Member
I mean, I'm glad the Tories are promising more money for the NHS as it's something it desperately needs (although we should really just put up national insurance, I'm sure people wouldn't mind paying a few quid extra per month in NI for the NHS), but perhaps they'd be so kind as to first list where the £10bn in welfare cuts are coming from...
Unless they've listed them and I've just missed it?
Unless they've listed them and I've just missed it?
CyclopsRock
Member
Nooooooo re:NI! Firstly national insurance has literally nothing to do with the NHS. The money goes in the same pot as fuel duty and corporation tax and inheritance tax and all other forms of central government tax.
NI is kinda crappy as it is, because whilst income tax thresholds have gone up, NI hasn't changed. Every time the income tax threshold goes up, the people who benefit get richer and richer becomes the poorest are already not paying any. The best way to help these people wouldn't be to raise NI, it'd be to reduce it! Or, ateast, lower the threshold for paying it which would lower the total take, which is the opposite!
NI is kinda crappy as it is, because whilst income tax thresholds have gone up, NI hasn't changed. Every time the income tax threshold goes up, the people who benefit get richer and richer becomes the poorest are already not paying any. The best way to help these people wouldn't be to raise NI, it'd be to reduce it! Or, ateast, lower the threshold for paying it which would lower the total take, which is the opposite!
StealthGoblin
Banned
How are Labour going around saying that huge amounts of things are going to be funded by a mansion tax? Surely everything they say or promise is complete bollocks then?
The logic stands that if I promise to spend £2000 on my girlfriends engagement ring that I'll have to be certain I'll have the money to achieve that goal, otherwise having my balls ripped off when I turn around and say 'Sorry sweetie, variable X and Y just weren't right.'
If you say you are going to do something, you should have the facts to back it up.
benjipwns
Banned
Well, yeah, it's politics.
Not until after the election, no. Until then, it's "magic". Can pretty much guarantee the money the Tories are promising isn't going to come from those that can afford it though.
Yep, NI is right up there with VAT in terms of regressive taxation, it's a horrid little vehicle for hiding what would otherwise be Income Tax.
The current wheeze of raising the Income Tax allowances is just an exercise in shifting the poorest into paying more NI while giving a straight tax cut to the better off.
See that bottom line there? Fucking infuriating.
It must be hard when you are in power to not do that because everyone knows what you are about from the last 5 years so you have to just try to say how that would be better than the other guy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked