Mail on Sunday have gone batshit
This is amazing. Someone was paid money to write this.
-
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.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
This is amazing. Someone was paid money to write this.
Audioboxer
Member
Mail on Sunday have gone batshit
Fucking hell....
I thought it was bad during the referendum.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is basically fan fiction.
holy shit
dat loony left though, lmao
Meanwhile, back on planet earth
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sterity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=share_btn_fb
dat loony left though, lmao
Meanwhile, back on planet earth
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...sterity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=share_btn_fb
Mail on Sunday have gone batshit
I just finished reading this.
It's absolutely bollocks. If you were sitting on the fence for Corbyn then let this help make up your mind, if the Daily Mail hates him this much then he's going to be a great prime minister.
I knew Blanchflower would be one of the supporting when reading.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Well obviously he is being smeared by the right wing media. Anyone who's actually watched or listened to Corbyn knows this isn't a crazy person.
Also, where are the other candidates' economic policies? Let alone signatories to their plans...
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Is the actual text of that economists' letter available anywhere? I can't find it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Thanks. I had got it muddled up with a report of the letter.
Hmm, I'd kind of expected more detail than that. It wasn't exactly helpful.
There should be an exam question along the lines of:
1) "If Jeremy Corbyn's economics are considered mainstream by academic economists then most academic economists are lefties." Discuss.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If you automatically subscribe to the idea that Keynesianism is leftwing (which is pretty dubious, it says nothing about ownership of capital or egalitarianism., it's just a description of monetary flows and has no actual moral or ethical value or sentiment), then most academic economists *are* leftwing.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I've no particular problem with the Keynesianism (and Keynes himself comes with Met Office levels of credibility from the Economic Consequences of the Peace).
But I don't, for example, remember "shameful" being a standard economic term, and certainly not one with no actual moral or ethical value or sentiment.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sure, those are fairly clearly economists who are *also* leftwing in addition to being Keynesian. But I do think it's true that at least in the United Kingdom (even more so continentally, somewhat less so in the States but still broadly true) that the various Keynesian schools of thought are predominant and the argument is about which particular strand of Keynesianism is more accurate; and it is also true that the coalition did not follow a Keynesian roadmap, and therefore is economically extreme/heterodox.
CyclopsRock
Member
proper tea is theft etc
anonymous_abc
Member
Is it still worth it?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Probably not worthwhile. All the interesting stuff is done bar the counting, and then it'll all segue into the conference season ... I'd just keep it all in here.
i mean it is shameful to insist that you're doing your best to help people when you know full well that your policies are doing anything but
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Maybe it would be, but it isn't exactly a macroeconomic argument.
Besides (and to anticipate arguments, I meet a *lot* of people on benefits - probably about two thirds of my customers in one way and another) it isn't necessarily true that the policies aren't doing anything. Cuts in the budget don't necessarily translate directly into damage to people.
For example, I have one customer who for two years perpetually moaned about level of benefits, and more recently about being sanctioned - now got a job.
For example, I have two customers on disability whose benefits have actually gone significantly up in the last month.
For example, I have some other customers on benefits who moan like hell about other people getting more than they are and are shopping them to the authorities. Well, that's fair and good if you are shopping someone who owns five properties isn't it? (yes, that's a customer too).
Me, I just listen and pay attention. But I don't think it is true to say that whatever is going on now is particularly swingeing.
Now, if that's what I see, then it wouldn't be all that surprising if the Government doesn't necessarily "know full well" that the policies are damaging.
What's your evidence?
my evidence is the fact that they went through a school system that taught them that their economic policies aren't effective.
and anecdotes are interesting, but as ever, the plural of anecdote is not data; the data is not hard to find--the government's cuts are not having a positive effect on the worst-off people in society
and anecdotes are interesting, but as ever, the plural of anecdote is not data; the data is not hard to find--the government's cuts are not having a positive effect on the worst-off people in society
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That sounds a bit anecdotal, or even completely made up, to me. I certainly wasn't taught that much economics at school or even afterwards.
Well, anecdotes are not data of course. But then neither are opinion surveys - like for example about 50% of CEOs think they are underpaid. And this is an opinion survey mostly. Just looking at the "key findings".
- Around 85 per cent of disabled people say losing their disability living allowance will drive them into isolation, and leave them struggling to manage their condition. 95 per cent fear it will damage their health.
Yes, but that sounds rather like a loaded question to me. Sure, for people on DLA losing it would be a hell of a blow, but is anyone talking about them losing it? As opposed to it being replaced by something else (maybe a bit lower or a bit higher, but actually losing it, no)?
- 78 per cent say their health has got worse as a result of the stress caused by undergoing a work capability assessment for employment and support allowance.
Yes, I understand that, particularly the way work capability assessments were being done then (three years ago). And stress is a big and underestimated factor here. But also it is usually temporary. And some of the stress is out of being forced into work, which tends to disappear when they have got work. Not saying it is easy, but extra stress is to be expected. The biggest problem here I think is the fucking bureaucracy around it all which involves a whole load of form filling which many people are not well-equipped to do.
- 87 per cent of disabled people say their everyday living costs are significantly higher because of their condition.
I'm amazed this is only 87%. Yes of course they are, and sometimes *very* significantly higher - as much as a factor of seven in the most extreme case I have seen. But in the main their benefits income is also significantly higher as a result. So what?
- 90 per cent of welfare rights advisors say too many disabled people are slipping through the net and are left without adequate support by the benefits system.
Too many, yes. But this is very misleadingly worded. It is by no means 90 percent too many, it is 90% of advisors say it is (some undetermined number) too many. That is, they are. like me, relying on anecdote. The benefits system is necessarily broad-brush - the big problem is the appeals system, which is kind of impenetrable and inaccessible to people unless they have help. I do informal consultation on appeals, and we usually win them
CyclopsRock
Member
tbf no shit the poorest suffer most from welfare cuts - they're also overwhelmingly the largest beneficiaries of welfare spending.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Pensioners.
Unless you meant numerically rather than proportional to budget (if that makes sense? I'm so tired)
CyclopsRock
Member
But there are a lot of reasons not to cut pensions, and I don't just mean political ones. The current generation of pensioners are the first ones for whom the state pension and paying national insurance has been a part of their entire working lives. Now days we're told in increasingly overt hints that you'll need more than the state pension to survive, but they weren't - that was the basis upon which they saved up or didn't save up more money etc. Changing it now is not only pretty unfair (since they aren't retroactively getting a national insurance rebate) but also because they are the ones least able to try and make up the difference. I'm 27 and if it were announced tomorrow that by the time I retire there won't be a public pension, I have plenty of time to arrange and pay for a private pension. Actual pensioners who have retired are the least capable of rearranging things like that. The main thing they have in their favour is that many are property-rich but, again, that's less useful for some old bat who bought her house in 1967 than it would be to me.
When you take that away, you're left with the poor, the disabled and the middle classes, and the latter's major benefit - child tax credits - are being cut too.
You do sure but what do you do for a living that lets you afford that? What about the poor sod on a zero hour contract at Tesco with barely enough to get by? The gov has already pushed lots of extra people into poverty. How much more can they actually take?
I'd buy that if it weren't for two points.
1) state pensions haven't just been frozen - they have recieved massive boosts, in the form of the triple lock. In a time of such cutting austerity, the idea that buying votes via such a massive transference of cash from younger generations is frankly disgusting. I'm not sure where exactly in the state pension guidance from the 50s it said 'don't worry, your and children will be paying this off for their entire lives'.
2) You'll have to explain how my sister, with an extremely form of aggressive MS, changes her circumstances. She's younger than me, already permanently in a wheelchair, and probably won't see out her 30s at the diseases current rate of progression but maybe she should enroll in a call centre?
As a point of principle, I'm really not sure where this concept that everyone other than the old is better placed to change their circumstances. The *entire* point of the benefits system is to provide a safety net for those in those circumstances - removing it smacks of taking the net away from the trapeze artist and claiming its for their own good.
Fundamentally, these cuts are ideological in basis, have no bearing in reality in actually tackling the deficit, and are about playing to the Daily Mail and buying votes. We're smart people here, let's not pretend otherwise and starting substituting discussion for nonsensical 'boot straps' talk.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm IDS's personal assistant.
But sure, I'm just saying that it's basically inevitable that cuts will hurt the poor the most, in the same way increases in petrol prices will hurt motorists the most. People that aren't poor don't get that much in the way of welfare, with the aforementioned exception of pensioners (who, as a group, are wealthier than most but obviously also have their very poor bits).
Well it probably has something to do with the fact that National Insurance payments do alter the amount you get in state pension but the actual funding isn't hypothecated at all, along with the fact that obviously everyone lives a tremendous length more than they used to. Not any ideal solution imo. It's an on-going obligation with no money put aside.
Who are you even talking to? My point was that it's inevitable that the poorest will be hit the hardest by cuts, because they're also the main beneficiaries. You're mounting an argument against cuts which is entirely reasonable but it has nothing to do with what I said. No one's argument in favour of cuts is predicated on the idea that "The disabled have it too easy."
As for the "concept that everyone but the old are best placed to changed their circumstances" - well, isn't it obvious? Some old people continue working beyond 65, or get a part time job. But generally speaking, when you're at the end of your life, your time has run out. You have no more opportunity to get extra money to support yourself. Obviously there are younger people for whom this is also the case, and it sounds like your sister is once of them, but surely you don't struggle to understand where "the concept" that people closer to death have less chance to alter their circumstances than those with a reasonable expectation of a long life ahead?
CyclopsRock
Member
If the alternative to those cuts is higher taxes, then they aren't cuts, are they?
there are plenty of tax loopholes and corporate benefits that could be cut without lowering taxes.
i'm generally of the opinion that left wingers shouldn't get into the fight about 'what to cut', though, because at that point you're arguing on your opponent's terms. the real fact of the matter is that the cuts are generally unnecessary.
CyclopsRock
Member
I actually agree that they're unecessary from a macro POV. IMO the Tories shouldn't be arguing in favour of cuts because "we need to reduce the deficit" but rather "we want the state to play a smaller role in many aspects of life", which is largely separate from the macro POV and has little to do with the coming and goings of the economy at large. Welfare spending should be counter cyclical.
involvement of the state does have things to do with the health of the economy at large though. it's not a coincidence that the economy was more stable, the growth more sustained, and the standard of living increases most spread across the population when the state played a greater role. we've now had two periods (prewar and post-1970s) when we've seen that lower state involvement generally means a less stable economy and lower standard of living increases.
StealthGoblin
Banned
So this deficit.
We keep on hearing about how the government is cutting the structural deficit.
Do we have any figures of how far is has been cut? I mean the types of figures we should be hearing about. Quarterly etc.
All I keep hearing about is how we are borrowing more and then we are borrowing less. Borrowing is still borrowing.
By the way, who is it that the US, UK, France, Italy, Spain etc owe money to?
We keep on hearing about how the government is cutting the structural deficit.
Do we have any figures of how far is has been cut? I mean the types of figures we should be hearing about. Quarterly etc.
All I keep hearing about is how we are borrowing more and then we are borrowing less. Borrowing is still borrowing.
By the way, who is it that the US, UK, France, Italy, Spain etc owe money to?
Nicktendo86
Member
HI all, not posted here much due to a lot of studying and my baby is taking up a lot of time (who would have thought it) so just been getting on and laughing at the general hilarity of the Labour leader election. A poll out today from Comres is pretty grim reading for Labour supporters however.
I know I know, we can't trust polls as we have just seen blah blah blah but they are using a new method I think and it is interesting to look at anyway. First up, the leadership contender polls;
http://comres.co.uk/polls/august-2015-daily-mail-political-poll/
This is, to say the least, pretty dire. No candidate are standing out and despite the echo chamber of twitter and social media talking about a Corbyn surge he would, if facing a general election according to this poll, still only garner 22% of the vote. This is actually the best result, tied with Burnham!
There is more data on the site but I think the voting intention is interesting;
This is interesting (to me at least) for a few reasons. First, it looks like UKIP's slide back into obscurity is continuing. Second, although I thought the general public had pretty much tuned out of the Labour leadership goings on it looks like it has affected the party's vote share. Now, I would say during a normal cycle that would be pretty normal (governing parties tend to get a bounce after a general election, the opposition is usually in disarray and need to pick a new leader and would usually pick up after selecting a leader. However, the Labour party are about to commit seppuku and elect Corybn as leader who, again according to this poll, would only get 22% of the vote as leader as a GE.
I'm not really sure where Labour go. It's obvious the Tories have kept very quiet over the leadership campaign and will tear into Corbyn (if elected). What do they do? Purge all Corbyn supporters and rig the election? Split? I have no idea.
I know I know, we can't trust polls as we have just seen blah blah blah but they are using a new method I think and it is interesting to look at anyway. First up, the leadership contender polls;
http://comres.co.uk/polls/august-2015-daily-mail-political-poll/
This is, to say the least, pretty dire. No candidate are standing out and despite the echo chamber of twitter and social media talking about a Corbyn surge he would, if facing a general election according to this poll, still only garner 22% of the vote. This is actually the best result, tied with Burnham!
There is more data on the site but I think the voting intention is interesting;
This is interesting (to me at least) for a few reasons. First, it looks like UKIP's slide back into obscurity is continuing. Second, although I thought the general public had pretty much tuned out of the Labour leadership goings on it looks like it has affected the party's vote share. Now, I would say during a normal cycle that would be pretty normal (governing parties tend to get a bounce after a general election, the opposition is usually in disarray and need to pick a new leader and would usually pick up after selecting a leader. However, the Labour party are about to commit seppuku and elect Corybn as leader who, again according to this poll, would only get 22% of the vote as leader as a GE.
I'm not really sure where Labour go. It's obvious the Tories have kept very quiet over the leadership campaign and will tear into Corbyn (if elected). What do they do? Purge all Corbyn supporters and rig the election? Split? I have no idea.
Latest from the seemingly endless Labour Leadership contest:
Initial selectorate of well over 600,000 has already been whittled down to just over 550,000, and there are plans for further purges. Final tally expected to be closer to 500,000.
I wonder what the voting patterns of the missing sixth would have been, and how this might ultimately affect the result.
That is categorically not what the first poll suggests. Have a read of this if you get a chance.
Also, we know exactly how much notice to take of polls, especially 5 years out from the next election.
Initial selectorate of well over 600,000 has already been whittled down to just over 550,000, and there are plans for further purges. Final tally expected to be closer to 500,000.
I wonder what the voting patterns of the missing sixth would have been, and how this might ultimately affect the result.
That is categorically not what the first poll suggests. Have a read of this if you get a chance.
Also, we know exactly how much notice to take of polls, especially 5 years out from the next election.
Nicktendo86
Member
I know, I added the caveat of polls being recently discredited etc, I worded that poorly anyway what I meant was Corbyn and Burnham share the top 'would vote for' number of 22. Interesting that all 4 candidates have pretty similar numbers, perhaps who's what the public view them as equally poor. According to this poll of course.
I think the reality is that until Labour have decided what they stand for, only the core Labour support is willing to say they'll vote for them. That core is about 25% and Labour would have to start kicking puppies to death to drop below that.
Within Labour there are obviously preferences along the Blairite / Corbynista axis, that takes us down below core Labour to some sub strata of people who would vote Labour even after the puppy gulags were put in place and every child was forced to do 1 hour of mandatory puppy kicking a day.
The fact is that the majority of the electorate don't know or care about any of the candidates in any real way, so until they have the Labour machine behind them they're not going to make much hay.
Within Labour there are obviously preferences along the Blairite / Corbynista axis, that takes us down below core Labour to some sub strata of people who would vote Labour even after the puppy gulags were put in place and every child was forced to do 1 hour of mandatory puppy kicking a day.
The fact is that the majority of the electorate don't know or care about any of the candidates in any real way, so until they have the Labour machine behind them they're not going to make much hay.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, but let's be honest, they don't argue "we want the state to play a smaller role" and instead argue "we need to cut state spending because deficit" because they'd almost definitely lose the first argument. This is why Corbyn calls the Conservative's cuts ideological - they're not a means to an end (deficit reduction) but an end in themselves (a smaller state) based on Conservative ideology of what the state should look like.
That's insane. In the US pretty much anyone can vote in a primary and here a twitter post gets you suppressed. No way could there possibly be 100k entryist troublemakers.
It seems like everyone making a noise about being rejected was voting JC.
Lest we forget, here's what Labour were saying at the start of this process:
Well, that went well, didn't it.
Well, that went well, didn't it.
They are only interested in providing the illusion of democracy, but they accidentaly let JC run.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Apparently 400 of the banned supporters were Tories, while 1900 were Greens.
You know, the mischievous Greens who want to destroy...Labour...uh...that doesn't sound right...
Hm.
You know, the mischievous Greens who want to destroy...Labour...uh...that doesn't sound right...
Hm.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Uh, I don't think that's right. They expected the electorate to be over 600,000; but it has only been about 550,000. That's not people who've been purged, that's less people getting involved than they expected and little to do with the Labour Party. The number who have been purged currently stands at just over 3,000, according to Harriet Harman today (which you can probably confirm with the Electoral Reform Services, although I cba to navigate their Byzantine website), which is about 0.54% of expected voters.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked