Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

Isn't it kind of sad that it is assumed that governments will have a tough mid term? Heaven forbid the thought that a government could serve the people well and grow their electorate. Sad complacency and blame shifting.

I don't think it's that surprising, really. Lots of things that governments of all colours do take a long time to come to fruition, and usually the time before it does is worse than if nothing had been done at all. As an example, the traffic and hassle that has resulted from Crossrail being constructed has made life worse for most that live nearby than if they hadn't. But that can't stop you doing it. (There may well be reasons not to do it, but that shouldn't be one of them).

Besides, sometimes it's the government's job to say no.

It's not just at "the taxpayers expense" though. What about National Insurance contributions. Plenty of people pay tax between being homeless also, thjey are effectively insuring themselves against times of hardship. I mean...fuck. Tax doesn't even work that way. It's not ones expense. It's put in a pot and the Government decides how to spend it.

Well sure, but when a person crashes their car, they get it fixed for "free" at the expense of the other insurance payers. And that's fine, because it's the only way it's going to work. But that doesn't mean it's not at the taxpayer's expense (even themselves in their capacity as taxpayers).

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21625446

Hold the fuckin phone!

 

[CyclopsRock]

"The Methodist and United Reformed Churches, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union jointly published the The Lies We Tell Ourselves study."

The irony alarm is going off somewhere!!

 

[War Peaceman]

Hahaha! I laugh but they are quite correct. The government isn't entirely to blame - newspapers and the general media are also guilty of misrepresenting the poor.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Hahaha! I laugh but they are quite correct. The government isn't entirely to blame - newspapers and the general media are also guilty of misrepresenting the poor.

Have some screaming, mendacious headlines about someone's situation.

DO YOU HATE THE DISABLED YET???

This country's press needs burning to the fucking ground.

 

[War Peaceman]

Have some screaming, mendacious headlines about someone's situation.

DO YOU HATE THE DISABLED YET???

This country's press needs burning to the fucking ground.

To be fair the disabled have it pretty easy, they get to sit around in a chair all day. And paid for the privilege!

 

[Pasco_]

So, the Eastleigh result is having the predictable effect of sending to Tories careening off to the Right, all the while shouting about how they're sticking to the centre ground. The first three paragraphs of that story are pure gold:

David Cameron has insisted there will be no "lurch to the right" by the Conservatives following the party's defeat in the Eastleigh by-election.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister said he would "stick to the course" the government was on.

Meanwhile, the justice secretary has suggested a future Tory government could scrap the Human Rights Act.

So we've got two years of panic-stations government to look forward too, I hope you all enjoy rash, knee-jerk, on the hoof policy making.

 

[CyclopsRock]

So, the Eastleigh result is having the predictable effect of sending to Tories careening off to the Right, all the while shouting about how they're sticking to the centre ground. The first three paragraphs of that story are pure gold:



So we've got two years of panic-stations government to look forward too, I hope you all enjoy rash, knee-jerk, on the hoof policy making.

It was in their manifesto... I mean, the announcement might be politically motivated, but then, this is politics. I don't think it's reasonable to call something that's in your manifesto a "lurch" in any direction, though.

 

[defel]

So, the Eastleigh result is having the predictable effect of sending to Tories careening off to the Right, all the while shouting about how they're sticking to the centre ground. The first three paragraphs of that story are pure gold:



So we've got two years of panic-stations government to look forward too, I hope you all enjoy rash, knee-jerk, on the hoof policy making.

All those Tories in marginal seats must be shitting their pants and its no surprise some may lurch to the right. Cameron and Co. know that lurching to the right will ruin all the work hes done as a moderniser

 

[War Peaceman]

It was in their manifesto... I mean, the announcement might be politically motivated, but then, this is politics. I don't think it's reasonable to call something that's in your manifesto a "lurch" in any direction, though.

I'd go further than that - this government is very right wing already. You have benefit caps, NHS privatisation, immigration caps, academies, austerity etc. these actions are merely a continuation of that.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

To be fair the disabled have it pretty easy, they get to sit around in a chair all day. And paid for the privilege!

Please tell me that you're joking.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'd go further than that - this government is very right wing already. You have benefit caps, NHS privatisation, immigration caps, academies, austerity etc. these actions are merely a continuation of that.

Well, you get into the mucky ground at that point of defining what is and isn't left wing and right wing. You really think that schools that are paid for by the government and free at the point of use but differ from other schools purely in that they aren't under LEA control is "very right wing"? I'm not sure many people would agree with that, and surely we can only define the middle, centre group by what the most people agree with?

 

[War Peaceman]

Please tell me that you're joking.

No shit, and nice name!

Well, you get into the mucky ground at that point of defining what is and isn't left wing and right wing. You really think that schools that are paid for by the government and free at the point of use but differ from other schools purely in that they aren't under LEA control is "very right wing"? I'm not sure many people would agree with that, and surely we can only define the middle, centre group by what the most people agree with?

A fair point. I was being a bit sloppy, but I'd say that the current government's actions are a lot closer to the vacuous demands of those wanting a 'lurch right' than to the centrist image that they present. As you say, it is quite a murky area, but look at the actions of various(most) ministers and it is difficult to argue that it is somehow not 'Conservative'. EG - Osborne doubling down on austerity*/lowering corporation tax, Gove's push for a more traditional curriculum, Hammond calling for benefit cuts over military cuts, everything Chris Grayling spews forth, the erosion of social protection for the disabled.

If anything, the lurch right occurred during the previous re-shuffle.

*Irrespective of whether borrowing is actually rising

 

[Deaf Spacker]

No shit, and nice name!

Phew, I was ready to go off on one.

 

[phisheep]

To be fair the disabled have it pretty easy, they get to sit around in a chair all day. And paid for the privilege!

Joking yes? I'm sure you must be. I get a lot of disabled customers (wheelchairs, mentally handicapped and a bunch of others) that just aren't catered for anywhere else within 200 miles - and that's a hell of a long way in this country. It's not just a sitting in a chair lark by any means.

It was in their manifesto... I mean, the announcement might be politically motivated, but then, this is politics. I don't think it's reasonable to call something that's in your manifesto a "lurch" in any direction, though.

Would still be damn stupid to repeal the Human Rights Act. One of the best things any Labour government has done, right up there with the Open University, legalising homosexuality (ok, strictly speaking that was a private member's bill but it had government support) and the independence of the Bank of England. I'd like to say the NHS as well, but I don't think it was done all that well in hindsight.

 

[War Peaceman]

Joking yes? I'm sure you must be. I get a lot of disabled customers (wheelchairs, mentally handicapped and a bunch of others) that just aren't catered for anywhere else within 200 miles - and that's a hell of a long way in this country. It's not just a sitting in a chair lark by any means.

Thankfully, and (I'd hope) obviously, I am. My mum is disabled so I have some first hand experience of this.

Would still be damn stupid to repeal the Human Rights Act. One of the best things any Labour government has done, right up there with the Open University, legalising homosexuality (ok, strictly speaking that was a private member's bill but it had government support) and the independence of the Bank of England. I'd like to say the NHS as well, but I don't think it was done all that well in hindsight.

Absolutely. Although I'd be curious as to hear what was not done all that well about the establishment of the NHS? (not a loaded question, though it does read like it)

 

[CyclopsRock]

Would still be damn stupid to repeal the Human Rights Act. One of the best things any Labour government has done, right up there with the Open University, legalising homosexuality (ok, strictly speaking that was a private member's bill but it had government support) and the independence of the Bank of England. I'd like to say the NHS as well, but I don't think it was done all that well in hindsight.

Why's that? The plan is, as far as I know, to basically create a bill of rights act which is literally exactly what's in the HRA just without the ECHR - the idea being, I believe, that a British court should be the highest point of authority in Britain, not an international one.

On an unrelated note, just seen this:

Clerkenwell wankers.

 

[nib95]

Clerkenwell wankers.

Why are they wankers? Good on them if you ask me. So it's going to cost a tiny bit to clean off, but at least it's funny, honest and symbolic.

Also, I've been banging on about this class war the government and elements of the media have been trying to push for some time now. This attempt to misdirect issues pertaining to the economy and what caused the recession in the first place as somehow indirectly being related to the poor or the more impoverished of society by way of benefits. Pisses me off massively when affluent people try to pretend to have a clue about what it's like to live in the more impoverished parts of the country with everything negatively weighed against you.

Elements of the Conservative party really do remind me of a more eloquent, sophisticated and less sensationalist version of the Republican party. On issues regarding the poor, privatisation, immigration, austerity etc. There's vague resemblance to be made, and to me that's loosely symbolic of us charting the wrong type of course.

 

[War Peaceman]

Why's that? The plan is, as far as I know, to basically create a bill of rights act which is literally exactly what's in the HRA just without the ECHR - the idea being, I believe, that a British court should be the highest point of authority in Britain, not an international one.

A largely pointless and counterintuitive measure, if this source is to be believed: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/0...drew-from-the-european-court-of-human-rights/

 

[anonymous_abc]

So with FPTP the shit that it is, will a split of the, for lack of a better word, right electorate hand coming elections to labour?
asuming that the high flying times of the LibDems are over.

If so, it would be hilarious to see the tories arguing for PR in the future xD

 

[CyclopsRock]

Why are they wankers? Good on them if you ask me. So it's going to cost a tiny bit to clean off, but at least it's funny, honest and symbolic.

I wouldn't mind it if it made sense. If it said "If you'd paid your taxes", even, it'd make more sense. But it says "if you pay your taxes" ie paying taxes is great, and it really makes my monday! I guess I'm being pedantic, but right now it might as well say "taxes lol!" for all the amusement, honesty and symbolism it espouses.

Also, I've been banging on about this class war the government and elements of the media have been trying to push for some time now. This attempt to misdirect issues pertaining to the economy and what caused the recession in the first place as somehow indirectly being related to the poor or the more impoverished of society by way of benefits. Pisses me off massively when affluent people try to pretend to have a clue about what it's like to live in the more impoverished parts of the country with everything negatively weighed against you.

Elements of the Conservative party really do remind me of a more eloquent, sophisticated and less sensationalist version of the Republican party. On issues regarding the poor, privatisation, immigration, austerity etc. There's vague resemblance to be made, and to me that's loosely symbolic of us charting the wrong type of course.

I've not really seen any examples of any elements of the Tory party saying that immigrants or the poor caused the global financial crisis. What they might be saying is that the existence of this might be slowing its recovery, and that's a lot more of an arguable point (in the case of immigration, due to the expansion of the labour pool and what that does to wages and dole queues, and in the case of "the poor" it's about the cost of welfare in the face of growing dole queues (which aren't actually happening now anyway)).

But I think it's more complex than simply "the media don't like wogs and chavs". As we spoke about earlier this week in this very thread, we didn't have a double dip recession. The chaps at the ONS, bless their socks, got the numbers wrong and we weren't in a recession the second time. Our economy is doing better than previously suggested. But you'd struggle to find that outside of the financial section of any mainstream newspaper. The BBC website has paragraphs shorter than Dan Brown's chapters, so expecting nuance from there is going to lead to you being disappointed. It was a positive story, yet it got ignored in the face of countless articles, op-ed's, talking head wankery and ed ball BBC interview circuitry on the subject of the AAA rating downgrade - something which is jolly exciting for the Westminster folk who play politics for a living but which is, actually, basically irrelevant to anyone everywhere, even in a passive sense.

But misery sells. It's a lot easier to say - and possibly accurate, btw; I don't think it's reasonable to discount the fact that those writing it might believe it just because you don't - that immigration is making it harder to find jobs and welfare has to be cut for us to grow faster; That's easier to say than the global crisis was caused by the easy flow of credit from central banks across the world which causes various bubbles across the western world such as house building in ireland and greece, house prices in the UK etc, and this was coupled with short-term greed by banks and government policies that encouraged financial institutions to take more and more risks to enfranchise voters. This lead to a greater and greater leveraging of less and less actual financial reserves and this meant that when the plug was pulled lots of banks lost a lot of money, which immediately caused them to be more risk averse and thus we have a credit crunch. The 10 years before the recession were years of enormous growth but much of that growth was founded on blah blah blah blah. There are magazines and journals out there that say this stuff, but they don't sell 1.8 million a day like the Mail does.

 

[phisheep]

Why's that? The plan is, as far as I know, to basically create a bill of rights act which is literally exactly what's in the HRA just without the ECHR - the idea being, I believe, that a British court should be the highest point of authority in Britain, not an international one.

Law of unintended (or maybe intended) consequences kicks in. Withdraw from the ECHR and you withdraw from the 1953 Treaty. Which because it's a condition of membership means you withdraw from the EU.

It's not going to happen, or if it does it's not it's not going to happen that way round.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

But I think it's more complex than simply "the media don't like wogs and chavs". As we spoke about earlier this week in this very thread, we didn't have a double dip recession. The chaps at the ONS, bless their socks, got the numbers wrong and we weren't in a recession the second time. Our economy is doing better than previously suggested. But you'd struggle to find that outside of the financial section of any mainstream newspaper. The BBC website has paragraphs shorter than Dan Brown's chapters, so expecting nuance from there is going to lead to you being disappointed. It was a positive story, yet it got ignored in the face of countless articles, op-ed's, talking head wankery and ed ball BBC interview circuitry on the subject of the AAA rating downgrade - something which is jolly exciting for the Westminster folk who play politics for a living but which is, actually, basically irrelevant to anyone everywhere, even in a passive sense.

But misery sells. It's a lot easier to say - and possibly accurate, btw; I don't think it's reasonable to discount the fact that those writing it might believe it just because you don't - that immigration is making it harder to find jobs and welfare has to be cut for us to grow faster; That's easier to say than the global crisis was caused by the easy flow of credit from central banks across the world which causes various bubbles across the western world such as house building in ireland and greece, house prices in the UK etc, and this was coupled with short-term greed by banks and government policies that encouraged financial institutions to take more and more risks to enfranchise voters. This lead to a greater and greater leveraging of less and less actual financial reserves and this meant that when the plug was pulled lots of banks lost a lot of money, which immediately caused them to be more risk averse and thus we have a credit crunch. The 10 years before the recession were years of enormous growth but much of that growth was founded on blah blah blah blah. There are magazines and journals out there that say this stuff, but they don't sell 1.8 million a day like the Mail does.

Worryingly for some, the downgrade of the AAA rating could lead to increased levels of speculation, up to 30% more!

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not sure if this is hilarious, terrifying, sad, or all three: It's been over a year since YouGov's regular polls have had anything other than "Don't Know" as the top answer for who those polled think would make the best Prime Minister.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I'm not sure if this is hilarious, terrifying, sad, or all three: It's been over a year since YouGov's regular polls have had anything other than "Don't Know" as the top answer for who those polled think would make the best Prime Minister.

Really, I thought we had a party based system. And this personality-based politics, whereby you elect the person at the head of each party, I find pretty naff. Especially when they all have such shit personalities.

 

[War Peaceman]

Really, I thought we had a party based system. And this personality-based politics, whereby you elect the person at the head of each party, I find pretty naff. Especially when they all have such shit personalities.

Yup, Attlee was a boring bastard, they even acknowledged it at the time and yet his government got things done.

 

[Little Old Man]

I've not really seen any examples of any elements of the Tory party saying that immigrants or the poor caused the global financial crisis. What they might be saying is that the existence of this might be slowing its recovery, and that's a lot more of an arguable point (in the case of immigration, due to the expansion of the labour pool and what that does to wages and dole queues, and in the case of "the poor" it's about the cost of welfare in the face of growing dole queues (which aren't actually happening now anyway)).

But I think it's more complex than simply "the media don't like wogs and chavs". As we spoke about earlier this week in this very thread, we didn't have a double dip recession. The chaps at the ONS, bless their socks, got the numbers wrong and we weren't in a recession the second time. Our economy is doing better than previously suggested. But you'd struggle to find that outside of the financial section of any mainstream newspaper. The BBC website has paragraphs shorter than Dan Brown's chapters, so expecting nuance from there is going to lead to you being disappointed. It was a positive story, yet it got ignored in the face of countless articles, op-ed's, talking head wankery and ed ball BBC interview circuitry on the subject of the AAA rating downgrade - something which is jolly exciting for the Westminster folk who play politics for a living but which is, actually, basically irrelevant to anyone everywhere, even in a passive sense.

But misery sells. It's a lot easier to say - and possibly accurate, btw; I don't think it's reasonable to discount the fact that those writing it might believe it just because you don't - that immigration is making it harder to find jobs and welfare has to be cut for us to grow faster; That's easier to say than the global crisis was caused by the easy flow of credit from central banks across the world which causes various bubbles across the western world such as house building in ireland and greece, house prices in the UK etc, and this was coupled with short-term greed by banks and government policies that encouraged financial institutions to take more and more risks to enfranchise voters. This lead to a greater and greater leveraging of less and less actual financial reserves and this meant that when the plug was pulled lots of banks lost a lot of money, which immediately caused them to be more risk averse and thus we have a credit crunch. The 10 years before the recession were years of enormous growth but much of that growth was founded on blah blah blah blah. There are magazines and journals out there that say this stuff, but they don't sell 1.8 million a day like the Mail does.

To be fair the ONS is independent, and has to rely on a smaller budget for data collection than most financial institutions, which makes it hard to get the full picture until several months after the preliminary figures. The readjustment was reported, admittedly not widely, and the government failed to capitalise on that, but who can blame them?

However, it revised up its estimates of previous quarters, and said there was 0.2pc growth in 2012, up from the zero growth it had estimated previously.

The ONS said growth in the third quarter was 1pc rather than 0.9pc and that the economy shrank in the first quarter of 2012 not by 0.2pc but by just 0.1pc.

No government is going to shout about annual growth rates which are almost flat lining, especially as they are below what the coalition promised for 2012. Better to stay silent, and only mention it in on the quiet from a PR perspective.

This comment was posted on the the Telegraph article I quoted from above, and sums up why schools should teach some basic economics.

For crying out loud! Government statistics are always subterfuge, to put it politely. In fact, they are bullshit.

Just what are theses figures based upon? Facts or hearsay? What the hell does say a measly 0.1% growth in GDP, actually mean? How is it measured?

Did you know that Government spending actually counts positively in the calculation for GDP? So the Government spends £35 Billion on new Fighter a/c from the USA and that counts towards OUR Gross National Product. How can the spending of such be claimed as a positive entry to the Country's balance sheet?

The answer is, that the Government can then control the GDP growth ( as per Moron Brown, who borrowed and spent more, to raise our GDP and claimed it a success). However, when the chickens come home to roost, as they have done, the Government has no money left to spend to raise the UK GDP, the chickenshit hits the fan and leaves us in the mess we are wallowing in, right now. But we are not in a recession are we? Are we? Of course we are, we are in the throes of a devastating depression that is already in a high street near you.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Really, I thought we had a party based system. And this personality-based politics, whereby you elect the person at the head of each party, I find pretty naff. Especially when they all have such shit personalities.

Well the poll's asking who people would like best as a Prime Minister - I don't think that's an irrelevance, when one is casting their ballot. Besides, it's not up to us or the politicians in Westminster to decide upon what metrics the electorate choose to cast their vote. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say that they'd vote for Labour were it not for Ed Miliband, so clearly it matters to a lot of people who ends up being the de facto head of state.

To be fair the ONS is independent, and has to rely on a smaller budget for data collection than most financial institutions, which makes it hard to get the full picture until several months after the preliminary figures. The readjustment was reported, admittedly not widely, and the government failed to capitalise on that, but who can blame them?

Sure, I'm not having a go at them, it's the response (or lack thereof) that their re-evaluations got that irked. I think you're right that the government has little to shout about, but I also think they're keeping a bit quiet about it so they can deploy it later when it'll do them more good, politically. Wait til something bad happens, put Osborne on the Wato panel with Balls and have him trot out the "you were wrong last time, stop talking down the economy" lines. It's the right-ward press I don't really understand.

 

[Little Old Man]

Sure, I'm not having a go at them, it's the response (or lack thereof) that their re-evaluations got that irked. I think you're right that the government has little to shout about, but I also think they're keeping a bit quiet about it so they can deploy it later when it'll do them more good, politically. Wait til something bad happens, put Osborne on the Wato panel with Balls and have him trot out the "you were wrong last time, stop talking down the economy" lines. It's the right-ward press I don't really understand.

Like I said there's nothing to shout about at all. Things are just slightly less bad than they were, and still below projections (I think anyway), and all it does is stop Ed Balls shouting 'double dip recession lolol' from the rooftops (instead he'll just switch to 'flatlining GDP figures' or poor growth).
The worst thing is that the original headline of double dip recession is of course a confidence knock to consumers and firms, and likely affected figures negatively for the following quarter.

As for the right wing press- they'll want to point out things aren't quite as bad as first believed, but then again they don't want to show up the coalition government. Fine line to walk along.

Expect the media circus to go full swing though if ONS gives strong figures for this quarter.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Well the poll's asking who people would like best as a Prime Minister - I don't think that's an irrelevance, when one is casting their ballot. Besides, it's not up to us or the politicians in Westminster to decide upon what metrics the electorate choose to cast their vote. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say that they'd vote for Labour were it not for Ed Miliband, so clearly it matters to a lot of people who ends up being the de facto head of state.

I'm sorry, but I had to read the bolded about ten times and I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying here. It's surely up to us, by virtue of us casting our votes.

I never said the polls were an irrelevance. I'm just lamenting that fact that, due to people's apparent inability to digest complex matters, things get boiled down to increasingly simplified political soundbites. <sigh> I suppose it were ever thus. But my 'cringe-factor' has noticeably increased over the last couple of years.

I mean, REALLY, who gives a fuck if David Cameron or Ed Milliband eat at fucking Greggs. FUCK OFF ALREADY. Jesus.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Like I said there's nothing to shout about at all. Things are just slightly less bad than they were, and still below projections (I think anyway), and all it does is stop Ed Balls shouting 'double dip recession lolol' from the rooftops (instead he'll just switch to 'flatlining GDP figures' or poor growth).

Well exactly, it's not the numbers that are important, it's the...

The worst thing is that the original headline of double dip recession is of course a confidence knock to consumers and firms, and likely affected figures negatively for the following quarter.

Stuff like this. I was listening to LBC whilst making some lovely, lovely ribs the other night, and they had a discussion about the economy in light of the AAA stuff. The guy presenting - Ian Collins, who is by no means an ignorant moron when it comes to politics - kept repeatedly (and I know it was repeatedly because my girlfriend kept rolling her eyes every time I spat at the radio) saying "and as our economy keeps flatlining and could even end up in a triple dip recession, we're talking tonight about how important Moodys... etc etc" They - the politicians and the press (and anyone who has an interest in presenting the fiscal response of the coalition as being the right call) should be getting out there, not because the numbers matter tremendously, but because discussions like this do. 100's of phone in radio shows across the country talking about economic issues with dreary buzzwords, it has an effect on the economy.

Everyone uses "green shoots" ironically now, after Lamont said it and the economy went on to shrink - except it didn't. It got revised up afterwards, and when he said that he was beginning to see green shoots was approximately when the normal economic indicators of growth picked up, only we didn't know this til later. Yet 'green shoots' is still used ironically. If they don't get out and set the record straight now - even if it's more of a rhetorical point than anything - it'll come back to haunt them in 2015 when people have this general idea that the Coalition's economic performance has been bad because there's just been a slew of negative (and, in hindsight, some of which is erroneous) news for the last 5 years.

As for the right wing press- they'll want to point out things aren't quite as bad as first believed, but then again they don't want to show up the coalition government. Fine line to walk along.

I don't see why those are mutually exclusive. It wasn't the government that got the numbers wrong (and again, I'm not blaming the ONS) - there are a lot of positive signals coming out, economically, that they could run with - no triple dip, highest employment ever, lower unemployment than 2010 etc. I don't think there is a "line" for them to be walking, fine or not.

 

[Little Old Man]

Well exactly, it's not the numbers that are important, it's the...



Stuff like this. I was listening to LBC whilst making some lovely, lovely ribs the other night, and they had a discussion about the economy in light of the AAA stuff. The guy presenting - Ian Collins, who is by no means an ignorant moron when it comes to politics - kept repeatedly (and I know it was repeatedly because my girlfriend kept rolling her eyes every time I spat at the radio) saying "and as our economy keeps flatlining and could even end up in a triple dip recession, we're talking tonight about how important Moodys... etc etc" They - the politicians and the press (and anyone who has an interest in presenting the fiscal response of the coalition as being the right call) should be getting out there, not because the numbers matter tremendously, but because discussions like this do. 100's of phone in radio shows across the country talking about economic issues with dreary buzzwords, it has an effect on the economy.

Everyone uses "green shoots" ironically now, after Lamont said it and the economy went on to shrink - except it didn't. It got revised up afterwards, and when he said that he was beginning to see green shoots was approximately when the normal economic indicators of growth picked up, only we didn't know this til later. Yet 'green shoots' is still used ironically. If they don't get out and set the record straight now - even if it's more of a rhetorical point than anything - it'll come back to haunt them in 2015 when people have this general idea that the Coalition's economic performance has been bad because there's just been a slew of negative (and, in hindsight, some of which is erroneous) news for the last 5 years.

I don't see why those are mutually exclusive. It wasn't the government that got the numbers wrong (and again, I'm not blaming the ONS) - there are a lot of positive signals coming out, economically, that they could run with - no triple dip, highest employment ever, lower unemployment than 2010 etc. I don't think there is a "line" for them to be walking, fine or not.

There isn't much sweet talking that could be done to reclaim any lost GDP due to negative headlines. Neither is now going on the offensive with "no double dip but the slightest amount of growth! Go Britain!". They merely need to point out that no double dip occurred if the matter is raised. Again the press won't be doing Cameron any favours by pointing out no double dip from the rooftops when Balls can just point out the tiny growth on the 10 O'clock news- the negative will be reported over the positive.

As you say there are far better things to publicise- those to do with unemployment, job creation, numbers in work, whatever they have. They're generally much easier to manipulate than GDP figures, which have big slogans slapped to them very easily.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm sorry, but I had to read the bolded about ten times and I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying here. It's surely up to us, by virtue of us casting our votes.

I never said the polls were an irrelevance. I'm just lamenting that fact that, due to people's apparent inability to digest complex matters, things get boiled down to increasingly simplified political soundbites. <sigh> I suppose it were ever thus. But my 'cringe-factor' has noticeably increased over the last couple of years.

I mean, REALLY, who gives a fuck if David Cameron or Ed Milliband eat at fucking Greggs. FUCK OFF ALREADY. Jesus.

Sorry, by "us" I mean us talking about political wankery. What I meant is that it's up to the voters (and so, yeah, it's up to you and me in our capacity as voters). I guess what I meant was that it's not up to us to say what others should care about when casting their vote. If they care about who has a better photo-op in Greggs, so be it. Politicians don't do it because they like Greggs, they do it because they actually think it has a positive effect on their vote (and they may well be right - of all the ridiculous photo ops they do, how many can you think of off the top of your head where they look silly? All of them in Greggs? Hague with his baseball cap in Alton Towers? Gordon Brown standing alone in a warehouse? They collectively meet hundreds of people a day. I doubt they'd do it if it didn't make a difference).

But I think we're arguing over nothing - as you said, you're just lamenting the fact that this is the case. Personally, I don't mind it so much. I think it's actually, ironically, the move towards more party-dependence that has caused the importance of the role of PM, because s/he's no longer just the person that goes to meet the queen once a week - they're the one that has the ultimate say over budgets and campaigning allowances. Back in the day, most MP's were independently wealthy and could run their own campaigns and win, if they so chose to do so. The relative cost of such things has gone up so much that candidates wishing to have a good run at an election are forced to be in the party's good books - A-List and all that shit - which leads to a culture where the leader of the party has a huge amount of sway over his or her members and, as a result, the legislative process.

That's how I see it, anyway. It's the price we pay for not having a parliament even less representative than it is right now (which is, let's remember, more or less the most varied in makeup than it's ever been).

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Sorry, by "us" I mean us talking about political wankery. What I meant is that it's up to the voters (and so, yeah, it's up to you and me in our capacity as voters). I guess what I meant was that it's not up to us to say what others should care about when casting their vote. If they care about who has a better photo-op in Greggs, so be it. Politicians don't do it because they like Greggs, they do it because they actually think it has a positive effect on their vote (and they may well be right - of all the ridiculous photo ops they do, how many can you think of off the top of your head where they look silly? All of them in Greggs? Hague with his baseball cap in Alton Towers? Gordon Brown standing alone in a warehouse? They collectively meet hundreds of people a day. I doubt they'd do it if it didn't make a difference).

But I think we're arguing over nothing - as you said, you're just lamenting the fact that this is the case. Personally, I don't mind it so much. I think it's actually, ironically, the move towards more party-dependence that has caused the importance of the role of PM, because s/he's no longer just the person that goes to meet the queen once a week - they're the one that has the ultimate say over budgets and campaigning allowances. Back in the day, most MP's were independently wealthy and could run their own campaigns and win, if they so chose to do so. The relative cost of such things has gone up so much that candidates wishing to have a good run at an election are forced to be in the party's good books - A-List and all that shit - which leads to a culture where the leader of the party has a huge amount of sway over his or her members and, as a result, the legislative process.

That's how I see it, anyway. It's the price we pay for not having a parliament even less representative than it is right now (which is, let's remember, more or less the most varied in makeup than it's ever been).

<whew> You're right. I think I just needed to blow off some steam about that whole Greggs thing (because I really love Greggs).

 

[Nicktendo86]

<whew> You're right. I think I just needed to blow off some steam about that whole Greggs thing (because I really love Greggs).

Greggs is shit compared to Percy Ingle.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Greggs is shit compared to Percy Ingle.

Unfortunately the nearest one of those is about 120 miles away from me, so I'll have to reserve judgement :-(

Greggs may not be haute cuisine, but since I'm from "oop north" it gets a x100 multiplier from me for being so cheap.

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

Greggs is shit compared to Percy Ingle.

For some of their pasties, definitely. Percy Ingle Steak Puff (or is it bite?) beats Greggs' Steak bake anyday of the week.

 

[CyclopsRock]

On the subject of stupid Gregg's photo op's, Hugo Rifkind's piece in this week's Spectator is great. I won't post it because (I think) it's behind the paywall (they reveal random articles every week so it might not be) but I'll post it next week when the issue is off the shelves. His basic point is that politicians would get more respect if they just said "I don't give a shit about issue X. I don't hate people who do, I'm not dismissing its importance, but I don't personally care about it." The example he gave was Cameron commenting on the Hilary Mantel thing whilst on the trade mission to India. He should have said "I've been a bit busy trying to sell Eurofighters to the 2nd most populace country in the world to read about comments about the princess. Shoot me an email and I'll read it on the iPad on the flight home, then maybe I'll have a comment."

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Hampsons > Greggs

At least with the sausage rolls, anyway. The one here closed down

 

[Nicktendo86]

For some of their pasties, definitely. Percy Ingle Steak Puff (or is it bite?) beats Greggs' Steak bake anyday of the week.

Two words: Belgian Bun

 

[Incontinentia Buttocks]

Two words: Belgian Bun

Four words: Apple and blackcurrant Danish.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Rumours abound that this years budget is looking a bit tame and boring. Nothing radical in either direction, which is a bit of a disappointment - is there anyone, on either side of the chamber, that really thinks the current route is the optimum for recovery?

 

[defel]

Rumours abound that this years budget is looking a bit tame and boring. Nothing radical in either direction, which is a bit of a disappointment - is there anyone, on either side of the chamber, that really thinks the current route is the optimum for recovery?

Most of the analysis Ive read seems to think that after the disaster last year that Osbourne wants to ensure that this budget is wholly forgettable and boring. If we arent talking about the budget a few days after the event then in their eyes its a success. Its a great shame since the Government are starting to drop the ball on their strategy. Where is the flexibility.? Where are the infrastructure projects? Good piece in the Economist this week - there were dozens of shovel ready projects going ahead post Darling in 2010. Osbourne scrapped them all. Either he is economically incompetent and doesnt think that some fiscal expansion will help the economy or he is politically blind and doesnt want to appear weak by deviating from his strategy.

or of course, both...

 

[War Peaceman]

While I am not expecting a revolutionary budget, I suspect that the excitement of the budget is being intentionally played down for hype purposes.

 

[Jex]

Rumours abound that this years budget is looking a bit tame and boring. Nothing radical in either direction, which is a bit of a disappointment - is there anyone, on either side of the chamber, that really thinks the current route is the optimum for recovery?

We have to stay the course! Plan A is the only way.

 

[Jackpot]

I sometimes wonder what it would take to make Osbourne & co reconsider their approach. I'm not enough of an expert to condemn or praise austerity but I do know the reason they're so dogmatic about keeping it is solely down to avoiding the humiliation of a U-turn, not because they think it's the right course of action.

 

[CyclopsRock]

or of course, both...

It is odd. For someone so politically minded, he seems oddly unconcerned with the fact that this budget is basically the last one where it's changes will have time to affect the economy in time for 2015. Do mad shot this budget, then play it safe next budget, because they won't remember the 2013 budget when they go to the voting booths.

 

[travisbickle]

I wouldn't mind it if it made sense. If it said "If you'd paid your taxes", even, it'd make more sense. But it says "if you pay your taxes" ie paying taxes is great, and it really makes my monday! I guess I'm being pedantic, but right now it might as well say "taxes lol!" for all the amusement, honesty and symbolism it espouses.

Not to be too pedantic but the advert does use the auxilary modal verb "can", meaning a possibility or a request. So a conditional "if" with the base form verb is correct grammatically.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not to be too pedantic but the advert does use the auxilary modal verb "can", meaning a possibility or a request. So a conditional "if" with the base form verb is correct grammatically.

Sure,I didn't mean it doesn't make sense grammatically,I meant it doesn't make sense inasmuch as it's suggesting that the actual act of paying taxes makes your day great. Maybe she's just a masochistic communist...

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Most of the analysis Ive read seems to think that after the disaster last year that Osbourne wants to ensure that this budget is wholly forgettable and boring. If we arent talking about the budget a few days after the event then in their eyes its a success. Its a great shame since the Government are starting to drop the ball on their strategy. Where is the flexibility.? Where are the infrastructure projects? Good piece in the Economist this week - there were dozens of shovel ready projects going ahead post Darling in 2010. Osbourne scrapped them all. Either he is economically incompetent and doesnt think that some fiscal expansion will help the economy or he is politically blind and doesnt want to appear weak by deviating from his strategy.

or of course, both...

Dead. This government loves to talk about infrastructure and big projects but when it comes time to actually making it happen all we get are excuses.

My bank has given them countless scenarios in which the government could put their good credit rating to use and get the country building/engineering/working and they are always well received by ministers but eventually get shot down for unknown reasons.

I liked our plan to create a new special investment vehicle capitalised with £100bn and tasked to improve national infrastructure, from power generation down to waste water reclamation. It uses low government interest rates, can be excluded from the balance sheet like National Rail and if it is run correctly (none of this "in the public interest" bollocks, run it like a business) and it will increase economic capacity for when the good times return.

Whatever happens in the budget, we can count on one thing. He will mention infrastructure projects a bunch of times, and then over the course of the year they will all come to nought.