Be Excellent To Each Other

It feels dirty to say this, but Cameron has done the right thing. For the wrong reasons, mind you, but he's done the right thing. The agreement is utter madness - not only is the ECB *still* not the lender of last resort, but the 'fiscal compact' essentially outlaws fiscal stimulus. The deficit of each country will be limited to 0.5%. Look at the Eurostat figures for 2011 - almost every single country in the Eurozone is above that - massive massive crippling cuts will ensue. Which is going to help the Southern states out, obviously.

I think the wolves are sensing blood now.



Election in April?

The LDs have been at pains today to stress how they're going to stay in coalition to mend fences with Europe. As if Europe would listen to them, or even know who they are. Given their current polling if they went for an election in April they'd cease to exist.

Dorries, amongst her many faults, clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word "cowardly".

If there were to be an election, I suspect that you would be quite right, and the Lib Dems wouldn't get a lot at all. The Tories would win with a decent majority and stay in power for a couple of terms. I suspect we'll be seeing quite a lot of negative things direct towards the Lib Dems over the next few months or so, to wear them down and cast some seeds of doubt in the voter's minds.

I'm not convinced tht's how it would go down - I think given the disillusionment with "Tory cuts" and so on, and the fact they're singularly failing to stimulate any growth (except amongst Eursceptics getting tumescent at the thought of breaking from Europe), any losses from the Lib Dems (of which there would be a lot) would go to Labour more than the Tories, so we'd be back to a hung parliament.

Do you think Milliband has that kind of attraction, though? In my kinder moods, he's fucking terrible. Also, Ed Balls has said that Labour would have made the cuts as well (but, it would have been done in a different manner) so I think there would be a chance to make capital on that, given the mantra "It was Labour's reckless spending that did this, we've got to fix it". Respectfully, I'd call a Tory majority, Lib Dem's down to about 45 seats, And Labour/Tory splitting those losses evenly. I certainly can't see the Tories returning any less than the most seats.

Yeah, but I think people are starting to remember why they hate the Tories, and are near to coming to the conclusion that anyone would be better than them. Even the adenoidal Millitede is a better bet.



The "different" is important there, as they weren't going to cut as much, and weren't going to frontload it. The "too deep, too fast" has mileage, particularly now that we're heading back into recession. They can make great play of Osborne's "no plan B", given that his plan A isn't working (save for the not particularly voter friendly argument that they needed a credible deficit reduction plan to ensure the bond markets liked us, but then who's to say Labour's plan wasn't credible enough for that too?), and is in fact actively harming the average voter’s bank balance.



That’s certainly easily counterable though – that spending was what was making people’s lives better, if it was that bad the Tories wouldn’t’ have pledged to follow our spending plans, and look what’s happened now they’ve come off it, the economy’s tanked etc.



I still disagree – I think LDs will be down to about 15, and you’d get a roughly 60/40 split of the lib dems’ losses in Labour’s favour. But then I'm pulling this out of my arse just as much as you are

well, i can understand cameron wanting not having to do with all eurozone misery, but i think it is an illusion you can escape by just vetoing (guess i'm bit a bit with milliband here)..

and the libdem's what do they actually want, now all crown jewels are gone, and the government is neither liberal not very democratic..

Judging by seat calculators I've been playing with, the LDs would be extremely lucky to return even 15 seats. Some put them down as low as two. Perhaps that's pessimistic, but they'd certainly be lucky to get much into double figures, and the election in England would turn into a bitter, nasty Lab/Con fist-fight, a dual slanging match over Europe and Tories being Tories. I've no idea what the result would be, but with the LDs being nuked out of existence (and, almost certainly, Lucas losing the one Green seat), I'd also not be surprised to see Lab or Con returned with a small majority. Either way, I don't see much of an improvement: Cons would continue dismantling everything, but now with the full backing of the electorate (as it would be spun); Lab seem pretty weak right now and would probably just blame everything on what the Tories have been doing this term.

I think this is why the ineffective nature of the LDs pisses me off so much. We have such stupid reactionary and partisan politics in the UK, and coalition could have been a moderating force, giving us debate and more democratic process. Instead, this coalition has turned the concept to poison in people's minds, meaning it could be a decade or two before people consider the idea non-hateful again.

Been thinking about the affair a lot this weekend. Just some thoughts, not related to anyone's posts.

I think everyone got what they wanted. Cameron finally gets to look tough in front of his backbenchers, whilst from now on Sarkozy and Merkel can blame everything dire that might happen to the Eurozone on perfidious Albion regardless of how irrelevant such complaint could be. After all, they can now come up with whatever plans they want without having to worry about Britain.

I'm not sure, however, that some of the suggested elements will go down well with some of the smaller countries, nor their electorates (remember them?). Most alarming of all is the idea I've heard that Eurozone members should submit their budgets to the European Commission - that's a hell of a loss of sovereignty and democratic accountability which would not end happily if the populace feel their votes no long matter. . But then, we once cut off a king's head on the principle that the legislature should have final say over the purse strings.

As for the coalition, I would be very surprised if Clegg was going to criticise Cameron publicly without the other's tacit agreement. Still, the Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it very hard for them to just walk out, so I think they will still last the course. And when this administration is over, expect plenty of memoirs setting out just how the Lib Dems influenced policy away from the cameras.

But the Lib Dems have influenced plenty of policies near the cameras - it's just that it's convenient for people to ignore that and look for a scapegoat.

If implementing 75% of your manifesto isn't a success as the minor partner in a coalition, I don't know what is.

It makes no odds. Labour's going to destroy the Lib-Dems in 2015, simply by banging on about student fees (which Labour introduced and has said it will only slightly revert anyway) and the NHS (which the Lib-Dems have somewhat fought for, although the capitulation in the Lords was disgraceful).

As for the EU, I've been hearing some interesting stuff, not least that the demands might be incompatible with the constitutions of some countries, not least the Scandinavian ones. They might be forced to opt out and join the UK, or end up in a constitutional crisis. It's also notable that German demands are largely incompatible with the economies of the Swedes and Danes, and so that could also point to some other countries saying no.

List this 75%.

Pupil premium
Banking levy
Take low income earners out of income tax by raising threshold
Ban on any new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture
Ensured overseas aid budget was not cut
Increase to Capital Gains Tax
No replacement of Trident
Respite care for care workers
Lots of other stuff

I admit that some things aren't so great, like the VAT rise and tuition fees, and others like Trident have been put off until the next parliament, but I honestly think there's plenty to be proud of. They haven't got everything right, but I honestly believe having the Lib Dems in this government has made things more palatable than if they were not. Remember they're the minority party so they can't have everything their own way. The Tories had a lot more seats, hence a lot more say.

Probably also worth noting many Tories are going batshit crazy, arguing the tail's been wagging the dog since 2010. Still, I really wish Lib-Dems had the balls to essentially kill the NHS bill. That's the one they really need to scupper—and I'm pretty sure the electorate would remember that in 2015.

The problem is that people are stupid, and easily manipulated by rich people.

Every single unpopular thing done by this government has been by the Tories. Every single one. And half of those were toned down by the Lib Dems.

And yet the Tories will win seats from Lib Dems. It's like the populace are saying, "Well, we don't want a semi-skimmed evil party running things. We want full-on evil in the Tories, or bumbling incompetence and Orwellian policing from Labour."

It's almost as if the average person in this country is a brain dead, knuckle dragging credulous fucking moron.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I love this guy:

He's eloquent, all right.

Until he goes on Fox News and says the NHS is communist and Britain should adopt the US healthcare system because it works so well. They love him over on Fox.

I wonder how the translators handled that.

"Blah blah racist drivel, blah blah uninformed nonsense, blah blah I'm a twat that likes to eat poo and fondle donkeys"

Hannan's always worth listening to, even if you don't agree with him. His blog on the Torygraph site is often well written too.

Being against the EU doesn't automatically mean someone's racist

Racist.

This is, #occupy

Kern is right, of course. However, just because Hannan isn't necessarily a racist because he doesn't like the EU (he may well actually hate black people and believe Jews control the NHS, of course, but just does it on his own time and not in front of a camera), it doesn't mean he's not a fucking moron, for the reasons Plissken has mentioned.

...except for the ones who had pensions funds tied up in banks as "shareholders and bondholders". Which would be most of them, guy.

Heh.

And I'm sure the government guaranteeing deposits is "communist" in his world, so he'd want to do away with that for good measure.

Being a sarcastic bastard doesn't make me a comedian either.

Also, claiming capitalism has improved Britain since 1066 is a bit of a stretch.

And the repeated call for a flat tax and the "rich paying 40% of the tax" canard fucks me off as well.

A system where people can not work for 3 months, but sleep in a tent and communicate with the world through $1,000 technology would, I'd suggest, show some signs of it 'working'.

That risk is spread across many investments, though.

Which bit of that, other than the avaiblility of an iPhone and a tent for purchase with money, is due to capitalism?

I rather think Plissken's point may have been that we didn't have capitalism in 1066, as such.

Would that have happened though? Or would we have had a run on all banks, a general collapse of the entire banking industry and everyone being screwed totally? If we had had a true, free-market, laissez faire, non-interventionist system I think we'd have been really bodged.

The capitalist society that we live in, which has clearly empowered people to take 3 months off and live in a tent with $1,000 communications equipment that has existed since 1776?

Again, in what way has "capitalism" "empowered" them to take 3 months off? Especially if they're all tramps on the dole as the Mail says.

Also, consider that a pure capitalist society wouldn't have any regulatory restrictions on it, e.g. employent law protections. So any ability to waft around in tents on benefits is due to socialist democracy, not capitalism. And is in fact in spite of the capitalism.

I'm also not sure where 1776 came from.

'Cos otherwise they'd be dead due to not eating and shit like that.

1776 - Adam Smith's the 'Wealth of Nations' was published.

Well, quite. Given that the entire problem with the near banking collapse was the interconnectedness of the banking system, there wouldn't be any "more efficient competitors" left.

Capitalism didn't feed them.


Ahhhh, I see. That still doesn't help with 1066.

Even if it could be demonstrably proven to increase the overall revenue achieved from taxation, particularly at the highest levels? That would be a baffling opinion to hold if so. Note that I'm not speaking up in favour of a flat tax there, merely that it would be odd to oppose a measure that could achieve something you thought was desirable, particularly if it's based on a historical viewpoint that 'blararagh, a flat tax is EVIL', without really thinking about the potential reality.

I certainly reject the unqualified notion that Hannan is a 'fucking moron'. He's the rarest of politicians in that he's capable of speaking with great articulation, but also always conveys a detailed understanding of the subject he's talking about. I can't help by find myself agreeing with the vast majority of what he says about europe, and enjoying listening to him even when I don't agree with his views.

Note that Hannon is careful not to claim this. He claims it will increase the proportion of tax paid by the rich; he doesn't talk about the actual overall revenue at all.

He's just a slightly less swivel eyed version of Nigel Farage. Yes, he can be eloquent, but that doesn't stop him being flat wrong about things and demonstrating that he can't think things through. He's a moron.

Well yes, I'd always want to see the figures as real numbers stacked a few different ways. But I was talking more of a principal on the general point - disagreeing with things you have previously believed to be 'bad' without actually having investigated or thought about them any time recently.

I can't begin to name of number of people I know who pay no attention to politics, and can barely name a politician who isn't David Cameron, but despite that will forcibly tell you that the Tories are 'evil', because they were once told that by someone else, and so they're sticking to it indefinitely. Whether they're evil or not is almost immaterial, but if you consider the majority of people will align themselves politically without even thinking about or examining it, then fuck me, I wonder what the point of all this democracy is.

Feex.

Oddly I really dislike Nigel Farage, despite his terrifying ability to survive plane crashes.

The Tories being evil is an objective fact, though.

Intellectually you know that all political views are subjective so if you are genuinely trying to say the Tories are inarguably evil, that's just.... silly.

Yeah, they're like the Empire in Star Wars, or the Germans in 'Allo, 'Allo.

Whether you think, I dunno, gays should marry in church or not is of course subjective opinion, but it is objective fact that, e.g. Thatcher ate children, after weakening them by stealing their free milk.

The difference is that yes, political views can be subjective (some are objectively wrong, of course), but the EFFECTS of the policies that flow from those views are not.

Actually I disagree. He isn't a moron, he's much more dangerous than that because he can debate and he is very eloquent. He'll steal your money and persuade you he is right to do so.

Fox love him because Americans love a well spoken British guy even if he is doing evil. See Alan Rickman.

There is a reason he is in Europe and not Westminster - and that is to keep his extremist views as hidden away as possible.

I agree he's eloquent, but he's still flat wrong on stuff, and has such way off-base views that I can only assume that he's, at heart, a fucking moron.