A Grand Tour of the Political Parties

[Dave]

Personally, I wish Gordon Brown had not intervened at that late stage in the campaign, making long-term promises that I, as a taxpayer, will be expected  to fund.

What promises?  See http://www.cityam.com/1411051570/gordon-browns-better-together-speech-eve-scottish-independence-referendum-vote-full-video

[Duke Fame]

I think we can see why there appeared a spike in support for Divirce from Uk during August.

It's obvious that Cameron would not be a figure that the borderline separatist would warm to. His decision to get involved was calculated to make Brown look good, all he cares about is himself. Yhe separatists were always more vocal, they beloved they were winning on account of Twitter etc but that was akin to Michael foot believing he had mass support on account of getting a standing ovation when addressing far left supporters.

[Bowden Guy]

If only the Scottish electorate could have had a crystal ball showing them the price of oil in January 2015........

Personally, I wish Gordon Brown had not intervened at that late stage in the campaign, making long-term promises that I, as a taxpayer, will be expected  to fund. Nobody asked me to vote on this, or any other person living in England, NI or Wales. It is almost  inevitable that, at some stage, the Scottish people will vote for independence, and good luck to them. I do not, for one moment, think that this has "been put to bed for a generation".

On an entirely different topic (my iPad does not seem to show the 'start new topic" icon) the Pope has offered his views on the Paris atrocities....

"If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother he can expect a punch. It's moral. It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others".

Well, we now know where the Catholic Church stands on this issue......l

[Dave]

Brown's 2 weeks of ranting is not really a claim to success, the figures suggest it was never as close as the Nats wanted us to believe.

In the end the vote (55%/45%) was pretty decisive, which was a relief to everyone, I think. because that put the issue to bed, at least for a few years.  But having spent much of last August in Scotland, just a few weeks before the referendum, and become aware of what appeared to be overwhelming support for independence from almost everyone in that particular area,  I honestly believe that if Brown had not intervened, the vote would have been much closer and could even have gone the other way.   It's important to understand that beneath the surface there was a very strong current of anti-Westminster and anti-Tory feeling among the pro-independence people, and every time Cameron or Osborne went up there and told them to vote no, it was almost certainly counter-productive.  That's why it was so important that a Scottish Labour figure who is as respected as Brown is (and believe me, he still is in Scotland) should speak up on the 'no' side.   

  What you are saying is a Labour chancellor happened to stand up to 1/2 of his party

There was also the small matter of his own prime minister, who also wanted to join!  That's why Brown's famous 'five tests' were so important and decisive.

As for finding an economist who thought the same, I posted the link from Raghuram Rajan, give it a read.

I can't find it - could you post it again? 

[Duke Fame]

I guess that's as good an admission that Gordon Brown was right as we're going to get!    Evidently Duke's search for a reputable economist who opposed the bank bail-out failed - well there's a surprise.   

Duke's determination to see only the worst aspects of Gordon Brown is absurdly blinkered.  Any politician who has served for as long as he did will have had their triumphs and their failures - that's as true of Brown as it is of Thatcher, Blair and the rest.  Brown tends to be remembered mainly for his three years as a unsuccessful prime minister, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, we have him mainly to thank for the UK not joining the euro, for leading the way in world's response to the 2008 banking crisis, and (quite possibly) for averting the break up of the UK.  Those were three considerable achievements.

I'll take the last point, I wasn't too sure that losing Scotland was a bad thing. rUK would get it's Geordie oil and East Yorkshire gas, Fracking will replace the latter in any case.

Small states always do better so Scotland will be easier to manage. That said, Brown's 2 weeks of ranting is not really a claim to success, the figures suggest it was never as close as the Nats wanted us to believe.

Brown didn't join the Euro but IIRC correctly, only Lab, LD & Greens were supporting the EURO. What you are saying is a Labour chancellor happened to stand up to 1/2 of his party and follow conservative policy.

The UK had to act quicker than the EU in the banking crisis as we were the most acutely exposed. If at all possible state money should not have been used. As for finding an economist who thought the same, I posted the link from Raghuram Rajan, give it a read.

As for this: 
I tend to agree, although 'benefit tourism' is something that exists largely in the fevered imaginations of those who produce the Mail and the Express.  The statistics show that most migrants come here to work.  Certainly the NHS would grind to a standstill without immigrant labour.  I gather Stepping Hill has currently got a couple of HR staff stationed permanently in Spain, doing nothing but interview Spanish and Portuguese nurses!

[Dave]

In practice, the bail-out was certainly the easiest (most palatable) solution for the country at the time and may yet give UK plc a return.

I guess that's as good an admission that Gordon Brown was right as we're going to get!    Evidently Duke's search for a reputable economist who opposed the bank bail-out failed - well there's a surprise.   

Duke's determination to see only the worst aspects of Gordon Brown is absurdly blinkered.  Any politician who has served for as long as he did will have had their triumphs and their failures - that's as true of Brown as it is of Thatcher, Blair and the rest.  Brown tends to be remembered mainly for his three years as a unsuccessful prime minister, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, we have him mainly to thank for the UK not joining the euro, for leading the way in world's response to the 2008 banking crisis, and (quite possibly) for averting the break up of the UK.  Those were three considerable achievements.

As for this: 

I pretty much agree though, we should just open our borders but in doing so we must remove a lot of benefits. I'd rather allow a guy who's prepared to suspend himself under Eurostar to work hard here than fork out for some lazy overweight slob to spend their day watching Trisha.

I tend to agree, although 'benefit tourism' is something that exists largely in the fevered imaginations of those who produce the Mail and the Express.  The statistics show that most migrants come here to work.  Certainly the NHS would grind to a standstill without immigrant labour.  I gather Stepping Hill has currently got a couple of HR staff stationed permanently in Spain, doing nothing but interview Spanish and Portuguese nurses! 

[Duke Fame]

Another recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics argued that open borders and an advanced welfare state are increasingly incompatible. The British people have a standard if living that is higher than almost everybody else in the world, so the number of people who will, rationally, want to come to live here is massive.

There may come a point when people are not prepared to pay increasingly higher taxes to pay for benefits to people who have made no prior contribution and for whom they feel little connection, despite Wheels' idealistic views. That prize winner - Milton Friedman (1976)

Freedman was awarded his prize sometime after his work, his was quite unusual in that regard as in the climate of stagflation, poor productivity and inefficificiencies (especially in the uk) it was recognised that (albeit bastardised) Keynesianism can't offer the perfect solution.

I pretty much agree though, we should just open our borders but in doing so we must remove a lot of benefits. I'd rather allow a guy who's prepared to suspend himself under Eurostar to work hard here than fork out for some lazy overweight slob to spend their day watching Trisha

[Bowden Guy]

Another recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics argued that open borders and an advanced welfare state are increasingly incompatible. The British people have a standard if living that is higher than almost everybody else in the world, so the number of people who will, rationally, want to come to live here is massive.

There may come a point when people are not prepared to pay increasingly higher taxes to pay for benefits to people who have made no prior contribution and for whom they feel little connection, despite Wheels' idealistic views. That prize winner - Milton Friedman (1976)

[Duke Fame]

OK, yes, I take Duke's point, I admit.  After all, another winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, some years earlier, was Friedrich Hayek, and I suspect he and Krugman probably would not have agreed on very much!

Meanwhile, Duke describes Krugman as 'an idealist full of theory that should never be applied to real life', so presumably he disagrees with Krugman's view that Gordon Brown's 2008 bank bail out was a good thing.   So perhaps Duke can refer us to another equally distinguished economist who agrees with him?

Ha, well here's me being an academic rather than a realist, 'in theory' I'd say the banks should have been allowed to fail / find funding themselves. This may have seen the end of at least RBS / Natwest, Llloyds may have just found a buyer but I suspect it would have been far worse for their shareholders.

In practice, the bail-out was certainly the easiest (most palatable) solution for the country at the time and may yet give UK plc a return.

[Dave]

OK, yes, I take Duke's point, I admit.  After all, another winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, some years earlier, was Friedrich Hayek, and I suspect he and Krugman probably would not have agreed on very much!

Meanwhile, Duke describes Krugman as 'an idealist full of theory that should never be applied to real life', so presumably he disagrees with Krugman's view that Gordon Brown's 2008 bank bail out was a good thing.   So perhaps Duke can refer us to another equally distinguished economist who agrees with him?

[Duke Fame]

I love a bit of saloon-bar punditry.  'Yeah, these Nobel laureates, they're not what they're cracked up to be.  I mean, what do they know about real life?   Take that Ernest Rutherford, the one that split the atom.  Spent all his life cooped up an a laboratory, so what did he know?  And as for that George Bernard Shaw, the one who believed in eugenics - Hitler loved him, didn't he!  And don't get me started on Mother Theresa.............'   

My point, as I suspect even you understood, is that Nobel prizewinners are not always right about everything and especially in economics, Nobel prizewinners will disagree with each other. Krugman has been extremely critical of Phelps yet, Krugman is very wrong and being proved wrong right now. As I say, Guardian readers swear by Krugman as for the first time in memory, a left-wing economist has been given an award - left wing politics and economics rarely mix.

As for George Bernard Shaw, getting an award for playing make-believe is beyond me but there is hope for Ed balls yet.

[Dave]

I love a bit of saloon-bar punditry.  'Yeah, these Nobel laureates, they're not what they're cracked up to be.  I mean, what do they know about real life?   Take that Ernest Rutherford, the one that split the atom.  Spent all his life cooped up an a laboratory, so what did he know?  And as for that George Bernard Shaw, the one who believed in eugenics - Hitler loved him, didn't he!  And don't get me started on Mother Theresa.............'   

[Duke Fame]

 

As for this: 
When Duke Fame wins a nobel prize for economics, the rest of us might take him as seriously as Paul Krugman, who already has one.   

Dave, the Nobel prize for Economics has been won by some left field theories usually nicely backup up with a lot of maths. One of my faves was Modigliani & Miller who won the gong in 1950's, years spent on research for the optimum funding and gearing for a firm but concluded (and this is where they won the prize) that it didn't matter in the absence of taxation - a situation which does not exist in any economy! My point, a Nobel prize win does not make anyone automatically right, especially when his prize was nothing to do with economic recovery in the light of over-spending by an egotistical power-mad Scotsman.

Krugman is pretty happy to criticise previous winners such as Edmund Phelps and Phelps (along with almost everyone else ) has critisised Krugman's wittering. I can assure you, I'm in good company to think Krugman is wrong.

If you want to know why Brown was wrong and what the solution should have been (Osbourne has gone a little way down this line - not far enough) see: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/134863/raghuram-g-rajan/the-true-lessons-of-the-recession

[Duke Fame]

Angela Merkel has made it very clear, in the reports I have read, that free movement of people across the EU is, from her viewpoint, absolutely non-negotiable. So what's to negotiate?

I thought she was saying that freedom of movement is not up for discussion but if we want to adjust the benefits on offer, that's fine and what Germany has been doing for ever. My thoughts on this are unlikely to find any support here.

[sgk]

Yes, I watched Newsnight and it was strange how he only half showed it to the camera. The production team must have debated whether to have a close-up of the cartoon but decided against it....

Seemed to show it fairly clearly, from what I saw.