Jo Swinson

urban genie said:
Ed Davy who also lost his seat on 2015 like her, yet he did campaign in th #intogether campain.

As did other MPs that lost seats.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did. As did the muppet who runs Spoons.

We will never know how hard she would have campaigned if she were an MP, as she wasn't.
 
Rascal said:
The alternative was investment, in effect spend your way out of recession. I know that sounds counter intuitative but investment leads to the multiplier effect and every £1 spent creates maybe £10 in the economy as it goes down the supply chain. For instance, you invest and decide to say build a house, that means you employ people who receive wages who spend them at the local shop, who makes a profit and invests in more stock from the wholesaler who buys more stock from the supplier who employs more people that means less money spent on welfare to produce the goods, who then earn wages to buy the house.

I know that is very simplistic, but it does create growth.

Neo-liberals assume the market always ends in equilibrium and provides what is needed, but in times of depression or stagnation standard rules have to be suspended and require market intervention. This is where the ideology comes in, the Tories and the Lib Dem Orange Bookists believed in the untrammelled power of the market and that if it was left to its own devices it would return to equilibrium, Keynes thought that not to be the case and that some state intervention was required.

At the moment we are at a stage where austerity has shrunk the market and we have what Keynes called the underemployment equilibrium, this can be shown by the amount of zero hours contracts etc.

There is more, but I am reaching into 30 fucking years ago to recall this and I am a senile old fucker ;))
Click to expand...

Keynesian economics has another half to that story. As well as investing through recessions (which is indeed a good idea), you also have to build a surplus whilst the economy is performing well. That surplus can then be invested through the following recession and so on the cycle goes.

Unfortunately, Labour broke the Keynesian cycle under Blair and Brown when the days of boom and bust were declared over. They didn't just overlook building a surplus during times of plenty, but started to build a deficit. The deficit that then ran out of control once the inevitable recession eventually came.

I suppose there's an argument that we could have attempted to spend our way out of the recession regardless. But I don't think it can be called Keynesian as he'd have advocated investing a surplus that should have existed, rather than investing using what would have ended up as mountains of debt.

You either try to steady the ship or try to ride with the current, but really we shouldn't have been in the dangerous water to start with.
 
CityStu said:
Keynesian economics has another half to that story. As well as investing through recessions (which is indeed a good idea), you also have to build a surplus whilst the economy is performing well. That surplus can then be invested through the following recession and so on the cycle goes.

Unfortunately, Labour broke the Keynesian cycle under Blair and Brown when the days of boom and bust were declared over. They didn't just overlook building a surplus during times of plenty, but started to build a deficit. The deficit that then ran out of control once the inevitable recession eventually came.

I suppose there's an argument that we could have attempted to spend our way out of the recession regardless. But I don't think it can be called Keynesian as he'd have advocated investing a surplus that should have existed, rather than investing using what would have ended up as mountains of debt.

You either try to steady the ship or try to ride with the current, but really we shouldn't have been in the dangerous water to start with.
Click to expand...

Of course,i agree, like I said it was a long time ago I studied it :). Labour did run a surplus in the early years under Brown and I agree the ludicrous notion that it was the end of boom and bust came back to haunt it, through the Tory accusation of not fixing the roof whilst the sun shining.
 
CityStu said:
Keynesian economics has another half to that story. As well as investing through recessions (which is indeed a good idea), you also have to build a surplus whilst the economy is performing well. That surplus can then be invested through the following recession and so on the cycle goes.

Unfortunately, Labour broke the Keynesian cycle under Blair and Brown when the days of boom and bust were declared over. They didn't just overlook building a surplus during times of plenty, but started to build a deficit. The deficit that then ran out of control once the inevitable recession eventually came.

I suppose there's an argument that we could have attempted to spend our way out of the recession regardless. But I don't think it can be called Keynesian as he'd have advocated investing a surplus that should have existed, rather than investing using what would have ended up as mountains of debt.

You either try to steady the ship or try to ride with the current, but really we shouldn't have been in the dangerous water to start with.
Click to expand...
Worth mentioning the Tories have borrowed 900m in the past nine years compared to their plan of net borrowing of 300m.
Oh for a return to the pre crash days when Labour were only 2s/6d overdrawn at the bank.
 
Ms Swinson strikes me as a rather silly lady and,a fairly opportunist politician. She is an effective mouthpiece for the remain echo chamber, just as Farage is for the brexit one. I've heard her grilled on her remain stance in several interviews now and she is poor - a student union level politician at best. I could honestly string a better case for remaining in the EU myself, and I don't even believe in it. There are many very good reasons to argue for remain, and she has sadly not been made aware of them. A silly lady.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Ms Swinson strikes me as a rather silly lady and,a fairly opportunist politician. She is an effective mouthpiece for the remain echo chamber, just as Farage is for the brexit one. I've heard her grilled on her remain stance in several interviews now and she is poor - a student union level politician at best. I could honestly string a better case for remaining in the EU myself, and I don't even believe in it. There are many very good reasons to argue for remain, and she has sadly not been made aware of them. A silly lady.
Click to expand...
Got to agree, she has been pretty unimpressive when I've seen her interviewed. Plus she has an annoying habit of seeming very pleased with herself.
 
mackenzie said:
Got to agree, she has been pretty unimpressive when I've seen her interviewed. Plus she has an annoying habit of seeming very pleased with herself.
Click to expand...

The cat that got the cream springs to mind.

Her question in PMQ's yesterday the perfect example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.