The Post General Election Thread

[Rascal]

Now let’s return to that word, neo-liberalism, which refers to the doctrine of liberal, or free-market, economics. It is used pejoratively by the Left to refer to the rebirth of belief in free-market solutions after a period in which socialist or collectivist economies had seemed to be the wave of the future. The opposite of a “liberal economy” must be, of course, an illiberal one: a system in which freedoms are restricted or abolished and various economic levers are controlled by the state.
.

This woman plainly does not understand what the fuck she is writing about. Neo Liberalism as defined by the Mont Perrin group which included Friedman and Hayek saw that for there to be a free market there had to be a strong central state. This is why Osborne small statism is illogical. The free market depends on the State controlling certain economic levers. That is the paradox of Neo-Liberalism as i see it.

As for the rest of her article it is hysterically Hooverite. I wonder if she checks under her bed for reds.

 

[worsleyweb]

So

Anyone who thinks the cuts are a good thing IS a nutter because no sane, rational person who understands economics does think that. The people who think they are a good thing don't understand economics and are spoon fed this view by the ideologues in the Tory party via their lapdogs in the right wing media.

In times of recession, when tax receipts and output are declining, it makes sense to borrow more, increasing the deficit temporarily, to offset this. By investing in infrastructure and services, this reverses the decline and encourages growth. As GDP grows, ultimately the deficit will or should be eliminated. It might take longer than it would take by harsh cuts but avoids the problems we had in the early years of the Coalition, where they did have to increase borrowing to correct the negative impact of their cuts.

And the £12bn cuts are coming out of the £120bn non-pension part of the welfare budget. So that's 10% not 1%. If you haven't even read enough to understand that then you really shouldn't be commenting.

Like it has worked in France?

Sorry for having an opinion. Why didn't you stand for treasurer instead of George Osborne? George clearly does not understand economics as well as you.


The institute for fiscal studies are also wrong. You rascal and Ducado know best.

 

[law74]

Maybe Osborne does understand economics but simply does not care about the destitution he is causing as he redistributes the nation wealth from the many too the few

 

[Lucky13]

Maybe Osborne does understand economics but simply does not care about the destitution he is causing as he redistributes the nation wealth from the many too the few

Election was last month Ed, no one believed you.

 

[law74]

Only 24% of the electorate believed you dave & that was due to the panic at the thought that Scotland would hold the balance

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Only 24% of the electorate believed you dave & that was due to the panic at the thought that Scotland would hold the balance

Interesting use of words. Scotland would have held as much balance as it did in any previous election in the last half century.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Anyone who thinks the cuts are a good thing IS a nutter because no sane, rational person who understands economics does think that. The people who think they are a good thing don't understand economics and are spoon fed this view by the ideologues in the Tory party via their lapdogs in the right wing media.

In times of recession, when tax receipts and output are declining, it makes sense to borrow more, increasing the deficit temporarily, to offset this. By investing in infrastructure and services, this reverses the decline and encourages growth. As GDP grows, ultimately the deficit will or should be eliminated. It might take longer than it would take by harsh cuts but avoids the problems we had in the early years of the Coalition, where they did have to increase borrowing to correct the negative impact of their cuts.

Like it has worked in France?

Sorry for having an opinion. Why didn't you stand for treasurer instead of George Osborne? George clearly does not understand economics as well as you.


The institute for fiscal studies are also wrong. You rascal and Ducado know best.

Even the IFS has been critical of the lack of transparency in the plans of the government to reduce spending. Read this article from the FT earlier this year.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4820a84e-9124-11e4-914a-00144feabdc0.html

Very few serious economists think the plans are achievable and some make the point that Osborne started off down the road of austerity in 2010 but had to ease off after two years because there was no growth. The simple and proven fact is that government capital spending has a multiplier effect but Osborne has taken an axe to both current and capital spending. That does make me wonder if he understands economic theory. We do need to reduce the deficit - I wouldn't argue with that - but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Gradual reductions in current account that don't depress growth, while keeping up or even increasing capital spending, which stimulates growth, will lead to a situation whereby the growth in government revenues via increased tax, allied with lower current spending and increased output, eventually reduces and eliminates the deficit. But that might take time and we've already wasted 5 years through the ideology that cuts are the be all and end all, regardless of where they come from.

 

[Lucky13]

Only 24% of the electorate believed you dave & that was due to the panic at the thought that Scotland would hold the balance

Dave the Destroyer played a blinder with the Krankie , win win situation , a suspicious mind may believe it was planned and with the socialists starting at -56 next Election I can only see future Tory Government.

 

[law74]

As Labour are currently anything but Socialist it shows either a devious gameplan on your part or a lack of understanding of political doctrine.
if Labour fail to elect a left leaning leader then they are finished, but it will leave 4 years for true socialists to organise before the next general election (assuming that the tories don't rip themselves apart before then, already reports of disharmony amongst the ranks are surfacing)

 

[Len Rum]

Interesting use of words. Scotland would have held as much balance as it did in any previous election in the last half century.

You know what he means, and he has a point.
If the same Red Ed and Labour for all their faults had enjoyed the same position in Scotland as other Labour leaders in previous elections then Labour would have got at least 45 more seats from Scotland and who knows how many more English seats which were lost this time around because of the worries of SNP influence over a minority Labour government. The Lib Dem vote may not have collapsed as much. In such circumstances Labour for all it's faults could easily have been level with the Tories without the Scottish effect.
Not much consolation for the future for Labour but the election was decided by the situation in Scotland and had much less to do with Red Ed, 'left wing' Labour or failure to appeal to aspirational values or any other such twaddle.