jaywalker

Well, it used to be 'virtue signalling' now it is 'showing off'. I guess that if you think that core ideas of C19th thought are "obfuscatory cleverness" that you will remain in the dark. You suggest a 'translation' to a populism. But that is what those ideas are against. All you have to do is buy the books and see if (just perhaps?) someone had thought of things you had not? They are not expensive or all that difficult to read? It is true that I feel very uneasy about writing about this - my class privilege is such that I have time to read and to think (and to discuss, given where I work). Yet without such a move (away from what we all take for granted as our commonsense insights) there seems to be only stupidity.

Is it now the case that people on this forum can just say anything they like about other named individuals as if there were no laws of libel? I have made this point to Admin tonight. (To be honest, if I do not get a reply to this I will certainly be leaving this forum).

I do hope you are right GG. As for ressentiment, there was no misspelling. The great thing is that there is hope even for you. You do not have to be able to afford to buy the Genealogy of Morals, you could just look on Wikepedia under ressentiment (if you do, please make a donation to that excellent site in penance). The trouble you have is that people (here a German philosopher writing in the C19th) are so far ahead of you that you don't even know that you are behind.

Well the betting markets are stabilising around an expectation of a Tory majority of between 75 and 100 seats. I have money on the majority being greater than this. I think the 'surprise' of this election may (unfortunately) be that the overall majority is a LOT higher than this. It is all fairly straightforward, and VERY depressing. - intergenerational failure (why should we care about young people) - island self-inwardness and cultural in-breeding - ressentiment of the lower middle-classes (who certainly have had to put up with a lot) - dominance of atomistic individualism (shopping equals choice) - the illusion that I did well by hard work and intelligence, so why can't they? - failure to understand any economic principles separating real and nominal values - mercantilist notions of trade (fill up the container with gold, we will be better off having nothing to do with foreigners) - rejection of all compromise in negotiation (the attack on Corbyn over Ireland) - a disgraceful and contemptible national press - a willingness by the Conservative party to pander to xenophobia (to put it gently) Yet we (living in the cosmopolis, reading this forum) know that over the next five years the economy will implode and those voting for this will be very badly disillusioned. A new and enlightened party or coalition will arise from the ashes. Perhaps we just have to go through this.

the postal votes are neither here nor there - even in the unlikely event they've been peaked at. They are about as biased a sample of votes as you can get - young people don't need them (or even know about them). its like quoting the Spectator for reasoned insights into the election, or thinking the Daily Mail is informative or amusing. but I know i'm clutching at straws :-(

The pollsters (not the bookmakers) know pretty much exactly what is going on (plus or minus 2%). The problem is that there are two questions, one of which is relatively knowable despite changing over the campaign (in this election dramatically and unusually) - for whom would you vote? The other is highly volatile and unpredictable - will you turn out to vote? The YouGov focus group is 50,000 people - it has an extraordinary degree of accuracy on the first question. It shows a very considerable narrowing of the polls. Yet, this will still leave May with a landslide if young people do not turn out to vote. It is going to be raining all day tomorrow.

I do think we should be vigilant about governmental responses to terrorism. There are ratchet effects here that make it absolutely essential that there is full and calm debate (and NOT quasi-policy announcements in the immediate aftermath of these outrages). Also, politicians need to be MUCH better informed about the subjects they pontificate on (for example cyber-security). If we truly mean that politics must be defended (against terror, but also against democracy as Bernard Crick put it so acutely) then politicians must ensure that debate has air in which to breathe.

So what is the swing on the EDF poll? Can we access the results from the last GE? Depressing that 22% of voters in an area of cosmopolitan enlightenment are actually voting for the Tories (even if that was 29% an hour ago :-) ). I suspect this poll (the most up to date and statistically representative one we have) suggests a shock labour landslide (as in the 1945 election). It also reflects the fact that Helen Hayes is a bloody good MP.

No, GG, we have been greatly strengthened and enlightened by our EU membership, and with positive net financial gain by any informed reckoning. Pato, please do not think that the majority of people in London do not agree with you - they absolutely do, as you will see with the election results for our great City on Thursday (whatever the vote in Ruritania). As someone who was born in, and worked all his life in London, I am proud to be a European and to stand with others as a European citizen: I know that the great majority of my fellow Londoners feel the same and are ashamed of many of the kind of posts you read here.

but one suspects that if they (and I) are then you will be left to turn the lights out.

GG, increasingly I get lost with the direction of your threads, but I think I'll steer clear of discussions of terror today, if you don't mind. (For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm a pacifist and hate terrorists). Meanwhile the BBC now have a red dot and a blue dot alongside each other on their poll tracker: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354 The poll was taken shortly after the Dimbleby 'debate' fiasco and the Corbyn 'pringle' triumph.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Now you blame the > > workers for what happened. But monetarists > would > > not (read Friedman - 'inflation is always and > > everywhere a monetary phenomenon' NOT a union > > problem). > > You are wrong on inflation. When the Labour govt > got in in 1974 it increased miners' wages by 35% > immediately after the February 1974 election. In > February 1975, a further increase of 35% was > awarded. That certainly drove inflation. No, I am right on inflation. And I am right on inflation by the Tory party's own lights (as exemplified by Thatcher in her Medium Term Financial Strategy - which recognised that inflation is, precisely, a monetary phenomenon. That is why she highlighted Friedman's books in three different colours each evening before bed). In the early and mid-1970s even Keynesians (like me) agreed that monetary growth rates were so great that the simply quantity theory of money applied. The mistake you make is to confuse a metonymy (here an adjunct) with a model. Wage-increases-happen-during- inflation is not a model - wage increases in such circumstances are simply a relay. Spotted any quantitative easing and inflation recently by the way? When the wage increases occur (as they will) do not then blame them for inflation. >Do not confuse Lenin with > Stalin, > > do not think the Soviet Union was socialist (he > > lectures; well he does). > > I've been to the USSR as it used to be and done > business there. Seen it and researched it. > > Did you ever see it in the flesh under communism? Yes, I went to Moscow during that period. Ghastly (particularly the cock-roaches in my hotel bedroom, the absence of anything decent to eat, and a state of barely controlled paranoia in the population). To describe this as 'communism' is I fear an error. > I agree that Lenin and Stalin were rather > different. Lenin wasn't too deranged and didn't > kill too many of his own people but Stalin did it > for around 20,000,000. Yes, 20 Million, not to > mention the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians etc > etc. > > The worst was what he did to his fellow Russians > who had been taken prisoner by Germany and who > therefor became tainted by exposure to Western > culture. Roosevelt was naive enough to agrre to > let Stalin have them back in return for the > Americans who were liberated from German POW camps > by the Russians. Many of the Russian POWs > committed suicde rather than return to Russia > becaus they knew what was in store. > > Interesting also is the fact that when Russia > liberated the American and British prisoners from > German POW camps, they held on to them for months > as bargaining chips. Also they would not allow > them to be repatriated directly to the west but > instead via the Black Sea ports to Turkey annd > Iran and then on to the UK. > I could write a book on Stalin but it wouldn't > make pretty reading. Which, presumably, might be why I wrote 'Do not confuse Lenin with Stalin'? (patronising git that I am).

Other countries have this system of local taxation, including some states in the USA. They are not, presumably mad and/or deluded. It is to replace business rates as well (which I suspect no one thinks is even remotely a good system). As with any tax, the calibration on the actual percentage rate occurs once land-values are assessed (as Council Tax bands are currently - they have, you may have noticed, precious little to do with current house prices). Only then do you know the tax base and can set a percentage that generates required tax revenue. For sure, the idea here is partly a wealth tax. In France they just add up your assets - and in ED anyone owning a house would be over the threshold. This might have advantages in terms of distortions: people may be inclined to sell off their gardens rather like you can still see blocked up windows after that tax. Generally, if you want a wealth tax its best to apply it to total assets to avoid this. But are you saying a wealth tax is a bad thing? If so, why? Presumably you can see that it might be more equitable, given that it is steeply progressive on wealth in a country where public services are grossly under-funded and where substantial numbers of people cannot afford to buy their own home? If the housing market collapses (as it is likely to do for other reasons than this) then that would adjust the distribution of the tax, no?

Well, if there was ever a self-defeating post Green Goose... The 3 day week arose under a brittle, control-freaky, awkward-with-other-people, dogmatic Conservative PM - Heath. They seem to have rather a penchant for such personality types, don't they? In the end, having caused chaos, he called an election in 1974 (oh, the irony, before he needed to) with 'who governs Britain?' - and got a rather clear answer. Now you blame the workers for what happened. But monetarists would not (read Friedman - 'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon' NOT a union problem). See, for this election, the excoriating judgement of the Financial Times on the May campaign and what, if it was implemented, it would mean for Business Britain. And who inflated the money supply before the 3 day week? Oh yes, a Tory Chancellor - Barber. Your true blindness is that you cannot see that May is a protectionist, reactionary, and completely out-of-touch do-gooder (no intervention uncalled for, for I am in the right). Her actual policies (those she still has, given that most have been retracted) are suicidal for business; they are not at all Conservative. BTW, in response to your picture, if you were to look at Althusser's "Lenin and Philosophy" you would learn something (he condescends, snivelling; but you would). Do not confuse Lenin with Stalin, do not think the Soviet Union was socialist (he lectures; well he does).

My cat has taken to vocalising fridge noises when he is hungry. My fridge is gas cooled (or something) and makes a kind of rumbling sound from time to time, which he imitates perfectly. He knows I usually have cold chicken or something in there. Makes a lot of sense: they cannot talk, but only because of their vocal architecture, not because they lack the neurons.

I get a sense that social media might result in a significant swing in turnout towards younger voters. Weird watching the debate on TV tonight: she just says 'Brexit' to every question. So if you want Brexit you have to go with everything else she says? They will have regrets, poor dears.

The dislocation between newspapers (who seem to be writing whilst trapped in their own mirror reflection) and social media is very interesting. Today it's the social media pringle-moment and the continuation of the hilarious 'where's Theresa' that is biting http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-06-02/could-jeremy-corbyn-eating-a-pringle-be-the-turning-point-in-the-election not the 'serious' discussion in the stupid press.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have absolutely no faith in any polls right now. > There's such a wide range of possible outcomes. > > The seat predictions here haven't altered a huge > amount. Still an increased Tory majority. How this > can be so wildly different to the poll that showed > the tories falling 16 seats short is a mystery to > me! > > http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html No, the point is that all the polls are rapidly converging. That is what is significant. The error margins are large because no-one knows whether the young ones will vote - but the signs are that Brexit really shook them up, so they will. Not many under 50s are reading the stupid Tory press (which in the Mail and Telegraph cases seem to be getting ever more desperate with their contemptible headlines - not surprising when you think what May has done to destabilise her own core at-dementia-risk and house-asset-rich vote). Actually, amend that to read over 60 (at least on average) - see the very interesting demographics of newspaper readership at https://www.themediabriefing.com/article/youth-audiences-newspaper-old-demographics-advertising. I am struck by the fact that of that age-group only about 10% went on to higher education, with new voters it is over 50% - probably says quite a lot I think.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > *Runs to the nearest estate agent...* Too late. House prices in London now in free-fall - when this starts no one has an incentive to buy and everyone to sell. I think they will fall about 40% in this downturn in this area. People have such short memories. Only thing that might put a break on it is a further collapse in sterling if May clings on and we go hard Brexit (foreign investors on the cheap pound buying up homes they then don't live in - so bad for people who are working here). Since they will be historically over-valued even after a 40% fall this is probably a good thing.

In London the latest polls have Labour now at 50% and rising (see the Independent web site http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-poll-latest-jeremy-corbyn-london-labour-prime-minister-theresa-may-conservatives-a7766941.html ). The Evening Standard today http://www.standard.co.uk/ has (significantly) a non-YouGov poll which also shows a collapse in the Tory vote, with middle-aged female voters particularly "deserting" May over dementia tax and abolition of free school meals. They are showing maps of Tory seats likely to fall to Labour. Saw some labour canvassers yesterday - they are very optimistic. No sign of any Tories even in affluent ED. By the way, one Portillo-like tragedy of this election may well be that Amber Rudd (the likely Tory first choice successor when May resigns next Friday) may lose her seat. Who can they then turn to? Not Boris or Hammond one thinks. I guess David Davis will take the right wing against someone from the centre (I hope Clarke) and split the party pretty quickly.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker... I'm a bit on the fence about railway > renationalisation... I'm sure many public railways > work very well indeed. Several private ones do > too. I wouldn't necessarily advocate privatisation > in the first place (as you say, natural monopoly), > but I think there are other ways of addressing the > problems. > > Similar with utilities... I've no ideological > problem with private ownership but there are > serious issues with the way the industry has been > set up and regulated. > > And it all seems like it's going to be very, very > expensive. Especially with utilities, I think John > McDonnell was suggesting they'd buy the shares > up... It is not at all expensive to renationalise: the government can currently borrow (at fixed nominal rates) of less than 2% on ten year gilts and less than 3% on 30 year gilts. It could sell undated gilts (consols) for about 4% where the capital never has to be repaid and the real interest burden falls sharply over time. This in a world with inflation that even optimists think will be at least 2%, and GDP growth might manage 1% (although this may be optimistic in the short term if you ask me). That implies near negative real interest rates to buy natural monopolies that can easily make 5% real return - although if nationalised I'd just leave it at the cost of borrowing and reinvest the rest to improve their services. It is the last point that guarantees better service under nationalisation than in the private sector (where dividends drain to shareholders).

Emma Thornberry was very effective on Newsnight last night. She is certainly in command of her brief and has a good rapport with the audience. Not seen her before. With Starmer and Gardiner she would make a strong team. However, the main point is that if there is no overall majority then there will be tectonic plate movements in politics. Neither May nor Corbyn will be involved in the new continents.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Theresa May has been awful... just awful. > Meaningless soundbites. Nauseating nationalist > jargon. No acknowledgement of where/how things are > going wrong in this country. > > I must admit I'm starting to admire Corbyn. He's > ran a good campaign, and at least he's put > together a bold manifesto that actually offers > some kind of vision. He's got a lot better in > front of the camera, he's gained confidence and > authority, and when he talks he offers substance. > > But I can't agree with the mass nationalisation > programme, and the manifesto "costings" seem like > finger-in-the-air stuff. Still leaning towards the > homophobic god botherer. But computer technology has changed (the illusion that services ran better because of privatisation - Moore's Law was the confounding variable). So many nationalised railways now run to very good time and service. This argument extends to other natural monopolies (including water and Broadband provision).

Poor Mrs Rudd. I do feel for her (well, not that much, but one has to be charitable). A dismal performance - one would expect better from a Junior Minister. She is no more a leader than her May-fly PM. Her dire showing on this programme made Corbyn look statesmanlike. And actually, he is beginning to show he is statesmanlike: people realise that negotiation and dialogue are of the essence, not stupid assertions of right. How quickly Tory ministers resort to lecturing their audience and think that pouring scorn is a substitute for explaining their own policies. Well done to the Scots for making that clear. In fact it would be wise were the Tories to elect their Scottish Tory leader as leader of the main party as soon as possible. I don't think many of the old-guard male Tory cabinet ministers are going to survive this meltdown. Interesting to see Fraser Nelson (of all people) on C4 news rounding on the Tory leadership as second rate and their campaign a shambles. But Will Self had the acid aper?u: there is no vote in this election that makes much sense given the system and what the parties have put before us.

If there is a hung parliament then there will be a pro-remain coalition (almost certainly involving neither Corbyn or May). This is the reality: we have had plenty of them before. There are then two routes to not Brexiting: 1. negotiate without compromise and put the 'they would have us walk alone' result to Parliament - it will not pass. Then ask EU for a reversal of Article 50 and call a General Election (NOT a second referendum) to confirm this. 2. negotiate and euphemise: deal on the internal market, migration etc - call it Brexit, but it will not be anything of the kind. Either way, Brexit doesn't happen. I even think this is quite likely if May gets just a small majority: she will not be able to hold her party together now that her reputation is shot. Went to a 'rock-solid' Tory Midlands town today: not a single Tory poster in sight, only labour ones. What?? Oh! The local economy there has relied on several waves of hard-working and culturally diverse immigrants over several decades. People tend to own their own homes and are horrified by the dementia tax. And that is before the question of taking away free school meals and May's other and un-Conservative policy monstrosities.