Cameron? Anyone?

[LondonMix]

DaveR quoted a much larger argument stating that the selection of HS2 was down entirely to bragging rights and that there was no point in making these types of infrastructure projects when you have poor people.

There are lots of grounds to suggest that line of reasoning is horse shit, none of which have anything to do with not caring about what happens to poor people. The idea that somehow disagreeing with the entire quoted text means you don't care about the poor is a huge leap and a rather unpleasant one.

I also don't think its frivolous point I'm making. I think accusing people who think your political points are weak of essentially being 'bad people' encapsulates everything that's wrong with political discourse these days.

[Blah Blah]

DaveR dismissed a view as horseshit without offering any insight into why. He got the reposte he deserved for it. I don't understand why you are seeking to now make something out of it. You are over reacting. Really you are.

[malumbu]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What an ignorant comment. HS2 is about connecting

> London with the Northern Powerhouse (or whatever

> project May has christened it).

>

> Shame on the UK as the first railway network in

> the world to be behind many of our European

> cousins. And proposed by the labour government.

For some reason it wont post the riposte so you will have to go to the original on the page before. I am saddened that the UK has fallen behind other nations with regards to high speed trains, whether it be a new line or we use the ones already there (I know that there is some capacity, or the basis of a spine already there).

Conversely I'm unhappy about the roads programme, and posted before about the failure of the Greenest ever Government. Get us out of our cars, if we need to get us in more appropriate cars, and get more of us in them. The last labour government was seen to be an enemy of the motor vehicle. Good.

[LondonMix]

Blah, I said DaveR was rude. I believe Lordship was much more out of line. I've explained why. There really is nothing more for me to say about it as I've detailed my reasoning already. If you think I'm over reacting then fine but clearly I disagree with you.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DaveR dismissed a view as horseshit without

> offering any insight into why. He got the reposte

> he deserved for it. I don't understand why you are

> seeking to now make something out of it. You are

> over reacting. Really you are.

[DaveR]

To suggest that much of the population of the U.K. has poor or no accommodation and/or not enough food is horseshit I.e. so far from the truth as to be offensive. It's particularly egregious horseshit coming from Lordship, whose usual MO is to treat crude macro models as a literal looking glass into the future; at least with those comments there is some factual element, albeit the confident conclusions are risible.

And still no proper explanation for why the suffering masses who were the victims of Thatcher voted in another Tory govt in 92 with the largest number of votes cast for one party, ever. It was 7 years from Thatch being forced out to Blair being voted in.

And Corbyn is a reaction to Blair alright, but amongst people who are in denial about the fact that TB won three elections and the Tories have since won two.

Edited to add: this thread, by its title, is about perceptions of Cameron and by logical extension, his govt. I have made no comments on that; I have simply observed that the narrow perspective advanced so confidently by a few prolific posters is way out of the mainstream as well as occasionally straying into factually and historically dubious territory.

[Jenny1]

I think Cameron's problem was that he wasn't a serious person with a broad perspective on history or a deeply rooted social conscience. He presented himself, and undoubtedly thought of himself, as a 'One Nation Tory', but didn't actually do what was needed. I heard an interesting interview with his policy guy, Oliver Letwin, who many of us will remember as a keen Thatcherite. Letwin spoke about his own, I'm sure quite genuine, journey from the 'old days' when he perceived anyone who was poor or disadvantaged as simply needing to 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps', to his more nuanced understanding that society needs to be structured to help people get a decent start in life and to support them when things go wrong. He credited Tony Blair with making him understand the value of the latter view.

But in reality Cameron's government didn't go nearly far enough in working out or implementing a strategy that did this. In the end Cameron wasn't enough like Blair or Brown.

And one reason (among many) why this is a problem is because of 2008. If our current crop of politicians had a proper understanding of history they'd know very well what happens in the wake of global financial crashes. Extreme political polarisation and the rise of the 'lunatic fringe'. Left and Right cease to matter under these circumstances - it's all about 'personality politicians' (demagogues) with crowd-winning extreme messages and a desire to 'tear up the rulebook'. None of them should be trusted. During the '30s the poisonous Oswald Mosley was happy to be an MP for both Labour and Conservative, not to mention founding a couple of political parties himself.

If we care about stability and fairness for the majority, we have to hang onto the centre ground very fiercely indeed. We mustn't be distracted by ideas of the evil 'right' or 'left', but be prepared to counter extremists of any hue, no matter where they come from.

[Jenny1]

...and to be clear. By failing to cushion the poor and disadvantaged more effectively from the effects of the global crash Cameron fostered the roots of extremism. He increased a lot of people's sense of insecurity, thus throwing them into the arms of UKIP, Momentum or whatever else was going. He created the impression that government and perhaps society as a whole (as currently structured) was unwilling or unable to protect them.

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And Corbyn is a reaction to Blair alright, but

> amongst people who are in denial about the fact

> that TB won three elections and the Tories have

> since won two.

>

> Edited to add: this thread, by its title, is about

> perceptions of Cameron and by logical extension,

> his govt. I have made no comments on that; I have

> simply observed that the narrow perspective

> advanced so confidently by a few prolific posters

> is way out of the mainstream as well as

> occasionally straying into factually and

> historically dubious territory.

The Tories didn't win the 2010 election, it was a hung parliament and a coalition government was formed. Who's historically dubious?

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To suggest that much of the population of the U.K.

> has poor or no accommodation and/or not enough

> food is horseshit I.e. so far from the truth as to

> be offensive.

Unfortunately it is not a suggestion - it is a fact. The all-party enquiry published in Dec 2014 illustrated the sad facts that real poverty, hunger & very poor housing standards are endemic in the UK. Families have been driven into poverty by low wages, punitive welfare reforms and money-grabbing companies supplying gas, water, electricity and mobile phone contracts. Almost half of all families at least one parent skips food in a bid to ensure others have enough to eat. Department for Work and Pensions was slammed for failing to pay desperate people on time. We had the recent cases where Caapita withdrew tax credits from people on the basis that there had been another person associated with the same address as a claimant including a man who had died.

Three Million children still in poverty, three & a half million adults go to bed hungry at night so their children can eat - all this while the Tory government give tax reductions to their mates & sponsors, gather in the bars at Westminster to discuss great shiny projects of doubtful use to society, whilst at the same time engage in dubious ideological economic experiments that have proven to have failed dismally.

It's particularly egregious

> horseshit coming from Lordship, whose usual MO is

> to treat crude macro models as a literal looking

> glass into the future; at least with those

> comments there is some factual element, albeit the

> confident conclusions are risible.

I have little time for macro models which have unfortunately been used by economists who are hired gunslingers to prop up the policies of whatever government of the day waffles on about - whether Labour, Tory or coalition. Economic Models are just that - models. They ought not be used as an actual reality but rather as an aid to review where policy might be tempered so as to have the greater economic good. The idea that abstract mathematical models could mirror an everchanging economy subject to random internal & external events is a nonsense that unfortunately is still being perpetuated & used by governments today. Macroeconomics has failed society & needs revision but governments & vested interests are slow to adapt.

I use models every day but we have to run them 24/7 in order to be able to have a view of change in whatever circumstances we are examining. We also use agent based simulations but only for segments of our work - these are slightly more reliable but cannot predict the future - for that we need to bring back Mystic Meg; she would probably be just as good as some of the modelers.

>

> And still no proper explanation for why the

> suffering masses who were the victims of Thatcher

> voted in another Tory govt in 92 with the largest

> number of votes cast for one party, ever. It was 7

> years from Thatch being forced out to Blair being

> voted in.

It was that very Thatcher with her mentors & acolytes [Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Sir Keith Joseph et al] who got the world into this mess we have now, postulating that they could manage large diverse & ever-changing economies through the use of ever more complicated abstract mathematical models that cannot bear anything close to reality as they do not allow for the randomness of activity within society. Far from managing the economy, reliance on these flawed macroeconomic models contributed to the 2008 systemic crash in concert with poor regulation & oversight. She ripped the heart out of social housing, devastating the housing departments of Local Authorities instead of bring about root & branch change through training & investment. Handed the provision of social housing to arrogant Housing Associations who are acting like 19th century speculators, giving short term leases, forcing people who cannot afford it to buy houses & so on.

Then along comes Osbourne with the great solution, plucked from some module of their Treasury model, cut spending by reducing welfare, outsource even more services to his mates like Capita, give tax cuts to more of his mates with the BoE lashing out QE that went into the coffers of the already comfortable & rich [just as the US treasury were ceasing QE as it had proven not to be very effective].

>

> And Corbyn is a reaction to Blair alright, but

> amongst people who are in denial about the fact

> that TB won three elections and the Tories have

> since won two.

Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher - OK he did drop a few crumbs from the table but essentially he continued where Thatcher left off. Gordon Brown tried his best but by the time he became PM it was already too late.

>

> Edited to add: this thread, by its title, is about

> perceptions of Cameron and by logical extension,

> his govt. I have made no comments on that; I have

> simply observed that the narrow perspective

> advanced so confidently by a few prolific posters

> is way out of the mainstream as well as

> occasionally straying into factually and

> historically dubious territory.

The mainstream is where the failure has flourished & needs reforming & change. I am always comfortable to be outside the mainstream

[DaveR]

"Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher.."

Are you Jeremy Corbyn? I claim my ?5. And a shadow cabinet job.

[Lordship 516]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Tony Blair won elections but what did he do with

> them? He was as much Tory as Thatcher.."

>

> Are you Jeremy Corbyn? I claim my ?5. And a

> shadow cabinet job.

Alas - you are overqualified..!

[Blah Blah]

I think you are spot on Jenny. History always repeats and we never learn. UKIP and the SNP have been around for a long time. It's no accident that the swings to them comes in the aftermath of a huge financial crash. In turn, Cameron pampered to those sentiments to win the last election. And it can be argued that by not pampering to those sentiments, Corbyn will never win the next election. It's not reocket science.

[DaveR]

It can also be argued that Corbyn will never win the next election because he is utterly unfit for power, and the generally sensible British electorate can be trusted to judge that. I find that argument a bit more compelling.

[Jenny1]

What we really need is a re-invigorated Lib Dem Party or a new centrist Party born partly out of the Labour Party. I do not trust the Conservative Party to adopt strong centrist policies.

[LondonMix]

Blah Blah, I think Corbyn won't win because he doesn't appeal to centrists (left leaning or otherwise) rather than because he doesn't pander to extremists. Corbyn clearly has to support of the far left.

My husband for one, who has never voted anything but Labour in his life will not vote for Corbyn in the next election. His position on this is categorical.

[Jenny1]

I agree with you LondonMix. That's certainly the way I feel. I think the drift towards extremism is to be seen in Labour too (as noted above). But my main problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't seem to be a competent team member - let alone team leader.

[LondonMix]

I agree with your concerns regarding his leadership ability and his ability to work as part of a team. There is more to it than that-- in him I personally see hints of demagoguery that I find worrying but of course I could be entirely wrong about that.

However, putting all that aside, anyone who would appoint as Shadow Chancellor a self proclaimed Marxist cannot get my vote. Being a proponent of Marxism, after a certain age displays a type of delusion that disqualifies one from positions of power (for me).

I mean, is there any historical example of Marxism being implemented that didn't result in bouts of famine (including in modern day Venezuela)? Even countries that are communist in name like China etc abandoned Marxist economics long ago.

I'm not saying unbridled capitalism is desirable or that even modified versions of capitalism lead to Utopian results of zero poverty and prosperity for all. However, looking back to Marxism given its historical record as a solution to the current economic issues facing the UK truly boggles my mind.

[Jenny1]

Quite. I absolutely agree LondonMix. But that's what I meant about the move to extremes - as illustrated by what you say above re the Labour Party - but also with UKIP's influence over the Conservatives. That's why I favour a re-invigorated Lib Dem Party or a new Centrist Party born out of Labour.

[LondonMix]

Just to add-- I do think we should always continue to challenge the status quo to make our political and economic models more just and equitable. I am keen to hear fresh ideas and approaches and I don't think we should just accept the status quo as the best possible. That's part of being progressive. But you can be progressive without being mired in old ideological dichotomies.

[LondonMix]

Yes-- I find the rise of UKIP extremely disturbing.

The Conservatives have been fighting their own battles at party cohesion and the rise of UKIP posed various existential threats. Cameron's decision to call the Brexit vote and all its subsequent consequences including the fall of his government are all part of this crisis.

[Blah Blah]

I agree with you both. The centre ground is broadly where the electorate have always stood, or the swing vote that decides elections at least. The Libdems I feel, are going to struggle though, in the short term. More interesting to watch will be UKIP without Farage at the helm. Farage is bigger than UKIP, and a lot of UKIP voters were voting for him rather than the party. I can't personally see him keeping his oar out for long either.

As for Labour and the Tories, I think they both have trouble ahead. May is going to struggle to keep her party together through Brexit as much as Corbyn is going to struggle to stay at the helm of Labour. And we have no way of knowing what the electorate are going to make of it all. President Trump is even looking like a distinct possibility now too.

I half wonder as well, if this induced crisis over the EU may come to be a bigger crisis than the 2008 crash.

[????]

Many self-named "progressives" are far from it

[Lordship 516]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"Even countries that are communist in name like China etc abandoned Marxist economics long ago."

China has long had many difficulties in defining exactly what the CCP stands for & has merely paid lip service to the works of Karl Marx but practices the Leninist concept of ?democratic centralism?, the code words for putting into practice Marx?s dictatorship of the proletariat under the rule of the Communist Party that has only 88 million members out of more than 1.3 billion of the population.

Not only have the Chinese abandoned Marxist economics but they appear to have abandoned economics in its entirety. Up to 2007, China was the most potent economy in the world & gaining in prosperity every year. In 2006 when I first went to China, they boasted that they then had over 250 million people in its "middle class" [actually gainfully employed & earning salaries/wages] - now they report that this figure is in the order of 650million people, a huge achievement by any standards.

In 2008 the Chinese government panicked & engaged in the largest stimulus ever in history injecting about $4 trillion into the economy. But that has come at the cost of a future crisis that is now imminent. The fiscal stimulus was achieved by way of loading debt onto state owned enterprises to keep the economy growing, resulting in an explosion of debt that must now be paid off. Some of this was productive but much of it was inefficient & this year they sanctioned a further $1 trillion of stimulus. Even for the economic behemoth of China these are breathtaking numbers.

In 2015 data showing that total debt in the Chinese economy had quadrupled in only seven years to $28tn, 282% of GDP and 14% of the total global debt. [Total US government debt is $19.5 trillion - about 105% of GDP] It cannot pay off the accumulated debts, many of which are in reality non-performing loans, and has to borrow more just to pay off what it already has, not to increase production. The debt mountain is more chronic in certain industries, especially key ones such as commodities (i.e. raw materials). According to Macquarie, debt in this sector has increased by 300% since 2007, and about half of these companies now have interest payments that are twice as high as their earnings. They are left with mountains & warehouses full of millions of tonnes of raw materials that the world doesn't want & continue to borrow to pay off their interest burden.

Further they have been selling off their reserves of foreign currency which now stands at an all time low, in order to support an ever failing RMB [Yuan].

China, through its leader XiJing Ping [1st July 2016 - in a speech to mark the party?s 95th anniversary], is reasserting its Marxist credentials - ?we are building ? socialism with Chinese characteristics, not some other-ism?. China?s 88 million Communist Party members have also been reminded by Xi not to ?betray or abandon? Marxism. All this is but political illusion [in the best Marxist tradition] at a time when there is a struggle brewing between the rampant capitalists on one hand & the well established workers on the other hand that expect a decent wage/salary so they can lead a decent life.

This affects us all - a significant Chinese slowdown or recession could cause global deflation and debt defaults. This also mirrors what is happening across the world - deep economic crisis & irreconcilable class struggles.

[malumbu]

Some stuff here about the economics of HS2

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/despite-enthusiasm-hs2-has-the-weakest-economic-case-of-all-projects?utm_source=Rail%20Technology%20Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7539415_RTM%20Weekly%20September%2016%20wk%204&dm_i=IJS,4HLG7,KZQ0U6,GKZ54,1

[Henry_17]

I once interrupted Cameron mid story to ask the group he was talking to for a light. Even though i am in fact taller than him the look i received made me feel materially shorter.