As the scale of the UKIP achievement continues to be exaggerated, here are more of my branz on the matter.
For all their success in the local elections, the Yuckers are unlikely to replicate anything like this in the parliamentary General Election in 2015. First Past The Post dooms most small parties. Look at the electoral history of the Liberal Democrats - polling 20% of the vote, and getting less than 10% of the seats. They may poll 20% across the country, but their only impact may be to split the right wing vote. The difference between South Shields and Eastleigh suggest it is, fundamentally, appealing to right wing voters.
The move towards the UKIP appears to be in traditionally conservative (small c) areas which either voted Tory since time immemorial, or Lib Dem as the alternative, as they would never, ever vote Labour. This happens in rural Scotland as well where conservative, pro-union Scots vote Lib Dem because they hate the Tories and Labour equally
What happened last night was essentially, a protest vote, not a genuine vote in support of UKIP policy. People are angry with the coalition and are voting against it, not for the UKIP. And, it is important to reiterate, Labour wwould never have a look in in the areas where the local elections took place, just as it would necver have had a look in at Eastleigh.
South Shields showed there isn't much movement from Labour to the UKIP. All we're seeing is the right wing vote reallocating itself. Probably, massively to the detriment of all three right wing parties.
Which will make 2015 wildly unpredictable, as it may come down to whether the right vote is so split it allows Labour to grab seats that would normally be off their target list.
The Yuckers might get a few seats at the election but I don't think they will get many because from now until the election they are (probably) going to be under continual attack from the Tories and / or their appeal to voters will wane.
Farage pretty much conceded he's going to be nothing more than a historical footnote when the UKIP was compared to the SDP in the 80s. He pointed out that the SDP 'won' in the long run as Tony Blair was effectively an SDP Prime Minister. Yes, Nige, but that was 20 years later and he wasn't the leader of the SDP.
I think Farage, if he is smart and picks a good seat, might be in with a shot. Maybe a couple of others. But I don't think they could hope to get into double figures. Also, that woold require them to concentrate most of their resources in these key seats and so their national profile would slip. So they might grab a couple of Southern seats while their overall share of the vote declines, oddly.
The problem for the UKIP isn't the Tories or Labour, but the idiot electoral system. It puts them in a position where, unless they can win over the majority of the Conservative vote in seat after seat, they face being left with very little in terms of representation.
That cuts both ways, of course - I do think a few of the smarter Tories might be reflecting on how they sank the Alternative Vote campaign and wishing they'd gone for it. Alternative Vote would allow all disaffected Tories to vote for the UKIP as first choice - and Conservative as second, meaning the number of seats in jeopardy from a split vote would be minimal.
I really do think the party that will come out of this best will be Labour. They won't deserve it, as they won't have done anything to earn it, but they will benefit. They will benefit from the split in the right wing vote, from the fact the Tories will make themselves hideous and ugly and unelectable to stop more bleeding to the UKIP (though I don't think the support they are losing are people who have suddenly decided to be anti-immigration or quasi-racist; a lot of the new UKIP support were Lib Dems in 2010 and expressing anger with the government) and because of the resources that will be diverted to fighting the UKIP.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
Friday, 3 May 2013
Welcome to the 80s, Tories!
Have the good people of South Shields doomed David Cameron?
Normally, you would think not. Normally, the vote in South Sheilds - a rock solid Labour constituency in the North of England - are about as relevant to the fortunes of the Conservative party as elections in New Zealand. But perhaps this time it is different, because the wild card in this election, and perhaps in 2015, has been the UK Independence Party.
The UKIP recently drove the Tories and Labour into third and fourth place in the Eastleigh by-election. Eastleigh is the polar opposite of South Shields, a constituency that traditionally returns a Tory or (if they are feeling daring) a Liberal Democrat. In the recent poll there, the UKIP took substantial amounts of votes off the incumbent Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Labour vote - though negligible - remained solid:
The message from South Shileds was much clearer:
So, you'd think, another good night for the UKIP? Maybe. But the UKIP sharein South Shields would appear to be made up almost entirely of Tories and Lib Dems. They failed to make any impact on Labour's vote. And the Tories and Liberal Democrats have never had enough votes to challenge Labour's dominance in the North. Even if every non-Labour single voter in South Shields had voted for one party, they would have failed to win. That's how dominant Labour are. Near invulnerable in many places, and too strong for a vote split between three squabbling right wing parties to bother them.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher won landslide victories inspite of recording a decreasing share of the vote at each election. Even after the Falklands, the Conservativ Party's share of the vote declined in the 1983 election. What allowed her to rout the left was the fatal split between Labour and the SDP - converting scores of Conservative marginals that might have fallen into rock solid strongholds, and allowing Conservative candidates to record wins in scores of Labour seats. Thatcher was never loed or popular; she was merely fortunate enough to face an opposition divided against itself.
The upshot of all this might be the end of David Cameron, certainly of Cameronism as a political creed. Everyone of his MPs in the South of England will be looking over his or her shoulder to see how close the UKIP is - and that means, how much of the vote they are losing to them. I don't think their faith in democracy extends to letting the voters boot them out in 2015; they'll be shrilling Cameron for a change in direction (and that means a hard turn to the right) otherwise they'll be thinking of changing the leader if he's not for turning.
A likely consequence may be the political demise of George Osborne. Cameron will need to offer up something to appease his critics and signal the change of direction they desire; it would also serve to make the Tories marginally less hateful, as Osborne's special skill (god knows it isn't economics) is attracting voter opprobrium. But the sane option - installing a paternal, One Nation wet like Ken Clarke - is also impossible. The voters might like it. The Tory right wouldn't tolerate it. Not for one little minute.
There is probably nothing to be gained for the Tories by lurching right. The people voting for the UKIP aren't doing so because they have suddenly discovered Euroscepticism. They are voting for the UKIP because they loathe the coalition but will never, ever vote Labour. Moving right will simply alienate them further. Though the likely Tory response will be to move even further right, just as Labour in the 80s sought support out in the further extremes of leftist lunacy - and failed to find it.
Welcome to your version of the lefts nightmare 80s, Mr Cameron.
Normally, you would think not. Normally, the vote in South Sheilds - a rock solid Labour constituency in the North of England - are about as relevant to the fortunes of the Conservative party as elections in New Zealand. But perhaps this time it is different, because the wild card in this election, and perhaps in 2015, has been the UK Independence Party.
The UKIP recently drove the Tories and Labour into third and fourth place in the Eastleigh by-election. Eastleigh is the polar opposite of South Shields, a constituency that traditionally returns a Tory or (if they are feeling daring) a Liberal Democrat. In the recent poll there, the UKIP took substantial amounts of votes off the incumbent Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Labour vote - though negligible - remained solid:
Mike Thornton (Liberal Democrat) 13,342 32.1 (-14.4%)
Diane James (UKIP) 11,571 27.8 (+24.%)
Maria Hutchings (Conservative) 10,559 25.4 -13.9%
John O'Farrell (Labour) 4,088 9.8 (+0.2%)The UKIP had turned what should have been a safe coalition seat into a coin toss - it could have gone any one of three ways, with just minor reallocation of votes or changes in turnout. If the message of Eastleigh holds good for the whole of the South of England, an awful lot of seats that might once have been judged safe for either Conservatives or Lib Dems suddenly look vulnerable and (worse!) unpredictable. Incumbents might cling on as the vote splits three ways; or one party may triumph as a result; or the whole thing might be an appalling mess.
The message from South Shileds was much clearer:
Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour) 12,493 (-1.51%)
Richard Elvin (UKIP) 5,988 (+24.21%)
Karen Allen (Conservative) 2,857 (-10.04%)
Ahmed Khan (Independent) 1,331 (+5.38%)
Phil Brown (Independent Socialist) 750 (+3.03%)
Lady Dorothy MacBeth Brookes (BNP) 711 (-3.65%)
Hugh Annand (Liberal Democrat) 352 (-12.79%)The ranking might be different, and the gross numbers different, but the changes in share of vote virtually the same. Labour, solid. UKIP surging from no-where. Conservative and Liberal Democrat, catastrophic.
So, you'd think, another good night for the UKIP? Maybe. But the UKIP sharein South Shields would appear to be made up almost entirely of Tories and Lib Dems. They failed to make any impact on Labour's vote. And the Tories and Liberal Democrats have never had enough votes to challenge Labour's dominance in the North. Even if every non-Labour single voter in South Shields had voted for one party, they would have failed to win. That's how dominant Labour are. Near invulnerable in many places, and too strong for a vote split between three squabbling right wing parties to bother them.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher won landslide victories inspite of recording a decreasing share of the vote at each election. Even after the Falklands, the Conservativ Party's share of the vote declined in the 1983 election. What allowed her to rout the left was the fatal split between Labour and the SDP - converting scores of Conservative marginals that might have fallen into rock solid strongholds, and allowing Conservative candidates to record wins in scores of Labour seats. Thatcher was never loed or popular; she was merely fortunate enough to face an opposition divided against itself.
The upshot of all this might be the end of David Cameron, certainly of Cameronism as a political creed. Everyone of his MPs in the South of England will be looking over his or her shoulder to see how close the UKIP is - and that means, how much of the vote they are losing to them. I don't think their faith in democracy extends to letting the voters boot them out in 2015; they'll be shrilling Cameron for a change in direction (and that means a hard turn to the right) otherwise they'll be thinking of changing the leader if he's not for turning.
A likely consequence may be the political demise of George Osborne. Cameron will need to offer up something to appease his critics and signal the change of direction they desire; it would also serve to make the Tories marginally less hateful, as Osborne's special skill (god knows it isn't economics) is attracting voter opprobrium. But the sane option - installing a paternal, One Nation wet like Ken Clarke - is also impossible. The voters might like it. The Tory right wouldn't tolerate it. Not for one little minute.
There is probably nothing to be gained for the Tories by lurching right. The people voting for the UKIP aren't doing so because they have suddenly discovered Euroscepticism. They are voting for the UKIP because they loathe the coalition but will never, ever vote Labour. Moving right will simply alienate them further. Though the likely Tory response will be to move even further right, just as Labour in the 80s sought support out in the further extremes of leftist lunacy - and failed to find it.
Welcome to your version of the lefts nightmare 80s, Mr Cameron.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
A Conservative solution to unemployent
Faced with 2.5 million people out of work, and increasing numbers of long term unemployed and a truly worrying rate of youth unemployment which threatens to lock a generation out of work - with the appalling consequences to be felt for decades - what do the Tories do?
Institute a massive building programme which would not only solve unemployment but also deal with the chronic housing crisis and (with sensible ecological design) make a start to the massive drive for energy efficiency that Britain desperately needs?
Employ people to regenerate and beautify Britain's miserable inner cities? Provide grants to encourage people to improve their skills?
Like Hell. What the Tories do is get people to complete nonsense tests:
What will the "Nudge Unit" offer next? Will job seekers will be given a fortune cookie and told to evaluate the 'fortune' in relation to their aspirations?
Institute a massive building programme which would not only solve unemployment but also deal with the chronic housing crisis and (with sensible ecological design) make a start to the massive drive for energy efficiency that Britain desperately needs?
Employ people to regenerate and beautify Britain's miserable inner cities? Provide grants to encourage people to improve their skills?
Like Hell. What the Tories do is get people to complete nonsense tests:
Jobseekers are being made to complete bogus psychometric tests by the Department for Work and Pensions – and told that in some cases they risk losing their benefits if they do not complete the meaningless online questionnaire.
The test called My Strengths, devised by Downing Street's behavioural insights or "nudge" unit, has been exposed by bloggers as a sham with results having no relation to the answers given.
Some of the 48 statements on the DWP test include: "I never go out of my way to visit museums," and: "I have not created anything of beauty in the last year." People are asked to grade their answers from "very much like me" to "very much unlike me".
When those being tested complete the official online questionnaire, they are assigned a set of five positive "strengths" including "love of learning" and "curiosity" and "originality".
However, those taking the supposed psychological survey have found that by clicking on the same answer repeatedly, users will get the same set of personality results as those entering a completely opposite set of answers.There is the kernel of a Not Bad idea there. I've done plenty of them in my time, and some of them do a very good job of profiling the respondent. It wouldn't be impossible, surely, to match job seekers to suitable jobs using such a tool. But the Tories prefer spin.
What will the "Nudge Unit" offer next? Will job seekers will be given a fortune cookie and told to evaluate the 'fortune' in relation to their aspirations?
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Shearer
The vexed issue of David Shearer's leadership is up for discussion again, because it seems some people are never satisfied. Even when 8% has been added to the Labour vote, solid policy is starting to be announced and a Labour-Green coalition is looking like a workable government, some can't help but believe the Sky Is Falling because Shearer's personal numbers are bad.
But I don't think it matters.
At the moment, for 90% of the population, David Shearer is a nonentity. They can’t think of much good about him so he he must, therefore, be doing a bad job. Truth is, they can’t think of much to say about him because there is very rarely ever anything to say about the Leader of the Opposition, unless it is negative. It’s like being Vice President in the US, which someone compared to having to drink a glass of vomit. By definition, you’re unimportant and dismissed, until a month or two before an election when the apathetic majority give themselves a shake and think, “Who the Hell are we going to get to run this place now?” Then, and only then, is it likely Shearer’s numbers will move.
Looking at Britain, Ed Milliband is in a similar to position to Shearer in terms of voters perception of him as a credible alternative PM. The British electorate don’t know much about him, and obscurity equates to uselessness as far as voters are concerned.
Milliband does enjoy the odd position of being the least disliked of the three main party leaders. But that's because of the specifics of the British situation; Milliband’s ratings are better than the coalition leaders because they are more hated than things that are hated. So comparisons between the two have to be made carefully. Milliband isn't made popular because his opponents are even more unpopular. He's ignored because he hasn't done anything much, and his opponents are loathed for what they have done.
Shearer is in a less pleasant position - he's ignored because he's the leader of the opposition and Key is still quite liked by a lot of people. they can't do much about it now; but if they can’t boost their numbers when the election is imminent, then there is a problem. Pointing to Shearer's ratings and squeaking is a waste of energy.
Nick Clegg was in a similar position prior to the 2010 election – his approval and disapproval ratings were pretty much even until about a year out from the election, when he began to get positive coverage due to the Expenses Scandal and the Financial Crisis blah blah blah – then one went up, the other went down. He didn’t suddenly become competent, of course: people just started noticing him and thought, “That’s what we like in politicians: not Scottish and not a Tory.” After his performance in the leader’s debates, he became even more wildly popular, teenage girls were swooning and the matrons of Olde Englande were surreptitiously mailing him their underwear. Then he got into a coalition with the Tories, and now he’s hated again …
Milliband’s critics have generally complained about him being too leftwing for the British electorate. Witness the current fuss about the commitment to exceed Tory spending pledges to stimulate the economy. Or the description of him in the rightwing press as Red Ed, the puppet of the unions? As I said, George Galloway and his ilk might make noises off to the left (though Galloway is really a self promoting rabble rouser, more akin to Winston Peters) but they are an electoral irrelevance. So, as I said, it is silly to try to read anything into Shearer’s personal ratings at this point. Opposition leaders are almost always held in faint regard. After all, painting them as great often forces the electorate to confront the uncomfortable question of why the voted them out in the first place. My assessment is that Shearer may only start firing on all cylinders in the lead up to the election, it is based on his performance to date – generally erratic and stuttering until the moment of (often self caused) crisis.
I might be wrong, of course.
But I don't think it matters.
At the moment, for 90% of the population, David Shearer is a nonentity. They can’t think of much good about him so he he must, therefore, be doing a bad job. Truth is, they can’t think of much to say about him because there is very rarely ever anything to say about the Leader of the Opposition, unless it is negative. It’s like being Vice President in the US, which someone compared to having to drink a glass of vomit. By definition, you’re unimportant and dismissed, until a month or two before an election when the apathetic majority give themselves a shake and think, “Who the Hell are we going to get to run this place now?” Then, and only then, is it likely Shearer’s numbers will move.
Looking at Britain, Ed Milliband is in a similar to position to Shearer in terms of voters perception of him as a credible alternative PM. The British electorate don’t know much about him, and obscurity equates to uselessness as far as voters are concerned.
Milliband does enjoy the odd position of being the least disliked of the three main party leaders. But that's because of the specifics of the British situation; Milliband’s ratings are better than the coalition leaders because they are more hated than things that are hated. So comparisons between the two have to be made carefully. Milliband isn't made popular because his opponents are even more unpopular. He's ignored because he hasn't done anything much, and his opponents are loathed for what they have done.
Shearer is in a less pleasant position - he's ignored because he's the leader of the opposition and Key is still quite liked by a lot of people. they can't do much about it now; but if they can’t boost their numbers when the election is imminent, then there is a problem. Pointing to Shearer's ratings and squeaking is a waste of energy.
Nick Clegg was in a similar position prior to the 2010 election – his approval and disapproval ratings were pretty much even until about a year out from the election, when he began to get positive coverage due to the Expenses Scandal and the Financial Crisis blah blah blah – then one went up, the other went down. He didn’t suddenly become competent, of course: people just started noticing him and thought, “That’s what we like in politicians: not Scottish and not a Tory.” After his performance in the leader’s debates, he became even more wildly popular, teenage girls were swooning and the matrons of Olde Englande were surreptitiously mailing him their underwear. Then he got into a coalition with the Tories, and now he’s hated again …
Milliband’s critics have generally complained about him being too leftwing for the British electorate. Witness the current fuss about the commitment to exceed Tory spending pledges to stimulate the economy. Or the description of him in the rightwing press as Red Ed, the puppet of the unions? As I said, George Galloway and his ilk might make noises off to the left (though Galloway is really a self promoting rabble rouser, more akin to Winston Peters) but they are an electoral irrelevance. So, as I said, it is silly to try to read anything into Shearer’s personal ratings at this point. Opposition leaders are almost always held in faint regard. After all, painting them as great often forces the electorate to confront the uncomfortable question of why the voted them out in the first place. My assessment is that Shearer may only start firing on all cylinders in the lead up to the election, it is based on his performance to date – generally erratic and stuttering until the moment of (often self caused) crisis.
I might be wrong, of course.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Random angry post
Haven't been blogging over the last couple of weeks as I have been Not Well so I have missed two events I never thought would happen (The death of Margaret Thatcher and the NZ Labour party coming up with a good sound policy) and one that was sadly predictable (A terrorist attack in the USA).
But I break radio silence, briefly, just to comment on the latter, how it is insane - utterly insane - that something like the Boston Bombing leads to junking of basic rights and safeguards but an atrocity like Sand Hook provokes shrill demands to Keep Your Hands Off Our Guns and Our Rights Are Sacrosanct. Tells you everything that is wrong with the USA (well, not everything, there's Bon Jovi as well) in a nutshell. A two faced, hypocritical, self deluding arse-about-tit nutshell.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
On scum, and scum who use scum
Mick Philpott is scum, let's be clear about that. I am not going to waste time trying to explain how he was a victim of the system, of society, or of class snobbery or what-have-you. Indeed, as the Guardian points out, the role usually assigned to the apologists of the left - trying to exculpate the foul and depraved - has been take up by the right, who prefer to to claim Philpott is somehow the creation of an over generous nanny state, a benefits system that encouraged him to always ask for more.
This rightwing idocy has found its final incarnation, perhaps inevitably, in the smirking features of the hateful Gideon 'George' Osborne, a man to whom the benefits system can only ever have existed as an abstract concept, one of these odd things that other people have to do. I'm not going to waste time with Osborne, because I am fairly sure that he does not read Lefthandpalm and - well - what do you really need to say about a man who makes Ed Balls seem decent and reasonable?
If I am not at all interested in Osborne, I am slightly more interested in Philpott, a creature of the underclass, but not, I feel, created by the benefits system. From my Bargain Basement knowledge of Philpott's life, I think he is a narcissistic psychopath, and as such, his behaviour has nothing to do with the 'underclass' or the welfare state as such. With a better upbringing and education, Philpott would still have been an abuser and a tyrant. There are plenty of vile violent men with money, who terrorise their spouses and cause havoc and misery. And his total disregard for others or for the consequences of his actions would probably have seen him do very well in the banking world, or in Enron.
Obviously, the latter sort present themselves in a more socially acceptable manner, but can behave in as destructive and self-centred a manner as Philpott, just pursuing different means. The still exploit and harm those around them without compunction, their ability to do harm, if anything, feeding their ego and sense of power.
Which brings me to my second point, the evil suggestion Osborne made that tragedies like this one and the general squalor of the underclass could be brought under control through a stricter social security regimen.
Well, George, bollocks. Even when we are not talking about narcissistic psychopaths like Philpott, we are talking about people whose minds work in very different ways to the minds of, I don't know, millionaire heirs to wallpaper empires. Hacking away at the welfare state will not stop the people affected from having children they can not afford. The world is full of people who gorge themselves on junk food until they become grossly overweight and sick; smoke cigarettes until they die; drink themselves into casualty every Friday night; have children they don't want even though they know how the process works and they have easy access to contraception. All these behaviours are known to have consequences but they are over-indulged anyway. Pizza satisfies a craving for salty high fat food, cigarettes sate the nicotine addiction, booze makes them feel happy and relaxed for a bit. Sex deals with the horniness.
The fact all these things can lead to undesirable consequences down the line doesn't figure in their thinking when they decide they need to eat, smoke, drink or fuck. And because they don't worry about consequences, they will fuck even if they can't remember if they took their pill this morning or if they don't have a condom.
The welfare state does not act as a stimulus to breeding, and reducing benefits will not encourage people to have fewer children. The way of thinking and acting described above evolves as a response to social circumstances, and is a perfectly rational in its own way - go for the short term benefits and pleasure, because there isn't any point planning for the long term; something will always turn up that screws up any plans. Equally, any long term consequences are something to worry about another day.
Even from the point of view of public finances, Osborne's implict message that money spent on benefits is money wasted is stupidly erroneous. What do you think scum like Philpott would be doing if he hadn't been drawing social security? He would have his legion of children out there pilfering, mugging and stealing. And sop would the scum fringe like him. And the costs to the rest of us would probably have been higher, because it costs more to put a policeman on the street or a man in jail than it does to hand a scum ball some money.
I have no pat solutions, but I do know that George Osborne's simplistic equation of degeneracy with the supposedly too generous welfare state is a dim shibboleth that will please the Daily Mail and - if followed through - increase misery and squalor. After all, Osborne is the man who has managed to increase debt and deficit when he pledged to reduce it; and lead to Britain's credit rating being downgraded when he pledged to preserve it. Wghy should we listen to his inane witterrings on social policy when he can not even master his own financial brief?
Obviously, the latter sort present themselves in a more socially acceptable manner, but can behave in as destructive and self-centred a manner as Philpott, just pursuing different means. The still exploit and harm those around them without compunction, their ability to do harm, if anything, feeding their ego and sense of power.
Which brings me to my second point, the evil suggestion Osborne made that tragedies like this one and the general squalor of the underclass could be brought under control through a stricter social security regimen.
Well, George, bollocks. Even when we are not talking about narcissistic psychopaths like Philpott, we are talking about people whose minds work in very different ways to the minds of, I don't know, millionaire heirs to wallpaper empires. Hacking away at the welfare state will not stop the people affected from having children they can not afford. The world is full of people who gorge themselves on junk food until they become grossly overweight and sick; smoke cigarettes until they die; drink themselves into casualty every Friday night; have children they don't want even though they know how the process works and they have easy access to contraception. All these behaviours are known to have consequences but they are over-indulged anyway. Pizza satisfies a craving for salty high fat food, cigarettes sate the nicotine addiction, booze makes them feel happy and relaxed for a bit. Sex deals with the horniness.
The fact all these things can lead to undesirable consequences down the line doesn't figure in their thinking when they decide they need to eat, smoke, drink or fuck. And because they don't worry about consequences, they will fuck even if they can't remember if they took their pill this morning or if they don't have a condom.
The welfare state does not act as a stimulus to breeding, and reducing benefits will not encourage people to have fewer children. The way of thinking and acting described above evolves as a response to social circumstances, and is a perfectly rational in its own way - go for the short term benefits and pleasure, because there isn't any point planning for the long term; something will always turn up that screws up any plans. Equally, any long term consequences are something to worry about another day.
Even from the point of view of public finances, Osborne's implict message that money spent on benefits is money wasted is stupidly erroneous. What do you think scum like Philpott would be doing if he hadn't been drawing social security? He would have his legion of children out there pilfering, mugging and stealing. And sop would the scum fringe like him. And the costs to the rest of us would probably have been higher, because it costs more to put a policeman on the street or a man in jail than it does to hand a scum ball some money.
I have no pat solutions, but I do know that George Osborne's simplistic equation of degeneracy with the supposedly too generous welfare state is a dim shibboleth that will please the Daily Mail and - if followed through - increase misery and squalor. After all, Osborne is the man who has managed to increase debt and deficit when he pledged to reduce it; and lead to Britain's credit rating being downgraded when he pledged to preserve it. Wghy should we listen to his inane witterrings on social policy when he can not even master his own financial brief?
The Dark Art
Did any economic analyst anywhere predict the Cyprus crisis? Remember PIGS? STUPID? No Cs in those acronyms.
Just like they only foresaw 2008 in 2009, and only predicted austerity would fail after it had failed, they completely missed the current crisis. Dicks.
You'd be as well listening to me for all the relevance the witterings of economists have.
Just like they only foresaw 2008 in 2009, and only predicted austerity would fail after it had failed, they completely missed the current crisis. Dicks.
You'd be as well listening to me for all the relevance the witterings of economists have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)