UK General Election 2015

[Woodsey]

Excellent as in you agree with it?  

The election is over, I think we could all do with a little break from the propaganda for a while now lol.

[DungBeetle]

I don't think posting links to fiercely partisan blogs adds much personally.  Happy to consider both sides of the debate, but there are plenty of left leaning economists out there without resorting to a blogger who has useful links as "left unity" and "socialist party".  He already called Osbourne a "towel folder" and "data entry clerk" before I stopped reading.  Is this this person really going to be balanced in any way?

[mulhuzz]

Excellent as in you agree with it?  

The election is over, we don't need the propaganda for a little while now lol.

excellent in that it's well sourced, coherently written and actually contains facts.

pretty much the exact opposite of propaganda. For what it's worth, I don't like his blog title - I think it's too sensationalist, for my taste he's too far left leaning for my personal political taste and has written a fair amount that I don't agree with, but could still concede are well reasoned and well advanced arguments. in this instance though, I'm sufficiently convinced by the arguments he's sourced and advanced to draw the conclusion that it is a fact that George Osbourne is a net problem for the UK economy.

If you think any of it wrong, or indeed 'propeganda' then you're welcome to demonstrate a coherent counter-argument. The idea that it's propaganda because 'I agree with it, and I don't agree with the Tories' is laughable.

[Woodsey]

Excellent as in you agree with it?  

The election is over, we don't need the propaganda for a little while now lol.

excellent in that it's well sourced, coherently written and actually contains facts.

pretty much the exact opposite of propaganda. For what it's worth, I don't like his blog title - I think it's too sensationalist, for my taste he's too far left leaning for my personal political taste and has written a fair amount that I don't agree with, but could still concede are well reasoned and well advanced arguments. in this instance though, I'm sufficiently convinced by the arguments he's sourced and advanced to draw the conclusion that it is a fact that George Osbourne is a net problem for the UK economy.

If you think any of it wrong, or indeed 'propeganda' then you're welcome to demonstrate a coherent counter-argument. The idea that it's propaganda because 'I agree with it, and I don't agree with the Tories' is laughable.

I can't be arsed, I could google something saying the opposite that is well sourced etc but what's the point? Remind me in four and a half years time when its worth my time and I'll get back to you lol.

[BigAdz]

There's a debate on Breakfast Show, and one guy countered anothers praise for Cameroon by saying, he hasn't done a great job because of the number of people using foodbanks.

Could be fair comment, but when did foodbanks actually come in? Yes, I know we have kitchens etc, but to me "foodbanks" is a fairly recent phenomenon on a national scale, and five years ago I don't recall them being anything other than a stigmatised resource, only for the homeless.

I have a neighbour who used admitted to using a foodabnk, a couple of years ago, and she lives in a four bed, detached house with her son!

I'm not belittleing the significance of them, but Isn't it just that the stigma has lessened massively, and hence the growth in very recent years?!

I think when you're hungry and have no food, you don't care about stigma so much.

It's definitely the case we've seen the a massive decrease in real terms for wages, and I think that's very much the cause of increased use of foodbanks. Of course I think in times of recession/crisis, availability of resources like foodbanks increase, although you might say that's also just a market response to demand. But certainly availability and access have increased, I'd think.

Exactly. In some ways the fact more people have access to foodbanks and less are less stigmatised, is actually a good thing.

Yes, we would all like it that no one has to use them, but the reality of trying to resolve a recession means they are somewhat inevitable, so the fact their use has increased, is hardly Cameron's fault, is my point. The fact that they now provide a backstop to families, is positive, given the circumstances.

That's a bit like saying 'I'm glad we have better access to paracetemol, because now we can treat broken legs better'. Yes, it's a good thing that their availibilty has increased, but the state of the economy and the imo poor attempts to fix it with 'austerity' (which hurts the poor way more than it does squeeze the middle and doesn't actually cause economic growth - rather hinders it, which is why I guess so many people here don't seem to understand that...) are where we should have been having x-ray, setting the cast, handing out crutches, etc.

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

edit: here is an excellent appraisal of Osbourne's time as Chancellor from as recently as February.

LOL. Incredible.

Just trying to point out that foodbanks seem a recent phenomena because of recession, and here we go, back to full on debate about how it is Tories fault.

Some people just want to twist comments to suit their agenda don't they.

As I said I wasn't belittling the nature of foodbanks or suggesting they were good things, but what would your choice of government have actually done differently? Would they have made sure we had no homeless or people in need of foodbanks in one term in office, because thats seems to be what you are alluding to?

[mulhuzz]

I don't think posting links to fiercely partisan blogs adds much personally.  Happy to consider both sides of the debate, but there are plenty of left leaning economists out there without resorting to a blogger who has useful links as "left unity" and "socialist party".  He already called Osbourne a "towel folder" and "data entry clerk" before I stopped reading.  Is this this person really going to be balanced in any way?

He's definitely no fan of Labour either, no doubt.

And it's his sourcing of facts which is interesting for me, not necessarily his commentary which, as you rightly point out, is a bit much.

I can't be arsed, I could google something saying the opposite that is well sourced etc but what's the point? Remind me in four and a half years time when its worth my time and I'll get back to you lol.

I'm glad to see that now there's been a winner, the electorate stops caring. Sigh.

[Woodsey]

We can't change anything for another 5 years, you really wanna keep going round and round circles with these discussion till then? Maybe you have the stamina but I don't.....

[mulhuzz]

There's a debate on Breakfast Show, and one guy countered anothers praise for Cameroon by saying, he hasn't done a great job because of the number of people using foodbanks.

Could be fair comment, but when did foodbanks actually come in? Yes, I know we have kitchens etc, but to me "foodbanks" is a fairly recent phenomenon on a national scale, and five years ago I don't recall them being anything other than a stigmatised resource, only for the homeless.

I have a neighbour who used admitted to using a foodabnk, a couple of years ago, and she lives in a four bed, detached house with her son!

I'm not belittleing the significance of them, but Isn't it just that the stigma has lessened massively, and hence the growth in very recent years?!

I think when you're hungry and have no food, you don't care about stigma so much.

It's definitely the case we've seen the a massive decrease in real terms for wages, and I think that's very much the cause of increased use of foodbanks. Of course I think in times of recession/crisis, availability of resources like foodbanks increase, although you might say that's also just a market response to demand. But certainly availability and access have increased, I'd think.

Exactly. In some ways the fact more people have access to foodbanks and less are less stigmatised, is actually a good thing.

Yes, we would all like it that no one has to use them, but the reality of trying to resolve a recession means they are somewhat inevitable, so the fact their use has increased, is hardly Cameron's fault, is my point. The fact that they now provide a backstop to families, is positive, given the circumstances.

That's a bit like saying 'I'm glad we have better access to paracetemol, because now we can treat broken legs better'. Yes, it's a good thing that their availibilty has increased, but the state of the economy and the imo poor attempts to fix it with 'austerity' (which hurts the poor way more than it does squeeze the middle and doesn't actually cause economic growth - rather hinders it, which is why I guess so many people here don't seem to understand that...) are where we should have been having x-ray, setting the cast, handing out crutches, etc.

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

edit: here is an excellent appraisal of Osbourne's time as Chancellor from as recently as February.

LOL. Incredible.

Just trying to point out that foodbanks seem a recent phenomena because of recession, and here we go, back to full on debate about how it is Tories fault.

Some people just want to twist comments to suit their agenda don't they.

As I said I wasn't belittling the nature of foodbanks or suggesting they were good things, but what would your choice of government have actually done differently? Would they have made sure we had no homeless or people in need of foodbanks in one term in office, because thats seems to be what you are alluding to?

no, you wondered if they were a recent thing. which I think is unlikely, but certainly availability/access has increased as a response to market demand. That market demand being triggered by the largest real terms fall in wages in the past 100 years. Which is, unavoidabley speaking, attributable to the Tories, because it was their austerity program which caused them. I don't see what I'm twisting.

And my choice of government would have come up with a better plan to deal with the debt, deficit and crisis, which would have avoided the fall in real wage terms, increased the pace of the recovery and indirectly tackled poverty -- regardless of any direct schemes. Gordon Brown promised to end child poverty as well mind, so Labour don't have the best track record here either. (edit: although if you're really giving me the choice, I wouldn't have Labour in government either, but let's be realistic here and assume that any govt ruling in majority will be CON or LAB)

[DungBeetle]

I don't think posting links to fiercely partisan blogs adds much personally.  Happy to consider both sides of the debate, but there are plenty of left leaning economists out there without resorting to a blogger who has useful links as "left unity" and "socialist party".  He already called Osbourne a "towel folder" and "data entry clerk" before I stopped reading.  Is this this person really going to be balanced in any way?

He's definitely no fan of Labour either, no doubt.

And it's his sourcing of facts which is interesting for me, not necessarily his commentary which, as you rightly point out, is a bit much.

I can't be arsed, I could google something saying the opposite that is well sourced etc but what's the point? Remind me in four and a half years time when its worth my time and I'll get back to you lol.

I'm glad to see that now there's been a winner, the electorate stops caring. Sigh.

Got frustrated with his use of language so stopped reading - I'll take a look at it later if you recommend the article though.  Guess my point is if you type in "Krugman idiot" you get numerous well sourced counter arguments to Krugmans views.  I just think it's best to consider both ends of the spectrum and there is enough out there without going for the stuff that is over the top (on both sides).    I think it's pretty hard to come up with a definitive answer on government management which is why I find economics interesting.

[BigAdz]

There's a debate on Breakfast Show, and one guy countered anothers praise for Cameroon by saying, he hasn't done a great job because of the number of people using foodbanks.

Could be fair comment, but when did foodbanks actually come in? Yes, I know we have kitchens etc, but to me "foodbanks" is a fairly recent phenomenon on a national scale, and five years ago I don't recall them being anything other than a stigmatised resource, only for the homeless.

I have a neighbour who used admitted to using a foodabnk, a couple of years ago, and she lives in a four bed, detached house with her son!

I'm not belittleing the significance of them, but Isn't it just that the stigma has lessened massively, and hence the growth in very recent years?!

I think when you're hungry and have no food, you don't care about stigma so much.

It's definitely the case we've seen the a massive decrease in real terms for wages, and I think that's very much the cause of increased use of foodbanks. Of course I think in times of recession/crisis, availability of resources like foodbanks increase, although you might say that's also just a market response to demand. But certainly availability and access have increased, I'd think.

Exactly. In some ways the fact more people have access to foodbanks and less are less stigmatised, is actually a good thing.

Yes, we would all like it that no one has to use them, but the reality of trying to resolve a recession means they are somewhat inevitable, so the fact their use has increased, is hardly Cameron's fault, is my point. The fact that they now provide a backstop to families, is positive, given the circumstances.

That's a bit like saying 'I'm glad we have better access to paracetemol, because now we can treat broken legs better'. Yes, it's a good thing that their availibilty has increased, but the state of the economy and the imo poor attempts to fix it with 'austerity' (which hurts the poor way more than it does squeeze the middle and doesn't actually cause economic growth - rather hinders it, which is why I guess so many people here don't seem to understand that...) are where we should have been having x-ray, setting the cast, handing out crutches, etc.

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

edit: here is an excellent appraisal of Osbourne's time as Chancellor from as recently as February.

LOL. Incredible.

Just trying to point out that foodbanks seem a recent phenomena because of recession, and here we go, back to full on debate about how it is Tories fault.

Some people just want to twist comments to suit their agenda don't they.

As I said I wasn't belittling the nature of foodbanks or suggesting they were good things, but what would your choice of government have actually done differently? Would they have made sure we had no homeless or people in need of foodbanks in one term in office, because thats seems to be what you are alluding to?

no, you wondered if they were a recent thing. which I think is unlikely, but certainly availability/access has increased as a response to market demand. That market demand being triggered by the largest real terms fall in wages in the past 100 years. Which is, unavoidabley speaking, attributable to the Tories, because it was their austerity program which caused them. I don't see what I'm twisting.

And my choice of government would have come up with a better plan to deal with the debt, deficit and crisis, which would have avoided the fall in real wage terms, increased the pace of the recovery and indirectly tackled poverty -- regardless of any direct schemes. Gordon Brown promised to end child poverty as well mind, so Labour don't have the best track record here either. (edit: although if you're really giving me the choice, I wouldn't have Labour in government either, but let's be realistic here and assume that any govt ruling in majority will be CON or LAB)

There's some remarkable wishful thinking in there. They have may come up with a better plan, but would they have been, in reality, able to execute it. Surely, like in any domestic financial crisis, the thing to do is tighten your belt?

Anyway, as I drove into work the last song I heard summed up how this thread has got, and hopefully I can refrain from posting on here, until the next election.

In the immortal words of Alexander O Neal "I'm fed up, cos all you ever do is criticize".....have fun boys.

[simonnatur]

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

I thought the free market (barring the relatively recent minimum wage legislation) was responsible for setting wages? I'ld love you to explain in a couple of sentences how you think this government is depressing real term wages, cos I certainly didn't understand the mechanism from the link you posted.
Which other European countries do you take as a model for dealing with the economic crisis? I thought we were the envy of most of the rest of Europe for our levels of employment.

[mulhuzz]

There's a debate on Breakfast Show, and one guy countered anothers praise for Cameroon by saying, he hasn't done a great job because of the number of people using foodbanks.

Could be fair comment, but when did foodbanks actually come in? Yes, I know we have kitchens etc, but to me "foodbanks" is a fairly recent phenomenon on a national scale, and five years ago I don't recall them being anything other than a stigmatised resource, only for the homeless.

I have a neighbour who used admitted to using a foodabnk, a couple of years ago, and she lives in a four bed, detached house with her son!

I'm not belittleing the significance of them, but Isn't it just that the stigma has lessened massively, and hence the growth in very recent years?!

I think when you're hungry and have no food, you don't care about stigma so much.

It's definitely the case we've seen the a massive decrease in real terms for wages, and I think that's very much the cause of increased use of foodbanks. Of course I think in times of recession/crisis, availability of resources like foodbanks increase, although you might say that's also just a market response to demand. But certainly availability and access have increased, I'd think.

Exactly. In some ways the fact more people have access to foodbanks and less are less stigmatised, is actually a good thing.

Yes, we would all like it that no one has to use them, but the reality of trying to resolve a recession means they are somewhat inevitable, so the fact their use has increased, is hardly Cameron's fault, is my point. The fact that they now provide a backstop to families, is positive, given the circumstances.

That's a bit like saying 'I'm glad we have better access to paracetemol, because now we can treat broken legs better'. Yes, it's a good thing that their availibilty has increased, but the state of the economy and the imo poor attempts to fix it with 'austerity' (which hurts the poor way more than it does squeeze the middle and doesn't actually cause economic growth - rather hinders it, which is why I guess so many people here don't seem to understand that...) are where we should have been having x-ray, setting the cast, handing out crutches, etc.

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

edit: here is an excellent appraisal of Osbourne's time as Chancellor from as recently as February.

LOL. Incredible.

Just trying to point out that foodbanks seem a recent phenomena because of recession, and here we go, back to full on debate about how it is Tories fault.

Some people just want to twist comments to suit their agenda don't they.

As I said I wasn't belittling the nature of foodbanks or suggesting they were good things, but what would your choice of government have actually done differently? Would they have made sure we had no homeless or people in need of foodbanks in one term in office, because thats seems to be what you are alluding to?

no, you wondered if they were a recent thing. which I think is unlikely, but certainly availability/access has increased as a response to market demand. That market demand being triggered by the largest real terms fall in wages in the past 100 years. Which is, unavoidabley speaking, attributable to the Tories, because it was their austerity program which caused them. I don't see what I'm twisting.

And my choice of government would have come up with a better plan to deal with the debt, deficit and crisis, which would have avoided the fall in real wage terms, increased the pace of the recovery and indirectly tackled poverty -- regardless of any direct schemes. Gordon Brown promised to end child poverty as well mind, so Labour don't have the best track record here either. (edit: although if you're really giving me the choice, I wouldn't have Labour in government either, but let's be realistic here and assume that any govt ruling in majority will be CON or LAB)

There's some remarkable wishful thinking in there. They have may come up with a better plan, but would they have been, in reality, able to execute it. Surely, like in any domestic financial crisis, the thing to do is tighten your belt?
Anyway, as I drove into work the last song I heard summed up how this thread has got, and hopefully I can refrain from posting on here, until the next election.

In the immortal words of Alexander O Neal "I'm fed up, cos all you ever do is criticize".....have fun boys.

no, countries are not households and you shouldn't run one as if they were.

[TightEnd]

Lord Sugar jumps ship

[The Camel]

Lord Sugar jumps ship

LOLZ @ "in the past few weeks I have declined hundreds of media requests..."

Ego spiralling out of control.

Would sell for my maximum @ 200 media requests he's turned down.

[mulhuzz]

There is no doubt that Osbourne (and by association, Cameron) is responsible for a massive real terms fall in wages which was absolutely and positively avoidable (certainly at least in magnitude) had we dealt with the crisis like almost any other country. This 2013 article has a nice overview, if you're interested.

I thought the free market (barring the relatively recent minimum wage legislation) was responsible for setting wages? I'ld love you to explain in a couple of sentences how you think this government is depressing real term wages, cos I certainly didn't understand the mechanism from the link you posted.
Which other European countries do you take as a model for dealing with the economic crisis? I thought we were the envy of most of the rest of Europe for our levels of employment.

If you're talking European, I'd go with both France and Germany. Whilst are employment numbers are decent (and let's ignore the debate about what counts as employment and assume all European countries have similar/comparable accounting methods - which is a pretty iffy claim, but let's assume it for now) our productivity is not great. That's obv related to employment and GDP so it's important to think of all the measures (weighted accordingly) together in order to get a decent picture of what is really happening. The fact absolutely remains that in terms of recovery, we are absolutely miles away from where Osbourne said in June 2010 we would be by the end of last parliament and somehow he's being presented as having saved the economy. My own view is that he's throttled a recovery which would have occurred anyway, although certainly not everything he's done has been bad and I don't say that.

If you'll allow a non-EU state, then I think America. You only have to look at the relentless march of the Dollar vs the Euro in recent times to see that their approach has been vastly superior. Had we followed the US route I think we'd be far outperforming every European economy in terms of recovery now - ofc it's worth noting that being able to print your own money helps a lot in this regard, something the Eurozone can't do (although they basically are, with Mr Draghi buying debt etc, but it's not as scalable or specific as a QE program the BoE could (and has!) implement(ed)).

Re Wage Repression: this is more complex but basically, you're correct. The market, free of government intervention, will set the wages. What the labour market doesn't set (but certainly can have influence on and be influenced by) is inflation.

You're very likely a smart guy, so I apologise if this next bit sounds patronising, it really isn't meant to, but let's take a simple example:

I decide to pay you £1000 / year (let's ignore taxation and say it's net, for now) to post on blonde.
In the first year, you have £200 left at the end of the year, accounting for your usual (and let's imagine they are fixed) expenses.
In the second year, you only have £100 left, because your expenses have increased £100.
In light of your increase expenses (and my increased profits, because I sell the blonde posts you create), I decide to increase your salary by £50/year.
So you've had a a real cut in wages of 5%, right? 10% due to inflation, offset by a 5% increase in wages.

So without government intervention, wages generally fall due to inflation, prices rise faster than wages. That's true of basically every style of government.

what's bad is that when government either actively or inactively supports activities which suppress wages (either in their role as an employer, or as government). Examples include: pay freezes in public sector, support of zero hours contracts, slower than inflation rises in a minimum wage and benefit cuts or higher taxes which (like VAT) affect the poor way more than the rich. previous gvts have used the benefit and welfare state to support real wages (although personally I'd prefer a system of universal basic income). It's also arguable that wastage contributes (like £xbn spent on Universal Credit then scrapped is money which could have supported wages, etc) but I don't think it's the biggest cause. It's obvious that the more money people have, the more they will spend and as long as the level of personal debt doesn't hit some given ceiling, this is supportative for the economy. So policies that support (indirectly or directly) wage suppression are a net bad for the economy. in theory, businesses are supposed to be able to reduce their payroll expenditure with wage suppression and thus become more profitable, but at some point the money needs to come back to consumers.

Does that make sense?