The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/ ... age-to-hs2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thumbs up from me.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've always wondered whether HS2 is the excuse for Keynesian economics by the back door.

Spending it on that one, big ticket-project would enable people to talk about the country's accounts "minus HS2" in a way that just wouldn't be possible for a thinner spread as outlined by the NEF.

[Hoboh]

I've always wondered whether HS2 is the excuse for Keynesian economics by the back door.

Spending it on that one, big ticket-project would enable people to talk about the country's accounts "minus HS2" in a way that just wouldn't be possible for a thinner spread as outlined by the NEF.

Translated

Whats the point of a ferrari with a 70mph speed limit other than "I got one"?

[thebish]

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/ ... age-to-hs2

Thumbs up from me.

aye - makes sense to me - but to many necks have been extended for them to be wound in now...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've always wondered whether HS2 is the excuse for Keynesian economics by the back door.

Spending it on that one, big ticket-project would enable people to talk about the country's accounts "minus HS2" in a way that just wouldn't be possible for a thinner spread as outlined by the NEF.

Translated

Whats the point of a ferrari with a 70mph speed limit other than "I got one"?

No, that's not what I meant.

What I'm saying is that HS2 is so huge, going ahead with it would involve a confidence trick positioning it as a genuine one-off that shouldn't be seen as an example of ill-disciplined spending, which is how spending the same amount on a series of smaller projects would probably be perceived.

[Hoboh]

I've always wondered whether HS2 is the excuse for Keynesian economics by the back door.

Spending it on that one, big ticket-project would enable people to talk about the country's accounts "minus HS2" in a way that just wouldn't be possible for a thinner spread as outlined by the NEF.

Translated

Whats the point of a ferrari with a 70mph speed limit other than "I got one"?

No, that's not what I meant.

What I'm saying is that HS2 is so huge, going ahead with it would involve a confidence trick positioning it as a genuine one-off that shouldn't be seen as an example of ill-disciplined spending, which is how spending the same amount on a series of smaller projects would probably be perceived.

ok, sorry, I'll get off my hobby horse about HS2.
IMHO we should not be considering massive spends on anything, Trident replacement, HS2, nor lobbing £1,000,000 a time cruise missiles into something that is not our business. No doubt these things would create work but in the grand scheme of things work for a few, not the masses, would be the order of the day.
You either balance the books or lie, being politicians one must suspect the latter.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well there's a turnup. According to a YouGov poll:
Percentage of supporters in favour and against bombing the shit out of Assad
UKIP 17 v 69
Labour 21 v 62
Libdem 29 v 49
Tories 31 v 43

Ukip being more civilised than Labour. Nobody surprised to see the fxckin Tories being backward however.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well there's a turnup. According to a YouGov poll:
Percentage of supporters in favour and against bombing the shit out of Assad
UKIP 17 v 69
Labour 21 v 62
Libdem 29 v 49
Tories 31 v 43

Ukip being more civilised than Labour. Nobody surprised to see the fxckin Tories being backward however.

Is this amongst MPs or the general public identified with a particular party?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well there's a turnup. According to a YouGov poll:
Percentage of supporters in favour and against bombing the shit out of Assad
UKIP 17 v 69
Labour 21 v 62
Libdem 29 v 49
Tories 31 v 43

Ukip being more civilised than Labour. Nobody surprised to see the fxckin Tories being backward however.

Is this amongst MPs or the general public identified with a particular party?

General public. First question being who do you support. Second being are you in favour of bombing the shit out of Assad.

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure either option is 'civilised' and one not. One involves bombing a bad man and maybe letting some other bad men take over. One involves leaving the bad man to be bad.

It's interesting to hear the 'classic' foreign policy position of self-interest as according to Hobes. People of my age have never seen a foreign conflict which hasn't been talked of by the powers that be in 'moral' terms.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not sure either option is 'civilised' and one not. One involves bombing a bad man and maybe letting some other bad men take over. One involves leaving the bad man to be bad.

It's interesting to hear the 'classic' foreign policy position of self-interest as according to Hobes. People of my age have never seen a foreign conflict which hasn't been talked of by the powers that be in 'moral' terms.

I always say that I would not spend British resources getting involved in conflicts that are not demonstrably in Britain's direct interests.

Vote Mummy 2025.

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure either option is 'civilised' and one not. One involves bombing a bad man and maybe letting some other bad men take over. One involves leaving the bad man to be bad.

It's interesting to hear the 'classic' foreign policy position of self-interest as according to Hobes. People of my age have never seen a foreign conflict which hasn't been talked of by the powers that be in 'moral' terms.

I always say that I would not spend British resources getting involved in conflicts that are not demonstrably in Britain's direct interests.

Vote Mummy 2025.

That's not very Blairite, for you.

[Lord Kangana]

I would say there must be some demonstrable interest in just about anything if you look hard enough. You could probably come up with regional stability, the classic "potential hotbed of terrorism" argument, oil (they obviously wouldn't say that so brazenly, but they'll find a weasel worded substitute), economic reasons (you may well segue that into oil), humanitarian reasons...

anyway, you know what I'm saying. There'll be some nefarious reasons that I haven't thought of and probably don't even know about aswell. Some of them are probably perfectly valid.

[Prufrock]

Of course there will always be a number of reasons, but all the 'conflicts' I remember have seemed to have as a, if not the, primary motive some moral element.

I might be being very naif, but back in the day they didn't even pretend. It's an interesting shift, I think.

[Lord Kangana]

Theres always been pretext.

[thebish]

I'm not sure either option is 'civilised' and one not. One involves bombing a bad man and maybe letting some other bad men take over.

hmmm... except that's precisely what they are saying is NOT the intention... they are claiming it is not about regime change at all... quite what it IS about - they are being quite cagey... what would they bomb? is it safe to bomb chemical weapons?? (I'd have thought not!)

[Prufrock]

I don't know! I don't know even nearly enough about Syria to pass comment. My point is 'intervention' isn't always wrong. It was right in Kosovo, arguably in Libya, and, I think, in Iraq.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I would say there must be some demonstrable interest in just about anything if you look hard enough. You could probably come up with regional stability, the classic "potential hotbed of terrorism" argument, oil (they obviously wouldn't say that so brazenly, but they'll find a weasel worded substitute), economic reasons (you may well segue that into oil), humanitarian reasons...

anyway, you know what I'm saying. There'll be some nefarious reasons that I haven't thought of and probably don't even know about aswell. Some of them are probably perfectly valid.

I agree.

I just wish we were grown up and honest enough to have the discussions in these terms.

[thebish]

I would say there must be some demonstrable interest in just about anything if you look hard enough. You could probably come up with regional stability, the classic "potential hotbed of terrorism" argument, oil (they obviously wouldn't say that so brazenly, but they'll find a weasel worded substitute), economic reasons (you may well segue that into oil), humanitarian reasons...

anyway, you know what I'm saying. There'll be some nefarious reasons that I haven't thought of and probably don't even know about aswell. Some of them are probably perfectly valid.

I agree.

I just wish we were grown up and honest enough to have the discussions in these terms.

I'm not at all sure we know what our national interest is in this conflict - or, rather - I don't think we know how we can intervene or not intervene to further our national interest...

I suspect there are mixed motives involved in the government's stance:

1) wanting to hold a tough-looking stance on the world stage - looking statesmanlike
2) some kind of political calculation about not looking weak to the UK voters (even though the public SAY they don't want us involved - I suspect there is still a calculation that people vote for governments that look strong and decisive even if they say they don't. being seen to act decisively is better than being perceived as weak and indecisive (one of the things that did for Gordon Brown)
3) being America's lapdogs - just as we were with iraq. I think Cameron was pissed at milliband because there already was a timetable in place for action
4) genuine despair and human urge to "do something" in the face of the scale of atrocity

[thebish]

well - blimey - parliament has spoken - and voted against our involvement in military strikes - so we won't be doing it... the americans will (probably) - but we won't! I didn't expect that!