UK Politics VIII

[Hereward]

Twenty years ago today...

...where were you at the time? ;)

In the hotel room above Michael Heseltine's with a drill, a length of cord, a bottle of strychnine and hate in my heart.

[Galactus]

I've always found Thatcher, or rather, Thatcher-hate, fascinating. There's just no equivalent in swedish, or I think, even american, politics.

[BigFatCoward]

I've always found Thatcher, or rather, Thatcher-hate, fascinating. There's just no equivalent in swedish, or I think, even american, politics.

do you mean there is no equivalent to thatcher herself or thatcher hate. i'd say one totally expains the other.

[Night Watchman]

Twenty years ago today...

...where were you at the time? ;)

I was a twinkle in my Daddy's eye :)

[Lummel]

I've always found Thatcher, or rather, Thatcher-hate, fascinating. There's just no equivalent in swedish, or I think, even american, politics.

Its explicable in context - she was a diversive figure in the conservative party, a neo-liberal / public choice theory fan at the same time as the labour party was moving to the left, first prime minister to move away from the welfare state / state ownership of industries model that had been predominant since Atlee, then there was the Falklands conflict and the Miners Strike, she was this distinctive figurehead at a time of social change and social stress that ended with parts society wealthier than they had been before and others punchdrunk and / or poorer than they had been before.

And she was part of the team who developed soft scope ice cream.

[Zoë Sumra]

Twenty years ago today...

...where were you at the time? ;)

I was at primary school. It was all very exciting.

[Slick Mongoose]

And she was part of the team who developed soft scope ice cream.

Definitely worthy of hate.

[Maltaran]

I was at primary school. It was all very exciting.

Me too. I remember watching it on Newsround.

[Daeric]

Twenty years ago today...

...where were you at the time? ;)

I may have being at Nursery, being a grand 4 years old.

[mormont]

Clegg: 'I am a new progressive'.

The cause of "progressive" politics need not be set back by public spending cuts, Deputy PM Nick Clegg has said.

"The need to make choices is revealing an important divide in progressive politics," he argued.

"Between old progressives, who emphasize the power and spending of the central state and new progressives who focus on the power and freedom of citizens.

The potential impact of deficit-reduction measures announced in June's Budget and October's Spending Review - including a VAT rise and £18bn in welfare cuts - continues to be hotly contested, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying they would be broadly regressive in their effect on different income groups.

But Mr Clegg argued that those focused on "income-based snapshots" were ignoring the wider picture and the benefits that decisions such as protecting NHS spending, boosting funding for early-years education and investing in schools in the most deprived areas would have on the poorest families.

The previous Labour government, he said, had pursued a narrow, target-driven approach to tackling inequality focused on "shifting money around rather than shifting life chances".

The satire pretty much writes itself. We're 'new' progressives, not boring 'old' progressives! We want to give you power and freedom! Not economic power and freedom, obviously: only 'old' progressives are interested in banal issues like whether people are rich or poor. We'll have none of that boring old-fashioned stuff in the Liberal Democrats! It's forward to an exciting future in which you have the freedom and power to choose whether to pay the rent or buy food! Because choice is what really matters. You can't judge progressive politics by trivia like income...

[Hereward]

You can't, or rather shouldn't, judge progressive politics by spend, either. People with poor education, housing and job prospects, or lack of willingness to work, will not be helped by spending more on welfare in isolation, or even perhaps by spending more on welfare.

[mormont]

You can't, or rather shouldn't, judge progressive politics by spend, either. People with poor education, housing and job prospects, or lack of willingness to work, will not be helped by spending more on welfare in isolation, or even perhaps by spending more on welfare.

Indeed. But Clegg's criticism isn't that Labour judge by government spend - it's that they judge by people's income, i.e. how many poor people there are and how poor they are. An idea he derides as a hopelessly old-fashioned view of what 'progressive politics' is all about.

[Hereward]

Indeed. But Clegg's criticism isn't that Labour judge by government spend - it's that they judge by people's income, i.e. how many poor people there are and how poor they are. An idea he derides as a hopelessly old-fashioned view of what 'progressive politics' is all about.

That's not quite how I read it. To me, he's saying that Labour focus on giving people more money, but not giving them the chance to escape from a situation that means their only hope of improvement in their situation, and, in fact, as an presumably unintended consequence, disincentivising them from trying to escape from their situation.

Then again, I'm a callous right-wing bastard, so either I'm hearing what I want to hear, or perhaps I undersdtand him all too well. :P

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Country has gone to the dogs. FML. Moving to Ukraine.

[MinDonner]

In that case, I'm kind of wondering what kind of incentives they want to offer instead. Giving them less money? Then they'll be bound to get off their lazy poor arses and take advantage of the mercilessly slashed adult education programmes in between doing more oops, nonexistent jobs to pay their bills. Hey, at least if they're out begging on the streets, they won't need to heat their houses, so those bills should be much less anyway!

Cutting welfare may be half a solution, but without the other half, it's a fucking disaster.

[mormont]

Then again, I'm a callous right-wing bastard, so either I'm hearing what I want to hear, or perhaps I undersdtand him all too well. :P

Maybe the latter: I think we can probably agree that Clegg's definition of a 'new progressive' is pretty indistinguishable from a 'right-winger'. Left is now right, up is down, and we have always been at war with Oceania!

[Hereward]

Cutting welfare may be half a solution, but without the other half, it's a fucking disaster.

I accept that. Personally, I want to see more on giving people options; carrot as well as stick. There, the LibDems are being progressive in targeting their tax cuts at the working poor instead of the rich, a decision I applaud, even if it's insufficient on its own.

Though I don't accept that there are no jobs. Millions of jobs were created during the last 10 years, but they weren't taken by the workless in the indigenous population, the number of which remained static or even went up during the extended boom. So, clearly something else needs to be done to make that substantial proportion of our population more able and willing to undertake them.

[macaroni]

Labour were never going to take on dependency culture, so their criticism on this particular issue is galling.

However, I can't help thinking that the Tories are pandering to their core vote with their welfare policies. The 'big society' is rebranding 'Thatcherite, small-government, the markets will solve all ills' with a smiley face.

It seems that every Daily (Hate)Mail front page rant is being implemented as government policy.

[Night Watchman]

More student protests going on. Looks like more violence. I would have joined the walkouts this morning, but it's Wednesday, and I don't have any lectures on Wednesdays.

[Zoë Sumra]

In that case, I'm kind of wondering what kind of incentives they want to offer instead. Giving them less money? Then they'll be bound to get off their lazy poor arses and take advantage of the mercilessly slashed adult education programmes in between doing more oops, nonexistent jobs to pay their bills. Hey, at least if they're out begging on the streets, they won't need to heat their houses, so those bills should be much less anyway!

Cutting welfare may be half a solution, but without the other half, it's a fucking disaster.

It reminds me of the old thing about having to give the rich more money to make them work harder, but giving the poor less money.