Blairites staging a coup...

[Mellsblue]

I thought the proposal for the incumbent to be automatically entered in to the leadership contest wasn't being discussed until conference. I'm highly likely to have missed it being in implemented, though.

Vicious rumours of David Milliband being parachuted into Batley and Spen......

[Digby]

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

Agreed. It would be a bold move by Labour MPs who could overnight lose their local support, although the Liberals tend to be well motivated at a local level so perhaps not such a risk as just stepping out on their own entirely.

I think we're some way off a split in the Labour party, but with the left and right wanting such different things, and wanting to put such different messages before the electorate it's hard to see how they resolve this. Odd really that the Conservatives could elect Gove, be two terms into office, and be comfortable favourites as an ongoing austerity government to win easily over Labour, albeit Labour losing huge votes and seats to the SNP, and now likely votes to UKIP is a big factor, and to think once UKIP was a threat to the Conservatives. Scotland though is the big issue for Labour as it gives them nowhere to go in General, move to the right and there's no way to take back seats in Scotland, stay as they are and there's no way to win in England.

[Banquo]

From Corbyn to Farron, hardly the stuff of dreams. I do like the Lid Dem movement on getting us back into the EU, but Farron seems another weak leader on a national/global stage. With the next election being a possible choice between Johnson/Gove, Corbyn and Farron I wonder how many would now tick a box for Cameron and Clegg

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

...Christ, we have low bars these days!

[Banquo]

I thought the proposal for the incumbent to be automatically entered in to the leadership contest wasn't being discussed until conference. I'm highly likely to have missed it being in implemented, though.

Vicious rumours of David Milliband being parachuted into Batley and Spen......

Not the greatest example to pick on I know, but isn't the parachuting of career politicians into (esp) Labour constituencies one of the big reason they've completely lost touch with their (traditional-ish) voters?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The Whigs were an entrenched serious force for 170 years. No one is immune from history.

Quite and one only need look at Scotland. A Tory heartland then a Labour one now the SNP.

I think there's a place for what used to be called the One Nation Tory Party, but could equally be called the Blairites or the Lib dems. There's probably less to choose between them than there is between dry and wets in the Tories or the red flag lot and blairites in the Labour Party. They are socially and economically liberal but don't subscribe to the devil take the hindmost approach of the Tory right. I'd say the vast majority of the country are in exactly that position and if someone could lead the breakaways needed to form it with a load of MPs and a policy platform ready to go then I think they could hoover up. It would leave a rump of Ukippers to the right to sweep up the racists and Labour socialists to the left to keep the non-racist working class socialists.

[Digby]

Fair dos, there were only 6 liberal MPs; hardly a huge gene pool from which a genuine leader could emerge.

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

...Christ, we have low bars these days!

I rather like both of them myself. Always have.

[Banquo]

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

...Christ, we have low bars these days!

I rather like both of them myself. Always have.

Each to their own I guess

[UGagain]

I think the UK does have a commitment to full employment as it happens, dating back decades to actual legislation, though clearly it's not always an active goal. But what sort of employment, what sort of benefits, what sort of entitlements, what sort of contracts, what rates of pay, what sort of pension, and obviously what does full employment even mean as in economic terms just saying full employment leaves huge wriggle room on the actual answer? Also if you create such position by crowding out private enterprise your net delivery might be worse anyway.

And too we've seen a lot of Keynesian economic drivers for a long while now, not least with all the printing of money we've been doing (and managing to avoid inflation on the back of). But what Keynes wouldn't recognise is that such moves have come from an economy built on credit, that simply wasn't around when he was around, though when he was around he was a very successful day trader and not actually much of a lefty. And so whilst we've seen a lot of Keynesian economics across the Western World much of it has been pissed up the wall to cover for everyone aping the US system where a country runs on credit, rather than being actual investment.

The neoliberals have redefined what governments now mean when they say "full employment" to get around that aim (and the UN declaration on Human Rights). It means something quite different now i.e. an effective deliberate strategy of maintaining about 5% of the available labour force idle and then punishing them and belittling them. It's great divide and conquer strategy while it works.

We haven't had any Keynesian economics since the late 70s. Governments the world over are underspending and 'deficits' still dominate the discourse. Underspending and/or overtaxing creates unemployment.

'Money printing' doesn't mean anything. All money is credit

Governments need to be undertaking massive fiscal stimulus, far greater deficit spending on employment rich projects and hopefully jobs guarantees.

There are being huge stimulus packages being run, and being run on the back of money printing. They're not achieving what many might want, but that's because we're starting from a position of such credit and cashflow problems. But they're not not stimulus packages. And full employment could always have meant a variety of things, from the straightforward literal, to what it means within the context of any number of economic theories, and even if you want the straightforward literal you really should allow that mayn't be the best net scenario.

I think we should leave it here though, partly we're so divergent what's the point, and too if you think money printing doesn't mean anything then too what's the point. Just on the money printing I know it's being labelled quantitative easing, but only because it sounds better than printing money, and I'll be surprised to hear as a manifesto promise from any party we'll get a future contraction in money supply to offset the early release we're seeing now, it'll all be washed out in inflation is my guess.

I see you've been neoliberalised.

"Money printing" is a meaningless but emotive term. Governments create money by spending i.e. marking up numbers in private sector bank accounts. Huge amounts of money are created and destroyed every day.

There is no money created by quantitive easing. It is an asset swap. Bonds for reserves.

Currency issuers have no 'credit and cashflow problems'. Increased spending can only come from government deficits or increasing private sector debt.

Full employment means that there is no involuntary unemployment or underemployment. It is perfectly possible to achieve.

[Sandydragon]

I think they perhaps got some undeserved stick at the election, but small pool or not the point remains he's way off a Paddy Ashdown or Nick Clegg. Of course were there some changes in the party with a number of Labour and perhaps even some Conservatives joining then there'd be a new leader as well as a larger party.

Agreed. It would be a bold move by Labour MPs who could overnight lose their local support, although the Liberals tend to be well motivated at a local level so perhaps not such a risk as just stepping out on their own entirely.

I think we're some way off a split in the Labour party, but with the left and right wanting such different things, and wanting to put such different messages before the electorate it's hard to see how they resolve this. Odd really that the Conservatives could elect Gove, be two terms into office, and be comfortable favourites as an ongoing austerity government to win easily over Labour, albeit Labour losing huge votes and seats to the SNP, and now likely votes to UKIP is a big factor, and to think once UKIP was a threat to the Conservatives. Scotland though is the big issue for Labour as it gives them nowhere to go in General, move to the right and there's no way to take back seats in Scotland, stay as they are and there's no way to win in England.

It's s cruel trap. Move to the centre and the SNP benefit. Move to the left and they are screwed in England.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Digby]

I see you've been neoliberalised.

"Money printing" is a meaningless but emotive term. Governments create money by spending i.e. marking up numbers in private sector bank accounts. Huge amounts of money are created and destroyed every day.

There is no money created by quantitive easing. It is an asset swap. Bonds for reserves.

Currency issuers have no 'credit and cashflow problems'. Increased spending can only come from government deficits or increasing private sector debt.

Full employment means that there is no involuntary unemployment or underemployment. It is perfectly possible to achieve.

Money printing is not a meaningless term, in essence it's what happening right now, save it's happening with the claim they'll tighten the supply in the future against easing money into the markets now, and that's why it's QE and not money printing. Only I call it money printing as I again I have my doubts they'll ever get around to the tightening part, and will instead allow inflation to deal with the issue - and frankly at some point we'll be grateful for a bit of inflation and a rise in interest rates so it's not wholly a bad thing

And that's not the only definition of full employment, as one could easily make a case for there being full employment for a given capacity of the economy. And again you might find it counterproductive to aim for your more literal take on full employment, and it's not easy to achieve either.

[UGagain]

I see you've been neoliberalised.

"Money printing" is a meaningless but emotive term. Governments create money by spending i.e. marking up numbers in private sector bank accounts. Huge amounts of money are created and destroyed every day.

There is no money created by quantitive easing. It is an asset swap. Bonds for reserves.

Currency issuers have no 'credit and cashflow problems'. Increased spending can only come from government deficits or increasing private sector debt.

Full employment means that there is no involuntary unemployment or underemployment. It is perfectly possible to achieve.

Money printing is not a meaningless term, in essence it's what happening right now, save it's happening with the claim they'll tighten the supply in the future against easing money into the markets now, and that's why it's QE and not money printing. Only I call it money printing as I again I have my doubts they'll ever get around to the tightening part, and will instead allow inflation to deal with the issue - and frankly at some point we'll be grateful for a bit of inflation and a rise in interest rates so it's not wholly a bad thing

And that's not the only definition of full employment, as one could easily make a case for there being full employment for a given capacity of the economy. And again you might find it counterproductive to aim for your more literal take on full employment, and it's not easy to achieve either.

None of your language refers to the real world of monetary policy, fiscal policy or the banking system.

"Printing money", "money supply", allowing inflation to deal with it (whatever 'it' is) etc etc. Just meaningless and wrong. And you clearly didn't read my comment.

Governments and banks create and destroy money in huge quantities every day of the week. You create money every time you use a credit card or take out a bank loan.

So get over it.

And QE creates no new money, so why would you call it "money printing"? Makes no sense.

You've just swallowed a load of neoliberal gobbledegook and regurgitated it.

This is the problem with that portion of the population who consider themselves 'sensible' judges of politics.

You're woefully misinformed but you can all have these terribly serious conversations about non-existent conditions that have no meaning in the real world.

It's kind of sad really.

[Digby]

I see you've been neoliberalised.

"Money printing" is a meaningless but emotive term. Governments create money by spending i.e. marking up numbers in private sector bank accounts. Huge amounts of money are created and destroyed every day.

There is no money created by quantitive easing. It is an asset swap. Bonds for reserves.

Currency issuers have no 'credit and cashflow problems'. Increased spending can only come from government deficits or increasing private sector debt.

Full employment means that there is no involuntary unemployment or underemployment. It is perfectly possible to achieve.

Money printing is not a meaningless term, in essence it's what happening right now, save it's happening with the claim they'll tighten the supply in the future against easing money into the markets now, and that's why it's QE and not money printing. Only I call it money printing as I again I have my doubts they'll ever get around to the tightening part, and will instead allow inflation to deal with the issue - and frankly at some point we'll be grateful for a bit of inflation and a rise in interest rates so it's not wholly a bad thing

And that's not the only definition of full employment, as one could easily make a case for there being full employment for a given capacity of the economy. And again you might find it counterproductive to aim for your more literal take on full employment, and it's not easy to achieve either.

None of your language refers to the real world of monetary policy, fiscal policy or the banking system.

"Printing money", "money supply" etc etc etc. Just meaningless and wrong.

You've just swallowed a load of neoliberal gobbledegook and regurgitated it.

This is the problem with that portion of the population who consider themselves 'sensible' judges of politics.

You're woefully misinformed.

I'd get you take a different view on what should happen, but to suppose that real world economists don't use terms like printing money or talk of money supply is simply a denial of reality. There would also be no question that many would cite Keynes the author of QE, though there'd be a lot of argument as to whether he' have thought it useful in the guise being used now which draws from the BoJ actions, and whether it's too asset based a policy which wont create the increased demand sought in the economy that Keynes may have sought with his ideas on stimuli.

I don't mind btw you refer to me as a neoliberal, in many ways I would be just that. Though I can think of a few neoliberals who'd think me much to in favour of regulation and some elements of state ownerhip. And just one other, I doubt you mean to label it gobbledygook, that would suggest you're unable to understand it, whereas I suspect you're wanting to say you understand it but reject such conclusions.

[Digby]

And QE creates no new money, so why would you call it "money printing"? Makes no sense.

That it mayn't make sense to you isn't the same thing as it not being true. I'd say trust me on this as it is true, but I have my doubts that'll happen.

[UGagain]

Money printing is not a meaningless term, in essence it's what happening right now, save it's happening with the claim they'll tighten the supply in the future against easing money into the markets now, and that's why it's QE and not money printing. Only I call it money printing as I again I have my doubts they'll ever get around to the tightening part, and will instead allow inflation to deal with the issue - and frankly at some point we'll be grateful for a bit of inflation and a rise in interest rates so it's not wholly a bad thing

And that's not the only definition of full employment, as one could easily make a case for there being full employment for a given capacity of the economy. And again you might find it counterproductive to aim for your more literal take on full employment, and it's not easy to achieve either.

None of your language refers to the real world of monetary policy, fiscal policy or the banking system.

"Printing money", "money supply" etc etc etc. Just meaningless and wrong.

You've just swallowed a load of neoliberal gobbledegook and regurgitated it.

This is the problem with that portion of the population who consider themselves 'sensible' judges of politics.

You're woefully misinformed.

I'd get you take a different view on what should happen, but to suppose that real world economists don't use terms like printing money or talk of money supply is simply a denial of reality. There would also be no question that many would cite Keynes the author of QE, though there'd be a lot of argument as to whether he' have thought it useful in the guise being used now which draws from the BoJ actions, and whether it's too asset based a policy which wont create the increased demand sought in the economy that Keynes may have sought with his ideas on stimuli.

I don't mind btw you refer to me as a neoliberal, in many ways I would be just that. Though I can think of a few neoliberals who'd think me much to in favour of regulation and some elements of state ownerhip. And just one other, I doubt you mean to label it gobbledygook, that would suggest you're unable to understand it, whereas I suspect you're wanting to say you understand it but reject such conclusions.

What are you talking about?

QE is an asset swap. It merely changes the asset portfolio of the non-government sector.

[UGagain]

And QE creates no new money, so why would you call it "money printing"? Makes no sense.

That it mayn't make sense to you isn't the same thing as it not being true. I'd say trust me on this as it is true, but I have my doubts that'll happen.

It is not true. QE is swapping government securities for reserves. There IS NO MONEY CREATED!!!!!!!!

THis is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

[Zhivago]

It's time for a spot of deselection, methinks.

[Digby]

And QE creates no new money, so why would you call it "money printing"? Makes no sense.

That it mayn't make sense to you isn't the same thing as it not being true. I'd say trust me on this as it is true, but I have my doubts that'll happen.

It is not true. QE is swapping government securities for reserves. There IS NO MONEY CREATED!!!!!!!!

THis is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Ah, so you're drawing a distinction between reserves and money? In this situation that's practically akin to being stood on a railway line whilst a train hurtles toward you and then placing your hands over your eyes and concluding there's no longer any danger

[UGagain]

I don't mind btw you refer to me as a neoliberal, in many ways I would be just that. .

I didn't say you are a neoliberal. I said that you'd absorbed neoliberal gobbledegook and are regurgitating it. You don't know enough to BE a neoliberal but like a lot of the hard right posters here (Wrayburn, Sandydragon, Lizard et al) you just assimilate the neoliberal gibberish because the household finance comparisons sound intuitive to you and can't comprehend that macro is different.

It was clear to me as soon as you said "money printing" that you have no idea of the subject you are trying to talk about.

It's gibberish designed to frighten the monkeys.

[UGagain]

That it mayn't make sense to you isn't the same thing as it not being true. I'd say trust me on this as it is true, but I have my doubts that'll happen.

It is not true. QE is swapping government securities for reserves. There IS NO MONEY CREATED!!!!!!!!

THis is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Ah, so you're drawing a distinction between reserves and money? In this situation that's practically akin to being stood on a railway line whilst a train hurtles toward you and then placing your hands over your eyes and concluding there's no longer any danger

That statement makes absolutely no sense in the real world. Reserves are state money.

What are you talking about?

[Digby]

It is not true. QE is swapping government securities for reserves. There IS NO MONEY CREATED!!!!!!!!

THis is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

Ah, so you're drawing a distinction between reserves and money? In this situation that's practically akin to being stood on a railway line whilst a train hurtles toward you and then placing your hands over your eyes and concluding there's no longer any danger

That statement makes absolutely no sense in the real world. Reserves are state money.

What are you talking about?

And where the state creates reserves it is in effect creating money, and this of course impacts money supply. Tbh this feels a bit like the referendum debate, there too facts/reality often seemed to have no bearing on how people thought. I could I suppose direct you to query any number of central banks, or any number of experts as to whether QE is akin to printing money, and that still wouldn't have any influence.

I can see why people might if thinking narrowly on what money means not consider reserves money (a classic economist joke there, well I laughed) but it's a failure, if perhaps an understandable one, to see the bigger picture.

Btw, your boy Corbyn is one of those to lit upon the idea of using QE beyond just buying assets to keep liquidity in the banking sector, and he's proposed using it for direct projects to boost demand in the economy, building houses, schools, providing infrastructure. There are some problems for him in this, notably the BoE likely wouldn't do it unless he removed their independence and then ordered them, and still more that printing money isn't without risk. You'd also have to ask why Corbyn couldn't fund his stimuli packages from the fiscal budget in a manner Keynes would recognise, basically borrowing, and then we get to the politics that like Brown he'd wanted to claim he was keeping borrowing down and trust that many voters wouldn't understand QE, and he's right to the degree not everyone understands QE. Of course it's also possible Corbyn has since rejected this policy after the grown ups have explained why it's a bad idea.

[UGagain]

Ah, so you're drawing a distinction between reserves and money? In this situation that's practically akin to being stood on a railway line whilst a train hurtles toward you and then placing your hands over your eyes and concluding there's no longer any danger

That statement makes absolutely no sense in the real world. Reserves are state money.

What are you talking about?

And where the state creates reserves it is in effect creating money, and this of course impacts money supply. Tbh this feels a bit like the referendum debate, there too facts/reality often seemed to have no bearing on how people thought. I could I suppose direct you to query any number of central banks, or any number of experts as to whether QE is akin to printing money, and that still wouldn't have any influence.

I can see why people might if thinking narrowly on what money means not consider reserves money (a classic economist joke there, well I laughed) but it's a failure, if perhaps an understandable one, to see the bigger picture.

Btw, your boy Corbyn is one of those to lit upon the idea of using QE beyond just buying assets to keep liquidity in the banking sector, and he's proposed using it for direct projects to boost demand in the economy, building houses, schools, providing infrastructure. There are some problems for him in this, notably the BoE likely wouldn't do it unless he removed their independence and then ordered them, and still more that printing money isn't without risk. You'd also have to ask why Corbyn couldn't fund his stimuli packages from the fiscal budget in a manner Keynes would recognise, basically borrowing, and then we get to the politics that like Brown he'd wanted to claim he was keeping borrowing down and trust that many voters wouldn't understand QE, and he's right to the degree not everyone understands QE. Of course it's also possible Corbyn has since rejected this policy after the grown ups have explained why it's a bad idea.

You have absolutely no idea of the subject you are trying to talk about.

It's just meaningless neoliberal gobbledegook that has no relation to the monetary system that we have, and have had since 1971.

QE swaps bonds (state money) for reserves (state money). Zero money created.

You're the one hung up on money. Not me.

They could. You'd need to ask them why they chose to roll with Richard Murphy's stupidity.

Nothing to do with me or the monetary system.

So called "people's QE" is a misnomer. It's just overt financing i,e, spending without issuing bonds for the excess reserves.

But you don't understand any of this so I'm wasting my time.

[Digby]

But you don't understand any of this so I'm wasting my time.

I'd best call my mother, time to put that economics degree in the bin. Though we can perhaps rally around the idea that degrees in economics are a waste of time, sort of.

[UGagain]

Ah, so you're drawing a distinction between reserves and money? In this situation that's practically akin to being stood on a railway line whilst a train hurtles toward you and then placing your hands over your eyes and concluding there's no longer any danger

That statement makes absolutely no sense in the real world. Reserves are state money.

What are you talking about?

And where the state creates reserves it is in effect creating money, and this of course impacts money supply. Tbh this feels a bit like the referendum debate, there too facts/reality often seemed to have no bearing on how people thought. I could I suppose direct you to query any number of central banks, or any number of experts as to whether QE is akin to printing money, and that still wouldn't have any influence.

I can see why people might if thinking narrowly on what money means not consider reserves money (a classic economist joke there, well I laughed) but it's a failure, if perhaps an understandable one, to see the bigger picture.

Btw, your boy Corbyn is one of those to lit upon the idea of using QE beyond just buying assets to keep liquidity in the banking sector, and he's proposed using it for direct projects to boost demand in the economy, building houses, schools, providing infrastructure. There are some problems for him in this, notably the BoE likely wouldn't do it unless he removed their independence and then ordered them, and still more that printing money isn't without risk. You'd also have to ask why Corbyn couldn't fund his stimuli packages from the fiscal budget in a manner Keynes would recognise, basically borrowing, and then we get to the politics that like Brown he'd wanted to claim he was keeping borrowing down and trust that many voters wouldn't understand QE, and he's right to the degree not everyone understands QE. Of course it's also possible Corbyn has since rejected this policy after the grown ups have explained why it's a bad idea.

The BofE has no say in the matter.

There is no independence. That's just a hoax for the rubes like you.

The government is the sovereign currency issuer. The Bo E is a government agency subject to the orders of the executive.

And that is that.

[UGagain]

But you don't understand any of this so I'm wasting my time.

I'd best call my mother, time to put that economics degree in the bin. Though we can perhaps rally around the idea that degrees in economics are a waste of time, sort of.

You don't have an economics degree.

[Digby]

The BofE has no say in the matter.

There is no independence. That's just a hoax for the rubes like you.

The government is the sovereign currency issuer. The Bo E is a government agency subject to the orders of the executive.

And that is that.

Sort of. I think in the event of it happening, not that I think Corbyn has a chance of winning an election, we'd see resignations such it might be politically untenable to proceed, although Corbyn does like to proceed in the face of resignations and his positin being untenable. Certainly the government could force through such action, and it's right as the elected officials power is with the government, but it would be removing what independence the BoE currently holds