| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... 23:17 - May 31 with 10593 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
....it will just be more of the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/31/faiza-shaheen-labo
'But after months of being isolated and bullied, including being stripped of paid organiser support when I was seven months pregnant, I should have known this was coming. The real reason for it all? I’m too interested in wealth inequality, public ownership and Palestine to be welcomed in today’s Labour party.'
Edit....personally I will have no part in it....a plague on all their houses. [Post edited 31 May 2024 23:22]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:58 - Jun 6 with 1834 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 20:36 - Jun 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Perhaps not voting for them and giving them legitimacy. Ffs are you really suggesting that 1% better is enough reason? |
Ah, the luxury of ivory towers & idealism - which most people grow out of by their mid-20s with the dawning realisation that for anything to actually change in reality, people have to get their backsides off their computer chairs & actually *do* something *in real life* instead of fruitlessly remaining in their tower & going "wah wah" on a football forum where everyone's heard it before (& probably 99% have already made up their mind as to how to vote).
I don't think Labour & Starmer are perfect by any means, but by joining the LP a couple of years ago, I've been able to, eg, have some influence on an electioneering leaflet locally for the upcoming GE and could, if I'd had the time, youth & inclination, have taken one of the many training courses they offer with a view to rising through the party to have more influence on policy, decision making, attending conference etc. Why don't you do that? |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:03 - Jun 6 with 1802 views | leitrimblue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:36 - Jun 6 by GlasgowBlue |
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need proportional representation and a break up of the two main political parties. With a Labour landslide looking very likely, I don't see either happening in my lifetime. |
With a Labour landslide we could be looking at a decade plus of large swathes of the population feeling unrepresented.
That leaves an enormous and dangerous political vacuum for some loon to potentially exploit |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:04 - Jun 6 with 1794 views | leitrimblue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:44 - Jun 6 by Ryorry |
I very much doubt that this site is representative of the UK as a whole - if anything, I'd say it's more educated & deeper thinking - at least going by those who post, rather than those who only read it. |
I will have to take your word on that  | | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:07 - Jun 6 with 1772 views | DJR |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:44 - Jun 6 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Not to mention that unlike many sciences/doctrines, economics is highly susceptible to unforeseen geo-political events. Wars, elections, coups, threats to supply chains, etc cannot always be predicted. Economists also never get credit when they are correct, for example Brexit they projected the economic impact to a tee. Nobody trashes medical science because doctors failed to predict COVID19.
The banking crisis was also a failure of regulation rather than an unforeseen event. The recent bank failures in the US (e.g SVB) were bourne out of US light touch oversight, the capital requirements in the UK are far more stringent, hence there was no contagion. |
Regardless of arguments about whether economics is an art or a science, isn't the main issue why the UK follows the US model (albeit it not particularly successfully) rather than the social democratic model that exists in most European countries, where it is accepted that higher taxes are necessary to pay for decent public services?
Incidentally, I was in Paris in 1995 the night Chirac won the Presidential election, which as well as being an amazing experience with millions celebrating on the streets, brought home to me that there was really not much difference between his party and the Socialists when it came to things like taxation and the need for decent public services. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 12:19]
|  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 12:17 - Jun 6 with 1745 views | Cotty |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:17 - Jun 6 by GlasgowBlue |
He probably isn’t a climate change sceptic. He’s just saying these things to appeal to those who are and may be tempted to vote Reform.
This is where we are. A government which stands for nothing, is in power for power’s sake and campaigns on the whim of a minority of swivel eyed loons, whilst relying a score vote of people who have always voted Tory and always will. |
Sociopath it is then |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 13:26 - Jun 6 with 1633 views | Zapers |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:58 - Jun 6 by Ryorry |
Ah, the luxury of ivory towers & idealism - which most people grow out of by their mid-20s with the dawning realisation that for anything to actually change in reality, people have to get their backsides off their computer chairs & actually *do* something *in real life* instead of fruitlessly remaining in their tower & going "wah wah" on a football forum where everyone's heard it before (& probably 99% have already made up their mind as to how to vote).
I don't think Labour & Starmer are perfect by any means, but by joining the LP a couple of years ago, I've been able to, eg, have some influence on an electioneering leaflet locally for the upcoming GE and could, if I'd had the time, youth & inclination, have taken one of the many training courses they offer with a view to rising through the party to have more influence on policy, decision making, attending conference etc. Why don't you do that? |
Idealism is for dreamers, reality is for doers. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:04 - Jun 6 with 1578 views | DJR |
Did someone mention the Forde Report, which was commissioned by the party’s national executive committee to investigate the leaked antisemitism report and its findings?
Well, this is hot off the press.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/06/labour-drops-lawsuit-ag
EDIT: The Telegraph is reporting the costs to the Labour Party as £5 million, and this would appear to chime with the following from a BBC news report from 18 months ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64248136
The BBC understands the estimated combined legal costs of the five Corbyn supporters, added to Labour's costs, range from more than £3m to around £4m. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 14:14]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:16 - Jun 6 with 1547 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:01 - Jun 6 by Cotty |
I'm not very excited about very much in the labour announcements so far apart from one massive thing. The nationalised green energy plan looks fantastic and it is what is required now and for the next generations. Sunak on the other hand looks to be a climate change sceptic at best, sociopath at worst. |
Yep. It’s important to highlight there are some offerings that could make a difference. People are too quick to buy into the ‘they’re all the same’ rhetoric. It’s quickly becoming another slogan and has about as much value as ‘stop the boats’.
Although it was disappointing that the environment and especially climate change wasn’t mention in that last TV ‘debate’. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:13 - Jun 6 with 1511 views | GlasgowBlue |
Galloway now backing Shaheen and pulling his candidate from the race. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:15 - Jun 6 with 1510 views | blueasfook |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:44 - Jun 6 by Ryorry |
I very much doubt that this site is representative of the UK as a whole - if anything, I'd say it's more educated & deeper thinking - at least going by those who post, rather than those who only read it. |
Thank you Ryorry. That's very kind of you to say. You're talking about me, right? |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:46 - Jun 6 with 1455 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:15 - Jun 6 by blueasfook |
Thank you Ryorry. That's very kind of you to say. You're talking about me, right? |
I think it has to be when you are 95% of the posters on the site. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:48 - Jun 6 with 1441 views | baxterbasics |
You know what, she's the opposite end of the spectrum to me and I am tired of UK candidates giving so much attention to Israel/Gaza. And yet having followed her story I kind of hope she does it. |  |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:52 - Jun 6 with 1423 views | Ryorry |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 14:16 - Jun 6 by Swansea_Blue |
Yep. It’s important to highlight there are some offerings that could make a difference. People are too quick to buy into the ‘they’re all the same’ rhetoric. It’s quickly becoming another slogan and has about as much value as ‘stop the boats’.
Although it was disappointing that the environment and especially climate change wasn’t mention in that last TV ‘debate’. |
KS did actually manage to get a mention of Labour's proposed Green 'UK Energy' in, iirc. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:58 - Jun 6 with 1397 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:52 - Jun 6 by Ryorry |
KS did actually manage to get a mention of Labour's proposed Green 'UK Energy' in, iirc. |
Ah, did he. I don’t remember hearing anything, but I gave up half way through as the format was annoying me so much. It should be front and centre imo, but here we are.
Even if Net Zero is too politically risky, the pollution of our waterways is a really easy area for Labour to make ground on. It’s visual (💩 on beaches) and addresses the problems with privatisation. I’d have assumed Labour would be all over it. Maybe there will be more as we go through the campaign. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 16:22 - Jun 6 with 1377 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 09:01 - Jun 6 by Cotty |
I'm not very excited about very much in the labour announcements so far apart from one massive thing. The nationalised green energy plan looks fantastic and it is what is required now and for the next generations. Sunak on the other hand looks to be a climate change sceptic at best, sociopath at worst. |
I work in energy and I think the plan is a huge disappointment. It is not a nationalised green energy scheme (as seems to be widely thought) - it is effectively a subsidy scheme for companies investing in green energy, and will not be consumer-facing (you won't be able to buy energy through GB Energy). As with many PPPs, I suspect GBE will effectively end up taking all the risk and getting little of the benefit. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 16:54 - Jun 6 with 1340 views | blueasfook |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:46 - Jun 6 by J2BLUE |
I think it has to be when you are 95% of the posters on the site. |
I think Phil asked people to stop this kind of personal attacks. Crying now. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 16:57 - Jun 6 with 1328 views | J2BLUE |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 16:54 - Jun 6 by blueasfook |
I think Phil asked people to stop this kind of personal attacks. Crying now. |
 | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 17:23 - Jun 6 with 1269 views | Whos_blue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:48 - Jun 6 by GlasgowBlue |
Have you read the Forde report in full? |
Not yet Glassers.
No spoilers please! |  |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 17:28 - Jun 6 with 1264 views | Whos_blue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 15:48 - Jun 6 by baxterbasics |
You know what, she's the opposite end of the spectrum to me and I am tired of UK candidates giving so much attention to Israel/Gaza. And yet having followed her story I kind of hope she does it. |
Whilst there's a chance she might, the left vote is essentially split, so IDS is probably the greatest beneficiary.
I don't think Galloway's grandstanding about standing down their candidate will make much difference. His slice of the vote isn't significant. | |
| Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness. |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 18:50 - Jun 6 with 1205 views | CoachRob |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 10:42 - Jun 6 by lowhouseblue |
did you see what happened with truss? do you still think fiscal credibility is nonsense neoclassical economics? (also, things like fiscal credibility are actually extremely keynesian).
you seem to think that economics comes as some sort of absolutist instruction booklet and you disagree with that instruction book. "Why are you guessing at what might happen if you understand how the economy works, why not clearly state the outcome now?" really? jeez. you've read a text book and you think that's economics, but skipped over the bits about methodology, abstraction, simplification, the limits of modelling etc. it's a field of study - eg how people interact through exchange and markets - and it is characterised by debate, disagreement, uncertainty, multiple schools of thought and an evolving understanding just like any other social science. it has all the complexity associated with trying to model human behaviour. you're dismissing a whole discipline when what you're really upset about is a simplified and bastardised version of one school.
you seem to want certainty and determinant outcomes. "Can you tell us whether there is going to be a financial crisis in the next year?" in the context of economics or any social science that's a nonsense question - perhaps in maths it's what people expect. economics is providing a framework for policy debate - different economists will reach different conclusions. scarey eh. |
Economics states that it is a quantitative science, you should be able to make predictions like we can in physics, no? I notice you skipped over all the real world predictions made by economists that were wrong. Why do economists keep making precise predictions (no error bars/confidence intervals) if it is about providing a framework for policy debate?
If different schools of economics all reach different conclusions which ones are ordinary members of the public supposed to believe? This was the point Deaton made that economics seems to have lost its purpose and become lost in maths.
I'm not upset about anything, its never anything personal, just that you always put yourself forward for these debates and like to gatekeep for the economics profession. I'm just trying to understand why economists don't seem to grasp the embedded mechanisms in complex systems and therefore fail to have any predictive understanding that can be useful for effective policymaking. You say it is evolving, in what way? There are deeply entrenched views at all schools, to try and dismiss it as one school is disingenuous nonsense and the criticisms are coming from within now as well as the extremely low trust scores economists get from public polling. There is also a definite hierarchy in economics favouring Neoclassical thought greatly over other schools.
Economists could play an important role when it come to climate change but instead make up mathematical nonsense, downplay the impacts, and as you once did, have a pop at climate scientists who have the temerity to point out that economists don't understand Earth system science, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
Why is asking economists about financial crises, nonsense? The Bank of England has spend time building endogenous models and other central banks are using Doyne Farmer's (physicist) agent-based modelling to highlight some markers that led to the previous crisis. You don't even know what is being studied let alone pontificating about its philosophy.
What does fiscal credibility even mean? Can the government have debt at 250% to GDP or 400% or 900% or 2,500,000% and still remain credible? Explain how this metric works and where the limits and constraints lie. WTF is securonomics?
Final question, how successful has economics been at modelling human behaviour?
Thx and maybe the individual who downvoted my post would also like to contribute. |  | | |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 19:07 - Jun 6 with 1170 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 11:58 - Jun 6 by Ryorry |
Ah, the luxury of ivory towers & idealism - which most people grow out of by their mid-20s with the dawning realisation that for anything to actually change in reality, people have to get their backsides off their computer chairs & actually *do* something *in real life* instead of fruitlessly remaining in their tower & going "wah wah" on a football forum where everyone's heard it before (& probably 99% have already made up their mind as to how to vote).
I don't think Labour & Starmer are perfect by any means, but by joining the LP a couple of years ago, I've been able to, eg, have some influence on an electioneering leaflet locally for the upcoming GE and could, if I'd had the time, youth & inclination, have taken one of the many training courses they offer with a view to rising through the party to have more influence on policy, decision making, attending conference etc. Why don't you do that? |
Sadly for us all Ryorry some people get off their backsides every 5 years, vote, and think that's it. Well guess what absolutely nothing of any importance actually changes.
Also, some call it growing up, others see it as giving up. The World needs more idealism. | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 19:15 - Jun 6 with 1154 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 17:28 - Jun 6 by Whos_blue |
Whilst there's a chance she might, the left vote is essentially split, so IDS is probably the greatest beneficiary.
I don't think Galloway's grandstanding about standing down their candidate will make much difference. His slice of the vote isn't significant. |
Labour should probably stand down! | |
| |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 20:00 - Jun 6 with 1106 views | lowhouseblue |
| Vote for them if you must but be in no doubt.... on 18:50 - Jun 6 by CoachRob |
Economics states that it is a quantitative science, you should be able to make predictions like we can in physics, no? I notice you skipped over all the real world predictions made by economists that were wrong. Why do economists keep making precise predictions (no error bars/confidence intervals) if it is about providing a framework for policy debate?
If different schools of economics all reach different conclusions which ones are ordinary members of the public supposed to believe? This was the point Deaton made that economics seems to have lost its purpose and become lost in maths.
I'm not upset about anything, its never anything personal, just that you always put yourself forward for these debates and like to gatekeep for the economics profession. I'm just trying to understand why economists don't seem to grasp the embedded mechanisms in complex systems and therefore fail to have any predictive understanding that can be useful for effective policymaking. You say it is evolving, in what way? There are deeply entrenched views at all schools, to try and dismiss it as one school is disingenuous nonsense and the criticisms are coming from within now as well as the extremely low trust scores economists get from public polling. There is also a definite hierarchy in economics favouring Neoclassical thought greatly over other schools.
Economists could play an important role when it come to climate change but instead make up mathematical nonsense, downplay the impacts, and as you once did, have a pop at climate scientists who have the temerity to point out that economists don't understand Earth system science, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
Why is asking economists about financial crises, nonsense? The Bank of England has spend time building endogenous models and other central banks are using Doyne Farmer's (physicist) agent-based modelling to highlight some markers that led to the previous crisis. You don't even know what is being studied let alone pontificating about its philosophy.
What does fiscal credibility even mean? Can the government have debt at 250% to GDP or 400% or 900% or 2,500,000% and still remain credible? Explain how this metric works and where the limits and constraints lie. WTF is securonomics?
Final question, how successful has economics been at modelling human behaviour?
Thx and maybe the individual who downvoted my post would also like to contribute. |
i wouldn't disagree that economics has become lost in maths. for me it has taken a wrong turn and moved too far away from its political economy roots. it has attempted to wrap itself in a quantitive science cloak and has therefore failed to be transparent about its assumptions and abstractions which are often highly contested. too many economists have liked the quantitive science look and have failed to distinguish properly between their models and reality. there is a critical logical stage in deciding whether a model tells you anything useful about reality and too often some economists seem to skip that step.
it may be very different in your line, but I'm not sure economists generally offer precise predictions. if they do they are being misleading. forecasters report the output of their models. that's exactly what it is - a logical extrapolation from a series of assumptions. it's foolish to think that it's an accurate prediction of the real world - the assumptions may be flawed, the world may have changed since they were made, or other things may have intervened. some models may have had a run of accurate predictions and have acquired some credibility as a result - but they're still models not reality.
in terms of if 'all economists reach different conclusions which ones are ordinary members of the public supposed to believe' - would you ask the same about politicians? for me the way in which large number of people interact economically is so complex and uncertain and constantly changing we are never going to arrive at a single, deterministic, uncontested explanation of it all. there are always going to be competing explanations which evolve over time. disagreement is legitimate. economics can provide the rules of the debate, but, like politics, everyone needs to decide what the believe. if economists tell you there is only one answer they are lying. economics will never give a definitive answer to something like 'do we need a wealth tax'. it will provide the tools to assess different arguments, exclude flawed arguments and give a structure in which to interpret evidence.
what i am saying i guess is that methodologically a behavioural science like economics is very different from a hard science like physics. it cannot give a deterministic account of the economy such as to provide accurate predictions - if economists claim that they can they are being misleading. everything is contingent, everything is only valid within the context of the specific model used. cognitively economists have a different skill set and expectations from a subject like physics - they don't expect definitive answers that are universally applicable and don't change over time - they are taking part in a rolling debate that will never end with a single, accepted, 'true' model. personally i like that. your emphasis is on predictive power -which just reflects your mind set - economists are generally more suspicious of prediction being the only way to assess theory validity.
the dominance of neoclassical approaches is true and is a not good. but really the problem is that the profession if dominated by a particular political perspective. but even with neo-classical methods - if you change the assumptions you get different outcomes. you can have neoclassical analysis which explains a whole range of market failures and coordination failures. even a neo-classical framework in capable of generating a great range of non-orthodox policy prescriptions. but i certainly agree there is far too much mathematical nonsense.
I don't think i have ever downplayed the impact of climate change. why would you expect economists to understand 'Earth system science, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics'. economists model how human behaviour shapes and is shaped by exchange and markets - they can offer theories that put a cost against environmental damage and theories that suggest ways of changing behaviour to achieve some desired outcome (eg consume less fossil fuel) but why would they need to know about thermodynamics? someone needs to tell economists what damage they are putting a cost against and what change in behaviour they are seeking to achieve. economists are only going to have useful things to say about economics.
you asked 'is there going to be a financial crisis this year'. it's a nonsense question because again you think prediction is the be all and end all. of course central banks look at data that may suggest rising risk - but they don't make predictions.
I'm not writing an essay for you on fiscal credibility. i am also choosing to ignore your various insults. i do think that different subjects have different methodologies and demand different cognitive skill sets - equally, i have no desire to shout abuse at physicists or dismiss the whole discipline because i think i know better. [Post edited 6 Jun 2024 20:06]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
