Turn on thread page Beta

Our new shadow chancellor - John McDonnell watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElephantMemory)
    You fell for the propaganda. Well done, OP.
    What propaganda? I'm sick of people shouting 'propaganda!' when politicians have their words accurately repeated. The fact is that he called for honours for the IRA terrorists, and the House wholeheartedly denounced his position. Acknowledging fact is not the same as being sucked into propaganda.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I think a man of his experience stands a good chance against a hapless history graduate.
    But what kind of experience? I really don't see what Osborne's degree has to do with anything. He has been Chancellor of the Exchequer for 5 years now, so I simply don't accept he's some novice compared to his opposite number. Frontline politics is a different game to the campaigning fringes, and it's there that Osborne is far more qualified than McDonnell. Osborne has mastered political strategy and has a good economy to his name - if you think McDonnell has a good chance, you should probably reconsider.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    But what kind of experience? I really don't see what Osborne's degree has to do with anything. He has been Chancellor of the Exchequer for 5 years now, so I simply don't accept he's some novice compared to his opposite number. Frontline politics is a different game to the campaigning fringes, and it's there that Osborne is far more qualified than McDonnell. Osborne has mastered political strategy and has a good economy to his name - if you think McDonnell has a good chance, you should probably reconsider.
    It has to do with partially explaining why he was thoroughly unqualified to do the job in thhe first place. I'll admit he's improved slightly witb experience however his fiscal conservatism has not helped the economy and it has struggled to help the national debt (wheres the surplus promised?). I'm not 100% sure whether he actually thinks austerity is a good idea or whether he's just implementing his ideological cut backs and while doing so prolonging the recovery time while the sensible countries do alright.

    I think his economic policy is a lot stronger although not perfect although I concede that might not be good enough to convince everyone he's generally right.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    It has to do with partially explaining why he was thoroughly unqualified to do the job in thhe first place. I'll admit he's improved slightly witb experience however his fiscal conservatism has not helped the economy and it has struggled to help the national debt (wheres the surplus promised?). I'm not 100% sure whether he actually thinks austerity is a good idea or whether he's just implementing his ideological cut backs and while doing so prolonging the recovery time while the sensible countries do alright.

    I think his economic policy is a lot stronger although not perfect although I concede that might not be good enough to convince everyone he's generally right.
    It's frankly ridiculous to paint him as the hapless history grad. Gordon Brown was a history grad and he guided the economy through the boom and did a great job of saving the economy during the bust - clever people can learn new things. And if you think fiscal conservativism was solely Osborne's idea, then you're being daft. Osborne pegged it as a good political strategy but it was Oliver Letwin, the super-brain of the operation (and a philosopher by education, oh my), who fleshed it out. They believed that the level of demand in the macroeconomy should not be controlled by fiscal policy, rather with monetary levers such as interest rates and the moderately successful QE programme.
    5 years on, the fact is that we are growing faster than Europe and the US, private sector wages are rising fast, and unemployment is particularly low. So again I ask, why do you think McDonnell is more qualified than Osborne is? One has been a political campaigner (not with an economics degree, I'm sure you'll be interested to know), and the other has spent the last five years running the economy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    It's frankly ridiculous to paint him as the hapless history grad. Gordon Brown was a history grad and he guided the economy through the boom and did a great job of saving the economy during the bust - clever people can learn new things. And if you think fiscal conservativism was solely Osborne's idea, then you're being daft. Osborne pegged it as a good political strategy but it was Oliver Letwin, the super-brain of the operation (and a philosopher by education, oh my), who fleshed it out. They believed that the level of demand in the macroeconomy should not be controlled by fiscal policy, rather with monetary levers such as interest rates and the moderately successful QE programme.
    5 years on, the fact is that we are growing faster than Europe and the US, private sector wages are rising fast, and unemployment is particularly low. So again I ask, why do you think McDonnell is more qualified than Osborne is? One has been a political campaigner (not with an economics degree, I'm sure you'll be interested to know), and the other has spent the last five years running the economy.
    A boom which had a massive unstable bubble developing in it well unless you believed Brown and Co who even after the burst of the bubble in America believed things were fine here although the bail out of the banks was a good idea. I dont believe Osbourne's the only person who promotes fiscal conservativism however he is the only one whos Chancellor of Exchequer. While Interest Rates and QE are the mechanisms which should be used first once you reach 0% interest and the spending is still not happening the only way to increase spending is by spending yourself. Additionally even believing that more fiscal spending should not be used is no excuse for cutting it which is inevitably going to damage the economy in such an atmosphere of low spending.

    We have grown faster than the US in 2014 which completely ignores the years where we nearly plunged into a new reccession, Europe has taken an even harder fiscal conservative approach than we have which hardly vindicates the policy and unemployment although lower is not low.

    You ignore McDonnells experience running the finances of London and although Osbourne may have 5 years experience it's been five years of poor policies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    A boom which had a massive unstable bubble developing in it well unless you believed Brown and Co who even after the burst of the bubble in America believed things were fine here although the bail out of the banks was a good idea. I dont believe Osbourne's the only person who promotes fiscal conservativism however he is the only one whos Chancellor of Exchequer. While Interest Rates and QE are the mechanisms which should be used first once you reach 0% interest and the spending is still not happening the only way to increase spending is by spending yourself. Additionally even believing that more fiscal spending should not be used is no excuse for cutting it which is inevitably going to damage the economy in such an atmosphere of low spending.

    We have grown faster than the US in 2014 which completely ignores the years where we nearly plunged into a new reccession, Europe has taken an even harder fiscal conservative approach than we have which hardly vindicates the policy and unemployment although lower is not low.

    You ignore McDonnells experience running the finances of London and although Osbourne may have 5 years experience it's been five years of poor policies.
    I'm sorry, but you're dealing with normative areas and presenting them as clear 'right and wrong' issues. It is quite a popular school of thought that fiscal policy shouldn't be key to getting out of a crisis - rather that monetary policy should be used to alter components of demand within the economy. As you rightly said, once interest rate hit essentially 0, there's not much you can do (apart from going negative), but you completely ignored the argument that quantitative easing is a solution to a liquidity trap.

    Labour feasted on the supposed 'triple-dip' recession. In fact, there was no triple dip, and moreover there wasn't even a double-dip.

    If you believe in Keynesian economics - which I'm assuming, from your position on how to deal with a recession, you do - you will know there is a natural rate of unemployment. We're at 5.4%, and the NRU is normally estimated to be 5%. We're not doing too badly. The US are at 5.1%.

    The electorate will see a man who stuck to fiscal conservativism and 'turned' the country into a recessionary one into a growing one. He has essentially run the economy for 5 years, raising money, spending money, intervening in certain industries and so forth. He will be contrasted by a man on the fringes of politics who spent money for London for a few years and proposed a 60% income tax rate. Do you actually think McDonnell will win that contest? Fiscal conservatism is engrained in the minds of the electorate.

    You talk about Osborne prolonging the recession, which is an argument I have sympathy with, but as soon as McDonnell says that, Osborne will have swathes of data today that will allow him to say the long term economic plan was just that - a long term one; whatever failures in the short term are outweighed by the good economic situation we're in.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'm sorry, but you're dealing with normative areas and presenting them as clear 'right and wrong' issues. It is quite a popular school of thought that fiscal policy shouldn't be key to getting out of a crisis - rather that monetary policy should be used to alter components of demand within the economy. As you rightly said, once interest rate hit essentially 0, there's not much you can do (apart from going negative), but you completely ignored the argument that quantitative easing is a solution to a liquidity trap.

    Labour feasted on the supposed 'triple-dip' recession. In fact, there was no triple dip, and moreover there wasn't even a double-dip.

    If you believe in Keynesian economics - which I'm assuming, from your position on how to deal with a recession, you do - you will know there is a natural rate of unemployment. We're at 5.4%, and the NRU is normally estimated to be 5%. We're not doing too badly. The US are at 5.1%.

    The electorate will see a man who stuck to fiscal conservativism and 'turned' the country into a recessionary one into a growing one. He has essentially run the economy for 5 years, raising money, spending money, intervening in certain industries and so forth. He will be contrasted by a man on the fringes of politics who spent money for London for a few years and proposed a 60% income tax rate. Do you actually think McDonnell will win that contest? Fiscal conservatism is engrained in the minds of the electorate.

    You talk about Osborne prolonging the recession, which is an argument I have sympathy with, but as soon as McDonnell says that, Osborne will have swathes of data today that will allow him to say the long term economic plan was just that - a long term one; whatever failures in the short term are outweighed by the good economic situation we're in.
    True, I have a habit of doing that. Some people think that Quantitive Easing can be used to get out of liquidity trap however personally I believe many of the causes of the trap will see the banks leave the money leading to it having limited affect there is also the suggestion by some people that money or a credit of money to be spent by people before a certain date could be given to everyone to stop a liquidity trap however I feel this likely to have a solely short term effect like underfunded keynesian projects and that it is generally an indirect way of the Government filling in for lost demand by people who dont want it to be directly involved.

    True but the double dip was revised out later (genuinely believed at the time.) so you can forgive that.

    Yes I am, true generally just below 5 my argument would be that it took longer to reach this point than it shouldve.

    That is a possibility that I fear.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)

    That is a possibility that I fear.
    So why did you say he'd have a good chance?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    So why did you say he'd have a good chance?
    I feel there are 2 possible results, one being people see McDonnells argument and believe it then the other being that stuck in the mindset of fiscal conservatism they have recently they believe his attempts to mislead them.

    I feel the first is definitely possible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    'I am sorry for what I said, but I am only saying sorry because I am shadow Chancellor.'

    Others may have believed it, but I didn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I feel there are 2 possible results, one being people see McDonnells argument and believe it then the other being that stuck in the mindset of fiscal conservatism they have recently they believe his attempts to mislead them.

    I feel the first is definitely possible.
    I think the firstly is highly unlikely - why do you think it isn't?

    Also, why do you think that fiscal conservatism shouldn't be adopted during a period of strong economic growth, wage growth, and high employment? As I've said, I'm sympathetic to the argument saying the state should spend more in bust years, but why not extend that to a uniform countercyclic fiscal policy?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I think the firstly is highly unlikely - why do you think it isn't?

    Also, why do you think that fiscal conservatism shouldn't be adopted during a period of strong economic growth, wage growth, and high employment? As I've said, I'm sympathetic to the argument saying the state should spend more in bust years, but why not extend that to a uniform countercyclic fiscal policy?
    It's an argument which due to labours refusal to go against it hasnt accured I'm not sure what will happen.

    I believe it should to a certain extent however although the current indicators are good we are still in a recovery not in a fully recovered state meaning we would be more suscebitable to the effect that cuts can have. My idea of cuts would also differ to that of the conservative party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    It's an argument which due to labours refusal to go against it hasnt accured I'm not sure what will happen.

    I believe it should to a certain extent however although the current indicators are good we are still in a recovery not in a fully recovered state meaning we would be more suscebitable to the effect that cuts can have. My idea of cuts would also differ to that of the conservative party.
    So you agree, because we are recovering, that government spending should be going down?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    So you agree, because we are recovering, that government spending should be going down?
    Not yet, I would raise certain taxes however.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IRA supporting Marxist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Not yet, I would raise certain taxes however.
    so with an economy growing currently at over 3% per year, wages growing at 3%, zero inflation, and 10 periods of economic growth, you still think the government should be supporting the economy more than normal?

    By the way, there shouldn't have been that 'however' in your answer. If you think the state should still be filling in for the private sector, that is consistent with raising taxes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    so with an economy growing currently at over 3% per year, wages growing at 3%, zero inflation, and 10 periods of economic growth, you still think the government should be supporting the economy more than normal?

    By the way, there shouldn't have been that 'however' in your answer. If you think the state should still be filling in for the private sector, that is consistent with raising taxes.
    Until the economy returns to normal yes.

    True.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    What propaganda? I'm sick of people shouting 'propaganda!' when politicians have their words accurately repeated. The fact is that he called for honours for the IRA terrorists, and the House wholeheartedly denounced his position. Acknowledging fact is not the same as being sucked into propaganda.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3559353
    Take a look at the picture in the OP. Propaganda pure and simple.

    I'm sick of tory boys trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes in pretending it doesn't exist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Until the economy returns to normal yes.

    True.
    What's normal for you? Our unemployment rate is essentially the same as the 2007 low, our real economy is now bigger than it was pre-recession, and wage growth is now higher than its peak pre-recession.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.