neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 5, 2022 8:10:49 GMT
Some thoughts unrelated to this by election, but prompted by this thread.
In a short gap between meetings yesterday (when I was too busy to watch Lorraine), I was putting together something to help a soon to be graduated economist with a job application, and put down some thoughts about the Common Agricultural Policy, and approaches to protectionism and economic development in general.
The CAP is what cemented my position as a liberal: the dreadful way it makes consumers poorer whilst simultaneously subsidising both massive grain farmers and basically crap inefficient not-quite-smallholders in France, whilst locking out choice and damaging potential trade deals, makes it bad economics. I've often characterised it as a modern version of the Corn Laws, and that reason it is A Bad Thing.
Protectionism is generally bad for a number of reasons (although we aren't likely to see an increase in tariffs on goods directly impacted by the war) but the current war and issues around that provide a number of opportunities for more mercantilist minded countries to go down that road. Including first tier economies that are generally in favour of freer trade: there are identified opportunities to develop the UK's neon export industry, for example- or would be if we weren't dicking around with the semiconductor industry which should go hand in hand with that. Unfortunately, because of the CAP, Europe and the UK are not in a position to grow enough of our own food (especially the UK given the current ludicrous situation with our fertiliser production) so we'll be in a bunfight with, eg, Egypt for basic products from countries that seek a mercantilist advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 5, 2022 9:30:37 GMT
Ah well, once we'd got rid of the Stuarts we were all for the Head of State, and it was the Tories who had a little soft spot for overthrowing the royal family in association with foreign military invasions! I suppose on the right-wing Whigs it is all about how you define "right wing" - on a free trade vs state intervention definition you may be right, on a conserving-the-status quo v "progress" definition (which I think is more classical - I mean in the original left v right wings of the French National Assembly I don't think free trade came into it much) I think not. State religion v freedom of conscience were bigger deals than economic theory back in the day too. Free trade was a liberal/left policy in the 18th/19th centuries because protectionism was identified with "Old Corruption": state monopolies, the funding of sinecures and patronage, and the levying of higher prices on the working poor for the benefit of aristocratical landowners. Basically the argument of free trade liberals was that protectionism existed for elites who lived off inherited privilege and exploited those who produced the country's wealth - which meant the 19th century Liberal coalition was able to be a big tent including both progressive industrial capitalists and parts of the urban working class, both opposed to the interests of reactionary Toryism. The conservative argument for protection was a familiar nationalist one that subsidising landowners was necessary to strengthen the nation by maintaining self-sufficiency in food production and supply, particularly important in times of war, and to preserve the beloved traditional rural economy from liquid modernity. So there was also a cosmopolitan versus nationalist aspect to the tariff debate, where trade policy was either viewed as dictated by the enlightened cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit or a zero-sum struggle of national competition. Both these aspects, nationalist and traditionalist appeals versus the progressive extirpation of privilege, map pretty well onto contemporary left/right cleavages. Well explained, and illustrates how economic arguments are usually less important in politics than the values lying behind them. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on May 5, 2022 21:37:03 GMT
Yes. Absolutely. Our origin is as one of two parties in a left v right battle. The fact that we have been displaced as the major left party by one further to our left doesn't change that. I miss the old liberals. Im of a view the social democrats ruin the lib dems and have ruined labour and conservatives. They’re the issue that creates this blandness within aspects of politics. You could easily imagine Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband, Chukka Umunna, David Cameron, George Osborne, Rishi Sunak, Nick Clegg and the funny eyed bushy haired libdem pansexual (can’t recall name) in the same party and happy too. I can think of less embarrassing excuses. You make my point about missing Liberals in the Lib Dems as the liberals against regulation of sin like this would have told him to stand proud, not characterise this as an embarassment. He might be looked at as liberated! His wife’s response was certainly liberal. I believe you're referring to Layla Moran and, no, she's way too left wing for the Orange Booker types and KS! UBI is not a centre-right policy. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on May 6, 2022 5:55:09 GMT
Free trade was a liberal/left policy in the 18th/19th centuries because protectionism was identified with "Old Corruption": state monopolies, the funding of sinecures and patronage, and the levying of higher prices on the working poor for the benefit of aristocratical landowners. Basically the argument of free trade liberals was that protectionism existed for elites who lived off inherited privilege and exploited those who produced the country's wealth - which meant the 19th century Liberal coalition was able to be a big tent including both progressive industrial capitalists and parts of the urban working class, both opposed to the interests of reactionary Toryism. The conservative argument for protection was a familiar nationalist one that subsidising landowners was necessary to strengthen the nation by maintaining self-sufficiency in food production and supply, particularly important in times of war, and to preserve the beloved traditional rural economy from liquid modernity. So there was also a cosmopolitan versus nationalist aspect to the tariff debate, where trade policy was either viewed as dictated by the enlightened cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit or a zero-sum struggle of national competition. Both these aspects, nationalist and traditionalist appeals versus the progressive extirpation of privilege, map pretty well onto contemporary left/right cleavages. Well explained, and illustrates how economic arguments are usually less important in politics than the values lying behind them. Apart from for the people who actually value economics first and foremost and are put off by both sides of the culture war. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 6, 2022 7:56:59 GMT
Well explained, and illustrates how economic arguments are usually less important in politics than the values lying behind them. Apart from for the people who actually value economics first and foremost and are put off by both sides of the culture war. Everybody cares foremost about economics in form of cash in their pocket. The number of people who even understand, let alone care about, whether one economic theory is better than another is, and always has been, vanishingly small, though it is often wheeled out in support of one or another cultural argument. PS I personally loathe "culture wars" but value politics is different. c.1985 I understood Labour to be strong on values of compassion, Conservatives to be strong on hard power. Both were good in some spots, blind on others, your political values (culture if you like) set your priorities as to where you wanted the country to go, but you all wanted the country to progress. I see that as different to a war in which each set of people regard the others as an enemy who must be crushed, simply because they hold different values. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 6, 2022 11:25:05 GMT
PS I personally loathe "culture wars" but value politics is different. c.1985 I understood Labour to be strong on values of compassion, Conservatives to be strong on hard power. Both were good in some spots, blind on others, your political values (culture if you like) set your priorities as to where you wanted the country to go, but you all wanted the country to progress. There was also voter awareness of what each leader (or party) would likely think about x, or respond to y. Neil Kinnock's socialism coloured his politics, ditto Mrs Thatcher's belief in individuals solving problems and the state being used less. It is less clear now: 30 years ago you wouldn't have associated a Conservative chancellor with tax rises or direct state subsidy of things. Now, people have no idea what each party might think about any one particular issue, or respond to any one thing, or which foreign countries they would associate with. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 6, 2022 11:51:21 GMT
And of course re your last point our PM was pro-Russia just a few years ago and Ukraine's best friend now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 6, 2022 18:06:05 GMT
PS I personally loathe "culture wars" but value politics is different. c.1985 I understood Labour to be strong on values of compassion, Conservatives to be strong on hard power. Both were good in some spots, blind on others, your political values (culture if you like) set your priorities as to where you wanted the country to go, but you all wanted the country to progress. There was also voter awareness of what each leader (or party) would likely think about x, or respond to y. Neil Kinnock's socialism coloured his politics, ditto Mrs Thatcher's belief in individuals solving problems and the state being used less. It is less clear now: 30 years ago you wouldn't have associated a Conservative chancellor with tax rises or direct state subsidy of things. Now, people have no idea what each party might think about any one particular issue, or respond to any one thing, or which foreign countries they would associate with.
Hence the parties fighting over irrelevences like lockdown parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 6, 2022 18:06:56 GMT
PS I personally loathe "culture wars" but value politics is different. c.1985 I understood Labour to be strong on values of compassion, Conservatives to be strong on hard power. Both were good in some spots, blind on others, your political values (culture if you like) set your priorities as to where you wanted the country to go, but you all wanted the country to progress. There was also voter awareness of what each leader (or party) would likely think about x, or respond to y. Neil Kinnock's socialism coloured his politics, ditto Mrs Thatcher's belief in individuals solving problems and the state being used less. It is less clear now: 30 years ago you wouldn't have associated a Conservative chancellor with tax rises or direct state subsidy of things. Now, people have no idea what each party might think about any one particular issue, or respond to any one thing, or which foreign countries they would associate with. That's an interesting observation (which agree with) in that arguably the values were clearer then but the sense of a culture "war" rather less I think, even though there were some very hot potatoes around (Apartheid, CND, the Cold War, gay rights, miners' strike etc.) It strengthens my dislike for what seem like performative conflicts for either (all) sides to wave as a flag. |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on May 7, 2022 13:11:03 GMT
Ok. I have a contact who lives in Honiton and the town is already being swamped by activists from both sides. A Tory leaflet was delivered to him (he says that it will be burnt later) and there is social media activity from the LDs of a big canvassing session taking place in Honiton.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on May 7, 2022 13:24:58 GMT
goodness sake. recycle it, don't burn it
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on May 7, 2022 13:40:25 GMT
goodness sake. recycle it, don't burn it I think it was a phrase. I am sure he will recycle it.. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 12, 2022 8:49:05 GMT
An interesting thread:
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbon on May 12, 2022 11:06:40 GMT
Have the Conservatives started the process to select a candidate? Will they try and delay the by election as long as possible? Why not call bothe Wakefield and Honiton and Tiverton on the same day?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,437
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on May 12, 2022 11:41:38 GMT
Have the Conservatives started the process to select a candidate? Will they try and delay the by election as long as possible? Why not call bothe Wakefield and Honiton and Tiverton on the same day? Because the Tories will be obliged to try and hold on to both. Labour will run a basic campaign at most in T & H, the LibDems the same in Wakefield. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on May 12, 2022 11:44:31 GMT
I know it’s an issue for all polling these days, but that focus group seems very unrepresentative. Most obviously, the Lib Dems are polling at or below their 2019 general election result but apparently all the ‘swing’ voters are already switching to them before the by-election campaign has even really begun. The fact they are described as “very high awareness’ is emblematic of sampling problems, yet the pollster does not seem to realise this.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by CatholicLeft on May 12, 2022 12:07:43 GMT
I know it’s an issue for all polling these days, but that focus group seems very unrepresentative. Most obviously, the Lib Dems are polling at or below their 2019 general election result but apparently all the ‘swing’ voters are already switching to them before the by-election campaign has even really begun. The fact they are described as “very high awareness’ is emblematic of sampling problems, yet the pollster does not seem to realise this. My constant refrain when it comes to panels. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 12, 2022 13:51:37 GMT
I know it’s an issue for all polling these days, but that focus group seems very unrepresentative. Most obviously, the Lib Dems are polling at or below their 2019 general election result but apparently all the ‘swing’ voters are already switching to them before the by-election campaign has even really begun. The fact they are described as “very high awareness’ is emblematic of sampling problems, yet the pollster does not seem to realise this. I bet the pollsters are aware, they just don't acknowledge their awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on May 13, 2022 7:34:08 GMT
I know it’s an issue for all polling these days, but that focus group seems very unrepresentative. Most obviously, the Lib Dems are polling at or below their 2019 general election result but apparently all the ‘swing’ voters are already switching to them before the by-election campaign has even really begun. The fact they are described as “very high awareness’ is emblematic of sampling problems, yet the pollster does not seem to realise this. Of course it is unrepresentative, it isn't meant to be. It is meant to be a panel of 6 people who have voted Conservative in the past and who are now not sure. It is the very opposite of representative and is so on purpose. There's little point in interviewing people who are sure they will stick to the same party they voted for last time. The aim is to pick a group of swing voters who might desert the party who won last time and look into what they think and what is motivating them. As was noted in the commentary, the result depends on how many such people there are. But focus groups are not quantitative, so don't attempt to answer questions like how many. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,908
|
Post by YL on May 13, 2022 7:46:45 GMT
Some strange stories floating around that Neil Parish is considering standing as an Independent.
|
|
