« Pharma vs endogenous growth | Main | $945bn - what problem? »

April 08, 2008

Comments

MatGB

Or alternately they were expecting an election and thought a headline basic rate cut would be good to get those important swing voters on board and they could do something next year (like an allowance increase) to help those (like me) hit badly by this?

But my money is on the 4th option. Too incapable of paying attention, that's what you get with so many safe seats and apparatchiks.

Ken Houghton

In the context of MatGB's coda, someone--you can do it--needs to analyze growth policies against Participatory Democracy in the allegedly-democratic countries (at least one camera elected by vox populi). I'm inclined to give odds that a legitimate 2SLS analysis would show a significant, positive correlation with legislative turnover.

The spanner is whether change to a fairly steady body (the House of Lords, the U.S. Senate) has the same sign; I'm inclined to bet it wouldn't, but can't quite justify that instinct.

Mark Wadsworth

Agreed.

They've had a year to kick up a stink (MPs from whichever party who are now kicking up a stink) - the maths of who wins and who loses was explained on about half of all 'blogs within a couple of hours of last March's budget and well known to everybody who can open a newspaper within 24 hours.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad