« The productivity policy paradox | Main | Banning cash »

March 23, 2015

Comments

e

Please...would you have us believe that Ganesh doesn’t know that in opposition (in pre crash “sun shining” circumstances) Tory Boy Osborn was happily matching New Labours spending plans, while arguing for looser “purse strings” and Bank regulations to combat the “dearth” you talk of? (Dearth, as I understand it, being the phenomenon of shortage among plenty). That Ganesh, in his bid to form opinion, isn’t every bit as politically motivated as Osborn; every bit as wedded to the poisonous Tory ideology that New Labour bought into, and Conservatives – even the good ones – even now post the banking crash, cannot move beyond? It’s not lies when its politics, its willing selective memories with little or no interest in “collateral damage”. And of which, there’s no shortage. So what possible reason could there be to promote still more? Perhaps to ensure those irrational ill-informed voters remain just so.

theOnlySanePersonOnPlanetEarth

"In a polity in which the media is biased and the public irrational and ill-informed, there might - just might - be place for lies in politics."

This is never in doubt. The real question is whether there is a place for truth in politics.

If we pretend for a minute that Ganesh is right and Labour doesn't have the moral licence to mock Osbourne, the rest of us surely do.

So shouldn't the question be about Osbourne's record rather than the playground argument that says you can't criticise me cos you are stupid, nah nah nah nah nah.

CreamOnTop

Nationalising debt without reform. Sweetheart tax deals. PFI when borrowing costs 2%. Handing out Gold Reserves to save Goldman Sachs apparently. Sounds pretty profligate to me. What's that half a Trillion? 300 Bn?

An Alien Visitor

"Handing out Gold Reserves to save Goldman Sachs apparently"

yes the cream always need help when rising to the top!

Metatone

You would hope that the FT would have a more economically literate political columnist... but alas that appears not to be the case...

ChurmRincewind

Dearie me. So "the media is biased and the public irrational and ill-informed" are they?

By all means let's disregard the consensus of views that the media reflects, and the opinions of the public.

Because we know better. I mean, we're all Oxbridge graduates (aren't we?). And thus by definition entitled to dismiss the views of all those ghastly oiks who didn't pass the Common Entrance Exam.

I would expand on this argument, but QI is starting on the BBC, and I'm keen to see people who didn't go to Oxbridge being humiliated.

Jim

" in the five years to 2007-08 median real incomes rose just 0.5% per year."

Hmm, now what happened in 20004-2008? Ah yes, the influx of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from Poland and other new EU countries. Do you think that might have affected what employers had to pay to get labour, particularly at the bottom end? Thus producing no upward pressure on wages throughout the wage structure?

No of course not as we all know having lots of extra workers floating round the economy has zero effect on the price of labour, everyone on the left keeps telling us this, and they're always correct (they keep telling us this too).

An Alien Visitor

"So "the media is biased and the public irrational and ill-informed" are they"

I would say that on balance ill informed is almost a given fact. Irrational is a different matter.

ChurmRincewind

Alien Visitor: "Ill-informed is almost a given fact." How so? Can you cite any evidence for this? For myself, I'm reluctant to disregard the views, experience, and knowledge of sixty million people, simply on the basis that I know better.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad