Which is more important now: political reform or the economy?

[FrakkinTheReturningOfficer]

Political reform is going to be bad for the economy, in the short term at least.

Sorting out the economy probably means putting political reform on hold.

Which would you choose?

" By dittany Sat 08-May-10 17:40:00
It's not either/or. So it's a nonsensical question.

The political system is able to cope with addressing more than one thing at a time. "

Not that nonsensical actually. Political reform is change, change produces instability, the markets dislike instability.

Sure it's a capitalist view but newsflash: we live in a capitalist world.

Elections are not some be all and end all, they are a favour power gives us, they are the very bare minimum we are allowed. People crawl about on their knees thankful they are allowed to vote for one set of thugs or another every X years. Servility is a fucking disease.

Ordinary people, even you right wingers on this thread, would control their streets, counties, countries, the planet, far better than political gangs, fiscal thugs and all their apparatchiks.

The wisdom of the crowd etc...

The wisdom of the crowd... Mob rule?

"Ordinary people, even you right wingers on this thread, would control their streets, counties, countries, the planet, far better than political gangs, fiscal thugs and all their apparatchiks."

that's why we voted Labour out

'Oh I see, we're only supposed to look at this from the point of view of the markets are we?' - yes, that does appear to be the long and the short of it.

no, the librals can't decide to go with labour - well they can, but they can't do it alone as they still won't have enough seats. So they will have to try to incorporate all the other parties - the other 28 seats, in order to make it a majority. And with so many different parties it will not be a stable coalition.

Realistically the only option is for either a lib/con coalition, or a conservative minority government with a probable election in the autumn.

unfortunately we live in the real world, and like it or not the markets have huge power, as Coolfonz says. Fred the Shred was one of Brown's pals, knighted by Labour for his services to banking. Denis Healey went cap in hand to the IMF and gratefully accepted their help. Tony, Gordon, Peter and all the rest listen very carefully to what the markets say. They know that they can't just throw the toys out of the pram.

Claig - Labour/Tory you are all just part of a right wing elite that control the state. War criminals, thugs, killers, torturers, assassins...

Mob rule, no, that is what we have now. I'm a democrat, ordinary people controlling every aspect of their own lives as much as they can.

Democracy is scary isn't it? You might have to take responsibility for yourself and your neighbours too. Even ones you don't like.

There is no such thing as family, only individuals in society.

agree with this
"Any idiot could have seen the crash coming because of banks' crazy speculation and lending policies and the complete lack of regulation"

so why didn't Brown see it?

Coolfonz, in my opinion you're nearly correct. The problem is you are fixated on the right. You've swallowed the line. Both left wing and right wing are all just a part of the elite, they are two sides of the same coin.

Oh I see, we're only supposed to look at this from the point of view of the markets are we?

Nope, more like we're supposed to stop talking solely about political reform! Of course political reform is important, the system we have is horribly unfair particularly for smaller parties - the Greens IMO should have been represented before now but they've had to fight their way through. It needs reform, but that should have been done in 1997 as was promised, and not suddenly become the topic de jour. Like it or not this is probably the choice facing the Lib Dema right now.

Stringent financial regulation isn't 'throwing the toys out of the pram'. All it requires is concerted political effort by people with more guts than Blair.

dittany, that's my point, there were ordinary folk who foresaw it, you yourself foresaw it. Of course all of them foresaw it too.

Brown was part of it. Definitely. The end of boom and bust? Are you fucking joking? The Labour party introduced privatisation into the NHS, bailed out private rail companies, subsidised multi-nationals (tax deductions for R&D which produced no increase in R&D was just one subsidy handed out to corporate interests) and allowed offshoring, asset price inflation (which only benefits the super rich) and so on...

The idea he was of the left is just idiotic. Most of the Labour cabinet should be in the ICC in the Hague hanging from the end of ropes...next to Thatcher and Howe.

Policywonk - I completely agree with that!!!!

The economy is more important.

Dealing with and trying to fix the economy isn't the same thing as being dictated to by the markets. The government can do the former without thinking about the latter (good economic decisions will be reflected postively, doesn't mean they acting at the whim of greedy men in pink shirts etc).

Economy no question - without a decisive government they will not be able to control interest rates with fiscal policy and we really really do need that to be under control considering the debts most households have at the moment.

If the Lib Dems want to be clever they will agree with Cameron to work together and put electoral reform on the backburner and tell everyone why they have done that - it isn;t something that should be a big issue at presnt and if they explained that to the general public they would come across a lot better than pissing and whining about electoral reform whilst the markets slide.

Dittany like it or not most of our wealth in this country comes from the financial sector and it is stupid and niaive to have that view of everyone who works in that industry - it is like saying all miners come home from the pit after getting pissed on the way home and beat their wives - a stupid stereotype.

And you have to remember that the government makes a huge amount of money - well the country does off the back of banking - all the tax it charges directly to the companies, the products they use, the people they employ who are then taxed - nationalising banking would be a stupid thing to do - no market competition - no better placed mortgages - fecking stupid to want to nationalise the one industry that earns the country and a huge percentage of the voting public their wages each month because it wouldn't just be those people who are then affected it would be every single service that those people who gain from banking employ - I have said it before but if DHs job goes up the creek we would have to sack the cleaner, the gardener and cancel gym membership, wouldn't be able to remodel the bathroom this year and stop the kids extra lesson s- that is at least I would say if it meant my friends whose husbands are in banking did that same about 20 people it would affect directly - then you have to think of the people who would be affected by those people losing thier jobs and so on and so on.

"I don't have a brief for Brown. He's still better than the Tories because he will offer PR in a coalition." And why do you think that is? Do yoou think it's because he suddenly sees their point and thinks that pr is a good idea? Or perhaps that it's because he is so desparate to cling to power that he will do whatever it takes to keep it, even though his own party have written him off.

Brown isn't prepared to consider PR because it's what's best for the country, he's considering it because it's what's best for Gordon Brown.

"most of our wealth in this country comes from the financial sector"

utter utter rubbish, utter rubbish. political dogma masquerading as economics. our wealth as a nation comes from two things, a highly educated and long living work force. where your work force have zero education and die at 46 you have no wealth...

this post-fascist notion that the rich and rich institutions must be allowed to do what they want - so they can employ servants - is just incredible. trickle down does not exist, we have see 30 years of trickle up and that is a large part of why we are where we are now.

way too much power in the hands of far too few people. an oligarchy.

Gordon would cut his penis off and give it to the Queen with a red ribbon tied round it at the moment if it meant he got to stay in power.

'this post-fascist notion that the rich and rich institutions must be allowed to do what they want - so they can employ servants - is just incredible. trickle down does not exist, we have see 30 years of trickle up' - oh, bloody well said.