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?

policy, have i told you recently how internetly beautiful you are when you are impassioned.

i'm sick to death of the whole: system's fucked, but we're in thrall to it and nothing to be done.

So I guess we want policy to dictate the market

A couple of guys tried that: Stalin, Lenin, Mao....

Thanks soph

I don't believe I ever said that we shouldn't kowtow beacuse they got us into this mess; to reiterate, I think we shouldn't kowtow because to do so is anti-democratic (an argument to which you appear to have no answer). Did speculators contribute greatly to the mess? Of course they did. Are they unholy wankers? Mais oui.

Now who's oversimplifying?

State, market and citizen are all dependent on each other.

I think we want policy-makers to dictate the terms of the market. Absolutely. As coolfonz says, this 'dinstinction' between economics and politics is utterly illusory.

policywonk, I think we all agree that none of us want to see the market dictating policy. All we are saying is that the markets are very powerful and have to be taken into consideration. Denis Healey couldn't sit, like King Canute, on his throne and stop the rising tide. Instead, Dennis the Menace, begged the IMF to help him after the mess that Labour had made of the country's finances.

Pension funds would function a great deal more securely with stringent financial regulation. Who knows, they might actually start paying out on the terms that the pension-holders signed up for, instead of seeing their assets pissed away by speculators.

SWC, no you shouldn't destroy economies. You might want to tell that to the neo-liberals.

But yes, everyone who thinks markets and unelected private interests have too much power all love Stalin, 100pc

You see the Tories have been pounding away at telling us that Labour isn't a good manager of the economy but the reason that they cant get a majority even now is that people don't trust them with social justice and and an element redistribution....Until they crack that to the majority, they will take their chance with centre left parties that have a more social democratic ethos. Especially in Europe where a majority of people believe in public service provision by the govt.

claig, they could be better regulated, and unrestrained speculation could be reined in. Meanwhile, we could attempt to build an economy less dependent on financial services, and start taxing land and property more.

policywonk, why do you think that Labour have allowed some of the lightest regulation of financial markets? The US, bastion of capitalism, has better regulation than we do. In the US, people like Madoff are now doing time, not receiving huge pensions.

For a majority the provision of public services is a greater asset than their savings.

Thatcher gave us all a few privatisation hand-outs and we all felt like we were suddenly stock dealers but that has worn off and people want fairness and public services. The Tories just haven't found a formula that appeals to more than the well off 30pc. That is why they must feel very threatened by PR. Only other option is for DC to continue his swim leftwards and hope that the party sees the light and follows.

Because Labour are in thrall to neo-liberal power...

policywonk I agree with you, the concentration on finance is too great in this country. But why didn't Labour, with their espousal of socialism and championing of the working classes, do something to turn things around?

I think there is a middle ground between unregulated markets (which is practically what we've had and it didn't work) and a totally planned economy (a la Stalin et al).

I think policy needs to be passed to bring the economy under control (insomuch as we are able to).

I think we do need political reform but...

I think political reform needs to be bumped down the agenda until policy is passed on the economy.

So yes, at the end, there is a choice between the economy and 'democracy' in the very short term. The media are making a big, big deal out of PR and how electoral reform is necessary. I don't disagree that it is. What scares me is how the markets are going to react to the prospect of no policy and more economic instability while we sit around investigating the best way to reform the political system. The question was not 'you must choose between the economy and democracy FOREVER', it was what's more important in the short-term. They are separate events which have been brought to light by the hung parliament, but which do you deal with first?

wot coolfonz said, claig. Brown was a fool on that point (as even he now admits). But light-touch regulation was also a prime example of the politicians doing something that the markets told them to, wasn't it? 'Snot my fault miss, globalised capital made me do it'

Is everyone on this thread a bloke? Apart from her Madame-ness? Out of interest.

claig dont start on Fin Services regulation. Do you want to compare Tories vs Labour on this? Do you want to track back and see what noises the Tories were making pre Lehman? And do you want to check political orientation of the City gents who were pushing back on regulation.

Self and light touch regulation was NOT a labour doctrine!!!!

for an explanation of what happened i rather like this version

that is, sub-prime market in the US - UK banks bought wholesale into debt they wouldn't have created intheir own country (or not whilst knowing it for what it was..)

some banks are already turning their poor fortune around though.

I am obviously a bloke