To violate the most basic rule of politics

Howard Reed says:
October 28 2016 at 7:03 am
I think it would be best to go back to the pre-1997 system where the Bank of England was under more direct political control. While it is possible to get more political control even under the existing system by appointing a governor of the Bank who is sympathetic to the govt’s political views (and this is probably what McDonnell is aiming for), it’s a more indirect route – it would be easier just to get rid of central bank independence. Having said that, if we are going to have democratic control of economic policy we need to ensure that our democracy is up to the task. The UK’s democracy is fundamentally broken at the moment – most obviously evidenced by the disastrous decision to leave the EU, but also the ludicrous first-past-the-post electoral system and the Tory efforts to gerrymander a permanent majority via boundary changes and changes to the voter registration system. So ideally we would need to fix all that as well and I would like to see Labour talking about electoral reform a lot more and working with the SNP, the Greens and the more sensible elements of the Liberal Democrats to bring about a progressive alliance which could win in 2020.

Reply
Richard Murphy says:
October 28 2016 at 7:11 am
That all makes sense Howard

Reed’s essential point there being that if our lot are in power then we should be able to command the Bank of England. But if the other lot are in power then they shouldn’t have that power.

Which violates the most basic rule of politics, doesn’t it? Never let the government have a power that your opponents should not have.

30 thoughts on “To violate the most basic rule of politics”

  1. The UK’s democracy is fundamentally broken at the moment – most obviously evidenced by the disastrous decision to leave the EU

    The voters voted wrong. Therefore our democracy is broken.

    What?

  2. The cure crop of SJW’s really are that stupid Tim. Clearly the lack of Christian “do as you would be done by” teaching at school has wrecked their ability to conduct self criticism. Now, that is amusing:-)

  3. Nothing stopping them teaming up with the SNP now. However, Mr Reed hasn’t thought about this.

    SNP number of seats under FPTP: 56, about 8.6% of the total seats.
    Number of votes: Approx 1.4m out of approx. 30m cast, thats about 4.5% of total votes.

    Does he think the SNP are going to exchange their bonny political fiefdom in Scotland for a ‘fair’ system across the UK? Er, no.

    So that’s 56 seats gone, Howard. Still, you have the 8 Lib Dems and the Green loony.

  4. Just look at what happens in the US – the rules are changed depending on who is in power. See – filibuster rules, appointment or special election of senators depending on whether the governor is R or D, etc.

  5. One of if not the most odious of Murphy’s elite coterie of fascists which VP refers to as the gang of four. An utterly poisonous individual unless you believe in the politics of death camps.

    Tellingly, he wears the brown shirt of the Sturmabteilung on his own website (which I refuse to link to).

  6. BF

    In terms of the capacity for Evil, it fluctuates. On this occasion Reed plumbs the depths but how can one discount either Carol Wilcox (who according to resident bot DBC Reed is ‘cheery’) or indeed Andrew Dickie who blithely dismisses the murder of 100 million as a ‘price worth paying’. Furthermore a very strong case could be made for Ivan Horrocks, a so -called ‘Man of God’ whose religion seems to be a death cult. It’s a question worthy of a dissertation…..

  7. “Tellingly, he wears the brown shirt of the Sturmabteilung on his own website (which I refuse to link to).”

    Hmmm, I wonder how Richie feels about that?

  8. Rob

    You have to look at the positives. If that were to happen:

    – The housing crisis would be solved. Mass emigration would begin on Day 1 – I predict 10 million would be gone within 6 months

    – The environmental impact of the UK and its contribution to climate change would decrease considerably due to mass and frequent power outages as all fossil fuel power stations were closed

    – The obesity crisis would be solved as most of the populace, facing tax rates of 90 and 99%, would starve.

    – Unemployment would be solved as the unemployment would be ‘conscripted’ into building projects under ‘The Green New Deal’

    – The spectre of deflation would end as mass ‘People’s QE’ led to a currency collapse

    With every cloud there’s a silver lining, as they say!

  9. Politicians keep promising to force somebody to pay me to work. I wish they’d bloody well hurry up before I run out of money.

  10. It always puzzles me how Murphy reconciles his desire for a stronger, more active, more forceful government, less restricted by constitutional conventions, with his utter dislike of every government in what must be pretty much his entire adult life (with the brief exception of Gordon Brown’s, which he only largely disagreed with).

    It’s perhaps the most difficult thing to understand about him, even odder than his ability to change his argument around to the complete opposite within a single sentence. Why does he want governments to have more power when he disagrees with them almost every time they exercise power?

  11. @Cynic – indeed, he’s a shining example of Kip’s Law; “Every advocate of central planning always – ALWAYS – envisions himself as the central planner.”

    It is extremely rare to find a grubby statist like Murphy considering what would happen if the authoritarian power he so foamingly seeks for his own side ends up in the hands of people of whom he disapproves

  12. It always puzzles me how Murphy reconciles his desire for a stronger, more active, more forceful government, less restricted by constitutional conventions, with his utter dislike of every government in what must be pretty much his entire adult life (with the brief exception of Gordon Brown’s, which he only largely disagreed with).

    Reminds me of that great photograph you see of young rioters confronting police, with two captions: “wants more government” pointing at some screaming female,and “more government” pointing at the riot policeman about to twat her with a truncheon.

  13. I am also vaguely amused that the SNP’s peculiarly authoritarian brand of political idiocy could in anything other than a parallel universe be described as ‘Progressive’ – progression towards what? North Korea?

  14. @Flatcap Army

    “More government!”, shouts Ritchie.

    One revolution later…

    “Okay”, says Prime Minister Mr Ecks.

  15. > Why does he want governments to have more power when he disagrees with them almost every time they exercise power?

    I find this is actually the best way to persuade lefties of my position. Some (like Murphy) are beyond reach, but most people are sympathetic to the idea that government is shit. I tell them I was left-wing because I was raised under a Tory government and they were shit, then Labour got in and they were shit too, so I realised that the problem with the Tory government had been that they were the government, not that they were Tory. So I support whoever will give the least power to politicians, because politicians are awful. Left-wingers may disagree with my vote, but they nod and understand that position, rather than starting to scream “EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!” From acorns…

    I find I can even tell lefties I voted UKIP without eliciting outraged condemnation when I explain that I’ve never voted for anyone in my life, only against.

  16. I see they are repeating the line/lie that the constituency boundary changes are Tory gerrymandering.

    The SJWs do seem to be swallowing it no matter how many times I point out it is going to be decided by the INDEPENDENT Boundary Commission and that Blair won 36% of the vote in 1997 and got a landslide, Cameron won a similar amount in 2015 and barely scraped a majority so it’s about time they were reviewed.

  17. @Street Sparrow.

    The Conservatives in 2010 got over a million more votes than Labour did in 2005. Labour had a working majority and the Conservatives were forced to go into coalition.

    The left’s whining about this is like complaining that for years your football team could play with 13 players and were now being forced to play 11 against 11.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Which violates the most basic rule of politics, doesn’t it? Never let the government have a power that your opponents should not have.”

    From my experience lefties fall in to 2 broad categories:

    Those who claim that once they have the power they will create a land of milk and honey and nobody will ever want to vote Tory again.

    And those really want a revolution and authoritarian power.

    The first group are dupes of the 2nd and will be first against the wall.

  19. ‘The UK’s democracy is fundamentally broken at the moment – most obviously evidenced by the disastrous decision to leave the EU’

    I wonder what definition of ‘democracy’ he is using.

  20. BiND grasps the point
    The first rule of politics does not apply to Murphy, Lenin and Mao and their likes, because their opponents will never be allowed to regain power.

  21. This was also fundamentally the sole argument of the Remain campaign. We can’t trust the UK people to vote for the “right” sort of government, so we must stay in Europe so we can get foreigners to stop the “wrong” sort of UK government doing things we don’t want them to do.

  22. @Street Sparrow: they already were. Boundaries reviews already happen every 15 years or so, there was one in 2005 that drew the boundaries for 2010. The only difference this time is:
    a) reducing the size of the Commons to 600,
    b) all seats have to be within 5% so whopping 1/3 of the seats out of Wales,
    c) the register used is only two months out of date (Dec 2015 register used for Feb 2016 review meaning the 2020 election will use five-year-old data) instead of five years out of date (Dec 2000 register used for 2005 review meaning the 2010 election used ten-year-old data),
    d) the reviews will happen every five years.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Never let the government have a power that your opponents should not have.

    There is my alternative – never let my opponents into power so that they can exercise any of the powers that I should have.

    Once I am on my Throne on Skulls, I shall drench the land in the blood of the unrighteous. Meaning anyone who p!sses me off too much.

    Hey, it worked for Stalin. And academia loves Stalin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *