Thursday, March 30
A winning formula
ECONOMICS, UK: PARTIES
Perhaps I should have mentioned the budget the other day. Thing is, it wasn't that spectacular. For those on the left who hope that Brown is the good half of the "New Labour Project" (that term says it all, doesn't it?), then yet another unremarkable budget from Number 11 should make it clear. Brown may not be a Tory, but he's definitely not a socialist. The thing that does get me, though, is where the debate is. Cameron is saying "you could afford to cut taxes and reduce bureaucracy", Brown is saying "I could cut taxes - but instead I'll use the money on sonething worthwhile" (we're still overdrawn, mind you, so either option will cost Britain in the long run). We're back to promising something from nothing.
The fact is, that while both plans look better on the face of it than increasing taxes, the fact is that taxes will need to increase to maintain services. Brown knows he's storing up problems for the future, and I think is gambling on the debt falling on the Tories in 4 years' time or so. Cameron is aiming to salvage the situation by saying "I told you so in 2006, and I'm telling you now [2010]: It's all Labour's fault", then proceed to privatise public services (or scupper them by underfunding), possibly claiming his hand was forced. By 2013, Labour will be able to clearly point to significant drops in the end results of this, and will hope to be back in either in 2014ish or 2018ish.
The aim of the game is for each side to minimise the time they are out of office. From the viewpoint of the Chancellor of the day, that means trying to keep the machine ticking over and peaking just before the predicted election date, then fall apart over the next four years or so. Meanwhile, you claim all the credit for the successes, and blame the previous government (not the Chancellor) in the hope that it'll stop them being re-elected. Of course, eventually, you have to start persuading everyone that things are going well, so you find some handy economic indicators to prove that you're running a steady ship, and pray for an early election. And, in Brown's case, an early resignation from Tony.
The game ends when one player is completely wiped off the political map, or in the case of a draw. It nearly happened in 1992 (and following), and it might happen in 2009/2010. Then, we start a new game. Then we have three players.
But the third player has a nasty trick up his sleeve. The Lib Dems have long been campaigning on the heinous notion of increasing taxes. That's right, kids, they want to steal some of your hard-earned millions! Well, quite. To be frank, it'd be worth voting Lib Dem simply because they're the only ones honest enough to admit to tax increases. At least you know that tax rises will go on the top-rate earnings rather than council taxes. Of course, with three players, no-one will get a majority, and who knows what will happen - that is, which two will combine, and which policies each will implement.
But all we can do for now is watch: there's no chance of a general election before 2009. The way it's looking now, I want the game to be more interesting. For one thing, if the Lib Dems manage to get proportional representation in, there's a chance of some socialists and greens later on. As to the budget, though it'll have rather small effects on many people and large effects on the odd few, overall, it's just tweaking Brown's game-winning formula.
ECONOMICS, UK: PARTIES
Perhaps I should have mentioned the budget the other day. Thing is, it wasn't that spectacular. For those on the left who hope that Brown is the good half of the "New Labour Project" (that term says it all, doesn't it?), then yet another unremarkable budget from Number 11 should make it clear. Brown may not be a Tory, but he's definitely not a socialist. The thing that does get me, though, is where the debate is. Cameron is saying "you could afford to cut taxes and reduce bureaucracy", Brown is saying "I could cut taxes - but instead I'll use the money on sonething worthwhile" (we're still overdrawn, mind you, so either option will cost Britain in the long run). We're back to promising something from nothing.
The fact is, that while both plans look better on the face of it than increasing taxes, the fact is that taxes will need to increase to maintain services. Brown knows he's storing up problems for the future, and I think is gambling on the debt falling on the Tories in 4 years' time or so. Cameron is aiming to salvage the situation by saying "I told you so in 2006, and I'm telling you now [2010]: It's all Labour's fault", then proceed to privatise public services (or scupper them by underfunding), possibly claiming his hand was forced. By 2013, Labour will be able to clearly point to significant drops in the end results of this, and will hope to be back in either in 2014ish or 2018ish.
The aim of the game is for each side to minimise the time they are out of office. From the viewpoint of the Chancellor of the day, that means trying to keep the machine ticking over and peaking just before the predicted election date, then fall apart over the next four years or so. Meanwhile, you claim all the credit for the successes, and blame the previous government (not the Chancellor) in the hope that it'll stop them being re-elected. Of course, eventually, you have to start persuading everyone that things are going well, so you find some handy economic indicators to prove that you're running a steady ship, and pray for an early election. And, in Brown's case, an early resignation from Tony.
The game ends when one player is completely wiped off the political map, or in the case of a draw. It nearly happened in 1992 (and following), and it might happen in 2009/2010. Then, we start a new game. Then we have three players.
But the third player has a nasty trick up his sleeve. The Lib Dems have long been campaigning on the heinous notion of increasing taxes. That's right, kids, they want to steal some of your hard-earned millions! Well, quite. To be frank, it'd be worth voting Lib Dem simply because they're the only ones honest enough to admit to tax increases. At least you know that tax rises will go on the top-rate earnings rather than council taxes. Of course, with three players, no-one will get a majority, and who knows what will happen - that is, which two will combine, and which policies each will implement.
But all we can do for now is watch: there's no chance of a general election before 2009. The way it's looking now, I want the game to be more interesting. For one thing, if the Lib Dems manage to get proportional representation in, there's a chance of some socialists and greens later on. As to the budget, though it'll have rather small effects on many people and large effects on the odd few, overall, it's just tweaking Brown's game-winning formula.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 13:59 
