Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Conservative UKIP merger

Jim Pooley said:
Well they have ditched all kinds of traditional conservative causes and are now more socially liberal while also becoming more strongly neo-liberal.

Like Labour. It's the neoliberal way.
 
Like Labour. It's the neoliberal way.
Leading to a widespread feeling that there's no difference between the parliamentary parties and a surging vote for protest parties across Europe! Although in the US they've managed to create lively debates on various side issues like guns and abortion to motivate the activists, and their system seems to squash any chance for a UKIP style protest party rising.
 
I stood off and watched the likes of butchersapron and that weird little bloke who spells things wrong.

Tell you what I'll tell you something about my politics if you tell me something about yours. I joined the LPYS in the early 1980s and didn't last a year.

I joined the SWP in the early '80s and didn't last 9 months.
 
Hint, the general public approves of their welfare reforms.

Set to change, and the coalition know it.

Why's it going to change? Because 2013 is pretty much the year when more cuts kick in than in any other year, and not only will unemployed people, disabled people and the working classes etc feel the pinch, but so will the low to mid strata of the middle classes, and you can only blame so much on us plebs before the cognitive dissonance becomes overwhelming, and you have to acknowledge that actually it's the government stealing money from your pocket, not the poor.
 
Lawson has the veneer of a respected heavy weight but he is a man who rarely lunches outside the Square Mile. The whole narrative is based on grumbles about legislative threats to the City, who obviously have more connections with Singapore or the Caymens than Paris or Berlin. Note his patronising remarks about British industrys layabouts 'staying in warm embrace of the single market' and haven't noticed Asia is growing, as if they didn't know this.
Add to this his views on the scientific consensus on climate change, he is a discredited chancellor who cuts an eccentric figure these days.

Lawson only has the veneer of a respected heavyweight if you ignore about half of his actions as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's just another trougher.
 
Lawson only has the veneer of a respected heavyweight if you ignore about half of his actions as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's just another trougher.
The BBC article says he's respected due to having been Thatcher's chancellor. Aren't Thatcher fans going to also respect Lawson? And everyone is a Thatcher fan, judging by recent statements.
 
He's a mad climate-change denier too

Probably an entirely rational denier, given that he's an oil company stooge from way back.

His first act as chancellor as you may recall was disbanding the British National Oil Company set up by Tony Benn to provide the UK with a massive social fund like the one that Norway enjoys, and instead letting the oil companies do pretty much whatever the fuck they liked with North Sea Oil in return for a (relative) pittance in taxes.
 
The BBC article says he's respected due to having been Thatcher's chancellor.

Mostly by people who benefitted from his time at the helm of state finance, i.e. example the same dog-fuckers he's schmoozing nowadays.

Aren't Thatcher fans going to also respect Lawson? And everyone is a Thatcher fan, judging by recent statements.

As I recall, a lot of Thatcher fans were ambivalent about Lawson, what with his having backed away from full monetarism, and him being one of us greasy hook-nosed types.

BTW, how's that scrounging bastard OMally? He owes me a pint of Large!
 
As I recall, a lot of Thatcher fans were ambivalent about Lawson, what with his having backed away from full monetarism, and him being one of us greasy hook-nosed types.

BTW, how's that scrounging bastard OMally? He owes me a pint of Large!
In any case, Lawson making anti-EU noises has got to embolden the sceptics in the party and in UKIP.

Omally says he's invested his last one pound note in a Rhomboid Scheme run by Mr Rune. He says a Rhomboid Scheme is like a pyramid one, except that it always pays off, and that he'll definitely by standing you a pint as soon as his dividends mature.
 
Leading to a widespread feeling that there's no difference between the parliamentary parties and a surging vote for protest parties across Europe! Although in the US they've managed to create lively debates on various side issues like guns and abortion to motivate the activists, and their system seems to squash any chance for a UKIP style protest party rising.
In Europe it seems the EU is increasingly the problem, mebbes UKIP is not alone on this issue?
 
In any case, Lawson making anti-EU noises has got to embolden the sceptics in the party and in UKIP.

Sure, but he's playing to pretty much the same audience as he was 30 years ago. The time to worry is if the audience broadens significantly beyond the obvious interests (The City etc) and emboldens anti-EU sentiment (by which I mean cohesive anti-EU sentiment!) in the general public.

Omally says he's invested his last one pound note in a Rhomboid Scheme run by Mr Rune. He says a Rhomboid Scheme is like a pyramid one, except that it always pays off, and that he'll definitely by standing you a pint as soon as his dividends mature.

Oh well, I won't be seeing that pint any time soon. Hugo is a fine con-man, but the world's worst investment adviser. :(
 
In Europe it seems the EU is increasingly the problem, mebbes UKIP is not alone on this issue?
It seems very likely that we'll keep on seeing anti-EU parties doing well across Europe in the forseeable future. But can they be more than just protest parties? Even the UK with its City of London is very economically wedded to the EU and unlikely to really break ties.
 
In Europe it seems the EU is increasingly the problem, mebbes UKIP is not alone on this issue?

Nah. In parts of Europe it is, but there's not a really significant current of anti-Europeanism in any of the "major-player" nations, except insofar as the nationalist movements do the usual whining about sovereignty.
 
Set to change, and the coalition know it.

Why's it going to change? Because 2013 is pretty much the year when more cuts kick in than in any other year, and not only will unemployed people, disabled people and the working classes etc feel the pinch, but so will the low to mid strata of the middle classes, and you can only blame so much on us plebs before the cognitive dissonance becomes overwhelming, and you have to acknowledge that actually it's the government stealing money from your pocket, not the poor.

Hope you are right but I think they can get a bit more mileage out of demonising the sick and disabled under the guise of promoting independence and other related Shyte.
 
It seems very likely that we'll keep on seeing anti-EU parties doing well across Europe in the forseeable future. But can they be more than just protest parties? Even the UK with its City of London is very economically wedded to the EU and unlikely to really break ties.
I think the ball breaker will be the Germans, they are increasingly fed up with, as they see it, bailing the,lazy Southerners out.
 
He's a mad climate-change denier too

Even Thatcher and Major accepted the raft of evidence on climate change. Either Lawson is cranky conspiract theorist or a lobbyist whore. Probably the second, which what he most likely is now with his tunnel vision City perspective of the EU.
 
I think the ball breaker will be the Germans, they are increasingly fed up with, as they see it, bailing the,lazy Southerners out.
But isn't, the EU, for the German political class, their basic role in the world post-WW2? Like the UK special relationship with the USA? Plus also paying off a lot of war guilt by bringing permanent peace with France. So an anti-EU revolt in Germany would have to mean the toppling of most of the political class. not impossible, but unlikely so far imo.
 
But isn't, the EU, for the German political class, their basic role in the world post-WW2? Like the UK special relationship with the USA? Plus also paying off a lot of war guilt by bringing permanent peace with France. So an anti-EU revolt in Germany would have to mean the toppling of most of the political class. not impossible, but unlikely so far imo.

It's also pretty arguable that whatever PR noises the German government and media are making about the poorer countries being a bunch of worthless scroungers, what the Germans (and others) are actually doing is looting the fuck out of the EU's weaker economies via debt.
 
It's also pretty arguable that whatever PR noises the German government and media are making about the poorer countries being a bunch of worthless scroungers, what the Germans (and others) are actually doing is looting the fuck out of the EU's weaker economies via debt.
Have you any links to good analyses of this? I've often suspected that there's some deal going on with the Greece and Cyprus negotiations. Are German political interests being met by a strengthening of EU power, or is there some direct economic benefit, or both?
 
It's also pretty arguable that whatever PR noises the German government and media are making about the poorer countries being a bunch of worthless scroungers, what the Germans (and others) are actually doing is looting the fuck out of the EU's weaker economies via debt.

Psst, wanna buy a Greek island? where we can bar all those pesky Englanders?
 
Even Thatcher and Major accepted the raft of evidence on climate change. Either Lawson is cranky conspiract theorist or a lobbyist whore. Probably the second, which what he most likely is now with his tunnel vision City perspective of the EU.

Nigel Lawson set up in 1989 a management consultancy called the Central European Trust Co. 'CET' for short.

http://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/02430315

and is still is listed as among its London partners here

CET became rich by scooping up shares of the massive Polish energy sector (used to supply Belarus,
East Germany and East Europe) when it was privatised under the new Solidarity government in roughly 1990-2 - plans underfoot in 1989.
It owns amongst others the massive Beshatov power plant near Lodz.

One dodgy part comes in a strongly British-backed EU scheme called PHARE which gave assistance and advised the Polish (and other East European countries) on how to do the privatisations.


Lord Nigel Lawson

Chairman of CET and senior advisor to clients on strategy and politics. Responsible for the UK privatization program as Chancellor of the Exchequer (1983-89); Secretary of State for Energy (1981-83) and Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1979-81). Member of the House of Lords since 1992. Formerly Director at Barclays Bank. Education at Oxford University (Politics, Philosophy and Economics).

Charles Jonscher

President of CET and leader of technology practice. Head of European Telecoms, Media & Technology, Booz Allen & Hamilton (1987-90). Formerly with IBM and BT research labs. Co-director of Telecommunications Research Program at MIT (1981-84). Lecturer at Sloan School of Management and Faculty of Economics, Harvard University (1977-84). Extensive writing on business and technology. Education at Cambridge (BA) and Harvard (MA, PhD).

Tom Lampl

Managing Director and head of CET's private equity division. Has got a 30 years’ investment banking experience in Europe and the USA. President of the International Capital Group (Global Asset Management) (1985-90).

CET's clients for whom it does management consultancy - can mean just about anything - include BP, Shell, Texaco, Total-Fina-Elf - largest oil firms in world.

Lawson's become a multi-millionaire from CET (some of it also from being a p/t director at Barclay's) which has a strong interest in maintaining fossil fuel approach - it has no diversification into non-fossil energy.

I distrust just about anything he says. :)
 
Have you any links to good analyses of this? I've often suspected that there's some deal going on with the Greece and Cyprus negotiations. Are German political interests being met by a strengthening of EU power, or is there some direct economic benefit, or both?

The Greek path to ruin was determined by eurozone membership, similarly to other peripheral countries – Portugal, Ireland and Spain. The periphery adopted the euro hoping that it would lead to convergence with the more developed core. But the monetary union has structural flaws. Within its rigid framework, and faced with frozen German wages, peripheral countries lost competitiveness. Huge external deficits resulted, which were financed by borrowing from the banks of the core. Peripheral banks also took advantage of easy credit to expand domestic lending. By 2009 the peripheral economies were laden with vast debts – domestic and foreign, private and public – making them effectively insolvent. Core countries, reasonably enough, were reluctant to carry the costs of peripheral insolvency. This is the root cause of the eurozone crisis, and Greece is simply the most acute case of peripheral failure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gre...n/13/costas-lapavitsas-greece-eurozone-crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/costaslapavitsas

http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31299.php (relevant articles a bit further down)

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/?s=greek debt

butchersapron pointed me at some other really good stuff a few months back, but I can't find it at the moment.
 
Thanks for those links, they're interesting. But I can't see where he says the core countries are looting the periphery during this "bail out" phase. instead it seems to be about the broad and ongoing benefits to Germany of the Euro system, i.e. "German banks and German exporters have benefited substantially from the euro, even though the performance of the domestic economy has been undistinguished. They are keen to preserve the basic structures of the monetary union, indeed wish to impose harsher fiscal discipline and more labour flexibility. These policies are perceived as protecting the geopolitical interests of Germany, and hence the German government can argue in all seriousness that there is nothing structurally wrong with the monetary union."
 
There's no obvious replacement for him atm, and anyway, I suspect even those who'd like to unseat Cameron are wary of the bloodletting it could unleash. He's toast if they don't win the next election though.
more to the point, the obvious candidate in the eyes of the grassroots - and, I suspect, most MPs - can't go for the job until 2016, at the earliest (or else he'll be slated for breaking his word).
 
Back
Top Bottom