UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Eddie Teach]

Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

Spoken like a man who owns a castle.

[Sheilbh]

Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

Spoken like a man who owns a castle.

But the men who owned castle were not keen on Thatcher and her cabinets. 'Too few old Etonians, too many old Estonians' and they were rather disdainful of men who'd bought their own furniture. Economically very similar - but not 'our' type of people.

[Josquius]

it always bemuses me when people define their politics in terms of economics. Economics are just a means to an end. Not the end in itself.

[Sheilbh]

Oh, also back to the main thread-ish, if the Tories lose/UKIP win the next by-election (which looked very unlikely a week ago, but now is probable) then apparently Cameron will face a leadership vote.

Which he'll win. But he'll be damaged.

And yet the alternative is Miliband who, if he wins, I'm fairly sure will be the most unpopular PM in living memory within the year

There's literally no-one I want to/feel able to vote for in 2015

[Josquius]

What's wrong with Ed?
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

[Ed Anger]

He's got creepy eyes.

[Tamas]

Two things I'm confused by. First, how can you want a flat tax and the reduction of government spending to subsistence level and simultaneously decry the Tea Party as populist extremists?

Second, what democracies have fallen to welfare spending populism? Possibly, maybe Hungary if things keep going, based on what Tamas says. But I can't think of another example.

I think economics is the single least important part of politics. Just behind environmentalism and the protection of the Cornish language. It's all about identity and social and cultural make up. That's what makes people vote the way they do.

There's no reason why the poor would automatically vote for someone promising lots of giveaways, in fact very often they don't. The modern left especially isn't very successful with the poor or the working class (not least because a lot of the workers got stolen by Maggie and Reagan). Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.

1. The tea party is dominated by religious freaks. Their "liberalism" is about they being free to do what they want, and everyone else being free to do what the Tea Party wants them to do. Economic freedom is just one part of freedom. Essential, but not exclusive.

2. Democracies falling to welfare spending populism? Well, South America comes to mind. France comes to mind. Greece comes to mind. Etc. It is a natural process of welfare ideas plus democracy only the most advanced societies can weaken (eg. UK).

3. "Economics" as part of a political identity is very important. After all, economical political decisions define the very core of your everyday life: what possibilities you have, who decides about your survival, etc. In an ideal state, there would be as less intrusive economic policies as possible, and removing any attempt by the state to enforce any particular morales that are beyond the sanctity of personal freedom and its defense.

But hey, why do that when we can keep fighting each other over whose party tells the other guys how to live, right?

[Tamas]

What's wrong with Ed?
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Does "oh right I wanted to talk about the budget deficit, but it slipped my mind" count as substance?

Seriously that guy freaks me out each time I see him. His giving out some seriously bad vibes.

[Sheilbh]

1. The tea party is dominated by religious freaks. Their "liberalism" is about they being free to do what they want, and everyone else being free to do what the Tea Party wants them to do. Economic freedom is just one part of freedom. Essential, but not exclusive.

I don't think that's true. I think it's something Democrats and the left like to talk about a lot. From what I've read there's substantial overlap with the religious right but they hardly dominate. Tea partiers are slightly more pro-gay marriage than Republicans in general for example (and slightly more pro-life too). But the issues that really get them going are government spending, gun control and immigration - classic populist, non-moral issues.

2. Democracies falling to welfare spending populism? Well, South America comes to mind. France comes to mind. Greece comes to mind. Etc. It is a natural process of welfare ideas plus democracy only the most advanced societies can weaken (eg. UK).

India? Germany? The Scandis? I don't think you can identify a monocausal fault in a system that covers that many very diverse sorts of countries.

South America's a fair shout though, but I'd say that what ruined them wasn't the welfare spending but the crony capitalism which is why they wanted the state in the first place.

The other two are still democracies.

3. "Economics" as part of a political identity is very important. After all, economical political decisions define the very core of your everyday life: what possibilities you have, who decides about your survival, etc. In an ideal state, there would be as less intrusive economic policies as possible, and removing any attempt by the state to enforce any particular morales that are beyond the sanctity of personal freedom and its defense.

How does any of that form your identity? Whereas whether you identify with the upwardly mobile, with risk and aspiration, or with the more precarious, the conservative and secure will shape your economic thinking.

[Sheilbh]

What's wrong with Ed?
He seems quite a welcome bit of substance over style after Cameron and Blair

Substance?

[Sheilbh]

Does "oh right I wanted to talk about the budget deficit, but it slipped my mind" count as substance?

One day someone will explain to me why it is impressive that a forty year old man can do the same as a Sixth Form drama student and walk around a stage delivering memorised lines

It's the basis of Cameron's whole rise. Rather fittingly Miliband couldn't manage even that

[Admiral Yi]

I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant?

[Sheilbh]

I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant?

In terms of how people vote: yes.

[Tamas]

How does any of that form your identity? Whereas whether you identify with the upwardly mobile, with risk and aspiration, or with the more precarious, the conservative and secure will shape your economic thinking.

I am not sure if "part of identity" is the right way to say it, for sure. But for me my political identity is what I would like to call liberal, and basically consists of being left alone to pursuit my own happiness and goals while wishing to grant the same to everyone else as long as it is not limiting anyone else in the same.

So I guess my political identity is that my identity (or anyone else's as a matter of fact) should not be part of politics.

[Tamas]

I think economics is the single least important part of politics.

Income distribution, stagnant wages, unemployment, national budgets: all unimportant?

In terms of how people vote: yes.

But that is  part of the problem don't you see? By voting on a government, you decide who gets how much power over Yi's list.