# Two Person Mass Protest Chases Nick Clegg out of Leeds.



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

9.00am this morning I hear on the radio that nick clegg 'is about to start speaking at the Carriageworks Theatre, Leeds'.

I live about 10 minutes from the venue. 

After a bit of humming and harring - is there any point? Will we get close to him? Can I be arsed? Ms Kak deplays more revolutionary zeal by getting her coat on. 

We wandered into the venue. The press are all gathered in the corridor and we find out from them that the press conference if finished - but Clegg is still here. 

A couple of people (Clegg's staffers I guess)  asked who we were so I came out with some instant bullshit about being from a local community newspaper and we wanted to ask him about how his government is decimating the community sector. 
Amazingly this worked and his aide says she'll ask him if he will give us  an interview. She comes back down a flight of stairs and say's 'sorry he's not giving any more interviews'. 

Realising that Clegg is just up the next flight of stairs we make a run for it. 
We get grabbed by plain clothes cops straight away. 

The media are suddenly got their cameras all over us and Sky News and Channel 4 News want to interview us. 
This seems to prevent us getting nicked - although the plan clothes start calling for back up.
The press are then told that Clegg will see press people one at a time upstairs (rather than face _two_ protestors). 

Shortly afterwards, the venue manager arrives with several coppers saying that we are 'causing alarm and distress' and a complaint had been received and we are forcibly ejected from the building. We overhear one of the venue staff saying that there is only one exit from the building - duly noted. 

Outside the cops try to make us 'leave the area' under threat of arrest to 'prevent a breach of the peace'. 

We stood out ground -we are now in a public space and we had been careful not to start shouting and swearing. 

The press are filming all this -which seems to make the cops back off, although there are now a dozen or so coppers nearby.

We get interviewed by the BBC - who seemed sympathetic and thought we had been treated 'very badly'. Personally, I was amazed we hadn't been nicked straight away. 

Shortly afterwards, Clegg emerges, he is smiling, strutting and waving and saying 'thank you very much' to the media. Ms kak shouts 'thankyou very much for shafting the country!'. The two of us and another bloke then proceed to give him a barrage of succinct political criticism . We are about ten feet away from him so he hears every word.

Clegg's face does a minor 'Ceausescu moment', he loses all his composure and is hurried into a car which speeds off. We learn from the media that he was supposed to be doing a 'walkabout' - but no sign of that happening now. 

This all happened about an hour ago so I'm still on an adrenaline buzz. 

But to conclude - it is _definintely_ worth having a go on the spur of the moment if you get the opportunity. The security and police can be caught off guard. Media presence can make the police more reluctant to be too aggro - partly cos the media want a footage of a bit of a scuffle.  Disruption distracts from the planned media event. Keep your ears open  and ask media and staff for info. 

Also Clegg was clearly pissed off at the presence of the two of us - they want nice safe planned media event without the embarrassment of the actual public calling them to account. 

If two people caused this level or disruption - police calling in back up, clegg changing his plans, possible media coverage  bringing up the whole cuts agenda again when he wants to talk about AV and not least the satisfaction of seeing the little shit visibly shaken - think what could have been done with 10 of us!


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 18, 2011)

ahahahahaaa! excellent work


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 18, 2011)

brilliant


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 18, 2011)

Great story. Nice one. Congrats and all


----------



## magneze (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## Badgers (Feb 18, 2011)

Sky News Blog - February 18, 2011 10:27 AM
http://blogs.news.sky.com/boultonandco/Post:e22d276b-acb4-46a0-bdd4-dc6eac6339e0

Outstanding work KT


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Feb 18, 2011)

Excellent stuff


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2011)

well played ms kt & kaka tim


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

Set your vid for the local news Tim - good omen for the Norwich game!


----------



## Alphonsus Jack (Feb 18, 2011)

I applaud you both.  a cracking bit of work done and so early in the morning.
Brilliant


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

Tell your wife I love her a little bit.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 18, 2011)

good work


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2011)

Respect!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

Cheers for the support folks! 

Although thinking about it - I'm now regretting missing what would've been perfect egging/paint bomb opporutniy.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 18, 2011)

The revolution starts here!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Cheers for the support folks!
> 
> Although thinking about it - I'm now regretting missing what would've been perfect egging/paint bomb opporutniy.


 
there's always next time


----------



## killer b (Feb 18, 2011)

marvellous.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 18, 2011)

Fantastic


----------



## weepiper (Feb 18, 2011)

ooh excellent, well done


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 18, 2011)

Good job!


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm a bit pissed off with the venue staff - this is arts centre where you'd think there would be quite a few people pissed off with the coalition - but the the jellyboned quislings all kept cleggs visit under their hats.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

rover07 said:


> The revolution starts here!


 
Not quite.  The Tims should have been a bit more strident.  Had the police beaten them up we could have had a protest about that, and then if they teargassed that protest we could have had a bigger protest etc etc. 

Basically, the Tims have denied us our right to revolution. 

 

Down with the Tims.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Not quite.  The Tims should have been a bit more strident.  Had the police beaten them up we could have had a protest about that, and then if they teargassed that protest we could have had a bigger protest etc etc.
> 
> Basically, the Tims have denied us our right to revolution.
> 
> ...



You are right. We have betrayed the working classes when victory was at hand. 

I am dispatching myself to a gulag forthwith.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 18, 2011)

Top work


----------



## Dan U (Feb 18, 2011)

good effort!¬


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> You are right. We have betrayed the working classes when victory was at hand.
> 
> I am dispatching myself to a gulag forthwith.


 
It's the only decent thing to do.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 18, 2011)

Good stuff!


----------



## sojourner (Feb 18, 2011)

Hahaaa!!! Fucking brilliant mate 

Will check out Granada Reports tonight


----------



## jakethesnake (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## TopCat (Feb 18, 2011)

I send respect to you and your missus. Especially given her revolutionary zeal.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 18, 2011)

I think I just saw you on sky news ... I wish I had read this first ..I would have given the clip more attention ...although its bound to be repeated ...(the manhandling bit )


----------



## kittyP (Feb 18, 2011)

Excellent!!!!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Feb 18, 2011)

Ace, well done


----------



## mwgdrwg (Feb 18, 2011)

Brilliant! Inspiring!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Feb 18, 2011)

haha good work


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 18, 2011)

Good work.  Someone record it and put it on YouTube!


----------



## kabbes (Feb 18, 2011)

Love it


----------



## Random (Feb 18, 2011)

Well done 8)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 18, 2011)

Did you have any snooker balls?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 18, 2011)

good stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Did you have any snooker balls?


 
They will have by evening news.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Feb 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They will have by evening news.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They will have by evening news.


 
Plod will do a presser displaying an awesome and terrifying array of tupperware and a swiss army knife that the two urban tyerrorists used to threaten the beleaguered Deputy PM.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 18, 2011)

Good work, anything that might contribute to preventing him sleeping at night is alright by me.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 18, 2011)

If Mrs KT was wearing a hooded jacket and was manhandled on the stairs then she was just on SKY News old son.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

just heard we did indeed get a minor mention on sky news with Ms Kak being ejected whilst shouting. Although apparently they framed it as if we were protesting about the alternative vote.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> just heard we did indeed get a minor mention on sky news with Ms Kak being ejected whilst shouting. Although apparently they framed it as if we were protesting about the alternative vote.


 
If anyone listened to the article they'd know she wasn't on about AV, it was pretty clear what she was saying mate.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 18, 2011)

Nice work KT & Mrs KT


----------



## tar1984 (Feb 18, 2011)

Very good


----------



## Onket (Feb 18, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The two of us and another bloke


 
But that's three people.

Good work (to all three of you)!


----------



## skitr (Feb 18, 2011)

Well done, love it.


----------



## geminisnake (Feb 18, 2011)

Bravo Kaka and Ms Kaka


----------



## dylans (Feb 18, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> If Mrs KT was wearing a hooded jacket and was manhandled on the stairs then she was just on SKY News old son.


 
Just saw that on TV. Got a good bit of air time too. Well done


----------



## mancboy (Feb 18, 2011)

Timothy, you fucking rock.

And I'm fucking surprised at the theatre management, knowing a couple of them. Just shows that being put within sniffing distance of the powerful throws some people's principles out the fucking window.


----------



## Bingo (Feb 18, 2011)

wicked mate!


----------



## MysteryGuest (Feb 18, 2011)

Fucking.  Brilliant.  And very inspiring.


----------



## JimW (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## blairsh (Feb 18, 2011)

Ha! Brilliant. Any danger of it making Look North you reckon?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 18, 2011)

blairsh said:


> Ha! Brilliant. Any danger of it making Look North you reckon?



Dunno - wasn't on channel 4, was on sky news earlier but I missed it (bah). Haven't heard if it was on look north earlier. 
Suprised it got any coverage at all tbh. They're _might_ be something on the bbc 'politics show' - whenever thats on.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 18, 2011)

Awesome! Well done to you both!


----------



## rollinder (Feb 18, 2011)

mwgdrwg said:


> Brilliant! Inspiring!


 ^ this.

wonderful
been feeling miserable and powerless most of today.
Thanks for standing up to them. and thanks for a reminder that there is a fucking point.
respect


----------



## PursuedByBears (Feb 18, 2011)

Brilliant!  We need more of this sort of thing!


----------



## Santino (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## oryx (Feb 19, 2011)

Well done.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 19, 2011)

Bravo kaka and loved one excellent work


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 19, 2011)

Thanks for the effort and the report back KT. here's to many more like you and yours ;-)


----------



## janeb (Feb 20, 2011)

10/10, excellent work all round


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 21, 2011)

Top work Comrade KT!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 21, 2011)

Good work comrade


----------



## Ld222 (Feb 21, 2011)

Great work!!!


----------



## BigTom (Feb 21, 2011)

This is still making me smile, good work


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2011)

It could be getting wider coverage too - a journo has emailed me, so I've forwarded the details to Kaka.


----------



## Mation (Feb 25, 2011)

Excellent work, Kaka Tim!


----------



## sufilala (Feb 25, 2011)

brave work mr & mrs T


----------



## Clair De Lune (Feb 25, 2011)

Heh brilliant


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

I was at the Carriage works speech, I didn't notice you there. Next time try and get up a bit earlier, it might help with your studies too. After Nick was 'chased out' he went up to Headingly and spoke at a cafe. 

He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2011)

Next time heckle this cunt too. /\


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

To be honest Im surprised the radical left was only able to muster two people to try and hurl abuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I was at the Carriage works speech, I didn't notice you there. Next time try and get up a bit earlier, it might help with your studies too. After Nick was 'chased out' he went up to Headingly and spoke at a cafe.
> 
> He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047



What you mean is that the heavy use of Potemkin village style set ups replete with pliant pro-lib 'reports' is the only way he can do anything in public without facing severe harassment off the public.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> To be honest Im surprised the radical left was only able to muster two people to try and hurl abuse.


 
That'll be because of the secrecy Clegg's handlers are using now - a room full of cunts like you know well in advance though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> To be honest Im surprised the radical left was only able to muster two people to try and hurl abuse.


 
Also, two people all that's needed now.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's frankly bizarre to insist LibDems must keep their promises



Lest we forget.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

Santino said:


> Lest we forget.


 
It is. It shows a complete misunderstanding of coalition politics. On the continent people are used to election manifesto's being statements of intentions and then parties compromising to win political influence. It's the sort of thing that would happen all the time under PR, and exactly what socialist groupings do all the time. 

The reason you have tution fees now is becuase Labour introduced them, and both Labour & Conservatives would have introduced them if elected. What the Lib Dems did was use their infulence to ensure a fair system. The current tution fee arrangement is like a limited graduate tax that you only have to start paying off once you earn over 21K (a figure that will go up with inflaiton).  It's better then what I got lumped with under Labour where I had tution fees that I was having to pay back even though I was only just above the minimum wage.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

Even senior members of the NUS admitted in secret that they thought it was more progressive. Still that didn't stop the mass-hysteria machine of the radical left.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It is. It shows a complete misunderstanding of coalition politics. On the continent people are used to election manifesto's being statements of intentions and then parties compromising to win political influence. It's the sort of thing that would happen all the time under PR, and exactly what socialist groupings do all the time.
> 
> The reason you have tution fees now is becuase Labour introduced them, and both Labour & Conservatives would have introduced them if elected. What the Lib Dems did was use their infulence to ensure a fair system. The current tution fee arrangement is like a limited graduate tax that you only have to start paying off once you earn over 21K (a figure that will go up with inflaiton).  It's better then what I got lumped with under Labour where I had tution fees that I was having to pay back even though I was only just above the minimum wage.


 
Do you deny that someone earning loads of money after graduating will pay much less than someone earning a middling income?


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even senior members of the NUS admitted in secret that they thought it was more progressive. Still that didn't stop the mass-hysteria machine of the radical left.


 
EVEN members of the NUS?


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2011)

That reknowned hive of radical politics.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047


wot,you mean a tame pro-lib journo wrote a puff-piece? Pathetic.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> the mass-hysteria machine of the radical left.


Only Tories sneer at the 'radical left' in that way


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

Santino said:


> Do you deny that someone earning loads of money after graduating will pay much less than someone earning a middling income?


 
The measure of fairness shouldn't be whether someone on a decent livable income pays a little bit more or less then someone on a really high income. It should be whether the poorest people in the lowest income are having to make payments or whether they only have to pay things back when they can afford to.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The measure of fairness shouldn't be whether someone on a decent livable income pays a little bit more or less then someone on a really high income. It should be whether the poorest people in the lowest income are having to make payments or whether they only have to pay things back when they can afford to.


no, _both_ measures matter. Ever heard of' 'progressive taxation'? 
E2A: In fact, the wealthy should be paying for ALL our education!


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even senior members of the NUS admitted in secret that they thought it was more progressive. Still that didn't stop the mass-hysteria machine of the radical left.



I see you've been looking at the Tory lexicon of political clichés again. It's only a matter of time before you use the word "elite".


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Only Tories sneer at the 'radical left' in that way


 
With such a stunning premise one can only deduce I am a Tory. I must self-evidentially therefore be an inhumane disease deserving to be cleansed by your righteousness.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> With such a stunning premise one can only deduce I am a Tory. I must self-evidentially therefore be an inhumane disease deserving to be cleansed by your righteousness.


you might as well be, you certainly act like one.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> With such a stunning premise one can only deduce I am a Tory. I must self-evidentially therefore be an inhumane disease deserving to be cleansed by your righteousness.



It's pretty much a given in your case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It is. It shows a complete misunderstanding of coalition politics. On the continent people are used to election manifesto's being statements of intentions and then parties compromising to win political influence.


are you saying politicians lie?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It is. It shows a complete misunderstanding of coalition politics. On the continent people are used to election manifesto's being statements of intentions and then parties compromising to win political influence. It's the sort of thing that would happen all the time under PR, and exactly what socialist groupings do all the time.
> 
> The reason you have tution fees now is becuase Labour introduced them, and both Labour & Conservatives would have introduced them if elected. What the Lib Dems did was use their infulence to ensure a fair system. The current tution fee arrangement is like a limited graduate tax that you only have to start paying off once you earn over 21K (a figure that will go up with inflaiton).  It's better then what I got lumped with under Labour where I had tution fees that I was having to pay back even though I was only just above the minimum wage.



I think your sub 10% polling shows a perfectly clear understanding of coalition politics. 

And lying.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I was at the Carriage works speech, I didn't notice you there. Next time try and get up a bit earlier, it might help with your studies too. After Nick was 'chased out' he went up to Headingly and spoke at a cafe.
> 
> He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047


 
Fuck off out of my city, eh


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I was at the Carriage works speech, I didn't notice you there. Next time try and get up a bit earlier, it might help with your studies too. After Nick was 'chased out' he went up to Headingly and spoke at a cafe.
> 
> He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047



you really are an utter wanker aren't you?

some of us are trying to do something - anything - to stop thousands of poeple losing their jobs, stop communities being fucked over and save vital community projects and frontline services. Whilst all you can do is sneer whilst actively supporting and enabling that process. 

you must be so proud. 

And - FYI - I am a communty worker not a student and will almost certinaly be laid off in june - I have an 11 year old daughter to support. Where I live   - in one of the poorest parts of the city - the local communtiy project has just been closed down. And the same story can be repeated thousands of times throughout the city.

So take your facile assumptions and self serving sophistry and stick them up your tory quisling arse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I was at the Carriage works speech, I didn't notice you there. Next time try and get up a bit earlier, it might help with your studies too. After Nick was 'chased out' he went up to Headingly and spoke at a cafe.
> 
> He's been meeting people face to face without problem down in Sheffield - http://www.thestar.co.uk/lifestyle/the-star-says/clegg_shows_he_is_up_for_fight_1_3103047


 you've not got a proper job, have you? you fucking good for nothing wankstain. 



although there is one thing you'd be good for - fertiliser - but you'd have to be dead first. i'm sure that can be arranged.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The measure of fairness shouldn't be whether someone on a decent livable income pays a little bit more or less then someone on a really high income. It should be whether the poorest people in the lowest income are having to make payments or whether they only have to pay things back when they can afford to.


 
So you think it's fair and progressive that poorer people should pay more for the exact same service as rich people? That this should be written into the law?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> With such a stunning premise one can only deduce I am a Tory. I must self-evidentially therefore be an inhumane disease deserving to be cleansed by your righteousness.


You talk like one, you act like one,you're a cunt like one...Yup,you're a Tory!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> you really are an utter wanker aren't you?
> 
> some of us are trying to do something - anything - to stop thousands of poeple losing their jobs, stop communities being fucked over and save vital community projects and frontline services. Whilst all you can do is sneer whilst actively supporting and enabling that process.
> 
> ...


Moon23; read this post and hang your head in shame


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> You talk like one, you act like one,you're a cunt like one...Yup,you're a Tory!


 
with all the zeal of the convert


----------



## ddraig (Feb 25, 2011)

Moon
will you be in Cardiff next week?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Feb 25, 2011)

repect!


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> you really are an utter wanker aren't you?
> 
> some of us are trying to do something - anything - to stop thousands of poeple losing their jobs, stop communities being fucked over and save vital community projects and frontline services. Whilst all you can do is sneer whilst actively supporting and enabling that process.
> 
> ...



What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition. 

It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.  


.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. Something perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> .


 
One year ago this person was an anarchist - i kid you not:


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One year ago this person was an anarchist - i kid you not:


 
That's factually incorrect.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

Sorry, how many months ago was your anarchist escapade?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, how many months ago was your anarchist escapade?


 
Well i've been a LD party memeber for almost a 1 1/2 years now allready. The problem with anarchism is the anarchists, most I have met who go by this title end up calling for more state intervention, rather then less.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

So that's 18 months ago this right wing goon was a raving left-wing anarchist. 

I so trust you right now.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So that's 18 months ago this right wing goon was a raving left-wing anarchist.
> 
> I so trust you right now.


 
Is that the sum result of character assassination? It must be late for your butchersapron. I’m off to bed.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2011)

It's an accurate characterisation of your behaviour. The rest is what i imagine this makes people think about your views now.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition.
> 
> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> 
> ...


you make me sick. and I fucking well helped get these cunts into power (while they were still arguing the opposite to the economic position they've taken when in government).

how you can spin this bullshit about it being a coalition thing, or the deficit being such an urgent problem that it must be tackled even at the expense of destroying the economy / throwing millions out of work etc and square that with the lib dems pre-election position which IIRC you supported is fucking beyond me. If anything the economic news / government borrowing requirements immediately after the election were better than predicted, so there was no urgent requirement to completely alter the lib dem position on this other than Nick Clegg having had some personal epiphany prior to the election about it that he conveniently opted not to share with either the electorate or lib dem supporters until after the fucking election.

I still have some respect for some lib dems who're trying to work within the party to turn the lib dems back from it's current disasterous path, but people like you who're acting as cheerleaders for cleggs economic policies are as low as they come IMO. These policies are leading us straight into a long term depression which will blight us for a generation, and yet you cheer them on. 

fuck off out of this city and take your scummy tory leader with you


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> With such a stunning premise one can only deduce I am a Tory. I must self-evidentially therefore be an inhumane disease deserving to be cleansed by your righteousness.


 You are a Tory.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition.
> 
> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> 
> ...


 
This is fucking bullshit. The budget under labour actually came in at a surplus for 3 years and only rose to what labour inherited in 97 after the banking bailout.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition.
> 
> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> 
> ...



All governments run deficits because they don't get enough back through taxation. 

FACT: the outgoing Tory government in 1964 left the incoming Wilson government with a pretty big deficit. Yet the Tories continue to tell us that they're fiscally 'responsible'.

I know you won't reply to this post btw. You can't or won't because you don't know how to deal with logic.

Fuck you and your beloved coalition


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2011)

Germany Q4 2010 GDP: +0.4%
UK Q4 2010 GPD: -0.6%

Guess which country has severe austerity measures?

Also, Blagsta, you're factually incorrect.  Labour ran a surplus for 5 years from 1997 to 2002, and then a deficit from 2002-2010.  Before northern rock, the deficit was at around 39%, in may 1997 it was 42%.
I won't spend too much time defending labour's economic policies - they should have run a surplus right up until the collapse of northern rock, but any talk of reckless spending and economic mismanagement is key to showing that the speaker knows fuck all about economics


----------



## snadge (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition.
> 
> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you’d grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> 
> ...



You really are ultradense, you do realise that a worldwide banking fail wasn't caused by the labour party, or do you?


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> .



I think you need to listen to your own words here.  Joseph Stiglitz (nobel prize winning economist, former chief of the world bank), Paul Krugmann (nobel prize winning economist) even the fucking IMF think that austerity measures are not going to sort out the economy (though the IMF only thinks so if everyone introduces austerity measures, as they pretty much are doing).
If you don't sort out the economy, you can't sort out the deficit.

If you get the economy back in strong, job led growth, then you will reduce spending and increase tax revenue naturally.  Then you can look to stop spending on investment based temporary measures you took to push the economy into job led growth, reducing the deficit/debt.
If you fuck the economy up so it goes into recession, you increase spending and decrease tax revenue naturally. This increases the deficit/debt.

Looks at some actual fucking gdp/debt figures and trace the relationship between deficit/surplus and fall/growth of national debt. You'll find, shockingly, that when the UK economy is in recession, the debt rises, and when it's in growth, it falls.

I'd ask you how much studying (formal or informal) you've done of economics, but the truth is that unless the answer is very little, I won't believe you.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy. If you were serious about changing things you'd grow up, stop indulging in childish political stunts where you attempt to hijack events for your own gain and try developing an ounce of economic understanding.
> .


 
Firstly the cuts aren't neccesarry - Secondly they are hitting the poorest and most vunerable hardest - in direct contridiction to what Cleggg promised. 

What you call 'childish political stunts' - I would call siezing a rare opportunity  to directly confornt the cunts responsible. Not for my gain (how?), but because I'm fucking angry. And growing numbers  of people are angry becasue of whats being done to them and their communities. But to you they are being 'childish' are they?  

I'd fuck off the thread mate - you're just proving yourself to be a snidy, weasle-worded twat. A willing stooge for whats left of your laughing stock of a political party.


----------



## yield (Feb 26, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What I support is trying to get the rampant budget deficit under control. It is nothing to be cheerful about, and I have never expressed joy at this thankless task that has befallen the coalition.


 
Better to inconvenience 1,000 people than destroy millions of lives 
Thread from last December.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 26, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Germany Q4 2010 GDP: +0.4%
> UK Q4 2010 GPD: -0.6%
> 
> Guess which country has severe austerity measures?
> ...


 
I under estimated how well labour managed the economy!


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I under estimated how well labour managed the economy!



I don't like admitting it either, but the facts are pesky in this case.. in the (very limited) scope of how they handled the national debt, they did ok overall, but they really should have reduced it further between 2002 and 2008, and that would have made things easier, but however you look at it, the only way you can blame labour for the size of the national debt now is to offer an alternative to what they did following the banking collapse, and explain how that would have cost the taxpayer less and helped the economy.
I haven't seen any tories bleating about labour racking up a deficit offer any kind of answer to the question of what they would have done differently.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 26, 2011)

The only argument I see is from right wing "libertarians", saying that the banks should have been left to fail.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2011)

Yeah, well they're a bunch of loons for the most part (probably the same thing they say about anarchos and trots mind).  There are times I think they should have been left to fail as well mind, but I'd also add that if they were the govt. would still need to have stepped in in another way in order to prevent the total collapse of the UK economy.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 26, 2011)

Thing is, if the banks had failed, thousands of people wouldn't have got paid, the whole economy would have fallen apart.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 26, 2011)

Well yeah, I agree with that, I think it would have fucked things completely, and I've never really been able to work out an alternative way to do it than how labour did.  Mostly when I feel like that it's out of anger, fuck the banks, they should have let them die, kind of thing.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Thing is, if the banks had failed, thousands of people wouldn't have got paid, the whole economy would have fallen apart.


 
Forgive me if I’m missing something but isn't the collapse of the capitalist system what many left wing people want?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

free spirit said:


> you make me sick. and I fucking well helped get these cunts into power (while they were still arguing the opposite to the economic position they've taken when in government).
> 
> how you can spin this bullshit about it being a coalition thing, or the deficit being such an urgent problem that it must be tackled even at the expense of destroying the economy / throwing millions out of work etc and square that with the lib dems pre-election position which IIRC you supported is fucking beyond me. If anything the economic news / government borrowing requirements immediately after the election were better than predicted, so there was no urgent requirement to completely alter the lib dem position on this other than Nick Clegg having had some personal epiphany prior to the election about it that he conveniently opted not to share with either the electorate or lib dem supporters until after the fucking election.
> 
> ...


 
I hate to break it to you but more Conservative MPs were elected then any other party, so the economic policy is largely governed by that choice of the electorate. The economy has been destroyed by a collapse in the banking sectors and excessive public spending. Any party that was in power now would have had to make cuts Free Spirit; Labour admitted they would need to before the election remember. I don’t think all the right things are being cut, for instance I wouldn’t have frozen the overseas aid budget. Hey you can blame it all on Lib Dems if it makes you feel better.

Meanwhile I'll enjoy a more liberal society then we had under Labour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Forgive me if I’m missing something but isn't the collapse of the capitalist system what many left wing people want?


 
Yeah but preferrably without people starving in the process - preferrably after alternative structures have been put in place to ensure people's needs are met.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I hate to break it to you but more Conservative MPs were elected then any other party, so the economic policy is largely governed by that choice of the electorate. The economy has been destroyed by a collapse in the banking sectors and excessive public spending. Any party that was in power now would have had to make cuts Free Spirit; Labour admitted they would need to before the election remember. I don’t think all the right things are being cut, for instance I wouldn’t have frozen the overseas aid budget. Hey you can blame it all on Lib Dems if it makes you feel better.
> 
> Meanwhile I'll enjoy a more liberal society then we had under Labour.



The economy was "destroyed" (strong words) by a collapse in the financial and banking sectors, "excessive public spending" did not come into it, you know this, you've been told this and directed to various sources that confirm it, yet you continue with the lie. Why?

The Tory economic policy is the reason why you shouldn't have gone into coalition with the Tories - people who voted for you voted against this harsh austerity crap. It should have been considered totally incompatible with the wishes of your voters. Yet you still went into government with the Tories. One has to wonder if you'd consider going into coalition with the BNP if it meant the Lib Dems getting a sniff of power.

And your gloating about living in a "more liberal society" is sickening, particularly as it seems you are willing to allow attacks on the poor in order to achieve it. After all, society hasn't got more "liberal" for them, given that the hoops they now have to jump through equate to a massive level of social compulsion and are authoritarian in nature.

You dispicable swine.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Feb 27, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Thing is, if the banks had failed, thousands of people wouldn't have got paid, the whole economy would have fallen apart.


 
I'm not so sure about that. Various 'supermarkets' would have very quickly stepped in. They have back up plans for such an event, as far as I am aware.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Feb 27, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> 9.00am this morning I hear on the radio that nick clegg 'is about to start speaking at the Carriageworks Theatre, Leeds'.
> 
> I live about 10 minutes from the venue.
> 
> ...



Best wishes to you and Ms Tim. Y'done us proud


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I hate to break it to you but more Conservative MPs were elected then any other party, so the economic policy is largely governed by that choice of the electorate. The economy has been destroyed by a collapse in the banking sectors and excessive public spending. Any party that was in power now would have had to make cuts Free Spirit; Labour admitted they would need to before the election remember. I don’t think all the right things are being cut, for instance I wouldn’t have frozen the overseas aid budget. Hey you can blame it all on Lib Dems if it makes you feel better.
> 
> Meanwhile I'll enjoy a more liberal society then we had under Labour.


 
SpineyNorman having addressed the other points, I'd just like to point out (as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before) that Labour are a party who preach neo-liberal economics, just like the Tories and the Lib Dems.  Labour does not (at this point in time) offer a substantially different economic policy.  Would I have been against the slower cuts that Labour would (presumably) have made? Yes, because no cuts are necessary and cutting at a time of weak, jobless economic recovery will (imo obviously) be actively damaging to the economy (as borne out by the -0.5%* Q4 2010 (yeah, snow I know, lets see what Q1 2011 brings around eh?).

There are alternatives - broadly, a Keynesian style approach to macro-economics - but none of the three major parties offer it.

If you want to blame Labour for the problem of the deficit, you first need to explain what you would have done differently both immediately following the collapse of Northern Rock and also over the following months as the rest of the banking sector collapsed.

*Actually was revised down to -0.6% thanks to Yield for reminding me


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Forgive me if I’m missing something but isn't the collapse of the capitalist system what many left wing people want?


 
Not into complete chaos, no.


----------



## yield (Feb 27, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Various 'supermarkets' would have very quickly stepped in. They have back up plans for such an event, as far as I am aware.



What contingency plan was that then? Do you have any more details about the "supermarkets"?



BigTom said:


> Yes, because no cuts are necessary and cutting at a time of weak, jobless economic recovery will (imo obviously) be actively damaging to the economy (as borne out by the -0.5% Q4 2010 (yeah, snow I know, lets see what Q1 2011 brings around eh?).



The Q4 figures have been revised down to -0.6%. 
GDP: Contracts by 0.6% in Q4 2010


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Forgive me if I’m missing something but isn't the collapse of the capitalist system what many left wing people want?



It depends on what you mean by "capitalism". If you believe that the only form of capitalism in town is the current version (neoliberalism). Then, yes. Over to you.


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2011)

How long before moon23 resorts to 'If you like communism so much, why don't you go and live in North Korea'?


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 27, 2011)

Santino said:


> How long before moon23 resorts to 'If you like communism so much, why don't you go and live in North Korea'?



It will come.


----------



## tufty79 (Feb 27, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Various 'supermarkets' would have very quickly stepped in. They have back up plans for such an event, as far as I am aware.


 
tesco will save us all?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Feb 27, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Meanwhile I'll enjoy a more liberal society then we had under Labour.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's worth noting these cuts perhaps wouldn't now be necessary if it wasn't for years of Labour's mismanagement of our economy .


Stop repeating this bare-faced lie! It was the bankers crisis,and the need to rescue us from it,that caused the deficit - AND THAT ALONE


> try developing an ounce of economic understanding.


WAAHAHAHAHAHA! Sez the bloke whose economics arguments have been100% trashed on here.
Keep 'em coming, Moon23......


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I hate to break it to you but more Conservative MPs were elected then any other party, so the economic policy is largely governed by that choice of the electorate. The economy has been destroyed by a collapse in the banking sectors and excessive public spending. Any party that was in power now would have had to make cuts Free Spirit; Labour admitted they would need to before the election remember. I don’t think all the right things are being cut, for instance I wouldn’t have frozen the overseas aid budget. Hey you can blame it all on Lib Dems if it makes you feel better.
> 
> Meanwhile I'll enjoy a more liberal society then we had under Labour.


 do the decent thing and hang yourself today.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Various 'supermarkets' would have very quickly stepped in. They have back up plans for such an event, as far as I am aware.


 You underestimate our rulers abilities to fuck up - think credit crunch, or the recent Libya 'i forgot I was in charge' debacle. Just because they have plans doesn't mean; a) that they are any good, or b) will work fully.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Stop repeating this bare-faced lie! It was the bankers crisis,and the need to rescue us from it,that caused the deficit - AND THAT ALONE



Then way did the IFS say : "Labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

You really sure you want to use that link? Aside from the fact that it doesn't lay any blame for the recession/crisis - which makes it an odd choice of supporting evidence for any argument that lays blame anywhere, it also says:



> The evolution of the public finances since 1997 mirrors the first 12 years of Conservative governments after 1979: three years of impressive fiscal consolidation, eight years of drift (masked by economic overconfidence), and then a big jump in borrowing thanks to recession and newly-discovered structural weaknesses.





> . Debt interest payments had fallen significantly since 1997


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

There is nothing neo-liberal about our current form of capitalism, as shown in this graph a huge chunk of the economy results from state expenditure. This money often goes straight into the hands of the large corporations so many on this board despise.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

And you seek to _impose_ neo-liberalism, destroying the only thing that's historically shown to stop your form of capitalism collapsing down on everyone - state spending. Why on earth do you think that last 100 years has shown such a stable level of state spending (post ww1)? BY accident? Or because everyone knows what the end results of your madness are. Well done on the last quarter figures btw. Thanks.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

BigTom said:


> SpineyNorman having addressed the other points, I'd just like to point out (as I'm sure has been pointed out to you before) that Labour are a party who preach neo-liberal economics, just like the Tories and the Lib Dems.  Labour does not (at this point in time) offer a substantially different economic policy.  Would I have been against the slower cuts that Labour would (presumably) have made? Yes, because no cuts are necessary and cutting at a time of weak, jobless economic recovery will (imo obviously) be actively damaging to the economy (as borne out by the -0.5%* Q4 2010 (yeah, snow I know, lets see what Q1 2011 brings around eh?).
> 
> There are alternatives - broadly, a Keynesian style approach to macro-economics - but none of the three major parties offer it.
> 
> ...


 
Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There is nothing neo-liberal about our current form of capitalism, as shown in this graph a huge chunk of the economy results from state expenditure. This money often goes straight into the hands of the large corporations so many on this board despise.



...and more to the point, *this is neo-liberalism. * This is what it is and what the rest of us are fighting against and you're fighting for.


----------



## Santino (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.


 
"But Labour..."


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.


 
Fuck you and your economic consensus. And stop going on about Labour. Labour aren't opposing every cut either as you yourself admit in this post so why are you going on about Labour's "spending" all the time. Why do you keep pushing this disingenuous bollocks?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

I fucking love the labour party me. I can't wait for Ed Milliband to get into power and carry out his £14 billion of cuts, I think he is the hero of the people. With him in power what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.


 
What do you mean by economic consensus? Do you mean a consensus among politicians in the big three parties that cuts are required? If so then well done, I for one hadn't noticed that - you've opened by eyes, honest. Or do you mean a consensus among economists? If so you're lying again.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.


 
Was ist dieses wirtschaftkonsensgespräch?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

It's labour's fault for spending that make the cuts necessary and labour's socialist policies have been discredited, but if they'd got in power they'd have done the same thing as anyway, so don't blame us.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your right Labour doesn't offer an alternative, Darlings plans would have seen around £14Bn of cuts which is only £2Bn less than the coalitions. Despite Labour now opposing every cut, if they had been in powers it would have not been dissimilar.   The reason being there is an economic consensus that cuts are required.



Umm. yeah. but I'm suggesting that there might be an alternative set of economic tools that could be used, one which none of the 3 main parties are suggesting, but which are advocated by such economic illiterates as Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel prize winning economist, former head of the world bank) or Paul Krugmann (Nobel Prize winner) for instance.
You do realise that's what I'm suggesting don't you? That labour don't offer an alternative, but that there is an alternative available.. 

Just what exactly do you think neo-liberalism is if it isn't what labour/tories and now lib-dems have been doing economically since the mid-late 70s?


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...and more to the point, *this is neo-liberalism. * This is what it is and what the rest of us are fighting against and you're fighting for.


 
But Butch, this isn't classical liberalism, or an anti state neo liberalism. The fact is that the state is getting stonger and not weaker. It is a state with a decentralising ideology, but state nevertheless, and eg. there is no free market in the proposed NHS reforms (there is a controlled market mediated by the state). SO where does this leave free market economics, or 'neo liberalism'? AS ideology and not reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2011)

What's that got to do with what i said? In fact, it _ is_ what i said. That the state is at the centre of neo-liberalism.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> But Butch, this isn't classical liberalism, or an anti state neo liberalism. The fact is that the state is getting stonger and not weaker. It is a state with a decentralising ideology, but state nevertheless, and eg. there is no free market in the proposed NHS reforms (there is a controlled market mediated by the state). SO where does this leave free market economics, or 'neo liberalism'? AS ideology and not reality.


 
Neo-liberalism doesn't require either no state or free markets. It pursues relatively free markets (relatively free from the collective power of either organised labour or organised consumers); of course such relative freedom can be guaranteed by a strong state. Also the reality of neo-liberalism as an ideological project, pursues the construction of social relationships around the categories of consumer, market, individual, and trade; this is very much part of what the NHS changes are about, but only part (there are also some much more concrete introductions of market forces e.g. between competing commissioning consultancies.)

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with what i said? In fact, it _ is_ what i said. That the state is at the centre of neo-liberalism.


 
My point was that 'neo liberalism' is a catch all ill defined category that says nothing about what is happening specifically, its abstract rather than concrete. I was wondering whether you had unpacked the category, its historical pedigree, and so on. Apparently not.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neo-liberalism doesn't require either no state or free markets. It pursues relatively free markets (relatively free from the collective power of either organised labour or organised consumers); of course such relative freedom can be guaranteed by a strong state. Also the reality of neo-liberalism as an ideological project, pursues the construction of social relationships around the categories of consumer, market, individual, and trade; this is very much part of what the NHS changes are about, but only part (there are also some much more concrete introductions of market forces e.g. between competing commissioning consultancies.)
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
but that's the point, does the category fit the description? If it can be all things to all people, does it say anything?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> but that's the point, does the category fit the description? *If it can be all things to all people*, does it say anything?


 
It can't; for example it can't accommodate the UK's post war consensus. It has edges as I outlined above.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2011)

yeah, neo-liberalism is not anti-state.  To me, neo-liberalism can be defined it two areas.. 
one is the use of the money supply and interest rates to control the economy, rather than the use of taxation and spending as in keynesianism (as primary tools, not exclusive)

The second area is that neo-liberalism uses the state to funnel tax into the hands of private companies, so a neo-liberal state will outsource it's functions to private companies rather than have those functions performed by nationalised companies.

Yes, there is the idea that the free market is the best way to decide economic outcomes, and that the state should not regulate the free market too heavily but it's not, imo, an anti-state ideology, it's an anti nationalised industry ideology.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 3, 2011)

Deviating slightly...Neo-liberalism needs a strong state-at least in terms of social control,policing/repression, courts, prisons and the rest-simply to deal with the civil unrest that is the natural and inevitable consequence of neo-liberal economic policies.
in fact,a police state is probably the best political framework for neo-liberal economic policies!


----------



## creak (Mar 3, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Deviating slightly...Neo-liberalism needs a strong state-at least in terms of social control,policing/repression, courts, prisons and the rest-simply to deal with the civil unrest that is the natural and inevitable consequence of neo-liberal economic policies.
> in fact,a police state is probably the best political framework for neo-liberal economic policies!


 
See China


----------

