Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Us Into...
... Stanley
The ongoing will-they-won't-they discussions, Birks' latest commentary and this excellent representation of the various parties' failure adequately to address the spending deficit in any useful way have me feeling that my normal emotional state has seldom been more justified.
Remember the bankers who knew (or suspected) mortgages were risky but dealt in them anyway because they'd have been thrown out by their shareholders if they weren't making the same profits? And who in any case figured they wouldn't be singled out because if it all went pear-shaped they'd all be in the same boat and anyway, as long as they didn't invest their bonuses in banking stocks they'd be OK if it only worked for even a couple of years?
I'm smelling parallels.
"We can't talk about the real cuts before the election because we won't win. Having won, we can't implement the real cuts because we won't win again in our lifetimes."
They only wouldn't win if they failed to explain the realities to the electorate. Having won, they're in a bit of a bind: educating people to understand and accept the necessity might introduce some difficult trust-related questions. It'll probably all come down to spin, sadly.
I'm beginning to think the unacceptability of the policies that will be needed may be the stimulus toward a moderately functional coalition. If what follows is every party's "fault" (we can include Labour even if they aren't involved because the perception will be - or already is - that they started it) then they are all equally unelectable and we either all vote Green/UKIP/Loony/BNP for a few decades or we just carry on as before.
When the dust settles, we'll see if any good came out of it. At the moment I'm mostly working on suppressing the idea that Greece really may be the first of a long line of dominos and that by the time the UK goes, there won't be any money left from anywhere. EXcept maybe China. I wonder what's the going rate for childrens' Chinese lessons?
Click to viewThe ongoing will-they-won't-they discussions, Birks' latest commentary and this excellent representation of the various parties' failure adequately to address the spending deficit in any useful way have me feeling that my normal emotional state has seldom been more justified.
Remember the bankers who knew (or suspected) mortgages were risky but dealt in them anyway because they'd have been thrown out by their shareholders if they weren't making the same profits? And who in any case figured they wouldn't be singled out because if it all went pear-shaped they'd all be in the same boat and anyway, as long as they didn't invest their bonuses in banking stocks they'd be OK if it only worked for even a couple of years?
I'm smelling parallels.
"We can't talk about the real cuts before the election because we won't win. Having won, we can't implement the real cuts because we won't win again in our lifetimes."
They only wouldn't win if they failed to explain the realities to the electorate. Having won, they're in a bit of a bind: educating people to understand and accept the necessity might introduce some difficult trust-related questions. It'll probably all come down to spin, sadly.
I'm beginning to think the unacceptability of the policies that will be needed may be the stimulus toward a moderately functional coalition. If what follows is every party's "fault" (we can include Labour even if they aren't involved because the perception will be - or already is - that they started it) then they are all equally unelectable and we either all vote Green/UKIP/Loony/BNP for a few decades or we just carry on as before.
When the dust settles, we'll see if any good came out of it. At the moment I'm mostly working on suppressing the idea that Greece really may be the first of a long line of dominos and that by the time the UK goes, there won't be any money left from anywhere. EXcept maybe China. I wonder what's the going rate for childrens' Chinese lessons?