tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post4184981534369686053..comments2024-03-08T15:43:20.236+00:00Comments on Keynesian Liberal: Tory Hopefuls: none of the abovePeter Wrigleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16481117156930677255noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-74032029157337110342022-07-22T01:18:17.654+01:002022-07-22T01:18:17.654+01:002. OK the vaccine creation and distribution were a...<i>2. OK the vaccine creation and distribution were a public-private partnership , but the distribution, for which the government claims the credit, was entirely public, and very effective.</i><br /><br />I don't understand the 'but'. Surely the correct conjunction would be 'and'. 'But' implies that what comes after somehow contradicts what went before, but (see?) in this case it doesn't. <br /><br /><i>3. OK again, 25%, or the slightly smaller 1 in 6</i><br /><br />One in six is 16.7%. That's not 'slightly smaller' than 25%. It's only two-thirds of 25%.<br /><br /><i>We should care for them all and be ashamed that we don't even try.</i><br /><br />What do you mean, 'we don't even try'? We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. There are cracks, of course there are, and inefficiencies. But no one can say we don't try</i> to make sure that there's a safety net for all those who need it because they are unable to work (obviously those who are able to work, but just don't want to, should starve — but no one who is willing to work but honestly unable to should find themselves in true poverty, and that is, pretty clearly, the aim of the system, even if (being a government system) it frequently misses that aim). <br /><br /><i>4. I'm sorry Tugendhat has gone. He was the one with a streak of decency. The others seem to have just vaunting ambition (to be rather than to do, as with Johnson)</i><br /><br />I don't think it's possible to be Prime Minister without having much greater than average amounts of ambition, so that just seems par for the course. Tugendhat was hardly without ambition himself. <br /><br />My own preferred candidate went out in the fourth round. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-90980300992245093582022-07-19T15:19:14.034+01:002022-07-19T15:19:14.034+01:00First my apologies for taking so long to respond t...First my apologies for taking so long to respond to you, but the Covid has taken more out of me than I'd realised and I've been a bit below par. I'm not seeking for sympathy. I value your comments and simply want your understanding.<br />1. Although you are the major commentor you're not the only reader. I wish there were more of both but do keep up your comments: they keep me on my toes. Frankly, I've no desire to make millions: just my contribution to an informed political debate<br />2. OK the vaccine creation and distribution were a public-private partnership , but the distribution, for which the government claims the credit, was entirely public, and very effective.<br />3. OK again, 25%, or the slightly smaller 1 in 6, are ball-park figures for people in poverty. I've no need to quibble about the precise figure, just that it is far too many. Even half or a quarter of that proportion would be to many. We should care for them all and be ashamed that we don't even try. Relative poverty, the inability to participate in what is "normal" or a society, can be as painful as physical poverty, especially for children.<br />4. I'm sorry Tugendhat has gone. He was the one with a streak of decency. The others seem to have just vaunting ambition (to be rather than to do, as with Johnson)Peter Wrigleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16481117156930677255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-5112252281579733142022-07-18T20:14:53.625+01:002022-07-18T20:14:53.625+01:00He may even survive until the third or fourth
Thi...<i>He may even survive until the third or fourth</i><br /><br />Third.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-22921704771600209182022-07-13T22:11:04.580+01:002022-07-13T22:11:04.580+01:00currently standing at about £19,000 pa
Note that&...<i>currently standing at about £19,000 pa</i><br /><br />Note that's after-tax income, so equates to a salary in the high 20s to £30,000; and it's per-household, not per-person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-42262489056877879642022-07-13T22:03:29.153+01:002022-07-13T22:03:29.153+01:001. For the incompetent there may be a trade-of bet...<i>1. For the incompetent there may be a trade-of between speed and effectiveness, but the competent should be able to manage both.</i><br /><br />So you reckon if somebody's sufficiently competent they should be able to do a project fast, cheap and well? What are you doing hanging around putting articles on a website nobody but me reads? You should be out there making billions as a consultant, teaching people your secrets!<br /><br /><i>2. The private sector may have played a significant part in the development of some of the vaccines (and some are reaping huge profits as a result,) but the distribution in the UK, for which the government so frequently claims the credit, was exclusively NHS - the public sector</i><br /><br />Well, for a start, the government is responsible for the public sector, so if it was done by the public sector then the government does deserve the credit. The government certainly gets the blame when bits of the public sector go wrong, which is constantly, so it's only fair it gets the credit on the massively infrequent occasions when the public sector does something right too. <br /><br />But secondly the important point is that if it wasn't for the free market there wouldn't have been any vaccines to distribute. Countries which tried to developed vaccines through the public sector (I'm looking at you China) ended up with vaccines that took much longer and don't work.<br /><br /><i>3. The poor really are poor. Try going without food for a few days, and heating during the winter, and see if you just feel "relatively" hungry or cold.</i><br /><br />I'm sure the poor really are poor. But they aren't 22% of the population. That's the figure for those in relative poverty — a braindead measure for many reasons including, for example, that if you make <i>everyone</i> poorer (for example, during a recession) then the relative poverty rare <i>decreases</i>. <br /><br />What proportion of the population have to go without food, or heating, ie, are actually <i>poor</i> rather than on less than 60% of the median income (that being the deifiniton of relative poverty, and currently standing at about £19,000 pa)? Do you have a figure for that? It's a lot less than one-fifth, I'll tell you that. <br /><br />(Yes, ideally it should be 0%. But (a) it's important to know the true figure, and it isn't one fifth or anywhere close to it, and (b) that's got nothing to do with 'relative poverty' — I don't care how many people are on some arbitrary fraction of the median income, as long as nobody is actually going hungry or freezing to death, and neither should you.)<br /><br /><i>4. At least one survey predicts that Tugendhat will survive at least until the second round. We shall soon see.</i><br /><br />He has survived until the second round. He may even survive until the third or fourth. He won't get to the final two, and if he did he wouldn't win with the members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-46258739153699669942022-07-13T13:27:27.659+01:002022-07-13T13:27:27.659+01:001. For the incompetent there may be a trade-of bet...1. For the incompetent there may be a trade-of between speed and effectiveness, but the competent should be able to manage both.<br />2. The private sector may have played a significant part in the development of some of the vaccines (and some are reaping huge profits as a result,) but the distribution in the UK, for which the government so frequently claims the credit, was exclusively NHS - the public sector<br />3. The poor really are poor. Try going without food for a few days, and heating during the winter, and see if you just feel "relatively" hungry or cold.<br />4. At least one survey predicts that Tugendhat will survive at least until the second round. We shall soon see.Peter Wrigleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16481117156930677255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4732407426313451205.post-53630719267288901302022-07-11T20:44:37.924+01:002022-07-11T20:44:37.924+01:00He is praised for his "furlough scheme"...<i>He is praised for his "furlough scheme" but I believe it was less generous and more short-lived than some continental schemes which were introduced earlier and lasted longer. Its administration was subject to significant fraud</i><br /><br />Make up your mind! If something is more generous, it is more vulnerable to fraud. Conversely, if you make something less vulnerable to fraud, that means doing more checks on people claiming it — which means you will inevitably end up being less generous. <br /><br />You can't have both more generous, and less vulnerable to fraud. That's like saying you want to change the court process so that both fewer guilty people go free and there aren't as many people wrongly convicted. You can't have both. Decrease the error one way and you necessarily increase it the other way. You have to pick where you want the balance between the two to be. <br /><br />(Or in three dimensions, it's like saying you want something done fast, cheap and well. Not possible. You can pick, at most, two.)<br /><br /><i>It is significant that the one success for which the government can legitimately boast in the pandemic, the vaccine distribution, was carried out by the public sector state-funded NHS</i><br /><br />It's rather more significant that if it hadn't been for the free market competition between drug companies the NHS wouldn't have had any vaccines to distribute. <br /><br /><i>In our society, still one of the richest in the world, one fifth of our people exist in poverty</i><br /><br />No they don't. Or rather they only do if you use relative poverty as your definition of poverty, but that's a brain-dead definition. <br /><br /><i>For the record, at present I'd go for Tom Tugendhat as the nearest to what's left of the "One Nation" tradition.</i><br /><br />Which is why he has no chance.<br /><br />I can tell you one thing for sure: whoever our next Prime Minister is, it won't be a pale-faced man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com