Another economic ignorant in Parliament. Just what we need.

(Yes, she really is ignorant of economics.)

Another sourpuss whinger. Just what we need.

People being turned away from polling stations, a Liberal Democrat slide in the polls and all the joys of First Past The Post. So far this is the only part of the election I can take any comfort in.

There might still be a way of gaining the real change that we need Nick Glegg has a strong hand even after a bad showing,I can;t see Cameron leading a minority government he hasn;t got the mandate he wanted.the people have spoken I think it;s a no to a Conservative overall majority yes to Lib Lab pact can;t be Brown leading it though.I think this is still all to play for.It;s not over till the Dark Lord sings….

Congratulations indeed to Caroline Lucas; echoing Tim’s comment above, I’m inclined to suspect that once the Greens have a Parliamentary representative they’ll be forced to start sorting out the more hysterical bits of their policies.

This almost makes up for losing Dr. Evan Harris; but if the Greens will forgive me, not quite. A strong, female, Green campaigner is a good thing to have elected, but an evidence-based legislator is much more important.

Green 264,559 votes
UK Independence Party 861,613
British National Party 531,907

alright, I see the importance of getting an MP, but those numbers are still pretty disappointing.

Like Tim, Green party pronouncements on economics frequently horrify me, unlike Tim, I’d welcome a much larger Green Party to agitate on behalf of environmental issues.

Well, I might have voted Green, but there wasn’t a candidate in my constituency… I suppose this shows what you can achieve by concentrating resources – ‘grats to Caroline Lucas. I’m glad the Greens got a seat!

“This almost makes up for losing Dr. Evan Harris; but if the Greens will forgive me, not quite. A strong, female, Green campaigner is a good thing to have elected, but an evidence-based legislator is much more important.”

Quite.

> Another economic ignorant in Parliament. Just what we need.

Evidently it’s preferable to having any Euro-ignorants.

“Another economic ignorant in Parliament. Just what we need.”

I suppose we should only be electing people who are 100% experts in all areas of life?

Shame Caroline fails on economics. But then life’s also about lots of other things, surely? Such as social justice, health, education, arts & leisure, jobs & careers. And if she doesn’t know the answer, like anyone else in parliament who isn’t an expert in all fields, she will call on the experts. Or is the Green MP subject to different rules & expectations to the rest?

“But then life’s also about lots of other things, surely?”

Sure. I’m not asking that she’s (or indeed most of the others) be an expert in say, Baumol’s Cost Disease, the role of menu costs in differentiating between Keynesian, New Keynesian and New Classicists or the difference between edogenous and exogenous growth theories.

I am asking that she should be basically literate in the subject. Just as I would ask that any MP be literate in, err, being literate. Or roughly grasp the basics of physics (apples fall down, not up) or chemistry. Not expert, just reasonably au fait with the basics.

For example, as part of the Green New Deal she desires that we have capital controls and lower interest rates in order to get more capital to invest in Green lovely things. But lower interest rates will mean lower savings, reducing capital. And as a country the UK imports capital (we must do, we run a trade deficit) so capital controls and lower interest rates will both mean *less* capital available for investment in Green lovely things than not having capital controls and low interest rates.

similarly, the Greens tout their renewable energy plans as being wonderful because they “create more jobs”. But creating more jobs is a cost of a scheme, not a benefit.

Then we’ve the economic growth must stop stuff because we’ll run out of resources….entirely missing the point that economic growth does not depend upon the consumption of resources. Or perhaps you’d prefer me to complain about the demand that we have more local, more regional, economies to beat climate change? When the actual IPCC reports themselves, you know, the scientific consensus, show that globalisation is better than local economies at reducing climate change?

As I say, I’m not asking that she be an expert. Just that she’s got the basics I would hope for from anyone in Parliament, you know, enough knowledge to be in touch with reality?

fuck yeah, go Caroline…lets kick off the revolution!

the demand that we have more local, more regional, economies to beat climate change? When the actual IPCC reports themselves, you know, the scientific consensus, show that globalisation is better than local economies at reducing climate change?

While your criticisms of the Greens are more or less mine, this is worth noting. Globalisation can mean two different things. One is top-down, corporate, statist, relying on capital and armed coercion; the other is bottom-up, relying on the spread of accurate information and the redistribution of economic control to the individual rather than the corporate entity.

One of these has a very bad track record when it comes to both environmental destruction and hideous levels of fraud. The other has yet to be tried, because we only recently invented the inherent.

What the IPCC says is that a global approach is the most effective at controlling global warming. Globalisation, as currently enacted, is notoriously bad at doing so.

Not so on globalisation. There are four families of scenarios for emissions paths. A1, A2, B1, B2.

A means capitalist. B means, roughly, a more caring sharing, attention paid to equity and the environment. 1 means globalisation, 2 local and regional.

A1 has lower emissions than A2. B1 lower than B2.

And that soundbite @14 addresses JQP’s points how, exactly?

“What the IPCC says is that a global approach is the most effective at controlling global warming. Globalisation, as currently enacted, is notoriously bad at doing so.”

It addresses exactly that point that JohnQ is making. The IPCC (it’s in hte SRES, the economic models used to feed into the IPCC reports) specificalyl are saying that globalisation “as currently enacted” is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Shorter: It doesn’t, but I’ll repeat my assertion anyway.

Well done the greens. I’ll always have a soft spot for them and I’m glad to see them get the breakthrough that they deserve

“Another economic ignorant in Parliament. Just what we need.”

She is imbecilic on science as well. Still, she is at least, you know, like ever so nice n that.

Yup, what we need are more hard-nosed economic “realists” with their neo-liberal prescriptions for eternal prosperity via the magic of an unfettered “free” market, seasoned with a dash of “light touch” regulation.

Because they’ve just done sooooooooooo well of late, haven’t they?

2O

LOL

Or we could just hand over govt to the corporations who are such experts, and cut out the middle men. (snark)

Oh but Colonel, sally, you didn’t get the memo – the markets *create stability*, look:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/05/06/how-a-market-crashes/

Ahem.

Clegg has strategic concerns for the longer-term.

The LibDems are presently typically type-cast as the natural and inevitable partner for Lib-Lab pacts which can only mean further attrition in the LibDem vote, especially if there is any significant reform in the electoral system to produce more proportionate results.

The LibDems have to differentiate themselves from each of the other main parties and that means a willingness to consider passing alliances with Conservative governments as well as Labour governments.

This was the only result of the whole night that made me smile. Well, this and Charles Clarke losing… Thankyou Brighton

I’m sure she’s a woman of good convictions, but she still beat a Labour candidate, so for me there’s no cause for celebration.

I feel sure that Blair always meant well too.

Btw whatever happened to UKIP? They seem to have disappeared from the narrative entirely.

Green Party share of the vote went down nationally ..less than 1 % ..the vagaries of a 4 way marginal produced this result …expect to see the seat go to one of the mainstream parties as soon as another election is called ….