UK General Election ’15

Briggs captures the essentials:

You have to love — I do — how the cessation of accelerating profligate spending is called in Europe “austerity”. Here [in the UK] the slow-down-in-speeding-up-yet-still-increases-in-spending are called “budget cuts”.

The “let’s carry on decaying at a genteel pace chaps” party won (unexpectedly). Insurgent parties did badly (except at the geographical — rather than ideological — fringe). A status quo outcome, then. A shallower, longer decline path it is …

The more positive implications concern territorial disintegration. Deepening political alienation in Scotland, and a commitment to a referendum on Europe, promise opportunities for multi-level secessionary tides to strengthen.

Also, the left will go even more nuts. When the teeth-gnashing commentary begins to roll in, I’ll try to link some as Schadenfreude tonic.

ADDED: Conservatives know that they’re losers, even when they ‘win’.

ADDED: HBD Chick applies some biorealism to the election results.

May 8, 2015admin 37 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , ,

37 Responses to this entry

  • scientism Says:

    This is the most interesting thing I’ve seen on the topic so far:

    https://twitter.com/edwest/status/596606500782645248

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 3:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • UK General Election ’15 | Neoreactive Says:

    […] UK General Election ’15 […]

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 3:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Meh …. The UK budget deficit has averaged 3% of GDP annually over the last 30 years. It’s a bit higher than that now (5.8%) but the deficit has been falling steadily since 2009, when it was over 10% of GDP. The UK government did what you’re supposed to do in a once-every-80-years recessionary event: SPEND. Now the UK is heading back toward normal budgeting.

    An economy that grows at 2.5% a year can witthstand 3% budget deficits for a loooooooong time. If the math gets a little challenging, do a once-a generation devaluation and you are back on an even keel for another generation.

    This whole collapse-porn meme really detracts from the bigger issues at hand, which chiefly involve individual alienation. For every drop of ink spilled about deficits, we would be far better off if that same drop were spilt working through the implications of the mouse utopia experiments. The basic experience of being human has changed profoundly fundamentally dramatically etc etc and one needs to spend all one’s time trying to make sense of the new state of affairs …

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    I’m not paying too much attention to the UK, but from the perspective of someone who knows absolutely nothing in California….. I think Cameron did alright.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Kgaard, have you read admin’s Suspended Animation series?

    If not it’s here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Suspended-Animation-Urban-Future-Pamphlets-ebook/dp/B00HNXIQDA

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Getting Kindle tomorrow … will download and read. Curious to see it now …

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Great. I was lucky enough to catch it first time round, and it was more or less my entry point to NRx and directly preceded the Dark Enlightlenment series (which I assume you have read). It’s great on the (postmodern) postponement, deferral of collapse. My economics isn’t strong, but once you have read this I would be fascinated to read your comments on it: it seems to me that you still operate very much within the progressive Kensian paradigm, whereas Land, MM, Hurlock, Austrians, etc, are about escaping it. Which means that (within the status quo) you are generally correct (in your predictions), but on a meta-level I find the argument to move from insane-to-sane economics (the return of Darwin) utterly compelling (and the primary reason for the need to Exit from democracy, which underpins all reactionary thought).

    Kgaard Reply:

    I used to be much more Austrian than I am now but it is a flawed paradigm for democracies (and I’ve debated the point endlessly here). It’s swell to talk about post-democratic or non-democratic alternatives … but if your starting point is that the UK and US are going to collapse and THAT is what will get us to the post-democratic reality, well, that’s not a good use of time. Nothing’s going to collapse anytime soon and nobody here is making good arguments as to why it will. I point out errors of economics time and again here in order to put some realism into the debate. If you are living in the woods storing up gold and soup and reading Zerohedge as your main news source, you’re wasting the prime years of your life waiting for a collapse that’s not going to happen.

    Case in point: The conservatives knocked it out of the park in the UK elections. Was this not the snapping of a holiness spiral? Wasn’t this more or less what neoreaction would LIKE to see? People are not retarded. The UK was overrun with libtards pushing a new world order and the people of the UK responded EN MASSE.

    The implication for 2016 is that the Republicans are also going to knock it out of the park, ushering in a period of common-sense government reform.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Conservatives and republicans winning is actually worse in the long term as has been endlessly pointed out by Admin on this very blog. The “common-sense” government reform is not that “common-sense”, the reforms Republicans and Conservatives pass are simply milder forms of leftism compared to the more absurd forms of leftism their opposition wants to pass. The result is, slower, but just as painful death of the west.

    Look, Kgaard, all of us here know the West is dying, this is not news, it will collapse eventually and no Republican or Conservative election victories are going to change that (if you think they are you are still infected by that brain-parasite called “faith in popular government), the question from the neoreactionary perspective is which one is better – a fast and loose collapse, or a slow controlled one?

    Kgaard Reply:

    @Kgaard

    The whole idea that we are in a SLOW collapse is a sort of rhetorical gimmick to take pressure off perma-bears to be right. Social atomization, sure. Seething anger at societal decay, yes. Economic collapse no. If the best you’ve got is the deficit, that is a non-starter. Have a look at 10-year bond yields for Europe, UK or the US. They are 1-2%. Doesn’t conform to the slow-collapse theory.

    I mean, you can talk about Austrian economics all day long. But it’s not very useful.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Lemme re-phrase that: A good chunk of Austrian economics is useful. But the zealots mis-apply its theorems and over-extrapolate from causes to (dire) effects.

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • UK General Election ’15 | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 7:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    Indeed, Nick, a stately and graceful descent into the coffin it is, under a party whose policies would have been considered insane rather than conservative, just 100 years ago.

    It’s just unfortunate that Trident is likely to remain intact. Then again, maybe Nicola Sturgeon will sneak a grenade onto one of the subs in her ‘cheap shoes’.

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    If, as good little Neoreactionaries, we attribute political change to (State) economic necessity, and therefore view e.g. the suffragettes as a movement fulfilling an economic need, in exactly the same way as the gene-shredding policy of Singapore, how much of NRx’s diagnosis of the leftward insanity ratchet is purely surface? 20th Century insanity is 21st Century fiscal responsibility (where the only alternative is those crazy Greeks).

    [Reply]

    nydwracu Reply:

    Finally.

    Now look at mass immigration.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    +1

    The same could be said for more policies than just suffrage and immigration; and “economic” need could be expanded to include “military.”

    The problem with this line of reasoning is that it provides plausible-deniability for many things that most here would consider repulsive. Add that it no longer seems possible to believe the top makes agreeable value judgements, and the line of reasoning becomes self-defeating outside of a historical context. It is much easier to consider the degenerates as just trying to maintain their place through whatever means available.

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daws Says:

    the printing seems to have worked, and Cameron’s cuts were well-targeted to kick people into the workforce from the dole rolls. the independent central bank astutely reduced real wages to keep employment high. following Kgaard, I root for everyone to have a job and a main squeeze, and for my champions on the supply-side

    the UK rejected missile strikes against Assad before the US ever voted

    disrespect for the UK government seems undue, mean

    please guide us in departure from attention to politics which r none of our business, from sarcastic gossip about the strong

    GlaxoSmithKline just developed a malaria vaccine, I believe

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2015 at 6:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @Kgaard “Have a look at 10-year bond yields for Europe, UK or the US. They are 1-2%” – and why are they 1-2%? I will answer that, because of QE and ZIRP. Modernity has been characterized by reality in the form of immediate and clear feedback being subsumed by extraordinary wealth, and it seems to a lot of people that this is coming to an end. All it will take is a panic and things will become interesting.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2015 at 1:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Actually you have the causality wrong there. If you withdraw QE prematurely, interest rates will tend to go down, not up. The 10-year responds to growth expectations and those collapse when central banks are too tight near the zero-bound.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @Kgaard How? investing based on growth signals is a thing of the past. Money has either been dumped in junk in the chase for yield or put in the bonds regardless of the pitiful yield due to safety needs. The repurchase of bonds is a bizzare experiment that no one can see a genuine exit from. Anyone who claims otherwise is selling a mirage.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “The repurchase of bonds is a bizzare experiment that no one can see a genuine exit from.”

    You do realize that the Fed has been doing open market operations for close to a hundred years. Buying bonds (QE) is their only trick when they can’t just lower rates.

    And you haven’t asked yourself, why must they “exit?” One could compare how you sound to someone in the 50’s saying “How is the government going to pay all this debt back?”

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @Different T The vehemence and partisanship which economic questions raise are very odd. It has never sat well with me. It always seems to rely on some really squalid narrowing on a single point, or a couple of points, and then excluding the context. The 50s were the middle of the baby boom, a growing population (of european origin people) and accelerating growth as a result allowed for spending/borrowing against future revenue surely? How is that in any way comparable? How can you compare any two points in time correctly given variations in population and technology?

    Carlyle was right in calling it the dismal science.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    The vehemence and partisanship which economic questions raise are very odd. It has never sat well with me.

    Please point me to my party. I have never been a fan Groucho Marx’s stupid quotation.

    The 50s were the middle of the baby boom, a growing population (of european origin people) and accelerating growth as a result allowed for spending/borrowing against future revenue surely? How is that in any way comparable? How can you compare any two points in time correctly given variations in population and technology?

    Is that your answer to the question “Why must they exit?” It’s too hard to figure so this time they must because you can’t “compare any two points in time correctly given variations in population and technology?”

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 9th, 2015 at 2:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @Rasputin

    on a meta-level I find the argument to move from insane-to-sane economics (the return of Darwin) utterly compelling (and the primary reason for the need to Exit from democracy, which underpins all reactionary thought).

    Calling a return to a gold standard “sane” because you think it will limit a democracy’s ability to redistribute doesn’t make a lot of sense. The popular histories of Rome, cited here at least, always want to make the debasement of currency a primary reason. But what if causality runs in the opposite direction. The debasement was a result, not cause; symptom, not disease.

    Throwing away modern economics and finance because it has been used poorly makes little sense.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    We are not throwing it away because it is used poorly, we are throwing it away because it is a pseudo-science.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    If a girl you were seeing turned out to be a crazy, thieving, crack whore, well, you could try to reform her, but a safer and more expedient option might just be to start over with someone new.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Obviously, starting over is taken for granted.

    The question is whether the someone new is going to be screaming incessantly about gold or whether they can understand more about money and power than shiny things/algorithim outputs cannot be counterfeited.

    Rasputin Reply:

    “But what if causality runs in the opposite direction. The debasement was a result, not cause; symptom, not disease.” Surely it’s a spiral, defending into a swirling vortex of decline. But the subordination of economics to politics is a cancer, which needs to be cut out, kemophized, cremated, shot out into the stratosphere, etc, etc.

    pseudo-science can’t be reformed into science, because it is not science but a perversion of science.

    I’m curious as to exactly what financial innovations currently wielded by our progressive overlords you are so anxious to keep / build on?

    Different T Reply:

    Fiat money, central banks, government spending/deficits and debts, economic/financial regulation and the things these operationally allow like long term contracts, securitization, military funding, etc.

    Different T Reply:

    But the subordination of economics to politics is a cancer, which needs to be cut out, kemophized, cremated, shot out into the stratosphere, etc, etc.

    Why do you think politics is superceding economics. That’s rhetorical, I know it is due to your “insistence that the goal of the economy is to “maximize production” or “utility” or whatever.”

    Economics is about power and control. It is a question of who, not what. “What” is a fantasy until realization, at which time the question solely becomes “whom.”

    Posted on May 9th, 2015 at 9:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • chris b Says:

    No interested in UK politics beyond being curious how pissed of the population is, but it is quite astonishing to note that UKIP got 3.8 million (1 in 7) votes and 1 MP, the scots got 1.5 million and 56 MPs. The Uk is in dire need of a dictatorahip.

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Amen.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 10th, 2015 at 2:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    @Different T “Fiat money, central banks, government spending/deficits and debts…” Then we agree on nothing. This IS the politicisation of economics. Of course, economics *ultimately* underwrites political superstructures, and can take an awful lot of abuse before it collapses (see the Soviet Union), and we are (potentially, with plenty of slight of hand and political mesmerism) still quite a way away from that point. But it will come, and if we can’t achieve a soft reboot prior to this point, collapse is ensured. In a democracy politics supersedes economics because nothing is allowed to fail, so consequences are deferred and suspended. But when the chickens do finally come home to roost, they will be 50 foot tall, and use their tallons to rip our guts out – it will be nothing less than we deserve.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    This line of reasoning sounds like anti-gun rhetoric.

    “Guns are made for the purpose of killing people, people are killing people, you think the existence of guns is good thing; ergo, you want to kill people.”

    “Central banks are made for the purpose of intervening in the economy, central banks have been propping up shitty value judgements and decay, and you think the existence of central banks is a good thing; ergo you want to prop of shitty value judgements and decay.”

    In a democracy politics supersedes economics because nothing is allowed to fail, so consequences are deferred and suspended. But when the chickens do finally come home to roost, they will be 50 foot tall, and use their tallons to rip our guts out – it will be nothing less than we deserve.

    Why do you still care about this economy? I would think it is only because you’re a part of it. Again, starting over is the point.

    As to the whole “chickens coming home to roost,” the slave-fields are going to exist. Get over it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 10th, 2015 at 1:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin Says:

    “As to the whole “chickens coming home to roost,” the slave-fields are going to exist. Get over it.” Oh, I get it now, you’re a communist.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    I get it now

    No, you do not.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 10th, 2015 at 2:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daws Says:

    @chris b

    the UK has a pending dictatorship via the EU, and the ripoff of the anti-EU party that u mention is because of a system that makes for a healthy, conservative dominance by established parties, and the containment of new popularity

    the Euro has been a hard-money standard for much of Europe. the Hartz reforms and now the Macron Law r encouraging. Renzi claims Blair admiration. maybe recovery and hi employment will b conducive to macroeconomic reforms. that’s what happened in Germany. the EU is a massive non-democratic trade agreement with increasing authority, and it looks hard for Euro adopters to back out. ther r some merits

    nationalism is tough to fight. the UK made a decent go of it, I think

    please slow the gossip. I just wanna pay my mortgage, dude

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 11th, 2015 at 6:30 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment