Time Magazine floats Gore-Obama
March 27th, 2008
Could this be a serious proposition?
The author of the classic White House Race Novel, Primary Colours, Joe Klein, has floated the idea of a Gore-Obama ticket in the latest edition of Time magazine.
This is from Klein’s piece: “..But let’s play a little. Let’s say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let’s also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they’d have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate? Of course, Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along.
I played out that scenario with about a dozen prominent Democrats recently, from various sectors of the party, including both Obama and Clinton partisans. Most said it was extremely unlikely … and a pretty interesting idea. A prominent fund raiser told me, “Gore-Obama is the ticket a lot of people wanted in the first place.” A congressional Democrat told me, “This could be our way out of a mess.” Others suggested Gore was painfully aware of his limitations as a candidate. “I don’t know that he’d be interested, even if you handed it to him,” said a Gore friend. Chances are, no one will hand it to him. The Democratic Party would have to be monumentally desperate come June. And yet … is this scenario any more preposterous than the one that gave John McCain the Republican nomination? Yes, it’s silly season. But this has been an exceptionally “silly” year. “
Latest nomination betting is here. Gore is currently 41/1 with Betfair.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Gore is a loser in the minds of the American public. He threw in the towel and gave the Presidency to Bush (albeit he didn’t have much option after the Supreme Court ruled against a recount in Florida). I don’t think having Obama as his Veep does enough to break that link with the past.
Reposted from last thread:
Anyone who thinks Hillary can pull back some delegates/popular vote in North Carolina should be aware that 89,000 new voters have registered since January. Some 30,000 of those are newly registered Afican-Americans (say 24,000 net new voters for Obama). African-American voters make up 45% of registered Democrats in the state.
Another 34,000 of the newly registered were “unaffiliated” - another group that has broken predominantly for Obama.
These are not helpful numbers for Hillary.
http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/03/89000-new-voters-in-north-carolina-who.asp
Wouldn’t this turn the Demcratic Party into someting like the old Tory ‘magic circle’ where the next leader, in this case Al Gore, suddenly emerges without proper election?
Why does it have to be Gore-Obama? Surely Obama-Gore 2008 hits more bases. Obama the visionary unifier, representing the triumph of intellect and the American Dream over racism and history, linking up with a gallant loser who has been reborn as an environmental evangelist who can lead the world to the sunlit uplands. Who wouldn’t vote for them?
Or is this just another effort by the press to keep the story going?
1. Given the manipulating of the election system in Florida, it’s pretty hard for any Democrat! No doubt if it was happening in a 3rd world country, we’d all cry blue murder.
3. Ummm..speaking of leaders emerging without election surely you mean just like the current Nulabour party…!
If I was a Democrat voter in the US I would be seriously miffed if the Party Bigwigs foisted Gore on me as the Presidential candidate. When it comes to Hillary and Barack, loathe them or despise them at least they entered the race, fought hard and made the best of it. Either one of them would be preferable to someone who has already had their chance and blew it.
Gore as VP, possibly, but it must be Clinton or Obama in the number 1 slot.
McCain would destroy Gore - 60/40
6 - I agree Gore isn’t going to be at the top of the ticket. I also think that it is highly unlikely that he will be on the bottom of the ticket either.
5. If you look at some of my posts on this site around 12 months ago, you’ll get a pretty good idea of where I stood on the Labour Leadership election. A proper contest and a different victor would have suited me.
1 - “African-American voters make up 45% of registered Democrats in the state.”
Are you sure? The polls I have seen weighting black voters at about 33%ish. If it is really 45% on the day then Obama is going to absolutely trounce Clinton there.
It’s a silly idea. Clinton and Obama may be damaging each other now but they have genuinely enthused primary voters in a way that Gore and Kerry never did.
Obama has the obvious charisma which appeals to black voters and a special appeal to black voters who see a chance for a real breakthrough. Clinton has less obvious charisma - and I know she has plenty of detractors here - but is a weighty figure with special appeal to women voters and those who hark back to what was a pretty successful period in the 1990s for many Americans.
To chuck that in for somebody famous for his inability to inspire of enthuse (albeit that he is a safe enough pair of hands) is just crazy talk. 41-1 doesn’t represent good value either although twice that would be fair (and I have small money on myself at that level).
7
McCain, at his age, would have trouble destroying a paper bag; upon what statisticl research do you base your figures of 60% to 40%? Amazing what some people will write.
Malcolm
12. As a young person I have to say I think people are making too mch of the age thing. This is a crucial election, what with George W, the war, a proper choice of alternatives; are Americans going to be too bothered by the age of the candidate?
“Amazing what some people will write.”
See 381 on the previous thread, for example. Also what does McCain’s age have to do with anything?
If Al Gore is the answer then the question is verging on the suicidal !!
……………………..
Latest Gallup Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 47% .. Clinton 44%
McCain 45% .. Obama 44%
Clinton 44% .. Obama 48%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105724/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-48-Clinton-44.aspx
re 13 and 14. Just watch the way the Dems will play it. Can you trust the future of America to someone who is liable to “senior moments” and who has a furious temper which comes on very easily.
He is the person least suited to take the 3am phone call.
15 - Jack, said with real feeling
Not going to happen. Al Gore represents the same liberal wing of the party as Obama. He also got horribly misrepresented during 2000 and many still believe that he claimed he invented the internet. To win this thing the Democrats will have to unite both wealthy liberals and the urban working class. They wouldn’t do that with Gore-Obama or Obama-Gore.
Although personally, I think Gore would have made an excellent President.
12 - I agree and believe the last polls on a possible McCain vs Gore match up were back last summer and actually showed Gore doing about as well as Clinton and Obama with a small lead over McCain (albeit McCain was not doing well generally at the time).
As I said at 11, Gore would have troubles with credibility and enthusing voters and I think he would go down to defeat. But he is not some kind of joke or hate-figure who would be at all likely to go down to a thrashing worse than Mondale in 1984 and only fractionally better than Goldwater in 1964. I would expect a defeat for him, but not a thrashing.
18 - Gore wouldn’t even make a good President of the Guild of Inflated Egos
Just seen David Herdson’s post 389 on previous thread,( re renting/buying) that guy is just so full of common sense, he’s almost a freak.
I’m turning into a fan.
20. Look at Gore the politician, not Gore the stereotype.
Furious temper is not to do with age though.
It’s strange that America doesn’t have quite the hang-ups about age that we do. Not when it comes to a President. I can’t imagine anyone in the UK who looked 70 being PM. We might accept someone well over 70 who LOOKED younger, but appearance is the key. The advertising industry has indoctrinated us into a frightening adoration of youth.
14. Menzies Campbell was hounded out for being about six years younger than McCain.
As for Gore, a clue would be if he was seen in a gym. Since retiring from partisan politics, he’s done a Huckabee-in-reverse.
21 - I’ll second that
7. Any evidence to support this? The only poll I’ve seen with a McCain/Gore match up was way back in 2007, which had Gore up 3 points 44-41, slightly outperforming Clinton and Obama (whose mumber were 44-42, 43-41 respectively).
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1075
24. I think there’s a lot more stereotyping of old people in the UK than the US. Many Americans love an elderly statesman. Just look at how much respect Reagan had, even from people who disagreed with him ideologically.
26. Which comparing those numbers to the latest polls linked too by Jack W, means that in the intervening year, neither Clinton nor Obama has convinced anyone new to vote for them!
28. Because they’ve been fighting for the vote that would already be theirs in a General Election. Things could easily change once they seek Republicans and Republican-leaners.
When taken in the round, the quote in Mike’s intro makes a lot of sense, but only when the key assumption in the first paragraph is stressed: “Let’s say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable”.
That is possible, but most unlikely. So far, Obama and Clinton have gone head-to-head for over two months, and have campaigned for much longer, without inflicting serious lasting damage on each other. The chances of them doing so now, when the Republican candidate is ready and waiting to take advantage, is surely lower than when the field was more open.
Even so, it might happen, or the media might dig up enough dirt to make both candidacies unviable, or something else might happen to rule them out. In that circumstance, the Democrats would need to find another candidate: Gore is one obvious choice; Edwards is the other. To my mind, 40/1 is way too short for Gore and 400+/1 is too long for Edwards. I’d reckon on 100/1 and 200/1 respectively, though only if you fancy backing very long outsiders.
Gore has numerous problems as a candidate in 2008, most of which were exposed in 2000, but which have been added to since. Two stand out. Firstly, he did not run for the presidency this time, which undermines his commitment for the job. Secondly, he is a much more overt environmentalist than he was in 2000, which will make attack-ads much easier for the GOP to run. I don’t think his being a loser in 2000 is that damaging. He did poll more votes than Bush and the shenanigans over the vote in Florida cast the overall result in a shadow.
Edwards has some of the opposite problems: he did run and got knocked out early on, which would make a charge of ‘third-best’ candidate easy to stick. As the most left-wing of the main candidates for the Democrat nomination, he also could have some policy difficulties against McCain.
One final comment. If Gore got the nomination, I see no chance of Obama being on the ticket. Anything serious enough to force him out of the contest for the presidency would make him an impossible choice as a running mate.
21. Thanks for the reminder. David H was in fact reply to a quote of mine and whilst I agree that he is very sensible and one of our best posters, I can’t agree with him on his point.
If fewer people are able to own their own property, that means renting. Most likely that will mean money being transfered from the poor to the rich. No that is often unstoppable, but we should be trying to reduce inequality not exascerbate the problem. it really concerns me that many Tories, even the most sensible ones, do not worry about rising levels of inequality.
David Cameron (unfortunately not as wise as his namesake) says he thinks people are worried about the financial gap between those in the middle and those at the bottom. One of the most revealing (in terms of his attitude) and mistaken things he has said.
17 John O. Indeed … oh Hersham sage !!
Looks like Paul Dacre has come to GB’s aid, re the wrong turn at the palace story.
http://tinyurl.com/3y3np8
Gosh! the Daily Mail being helpful to a Labour PM, we live in peculiar times.
10 Neil,
A-A’s make up 45% of registered Democrats; but when Indies are included, it may equate to the 33% of the total of those who will vote in the primary you are working with.
On the actual topis, ac someone who had a re-elect Gore 2004 screen saver, I’d would love it, love it, if he were the nominee.
Sadly, it’s not going to happen. The last real chance wnet when edwards dropped out, as soon as there were only 2 candidates it surely becomes inevitable that someone is the “winner”, even if the prcess is as convoluted as the Dem primary season.
That said, Gore’s had the most complete political transformation in a generation. He’s a cult figure for the Kos-ites and the new progressives in the democrats, he’s a media darling and a party leader. Compare that to the fate of other defeated presidential nominees, most of whom slunk off the national stage.
The only close comparison is Nixon and he less re-invented himself than picked up the pieces of political explosions all around him.
30 - Wise words, David and I agree with the positive reviews of your comment on the last thread.
One thing, though, is that I could just about see an Obama VP position. If a slice of the superdelegates were to go to Obama and say, “we will hand the nomination to Clinton if you don’t take part in a compromise ticket - and you can have a free run in eight (or four?) years if you join this brilliant Gore wheeze” he would be in a hard position to refuse. I can’t see enough superdelegates buying the theory but it is just conceivable.
How the Daily Mash sees the visit of the President of France.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/‘entente-amicale’-called-off-after-bastard-french-win-in-paris-20080327825/
34 - Thanks
33. Oh my goodness, that picture of Gordon kissing Mrs S is awful. Can see that one everywhere tomorrow!
31
I find it difficult to be lectured on fairness by a supporter of a party committed in princciple to equality: but responsible for the widening of the financial gap AND a reduction in social mobility.
Perhaps socialism does not work?
37
sorry try this
http://tinyurl.com/2ntxlk
33 You might have warned us that the linked contained gratuitous images of Gordon puckering up!
This is a weird one. I though the protocol for who is where at these events was co-ordinated better than the Royal Ballet. Someone will be getting their arse kicked for screwing up, that’s for sure.
Still, it is quite a larf….
31. I always find this talk about reducing income inequality interesting. The lowest earners who work full time probably get, say, 15K a year. The richest businessmen like Mittal earn millions and millions. Is someone on 15K year any worse off because a millionaire earns £10m last year rather than £5m? Do you really think any policy could make the difference between the very rich and the very poor orders of magnitude different?
Imagine we had two policies. Policy A increases the incomes of the poor by 50%, and does nothing for anyone else, thus decreasing inequality. Policy B doubles the incomes of the poor, but trebles the incomes of the rich. Would you really prefer Policy A?
24 - Ming Campbell was not hounded out because of his age, he was hounded out because he didn’t give the required leadership and impression of dynamism that a third party needs. I think a leader aged 60+ could succeed in UK politics, but Ming didn’t. Obviously he wasn’t helped by the contemporaneous resurgence of the Conservative party.
The attributes people look for in a POTUS can be somewhat different, of course.
31. Thanks for the nice comments, and to Coldstone and JohnKellett, too.
To answer your post on this thread, money generally ends up being transferred from the poor to the rich in the course of normal economic action, partly because of who owns the profits from business and land, and partly because the poor have to spend more of their income on necessary consumables (including rent).
That initial transfer is not of itself a problem; in fact, the processes which generate it contribute to economic growth. The problem is what happens if nothing is done to spread that growth and redistribute some of that wealth. If you believe inequality should be reduced, you would be far better off tackling it through the tax system than looking to policies to intervene directly into markets.
40 - This government is hardly socialist but once again this claim about declining social mobility is trotted out. There is, as far as I am aware, only one major study showiing declining social mobility when comparing a 1958 and 1970 cohort. This tells us nothing about this Labour government. We won’t know the effects on social mobility for a long time yet. As for the financial gap it has grown, but at a slower rate than it would have if the government had done nothing. Tax policy has been mildly redistributive but this has been unable to make up for macroeconomic trends.
31 - Not really, Frank. If you take out a mortgage, the money must come from somewhere. They are less identifiable than a landlord but ultimately they are rich people with spare cash to lend. With a mortgage, you get the house in the end (actually in legal terms you get it immediately with a charge over it but that’s not important). With rental you don’t - but that’s factored into the total amount you pay. Landlords charge less for an equivalent property than lenders for exactly that reason. It’s all a legitimate return for making property or money available for somebody else’s use for a period and there is no fundamental difference in terms of redistribution.
In fact, some of the richest people I know rent. They reason that it gives them more flexibility to move with work, and they see no fundamental need to buy. And they are right (although there can also be merits in buying if you are likely to stay in one place).
35. No, the most complete political transformation in a generation is Iain Duncan Smith.
God you don’t half talk tripe sometimes, Hopi.
43. Most Western European countries do not have our level of inequality. And by and large they are just as rich, if not richer than us.
If you have no concern over inequality, maybe you would be happy to see a re-introduction of the Edwardian style master-servant society? Money means power and i don’t like the way a few indidvuals can buy more and more of it. It will corrupt politics for sure.
40. You are joking by suggesting the current government is a socialist one, aren’t you?
46. I increasingly wonder whether economic growth inveitably causes increased inequality, just because of the nature of a normal distribution. If the average height of individuals in a society increased, I’m pretty sure it would cause a greater difference between the tallest and the shortest 10%.
No. However much bitterness Obama or Clinton getting it would cause they have both participated in it and got record turn outs/donations. saying that because you have two evenly matched excellent candidates means you ditch them both and go for last times looser is silly. Gore would be an excellent president but its not gone happen.
If things stay the way they are then its obamas, if by a minor miracle Clintons win the PV then i think she’ll squeek it on supers. Its gone drag on till May the 6th then the establishment will move one way or the other unless a scandal sinks someone in the meantime.
43 - It is a question of balance. There is a trade-off between wealth and inequality but it is not as stark as some assume. Infact redistribution can increase economic growth because those in poverty have a greater propensity to spend than the rich. Also it is not clear that higher taxes inevitably lead to lower growth. Average growth since the 1980s is lower than in the post-war period and Sweden demonstrates you can have a large welfare state and perform well economically. A big difficulty with the ultra-rich is that they are very hard to tax because they are mobile. Thus the non-doms issue.
However even asuming a trade-off a society with slightly less wealth and more equality may be preferable. Arguably this leads to a more cohesive society, with less crime and social alienation. The trend towards greater inequality is dangerous insomuch as it leads to fragmentation and ghettoisation with inner city ‘no-go areas’ and gated communities.
48. Just in case that wasn’t a level, Baskerville, I thought i should to respond
Do you think IDS’s transformation was complete after he won the oscar, the emmy or the Nobel prize? Or was his transformation complete when being seriously talked about as a future leader of the free world when not even running? yes, IDS has really turned things around for himself.
Clinton will be the Democrat Candidate, and Obama the Vice Candidate, and he will go on to become President in 2013…
50. No, left to itself, inequality will tend to grow in relative terms as well as absolute ones. Most of the growth will end up with those who own the means of production - land, labour and capital. Obviously, the working poor contribute their own labour, but most of the growth will accrue to those who own the profits, which will be the rich. The poor (and indeed everyone else) will also benefit from prices falling relative to incomes assuming that there is economic growth and that wage cuts are difficult to enforce - both of which are generally true in the UK. The rich also are generally much more able to set their own income than the poor.
49. “Most Western European countries do not have our level of inequality. And by and large they are just as rich, if not richer than us.”
The only Western European countries richer than us are those with smaller populations, in which wealth dispersion naturally filters through the whole system much more quickly. And how many countries have had our growth record over the last 20 years?
I never said I don’t have a problem with inequality, just that I think it’s far smaller problem than the absolute incomes of the poor. I would rather the bottom 10% of people be richer, than be closer in income to the rich. You never said your position.
And riches does not need to mean political power if you have sensible limits on political funding.
Happy Days http://tinyurl.com/2aywtl
And people moan about growing up under Thatcher!
48 Baskerville. So if Dave fell under the Clapham omnibus then it’s IDS to the rescue !!
Do not underestimate the quiet man …. Baskerville’s turning up the volume !!
I dont understand why the pursuit of equality of wealth is important, achievable or a noble pursuit anyway.
Its back to the envy discussion. I can imagine why those without wealth want a chunk of someone elses for nothing but that doesnt mean its a good thing or that they deserve it just because they are poor.
Wealth has to be created it doesnt simply exist as one big pot you can dish out in different ways. If the last years have shown anything (other than that GB’s powers were vastly exagerated) its that simply taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor (either directly in benefits or via public services)has made little or no difference. Equality of opportunity is not the same thing but is surely a much more admirable goal.
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common….Neither was there any among them that lacked: for many as were possessors of lands and houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according to his need.
Hmmm socialism? actually Acts iv.
There is this amazing book which I would urge every one to read.
‘The Pursuit of the Millenium’ Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages by Norman Cohn.
Professor Cohn shows how the roots of all Europe’s politcal beliefs, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism developed: its a must!!
When you have several million on benefits, they will always be poor relative to those who work.
Period.
It’s all about the ladder analogy. It is very easy for people to look up to the top of the ladder and moan about how high up it is (straightforward envy), and how far it is from the bottom (inequality). Far more important is where the bottom of the ladder is, and how easy it is to climb the ladder. If we can raise the bottom of the ladder and make it easier to climb, then everyone benefits.
Oh! and if seant is looking for source material for his own, ‘Da Vinci Code’ thats the book to read.
56 - Clearly absolute poverty is a greater concern than relative poverty. That is why the saliency of the issue is lower today. Most people have access to material goods, food and housing. However once absolute poverty is eradicated relative poverty remains a problem for those who want to see a cohesive society. In the scenario you suggest if the poor get a bit richer but the rich get a lot richer, then the poor will start to lead increasingly different lives. They will be unable to participate in many activities that the rich take for granted.
There is also a status issue. Many people would prefer a higher status to a higher income. We naturally compare ourselves to others. The super-rich are able to spend conspicuously, which pressurises those below them to keep up, and this spirals down the income scale. This keeps the wealth-creation system going but doesn’t necessarily make for a great society.
If you don’t have the bottle to slug it out through the primaries, you don’t deserve to have a shot at being president.
No one will buy into this - end of.
56. Growth that has been financed by huge levels of debt and a very poor savings record. The chickens are now coming home to roost.
You can discount Germany from comparison due to the cost of reunification, so I suppose that leaves France and Italy. Well I don’t think either has done that well, but that is hardly a great claim for British economic superiority.
We should have a similar attitude towards the rich as our european neighbours - end this tax haven nonsense - and start making sure we have a higher skilled workforce. We are very poor when it comes to the number of aveage skilled and lower skilled workers. Perhaps another explanation for our inequality and a result of a disgraceful education system that regarded many young people (a majority) as unteachable.
52. You can’t compare growth rates in the last 20 years to the rebuilding period after the war. That’s like saying Angola has better economic policies. You’re always going to get far higher growth when you are catching up to the world leader.
That may also explain Sweden’s higher growth rate - was there a gap between Sweden’s GDP per capita and Britain’s in 1980? It would explain higher growth rates until catchup if that’s the case.
As for your last point, I would argue that social alienation and crime don’t come from the rich accelerating away, but a lack of growth in those communities. Which brings us full circle: we need to focus on increasing the wealth of the poor, not inequality.
59 - I’ve addressed why equality is desirable. It makes society more cohesive and harmonious.
61 - I agree to an extent, and so would Gordon Brown. This government has been very focussed on the ‘deserving poor’. There have been no benefit increases (except for children). Instead there have been the minimum wage and tax credits to help those who work. You may question how well these work but the intention is there.
64. I don’t have the money to own a horse or to go on a luxury cruise every year, but that doesn’t stop me being able to get on with people I know that do. Nor does it stop me being happy, as my basic needs are met.
And I think most people judge how they are doing not compared to the very rich, but compared to how their parents did. So again, we’re focused on improving the incomes of the poor, generation on generation.
66. You will have no disagreement from me on the need for us to improve our educational system. Once you get the basics right, having talented human capital is a crucial component of growth.
It is becoming clear that BA would have trouble running a bath.
Thank goodness you don’t die if the baggage computer, the car park computer and the identity check computer have been badly programmed. Well done to the flight staff who managed to land and evacuate that 777 the other day with no fatalities.
Oh the shares went up 6P
61 - Employment is the only long-term route out. That needs policies that promote growth to make sure jobs are there and uses both carrots and sticks to get people into those jobs. Not easy.
67 - I haven’t got the time or skills to do a macroeconomic comparison across developed countries. We can’t possibly know the effects of tax policy on growth unless we were able to test two different ones at the same time on the same economy. Impossible. Clearly once taxes get above a certain level they impede growth, but not all taxes have the same effect and some public spending can boost growth. Logically there is an equilibrium point that achieves maximum growth. My point was that this should not be the only consideration. It is natural that we value ourselves in comparison with others. You could call this envy, but it is human nature. Substantial inequality prevents people from participating in society, especially one as consumerist as ours.
Perhaps BA should adopt the song
“Things can only get better”.
It stood up well for New Labour what about T5
68. You may have adressed it mate but that doesnt mean your right or taht redistribution of wealth will stop envy of the rich..people always want more..now you may be a communist and believe in common ownership and complete equality of earning irrespective of value of output. In which case I refer you to North Korea, 20th century Russia and the current PRC to see how that works.
Otherwise there will always be discrepancies between the rich and poor and their will always be envy of the haves by the have nots. Socrates is spot on..its not about attacking the rich or the welath generators its about increasing the wealth of the poor by raising their aspirations, providing opportunity and stopping the prevalent attitude that they are ‘entitled’ to something from the ‘haves’ simply because they are poor.
48 - yeah, IDS has transformed from Catholic reactionary, family traditionalist, Europhobe into… errr… the same but with a social conscience.
A very interesting discussion above. Is pb.com becoming the forum of British intellectuals? Well done, so far.
73. As ever apologies for shocking spelling and grammar..
69 - Society is increasingly consumerist and there is increasing pressure on people to keep up. Rising wealth among the super-rich means they spend more. Those just below them then feel they have to catch-up. This pressure percolates throughout society. But in terms of those in poor communities with poor prospects they will not have remotely similar life experiences to many others in society. If this escalates then society becomes ever more disperate.
My argument is not that equality is of over-riding importance regardless of the consequences for total wealth. However has some importance and should be taken into consideration when constructing tax policy.
73. I think most people would argue that China hasn’t been a communist country for a couple of decades despite being run by the Communist Party. In Gorbachev’s terms, they went for a policy of perestroika without the glasnost.
71. Kieran, you say that envy is human nature. To an extent, yes. But like most things it can be over-ridden. No-one frces you to compare your lot with everyone else’s. Actually it feels quite liberating to stop doing it. As for consumerism, we should try and do something about it, not just accept it.
So whilst I don’t believe in comparison and find our consumer based society ghastly, I still think we need to tackle inequality. I maintain that an increasing amount of assets in the hands of a very few is a disturbing development and something that does not proceed as rapidly in other Western countries - apart from the good ol’ USofA, of course.
67. You can’t ever make it an exact analysis, but regression analyses can be done - and I studied a lot of them during my degree. I came to the pretty strong conclusion that the most important determinants of growth were (1) A stable political system, (2) Catch-up to the world leader, (3) Open markets, (4) Basic infrastructure, (5) Lack of excessive taxes/regulation/union militancy, (6) Human capital, (7) Good infrastructure.
I agree with you that public spending can generate growth, particularly with respect to human capital and infrastructure. And besides that, there’s public spending which doesn’t contribute to growth but it still moral so it should be done. I guess I imagine that the equlibrium point is lower than you do. I currently think it’s somewhere between the US and the UK, hence being a Democrat over here and a Conservative over there!
Again, I think people compare themselves more to how the people they knew during their childhood did, than they do to the super rich. I don’t think people can’t participate in society just because they can’t afford everything the rich do. Besides, without the most draconian measures, you’re not going to ever be able to decrease inequality anything more than an order of magnitude (if you could even do that!) Will it make any difference to how “involved” people feel in society if the rich are only 10,000 times richer than them, rather than 100,000?
78 - David Starkey on QT about 15 years ago was booed for saying the Chinese had got it right by bringing in economic reform at the expense of political reform. Russia on the other hand had made a mistake bringing in political reform.
I knew he was right then. Without oil and gas, Russia would be severely screwed. As for the political reform in Russia, was it really worth it?
Given that wealth is a relative measure, it makes sense that the rich get richer at a faster rate than the poor thus increasing the gap between highest and lowest earners.
Let’s say we have 3 people U (upper class) M (middle class) and W (working class).
Year 0 they earn:
U 200
M 70
W 25
Just arbitrary figures to illustrate my point. Anyway, by Year 10 if they all get 200 added to their figures it looks like this:
U 400
M 270
W 225
Although the absolute difference is maintained the relative difference falls massively, ie the level earnings becomes homogenised and the rich become less well off relatively. To maintain a real, relative difference (and for someone to be rich they must have more than those below them) you need to double or triple the figures like this:
U 400
W 140
W 50
The absolute difference doubles but the relative difference stays the same.
Hmm. I thought this would be a staggeringly brilliant post, but as it happens I’m too sleepy to make my point properly.
I suppose it’s equivalent to the New Labour nonsense mantra of “Excellence for all”. Excellence is defined by its rarity and being superior to all else, its the educational equivalent of being rich. If everybody’s rich then no-one is because it’s a relative measure.
77
If you have ever been to some of the most deprived communities, the best thing for many of them is for the people to move to where there are jobs. Living in a former pit town in the middle of nowhere in a bleak landscape with no skills and no local jobs is as near to hell on earth as I can envisage.
Our benefits system means they stay there.
83. Agreed, but if you gut the benefit system too much you just get mass homelessness a la the United States.
73 - No need for the petty North Korea jibes. You’re right that inequality will never be eradicated, nor that people will always be happy with their lot. In many ways that is positive if people have opportunities to pursue their ambitions. In terms of absolute poverty I have an absolute position, that everyone is entitled to a basic standard of living. Food in their bellies and protection from the elements. Thus benefits should cover peoples basic needs.
When it comes to relative poverty it is far more about trade-offs. You cannot eradicate inequality but you can have a lower level of it. Fair enough if you don’t value that but surely you can see some of the reasons why others do, neither of us are ‘right’ we just value different things. My view is that those who work hard and ‘play by the rules’ should not be poor. Also when you talk about opportunity you need a certain level of equality to achieve that. Schools, however good, can never bridge the gap caused by a divided society.
78. Absolutely my point…communism has not worked and they have moved on to something else..unfortunately as you point out that something else is moving to a more capitalist economy whilst retaining all the unpleasant authoritarian hallmarks of the far left.
77. I cant say anything else other than I agree with your last paragraph entirely..I think its the detail where our differences remain..
On the definition of crime. Philosophers have define crime as ‘unjust redistribution’, where the only ‘just redistribution’ is a temporary ‘loan’ that must be repaid.
That is, it is illegal to tax the rich for the purposes of giving ‘free hand-outs’ to the poor. Such handouts simply reward indolence and idleness, they breed yet more poverty in thenext generation. They are irrational, defeating the very object they are intended to avoid.
The father of the welfare state is not Beveridge but Thomas Paine. When Thomas Paine first proposed the welfare state in ‘Rights of Man’ 220 years ago, he was very clear in saying that these benefits were simply a ‘temporary loan’ that allwed people could to tie themselves over till they got their next job. They were never meant to be ‘free handouts’ rewarding idleness.
There is a simple rule. If you can work and you don’t work, you die. If you can work and you do work, you live. There is no middle ground. There is no alternative. Any society doing any different will become extinct.
Charity is only for those that cannot work through no fault of their own, i.e. the genuinely disabled - not those pretending to be disabled so they can claim free handouts.
The current system in which people are rewarded with ‘cash gifts’ for idleness, where women are rewarded for producing children they cannot feed, cloth or house, is one destined to destroy itself. Not suddenly, but gradually, like the frog dropped on cold water gradually heated, and so boiled to death.
Our current state policies are sowing the destruction of our society and economy. It is an immutable law of nature, whatever species, whatever planet, that any society rewarding idleness must become extinct.
On the reply to point about rich working harder to be rich, on previous thread there was a post about the housing crisis. Remember the housing crisis is being caused by Labour’s planning regime in Britain, which creates arbitrary barriers to building. The 1947 busybodies charter allows every malicious person in every locality to interfer in how others best use their land - their private property. Our planning laws are an abomination that must be repealed. Do that and you solve you housing crisis overnight. Every minimum wage worker will have their own house.
80. Infrastructure/human capital. These are clearly areas where britain could improve, whilst bringing our tax policies towards the very rich into line with most countries. I can’t remember who it was who joked that Britain was a haven equivalent to the Caymen Islands?
Are you American btw? I assumed you were British.
The Spectator highlighted some (private) polling numbers, suggesting that both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama may be perceived as too liberal/left-wing to win a presidential election.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/americano/576231/the-numbers-on-obama-and-clinton-and-the-too-liberal-question.thtml
Socrates - I don’t think our positions are miles apart although I do see the equilibrium point as being, and I’m probably more willing to sacrifice wealth to achieve greater inequality. I agree that the super-rich are not a major issue, in that they are small in number and almost part of a different society anyway. The real concern is the gap between those at the bottom and the middle. But that is always difficult to deal with politically because those in the middle are most important.
Frank - Comparing ourselves to others is a natural part of being gregarious social creatures. It has positive effects in acting to spur us on to achieve more. The problem comes when the system is loaded very heavily against the success of one group and in favour of another.
Madasafish - You’re right and that happens to a certain degree already. But people will always make decisions based on non-economic factors, family and history etc. I don’t think they should be punished for that by being unable to heat their house at night. However I don’t think they should necessarily expect to be lifted out of relative poverty. Current benefit levels are not high, and a pretty big challenge to live on.
*as being lower*
85. You’ve made a good case, but I guess this is the bit I wish to centre in on:
“You cannot eradicate inequality but you can have a lower level of it.”
The rich are many, many orders of magnitude richer than the poor. Will it make any difference to motivation, feeling participated etc, if the rich are 10,000 times richer rather than 100,000?
And even if you did that, it would surely come at the cost of a LOT of economic growth - and thus absolute income for the poor. And I bet that even a small decrease in income (say £3,000 less annually) would do more harm to people’s psychological aspirations, than the benefit they get from living in a slightly more equal society.
So I guess my point is that, although you’re right that inequality does have a negative psychological effect, you can’t negate that even slightly without having an even bigger negative effect through lowering what their incomes would be.
Am I making sense at all?
re 43 Socrates less than £15k full time in the NHS. And just think all of them will be paying more income tax next weekend.
87 - “If you can work and you don’t work, you die. If you can work and you do work, you live. There is no middle ground. There is no alternative. Any society doing any different will become extinct.”
That’s not true. All the major industrialised countries have people that don’t work but live, and their societies have not become extinct, because we have so much wealth that we can afford to lose some through the welfare system. What if you can’t get a job because there isn’t one? This applies less now than in the 1980s, but is still an issue.
88. Speaking from professional experience you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the mega rich pay more taxes in other countries…the middle classes often do but they are not the ones utilising tax efficient planning anyway…
Wealth is mobile and there are plenty of places (including EU countries) happy to shelter wealth from all developed governments..
As Pricess Leia said to Moff Tarkin, the more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your grasp…(or something like that anyway)
Obama 49% Clinton 39% - a poll of Democrats
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/america/Poll-2008-National.php
Mr. Bean has now lost it completely. He is proposing an “Entente Formidable” with the French. We’ll be the laughing stock of Europe- is this his substitute for statesmanship?Next time we see him, he will be waving a little tricolor, I suppose.
93. The issue of comparison is an interesting one. There is some evidence I believe that after the introduction of television in the late 50’s, crime rose considerably in most countries. It was presumed that the disproportionate focus of television on the better off - which continues to this day, particularly in America - created a greater sense of envy in the less well off who were also watching. The advertising industry has extended this further, convincing people to seek material possessions they don’t need in order to keep up with the Joneses. Making people feel inferior about themselves and in desperate need to compare with others is a con of the advertising industry.
92 - No that its understandable. I have more of an issue with those detached at the bottom than the top. However I don’t see even this as cost-free for the reasons I’ve tried to outline above.
The super-rich see their wealth rise. They spend this on conspicuous consumption. Those just below them spend more to keep up. Those below them do the same. This effect percolates throughout society. People feel a constant pressure to keep up, getting more indebted and stressed in the process. That isn’t to say that you’re not right that the costs of taxing the rich do not outweigh the benefits. All that spending creates jobs and boosts the economy. There aren’t any easy answers but sometimes the balance doesn’t seem quite right.
O/T According to Iain Dale, Wendy Alexander has let the cat out of the bag by stating that the next General Election will be held almost as late as possible and certainly during 2010. Since Wendy’s brother, Douglas, is Labour’s campaign manager, this story therefore has some credibility.
No surprise, of course, I, stjohn and others have long been suggesting that Turkeys don’t often vote for Christmas.
98. As you say above, many people are immune to these attitudes that many others seem to fall prey to. I don’t know what the policy implications of that are.
And incidentally, I’m British but I live in the US, and have a lot of ties here.
A new North Carolina poll gives Obama a lead of 15%:
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_327_306.aspx
Neil - just to confirm that only Dems and Indies can vote - no scope for Republican mischief-making by voting for Hillary in this one!
I’m not an economist, so this puts it better than I could:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0607wkt.htm
99. It is always possible that, even allowing that negatives on both sides exist, the optimal equilibrium point is still at one end of the spectrum. I think the only things you can really do to tackle the poor feeling detached is to give a (significantly) larger personal allowance, have a more rigorous education system, better crime strategies in poor areas and raising their income by encouraging growth generally.
104. And a good retraining scheme for the unemployed.
100. The big question is, will it be May 2010 or June 2010? Surely Brown wouldn’t go to the absolute final month possible (June 2010) would he?
Err, if you wanted to call a snap election, perhaps it would be a good idea to get someone, such as the campaign manager’s sister, to make sure that your enemies were not expecting it.
99. Without wishing to sound like that buffoon Heffer, I think some incentive is required to make people take opportunities that we seem all to agree the state has at least some responsibility to provide. I am not sure transporting the Wisconsin model is quite right for the UK but some form of disincentive to the status quo must be part of the strategy.
Like some others have noted - I am loving the inquality discussion-
I had a discussion with my friends at the weekend where they stated “you cannot have rich people without poor people” - being somewhat of a contrarian I tried, and failed, to argue the opposite point. Can anyone here do better than me? In desperation, I accused them of being communists. Am I right? Can anyone argue the opposite point better?
107 A snap election wasn’t called by Brown when he had a poll lead - do you really think he is that cunning to call one when he is 15% behind?!
Money is, of course, abstract - it is paper and figures on spreadsheets - therefore the obvious power that goes with wealth seems to be self-evidently quite wrong if there is vast inqualities.
As a general rule I think Rawlsian theory where the rich can get rich as long as the poor are also helped along somewhat is totally sound…I guess…
This may be a better (and less longwinded) one.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f5e905ce-69d8-11db-952e-0000779e2340.html
I know it’s America again, but the principle is the same. Don’t necessarily believe in the trickle down myth.
110 he didnt call an election when the nationwide polls had him 10%+ ahead because he was going to get a reduced majority/lose/be the largest party in a NOC parliament. what does that say about Labours prospects now they are 15% behind?
When it comes to wealth inquality - never forget that the wealthy currently have a vast army of conditioned workers to their bidding for them-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7311542.stm
109 - Well the terms rich and poor are absolutes. Someone with a lot of wealth is rich, someone with little is poor. Therefore it is possible for everyone in society to be rich. However, the way in which many measure there wealth is in comparison with others. I am richer than x, but poorer than y. It goes to the heart of the debate. Which has more value for people greater absolute wealth or greater relative wealth? There is some evidence for both. But status is often more important. For instance survey data suggests people prefer a better job title to a pay rise.
108 - I reiterate the point that benefits do not provide much of a disincentive. They are very low and haven’t gone up under Labour. Benefits cannot explain fluctuations in employment. There has to be some element of stick in welfare-to-work programmes but it needs to be sensitive to individual circumstances. We need to make work pay better through the minimum wage and the tax system. We need to create more good jobs. We need to raise aspirations. We need to make education and training opportunities more available. But we also could do with raising the status of some jobs. Cleaners are vital and necessary to society but what incentive is there to be one? So, redistriubtion cannot solve all of societies problems but it is a part of the solution.
106. 2010 will see the London Borough elections. Could the General Election be run on the same day? It was on same day of the Locals in 1979, 2001 and 2005, but not London.
If not, seem to be 3 options. General Election late March (in 1966) or early April (1992) Or in June after the locals (1983 and 1987) but this is not comparable and could prove a very difficult backdrop if tide is still running strongly against Labour. Alternatively delay Local until June and hold early May.
115. I think it’s silly the way much of the right-wing media moans about couples on benefits with say 4 or 5 children taking home several hundred pounds a week. Whatever the ethics of these parents, they are hardly living the life of riley!
test
115 - err, thanks for answering - I had more to say but it keeps getting trapped in spam filter I think
119. You could argue that the poor are those in poverty, and poverty consists of not having food, shelter, freedom from crime, education, healthcare etc. Therefore a country where everyone has those things has a population which is entirely rich.
117 However reasonable,moderate centre-right views,held by a good few of my friends,it only takes one really nasty,niggling Daily Express headline to make me recoil.
I do confess to regularly reading the ‘Daily Mail’ online-this journal can,IMHO,go so far OTT that I have learnt to treat it with the intellectual disdain it brings upon itself
113. As I said throughout the last bout of election date speculation last year, the idea that there is a planned date this far out is laughable.
Firstly Gordon Brown is by nature a ditherer and decision putter-off extaordinaire.
Secondly he just isn’t the kind of individual who enjoys a fight, indeed his career has been remarkable for the number of times he has managed to completely avoid any kind of contest or election.
So it could well be that he waits and waits and waits until the last possible date before the unavoidable.
One side of me dreads the 2+ more years of having him there and being on standby here in Torbay but the consolation is that every passing season of his premiership adds 2% to our poll lead and at least 10 extra Tory MP’s in the next parliament.
116. I personally think the day will be May 6th 2010. I’ll be surprised if Brown goes all the way to June, but you never know.
Gore? Who’s idea is this, and does he work for Brown!. Obama and Clinton have fought tooth and nail for the nomination, giving it to Gore would be a slap in the face to the ordinary democrats and create resentment. That plus Gore didnt exactly do well last time.
115. Well it clearly is a disincetnive as we have so many people claiming them and so many jobs going to EU migrants instead…the great lie behind McSporrans boasting about emplyment levels.
117. I am sorry but when you know you are funding these extended families to effectively live off our collective earnings then a certain indignation is entirely justified. The irresponsibility of having that many children and simply expecting the rest of society to provide you with a living, however modest, is simply not supportable.
The Mail simply reflects some of this justifiable indignation.
Not that I am suggesting the approach put forward by the Conservative councillor earlier today..;)
122. they’ll only be speculating this far out, there’s dozens of things that could change a plan this far out, it would be pointless.
33. The most mendacious thing in that article is the description of Mrs. Brown as ‘chic’. Sack of chic is closer to the mark.
127, bit uncalled for. Sarah Brown hasn’t done anything to make herself seem other than a perfectly nice person, unlike her ghoulish predecessor.
127 - Vile, and utterly uncalled for.
127. thats not nice, she seems like a good person.
The relationship between equality-of-opportunity and equality-of-outcomes is less linear in the UK than it is on the continent. This is partly a result of the relative burstiness of our economy.
For example, I think it’s fairly clear that the UK has been in a boom fuelled by unreastically cheap credit for the past five or six years (the consequent inflation having been tempered by cheap imported consumer goods & labour this time round, thank goodness).
The boom’s created a bubble market in house prices (and other assets). Average house prices in my area touched 10x average salaries last year.
No-one who isn’t already on the property ladder can afford to buy their own home - and those who’ve managed to buy in the last couple of years will be the hardest hit by the coming wave of negative equity.
Both groups are much worse off that those who were able to enter the property market five or more years ago. And, no matter how hard they work to make up the difference, a small difference in the opportunities available to them will be magnified into a huge gulf between the eventual outcomes.
Prof Rallings is predicting the Tories are poised to make gain deep in Labours heartlands in the local elections;
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2008/3/26/81657/7150
I think this is the report SeanFear was talking about yesterday?
Generally I find these local election predictions from Rallings to be pretty inacurate. In recent years, if anything, I think they have tended to overestimate Labours vote share and underestimate the Conservatives share?
13 Sorry my reply took so long, been to meet my wife from her train. Just look at some of the photos that the US press have managed of H Rodham Clinton. They can make anybody look rough.
McCain looking tired or sick [and the media will get those pictures] is going to give the impression that Americans are voting for his VP. Reagan was used to make-up and looking tanned. McCain on the other hand looks as white as a ghost, and looks weak next to anyone standing next to him. He even makes Lieberman look like a sprite.
As for Gore? Love him to bits, not going to happen. When Barack Obama is elected Gore will get the role of working out ways with other nations to save our small planet from environmental destruction. McCain might even give him the job if he is elected.
Malcolm
59
I agree. Wasn’t it Christ who said something about camels, eyes, rich men and heaven? Can’t wait for all those entrepreneurs like Bob Maxwell turning up for coal duty.
Malcolm
Well I can’t say i wasn’t disheartened by one of posts getting trapped in the spam filter-
anyway - regarding inquality - I can’t be the only person who gets addicted to the Wikipedia See Also links-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diner%27s_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malibu_surfer_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion
125 - Employment is between 29 and 30 million. About 800,000 claim JSA and about 2.6m claim incapacity benefit. Total claimants = 3.4m. Let’s say that 1m of those cannot work (it’s probably higher). Those claiming benefits who could be working is therefore at most 2.4m. For a start there are only about 600,000 vacancies not enough for everyone.
But why are these people not working? 1. Benefits give them a good standard of living. 2. Jobs of sufficient status and wage are unavailable. My view is that you look at it the wrong way. There is not enough positive incentive to work.
The benefit system should provide a bare minimum for people to live on. The minimum wage and tax system should make work pay. There should be incentives for employers to train staff, people to gain skills. Yes some people who claim benefits are deliberately leeching off the system, but I’m sure most of them want a decent job.
On the child issue the indignation is understandable, but if you think for a minute it demonstrates people’s desperation that they decide to do that. And the government has to think of the children, it would be unfair to punish them for the mistakes of their parents.
132. Yes they tend to work from local by elelction swings over the year, which can be quite flawed when predicting an overall result.
Also Labour are dealing with seats last fought in 2004 when they had a very bad year. They should recover somewhat this time, that is not to say the Conservatives won’t do well, but to infer a Labour meltdown is probably misleading.
Would expect Lib Dem losses to Labour especially in the north, including the big one of Liverpool, offset to an extent by a lower number of net gains from the Conservatives in the south.
127 Does Rampton know you’re on the loose?