Ben Ansell
banner
benansell.bsky.social
Ben Ansell
@benansell.bsky.social

Professor of Comparative Democratic Institutions, Nuffield & University of Oxford, FBA. http://benansell.substack.com. BBC Reith Lecturer 2023. Host BBC Radio 4 Rethink. Columnist for Prospect. Director, Centre for Advanced Social Science Methods (CASSM). .. more

Ben W. Ansell is Professor of Comparative Democratic Institutions at Nuffield College, University of Oxford and, with David Samuels, editor of Comparative Political Studies.

Source: Wikipedia
Political science 47%
Economics 40%

Trust me buddy given my feed and this endless thread it feels like you’re the one with a platform

All this said, I agree with @sundersays.bsky.social that this kind of mass approach to housing asylum seekers is going to be expensive and unpopular. So I suspect the citizens of Piddintonia will get their wish granted.

I can tell you from personal experience that talking about tax rises to pay for rising costs of elderly population does not make one popular in the Express or Mail on Sunday. Apparently everything we want to do in Britain can simply be resolved by cracking down on welfare fraud.

Just a lot going on in the Bicester area
There are, genuinely, a half dozen or more thinktanks which are govt aligned/very close (Fabians, IPPR, ThinkLabour, NEF, Resolution Foundation etc) to govt.

The issue is not that there isnt space for this sort of thinking. Its that McSweeney didnt like the answers on tax/immigation etc

Yeh that’s my take too. It’s not a great situation for anyone.

I would imagine so does Bullingdon!

Since it’s about fifteen minutes drive, happy to do some online reporting in this faraway foreign country

Good location for a sitcom involving squaddies, escaped convicts, asylum seekers, Piddington villagers and Suella Braverman though.
The merits or demerits of the asylum seeker base aside, you might imagine from listening to the BBC that Piddington was an isolated rural village as opposed to already right next to HMP Bullingdon and a bunch of army bases.

I love how you have just gone to the absolutely nuclear max here in a debate over whether sometimes the Bluesky community might be over the top.

Steps away from the Michael Scott version of ‘I declare bankruptcy!’ style of getting things done.
We met with the new Science Minister Chris McDonald yesterday. He indicated his strong support across all R&D disciplines which was great to hear. He is keen to get to know the social science, humanities and arts, and has offered to meet with our community which we'll take forward

One of the interesting parts of the current debate is that lots of people on the wonkish 'centre-left' are talking about raising taxes on MIDDLE earners, with the understanding that doing so on high earners seems to have reached a limit. But then this vanishes in the political debate.

Given people’s concerns about collegiality I’ve deleted. I do think we should also be able to critique and I’m slightly torn I have to say but I’m happy to give up on this one.

Also having looked at those Latour figures, I am now permanently blind.

Colour me completely unconvinced. If it was two directional lines, sure. The politicisation part is just nonsense.
It is perfectly coherent to think that tighter fiscal policy was the wrong macro policy call circa 2008-2020 and is the right one now.
Because a lot of things have changed.
We’re in a different macro environment when it comes to interest rates and inflation.

Reposted by Ben H. Ansell

Maybe this will make up for the absent wedding invitation?

Reposted by Ben H. Ansell

Gives me a chance to re-up my Andy Capp line though

I started writing my fiscal pyramid of doom IPPR paper in February. It was not beyond the wit of man to see the problem. You just had to read any OBR report from the last two years.
This is ludicrous. The basic shape of the UK’s fiscal problem has been visible from space for years.

giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...

Reposted by Ben H. Ansell

This is ludicrous. The basic shape of the UK’s fiscal problem has been visible from space for years.

giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/...

Reposted by Peter Holmes

So as a union, even if you just cared about UK citizen workers (which they don’t but fine let’s assume otherwise), draconian immigration policies might well hurt the people you represent indirectly through these general equilibrium effects.

If employers can employ a group of immigrants who are under the constant threat of deportation then they can reduce working standards more easily. If those workers are substitutes for UK citizen workers then they are now MORE attractive to hire. Or alternatively you lower standards for everyone.

An unusual interpretation of how unions make decisions and indeed of labour economics.

Agree- it’s essentially tautological. None of the proponents as you say like the Saez prediction that it kicks in above something like 60 percent tax rates. So I believe it would apply to British grads earning £100k say but not many other people.