<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intergenerational equity and the perils of groupthink</title>
	<atom:link href="http://socialliberal.net/2010/06/20/intergenerational-equity-and-the-perils-of-groupthink/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://socialliberal.net/2010/06/20/intergenerational-equity-and-the-perils-of-groupthink/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:09:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex M</title>
		<link>http://socialliberal.net/2010/06/20/intergenerational-equity-and-the-perils-of-groupthink/comment-page-1/#comment-2401</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://socialliberal.net/?p=486#comment-2401</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more. The lack of a clearly articulated, plausible argument to underpin the policy being pursued is very noticeable.

Your argument - that the policy has a high risk of creating another lost generation - is spot on. I find the repeated emphasis upon &#039;our children&#039; in Clegg&#039;s speeches to be rather distasteful - not because the welfare of the next generation isn&#039;t important but because it is a rather crass rhetorical strategy to create support for the policy at an emotional level rather than providing a plausible rationale.

The questions you raise about what happened in the secret briefing with King and the Bank of England are important, particularly in the context where the Chancellor is handing the Bank more power and abolishing the FSA.

It was worrying that on Andrew Marr&#039;s programme this morning the Chancellor very explicitly dodged the question as to whether the Government would change tactics if it became clear that the budget strategy was driving the country into a recession. We are not only in TINA territory but also &quot;the lady&#039;s not for turning&quot;

I guess a further problem is that the Groupthink isn&#039;t just gripping the members of this government but most of Europe. Harder for the voices of moderation and reason to make headway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more. The lack of a clearly articulated, plausible argument to underpin the policy being pursued is very noticeable.</p>
<p>Your argument &#8211; that the policy has a high risk of creating another lost generation &#8211; is spot on. I find the repeated emphasis upon &#8216;our children&#8217; in Clegg&#8217;s speeches to be rather distasteful &#8211; not because the welfare of the next generation isn&#8217;t important but because it is a rather crass rhetorical strategy to create support for the policy at an emotional level rather than providing a plausible rationale.</p>
<p>The questions you raise about what happened in the secret briefing with King and the Bank of England are important, particularly in the context where the Chancellor is handing the Bank more power and abolishing the FSA.</p>
<p>It was worrying that on Andrew Marr&#8217;s programme this morning the Chancellor very explicitly dodged the question as to whether the Government would change tactics if it became clear that the budget strategy was driving the country into a recession. We are not only in TINA territory but also &#8220;the lady&#8217;s not for turning&#8221;</p>
<p>I guess a further problem is that the Groupthink isn&#8217;t just gripping the members of this government but most of Europe. Harder for the voices of moderation and reason to make headway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

