Economics professor accuses parties of wooing voters with dream populist policies

[robblok]

31 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You're right of course Rob! They never want anyone to check the detail or the reality.

 

Do you remember when the Shins wanted to borrow 2.2 trillion baht loan for government spending? And wanted to take the spending out of the checks and balances and parliamentary scrutiny? And Yingluck, when challenged, simply said "just trust us"?

 

Well that's how all the politicians here think. They really believe everyone believes everything they say; and never asks how it might be achieved or done.

Yes, i remember the 2.2 trillion baht loans, i could not believe it that they wanted to do that all off books without checks and balances. I just could not believe it, they had so many corruption scandals already going and then asked them to be trusted with 2.2. trillion without oversight. Had the junta not stepped in the Shins would have feasted off that money. (and yes I know it was not why the junta stepped in but at least it stopped some of the Shins dirty works). 

 

Anyway seems the political parties want the junta to change but they themselves don't wan't to up their game and show how they finance their promises. That kinda sums Thailand up its always the other party that is corrupt and has to change but never themselves. Junta did it and now the political parties.

 

Not to long ago there was an article that stated that non of the political parties had a zero tolerance for corruption policy for their own. That also says it all, they love to go after others but never themselves.

 

Its sad actually that things don't improve at all, all they can do is blame others instead of themselves making meaningful changes.

[Eric Loh]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

All populist policies, be it cash handouts for the poor, free social security or a welfare state, can only be implemented using tax revenue, yet none of the parties have explained their planned tax measures to raise the funds needed for their implementation, said the professor.

I can agree to that comment and we can be sure that any excessiveness and budget overreach will be scrutinized within legal framework, debates in Parliament and freely expressed by media and activists when we have democracy and an elected government with a tenure. Who can say it’s not an improvement over the current opaque and free expression bounded by intimidation non elected government. No comparison at all. Bring back democracy and rid this current corrupt coup government. 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I can agree to that comment and we can be sure that any excessiveness and budget overreach will be scrutinized within legal framework, debates in Parliament and freely expressed by media and activists when we have democracy and an elected government with a tenure. Who can say it’s not an improvement over the current opaque and free expression bounded by intimidation non elected government. No comparison at all. Bring back democracy and rid this current corrupt coup government. 

I guess your skipping a few steps just so you don't have to comment on the failure of the political parties. The professor is right to comment on this.

 

You are right it will be scrutinised within the legal framework with debates and all but that is AFTER an election. So they can make false promises and later let them fail in the debates. (after having won votes on promises they could never keep)

 

Its far more logical to ask them to show how its financed before the election so the voters can truly see what it will cost and how it will be done. That would make it fair for all because all of them would have to come up with finances for their plans. 

 

I said it before its quite normal to have this in real democracies, at least where I come from. Not doing so is just a sham.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

said it before its quite normal to have this in real democracies, at least where I come from. Not doing so is just a sham.

Not sure which body you referring to that scrutinize political parties policies. Are you referring to the PBO which is the parliament scrutiny of the budget. Are you mixing things up to make a point. Would like you to clarify and identify the entity.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not sure which body you referring to that scrutinize political parties policies. Are you referring to the PBO which is the parliament scrutiny of the budget. Are you mixing things up to make a point. Would like you to clarify and identify the entity.

I am Dutch in my country there is an organisation that takes all the plans of parties and puts them in a computer model for a few different kind of economic scenarios. All the plans must pass this scrutiny so parties can't make election promises that are impossible to keep. (centraal plan bureau is the organisation that does that in my country)

 

I thought it would be something all mature democracies have, to make sure that promises can be kept and would not be based on hot air. Seems like a logical thing to do so there is a level playing field. 

 

 

(below an news article about it in Dutch sorry, it shows not only if the promises can be kept but also how it will affect the economy, education, differences between income, ect) This way the voters in my country get clear information before voting. 

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/zo-pakken-de-partijprogramma-s-uit-bekijk-de-doorrekening-per-onderwerp~b403a57e7/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am Dutch in my country there is an organisation that takes all the plans of parties and puts them in a computer model for a few different kind of economic scenarios. All the plans must pass this scrutiny so parties can't make election promises that are impossible to keep. (centraal plan bureau is the organisation that does that in my country)

 

I thought it would be something all mature democracies have, to make sure that promises can be kept and would not be based on hot air. Seems like a logical thing to do so there is a level playing field. 

 

 

(below an news article about it in Dutch sorry, it shows not only if the promises can be kept but also how it will affect the economy, education, differences between income, ect) This way the voters in my country get clear information before voting. 

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/zo-pakken-de-partijprogramma-s-uit-bekijk-de-doorrekening-per-onderwerp~b403a57e7/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

 

 

 

Thanks but I don't read Dutch. In any case, just for argument sake, what if the political parties in your country had policies nicely balanced in your model assimilation and renege or change the policies after elected. Good example in USA when Trump went on a populist agenda to renege and gave tax cuts to the rich after being elected. Really not a effective method IMO.

 

Here the parties campaigned on their policies and if they win will have to be accountable to the people who voted them in. They will have to ensure that there are sufficient funds to finance those policies within the Fiscal and Financial Law on budget deficit and debt to GDP. In addition to them being under the eagle eyes of legal entities, oppositions, activists and NGOs. When their tenure is over, the voters will be the ultimate arbitrators of their performance. 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Thanks but I don't read Dutch. In any case, just for argument sake, what if the political parties in your country had policies nicely balanced in your model assimilation and renege or change the policies after elected. Good example in USA when Trump went on a populist agenda to renege and gave tax cuts to the rich after being elected. Really not a effective method IMO.

 

Here the parties campaigned on their policies and if they win will have to be accountable to the people who voted them in. They will have to ensure that there are sufficient funds to finance those policies within the Fiscal and Financial Law on budget deficit and debt to GDP. In addition to them being under the eagle eyes of legal entities, oppositions, activists and NGOs. When their tenure is over, the voters will be the ultimate arbitrators of their performance. 

Eric, i know you don't read Dutch but just wanted to back my claim up. But it has nice graphs too that you could read.

 

The method is superior to many as it levels the playing field, strange that you don't see it. It does not mean they cannot change their mind. But it means they can't be elected based on promises that are not financially viable. So i takes care of the part BEFORE they are elected not AFTER like in your case. So lying is something that works in systems that don't have that check before the elections.

 

The other checks you talk about fiscal rules and so on apply in the Netherlands too but that is after a party is elected. So we just have extra checks

 

When you don't do something like this people can promise everything (i mean financial not viable) and win an election based on fraud and lies. If you think that is good then so be it. I prefer systems that level the playing field and make sure everyone is informed.

 

As i said it does more then just calculating if plans are viable, it als shows if it will help to close gaps in income differences, jobs, economic growth. This way voters vote on substance not hollow untested words.

 

I really thought this was something other countries had too as it seems so logical and honest. I guess that is why North-European countries score better against corruption than the US, if you look at sites of https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018  we believe more in a check balances and a level playing field.

 

 

[mmushr00m]

All populist policies, be it cash handouts for the poor, free social security or a welfare state, can only be implemented using tax revenue, yet none of the parties have explained their planned tax measures to raise the funds needed for their implementation, said the professor.....

 

That's basically every country in the world during election time. Some will even promise you all that plus a tax cut

[robblok]

4 hours ago, mmushr00m said:

All populist policies, be it cash handouts for the poor, free social security or a welfare state, can only be implemented using tax revenue, yet none of the parties have explained their planned tax measures to raise the funds needed for their implementation, said the professor.....

 

That's basically every country in the world during election time. Some will even promise you all that plus a tax cut

Please speak for yourself, in The Netherlands they check election programs to see if they are financially sound. They all get checked by an independent organisation. So nobody can make fake promises BEFORE an election.

 

Some countries have evolved their democracy to counter this kind of behaviour. Something Thailand should do to (though i doubt they could find a non bias independent organisation but its good to aspire to more). Not to mention the US looks like its going down hill over there (politically speaking).