End of an era in Japan
August 31st, 2009 at 9:54 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The left-of-centre Democratic Party of Japan was set to win 300 or more of the 480 seats in the lower house of parliament, according to exit polls by all major Japanese TV networks.
The ousted Liberal Democrats have governed Japan for all but 11 months since 1955.
Hopefully the end of LDP monopoly on power will be good for the LDP in reforming itself.
Related posts:
- Various thoughts on Japan
- Japan and the TPP
- Japan to gain control of Int Whaling Commission
- Japan buying votes
August 31st, 2009 at 10:03 am
But David, we don’t want them to be too left wing in Japan.
Vote:We have enough trouble caused by a leftist in the USA.
Even though the Japanese economy has stalled in recent years, we should remember the role of the LDP in turning it into an economic powerhouse.
Indeed, I hope the LDP does reform itself and can once more attain office.
Effective competition works best, in politics as well as the general stage.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
One of the problems with the LDP is that it seems to have spent the last decade or two committed to the problem of how to stay in power rather than sort out the Japanese economic mess. Every time they put forward a reformer, vested interests worked to kill any reform programme. Banks and the construction industry are two of the bigger interests that have caused havoc and show no signs of letting up. It will be interesting if the Democratic Party can change this in any meaningful way.
Still, I suppose this is what the constitution after WWII was designed to do: ensure that there could not be a overly strong government again. The system in Germany has the same issue. The downside is, is that when change is really needed, there simply isn’t the system to do it quickly.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Good to see the people of Japan making a wise position, and further proof that the world is heading to the left following all the excesses of too many corporates and wealthy people.
National ought to take note. They were only elected after trying to appear to be left wing and inclusive but with all the cuts to education and welfare, with the dismantling of environmental policies and protection and with the stench of that word that starts with C I suspect that the people of New Zealand will follow those of Japan and the US and support more progressive parties next time.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
micky, yeah bugger that all enterprise and hard work when being progressive means i can lazily waste away, trapped on welfare forever. no, progressive is just code for a political elite ensuring that their caged voters are just well enough fed to vote, yet kept hungry enough to remain docile and to not vote anything other than left.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
“The party is also proposing toll-free highways, free high schools, income support for farmers, monthly allowances for job seekers in training, a higher minimum wage and tax cuts.”
Doesn’t sound very hopeful, apart from the tax cuts. Just more freebie handouts. Like New Zealand and most other heavily indebted Western welfare states, they aren’t facing reality.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Sounds almost like the tax cuts Bush provided the top bracket of American tax payers recently, with all the government surplus and debt reduction from the Clinton era?
Japan is now the third largest economy to America and China (recently surpassing Germany) – with this type of economic power and dominance it becomes very difficult to substantially jeopardize or risk economic performance and progress.
Rather than attacking the incoming party at every whim we should be prepared to give them the opportunity before we cast judgment and predict their failure – something most Conservative’s are guilty of doing consistently.
I wish Japan and its government all the best in its endeavour!
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
This is what happens when you rely on economic stimulus. TBH they should have been thrown out in the 90s.
It’s a good opportunity for the US to get Japan to look after its own defence for once though.
Oh, and Mickey: the right dominated the Euro elections, Obummer is as popular as ebola, Russia’s centre right has a 50% lead over the Communists and Phool Goof still has only 3% preferred PM rating. Your ideology is dying again. Deal with it.
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I have little faith in the ability of the Democratic Party to do well for Japan (though I hope to be surprised on the upside). But the LDP had to go. It was rotten, stinking, corrupt, in the pockets of bureaucrats, completely out of ideas… the list goes on. It should have been booted out of office long ago.
I suspect that best hope for the future in Japan is for a complete reform of the political landscape, with all the reformers getting together under one umbrella.
…Perhaps we could send them Roger Douglas?
Vote:August 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa, Bush lowered all tax rates, including the bottom one from 15% to 10%, as well as doubled the child credit:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6621
We should be prepared to provide the full facts, rather than selectively omitting ones that don’t support our case, something most leftists are guilty of doing consistently.
Vote:September 1st, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Indeed he did ISeeRed, one thing you fail to acknowledge however is the amount of opposition to such policy implementations from both Conservatives and Socialists alike.
There is a range of policy analysts and non-profit groups such as OMBWatch, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center that have attributed some of the rise in income inequality to the Bush administration’s tax policies.
George Bush attributes the rise in disparities to a weakened Education system but leading economists disagree – “However, prominent social scientists, such as economist Paul Krugman and political scientist Larry Bartels, have pointed out that education fails to explain the rising gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%, which has been the site of most increases in inequality.”
“The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration’s own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that “these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook… will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research… [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income.”
The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP), due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.
I do believe that these are the “full facts”.
Vote: