Labour leadership: Divided on the deficit

Hi Nick,
Just make sure you remind people that Labour had £40bn of cuts planned but have refused to say where they would fall. "Deficit deniers" is close to the mark indeed.

A pointless exercise, surely.

Call Me Dave expects to have wiped out the deficit within this Parliament, so any time spent by Labour in navel-gazing would be better spent watching our fleet (i.e. naval-gazing) instead!

a BBC conspiracy to examine the most important issue of the day.

Yes, it's high time your skills were brought to bear on the unmasking of the Stig.

Nevermind the deficit, that is the least of our problems .. the National Debt is growing by roughly £1,000,000,000 every two days and currently stands at about £943Bn.

That is the real legacy of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Ball's.

The deficit ( and debt) is far too large now to imagine any amount of spending cuts can suffice.

Emergency measures are needed. No public employee can earn more than the prime minister - including everyone at the BBC.

Would this perhaps start some kind of fiscal responsibility? And tax-payers might see something of value for all the money spent.

We might get a load of dead weight removed from the public sector, allowing front-line workers to get on with it. Obviously those reluctant to give up their enormous salaries would be welcomed into the private sector with open arms if they truly are worth the money.

High ideals unaccompanied by self-discipline is as we have seen an utter disaster.

What a timely reminder of how close we came to having a replica of the Weimar republic in this country under newlabour.

An unchecked deficit, collapsing currency, soaring inflation and interest rates and the destruction of peoples' savings....an ideal outcome for any totalitarian regime. A potential outcome that was rejected at the election.

It was plain to see that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls preferred setting was spend more money we don't have and here one of them is telling us we should have them and their ideas back again.

No thanks.

Sound money, deficit reduction, private sector recovery is the only way out of the mess created by the profligate antics of newlabour.

If they still couldn;t fix the leaks in schools after thriteen years no amount of money was ever going to be enough for that bunch of spendaholics.

Happily this little outburst will serve to swerve the labour bandwagon to the left and keep them out of office for decades.

As their ex-leader has pointed out to them; the tories have all the options now. You can only win an election from the centre and labour is lurching well left of it.

Carry on lurching you deficit deniers.

It's a great time to be a tory...

"At last a substantial issue has surfaced in the Labour leadership race. It's the deficit and how quickly Labour should pledge to cut spending to tackle it."
==================================================

An interesting comment, but this had to be taken in the context that most of the Labour Leadership contenders were in the government which had quite a period time to "tackle" the deficit, and in the case of Ed Balls, were quite central to approach actually taken. Difficult to see, given the concept of "collective responsibility" of government that any of them can now credibly deviate the approach. Or perhaps it was really "collective irresponsibility" ?

For me, the problem for the Labour Party extends far beyond the election of a new leader, but fundamentally what does the Labour party stand for ? Who are their intended "core" supporters ?

Nick wrote

"I am travelling down the A1 making a series of films on public attitudes to spending cuts and how to deal with the deficit."

Don't text whilst driving it is dangerous.....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Old opposition hands advise that it is never wise to spell out what you'd do in government years before an election."

It took labour a long time and a new generation to realise that they were not in government and learn how to be an opposition in the 80's. The Tories had the same problem during the Blair era. Cameron and Blair were able to create an election winning position that was different to the sitting government whilst not being hampered by their own track records and dogmas.

I fear that this generation will make the same mistake as Foot, Kinnock and co leaving the Lib/Cons with a majority for years. Even I as a conservative have some concerns about that.

rockingRobin7 @ 6

As I've recently read the book 'When Money Died' which is the very gruesome story of Weimar, then you might be guilty of over-egging it just a tiny bit by suggesting 'how close we came to having a replica of the Weimar republic in this country under newlabour'.

Nevertheless, to paraphrase your strapline, it's always a great time to be debt free ...

JC at #11

The problem with under egging any pudding associated with newlabour is they set about to test every theory to destruction.

So whether it was immigration which rapidly ran out of control, or education where grade deflation evetually became endemic, or banking deregulation that became so loose no-one had any odea what was happening; everytime they try anything they keep doing it until it breaks.

I do not think it is an exaggeration to compare the newlabour plans to continue pumping the econmy with money to what happened in Weimar Germany.

Many of us have read 'When money dies' and it is a seminal reminder of what happens if you go down this path; all of a sudden you can't stop sliding and the middle classes' savings are destroyed. it's exactly what would have delighted the likes of Ed Balls and Gordon Brown and it's not a very big step to declare a state of emergency and refuse to have an election.

We were saved only just in time and even then Gordon Brown squatted until the Libdems refused to deal with him. It's truly shocking that people feel even a shred of sympathy for the way he behaved during this time after the collapse of the newlabour vote.

It's a great time to be a tory and we shall be in power for at least three terms thanks to the ridiculous denial of newlabour.

Cutting spending to reduce deficit is victimising the weak and often the innocent.

What comes after universal cynicism?

rockingRobin7 @ 12

I'm not convinced that the many 'modern' politicians are comfortable with the notion that equitability is achieved by 'destroying the middle classes savings', although presumably Tony Blair sensed that was what might happen re:pensions when he had his now infamous row with Gordon Brown about the pensions tax credits withdrawal.

Roy Hattersley came up with a view in a recent Times piece, which was that basically people should not be allowed to 'choose' because the disadvantaged in society does not have the luxury of choice, so none must have it, and succumb instead to the 'collective'.

Bottom line: people with money have choices, which naturally includes those politicians who somehow have become multi-millionaires through their public service e.g. the unlamented William Hague and Tony Blair.

Good work...

...it will be interesting to see if the tories actually have a mandate for destroying thousands of people's lives and taking us back into recession.

12. At 3:10pm on 03 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

I do not think it is an exaggeration to compare the newlabour plans to continue pumping the econmy with money to what happened in Weimar Germany.
============================

Looked to me like we were coming out of the recession: unemployment down, business confidence up, RECORD GROWTH.

Thank god the tories have come along to rescue us from that and plunge us back into recession.

How proud I am that our saviours have now brought us to a pinacle of civilisation where our kids will continue to sit under leaking roofs whilst the craftsmen who would love to replace them sit on the dole.

Perhaps the craftsmen should do a bit a driving for the tory party and get taken on as an 'adviser'? That seems to be the only line of work with any prospects.

#12 rockRobin7

Excellent comment agreed by the 19 million of the electorate who would not support the barmy last lot of government.

Labour "Divided on the Deficit"! They were and still are clueless about what to do about either the deficit or the huge debt which still doesn't show public pensions shortfall and PFI. Balls and Millibands and the other leadership candidates still brag about all the new hospitals and schools they built but fail to say they haven't been paid for, so where did all the money go?

Amazing how even the most ardent labour supporter still cannot acknowledge that Labour had to defer the spending review whilst in government as they had not a clue what to do about the fragile state of the economy as well as every other aspect of life in England and neede to conceal this fact from the electorate.

I think that most of the comments are missing the point.

There never was a real risk that the UK would suffer a similar fate to that suffered by Greece, let alone the Weimar government. See Stephanie's blog "UK economy:Some good news from the IMF".

Osbourne, either because he really is economically illiterate, or deliberately in order to use the fear factor to win the votes of those who are, deliberately exaggerated that risk.

The Labour government, instead of challenging Osbourne's thesis, responded with a typical piece of New Labour "me too-ism", which sealed its fate.

It is good news that at least one senior Labour politician was intelligent enough to realise that this was folly.

None of the Labour leadership contestants were bold enough to challenge Gordon Brown - odd given Tony Blair's commentary this week. Now the budgetary issue has them in a corner. It's crying out for some statesmanship. Ed Balls' contribution on the matter looks as if he has thrown in the towel and is ready to sit on the back benches.

Meanwhile others are revelling in the silly season viz Ben Bradshaw writing to Mark Thompson at the BBC about his visit to no. 10. All rather bizarre. No-one in the Labour Party is rising to the challenge of effective opposition.

"If David Miliband wins the leadership contest it would be nigh on impossible to make Ed Balls shadow chancellor since they have publicly disagreed on the most important aspect of economic policy."

Nick,
I would have thought if Labour had any expectation of regaining government next time around that Balls taking up the shadow chancellors role was the most ridiculous way of going about it. He does not show any sign of understanding the basics of financial mechanisms at all.

It would be tantamount to announcing that they did not intend to contest the next general election to my mind.

The trouble with your hyperbole, Robin, is it leaves you nowhere to go. This latest piece of whimsy, for example – if you liken our economy pre May 2010 to that of Weimar Germany, how will you describe it if (god forbid) it ever does come to merit (even remotely) such a comparison. Guess you’re just assuming that sorry state of affairs will never come to pass. A touch complacent, if you don’t mind me saying.

16. jon112uk

"Looked to me like we were coming out of the recession: unemployment down, business confidence up, RECORD GROWTH."

Well you'd hope for something to come out of the substantial QE that took place. Not sure if you can say the growth would have been sustained though. The markets were looking uneasy at the prospect of more Labour and rallied when the coalition deal was brokered. We'll never know if Labour would have managed to halve the deficit in four years or how and where their cuts would have been made. So it's all speculation. I suspect that the coalition's political rhetoric will not translate directly into the severe (fast, deep, however you want to describe them) measures that we hear via the media amplifier.

"It is good news that at least one senior Labour politician was intelligent enough to realise that this was folly." - 18

Yes, Balls' position (that the "halve the D in 3 or 4 years" plan is more macho posturing and/or wishful thinking than sober & sensible economic/fiscal policy) is a distinctive and defensible one. He's looking a no hoper for the leadership, though. Probably just as well - for Labour - since his appeal to Middle England runs at around Abu Hamza levels.

The labour leadership contest give me an 'ed ache'!

I have just dissected the deficit neo-Keynesian vs doctrinaire debt cutting arguments on Stephanie Flanders's blog - but come to the conclusion that neither will solve the problem that we have in this country. (Too much private debt / over priced assets.)

Tony B. (aka M. Thatcher 2) took the party to the right of the Tories in many ways. It is only natural that some retrenchment and retreat must happen. Frankly who in their right mind would want to run the country for the next five years (and possibly the five years after that.) The biggest risk the Labour has is that the coalition will collapse and by default it will be thrust back into office far far sooner than it wants.

So elect Diane Abbott as at least she has some values and as far as I know she doesn't like bankers or Mrs Thatcher.

The size and pace of the overall cut is irrelevant to Labour as a battle ground. They can put some energy into putting forwad an alternative, but a the end of the day all this will achieve is perhaps an opportunity to say in 2015 'we told you so'. At this stage of the parliament there will be insufficient defectors from LibDem ranks to challenge the government's authority. If Labour were the lead party in the government I would be saying the same things about the Tories. The opposition can have no influence on the size of the cuts.

The real battle and the real opportunity for Labour is to challenge where the cuts will fall. Do we slash Defence spending in order to keep Foreign Aid at a high level? Do we want a transport system for the future or more police now? These are real decisions which will affect our lives way beyond any reduction in the deficit. It will an opportunity to show what the opposition stands for, what is distinctive about it. Most of all we need an oppostion that is challenging the government, one which is getting itself known.

The deficit discussion is not important to Labour; where the cuts fall is. Just saying that they didn't think the size of the cuts were necessary when referring to a specific cut will be seen as doing the job of opposition in an ineffective and cowardly manner. They should focus on what they may be able to influence, not what is beyond their power at the moment.

#10
"Cameron and Blair were able to create an election winning position that was different to the sitting government whilst not being hampered by their own track records and dogmas."

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Cameron and Blair won because the governments of the time had run out of steam. Governments lose elections, oppositions just happen to be there to win it.

Perhaps the biggest "deficit deniers" are those who refuse to see that £60B+ of the deficit is down to bailing out the banks. Could it now be that the government will make the taxpayers pay this part of the deficit off whilst letting the banks off paying it back? Also Private eye has an interesting story about the treasury calling off HMRC chasing Vodafone for £6B of possibly owed tax, which is the same amount as the chancellor cut in the budget. Hopefully when the labour leadership is decided the opposition will go after some of these issues and show that handling the deficit could be done in a much better way. Maybe Nick in your up coming films you could look at some of these accounting annomilies, but after seeing the news today about BBC boss talking to Number 10 about how to report the upcoming spending review I'm not so sure it would be a good idea.

It's not surprising that Ed Balls thinks the coalition is cutting the deficit too quickly. As one of Gordon Brown's most loyal lieutenants, it was the policies he supported that got us into this mess in the first place.

They still don't get it!

You can't spend your way out of debt. And the longer you leave dealing with the problem, the worse it gets.

One of the (many) reasons Labour was trounced at the recent election was that voters had zero confidence in their ability to repair the economy, or to put right the problems Brown had caused through tax-and-waste.

Mr Balls clearly hasn't learned any lessons and is merely offering more of the same.

Unfortunately, none of the other candidates inspire any confidence either. Hopefully voters will remember that Labour governments always end in disaster.

PS. After my apology earlier in the week I have a confession.

It sounds rather more like an advert than a confession, if you don't mind my saying.

We have a coalition government as a result of Labour not getting trounced (ref 28) at the last election. In 1997 Labour managed to appeal to a far broader strata of the electorate and hence managed a massive majority despite only 43% of vote. Cameron's Tories simply didn't manage to appeal to enough people and crucially get deep enough into Labour territory to secure even a majority. Now true blues may complain about the voting system but that just shines a light on the inequities of the first past the post which the Tory party is so determined to keep.

Labour polices have helped to keep unemployment down at 2.5m - that is a bad enough number. If the debt was half what is is now we would have far more unemployed. We now hear more and more commentators being far more guarded about the private sector picking up public sector workers as this govt slashes them.

Labour should have been far far more careful with our money and they have been punished for not being, but we do have to recognise that in terms of a massive global recession we have avoided total disaster and have a chance of riding things out over a difficult medium to long term. Unfortunately I think the tory coalition policies will stop this in its tracks.

Ed Balls is wrong, Osborne is badly wrong, Darling and Cable were closest.

27 notfooledsteve

"Perhaps the biggest "deficit deniers" are those who refuse to see that £60B+ of the deficit is down to bailing out the banks. "
===========================================================

I think everyone is aware of this, but this still leaves the insignificant deficit of around £900B - at present - rising to heaven knows what figure when at it's peak in the future.

Perhaps the "deficit deniers" can explain where this $900B has come from ?

Oh dear. I see my comment number 9 has been withdrawn for "further consideration" .....

I see Robin predicts three terms for his beloved Tories...when will the first begin ? I know its hard to believe but I think there are some (now what were they called again ? Oh yes) LibDems in the present shower.

A more measured deficit reduction has been put forward by many leading economists..it is not deficit denial.

The speed and severity of the cuts announced by Osborne and endorsed by Clegg (although just when he was converted is still not quite established) looks like dragging us into real trouble...if not double dip then a prolonged period of scraping along the bottom. Deficit Hysteria you could call it.

Of course behind this is a ideological move to shrink the state permanently, as stated by Cameron in one of his "meet the public" PR stunts...fully endorsed by the LibDems in cabinet who after all are from the right "Orange Book" wing of the party.

Don't be fooled by the no alternative tripe...

# 30. TheGingerF

"Cameron's Tories simply didn't manage to appeal to enough people and crucially get deep enough into Labour territory to secure even a majority."

Correct. But the Tories still managed to increase their vote, whilst Labour and Lib Dems both lost seats. The Tories were shooting at an open goal, but the reason they didn't do as well as expected was largely down to a lacklustre campaign that few people could connect with.

You say "If the debt was half what is is now we would have far more unemployed."

The suggestion you appear to be making is that you can artificially keep people employed by spending more public money - a traditional Socialist solution. The only problem is, it never works in the long run. In the end, Brown ran out of 'our' money and had to start printing more - normally the sort of thing one would expect of a tinpot dictatorship, not a western democracy. Paying for non-jobs with 'funny-money' is a recipe for economic ruin, which exactly what Brown has left us with.

When Brown first became Chancellor, he talked about "prudence". That didn't last long, did it?

You say "Labour should have been far far more careful with our money"

I agree, but the problem is, Labour doesn't understand the concept of 'our money' - and never has. They believe in Big State solutions, tax and spend. They believe it's OK to take whatever they want, and if it gets wasted, never mind, there's plenty more where that came from - and if there isn't there's always the printing presses.

In a civilised society, we expect to pay taxes. But there is also an expectation that governments will spend our money wisely and not chuck it down the drain. Unlike Robin Hood who took from the rich to give to the poor, Brown took from everyone and wasted it. Instead of reforming public services to make them more efficient, he allowed public spending to spiral out of control.

That is the real failing of Labour.

If the current coalition government were to fall apart and we faced another election sometime in the next few months does anyone think that any of the five candidates for the Labour leadership would offer meaningful alternative leadership to the nation?

The two Millibands are clones of what Chris Mullins describes as "The Man". (There's a fascinating Radio 4 serialisation of Mullins's 2005-2010 diaries being broadcast at the moment). Neither Milliband has any real life experience outside the political firmament so are unable to relate to the life of the man in the street other than at a theoretical level. They seem to me to be the Labour equivalent of John Redwood. Quite frightening.

Dianne Abbott - a jolly, overweight lady, who has a twinkle in her eye for Michael Portillo but who can hardly be regarded as a serious political figure.

Ed Balls - (apart from the unfortunate surname), forever to be remembered as a significant member of Brown's spend, spend, spend team. An economic illiterate. Partly responsible for the appalling financial situation in which the country now finds itself.

Andy Burnham - at a personal level the most likeable candidate, but hardly the sort of individual you would want representing the UK at the international table in the event of some significant crisis.

A team of pygmies when giants are required.

What a sorry state of affairs to see the Labour party to have descended to, after only three years of Brown's leadership. He has to rank as one of the major failures of any political party in recent history.

To seek the top job for so long and then to fail so spectacularly is rather sad.

It is important to know the difference, the 'deficit' is an annual event, so if the deficit is £150bn this year, then that is £150Bn to add to the National debt, which currently stands at £943Bn.

If the deficit is halved next year, that is still another £75Bn added to the National Debt.

943+150+75=1168, that is, £1.168 Trillion pounds.

This massive National Debt has to be serviced, the interest payments alone act like an unwelcome tax and this debt mountain is predicted to grow to around £1.5Tn over the next few years.

There must be some kind of way out of here?

From what I read, professional commentators seem to think that some magic combination of economic growth, 'leaner and meaner' State spending aka 'cuts', plus an injection of inflation via QE Mark II, will do the trick.

Unfortunately, we are not Norway, which I read recently is currently the most stable economy in the world, even though we started from roughly the same place when North Sea oil was discovered a few decades ago.

That is the very high price we citizens are paying for not being particularly interested in politics, thus allowing the unmentionable to do the unspeakable, which has bought us to this low ebb.

27. At 6:33pm on 03 Sep 2010, notfooledsteve wrote:

Perhaps the biggest "deficit deniers" are those who refuse to see that £60B+ of the deficit is down to bailing out the banks.... Also Private eye has an interesting story about the treasury calling off HMRC chasing Vodafone for £6B of possibly owed tax, which is the same amount as the chancellor cut in the budget.

===================

Of course £60b+ was the banks fault that only leaves about £100bn which was Gordon spending more than his income. Maybe the best way to look at this is that (according to govt stats so who really knows how accurate they are) in 2007 (before credit crunch) tax constitute 37% of GDP but public spending was 43% of GDP. To put this into context over the 50 years preceding 2007 tax take varied between 33% of GDP and 38% of GDP and public sector spending varied between 34% of GDP (in boom times) and 43% of GDP (with one exception of 49% by a Lab govt) in recessions. Basically in 2007 before the credit crunch Lab spending was running at the level expected in a recession and the annual deficit was also at recession levels - so much for putting a bit aside for a rainy day.

As for Private Eye report - this is old news. HMRC announced a couple of weeks ago that they were easing up on corporate tax planning. The reason is nothing to do with Tories in power, HMRC over the last 4 years have taken a series of major cases to the courts and lost everyone (bar one), and when they tried to put in place legislative changes to stop companies applying the court judgements to 6-12 years of tax, they got taken to court and HMRC lost again.

So Nick are you going to give us a comment on the NOW phone tap allegations? Or are the combined forces of Murdoch and the Torys too much for you?

What does it say about the standard of political reporting in this country that this story has been pursued by the New York Times? Bit of an embarassment if you ask me.

Nick please reassure me that your involvement with the BBC's forthcoming spending cuts films was planned long before Helen Boaden had lunch with Nick Coulson.

Its just that if I was Nick Coulson I would certainly have been pressing for your involvement with the films.

Says it all really!

Sorry - Andy Coulson.

12. At 3:10pm on 03 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

It's a great time to be a tory and we shall be in power for at least three terms thanks to the ridiculous denial of newlabour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, I would not disagree with the tenor of your post.

But it's not just the savings of the 'middle classes' that were being destroyed by New Labour and are still being destroyed by the Coalition.
As Copper Dolomite would point out, the crash caused suicides. Some of the first suicides were by wealthy people who lost everything in 2008 or 2009. But the rich who can carry debt and people who have mortgage and earning opportunities tend to do well in the present circumstances as they did in the Weimar Republic.

For that reason, if GO doesn't get us back to sound money in around four years and starts to signal this autumn and thereafter that that is his plan, then the Coalition may not last two years let alone up to fifteen.

At present, there is a sign that GO is going for more of the same that GB and AD had lined up for us.

The prize, however, is big. I winced when Thatcher said Labour would be unelectable in future and knew that that was the beginning of her demise. But in a way she was right in that Labour had to become Thatcherite to be elected for thirteen years. Old Labour was unelectable.

But if GO can get the economy right, return to sound money, rebalance the tax system, deal with major underlying problems in our economy and share the prosperity much more widely, then any version of Labour may be unelectable in future. The Coalition might be good for five or six terms not just three.

But that is a big ask, as the American cousins would say.

Hey! Let's be careful out there for two, three, four, five years ...

They'll be broadcast next week.

One is sure. However, should any opportunity for exchange be provided, be quick. Comments can get closed almost as soon as they are invited.

One presumes the OT excuse will not be attempted here as that would be... ironic.

We should remember that Balls is credited as co-author of Brown's fiscal rules:

a) only borrow to invest over the course of the economic cycle (i.e. not to finance current consumption)
b) keep debt at a sustainable level, 40% of GDP.

So, rightly or wrongly, (wrongly in my opinion), Balls seems to have torn up his own fiscal framework.

Although there were some technical problems with the original Brown/Balls rules they were a reasonable basis of fiscal policy.

The andy coulson saga will play out and eventually I believe it will be found that he was definitely suited to fill the role he currently holds.
There is division in regard to reducing the deficit. What is more surprising is the lack of vision and strong principled leadership being shown by the labour candidates.
Why no mention for example of the appalling aftermath of the bank bailout. Note that the bankers responsible are still wealthy and have apparently suffered no punishment for their catastrophic misdemeanors. Its clear however how the low paid mass working class have suffered since this crisis. First and hardest hit through the recession. Then the threat of severe cuts to follow. Note how the partly taxpayer owned banks now crow profit and how wonderful it is that we will all be getting our money back. So how did they get back into profit? Well (they have admitted this) largely due to charges, unauthorised overdraft and the like. With quite appalling levels of charges. No prizes for guessing what section of the public are most likely to go overdrawn. Yes once again the low paid were kicked in the teeth again..apparently the millions on minimum wage and generally low paid are free for the kicking again and again and again. How utterly disgusting this is. And apparently the banks are also dismissing hardship claims when it comes to bank charges and and the financial ombudsman are dismissing the vast majority of customers complaining about this. And of course as our great system of capitalism knows no bounds of indecency, we see bank bonuses are back at high levels again........as you were then. Of course there is a bank levy proposed. A pittance of course in comparison to profits. And anyway, guess how they will pay this levy...yep bank charges. Who will pay the most in bank charges...yep good old mr and mrs low paid AGAIN.
The institute of fiscal studies report that the coalitions deficit reduction plans would hit the poor hardest have been widely ignored too. Unsurprisingly lots of other things are being ignored. Whats happened to tackling the tax havens. How much tax revenue goes missing here. What about corporation tax avoidance and the handful of inspectors trying to deal with this. Whats being done about HMRC request that it needs resources for urgent scrutiny of the wealthy who are converting their income into capital to avoid the 50% income tax rate. Whats being done about the complex tax avoidance schemes. Why do the wealthy pay less tax as a percentage of their income (of course im sure tory party donors have little influence on policy let alone deficit reduction policy. Im sure too philip green would be a fantastic waste reduction tsar).
Suffice to say there are many many ways to reduce the deficit which reduce the burden on the lowest income earners. Labour candidates should be costing and proposing strong policies in this regard. They should be championing measures to tackle appalling monetary inequality levels in this country. Tory DNA produced the broken society virus in the first place. And now they have a new decimating strain in the guise of their deficit reduction plans. Guess whos going to get the kicking first?

#27 #37

How is this 60 billion figure calculated (or made up)? I don't recognise it all, but am always ready to be educated.

"The confusion of Vince Cable"

As`we all remember, the LibDems opposed Tory deficit reduction plans before the election, but supported it immediately afterwards.

The reason given by Clegg and Cable was the European debt crisis.

Yet the original Conservative argument, rightly or wrongly, was that there might be a debt crisis at some point in the future, and if a credible deficit reduction plan was not published. Presumably Cable rejected this possibility a day before the election, but accepted it a day later.

Yet these were always possibilities, not probabilities. However, I find the Conservative position internally consistent. In contrast Cable's arguments are unprincipled, incocnsitent, and opportunistic.

What one would expect from a LibDem, of course.

jh66 45

notfooledsteve's story about £60bn of the deficit being due to the bailout is plain rubbish. The deficit is, of course, the current year difference between income and expenditure. And in the current year, the only impact of the bailout is the difference between the interest paid on the money borrowed by the Treasury to achieve the bailout, and the ongoing income received from the banks relating to the money that was lent to them and the dividends on banks shares that the Treasury bought. This difference is absolutely minimal. The impact of the bailout on the the current year deficit, far from notfooledsteve's figure, is, in reality, utterly negligible.

The impact of the bailout on national debt is different. It is a story of the balance of the capital liabilities that were acquired when the government became part-owner of the banks, the money that was paid to the banks and the market value of the assets (like banks shares) that were acquired in the process. Table B2 of the June 2010 budget document is very helpful here. In 2008-9, the bailout contributed £74.5bn to the national debt. In 2009-10, the figure was £34.1bn, reflecting some repayments by the banks and the recovery of in their share prices. In the present year, with further repayments and further share price recovery, that figure is expected to go negative - i.e. that the net effect of the bailout is actually to reduce (very slightly) the national debt.

Like you, I look forwards to notfooledsteve's justification of his figures. But I don't have very high expectations of him!

"notfooledsteve's story about £60bn of the deficit being due to the bailout is plain rubbish."

It is. Substitute the wider and more meaningful "financial crash and consequent global recession" for the rather narrow and technical "bailout", and the £60 billion becomes a very significant underestimate; certainly an underestimate of a size which shouldn't be underestimated.

It seems as though we continue to confuse debt and deficit? To say the £60bn of the deficit is somehow down to the banks seems to me to be incorrect. Surely a deficit occurs when govt spending on the public sector and welfare benefits exceeds tax revenues.
Much of tax revenue comes from companies and it is true that bank profits have been reduced in the past year or two, just as have the profits from many other sectors, housing to name but one. So yes revenues were probably over estimated by the then Chancellor.
Surely the issue is that the UK govt has been spending more than it has been receiving in revenues and these annual deficits have increased the accumulated debt to in excess of £1 trn and this number will continue to increase until spending is exceeded by revenues.
Quite apart from the pain implied by the size of spending contraction (or the huge increase in taxation that some advocate)to eliminate the annual deficit, the risk is that foreign lenders who might have been willing to lend to the UK govt decide that the risk now requires a higher return or even decline to lend at all.
So it would seem as though we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

sagamix 48

So your ban from these pages was only temporary, eh?

Shame you have to restart with a tedious repetition of your earlier and highly discredited position on the recession. Are you now going to give us a re-run of your comedy "12%" argument?

48 sagamix wrote:

"Substitute the wider and more meaningful "financial crash and consequent global recession" for the rather narrow and technical "bailout", and the £60 billion becomes a very significant underestimate; certainly an underestimate of a size which shouldn't be underestimated."
=================================================================

Or put another way, if you completely change the subject and scope of the original mis-information, then the mis-information may not be so mis-informing.

Sagamaths-sagastats-sagafacts at it's very best .......

re #49 para 3
Apologies what I meant to say was the the debt will increase until such times as revenues exceed spending.

No JR (50), just encouraging people to see the big picture. The crash (foreseeable but not forecastable*) and it's various consequences are a very significant contributory factor to our current fiscal position - sorry to be so boring and correct.

* explanation of the difference available on request.

Oh dear, I was right first time sorry.

Strictly Pickled @ 51

Not really, SP. As I've just said to JR, it's good to appreciate the full picture, not just the "Labour undertaxing" element (important though this is). The banking crash (and its ramifications) is a very significant factor in where we are on the public finances. An obvious thing to say, I know, but worth the occasional airing since there are those - tory prop peddlers* and followers/swallowers - who are in more or less constant need of the reminder.

* definition (and examples) available on request.

49/52/54

You were right all three times; you said the exact same thing in a slightly different way. Very cunning! So, yes, deficits arise because spending exceeds (tax) revenue. That's by way of fact, not opinion, and everyone signs up to it - or they should do. Opinion rears its jaundiced head when people go on to say, for example, that spending was too high when the more straightforward and robust conclusion is that tax was too low. Like Italy and Greece but not quite as chronic. When will we ever learn, Sevenoaks? When will we finally embrace the concept of paying enough in tax to fund decent public services and infrastructure? I'll tell you ... around about the 12th of never.

Sooner or later income (tax collected plus some 'investment') has to exceed public expenditure, even for an organisation licensed to print and devalue money. With so much accumulated public and private debt, sooner is desirable. The question is the means of making it happen.

The other aspect to this blog is the future leadership or non-leadership of the Labour Party. Labour lost an election at a time when it seemed better to be in opposition than in government. Yet now, they look like snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat and becoming unelectable. Can they find a better leader than Gordon Brown? Not from the present set of candidates.

47.
In 2008-9, the bailout contributed £74.5bn to the national debt. In 2009-10, the figure was £34.1bn, reflecting some repayments by the banks and the recovery of in their share prices.

or

In 2008-9, the bailout contributed £74.5bn to the national debt. In 2009-10, the figure was £34.1bn, reflecting some repayments made by the part tax payer owned banks. This repayment was largely paid for by the poorest and most vunerable in society who were charged extortionate overdraft fees and other such charges (a reverse robin hood). In august this year a “which” report confirmed Loyds as doing v badly in regard to customer satisfaction. The part-nationalised bank received a total of 288,717 complaints during the six months to the end of June 2010 - the equivalent of 1,850 each working day. Lloyds has shed 16000 posts since january 2009
and is to axe up to a further 1,850 staff and shut a network of independent agencies.
Head of Lloyds Eric Daniels' annual salary is £1.035 million.
(august 2010) the UKs independent banks are forecast to make combined profits of about £11bn and contribute as much as £5bn into their bonus pools for payouts at the end of the year.

Lefty10.

The World Bank has estimated that £70billion per annum goes "missing" in the UK's so called "shadow" economy.

It also reports tax evasion is increasing.

Last year HMRC brought 200 cases to court for evasion, whilst the DWP brought 9000 for benefit fraud. Benefit Fraud has been estimated at £5 billion per annum total. In just three of the cases brought by HMRC last year £1.25billion was recovered in unpaid tax. Staff at HMRC covering evasion have been cut by one third, and face further cuts of 25%. VAT carousel fraud is hardly touched due to lack of resources. The National Audit Office says "lack of funding" is preventing unpaid tax recovery....it is estimated that just over £26billion remains unpaid in PAYE alone.

Lord Oakshot (LD Treasury Spokesman) has said:
"Tax-dodging in Britain is a deep-seated, pervasive, pernicious disease … Highly organised, aggressive, abusive tax avoidance which used to be a marginal and rather spivvy operation, that was frowned on by the main banks and shunned by top accountants and lawyers who were mainly concerned with reputational risk, has now mushroomed out of all recognition."

It is estimated a concerted effort on tax evasion which loses the treasury 4 to 5 times that of benefit fraud, together with a properly resourced HMRC to recover unpaid tax would wipe out the budget deficit well within five years.

Strange none of this hits the front page of those newspapers reporting on the benefit scroungers...

At 12:39pm on 03 Sep 2010, JohnConstable wrote:

Nevermind the deficit, that is the least of our problems .. the National Debt is growing by roughly £1,000,000,000 every two days and currently stands at about £943Bn.
//

That we should be so well off. The ONS now estimate, having taken all of Gordon off balance sheet debts into account, that the national debt is now c 4 (four) Trillion pounds.

Labour should never be let anywhere near our pockets again. Their motto?

"All your money is ours. Even that you haven't earned yet. And then some"

Balls, frankly, is a flaming idiot. Here's what he had to say a few weeks back on public sector debt

"Go up to Nottingham today, go to Trent Bridge [the venue for the test match vs Pakistan], look at the massive corporate hospitality there, there'll not be many public sector workers there, that's private sector waste... the point I'm making is that there's actually huge amounts of money spent on lavish hospitality in the private sector."

According to Ed, private companies should not be allowed to be allowed to spend their own money as they like. I've heard more sense from teenage Socialists (we were all young once - though some of grow up. Not our Ed)

Of course, the other evidence of Ball's failing mental health is the fact that he is now denying any responsibility for anything that went wrong since he came on the scene (2005? Although we were paying him for two years previously at the Smith Institute, it seems). No, I disagreed with that, says Ed, or no, I wasn't part of that decision. Quite extraordinary, but not as extraordinary as him expecting us to believe him - he and his colleagues of utter contempt for we, the people, it seems.

Ed for Leader, though, and goodbye Labour for ever. Especially if the Coalition sort out the West Lothian question at last, so Scottish MPs can't hold us to ransom (or indeed, ransack the public purse as is their wont) ever again.

Cheerio

lefty10 58

How, precisely, the banks have made the money that they have paid back to the government is really a side issue (as much so, in fact, as sagamix's stumbling journey through memory lane, trying to re-enervate arguments he has lost in the past). The point is that they have made that money and that, contrary to notfooledsteve's effort, the bailout of itself is not even slightly relevant to where we are today, in terms either of the deficit or the national debt.

But I am not going to disagree with you entirely: the banks do make a lot of money out of exploitation of those people who don't manage their affairs very well. I would only question whether that is where the majority of their profits come from, as your "largely" tries to suggest. I suspect not. They are also not the only ones in the business of exploiting the less well off. If you watch commercial TV, you can hardly move for the adverts from a certain company, as far as I know not connected to any of the major UK banks, offering "pay-day" loans at an APR over 2000%!

"Can they find a better leader than Gordon Brown? Not from the present set of candidates." - @ Heinz

Well I'm not sure. They're going for a Miliband (probably David) and that's a safe choice - can be expected to lead them back in next time - but I think a certain former Schools Secretary deserves serious consideration. When I see Ed Balls, I see a man with enormous potential. Potential either way, I mean. He could be very very good - could be quite delicious really - or he could (let's face it) be unspeakably bad. What I'd favour is giving him a run out (gets the job but on a 6 month sale or return basis) to see which way it goes. If he is bad - well fine, time to change before polling day (March 2012 seems nailed on, doesn't it?). And if he turns out (as I suspect he may) to be a galvanising force for progress, then the sky's the limit. It's one of those win wins.

While we're on the subjuect of "denial" lets not forget the "Tory Spending plan deniers".

Not a very catchy sounbite I admit but already conveniently forgotten and NEVER explaained is the FACT that until November 2008, well into the global credit crunch the Tories main economic plank on future spending was to "Match Labour"

So far from advocating fixing any sort of roof or curbing so called spending splurges, they believed labour spending, to use Cameron's own word was "about right"

How soon the Tories forget their own recent policies JRP, Robi, Strictly?

14. At 4:21pm on 03 Sep 2010, JohnConstable wrote:

Roy has distilled the essence of socialism. "If I can't have it, then neither can you. It's only fair."

Infantile, in reality.

"trying to re-enervate arguments he has lost in the past"

That's brightened my day, JR. Real music hall stuff. Can even hear the banjos.

Listen, if you really do disagree with the notion of the banking crash being a very significant cause of our fiscal crisis, then I'd like to hear why. Seriously, I would.

Got to hand it to you though, I do like this new and cutting edge definition of side issue which you've come up with ... a point which is relevant and extremely important but which doesn't suit the particular (ardently pro tory) position you're keen to put over. "Side issue" - mmm, very good. Almost good enough for me to steal. Almost.

63 sagamix

Here is a point on which we can agree. Balls is by far the best choice for Labour. And as I discover you wrote elsewhere not even a day ago, Middle England hates him too. What more could one want?

"March 2012 seems nailed on, doesn't it?" - ha ha, very funny! Dream on, my friend.

"Especially if the Coalition sort out the West Lothian question at last" - 601

What's that, Jeremy? ... the West Lothian question. Is it something really important?

sagamix 66

"Listen, if you really do disagree with the notion of the banking crash being a very significant cause of our fiscal crisis, then I'd like to hear why."

I don't disagree to any great degree, and nor does anything I have written up the thread suggest that I do, either.

The timing of the crash determined the timing of the recession. The scale of the recession was a function both of the scale of the crash and the various ills in the economy which Labour had, depending on which ill you are talking about, initiated, tolerated, perpetuated or enhanced. Without the crash, I think we would have had an economic stagnation and, in due course, a private and public debt crisis leading to a recession. With the crash, we had more, worse, sooner, deeper and longer lasting. In that sense, and only in that sense, I agree that the banking crash was a significant cause of the recession. But I also think that, amongst others, excessive public and private debt and gross overvaluation of assets, all of which can be related directly and intimately to Labour policy, were also an at least equally significant part of the recession. In short, we had a deeper and longer-lasting recession, and with a longer hangover in the form of the deficit, directly as a result of Labour policy.

And if you try to misquote or quote selectively in order to change the meaning of what I have just written, I will be annoyed. You have a very poor reputation in that regard, and I am watching you closely.

#68. sagamix wrote:

"the West Lothian question. Is it something really important?"

Not in itself but it does highlight the almost complete lack of democracy in England! Don't you think!

In an ideal World we need (something like) a 100 member UK Parliament and a 200 member English Parliament both with fixed terms and elected executives/presidents. (each with a constitution strong on subsidiarity as constituent parts of the EU) The Parliaments based in the geographic centre of each area.

However we can't afford this... so the best we can do is to reduce the commons (and Lords) to a couple of hundred constituency members each, half elected every two years and an elected executive every four years with limitations for any individual of being elected twice and the most senior civil servants holding office for a maximum of 5 years only and then to leave the civil service.

#67. jrperry wrote:

"Balls ... Middle England hates him too."

By Middle England you mean the Daily Mail I presume! How do you know?

sagamix 68

You know very well what the West Lothian question is, though strictly speaking, Jeremy has only hit an outer by referring to it in the way that he did.

If you rephrase what he wrote to "Especially if the Coalition sort out the over-representation of Scotland in the House of Commons at last...", then it makes good sense.

59. craig
good post. its crazy isnt it. what surprises me is that the scene is set for a strong left wing politician to make strong, moral, principled and populist policy suggestions, but it all seems a bit lame at the moment. so many lines of attack. golden opportunity seems to be going to waste?
david Miliband to me is just the safe candidate going for that narrow media acceptable middle ground. left field of the same old centrist status quo.

JfH 71

"By Middle England you mean the Daily Mail I presume! How do you know?"

Strictly speaking, I don't actually "know" that Middle England, a constituency rather wider than just Mail readers, uniformly hates Balls. I was merely making the point to needle sagamix. I shall be more than happy for Labour to elect Balls as their leader, and then we can find out!

"Tory Spending Plan Deniers"

to use a vey old football chant...."Its all gone quiet over there"

that's the problem with such an "inconveneint truth" eh JR

75 ER

What's the point you are trying to make?

From over here, it looks as if you are telling us that policies that seemed affordable in 2008 are no longer so now, the Conservatives reacted appropriately but Labour didn't.

If that's what it is, then I agree with you. Are you coming round to Tory thinking after all?

76 JR

I'm surprised you fail to understand JR as it's so blindingly obvious that if up untill Nov 2008 you agreed that Labour Spending plans were right then you'd have to be a complete hypocrit or dunce then to say that the debt and deficit level accumulated were the result of overspending.

Clear enough?

"I am watching you closely." - JR @ 69

Definitely the best way to learn.

So yes - fine - we disagree on plenty of things we don't agree on; no need whatsoever to start doing it on stuff where we do (agree).

The global financial crash and consequent economic crisis were very significant contributors to the current state of the UK public finances.

Course (!) they were.

Good. Now then, if anyone comes on here saying otherwise, e.g. opining that it was all, or almost all, due to Labour "mismanagement" of the domestic economy ... you know the giveaway plastic phrases, I'm sure (maxing out the credit cards - the socialists always run out of money in the end - spending like there's no tomorrow - frittering away our children's future) ... if you come across any of this facile nonsense, and I happen to be not around, you can do the honours. On this topic (and only this one, pls note), you have my Power of Attorney. And I won't be watching (you), since life is nothing without trust.

77 ER

Events, dear boy, events. The Conservatives reacted to them, Labour didn't. It's why we have a new government.

You seem to be arguing for a kind of politics where you pig-headedly follow a particular set of policies irrespective of what happens around you. It doesn't work. Ask Gordon Brown.

"a strong left wing politician to make strong, moral, principled and populist policy suggestions" - lefty @ 73

Ed Balls has the potential to be that politician, although not necessarily as Labour leader. Let's see what happens between now and the March 2012 general election. Be interesting at the very least.

64. Eatonrifle

While we're on the subjuect of "denial" lets not forget the "Tory Spending plan deniers".

.......How soon the Tories forget their own recent policies JRP, Robi, Strictly?
===========================================

The Tories ???? Are they in government ??? We have a coalition government - have they just defrosted you ???

77. Eatonrifle w

"I'm surprised you fail to understand JR as it's so blindingly obvious that if up untill Nov 2008 you agreed that Labour Spending plans were right then you'd have to be a complete hypocrit or dunce then to say that the debt and deficit level accumulated were the result of overspending.

Clear enough?"
========================================================

I think what is clear is that discussing with the likes of yourslef and saga about how the deficit/national debt arose is amusing but pointless.

We are where we are ..... and our opinions - even yours sagamix - about how we got here are largely irrelevant. Just like the Labour Leadership election - irrelevant to addressing the problem.

rifle @ 77

"you'd have to be a complete hypocrit or dunce then to say that the debt and deficit level accumulated were the result of overspending."

No it's cool - JR agrees with sensible commentators (that's us) that the global financial crash and consequent economic crisis were very significant - VERY significant - contributors to the state of the UK public finances. He may go a bit exotic at times, on one or two topics, but he's not a dunce. He went to Imperial College back in the day.

John from Hendon,

I don't favour having an English Parliament AND a UK one. Don't think that would work. I'd only support an EP in the event of English independence - i.e. following a break up of the Union. Which I don't want to see, but which I guess could happen at some point.

#78 sagamix

Complex historical events rarely have a single cause.

We can quite easily, and correctly, say that the decline in the UK's fiscal position was caused by a global financial crisis and a global recession (strictly speaking though this is not correct because several Asian countries avoided recession and were not severely hit by a credit crunch, though their growth rates were effected).

At the same time we might look at the mistakes of UK/US`regulators, central bankers, and politicians in the years leading up to the credit crunch. The fact that a crisis is global does not mean that the leading participants are free of blame.

We can also criticise Brown for not reforming his fiscal rules when their deficiencies became clear, and for adjusting these rules to allow more borrowing when a counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary polioy would have been more appropriate.

To put it another way, socialists look for every conceivable excuse to increase public borrowing. "A policy is search of a justification, and any justification will do". In boom years the trend rate of growth is assumed to have increased, and thus the economy can afford it. In times of bust good old Keynes is dusted down. This whole position is incoherent, and Balls is more incoherent than most.

"the over-representation of Scotland in the House of Commons" - jr @ 72

Ah I see. That's the "WL" question, is it? Okay, clear enough. And I suppose that in proposing to dilute Scotland's rep at Westminster (which I agree with, btw), you are - as you were when stressing the vital importance to democracy of exactly equal constituency sizes - driven in the main by the exalted principles of the Chartist movement rather than the interests of the tory party.

#77 eatonrifle

Of course the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto proposed lower growth in public spending and lower borrowing than in Labour's Budget. If the Party had won the election and followed these plans our fiscal position would be better, though still in crisis.

I accept you basic point. 2005-2008 were not the finest years of Tory macroeconomic policy making (microeconomic policy is another matter).

But the key attribute is to learn from your mistakes. Not only is Balls (and perhaps EdM) not learning from Labour's mistakes, but they also seem to want to reproduce them on an even greater scale.

"Complex historical events rarely have a single cause." - jh66 @ 85

Indisputably correct. If you ever come across me saying that the one and only material cause of our debt crisis is the banking meltdown, you should feel perfectly entitled to unplug me.

I had a sentence I was happy with a while ago. Something like ... we have a government debt problem because bla bla bla bla. There were quite a few "blas" and the banking shenanigans were in there - sure they were - but so was stuff like world trade imbalance, artificially cheap money, poor regulation, bonus culture, etc etc; and also (just especially for the boys in the back row) a degree of ill judged fiscal laxity from Brown. Was this FL mainly in the form of overspending? Or was it more by way of undertaxing? Bit of both, I guess.

"We are where we are ..... and our opinions - even yours sagamix - about how we got here are largely irrelevant."

Can't agree with this, SP. Okay, not good to endlessly chew over the causes of a problem at the expense of sorting it out - but we're a discussion forum, not the government (alas). In any event, it's important to understand what led to a problem in order to (i) solve it properly, and (ii) ensure no repeat.

Well sagamix, let's just say, and leave it there, that your 88 is rather better than your dreadful posts at 78 and 83.

As far as 86 is concerned, no, that's not what the West Lothian question is, but you knew that already. I'm not getting the joke about why you are pretending not to know what the WLQ is. Nonetheless, for completeness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question

89 sagamix

"Okay, not good to endlessly chew over the causes of a problem at the expense of sorting it out - but we're a discussion forum, not the government (alas)."
===========================
Glad you agree that our views won't make any diference to the problem, either in it's emergence or resolution.


"In any event, it's important to understand what led to a problem in order to (i) solve it properly, and (ii) ensure no repeat."
====================================================
And in a nutshell you sum up why the NewLabourUnite Party leader election is irrelevant as none of the candiates can demonstrate any real understanding - in public anyway - of either of these points. And these people are not a forum discussion group (like us) but key members of HMGs Opposition and potentially a future PM.

I couldn't agree more with you, you're obviously having a good day ! I salute your enlightenment and progressive thinking !

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn what the Labour shower think about anything.

Their whole modus operandi revolved around keeping the party in power for ever and ever, with expanding the headcount in the public sector, keeping millions on benefits and allowing, even encouraging, the invasion of my country by foreigners. All these groups support/ed Labour and that's what they wanted.

They are a party first, tribal organisation. They are over, voted out, booted out even, finis, passe.

Why is the BBC obsessed with reporting on them? Do you the BBC think we care about them?

Er, we do NOT. We voted against them remember?

The past is gone, it is dead let it sleep, it's lessons alone are the things we should keep.


Give it a rest now BBC and begin to get back in touch again.

SP,

"I couldn't agree more with you, you're obviously having a good day"

This is what is known in the pubs and clubs as a Non Sequitur.

"I don't give a damn what the Labour shower think about anything. Their whole modus operandi revolved around keeping the party in power for ever and ever, with expanding the headcount in the public sector, keeping millions on benefits and allowing, even encouraging, the invasion of my country by foreigners."

Sure, Flame, but otherwise a none too shabby record. Shall we say 8 out of 10?

.
I imagine there are still people around who call themselves SOCIALISTS.

Where do they go?

Who do they vote for?

Are they in the Labour Party?
... And, does Old Labour exist?

Are they in the New Labour Party?
... And, does New Labour exist?

Which begs the question, what is a socialist in today's UK?
.

Say what you will about the candidates and their past beliefs and future policies (if any); old Gordon shuffling off into the setting sun has handed The Coalition an extended honeymoon and the new Labour leader a massive headache.

88. At 8:33pm on 04 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
"Complex historical events rarely have a single cause." - jh66 @ 85

Indisputably correct. If you ever come across me saying that the one and only material cause of our debt crisis is the banking meltdown, you should feel perfectly entitled to unplug me.

I had a sentence I was happy with a while ago. Something like ... we have a government debt problem because bla bla bla bla. There were quite a few "blas" and the banking shenanigans were in there - sure they were - but so was stuff like world trade imbalance, artificially cheap money, poor regulation, bonus culture, etc etc; and also (just especially for the boys in the back row) a degree of ill judged fiscal laxity from Brown. Was this FL mainly in the form of overspending? Or was it more by way of undertaxing? Bit of both, I guess.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief! Saga' has had a really good hol and come back as a small c thinking conservative. Now that's impressive! And REALLY, TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY progressive!

92 Flame

I'm not sure that the BBC is obsessed with reporting the Labour leadership election.

A leadership contest in the main opposition party is surely more important than some of the nonsense we see on the news (Robbie Williams turning on Blackpool Illuminations springs to mind)?

I was hoping for a dirtier fight than we have had so far - a little disappointing in that respect!

#84. sagamix wrote:

"John from Hendon, I don't favour having an English Parliament AND a UK one. ..."

So I take it you are happy to pay the 650 strong bunch of loafers and the multitude of un-elected Lords. There are far too many elected politicians and far too many of them are career politicians at both Westminster and around the country.

Yes, the West Lothian question does matter! It describes the English Nation's democratic deficit. Why should Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish MPs decide matters for England? (When English MPs have no similar say over matters in the devolved assemblies/parliaments.)

Yes, John, too many politicians. That's actually one of the reasons I wouldn't like to see an EP in addition to the UKP. Also the point that the former would dwarf the latter (since England is most of the UK). Would only support an EP in place of the UKP - i.e. on break up of the Union, which (as I say) I don't want to happen but accept may well come to pass one day.