Gordon got it wrong

'In it he concedes that his old boss and mentor, Gordon Brown, got it wrong on the politics of the deficit'

Anything in the speech about Gordon Brown being in anyway responsible for the deficit in the first place ? Not even a '12%' to blame ?

'I believe that the label of 'denial' was defied by the fiscal plan laid out by Alistair...'

Never mind denying the deficit pre election, what about the ongoing denial post election ? How many of the cuts announced by the coalition do the Labour agree with exactly ?

'In terms of "moving on" Douglas warns that the experience of the United States where there's been a "jobless recovery" could be repeated here'

Didn't the US implement exactly the sort of stimulus package the left are so in favour of ?

'we saved the taxpayer from the untold cost of a recession turning into a depression'

Thanks Dougie. The worst recession in 80 years and a £150bn deficit. We're all so grateful.

It may seem trite but NL obviously were not able to contain the fallout from the financial crisis, partly because they had embarked on a public spending binge for a number of years and consequently were not in a good place when the financial roof fell in.

As a direct result, we as a country are in a bit of a spot and it seems to be rather poor justice that all Labour apparently has to do is stand on the sidelines, have a bit of a political makeover and {covertly assist}/wait for the Coalition to fall apart and its buggins turn all over again.

I suppose that is the glorious game of politics for you.

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

Did Gordon get the recovery wrong? Has David got the recovery correctly? The answer to both questions in, "No." But that is not the point. The question that should be asked is which of them will adapt their initial plan so that it works? The problem with Gordon was that he found it too difficult to move from his initial position. Others in the Labour Party would have been more flexible, but didn't get a chance. The problem with David is that he is prepared to be flexible, but there are those in his party who may not support him if he is, which is why he needs the LibDems who are more flexible than a piece of grass in the wind.

Could have been just the one post that, Jobs, couldn't it? Or maybe even one less.

Gordon got it wrong.
Did he?
Concede and move on.
From what to what?
I doubt that Gordon Brown got it wrong; I doubt that he didn't foresee the need to address the deficits. In fact, Gordon Brown got it extraordinarily right. He didn't want this banking failure to rest on the shoulders of the taxpayers. Gordon Brown was speaking (even at his last G-20) about a bank levy on all foreign exchange transactions; in other words: Let the investment banks "too big to fail" help with the deficit.
Douglas Alexander's key statement: "Repeated refusal by some to use the word 'cut' for many months after the global financial crisis..." doesn't make much sense to me, nor does it do anything to move a bad situation forward.
The person who refused to use the word "cuts"? Is this supposed to be a reference to Gordon Brown? Finance was Gordon Brown's forte. He was asking for a Tobin Tax; Let the investment banks "too big to fail" help with the deficit.
Mr. Alexander's second statement: "We got the recession response right, and yes that meant a temporarily higher deficit..." does nothing to enlighten me further re Labour policies.
But surely his third statement: "In making the right judgements during the crisis, we saved the taxpayer from the untold cost of a recession turning into a depression..." Really? Does Mr. Alexander not feel that the taxpayer feels "depressed" to have to carry the burden of bank failure?
Mr. Alexander's last statement: In terms of "moving on" Douglas warns that the experience of the United States where there's been a "jobless recovery" could be repeated here and notes, interestingly, that that was one of the causes of the rise of the Tea Party Movement.
Well, well, well, so much for New Labour. Gordon Brown was not a pretty face; he was not blessed with the gift of political speechifying, but Mr. Brown knew his finances, and he had the courage to suggest a Tobin Tax because (I believe), he cared for Brits and their unhappiness. He cared deeply.

Cannot believe that the man who said no more "boom and bust" and had already turned the 94 billion surplus he inherited, into a 637 billion deficit BEFORE the credit crunch, is still even talked about. Everyone internationally is cutting their cloth and yet the former New labour team are still talking about fighting cuts. Always amazes me how socialists are brilliant at spending other peoples money. Denis Healey did it so successfully years ago that we were not even elligable for an IMF loan. With the back ground of many of new labours team having had strong Communist / Trotskyite backgrounds is it any wonder that they start shouting as the Gravy Boat hits the buffers. North Korea is currently looking for some assistance so maybe social mobility could provide a slot for some of the old comrades.

Were all the Tory trolls here campaigning for large public expenditures cuts in the early summer of 2007 Was David Cameron clambering for deep cuts then? I think not. All the talk then was indeed of some retrenchment. and a concern about a minor slow down in the economy.

Then we ' were all in it together '

But of course so far the cuts that have been made are of course Labour cuts including NHS cuts). The £6bn GG are about are mostly about 2011 (Vat , NI (a modified Darling cut) and of course lower pension increases (from April 5th 2011) (in current expenditure). The Condems have made some cuts in capital expenditure.

The condem cuts start in April 2011.

Historically what would be interesting is to learn is what Lebdems would have done if they had formed a government. After all Labour/Treasury must have had a plan. But we will have to wait 30 years for that.

He did (9). Cared too much if anything. Sadly, not an asset for the modern politician.

Alexander's opinions carry about as much weight and integrity as his mentor's did. It's uncanny how both he and Brown were products of the Labour party in Glasgow, both were shunted into jobs because of the manse connection by another son of the manse, Donald Dewar. The other similarity seems to be that they both consider themselves financial experts in spite of the fact that neither one of them has or had any expertise in the subject. It seems that a spell as a sports reporter was Brown's claim to fame and a few months as a solicitor seems to account for Alexander's financial wizardry.

My god.

If that were the only criticism that could be laid at the door of the failed ex-PM Brown.

Hi Michael (at 10),

Our deficit pre Credit Crunch was nothing like £627 billion, it was less than one tenth that. Touch of "debt versus deficit" itis? My sympathies if so - both start with a "D" is the problem. Like David Davis.

Do you call him Davis David?

"Concede and move on. That was always the mantra of Team New Labour when something went wrong".

Nick, really!

Labour never conceded any wrong during their entire time in government. Brown didn't admit forming the FSA was wrong, selling the gold was wrong, ID cards was wrong, 90 days and then 42 days detention was wrong, he didn't even admit the 10 pence tax rate removal was wrong!

10. At 6:42pm on 30 Nov 2010, Michael wrote:
Cannot believe that the man who said no more "boom and bust" and had already turned the 94 billion surplus he inherited, into a 637 billion deficit BEFORE the credit crunch, is still even talked about

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

Your figures are wrong, ludicrously wrong.

He did not inherit a surplus from the Major government he inherited a deficit (on an improving trend) - it may surprise you that in terms of deficits Gordon ran a budget surplus in more years than the previous Conservative admistrations during his tenure in No11.
The largest single surplus year happened on Gordons watch not on any Conservatives watch - even when we were flogging everything that moved.
In terms of total surplus Gordon actually racked up more than the Conservatives - he did rather stuff it up by mistaking a bubble for a paradigm change, but then neither did the current chancellor - he thought Ireland was a miracle we could learn from.

Confusing and Mr Alexander could have said so much more about the mistakes of the last 10 years including the Iraq war and the illusion of the "third way" with public services add to which the virtual abdication of active economic management, not forgetting the appalling performance in social housing and the attempted covert privatisation of health in the form of foundation trusts. Yes Mr Alexander is displaying all the symptoms of denial.

Doesn't matter...we're saved !

After only six months in office, just over one month from a CSR and without any of the spending cuts implemented Osborne has taken us from bankruptcy to everything back and track and hunky dory...it's an economic miracle...

re 15. At 7:25pm on 30 Nov 2010, sagamix

The structural deficit (ie the annual overspend) was around £70billion before the crisis hit. The total accumulated debt before the crisis hit was around £500billion or so because Brown had simply overspent every year, believing that growth could go on forever with no blips and that growth would not only continue forever but would accelerate exponentially to catch-up with his increasing levels of annual overspend.

His maths/economics simply defied all logic/reason.

Did labour do the right thing? Well, with an accumulated debt of more than half a trillion quid at the end of one of the longest periods of growth we've had for decades, and an attitude of "growth will continue forever and will increase exponentially to cover my mad plans", I'd say the answer to that question is a resounding "No."

Labour still won't admit that their plans for the last 10 years of their government were, literally, insane, and that they defied all logic, reason, and laws of physics. Until they admit this and apologise for it, they'll never get near power ever again.

Hello there Bankrupt (vingt), I refer you to the Whistle @ 17.

This is quite extraordinary. Gordon Brown engaged in fantasy economics for nearly ten years perpetually inventing Golden Rules that prevented him from producing a balanced budget from 2001. He was helped in this by a cultural perception within the City and Whitehall that economic boom and bust were things of the past. This was a view shared by most of the Conservative Party as well. It was the mentality of the bubble!

It is not for anyone in the political class to now turn round and say `let's move on' as the general public are still living with the consequences of such major incompetence in public office and public opposition and will continue to live with those consequences for possibly another generation. This is right out of order. There are guilty parties that need to stand before the bar of public judgement.

I am sorry but for there to be forgiveness so that `we can move on' there must first be condign expression of their sins by the political class in general, the Labour Party in particular, the City and Whitehall. This would be best expressed in resignations from public office and positions of authority.

However, there will still need to be prosecution and punishment for those who defrauded the nation.

labourbankruptedusall 20

Good post!

sagamix 21

Thanks for drawing attention to lbua's excellent post.

I think Mr.Alexander`s comments are accurate,policy right,politics wrong:According to the IFS,Labour entered the recession with a deficit equal to the one inherited in 1997 and a lower debt.Falling tax revenues,a reduction in VAT,the part nationalization of the banks and bank guaruntees then led to both debt and deficit rocketing.QE added to the strains.

Incurring debt to fight the slump appears to have worked.The recovery,beginning in the last quarter of 2009 has accelerated.tax revenues are rising and the deficit reducing, all good news and sound Keynesian pump priming.But the recovery is fragile and needs to be watched, especially in relation to the pace and direction of spending cuts and the European crisis.


Refusing to accept the need for cuts made Mr.Brown appear shifty and dishonest.Unable to acknowledge the scale of deficit reduction needed, exposed him to a sucessful conservative campaign making him responsible for the scale of public debt,rather than the global collapse of private capital which was the real source.

From the point of view of future policy initiatives, which may come earlier in this administration than expected,it is of paramount importance that a correct analysis is made of the crisis economics for which Mr.Brown was responsible.From this rather than his politics, some
early rehabilitation may be at hand.

Gordon got the politics wrong 2008 to 2010. Perhaps the person who saw that it was going wrong was Blair which was why he left Brown to hold the baby. Though coming to think of it, is Blair that clever? Not sure, but he has a fine sense of self preservation. Brown certainly didn't have that!

JR @ 23

If 90% proof Tory Story with ice and a slice (and leave out the serious analysis guv, thanks ... doctor's orders) can be called "excellent" then, yes indeedy, excellent it is.

I ask again how many people here advocated in 2007 (before the crunch which was apparent at least to me in early July 2007) the policies that they think should have been carried out then before that date.

Hindsight is the province of historians.

Incidentally whatever GG says the the Condem Policy is only valid economically until for fiscal 2011-12. it may be knocked off course or it may have good lcuk ( 'events dear boy' as SuperMac said) but of course politically it is not about economics....the aim is purely political
... to retreat to the watchman state (otherwise know as the GS.)

However it is a state that is telling teachers what to do and teach... surgeons how to operate. and how many bins a month councils maay collect.

A sensible comment by a politican. Funny how it can not be said when a politican is in a position of power.

26 sagamix

labourbankruptedusall's 20 is excellent because it is concise, broadly factually correct and his interpretation of those facts is also correct.

You can whine on as much as you like about "Tory stories", but everyone here knows your concern is 100% devoted to trying to create and maintain a Labour-oriented propagandist myth. But you aren't making any headway. I suggest you retreat, regroup and try a new tack.

"Gordon got it wrong"
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

I've also said previously that the Bank of England has got things wrong too. Setting interest rates to this record low of 0.5% was a panic measure to appease the markets and people with big debts. The resonsible/prudent side of the economy, i.e. savers, have been brushed aside and treated abysmally. History will eventually show that to be a really big mistake...

Lord Young was right(ish), the majority have not had it so good but we do love to moan and moan and moan. Life's not bad. Yes it could be better but it could be a lot worse for the majority. Lets all try and be nice and happy for one day? The world will carry on turning but with a smile on our faces it will seem lighter.

No 30 - Mr TGR WORZEL as a person who seems to know what is wrong can you tell us anything that is factually right? Just so we can place in to context you judgement.

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

Well of course "Gordon got it wrong". Everyone knew that! But the Labour party as a whole got it wrong. Labour allowed all the bad policies to go through and voted for them. The Nanny/Surveillance State, ID cards, HIPs, extended detention without charge, running up huge debts, refusal to cut expenditure, the 'fiscal stimulus', the Lisbon Treaty (with no referendum), one sided devolution for Scotland but not for England, high taxes, waste, fraudulent expenses, the dodgy dossier, failure to fund the armed forces during a conflict.

The New New Labour Party (or whatever they call themselves now) cannot wash their hands of the mess they themselves created. They are ALL to blame. The disgraced Labour party will need many years in the wilderness before a new generation has any chance of winning the public's trust.

No, JR (29), it's Mickey Mouse Con prop. Worth about this many words.

Pls see 24 Mr B for something a little nearer the mark. Also the (unaligned and always impartial) Whistle at 17.

One thing people need to do, if they're genuinely interested in to what extent Gordon Brown is to blame for our deficit, is average out (c.f. GDP) the deficits of the other industrialised nations, subtract from ours, then express the result as a percentage (of ours).

I say "people" and I guess there's no reason why this shouldn't include you, JR. So, you know, be my guest. It won't give you the definitive answer (there are further steps on which I can advise in due course, and if asked) but at least it'll get you thinking along respectable lines.

(you too, Bankrupt ... you take a look at the relevant facts and figures ... you'll find it interesting ... if you don't find it interesting I'll give you your money back).

The fact is that we can all dance on the head of a pin about whether the New Labour deficit was high or low or whatever. It's all irrelevant. It strikes me that Tony Blair and his government had a good grip on the modern economy but Gordon Brown just let things get away from him without the insight of Tony. He retrenched to Old Labour policies, broke his own fiscal rules and we ended up in a recession. Now of course he bailed out the banks and we will never know whether that was the right decision but I think it's fair to say that he did some good things such as keeping us out of the Euro and in some ways he was unlucky and got left holding the baby. Hey, that's politics but the thing that Labour need to do is try to repair their reputation for fiscal irresponsibility. As it took them 18 years last time and it took the Tories 13 years, it's probably best for them to make a start now, even if it does seem rather clunky.

34 sagamix

"Mickey Mouse" etc: more catchphrases substituting for reasoned argument.

As far as the rest is concerned, if you want research done, do your own (if you can).

#34 sagamix

It's easy to twist figures and statistics - just look at what Gordon Brown did with his various budgets and other stuff. People don't 'need' to do anything to understand our present situation, we can see it in the faltering economy. The discussion about what GB did or didn't do will go on for years and will probably be no closer to a conclusion. The fact is that he left us in a mess as the previous government did in 1979 so it doesn't look good. He may have been unlucky and he may actually have been correct about some things but Labour have to pay the price of their mistakes.

Oh good. The policy was right, but the public perception of it was wrong. All OUR fault, yet again.

Wee Duggie and his mates really do need to take that famous advice and go off and find a new electorate ! Pity the highland clearances, which I think replaced people with sheep, were reversed, they would be in their element. (For avoidance of doubt, this is a political joke.)

Alan Douglas

Almost had a terrifying experience today. Was going into a well-known clothing store (part of a chain I can't mention, owned by someone I can't mention who has links with the Tory party) when I saw someone at the entrance who looked a bit like he might be a student.

"Are you here to blocade the shop so that the Tory owner starts to lose millions and is forced to end his political support?" I asked.

"Errrr....no, mate, I'm here to buy a t-shirt", he replied.

Phew, I thought to myself, that was close.

"Concede and move on. That was always the mantra of Team New Labour when something went wrong."

You absolutely sure about that Nicholas? LOL!!!

Interesting how Doug now sees it as safe to emerge and criticise Gordon isnt it, now he's effectively gone - after all, he doesnt darken the doors of the House much these days does he, despite still being paid as an MP... Kinda bit late for this type of navel gazing though. Considering there were three attempted and half hearted coups against the usurper Brown, the time to have stood up to him is long past, yet Alexander and all the rest of his colleagues were adamant that this was the party, this was the PM designate that we should all vote for, now is not the time for an amateur...

Et tu, Brutus Alexander? A little bit pointless considering the political corpse of Brownism stopped twitching about 3 months ago. Maybe Douggie finds this a therapeutic indulgence though. It would be harsh to deny him that, considering the treatment his former master used to dish out to him.

"...it is of paramount importance that a correct analysis is made of the crisis economics for which Mr.Brown was responsible..."

Perhaps so. One that we're not going to get from you, Bryhers. Even less likely to get it from BluesBerry.... RaspBerry, more like....

There are so many things we now know were wrong but at the time we thought were right. It's called life.

41. At 08:52am on 01 Dec 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"...it is of paramount importance that a correct analysis is made of the crisis economics for which Mr.Brown was responsible..."
"Perhaps so. One that we're not going to get from you, Bryhers. Even less likely to get it from BluesBerry.... RaspBerry, more like...."

Maybe not,any body of evidence is subject to intepretation.However,the principle of making a correct analysis of the crisis and the way out of it is correct.My method is intepretation in the light of evidence,what do you do?

Oh dear.

Still an unprecedented degree of denial on these posts, despite Douglas Alexander's partially accurate version of labour's failure to win over the electorate.

One can only presume that this is going to take some time for them all to accept and move on.

As for those who are arguing that 'Gorodn got it right'... and 'was arguing for a Tobin tax' because 'he cares deeply about the British people'... I say this - if Gordon Brown had cared so deeply for the British people he wouldn't have deregulated the financial system to such a degree that the Northern Rock was giving out self certified mortgages at 125% of peoples' salary. Where was Gordon when this was happening? Where did he showed he cared when he allowed the British people to become the worlds most personally indebted? The answer is he was busy behind the scenes making sure interest rates did not rise when inflation picked up.

So to all those who think that 'Gordon got it wrong' I say this.. it would be more appropriate to say 'Gordon never got it right from the get-go' ..the moment he started slashing pensions, selling gold, ramping up PFI, showering public services with cash, repeatedly altering the length of the economic cycle to suit his numbers... the whole newlabour experiment was nothing more than a credit boom. It left us with unprecedented levels of both private and public sector indebtedness. They should never be allowed to govern again. And as ever they left this mess for the tories to clear up.

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

I was pleased to see toryland has come to a halt under a couple of inches of snow. That should be costing snooty's mates a few billion over the course of the day.

Where's his army of volunteers digging out the M25?

Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?

peter white @ 37

That’s politics, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a very significant non-Brown element to this crisis. There quite plainly is. There are the purely domestic factors (for which Gordon Brown, Chancellor for a decade, bears a great deal of responsibility) and there are the global factors. For these we must look beyond Brown when assigning blame. He didn’t (except perhaps in his own head) rule the world any more than every day is the first day of spring. One can argue the toss on the balance - mainly domestic (and if so what were the causes?) or mainly global (and ditto) – and one can debate the extent to which it started in America, that’s all fine and I never take umbrage at analyses along those lines. Where I come in – with phrases like “Mickey Mouse” and “Tory Story” – is when I see posters peddling the line that the whole thing is Brown’s fault. It can be tiring having to rebut all the nonsense, since such posts remain quite prevalent on here, but I know it’s important and so I just grit my teeth and get on with it.

I wonder what the varoius right wing/coalition supporting posters on here would have said if a Labour minister had introduced a policy, argued for it and then announced he was thinking about abstaining when it came to a vote on said policy. New politics?
Similarly if I had a choice between a party who wanted to spend large (the Labour party) or a party that wanted to spend even larger (the Conservatives) I think i would have to go with the former. However I see no evidence that all those who claim that spending was the problem followed this logic. Otherwise we would still have a Labour government.
On any sane analysis Labour negotiated a resonably good exit from recession as the current stats keep reminding us. It is to be hoped that the Coalition can live up to this when their preferred plan takes effect.
F_S is quite right, Alexander's attack on Brown is spineless and if copied will lead to a log period in the wilderness.

RR7 @44
Too true Robin. High spending and too much deregulation was the cause of all our woes.
Now, remind me, which Political party was arguing for even higher spending and even less regulation prior to the financhial crash?

"45. At 09:38am on 01 Dec 2010, jon112dk wrote:
I was pleased to see toryland has come to a halt under a couple of inches of snow. That should be costing snooty's mates a few billion over the course of the day.

Where's his army of volunteers digging out the M25?

Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?"

And of course, low earning self-employed people will be suffering too, especially those who need to travel or work outdoors. Small businesses will struggle more than big businesses and may be forced to cut workers hours, lay off workers or even close. Or are you hoping the snow will only fall on the wealthy?

The wealthy will be able to shrug off such temporary blips, the less well off will struggle.

But if the bad weather pleases you in your obviously spiteful way, that's up to you.

How's your army of protesters coming along? I guess once your mum has finished ironing your socks, you can ask her to join, I'm sure she thinks you're a brave little class warrior. Then there'd be two of you.

20 Labour bankrupted us all wrote:

The structural deficit (ie the annual overspend) was around £70billion before the crisis hit. The total accumulated debt before the crisis hit was around £500billion or so because Brown had simply overspent every year, believing that growth could go on forever with no blips and that growth would not only continue forever but would accelerate exponentially to catch-up with his increasing levels of annual overspend.

Some points of fact:Labour paid down debt and deficit from 1998-2002 from the levels it inherited.It then acquired modest levels of debt and deficit to fund run-down public services.The rapid deterioration of public finances after 2007-08 was due to the global economic crisis,particularly its effects on British banks which were a major part of the economy.

Here is what Chote,Emerson and Tetlow (IFS) had to say on Britain entering the crisis:_

" Labour is entering this recession with a similar structural budget deficit to the one that it inherited from the Conservatives, but with a smaller underlying debt.It remains to be seen whether the structural budget deficit will deteriorate as far under Labour as it did under the Conservatives, but debt is very likely to riseabove the peak it recorded under the Conservatives (even without the impact of recent bank nationalisations and recapitalisations"

I understand why your posts are praised by your supporters,what you also need to be credible is the respect of your critics.

Robin @ 44

And the scary thing is, that's what happened when he had a PM and chancellor who knew what they were doing! Now we know, thanks to Mr King and WikiLeaks, that Cameron and Osborne are considered out of their depth, make economic decisions of national importance on the basis of political self-interest, and rely on a narrow coterie of chums for advice. Heaven help us all.

45 - "Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?"

I guess that wouldn't affect you, tucked up in bed, wondering what to do with yourself today.

45. At 09:38am on 01 Dec 2010, jon112dk wrote:
Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?
=========================================================================
You are such a silly person, you obviously don't engage your brain before speaking or possibly at all.

You either don't think about such consequences or just don't care. It is the old Mind over Matter adage. You don't mind and others just don't matter......

Once again I ask why don't you go and do something positive rather than look to disrupt and or even harm someone.

To quote Joel Barker “Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with Vision is making a positive difference.” Not something you would probably consider as you would have to actually get up and do something.

For any one can pull a community down it takes a special person to build one.

I put it to you that it was not just the word "cuts" that was off limits for some considerable time the "R" word was not uttered and was not allowed to be used during meetings.

Not so much in denial as in ostrich mode....

47 Idont Believeit

I wonder what the varoius right wing/coalition supporting posters on here would have said if a Labour minister had introduced a policy, argued for it and then announced he was thinking about abstaining when it came to a vote on said policy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I would have said that he should resign as a minister which is what Cable should do.

"However,the principle of making a correct analysis of the crisis and the way out of it is correct."

The principle may be correct, but the conclusion is subjective.

"My method is intepretation in the light of evidence,what do you do?"

Depends what evidence you include and what you choose to exclude, bryhers. I know what to expect as a result.

45#

As on-topic, as relevant and as politically engaging as ever jon.

At least you're consistent.

Have the whites of your eyes gone yellow yet?

sagamix

why do you compound the newlabour error of the past thirteen years despite Douglas Alexander's clear attempt to shift some of the balme onto newlabour shoulders?

You can't have all of the credit and none of the blame. This might have worked in the Brown credit boom but it doesn't work in the real world. Either he was chancellor and prime minister and took all those decisions or a male impersonator was taking the decisions for him. And if it was him then he is responsible. I don't hear any tory posters on here excusing Norman Lamont or John Major for the ERM fiasco; they were in charge and Lamont took the rap.

Socialists have simply got to get over this inbuilt tendency to never accept the blame for anything they ever did. It's unhealthy to go on believing that the public got it wrong rather than you.

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

49. At 09:54am on 01 Dec 2010, AndyC555

Good to see you're so concerned about those on a low income, but apparently only if they are self employed.

If they are tories, as most are, then let them slide/queue with the rest. Their income or lack of it is of no interest to me - under a tory regime it is every man for himself.

I thought you tory types liked spiteful?

Think I’ve pointed out before the fallacy of “Labour always leave a mess” and I'm disappointed to see it appearing again all over this thread. It's more than a fallacy, actually. It’s an example, a very good one, of Schrodinger’s Cat.

There are (i) economic cycles (even Gordon knows this now) ... up and down we go, up and down ... and there is (ii) the natural preference of people, since people on the whole are quite nice and believe in social justice and decent public services, to vote Labour.

When you combine these two factors, what do you get? You get Labour governments until such time as a General Election (despite the best efforts of the politicians to engineer it otherwise) co-incides with an economic downturn.

When this happens (as Peter points out in 37) ordinary people blame the in-situ Labour government ... one can’t blame them for this since they’re, as I say, just ordinary people ... and it gets kicked out. Thus the end of Labour governments is invariably accompanied by an economic crisis. Or put another way, if there were never any economic crises around election time we would always and forever have Labour governments in this country.

This is why tory supporters like an economic downturn. It’s their saviour from never-ending progressive and enlightened government. If you doubt this, just ask Robin. Ask Robin if he enjoys a good economic downturn and fiscal crisis. No, on second thoughts don't ... ask him how much he enjoys it.

48#

Not really much of a peg to hang your hat on IDBI.

I mean, look how many fell for the "I agree with Nick" line and how many thought that St Vince was the Sage who saw it all coming and knew the way out of the woods... Hasnt exactly panned out quite as it appeared, has it?

For once, jons attitude of "whoever is in the driving seat is where the buck stops". It doesnt matter what the opposition THINKS, its what the Government DOES. Especially now we've all reached the consensus that all of the main UK party election pledges and manifestos are probably the biggest waste of trees since the publishing of Gordon Browns "Courage" series of books...

"And the scary thing is, that's what happened when he had a PM and chancellor who knew what they were doing!"

THAT's highly debatable! LOL!

50 - You wouldn't be quoting selectively would you?

Chote, Emerson and Tetlow do point out Labours achievements but, as they say, it's all relative.....as they pointed out in 2008 "of 21 comparable industrial country governments, 19 have done more to improve their structural budget balances and 16 have done more to reduce their debt burdens than the UK has."

A decade of growth COULD have resulted in a much stronger economy. It didn't.

In 2008, on Labour's tax plans:

"If delivered, this would take the tax burden to a 24-year high...Over the next five years, Labour plans to take 48% of the ‘proceeds of growth’ in tax, up from 45% under Labour to date and 30% under the Conservatives from 1979."

A decade of growth, sucked into central Government, not left with the people responsible for the growth. Labours answer? Planning to take even more of any growth out. And if that growth (as it turned out) didn't match Labour's always optimistic forecasts......? Was there a plan 'B'? A thought to maybe spend less or tax less? Well, we all know the answer to that.

51. At 09:56am on 01 Dec 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
=========================================================================
If Gordon and Darling knew what they were doing they should be held to account. The only reason that so many people forgave them was they thought they did not know what they were doing or even at times where they were.

49, 53, 52#

Maybe best for us not to feed the troll...

45. At 09:38am on 01 Dec 2010, jon112dk wrote:
Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?
=========================================================================
You are such a silly person, you obviously don't engage your brain before speaking or possibly at all.

You either don't think about such consequences or just don't care. It is the old Mind over Matter adage. You don't mind and others just don't matter......

Once again I ask why don't you go and do something positive rather than look to disrupt and or even harm someone.

To quote Joel Barker “Vision without action is a dream. Action without vision is simply passing the time. Action with Vision is making a positive difference.” Not something you would probably consider as you would have to actually get up and do something.

For any one can pull a community down it takes a special person to build one.

sagamix really..

all economic downturns provide opportunities. whether that opportunity is to kick out a defunct newlabour administration or take advantage of business opportunities.

What is your point? You seem to accept there are business cycles but not to accept that if someone stands up for ten years bellowing 'no more boom and bust' he will be held up to ridicule when that bust inevitably arrives.

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

52. At 09:57am on 01 Dec 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
45 - "Just heard a lovely idea: is it time for the gritters to have a few days on the sick?"

I guess that wouldn't affect you, tucked up in bed, wondering what to do with yourself today.
=======

At work, earning good money my tory friend.


53. At 09:58am on 01 Dec 2010, Chris London

Pulling a community down? I'm having a good old laugh at you lot down in london not able to get to your £100k Christmas bonusses, but that's me laughing at collapse rather than causing it. Now if the council workers you lot want to make redundant go out on strike, that would be pulling you down.

60#

Saga,

You know when you tried climbing out of bed this morning and you found you couldnt, something kept pushing you back under the quilt, quite firmly on the forehead... its called a wall.

You must have tried a number of times to get out of the bed on the wrong side before posting that. Either that, or someone swapped the skimmed soya milk you put on your organic free range fair trade muesli for the anti freeze for mother's vintage Mercedes....

"59. At 10:11am on 01 Dec 2010, jon112dk wrote:
49. At 09:54am on 01 Dec 2010, AndyC555

Good to see you're so concerned about those on a low income, but apparently only if they are self employed.

If they are tories, as most are, then let them slide/queue with the rest. Their income or lack of it is of no interest to me - under a tory regime it is every man for himself.

I thought you tory types liked spiteful? "

School been closed for the day has it? That why you're in such an excitable mood?

You are dense beyond understanding. Do you think if you vote Labour the snow hasn't affected you? It will seem obvious to all on here that no-one is of interest to you, except you. To show lack of understanding of the real world ("most self-employed people must be tories") and lack of sympathy to those of all political persuasions (and none) as the snow affects so many suggests you have little experience of the real world. Ask your mum to make you a cup of cocoa, have a think about things and come back when you've grown up....maybe five years from now.

pdavies @51

the scary thing is you actually believe that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown knew what they were doing...

Despite Iraq, gold, pensions, deficits, deregulation, PFI, extraordinary rendition, water boarding, 90 days detention....


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

44. At 09:25am on 01 Dec 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
I say this - if Gordon Brown had cared so deeply for the British people he wouldn't have deregulated the financial system to such a degree that the Northern Rock was giving out self certified mortgages at 125% of peoples' salary.
============================

So, is this a tory arguing in favour of financial regulation?

#46 sagamix

Actually I agree with you - I try to stay away from the party-political politics because i've voted both ways and i know for sure that in 10 or 15 years time i'll be hating the Tories and voting for someone else.

On the specific point about Gordon Brown, I think that in some ways he was unlucky that there was a recession at the end of his watch and he got left holding the baby. However, I also think that he was a terrible PM and ruled over a dark period of politics in this country, even though he got some things correct.
Labour are going to have to undergo a long period of soul-searching to recover themselves and retrenching from Blairism to Kinnockism is the wrong direction of travel.

"65. At 10:21am on 01 Dec 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
49, 53, 52#

Maybe best for us not to feed the troll..."

I agree. He has the mentality of an 8 year old who thinks it funny to open a church door in the middle of a service, shout "BUM!" and then run away. Foolish of me to have even entertained his puerile nonsense. He's on 'ignore' from now on.

Fubar @ 62

Good. That's what I like: debate. It's why we come here, isn't it?

AS71 @55
Thanks for your honest answer re Vince Cable. Wonder how many others agree.
What's your answer to the second proposition. If spending (too much) prior to 2007 was the cause of our problems does it make any sense to back a party that argued for more spending at that time leading to an even bigger problem and even more austerity?

sagamix 60

So if under Labour the economy was perpetually wonderfull and public services were wonderfully run and everything was generally wonderfull then Labour would be more likely to remain in office. Could be on to something there Saga. Suggest you pass those thoughts onto Red Ed. He could do with some fresh new thinking.

63. At 10:19am on 01 Dec 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
50 - You wouldn't be quoting selectively would you?

Chote, Emerson and Tetlow do point out Labours achievements but, as they say, it's all relative.....as they pointed out in 2008 "of 21 comparable industrial country governments, 19 have done more to improve their structural budget balances and 16 have done more to reduce their debt burdens than the UK has.""

Congratulations on venturing into analysis rather than rhetoric.

The IFS summary is correct,from a purely fiscal viewpoint debt and deficit were higher here than some other industrial countries,but not higher than previous administrations prior to the crisis.

The particular problem Labour faced on coming into office was to fund public services which were below European standards in relation to hospital waiting times,mortality rates etc and this was done accumulating modest debt and deficit on the way.

The impact of the global crisis was initially more acute here because of the importance of finance to the UK economy,about 12% of GDP.
Bank bail-outs and guaruntees,falling tax revenues and fiscal and monetary measures meant a huge hole in public finances.However,as a result of Keynesian deficit financing,weak growth resumed in the last quarter of 2009 and has accelerated through 2010.Excellent news and making a double dip less likely.

Emerson,Chote and Tetlow`s brief is not economic policy in the wider sense of examining objectives but the narrower one of fiscal probity.In this they do an excellent job.

76#

My, talk about a loaded question...

Well that's the tories annoyed for today.

Suddenly they are all full of concern for other people and communities and lord knows what.

My point, Robin (67), is that the co-existence of economic downturns and Labour governments losing office doesn't in any way demonstrate that Labour are less sound on the economy than the Conservatives. In fact, the long run post war record shows the two parties have broadly similar records. There's no real empirical support for ranking one higher than the other when it comes to managing the UK economy. They're both as good (or as bad, take your pick) as each other. See how mature and reflective and non-tribal I am these days? (well, always have been really). Wonder if some of it will rub off on you.

bryhers 78

'The particular problem Labour faced on coming into office was to fund public services which were below European standards'

Oh I see. The aim is merely to fund public services, not to actually improve them. Just as well I guess given that they doubled spending on education and standards went into reverse.

No39 AndyPandy,
More Kindergarten politics from Andypandy. No reference to Labour's policy failures highlighted by Alexander - the subject of Nick's article. Will the Bank of England's Governor realise that all political novices do not only reside in Downing Street?

peter W @ 73

Yes. Thing is, the consensus view of all this, the one which will emerge with time and space and context, won't fit the Tory Story "it were all Brown, innit" (the 100% Brown view) and neither will it absolve him of a very serious chunk of blame ... 12% seems about right to me and many others, but maybe as much as more than that.

People's differences get exaggerated on here. Apart from Robin and Spock (plus Andy on bad day) - and maybe Saunders when he's not thinking straight - we're all pretty moderate.

44. At 09:25am on 01 Dec 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

However as the IFS noted - the last Tory government (all 17 years of it) failed to solve the problem in fact they did precisely the same thing as you have noted Gordon managed to repeat (though he managed it in a shorter time) and basically left the economy where they found it fundamentally. The slight difference being that they left behind battered public services in dire need of repair and an additional army of unemployed rather than a battered industrial sector and an additional army of unemployed.

Gordon inherited precisely the same sort of mess which the current Conservatives have - there are no heros at all in the sorry tale of financial mismanagement which typifies the last 30 plus years of this countries governing.

So just because the current lot are Conservatives makes naff all difference really.

It is what they do that counts not who they are, after all was not our current chancellor a big fan of Ireland - their economic miracle and their reaction to the crisis - not a position I think he would take in hindsight as the situation has changed.

Politics defined by navigating the good ship UK from the rocks of financial disasters and the whirlpool of societal neglect is what causes ruin.
I am encouraged by the approach of the current lot but reaction to events are what counts - thus far as Danny Alexander has said - they really cannot claim much credit for where the economy has gone this year.
The benefit to borrowing of producing an agressive plan of deficit reduction has been good but also they have benefited from weakness of others who need to sell bonds to finance borrowing. However the effect on the wider economy and country of these plans has not become real - we only have the apocryphal parade of bleeding stumps thus far. When the practical effects of the changes actually occur then the reality will kick in and the theoretical effect become crystallised.

How they deal with them will be the measure - floating voters and history will judge their merit in the future. It will not be the dyed in the wool reds or blues opinions which matter we know those opinions already - it will be how these floating voters experience life that will define it. So long as their experience of life improves or remains the same they will continue to vote for the status quo option. If it gets worse and the alternatives on offer seem coherent and sensible then they will float.

Sagamix...

wrong again.. there is a very real and empricial record of the productivity growth between 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 1997 compared to the shambolically low growth in both productivity and real GDP under newlabour.

Tribalism is irrelevant if you can't be bothered to look at the evidence before you present an argument.

There was real a GDP growth under the tories for nearly two decades which was simply not matched by any of the bank leverage treid by newlabour. Their stewardshop of the economy was incompetent and was correctly reflected in the level of the FTSE which went nowhere in absolute terms for thirteen years - rather an accurate reflection of what they achieved.

The idea that you can debate your way around this lack of perfomance may be attracticve to you and your supporters but doesn't cut it with anyone who is anything other than a card carrying member of the labour party already. You can't expect the tories to suddenly forget the facts just because they are now in power in this coalition.

Newlabour were incompetent and corrupt. It's okay; all governemnts end this way. It's just that yours ended recently and you haven't got used to it yet.

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

jr perry @ 36

Hang on minute:

Here's me saying that a person who is genuinely interested in to what extent Gordon Brown can fairly be blamed for our deficit ... that such a person will want to take a close look at the deficits in the other major western (plus Japan) industrialised nations.

And here's you saying (even though it would only take a few seconds at most) that you can't be bothered (!) to do that.

What do we conclude?

fubar @ 69

It's a subtle point, I know - can be difficult to see it* - but it's an important one and that's why I decided to give it a whirl. Not for everyone, I realise that.

* Jobs, for example, hasn't got it yet (judging by his 77 post).

76 Idont Believeit

What's your answer to the second proposition. If spending (too much) prior to 2007 was the cause of our problems does it make any sense to back a party that argued for more spending at that time leading to an even bigger problem and even more austerity?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You may as well ask whether it was right to elect a Labour government in 1997 after the IMF debacle of the 1970s.

The Tories were wrong economically to stick to match Labour's spending plans but right politically. It avoided opening a potential can of worms on cuts. They were also right in both senses to change policy when they did.

Labour were wrong economically to pretend no cuts were required and eventually it proved to be wrong politically as well, as people did not believe them. It also prevented any meaningful debate about cuts during the election.

#78 (and previous) Bryhers

I agree with much of your recent analysis, but would want to add:

I don't remember Keynes being used to support Labour's economic policy during the boom years. It seems to me that Labour supports large deficits during good times (we can afford it) and bad (traditional deficit spending). Hence running budget deficits during a bubble seems an act of economic folly, and one for which Labour should apologise.

Much capital expenditure on schools and hospitals was held off-balance sheet (PFI) and does not appear in the calculation of national debt. Where it was necessary to increase current expenditure Labour could have raised taxes more than they did, or found compensating savings elsewhere.

Labour still seem to wish to assert that their economic model was perfect (though they admit the political presentation was not). I expect they will enter the next election maintaining this position, and indeed I hope they do, because to do so will be a political mistake.

It's a no brianer that Labour got it wrong as the election was lost. I think Gordon did get the policy and politics wrong when he first became PM. By the time he changed track and a more activist industrial strategy was developed it was really too late. The finances were not able to withstand the dodgy business practices in the banks which caused us to support them on a massive scale.
I know the political knock about on here is a bit of a laugh but I think there is a serious question of judgement of the political class that needs looking at. The Tory 3/4's of the current Government also believed that growth could go on forever -Osbourne called for more deregulation of the banks because it was holding back growth. Imagine what the deficit would like like if Gordon had agreed with him.
I sort of agree with the Wikileaks today that DC and GO conversion was mainly political and the economics were designed to fit the politics. So there are a series of questions in my mind, such as are they cutting too fast? Do they really know what they are doing? and have they got the strength to see it though? I'm not sure they have the strength if the politics goes wrong.
They are using all the techniques from the book called Nudge -using 'is it fair' is designed to push people into agreeing with them and I think its working.
However, the real test will be when voters wake up on the next general election day and look around the UK and say is this the sort of country I want to live in -if the answer is yes then the tories will win their first majority since 1992. If the answer is no then labour will win.
The task of Labour now (as it was for the Tories in 97, 2001 and 2005 and should have been in 2010 because they didn't win a majority) is to reflect and renew and this process is what Douglas is contributing to with this speech.

Robin @ 86

But I said the "long term post war average", didn't I? Helicopter view.

Bet in your head of heads even you fully realise that Brown isn't 100% to blame. Not even close to 100%. Is it 12? 13? ... 11? History will decide, I guess.

How's your history, Robin?

#85 Whistling Neil

Osborne was particularly praising three aspects of the Irish economy: its support for R&D, its low corporate tax base, and its educated Labour force.

All of this is valid, and should be applied to UK policy making.

sagamix

A non-tribal interpretation of the post war years.

1. UK suffered relative decline during the post war consensus years.
2. This relative decline was reversed by Maggie Thatcher after which Britain enjoyed a prolonged period of relative economic success.
3. This period of relative success continued during the early years of New Labour during which their policies were a continuation of what had gone before.
4. This relative success went into reverse as Labour reverted to type and allowed tax and spend to get out of control.
5. Stick to a Thatcherite economic agenda and we succeed. Steer away from this and we fail.

Does anyone else find Douglas Alexander's voice really irritating?

83....

yaaaaaaaaaawn.

More one-track posting by IPGABP1.

Still, pleased to see that nurse has obviously got the crayon from out your nose (even though she knows it won't be long before it's stuck back up there).

Having said that, whilst your obscession with following my posts with ones of your own that (always, yawn) mention AndyPandy & Kindergarten was at first amusing in a 'little monkey dressed in a clown outfit' sort of way, I'm now starting to appreciate what it feels like to be one of those people who has a rather sad, creepy stalker after them. You know, I'm dining in a nice restaurant and look up to see my stalker standing outside in the rain, staring blankly in at the window, oblivious to their rain-sodden clothes and pathetic appearence.

Still, I comfort myself with the knowledge that whilst your stalking me, your not up to worse mischief. Now, shall I save you a post?

"In a few minutes, BREADBAP will write

"Duuuuuuuuhhhhh Andy Pandy

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhh Kindergarten

Duhhhhhhhhhhh, Nurse, Nurse, It's the crayon agaaaaaaaaaain....."

No doubt Gordon Brown was a failure, but here's a question....

Can a public schoolboy with a degree in history, who has never held down a proper job and has never managed any significant business or held executive public office have enough experience to be chancellor of the exchequer during an alleged national emergency?

Judging by the latest wikileaks, the answer is - NO.

Good to hear senior officials have such a positive opinion of our overlords.

It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

Okay okay, I sense a popular demand for a way out of this. We’ve talked the talk (some more than others) and it’s time now to talk the talk. Not for the first time it falls to me to do that.

So, here’s how you do it:

The Brown Factor ... how big?

Step One:

Split the UK deficit into its global and domestic elements.

How?

Easy ... take the average of the deficits of the other major western economies (plus Japan) and that’s the global part.

Now stick Brown with a small but non-trivial percentage blame for this – reflecting the fact that London became a byword for cowboy practice in the financial sector during his watch, and that this cowboy practice contributed to the global bank crisis. Didn’t all start in America, in other words.

Save that in Memory.

Now take the domestic part (the total deficit minus the above-calculated global dimension). Assign a Brown blame percentage for this. When doing so, consider the split between “high control” things like presiding over a credit boom and forsaking prudence in fiscal policy (spend too high, taxes too low) in the late period of his Chancellorship – but before the crash, after which he had to spend big – the split between these type things and “low control” factors such as deep-rooted cultural and structural problems and imbalances in the UK’s economy and society generally. His inheritance, if you like.

Add what you get to the number in Memory. Gives the gross Brown factor.

To get the net Brown factor – the final step – give him back a credit for acting so appropriately and well AFTER the crash; for heading off a scenario which would have made our current situation look like a rose garden.

And there you have it. Express this as a percentage (of the deficit) and you have how much Gordon Brown is to blame - 12% - for our current economic crisis.

Please have a bash everyone (there are no right and wrong answers ... except for 100% or anything remotely close to that, obviously) and if you send to me, and I can see you’ve had a proper attempt rather than messing around, I’ll give you some constructive feedback.

Labour are in denial full stop.
Ed Miliband on today's PMQs was yet again so out of his depth.

Well Jobs (94), that's the very first time I've seen rigid adherence to Thatcherism described as non-tribal - the "spicometer" has gone haywire let me tell you.

Look, seriously, at 98 I give some guidelines and I hope you're of a mind to follow them to what will be (I promise) an interesting conclusion.

And same offer to you as to Bankrupt and the Doc. If you do it properly and don't find it interesting and revelatory, you get your money back (less postage and packing).