Do you want to discuss boring politics? (187 Viewers)

[Philosoraptor]

The problem with 'New' Labour and Brown in particular, if you take away the neoliberalism for the moment, is the 2008 crash which left the economy, and the country, in a poorer state by the time Labour left office, fucking up the lives of the next generation.

Brown has a catchphrase all the way through when he was chancellor and later on as PM: 'No more boom or bust'. He actually claimed to of eradicated it.

When the 'bust' arrived, you can really only blame the one guy in the room.

Labour doesn't like getting blamed for the crash. They say it was a global thing. However, they had every chance to regulate the UK financial market themselves, and they failed miserably by not doing this.

 

---

[PVA]

Nope, that was when he was an inept chancellor before he became a dithering indecisive PM. Nice attempt at gaining a few echo chamber backslaps although as usual missed the satirical with inaccuracies. Got a like from shmmeee though so we'll done for that

Well you've been asked several times what makes him one of the worst PMs of all time and still no response so I assumed it was something daft like that.

Inept chancellor and car crash of a PM?!

Please elaborate...

 

[shmmeee]

Nope, that was when he was an inept chancellor before he became a dithering indecisive PM. Nice attempt at gaining a few echo chamber backslaps although as usual missed the satirical with inaccuracies. Got a like from shmmeee though so we'll done for that

Can you back up any of your claims? As chancellor we ran more surpluses and had more growth than any other as well as reducing the debt and reducing child and pensioner poverty. As PM he lead the global response to the GFC and debt relief for the third world.

All you’ve done is throw a couple of insults. And some waffle about echo chambers.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Can you back up any of your claims? As chancellor we ran more surpluses and had more growth than any other as well as reducing the debt and reducing child and pensioner poverty. As PM he lead the global response to the GFC and debt relief for the third world.

All you’ve done is throw a couple of insults. And some waffle about echo chambers.

Factually correct about surpluses but you know better than to just look at the base numbers. Look at the trend. I’m not sure much in the way of initial policy would’ve changed the direction of travel. It’s like the deficits around 2010 can’t be laid on Tories door.

To be fair to Labour there was a lot of investment which benefitted to country during that time but the whole deficit/surpluses argument doesn’t really stack up, especially as a lot will relate to wider/global economic factors and cycles…and what you pick up from the previous incumbent

The brown/Blair doc recently shone a light on Brown as a person. I personally don’t think was the right type to be PM (very intelligent and ultimately well meaning but you can’t micro manage everything at that level otherwise you’d go mad !). Having said that he was a serious politician, who had the right intentions which is a massive step up from recent PMs. Also played a big role in helping try to sort the global financial crisis….that was his domain

 

[skybluetony176]

Can you back up any of your claims? As chancellor we ran more surpluses and had more growth than any other as well as reducing the debt and reducing child and pensioner poverty. As PM he lead the global response to the GFC and debt relief for the third world.

All you’ve done is throw a couple of insults. And some waffle about echo chambers.

Longest period of sustained growth since record’s began. You can judge/put down Blair/Brown on many things but the economy isn’t one of those things. And you can hardly blame Brown solely for a banking crisis that triggered a world recession.

 

[Sick Boy]

The problem with 'New' Labour and Brown in particular, if you take away the neoliberalism for the moment, is the 2008 crash which left the economy, and the country, in a poorer state by the time Labour left office, fucking up the lives of the next generation.

Brown has a catchphrase all the way through when he was chancellor and later on as PM: 'No more boom or bust'. He actually claimed to of eradicated it.

When the 'bust' arrived, you can really only blame the one guy in the room.

Labour doesn't like getting blamed for the crash. They say it was a global thing. However, they had every chance to regulate the UK financial market themselves, and they failed miserably by not doing this.

Ahhh the old “Labour caused the global recession” line.

 

[shmmeee]

Ahhh the old “Labour caused the global recession” line.

Funny how many Tory lies supposedly left wing people parrot.

 

[shmmeee]

Factually correct about surpluses but you know better than to just look at the base numbers. Look at the trend. I’m not sure much in the way of initial policy would’ve changed the direction of travel. It’s like the deficits around 2010 can’t be laid on Tories door.

To be fair to Labour there was a lot of investment which benefitted to country during that time but the whole deficit/surpluses argument doesn’t really stack up, especially as a lot will relate to wider/global economic factors and cycles…and what you pick up from the previous incumbent

The brown/Blair doc recently shone a light on Brown as a person. I personally don’t think was the right type to be PM (very intelligent and ultimately well meaning but you can’t micro manage everything at that level otherwise you’d go mad !). Having said that he was a serious politician, who had the right intentions which is a massive step up from recent PMs. Also played a big role in helping try to sort the global financial crisis….that was his domain

He was the last statesman we had. The last person I wasn’t embarrassed by them representing the U.K. on the global stage. Cameron was the best since but ultimately insincere.

I think there’s a lot to be said for global factors having more impact than national governments. Your graph doesn’t show a trend of increased borrowing though, up to 2008 it was pretty stable. Also a headline figure means little without comparison to GDP.

He did what all Labour chancellors do which is actually focus on growth instead of cod kitchen table economics.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Ahhh the old “Labour caused the global recession” line.

But Tories aren't responsible for the current problems even though they've been in power for a decade. Cos that's global.

 

[skybluetony176]

But Tories aren't responsible for the current problems even though they've been in power for a decade. Cos that's global.

They’re not responsible for the some of the causes (excluding brexit obviously which is 100% on them) but they are responsible for the reaction. There reaction was terrible to covid costing the economy more than it needed to and costing more lives than it needed to.

 

[wingy]

The problem with 'New' Labour and Brown in particular, if you take away the neoliberalism for the moment, is the 2008 crash which left the economy, and the country, in a poorer state by the time Labour left office, fucking up the lives of the next generation.

Brown has a catchphrase all the way through when he was chancellor and later on as PM: 'No more boom or bust'. He actually claimed to of eradicated it.

When the 'bust' arrived, you can really only blame the one guy in the room.

Labour doesn't like getting blamed for the crash. They say it was a global thing. However, they had every chance to regulate the UK financial market themselves, and they failed miserably by not doing this.

Let's be honest it was a World event adopting financial tricks from the American market.
He did try adding fuel to fire attempting to start schemes like shareholding portfolio's on property.

 

[shmmeee]

More quality Home Officing from Braverman

 

[Deleted member 9744]

More quality Home Officing from Braverman

She almost makes Truss look good.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Factually correct about surpluses but you know better than to just look at the base numbers. Look at the trend. I’m not sure much in the way of initial policy would’ve changed the direction of travel. It’s like the deficits around 2010 can’t be laid on Tories door.

To be fair to Labour there was a lot of investment which benefitted to country during that time but the whole deficit/surpluses argument doesn’t really stack up, especially as a lot will relate to wider/global economic factors and cycles…and what you pick up from the previous incumbent

The brown/Blair doc recently shone a light on Brown as a person. I personally don’t think was the right type to be PM (very intelligent and ultimately well meaning but you can’t micro manage everything at that level otherwise you’d go mad !). Having said that he was a serious politician, who had the right intentions which is a massive step up from recent PMs. Also played a big role in helping try to sort the global financial crisis….that was his domain

You've shown a tiny amount of borrowing as a % of GDP that was lower than most years of the post 2010 governments. Governments should run a deficit, it's really unclear to whose benefit a budget surplus is? Can you explain?

 

[CCFCSteve]

You've shown a tiny amount of borrowing as a % of GDP that was lower than most years of the post 2010 governments. Governments should run a deficit, it's really unclear to whose benefit a budget surplus is? Can you explain?

I was just saying to shmmeee that it’s probably not wholly accurate to claim that running at a surplus was labours doing as the graph suggests it was heading towards surplus whoever was in government around 98/99/00

There’s no tangible benefit other than it reduces government debt/borrowing, which in turn reduces interest on borrowing costs. If deficits are utilised to invest in the country/deliver growth it’s worth running one but as we saw with Truss/Kwarteng, if markets don’t agree with the justifications for increase borrowing you can end up in a shitstorm of increased government borrowing costs, increased interest rates etc

 

[fernandopartridge]

I was just saying to shmmeee that it’s probably not wholly accurate to claim that running at a surplus was labours doing as the graph suggests it was heading towards surplus whoever was in government around 98/99/00

There’s no tangible benefit other than it reduces government debt/borrowing, which in turn reduces interest on borrowing costs. If deficits are utilised to invest in the country/deliver growth it’s worth running one but as we saw with Truss/Kwarteng, if markets don’t agree with the justifications for increase borrowing you can end up in a shitstorm of increased government borrowing costs, increased interest rates etc

LOL what? The government in charge was not responsible for its own budget? Come on Steve . Maybe Labour deserve the credit then for the budget reductions achieved by the coalition as it was already on its way down from 2009/10

 

[Philosoraptor]

Let's be honest it was a World event adopting financial tricks from the American market.
He did try adding fuel to fire attempting to start schemes like shareholding portfolio's on property.

Yes, he expected the financial institutions to self-regulate.

That went well.

I am sure the next generation won't mind paying for these mistakes, PFI, and also any wars 'New' Labour joined on a whim.

 

[CCFCSteve]

More quality Home Officing from Braverman

Like a millstone round his neck until she goes

 

[CCFCSteve]

LOL what? The government in charge was not responsible for its own budget? Come on Steve . Maybe Labour deserve the credit then for the budget reductions achieved by the coalition as it was already on its way down from 2009/10

Id said that it’s unlikely that any policy changes alone would’ve affected things that quickly, not unless they dramatically cut spending which they obviously didn’t

 

[fernandopartridge]

Id said that it’s unlikely that any policy changes alone would’ve affected things that quickly, not unless they dramatically cut spending which they obviously didn’t

Tbf to you i think it was in the 97 manifesto to match Tory spending plans so you're technically correct

 

[David O'Day]

Factually correct about surpluses but you know better than to just look at the base numbers. Look at the trend. I’m not sure much in the way of initial policy would’ve changed the direction of travel. It’s like the deficits around 2010 can’t be laid on Tories door.

To be fair to Labour there was a lot of investment which benefitted to country during that time but the whole deficit/surpluses argument doesn’t really stack up, especially as a lot will relate to wider/global economic factors and cycles…and what you pick up from the previous incumbent

The brown/Blair doc recently shone a light on Brown as a person. I personally don’t think was the right type to be PM (very intelligent and ultimately well meaning but you can’t micro manage everything at that level otherwise you’d go mad !). Having said that he was a serious politician, who had the right intentions which is a massive step up from recent PMs. Also played a big role in helping try to sort the global financial crisis….that was his domain

The deficits of 2010 onwards can be squarely laid at the tories door as they pulled the spending that was creating growth and when growth slowed down taxes fell and then they had to borrow more.

 

[shmmeee]

Yes, he expected the financial institutions to self-regulate.

That went well.

I am sure the next generation won't mind paying for these mistakes, PFI, and also any wars 'New' Labour joined on a whim.

Ah yes as opposed to the opposition who were totally for more regulation. He’s admitted his mistake though.

PFI and Iraq were more a Blair thing, you’ll find no argument from me there. Except again the reason for PFI was the ridiculous economic orthodoxy which meant having to find another way. Blair fucked up a lot, particularly around private involvement in public services. Still improved them massively though as opposed to those before and after him who both cost the country billions and made services worse.

And Brown pulled us out of Iraq, and lead the world on climate action and financial regulation. So again a bit harsh to pin them on him.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Ah yes as opposed to the opposition ...

Not a zero-sum game

 

[Philosoraptor]

PFI and Iraq were more a Blair thing,

More a 'New' Labour thing.

 

[shmmeee]

Not a zero-sum game

Quite literally is under FPTP.

 

[shmmeee]

More a Labour thing.

I see the mask is off now. Good stuff. Congruence is good for the soul.

 

[CCFCSteve]

The deficits of 2010 onwards can be squarely laid at the tories door as they pulled the spending that was creating growth and when growth slowed down taxes fell and then they had to borrow more.

Id probably be a bit more generous and would say some of the initial years will be more related to the financial crisis and commitments made around that time. From memory Brown also committed to significant spending cuts in the 2010 election.

It’s fair argument in the later years though

 

[Philosoraptor]

I see the mask is off now. Good stuff. Congruence is good for the soul.

I know taking any kind of criticism isn't in the right of centre's MO.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Ah yes as opposed to the opposition who were totally for more regulation. He’s admitted his mistake though.

PFI and Iraq were more a Blair thing, you’ll find no argument from me there. Except again the reason for PFI was the ridiculous economic orthodoxy which meant having to find another way. Blair fucked up a lot, particularly around private involvement in public services. Still improved them massively though as opposed to those before and after him who both cost the country billions and made services worse.

And Brown pulled us out of Iraq, and lead the world on climate action and financial regulation. So again a bit harsh to pin them on him.

I thought the reason for PFI was in order to meet the 'fiscal rules'. Because so much investment was needed after an 18 year Tory government even 'only borrowing to invest' could go so far without breaching the thresholds, so PFI instead pushed investment off the government's books into the private sector, with individual public bodies paying it all off over 30 years from their revenue budgets.

 

[shmmeee]

I thought the reason for PFI was in order to meet the 'fiscal rules'. Because so much investment was needed after an 18 year Tory government even 'only borrowing to invest' could go so far without breaching the thresholds, so PFI instead pushed investment off the government's books into the private sector, with individual public bodies paying it all off over 30 years from their revenue budgets.

Yeah that’s what I was driving at. If they just borrowed the cash we’d have all been better off but borrowing bad sooo…

 

[shmmeee]

I know taking any kind of criticism isn't in the right of centre's MO.

You tell me, you’re the one who spends their time fighting for a right wing government.

 

[shmmeee]

Id probably be a bit more generous and would say some of the initial years will be more related to the financial crisis and commitments made around that time. From memory Brown also committed to significant spending cuts in the 2010 election.

It’s fair argument in the later years though

IIRC when the Tories came in the economy was growing again, and Osbourne cut that off at the knees and plunged us back into recession with austerity.

 

[Philosoraptor]

And here is where the problem is for Labour.

Mostly, the same loons that drove the economy to the brink of disaster are still Labour MPs, councillors or people in Labour inner workings that have the same Thatcher ideology as before.

Until a complete rechanging of the guard, then Labour is going to go nowhere.

It is not the ethics of what Labour was built around. It is the people who are playing the political game within it.

Basically, they are destroying the party from the inside on a bizarre search for power by being a little bit less shitty than the Tories.

 

[CCFCSteve]

IIRC when the Tories came in the economy was growing again, and Osbourne cut that off at the knees and plunged us back into recession with austerity.

Yeah, but as I say, from memory Brown was going to deliver significant cuts as well post 2010. It was a long time ago so I might be wrong but I’d imagine a decent proportion of that growth was driven by the amount of public sector spending at the time which Brown knew he couldn’t maintain

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yeah that’s what I was driving at. If they just borrowed the cash we’d have all been better off but borrowing bad sooo…

But only because of self-imposed rules that didn't really mean anything. I hate the term 'borrowing' as it has completely misleading connotations - investors in GILTs are not really lending the government money, the government is selling the safest of safe investments to investors while maintaining its interest rate. It isn't really borrowing anything in the true sense of the word.