The labour Leader thread...

[elmarko]

That is not an unreasonable comment, even at the time my thoughts were that the inept Conservative oposition were trying to wear New labour's clothes on the economy because they thought it was electorally the only place to be, rather than it was where they wanted to be. Until the fiscal problems of 2008 onwards any suggestion of cutting the size of the state was met with pure contempt, and for a lot of people still is, as demonstrated by the support of Corbyn.

Which is the point I'm making, if one party lacks economic credibility then really both do.

It's easy for the opposition to play 20/20 hindsight after the fact, but the reality is had the Conservatives been In at the time it would be them with the reputation for mismanagement.

Essentially we are blaming the person holding the torch for it going out when both would have done the same to prevent it happening & ignoring the man next to them with the bucket.

There are plenty of genuine criticisms of Labour, failing to address the poverty gap, the housing crisis, Iraq war, surveillance etc. Those are the real failings, not the economy (which actually was doing well before the crash).

 

[StriderX]

Which is the point I'm making, if one party lacks economic credibility then really both do.

It's easy for the opposition to play 20/20 hindsight after the fact, but the reality is had the Conservatives been In at the time it would be them with the reputation for mismanagement.

Essentially we are blaming the person holding the torch for it going out when both would have done the same to prevent it happening & ignoring the man next to them with the bucket.

There are plenty of genuine criticisms of Labour, failing to address the poverty gap, the housing crisis, Iraq war, surveillance etc. Those are the real failings, not the economy (which actually was doing well before the crash).

Lol, the economy was doing 'well'.

Any economy propped up by a massive mostly invisible black hole, is doing the opposite of well.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Lol, the economy was doing 'well'.

Any economy propped up by a massive mostly invisible black hole, is doing the opposite of well.

It's easy for the opposition to play 20/20 hindsight after the fact

 

[PlacidCasual]

Which is the point I'm making, if one party lacks economic credibility then really both do.

It's easy for the opposition to play 20/20 hindsight after the fact, but the reality is had the Conservatives been In at the time it would be them with the reputation for mismanagement.

Essentially we are blaming the person holding the torch for it going out when both would have done the same to prevent it happening & ignoring the man next to them with the bucket.

There are plenty of genuine criticisms of Labour, failing to address the poverty gap, the housing crisis, Iraq war, surveillance etc. Those are the real failings, not the economy (which actually was doing well before the crash).

That doesn't quite reflect my belief. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have run the economy differently had New Labour not existed, merely that they couldn't say that for political reasons. Specifically I doubt they would have run deficits during the boom and definitely wouldn't have increased the size of the state so aggresively. They would however have allowed banking to get out of control in the same way, I would imagine.

I think there has always been a diffeerence between the parties, maybe not huge but distinct.

 

[elmarko]

That doesn't quite reflect my belief. I genuinely think the Conservatives would have run the economy differently had New Labour not existed, merely that they couldn't say that for political reasons. Specifically I doubt they would have run deficits during the boom and definitely wouldn't have increased the size of the state so aggresively. They would however have allowed banking to get out of control in the same way, I would imagine.

I think there has always been a diffeerence between the parties, maybe not huge but distinct.

You are correct the public spending would have likely been lower (welfare spending I mean by this), but so would have the taxation rates (resulting in lower taxation income) & also less regulation on the financial industry overall. (these were views popular in the party at the time).

What would have been gained by reduced spending would have been lost by reduced taxation & regulation mostly. The difference would have been negligible due to the sheer size of the bailout compared to the increase in spending.

Besides, historically government spending hasn't really gone down in previous conservative governments - it's just allocated differently. The facts simply do not support the assertion the Conservatives are significantly better guardians of the economy.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

 

[Bear]

The facts simply do not support the assertion the Conservatives are significantly better guardians of the economy.

That may be the case but what it conveniently leaves out is that pretty much in my life time (mid 40s) at least, the Conservatives coming in after a Labour government had to clear up a hell of a mess of an economy. Pretty hard to look impressive when you have to clear up a mess each time. Note I'm not blaming Labour for the crash.

 

[Danthus]

Where has he said all that?

Or has someone else said that about him and you believe it?

Watch his Channel 4 interview.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Watch his Channel 4 interview.

I have.

He doesn't say any of that.

 

[elmarko]

That may be the case but what it conveniently leaves out is that pretty much in my life time (mid 40s) at least, the Conservatives coming in after a Labour government had to clear up a hell of a mess of an economy. Pretty hard to look impressive when you have to clear up a mess each time. Note I'm not blaming Labour for the crash.

You could easily say the other way around that each time the Labour party comes in, they have to spend huge amounts of money repairing the damage done to the underfunded public services & failing social welfare system our economy is reliant upon.

It's easy to slash public services & declare you have 'done well for the economy' leaving the next government to pick up the pieces. There is also the fact that growth is no higher under a Conservative government & the last Labour stint resided under the biggest growth we've seen in a long time.

Certain social plans cost money, but saves us in the long term (sure-start) for example, which the Conservatives are keen to axe. This is not about balancing the books, or about fiscal responsibility. This is pure ideology.

A smart politician would always spend public money if it yielded greater returns, it's investment in the population & in growth.

The 'cleaning up the mess' is a myth, one unsupported by evidence or by looking at only specific metrics valued by those who fit a certain ideological stance.

I classify poverty, child poverty, reduced social mobility, unemployment, low wages, failing industry & high tech manufacturing, reliance on finance, the abandonment of the north of England, reduced public health, a failing & underfunded NHS, police & fire service as a 'mess' this government are creating & expanding upon.

We should have a little more foresight & depth when judging the performance of our political class than just GDP, the long term sustainability & future of our nation on all levels should also be judged at the same level.

 

[scorza]

Watch his Channel 4 interview.

He hasn't bothered turning up tonight lol - he knows he has it in the bag. We got a Liz Kendall interview instead, she looked like a puppy dog, I felt sorry for her the daft Tory.

 

[elmarko]

He hasn't bothered turning up tonight lol - he knows he has it in the bag. We got a Liz Kendall interview instead, she looked like a puppy dog, I felt sorry for her the daft Tory.

Liz Kendall has to be the worst politician I've seen in a long time. Some are now playing the women card (saying that we don't need more white men in power), which I have to say - I'm pleased Diane Abbot (not my favourite) has stepped above this & is supporting who she agrees with politically regardless of race or gender & is backing Jeremy.

 

[scorza]

That may be the case but what it conveniently leaves out is that pretty much in my life time (mid 40s) at least, the Conservatives coming in after a Labour government had to clear up a hell of a mess of an economy. Pretty hard to look impressive when you have to clear up a mess each time. Note I'm not blaming Labour for the crash.

This has happened what? twice in your lifetime (Cameron/Clegg in 2010 and Thatcher in 1979)? It also must have happened the other way as Harold Wilson inherited a basket case economy from Ted Heath in '74.

 

[Bear]

You could easily say the other way around that each time the Labour party comes in, they have to spend huge amounts of money repairing the damage done to the underfunded public services & failing social welfare system our economy is reliant upon.

It's easy to slash public services & declare you have 'done well for the economy' leaving the next government to pick up the pieces. There is also the fact that growth is no higher under a Conservative government & the last Labour stint resided under the biggest growth we've seen in a long time.

Certain social plans cost money, but saves us in the long term (sure-start) for example, which the Conservatives are keen to axe. This is not about balancing the books, or about fiscal responsibility. This is pure ideology.

A smart politician would always spend public money if it yielded greater returns, it's investment in the population & in growth.

The 'cleaning up the mess' is a myth, one unsupported by evidence or by looking at only specific metrics valued by those who fit a certain ideological stance.

I classify poverty, child poverty, reduced social mobility, unemployment, low wages, failing industry & high tech manufacturing, reliance on finance, the abandonment of the north of England, reduced public health, a failing & underfunded NHS, police & fire service as a 'mess' this government are creating & expanding upon.

We should have a little more foresight & depth when judging the performance of our political class than just GDP, the long term sustainability & future of our nation on all levels should also be judged at the same level.

I'm not a Conservative supporter at all but to come up with guff like Labour resided over the biggest growth ever is laughable. UKIP or any other party would have resided over the biggest growth ever as well if they were in power, as pretty much most of the global economy saw unprecedented growth as it was due to being awash with cheap credit. Households were borrowing like no tomorrow and spending it hence come the crash personal debt was at ridiculous levels. All past governments have neglected the North

I agree with some the principle of what you deem a mess this government is creating but disagree that the government are the creators of all of it.

 

[elmarko]

I'm not a Conservative supporter at all but to come up with guff like Labour resided over the biggest growth ever is laughable. UKIP or any other party would have resided over the biggest growth ever as well if they were in power, as pretty much most of the global economy saw unprecedented growth as it was due to being awash with cheap credit. Households were borrowing like no tomorrow and spending it hence come the crash personal debt was at ridiculous levels. All past governments have neglected the North

I agree with some the principle of what you deem a mess this government is creating but disagree that the government are the creators of all of it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Labour caused the growth, but they were in power when it happened. - that's kind of my point here.

The same does also apply the other way around with recessions, the reality is the governments are not that different & the overall economic health is highly influenced by external factors. The same arguments which can be used against praising the economic growth to Labour should also be applied to the application of blame for the contractions.

Economies boom & bust, external factors come into play & we attribute the positive & negatives to the governments in power at the time, it makes little sense but it also happens but sadly this 'misattribution' is common.

Some of the points regarding the 'mess created' they are enacting policies which are fully known to cause or exasperate them under the guise of 'settling the books' - another target they are failing to achieve.

 

[Freddie1980]

This has happened what? twice in your lifetime (Cameron/Clegg in 2010 and Thatcher in 1979)? It also must have happened the other way as Harold Wilson inherited a basket case economy from Ted Heath in '74.

And in 1970 Heath tool over at a time when inflation was at 14%, the pound had devalued significantly and balance of payments were dire. Add that to the situation in 1979 when Britain resembled a dump were even the dead remained unburied it's easy to see why people are sceptical about Labour and it's economic competence.

 

[scorza]

And in 1970 Heath tool over at a time when inflation was at 14%, the pound had devalued significantly and balance of payments were dire. Add that to the situation in 1979 when Britain resembled a dump were even the dead remained unburied it's easy to see why people are sceptical about Labour and it's economic competence.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/may/22/inflation-cpi-rpi-interactive

According to that link, inflation in May 1970 was running at 6%. It's not exactly like Harold Wilson inherited a healthy economy in 1964. Like most paradigms propagated by the right-wing press, this myth that Labour have historically been economically incompetent doesn't stack up when you look at the actual facts.

 

[Bear]

Gordon Brown is weighing in on the leadership debate today with a speech according to the news today. First Blair, now Brown. Neither are the sort of MPs the grass roots are interested in it seems, I'm amazed if anyone would be interested in what he has to say.

 

[Bear]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/may/22/inflation-cpi-rpi-interactive

According to that link, inflation in May 1970 was running at 6%. It's not exactly like Harold Wilson inherited a healthy economy in 1964. Like most paradigms propagated by the right-wing press, this myth that Labour have historically been economically incompetent doesn't stack up when you look at the actual facts.

There is no arguement that Labour inherited a less than healthy economy, but there is a world of difference between 6 and 14% and the fact the UK had to go cap in hand to the IMF to bail us out with what was the largest loan ever asked for at that time.

 

[ColdAsIce]

Gordon Brown is weighing in on the leadership debate today with a speech according to the news today. First Blair, now Brown. Neither are the sort of MPs the grass roots are interested in it seems, I'm amazed if anyone would be interested in what he has to say.

Both Brown and Blair must just have huge egos and believe they did a fantastic job for the Country when the reality is they both damaged the Labour partly greatly.

 

[GAC]

Both Brown and Blair must just have huge egos and believe they did a fantastic job for the Country when the reality is they both damaged the Labour partly greatly.

as i said a few pages ago, seems the labour party dont like the idea of democracy, but i guess we knew that with their view on the eu and no chance of a referendum.

remember kiddies do as your told not as you think.