Britain has gone mad - Labour 'most trusted' on economy!

nickmason

SGE1 wrote: »

Well, I for one prefer this Government to the Conservative alternative - and I'm not claiming benefits, I'm well educated (by unbiased international standards, not my own, before anyone has a go), and when I went to see my GP last week, he did not seem to think me suffering from any sort of mental illness.

I think you need to accept that not everyone sees things the way you do, and no everyone adheres to your kind of political philosophy. I would consider my values to be strongly related to those of New Labour - I have some socialist ideals, but am prepared to consider what the markets can offer to solve certain problems in society. I do not think public spending is haneous, so long as it benefits those who are less priviledged that me, and I do believe that Brown cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be blamed for problems that are occurring throughout the world.

I for one prefer the Conservative alternative to this Government - and I'm not claiming benefits, I'm well educated, and although I didn't see my GP last week, I'm reasonably confident I'm not suffering from any sort of mental illness.

I thought I'd try that experiment of changing the words and seeing how the phrase worked; but although this "I think you need to accept that not everyone sees things the way you do, and no everyone adheres to your kind of political philosophy." was easy, I found the next bit interesting.

"I would consider my values to be strongly related to those of New Labour - I have some socialist ideals, but am prepared to consider what the markets can offer to solve certain problems in society."
The problem is twofold; one the concept of political ideals - I think for those of a conservative leaning, economic or social ideology has always been second to pragmatism; hence new Labour's "what matters is what works" adoption of that viewpoint. The closest ideology of the right is a benign nationalism (not a rabid anti-EU or racist version) or, ironically, the liberty of the individual over the state.

Secondly I think you see the markets as something that can be accepted or not; this is to some extent the view taken by Gordon Brown at the moment. Almost invariably the resistance to the current approach that is articulated on this board, for example, is that we are bankrupting the country by thinking that we can buck the market.*

So to "I do not think public spending is haneous, so long as it benefits those who are less priviledged that me, " - this is a false dichotomy or "straw man", as those who think public spending heinous are really few and far between.

"and I do believe that Brown cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be blamed for problems that are occurring throughout the world." Oh, see * below.


* Or rather, historically, that we could buck the market - where we are now is different. FWIW, I think Brown knew exactly the problem we were marching into, but didn't dare jump off the treadmill, instead happy to sit behind the US and blame them. For all his talk of studying courage, he seems deeply deficient when it comes to making tough decisions out in the open.

sdooley

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Do I read this correctly that, us not going into recession in 2000 was a good thing?

Maybe, a minor recession then might have woken up the Govt, business and population to the problems of over-consumption, debt etc.

And put paid to Browns claims of abolishing boom and bust, at the same time.

And maybe, as a result, the current recession would not be so deep, prolonged or painful as it is increasingly looking to be...

Yes the massive structural reductions in unemployment since 1992 as a result of continuous growth are a good thing. I have seen no evidence that a 'minor' recession in 2000 would have avoided or mitigated one now. And no politician, economist or banker has the ability to navigate a soft recession vs a hard bump - without public spending in 2000 it might well have been a hard landing.

From a partisan political position it might be desirable to disprove Brown's claim of abolishing boom and bust - but the truth is that there has been a long period of continuous improvement in UK standards of living (and reduction of poverty on most measures) since 1992. I rate that over any political enjoyment of seeing a politician getting egg on his face.

The 2000 recessions were largely led by stock-market drops. Stock markets have fallen in this recession but are actually (outside financials and miners) holding up surprisingly well given the carnage elsewhere, in the bond markets, world trade, credit lines to companies and the anglo-saxon housing markets. Certainly the US suffered in 2001 and has gone deep into this recession. It is likely that had the UK had a recession in 2001, we would still be having a recession now but would have been poorer going into it and poorer still going out of it.

For those that like their 'hair shirt' approach (normally so long as someone else is wearing it), consider - last year just about the best country in Europe for strong and growing exports, low national debt and high GDP, fully funded pensions and a generally wealthy state sector was Iceland - that all meant nothing when its banks were allowed to pull the country down.

michaels

SGE1 wrote: »

I would consider my values to be strongly related to those of New Labour - I have some socialist ideals, but am prepared to consider what the markets can offer to solve certain problems in society. I do not think public spending is haneous, so long as it benefits those who are less priviledged that me, and I do believe that Brown cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be blamed for problems that are occurring throughout the world.

My understanding was that Brown announced he was dropping the 'new' part of new labour and returning to the older tradition that the state is always the preferred provider of the publics needs (and indeed that the 'nanny' state knows best what those needs are.

There is also the question of comparing the Tory and Labour approaches to the econmic crisis that struck in the 70s, Labour were initially in power and did try to 'spend' their way out of recession. It did not work.

And how about 'the current probelms were caused globally and are nothing to do with the UK's rcent policies'. The UK could have persued policies to make the economy less vulnerable to the problems that have occured by ensuring that UK banks were better positioned to manage any downturn by controlling lending and by actually managing the public sector deficit over the cycle rather than fudging the figures to allow the budget to be far in deficit at the peak of the cycle whilst still claiming that all was 'prudent'. Similarly the balance of payments deficit could have been seen as unsuatinable rather than ignored.

My final thought is the no admission of fault and hide adverse information culture. It was hoped that this was a legacy of Blair that Brown would have the fortitude to drop but it turns out that the Govt has become even more determiined to present any information in a positive light and to surpress anythign that could be portrayed as negative - I guess that it can be rationalised that if the truth is presented the opposition is automatically at an advantage as they are not responsible and able to use hindsight to claim that they would have been better and that thus 'the little lies and ommissions' are justified to maintain power and therefore be in a position to meet out the social justice that I think GB may truly beleive in. I don't buy it though, I think I am adult enough to make my own choices and don't need the state to chose the best alternative for me but may be I am in a minority and others are happy to think that the state knows best and should make decisions for them?

WTF?_2

sdooley wrote: »

Yes the massive structural reductions in unemployment since 1992 as a result of continuous growth are a good thing. I have seen no evidence that a 'minor' recession in 2000 would have avoided or mitigated one now. And no politician, economist or banker has the ability to navigate a soft recession vs a hard bump - without public spending in 2000 it might well have been a hard landing.

Considering that the shortfall between deposits and loans by British banks was zero in 2001 but has zoomed to 740 billion quid last year, it seems to me that a moderate recession back in 2001 would have curtailed much of the ever-escalating reckless lending/borrowing since then that has got us into the current horrible mess.

Every time recession has beckoned, the credit taps were loosened further with the result that our debt has increased to epic proportions (total debt from all sectors is a whopping 300% of GDP according to Peston).

Recession is 'natures way' of telling us the economy needs to slim down - stop the malinvestment, pay down debt. get in better shape. If we keep piling on the debt pounds despite that then we shouldn't be surprised when we suffer a nasty heart attack.

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Considering that the shortfall between deposits and loans by British banks was zero in 2001.

Could you please paste a link to this data?

chucky

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Could you please paste a link to this data?

graph is here for deposits and loans ratio
http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.com/2008/10/uk-customer-funding-gap-737-billion.html

i don't think that was the case in 2001 maybe closer to 1985.
it's a very questionable article typical of some of the posts on here.
the article writer, Alice Cook is a very bitter lady that calls herself a "bitter renter", just says it all.
here's her profile http://www.blogger.com/profile/05753570123987780947

drbeat

redux wrote: »

Some of the electorate remember that that's when things really got worse, and unemployment trebled. This forthcoming recession may risk turning out comparable, but there's no need to take steps that would aggravate things and absolutely guarantee it.

Yes and some of the electorate will remember that the unemployment of the early 80s was also a direct result of the economic mismanagement of the mid to late 70s. Unemployment approx doubled not trebled - from 1.4 million to 3 million 3 years after the Tories got in.

Personally, I see no forthcoming recession more like a full blown depression! Only today I have learnt - from my local rag - of two large local companies that have now gone into administration - over 1000 lay-offs are expected. Oddly enough these two local companies survived 18 years of Tory rule?

drbeat

michaels wrote: »

There is also the question of comparing the Tory and Labour approaches to the econmic crisis that struck in the 70s, Labour were initially in power and did try to 'spend' their way out of recession. It did not work.

But in those days the banks weren't facing a liquidity crisis - there is more to all of this then meets the eye I suspect! This is why I feel that what is coming towards us is going to be a hell of lot worse then anything witnessed since the end of WW2.

ben500

Jeez you guys in here are a hard read lol.

Dithering_Dad

ben500 wrote: »

Jeez you guys in here are a hard read lol.

Ben, your sig should also include the WBC & WBA belts for Super Middleweight and the Ring Magazine 'belts' for Super Middleweight and Light Heavy Weight.

Calzaghe should also have the PfP status too after Floyd 'retired', as he's way better than Pac man.