Johann Hari

ninky_2

^^^ very long post but i can't quite work out the point you are making.

Rochdale_Pioneers

It was a good article in that it states the facts. Try as the Tories and their fanbois might, you can't escape the facts that Labour cut our % debt and that our debt was low historically and internationally.

Then they shuffle embarrassed away from debt and start talking about deficit, and its true that this is high. But its always in terms of "Labour ran a deficit in good years" shock horror. Then you point out that The Tories ran a debt for 15 of their 18 years, and that virtually all the big Eurozone countries had deficits run at a sustained level higher than our own right up to the Norther Rock crash, and once again the facts get in the way.

And finally we have the "its all Labours fault innit" strategy. And yes, Labour were on watch. Their policies being so bad why did the Tories commit to spending each and every last penny that Labour had planned to? Why were they berating Labour for overly-regulating the city, proposing complete deregulation of safe and successful mortgage lenders such as Northern Rock? Why did they plan to grow the economic growth bubble even faster so that having matched Labour's spending they could "share the proceeds of growth" of whatever additional growth they could deliver once the city had been freed from the oppressive yoke of "Brown the great regulator"?

I am fine with criticising economic policies which patently were wrong. Its when they try to personalise them to Labour and specifically Brown. Blaming one man for policies you had personally commited to, and which governments, bankers, economists and traders all around the world had all committed to smacks not just of a revisionist lie but of delusional madness. Had Cameron been telling the city back in 2007 not to lend that money, not to make those profits, not to take risks, to allow themselves to be tighter-regulated, then he might have a point now bemoaning brown not having done those things.

Jowo_2

The cuts targetted at the benefit system are bound to be ideologically driven but Labour did leave the UK with the rather unsustainable model of more paid out in benefits than received in income tax receipts which is very unbalanced.

ninky_2

Jowo wrote: »

The cuts targetted at the benefit system are bound to be ideologically driven but Labour did leave the UK with the rather unsustainable model of more paid out in benefits than received in income tax receipts which is very unbalanced.

for which years? it's not necessarily unsustainable if you have tax receipts from other areas. income is not the only tax source.

Mr_Mumble

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Try as the Tories and their fanbois might, you can't escape the facts that Labour cut our % debt

Wrong.

Ken Livingstone Lies on Question Time

Debt in May 2010

Debt in 1997 (p.104)

Rochdale_Pioneers

Prior to the crash obviously....

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

and successful mortgage lenders such as Northern Rock?

So what caused NR's downfall if it was so successful?

Loughton_Monkey

petebates26 wrote: »

I was wondering what you folk made of this?

The biggest lie in British Politics

I've only skimmed it, so haven't checked any of his sources, but it's an intersting read.

What we have here is no more, or less, than a regurgitation of Keynsian economics.

Within that econonomic theory maybe there is some truth. Let me summarise it. "In a recession, the public cannot spend. The market might curl up and die. Hence the Government must invest and spend to regenerate in order to keep the market alive and healthy. Eventually, the public will be able to spend again and government can ramp down accordingly...."

Here's a quote from the article itself:

Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic break-down, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it “the paradox of thrift”: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.

Now please note the words "spends the money on restoring growth".

Nowhere did Keynes say any of the following:

• Spend it on massive tax credit increases for the unemployed.
• Give more money to single parent families.
• Insert extra expensive layers of management into the Health Service, Police Force, and local government offices.
• Increase National Wage
• Recruit a lot of Bouncy Castle Attendants.
• Take every Chief Librarian, call him a "Director of Learning Resource Centres" and double his salary - requiring triple contributions to his pension........

What he means is:

• Build necessary Rail Links.
• Improve the roads.
• Invest in 'wiring up' the country with fibre optics.
• Grant subsidies to new business.
• Reduce taxes for investors and entrepreneurs........

In fact the article quotes specifically "Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment ..."

And in order to do this, quite rightly, we have to cut out all the crap in Whitehall and Town Halls and offload all the bureacracy in order to oil the wheels of private commerce again.

Keynes is literally turning in his grave over Brother Brown - and how a reputedly 'educated' person could misinterpret the obvious so badly.

purch

The biggest lie in British politics

Is he referring to his own article :eek: or something else ?

Thrugelmir

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

What we have here is no more, or less, than a regurgitation of Keynsian economics.

Within that econonomic theory maybe there is some truth. Let me summarise it. "In a recession, the public cannot spend. The market might curl up and die. Hence the Government must invest and spend to regenerate in order to keep the market alive and healthy. Eventually, the public will be able to spend again and government can ramp down accordingly...."

Nor are politicians commenting on the extremely high levels of consumer debt which are going to be a huge drag on economic growth.

With both consumers and Government in debt. That only leaves the cash rich Corporate sector to drive growth forwards.