£4,000,000,000,000

[doktorb]

Gordon's legacy.


"The true scale of Britain's national indebtedness was laid bare by the Office for National Statistics yesterday: almost £4 trillion, or £4,000bn, about four times higher than previously acknowledged. It quantifies the burden that will be placed on future generations, and it is the ONS's first attempt to draw together the "off-balance-sheet" liabilities that have been accumulated by the state. The figures imply a huge "intergenerational transfer" – broadly in favour of today's "baby boomer" generation at the expense of younger people and future generations."

[k-onmmunist]

There were prime ministers before Gordon Brown, you know.

[doktorb]

But Gordon Brown was chancellor and Prime Minister over 13 years. There is no point, no valid argument whatever, to say "Well we have to blame 18 years of Tory rule somehow".

This debt is Gordon's legacy. It's Labour's leaving present. And it is an utter scandal. Labour's economic incompetence shames and cripples the nation.

[k-onmmunist]

Thatcher and Major left a destroyed and gutted economy to be inherited by Labour and it would take a dictatorship to fix the mess they made of things. They destroyed our manufacturing, allowed the plague of free trade to send our unemployment flying upwards, privatised the family silverware and gutted our welfare services. Labour simply continued this. The Tories started it and are thus, a damnsight worse

[Democratic Hawk]

But Gordon Brown was chancellor and Prime Minister over 13 years. There is no point, no valid argument whatever, to say "Well we have to blame 18 years of Tory rule somehow".

This debt is Gordon's legacy. It's Labour's leaving present. And it is an utter scandal. Labour's economic incompetence shames and cripples the nation.

Stop whining. Look on the bright side, at least, our economy isn't in the throes of Depression. Labour rode the neoliberal merry-go-round just as any Conservative government would have done

Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Iain Duncan Smith when he says that work is the road out of poverty. The 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were testament to that. Then we got the Blessed Margaret - the Founding Mother of Mass Welfare Dependency in this country - and an historical leap in poverty [Cameron himself in his interview with Jeremy Paxman admitted that the Thatcher governments had, willingly, tolerated that]

Tolerated or caused I ask? Aye, the Road to Serfdom for many - in Thatcher's Britain it was - £1.50 an hour? I don't call that freedom. I call that waged slavery

[doktorb]

I am not whining. It's pathetic that the Labour auto-response units trot (sic) out this "Year zero" nonsense as though, amongst other things, the Labour disaster of the 1970s didn't happen either.

I am annoyed that Labour have, once again, driven the country close to  economic ruin.  It's pathetic that Labour whinge about "cuts" as though "spend spend spend" is the only philosophy to follow.

It makes me laugh when I hear the (untrue) accusations that Osbourne's plans are somehow only following ideology, implying that Labour have no/had no ideology of their own.

The massive debts left as Gordon's legacy, and the drop in manufacturing as it goes, are FAR WORSE than anything under Thatcher. 

I fully support everything the Coalition are doing to undo the damage Labour have inflicted. The shadow of Greece has not yet lifted, and it's entirely Labour's doing.

[Democratic Hawk]

I am not whining. It's pathetic that the Labour auto-response units trot (sic) out this "Year zero" nonsense as though, amongst other things, the Labour disaster of the 1970s didn't happen either.

I am annoyed that Labour have, once again, driven the country close to  economic ruin.  It's pathetic that Labour whinge about "cuts" as though "spend spend spend" is the only philosophy to follow.

It makes me laugh when I hear the (untrue) accusations that Osbourne's plans are somehow only following ideology, implying that Labour have no/had no ideology of their own.

The massive debts left as Gordon's legacy, and the drop in manufacturing as it goes, are FAR WORSE than anything under Thatcher. 

I fully support everything the Coalition are doing to undo the damage Labour have inflicted. The shadow of Greece has not yet lifted, and it's entirely Labour's doing.

I just hope for their sake, and ours, this neo-reactionary 'slash and burn' dogmatic government doesn't throw this country back into recession. Capitalism is much more global than it was under Thatcher and, IMO, the West is facing an exstential crisis posed by the low cost labour emerging economies

Ever occurred to you that the public sector has expanded as a means of employment out of necessity or would you prefer to have had more people 'existing' on benefits?

Even allowing for the worst global financial crisis and economic downturn this side of the Great Depression - FACT - welfare spending as a % of GDP was less, under Labour, when John Major left office and nowt he nor the Blessed Margaret had to contend with comes even close

And as I've said, Labour rode the neoliberal merry-go-round as well as any Conservative government would have done. The 'Crash of 2008' marked a crisis of laisez-faire not Keynesian social democracy - and yes, for a host of reasons, we were hit harder than most

And get this into you head, now, we are not Greece. Our deficit was circa 25% of what it became as consequence of, and the response to, the 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring 'Great Recession'. Austerity in its wake was not an option and I've sore misgivings as to whether its the right course of action to take now given that not two years ago the global economy was on the brink of collapse

IMO, most major Western capitalist economies have high public debt to % ratios is because that has been the price governments have been willing to pay to 1) sustain the living standards of, and 2) maintain higher levels of employment, for their populaces

Listening to you lot any one would think that Labour didn't have plans to reign in the deficit. Well they did and they were broadly set out in the Labour government's last budget and from what I can gather the tax angle to it would have been in accordance with the ability to pay principle. The main dispute being not that spending had to be cut but when to cut

So lets see whether or not under this government "We're all in this together" because I suspect many in our society of less means are going to be hit hardest the most

[Democratic Hawk]

Where did you get that figure from anyway? I'd appreciate seeing how that figure breaks down

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh and future generations have been paying for the events of the past for as long as I bloody well can remember. War, Depression, War and Near Depression, ...

In an ideal world, government would be living within in its means and there'd be no debt whatsoever but often the political, and economic, realities of our time and place get in the way of that

And I'm sorry but we don't live in an ideal world. Wake me up and let me know when we get there

[Vepres]

The crisis (at least in the US, I don't know about Britain) was caused by Keynesian policies. Bush came into office, but the economy was weak, and 9/11 simply exacerbated that. All the money spent in the military and unnecessary tax cuts and a new entitlement program and chronically low interest rates epitomizes 'Keynesian economics'. Throughout the aughts, the US economy was weak, and the only reason it didn't sink into a full-blown recession was because of Keynesian economics. This essentially created fake growth, which contributed greatly to the financial meltdown. If the recession had just been allowed to come and go in the early aughts, sub-prime mortgages would not have become so prevalent because the banks wouldn't have been so careless in a recession.

Obviously, the recklessness of the banks was a major factor, but Keynesian economics only hurt, not helped, the situation. I imagine that Blair (and Brown?) had similar policies in the aughts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The crisis (at least in the US, I don't know about Britain) was caused by Keynesian policies. Bush came into office, but the economy was weak, and 9/11 simply exacerbated that. All the money spent in the military and unnecessary tax cuts and a new entitlement program and chronically low interest rates epitomizes 'Keynesian economics'. Throughout the aughts, the US economy was weak, and the only reason it didn't sink into a full-blown recession was because of Keynesian economics. This essentially created fake growth, which contributed greatly to the financial meltdown. If the recession had just been allowed to come and go in the early aughts, sub-prime mortgages would not have become so prevalent because the banks wouldn't have been so careless in a recession.

Obviously, the recklessness of the banks was a major factor, but Keynesian economics only hurt, not helped, the situation. I imagine that Blair (and Brown?) had similar policies in the aughts.

My God, if that is your understanding of Keynesian economics, you have got your head on completely backwards.

[Democratic Hawk]

It makes me laugh when I hear the (untrue) accusations that Osbourne's plans are somehow only following ideology, implying that Labour have no/had no ideology of their own.

They did. Think of it as neoliberalism but with a social touch! They certainly did not govern as radicals of any persuasion. Yes, they invested heavily in public services and yes there was a lot of PFI initiatives (and that was a policy carried over from the Major government)

But it doesn't alter the fact they rode the neoliberal merry-go round. Is this government offering me an alternative to that? Or can we look forward to more of the ol' Thatcherite work to welfare economics? Do you not think unemployment in this country is high enough as it is? Where's the guarantee that the private sector is going to fill the void created by culling the public sector? Labour, in office, cut Corporation Tax and slashed CGT - very 'socialistic' if that's what your charge is against the government?  Not to mention Labour having a very, very, very pro-business immigration policy for which it was, rather, hypocritically, IMO, vilified by the right-wing press. I mean should not capitalism be as much premised on the free movement of labour as it is the free movement of capital?

The rich thrived under Labour - so what? - I wouldn't necessarily say it came at the expense of most of us, they just did so much better

The 'Crash of 2008' came from which inaction and austerity was no way to respond what with the global economy on the brink of collapse - and in our case a modest deficit became a large deficit

We all agree that taxes had to be raised and/or spending cut. But the differences were more around when to start cutting, what to cut and what not to cut, and on the tax side of it on whom the monies should be raised

Just think had Labour worshipped at the Altar of Supply-Side we may have even been faced with deeper spending cuts and tax increases. It ain't like the 'Celtic Tiger', the former Soviet Baltic Republics with their flat, regressive taxes were left unscathed. Seen their unemployment rates. Meanwhile, Spain went from surplus to deficit when the housing bubble went pop and look at their rate of unemployment

Personally, IMO. we were hit hardest because our economy was more dependent on the problem sectors - banking and financial services

Labour left office with unemployment falling . And my advice to this government is to sustain the recovery and keep unemployment on a downward trajectory. And, I've said it time and time again, we are not in the throes of a Depression. Now that would have a mess

But should premature austerity plunge us back into recession, nobody, mind you, nobody can say they were not warned. Because mark my words, the Coalition will own it

And any one hoping that Labour will have some breakdown like they did in the early 1980s and take a sharp turn to the left can think again. We'll elect our leader and coalesce, perhaps emerging as a bona fide centrist social democratic party

[k-onmmunist]

I agree with Dave [/brown]

But seriously, the lack of manufacturing causes major problems for this country. You can't have an economy where everyone works at a call centre or at Sainsbury's. It just doesn't work like that. And the reason we dont have manufacturing is because Thatcher deliberately destroyed it and sold it off to her rich friends to remove Labour's support once and for all. "Free trade" is a scourge and will make sure this country remains in the doldrums until we finally take action to protect our industries.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Result of the Preston Riversway by-election

Linda Crompton, Labour, 890
Stephen Wilkinson, LDem, 388
Adam Vardey, Green, 56

Labour gain from Liberal Democrat. By-election caused by the bizarre resignation of Liam Pennington. I gather that by-elections cost money.

[You kip if you want to...]

Result of the Preston Riversway by-election

Linda Crompton, Labour, 890
Stephen Wilkinson, LDem, 388
Adam Vardey, Green, 56

Labour gain from Liberal Democrat. By-election caused by the bizarre resignation of Liam Pennington. I gather that by-elections cost money.

I read there was something like a 10% swing from Lib to Lab.