Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Solving Labour’s deficit dilemma?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Solving Labour’s deficit dilemma?
If there was one moment where Labour’s fate was sealed during April’s election campaign, it was not the unveiling of the Edstone; it was Ed Miliband’s answer to whether he thought Labour had been spending too much prior to the Crash in 2008. He started by simply saying “no, I don’t”.
0
Comments
Tough call for Labour.
We are proud of our spending and achievements. Let's not spend. Hmmmm
On RT now...
But #OrangeFest seems to be packing them in. Or not.
https://twitter.com/JarlOfCaledonia/status/607165640248557568
Are Glasgow shoppers all Jessies? Or are they in the shops rather than a square?
I think the general consensus was there would be a lot more at #OrangeFest than appears to have turned up. Personally, i'm pretty amazed how small the turnout is. There appears to be even less in the latest pics on the George Square webcam. Will be interesting to see if any more turn up at its end at 16:30.
Gatwick oil reserves '70% higher than thought'
Time for independence for Sussex?
Perhaps a Sussex Nation Party could be formed?
Where are the opposition?
Mr. Jessop, Scotland?
Osborne instead of Cameron?
It's a little thing in some ways, but it is also a comfort blanket that it was lies that cost Labour. Yes, that did seem a little strange. Apparently Ed's QT answer was supposed to open with an explanation of the wider context and perspective, and then end with how in that case, no they didn't spend too much, while explaining why restraint was needed. As it was, the overwhelming impression from Labour was that No, they didn't spend too much, the Tories had cut spending far too much...and Labour was now committed to cutting even further but a little slower than the Tories.
What?
An interesting thread David Herdson – Labour are incapable of squaring the circle they’ve made for themselves and no doubt the future leader will merely attempt to reset the clocks to year zero and claim 2015 was the font of all problems economic.
Fix
roof
when
sun
shining
One of the most watched British political videos of all time - as it went viral in the USA - is of the very eloquent Daniel Hannan addressing Gordon Brown on his visit to the EU Parliament in 2009. A Eurosceptic Tory MEP whom we will undoubtedly see a lot more of in the coming months and in the EU referendum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Re Cameron's level of charisma, I do find it hard to quantify, but he does have something about him in look and manner for many people. I did an entirely useless and unscientific 'test' of a lifelong non-voting relative of mine (but who states if forced to vote they'd probably vote Labour, but who had always said Ed would never win, so they know more than me apparently) and went through just simple images of all the Labour leadership contenders and Tory leadership hopefuls, and they instantly dismissed all of them, some viscerally, but hemmed and hawwed over Cameron.
I guess he has incumbent PM advantage, but on that basis, given my own reasonings proved so poor at reading the coming results, I declare Cameron has to stand next time too.
Will be a very busy session as an hour was lost to the rain in P2 yesterday.
Even that exaggerates the difficulty of defeating the Tories in 2020. Assuming the 650 seat House of Commons continues the Tories would need at least 310 to survive as a minority Government - no parties outside Ulster will support them with the exception of UKIP. I would be confident that the LibDems will not touch them with a bargepole this side of 2050 - and will be seeking revenge!
What I don't understand is why the BBC seems to have backed off from how they attacked the coalition government. I'm not seeing anywhere near as much bias (subjective though that may be).
@HYUFD: thanks for that; though I'd rather Labour lead the opposition than the newspapers.
My view FWIW is this: it's objectively true that the debt/GDP ratio fell over 1997-2007. I think one can make a reasonable case that the 2007/8 budget should have been tighter, but (1) compared with the overall issue one year's budget is neither here nor there and (2) at the time, the Conservatives were urging us to spend more, as I very well recall (they were particularly keen on funding lots more on police and defence). After 2008, the deficit rocketed, but again the Conservatives didn't offer a serious alternative. Could either party reasonably be expected to have anticipated the crash and prepared for it? Probably not.
Others may disagree, but take it as my honest opinion: I'm not standing for anything so have no reason to fib. Now, saying that takes up far more time than I or anyone else would get in a TV interview, and summarising it ("No!") merely gives the impression "Huh, he's still not accepting responsibility when he should". So do we say "On reflection, we can now see we should have saved frenetically to allow for the possibility of a crash, sorry about that"? even if we think it's bollocks?
I think the right balance is probably to say that economists are still arguing about what governments should have done before and after the global crash but undoubtedly with hindsight we should have saved more. In any case, it's clearly true that we need to satisfy voters that we'll be responsible in case further global shocks hit the economy in the coming years. I suspect that the Conservative binge of unfunded spending promises in the final weeks before the election will illustrate the issue as well, and somewhat neutralise it.
Miliband's debate answer, "No, I don't," actually illustrates another problem with Ed's and Labour's campaign: assert and move on. One can imagine Ed as a university professor giving that answer to a keen but slow student: a blunt statement of fact; next question?
Here is my prediction for 2020. CCHQ will flood the country with posters (or more likely tweets) filled with quotations from the Labour leader saying in 2015 that Labour spent too much. As we saw with the use made of Liam Byrne's ill-advised homage to Maudling, all is now fair in love and politics.
Labour lost not because Brown ran an historically small deficit for a couple of years but because of the ineptitude or even absence of Miliband's campaigning in contrast to the Conservatives' professionalism.
I think Labour could become more attractive if they said they got it wrong 2005 - 2010, then move on to looking at the position in 2020. If the Tories absorb most of the pain and eliminate the deficit by the next GE, the voters may very well be more inclined to change the government.
What Labour need to do is create a solid platform that give voters a reason to believe. One way they could do this is to expand and clarify the idea of invest spend on infrastructure projects and, excluding this, run a surplus. The infrastructure projects don't even have to be planned for the next parliament, they can say the planning will be for 2020 - 2025, with execution 2025 - 2030. That way, Labour could advertise the wonderful projects for 2025 - 2030 and increase re-election potential.
The major infra-structure projects could be
Power Generation Capacity
Upgrading Railways and encouraging increased freight
Runways
Internet Infrastructure
Defence
Major Road improvements
I must admit the above strategy could also apply to the current government, and they'd steal a 5 year advantage on the opposition.
And that was way before 2005 and way before Brown let spending rip without the accompanying income.
I do think it's just a fight Labour need to move on from for the moment. Economists and historians will argue about it, and as memory fades of the last Labour government it will become easier for Labour, but right now they need to do something like you suggest.
--------
I do think the point about the Tories splurging toward the end raise an interest matter which has struck me for awhile, which is that as most people will vote by gut instinct, even those of us who like to think we are being a bit more analytical, creating the right impression is very important in what you can get away with that goes against that impression.
Labour thought they could get away with some things because polls show people just like them better.
Tories think they can get away with some different things because polls show people, right now certainly, think they are more competent.
Ed Miliband was seen as far too left wing, therefore the party was, even if the actual platform was not, so it is said.
Cameron, I have seen argued in recent days, does not seem like a hard line Thatcherite figure to most people, so he has managed to do things she supposedly never could attempt.
If Kendall can establish herself as the 'right' wing candidate, she could announce a fairly lefty policy and, perhaps, not been dismissed by the right straight away even so, and Burnham seems to me to be testing a similar thing, in that he was pegged as the 'lefty' candidate, but he can therefore try to reach out to the right a bit and potentially still snag those lefty votes.
And so on and so forth.
Of course, they must take some of the blame. Alright - they need to take a lot of the blame.
Cameron at conference in 2010.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/06/david-cameron-speech-tory-conference
*) Power generation capacity: new nukes and others; RCS can provide more info.
*) Upgrading railways: a massive electrification program, the electric spine for freight, HS2, and more. Remember, the railways always do better under the Conservatives than Labour
*) Runways: hopefully Davies will come up with something sane. i..e. not Heathrow.
*) Internet infrastructure. More can be done.
*) Defence. We need another SDSR, this time done properly. This one probably concerns me the most; the tail is wagging the dog.
*) Major road improvements. A11 completely dualled, the new £1.5 billion A14 starting soon. And they're just the ones near me.
And you're also asking the impossible. We're really bad at strategic planning in the UK, and getting cross-party agreement for work over multiple terms is very difficult.
JJ Once Labour get a new leader then they will focus on opposition
When there was all the talk of a massively hung Parliament before the election, half of me was hoping for a Grand Coalition to spend a couple of years sorting out the list of things that need doing but are unpopular with the electorate. Two really obvious examples are the need for TWO new runways near London, and how social care will be paid for when there are as many pensioners as workers.
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/delivery-plans/control-period-5/
http://www.thenational.scot/news/orangefest-petition-organiser-receives-online-death-threats.3795
" THE organiser of an online petition criticising today’s “Orangefest” in Glasgow has been forced to delete her Facebook and Twitter accounts after receiving death threats. Julie Philp, who started the petition on Tuesday, says that her elderly parents and siblings have also been the victims of abuse. As well as the threats, pictures of Philp’s wedding and pictures of her family have been shared on forums and in Facebook groups. The 29-year-old, who lives in Glasgow, says that even her employer, a financial services company, has been targeted. "
As far as I’m aware, Cameron has not ‘shifted his line’ unless it predates his ‘Plan For A Responsible Economy’ speech in 2008.
What did it this year was the fact that the poster of Miliband and Salmond was so resonant, with no obvious way to a Lab majority without a 1997-style swing which was never going to happen.
Salmond was seen as a strong and assertive politician whereas Miliband was seen as weak and easily manipulated. Neither party said anything to dispel these suggestions, it was clear to the English electorate that the SNP would be deciding British government policy with nefarious intentions.
"The guy is the CTO of the biggest tech firm in the world, and he wears a Blackberry..."
In the social media and Google age it is very easy to get information on individuals and their movements. It would help if parties themselves didn't attempt to disrupt each others events. Not only is it rather peurile, but it also means that parties retreat from contact with the public and campaign via ticket only staged events. It does none of us any good.
In overall terms the deficit and debt werent spectacularly bad, though they werent where they should have been after fifteen years of sustained economic growth.
The issue was increasing public spending on the assumption that the tax revenues flowing in from the city of london (and a housing boom) could be sustained, which was shown to not be the case, and in response to the crash increasing public spending by over 4% of gdp in one single year.
I am paraphrasing what Hunt said, but it seems a fair enough analysis. Miliband could have given that answer at the debates. It fitted what he was saying to jusitfy why the labour government increased spending. But he didnt. He was glib.
It will probably be as exciting as the 2015 election, but hopefully with better polling!
Howling wind, sharp bursts of rain, freezing temperatures, bloody miserable. Thank goodness he had the good sense not to make it through to the finals later.
EDIT Touches of Intv with a Vampire too.
Shortly there will be a summer where our snow will increase.
(or something)
Betting PostUnusually, two tips on offer for qualifying:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/canada-pre-qualifying.html
I reckon the Force Indias are in with a good shot. Talented drivers and the best engine, plus Canada isn't a circuit where aerodynamics (the key Force India weakness) is critical, because it's straights and slow corners.
Backed both with Ladbrokes to reach Q3/be top 10 in qualifying at 2.75 each.
Mind you, I have had horrendous results this year, so do at your own risk.
Just met (at a party in her constituency) the deeply unimpressive Rupa Huq.
Me: what do you want from your time as an MP
Her: What is good for the people of Ealing/Action. We campaigned on the NHS. Ealing/Acton didn't need to close three A&E wards.
Me: But isn't that down to the NHS? Isn't the NHS budget ringfenced?
Her: Yes but it is operating in a Conservative govt environment.
I don't think the Cons have much to worry about in 2020.
I was one of them. I was newly self employed, had a very small net income, my wife working a temporary job, got a 95% mortgage no problem from my bank in 2004. Sold the house in 2011 for twice what i paid for it, used that equity to be a lovely country house.
I acquired more wealth in the appreciation of my home (and when interest rates collapsed, my tracker mortgage payments dropped) than i could have earned if I had put 100% of my salary into the bank every month for the same period.
And i didnt pay any tax on it, at least the bankers had to pay tax on their ill gotten gains.
I suppose all parties have a few who are just there to make up the numbers.
Foul weather in Scotland? Who would have thought...
Wherever the centre was in British politics, at whatever time, Cameron would occupy it.
So government spending not only increased far more rapidly than the economy but switched to current spending with most capital spending being put on the never never of PFI. In work benefits did many good things but made it almost impossible for a future government to control public spending. Even record employment does not bring benefit spending down, in fact it increases it.
The trend of growth being driven by more rapidly increasing public spending and an ever larger public sector head count ran from at least 2002-2010. And the answer when the inevitable happened and the economy fell off a cliff? Spend more of course! Have you not heard of Keynes? The great man must be spinning in his grave.
Labour have thought about saying they made a mistake in tactics. It is their entire strategy that needs rethought.
Edit. There. Feel warmer now.
"Apart from the ice warnings?"
"You can always find some Cassandra."
"Indeed you can, officer. Indeed you can."
Tsipras turns to Putin and accuses West of sabotage
Only by skipping a generation to someone like Kendal who can avoid the worst of any of the blame game do they stand a chance, otherwise its going to be a long hard road...
Before I get dragged out again I would point out that by this time in the economic cycle we should be reaching peak debt repayments with a healthy surplus. The structural deficit is still over £100bn a year despite 5 years hard work and "austerity".
Long term structural damage that will take a generation or more to repair.
A market forced adjustment would be the best thing for them IMO. They won't be able to borrow in USD or another major currency to keep the lights as one would have to be absolutely insane to lend to a SYRIZA government.
I am a firm believer in rational economics, outside of the Euro they would have no choice but to reform as they would have the power in their own hands. Within the Euro SYRIZA and others have a nice easy boogeyman to blame for all of their problems, when the reality is that the Greek economy has always been a house of cards built on shipping and tourism with little else. Being in the Euro covered up a lot of this for a long time and allowed national budgets to spiral out of control and instead of cuts being blamed on who deserved it, the government and the people who voted them in, it is being blamed on outside institutions.
Yes the German and French banks were absolutely idiotic to lend to them, and yes the bailout structure was an intentional bank bailout through the back door which moved the losses from bank balance sheets onto the ECB/government balance sheet, but regardless the Greek government had to borrow the money in the first place because they were spending too much and not taxing enough.
Getting to the point, as I said above, Greece outside of the Euro would be forced to adjust their economy and tax base to the real world and they would have no one to blame but their own stupidity. Much like I blame Labour for our massive deficit and I blame the people who borrowed more than those that lent for the crash, I would also hold the Greek government and people to as responsible for their original mess. A market led or forced fiscal adjustment is what they need, the IMF can help out, but Greece needs to have the way cleared of any organisation they can potentially blame for their own stupidity and own borrowing decisions.
Currently I support Grexit because the boil needs to be lanced, France, Portugal and Italy I also think should be looking at the exit door. Spain may just manage to keep up with German wage dumping but the other three won't.
That's the lesson many learned personally after the financial crisis: debt = bad.
Labour should go for a balanced budget amendment for times of peace and prosperity, but changing the spending priorities to choose where to spend the money more wisely.
You can still spend it on schools and hospitals but you have to take it from somewhere else in the budget.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/06/01/donald-trump-straw-poll-mitt-romney-gucci-store/28313569/
"I'm the most successful person ever to run for the presidency, by far. Nobody's ever been more successful than me. I'm the most successful person ever to run. Ross Perot isn't successful like me. Romney — I have a Gucci store that's worth more than Romney."
I can't wait for the first debate, it's still 2 months away.