My main objection to Easter eggs is that they are an outrageously expensive way of eating chocolate. Is there anything else to be bothered about?
The best chocolate is from here - http://www.gay-odin.it/. The Foresta chocolate log is superb. I have one at home brought to me from their wonderful shop in Naples.
In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?
1) Borrow and spend 2) Tax and spend
In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.
If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.
The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.
We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).
The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.
Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.
What level is 'rich'?
How much would you like to take from them?
How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.
How long till we end up like Venezuela?
Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.
The top 1% already pay a touch under 1/3 of all tax. They're not a limitless well from which money can be extorted. Witness the falling tax take on Stamp Duty. The Laffer Curve is not a fairy tale.
Yes, because the authorities turn a blind eye to them dodging tax.
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
I've never been clear on these ideology and purpose questions - who answers honestly if asked if they have ever committed genocide or plans to practice bigamy.
On child benefit, it seems very generous to me and I don't see the fuss. Yes, I'm single with no children, how did you know?
I've never been clear on these ideology and purpose questions - who answers honestly if asked if they have ever committed genocide or plans to practice bigamy.
On child benefit, it seems very generous to me and I don't see the fuss. Yes, I'm single with no children, how did you know?
I always thought it is so they could do you in for committing perjury.
My main objection to Easter eggs is that they are an outrageously expensive way of eating chocolate. Is there anything else to be bothered about?
The way it seemingly starts in February or earlier every year ?
It certainly doesn't fit very well with Lent. But it seems that these people who are worried about not properly observing religious holidays aren't too worried about activities that are in conflict with observing that religion's calendar, so long as it has the name of that holiday in it.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
My main objection to Easter eggs is that they are an outrageously expensive way of eating chocolate. Is there anything else to be bothered about?
The best chocolate is from here - http://www.gay-odin.it/. The Foresta chocolate log is superb. I have one at home brought to me from their wonderful shop in Naples.
Far better than sickly eggs......
Blimey that looks good, like a 3lb Cadbury’s Flake...
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
This would be a bit more convincing if you didn't yourself constantly refer to the last Labour government as pantomime villains, somehow still to blame for any problems the country has 7 years on from leaving office (didn't you even say Cameron's bad renegotiation was because of Blair and Brown "setting bad precedents" with their dealings with Europe, or something like that?!).
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm yet to be convinced that spending large amounts of unearned money is more moral/less nasty that trying to live within our means.
The deficit in 2010 was very big (£170bn). To have kept on borrowing and spending would've pushed the debt on to a future generation, and that's nastier (in my book) than Osborne's austerity*.
*Let's remember that Osborne's 'nasty' austerity still saw public spending rise each year he was Chancellor.
My main issue with Ed M's strategy (and frankly I was not hostile to the man, he had some decent ideas) was while I felt Cameron and Osborne had failed in their aims, his approach was to say a) They had not cut as much as they said and b) they had cut too much, too fast, in essence criticising them for not cutting enough.
If the point was they were incompetent and reckless in promising to eliminate it in in one parliament, and cut in the wrong way, it was not very well communicated, at least not credibly.
But, as Fenster says, there were no cuts. Public spending rose every year in the 2010-15 Parliament, which was terribly communicated to the public because the government wanted to highlight their prudence and the opposition their austerity. Osborne's line should have been that we have to divert spending from other departments to pay for the ever increasing debt interest, but he didn't mention that often enough.
Ireland, Iceland and Spain had cuts in public spending.
Yes I know spending rose, I was using cuts in the colloquial sense that it has been used generally with this matter. The perception has been of massive cuts.
You're right about the perception, which in my mind was a political failure on the part of the 2010-15 government.
Osborne actually did a very good job indeed of moving money around to repaying debts and cutting the annual deficit while (just!) avoiding a recession, he deserves credit for the outturn but the messaging was terrible. For someone who tried to see the political angle in almost everything, he failed at what was really his primary task.
Had the Ed Miliband opposition been more competent, the election result in 2015 may have been much closer.
That said, I do agree with some comments that Labour have big problems (beyond Corbyn) with regards to the economy, but I think it's different to the problems people in this thread are saying. There's still no evidence that Joe Public cares that much about "the deficit" -- there was a poll just before the Budget which showed something like only 15% said the economic priority right now should be to reduce the deficit, with the overwhelming majority saying the priority should be either increasing spending or cutting taxes.
In my view Labour's problem is not that people think the overall level of spending under them would be dangerously high, it's more that they don't trust what Labour would spend the money on. Right now people think Labour are so incompetent and/or soft that any extra money would just get wasted on back-office staff and the like, rather than actually improving hospitals or schools themselves. People think Labour would just have the downsides of increased spending, without even the upsides of improved services to compensate.
I think their priority should be to point to examples of wasteful spending (stupidly high wages for public-service administrators, various pointless and inefficient schemes that have grown up, a few benefits which really aren't that helpful) and say they'd cut them, not to "reduce the deficit", but to put into the "front-line" services. Prove that, even if they increase spending, they're not just going to say "yes" to any request, and will instead be focussed on delivering for the taxpayer. More Labour-controlled councils would be a big help as well, since it would demonstrate concretely to people that they really can deliver services competently (so that people wouldn't just dismiss it as empty words) - but more Labour-controlled councils is obviously much easier said than done right now.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity.
On topic, don't get mad, get even. Better still, don't get even, get everything.
Labour supporters should be angriest that no one has sought to come forward with a compelling story how the poor in a First World country can be supported effectively in an era of globalisation. Don't worry about people or events, those are second order problems.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
The accounts were definitely in surplus though judging by the graph I'm looking at, the debt obviously created by a global depression and two world wars.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
As mentioned, they could have said we will not adopt austerity, and we'll grow our way out of it. Perfectly literate economically. OK the country wasn't in the mood for it but it would have been a differentiation from the three "me too Tory lite" candidates and would also have headed off Jezza.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
Most of the debt at the time was wartime debt. Cutting the armed forces after 1945 enabled huge amounts of money to be saved. In general though, governments ran a pretty tight ship in the 1950s, running either budget surpluses, or low deficits.
That said, I do agree with some comments that Labour have big problems (beyond Corbyn) with regards to the economy, but I think it's different to the problems people in this thread are saying. There's still no evidence that Joe Public cares that much about "the deficit" -- there was a poll just before the Budget which showed something like only 15% said the economic priority right now should be to reduce the deficit, with the overwhelming majority saying the priority should be either increasing spending or cutting taxes.
In my view Labour's problem is not that people think the overall level of spending under them would be dangerously high, it's more that they don't trust what Labour would spend the money on. Right now people think Labour are so incompetent and/or soft that any extra money would just get wasted on back-office staff and the like, rather than actually improving hospitals or schools themselves. People think Labour would just have the downsides of increased spending, without even the upsides of improved services to compensate.
I think their priority should be to point to examples of wasteful spending (stupidly high wages for public-service administrators, various pointless and inefficient schemes that have grown up, a few benefits which really aren't that helpful) and say they'd cut them, not to "reduce the deficit", but to put into the "front-line" services. Prove that, even if they increase spending, they're not just going to say "yes" to any request, and will instead be focussed on delivering for the taxpayer. More Labour-controlled councils would be a big help as well, since it would demonstrate concretely to people that they really can deliver services competently (so that people wouldn't just dismiss it as empty words) - but more Labour-controlled councils is obviously much easier said than done right now.
Indeed. Lab need to get away from a spending=good, cuts=bad mentally, to one of saving to invest e.g. cut A to spend on B
These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS
Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.
It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:
I think this is correct to be perfectly honest. Why should my taxes fund other people's lifestyle choices, having children beyond one or two is precisely that.
Then why 2, why not 1 child, or 0. What is the difference?
Well personally I'd be perfectly happy with zero or one, but it might be a tricky sell - politically speaking. Two seems a fair enough compromise.
There used to be no child benefit at all. Then it was only introduced for the second child. It's been relatively recently that it became available for all children.
To hear the wailing at any restriction on benefits which have only been relatively introduced, you'd think the government was proposing the slaughter of the first-born. It is precisely this sort of attitude - exemplified in spades over the NI proposals in the budget and Osborne's earlier attempts to limit the amount of tax relief on charitable contributions rich people could get - that hobbles our attempts to deal with the deficit and get a sustainable and fair welfare system.
The Tories are frit and go after soft targets. Labour have no answers at all. This is not going to help when the next recession comes along nor as we face life outside the EU. Before we can spend money we have to earn it. It would be good if all parties could learn this rather important lesson.
I agree with you here. Either child benefit is to feed and clothe kids or it isn't. The limit of 2 seems arbitrary and smacks of Puritanism. (2 normal, more...control yourself!). Equally, Labour should have heartily welcomed the rise in self-employed NI as a progressive tax measure. The triple lock could also be seen as, while useful when it was introduced, is now indefensible.Even a reduction to RPI would be more than most employed people are getting, and would save huge amounts. Then there would be 2 measures to show where the £ is coming from.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity.
At the time there was a large budget surplus which continued until 1975.
There was no such thing. There was a small Budget Surplus in one year in the late 1950s , but beyond that - with the exception of two years when Roy Jenkins was Chancellor in 1969/70 - there was no further Surplus until the late 1980s under Nigel Lawson - who had the benefit of North Sea Oil Revenues as well as Privatisation receipts.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
From 1957 to 1960 the budget was broadly balanced, public debt was falling as a share of GDP and the debt interest burden was also falling. This is what we need to achieve again.
In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?
1) Borrow and spend 2) Tax and spend
In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.
If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.
The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.
We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).
The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.
Perhaps you could put some numbers on that:
What level is 'rich'?
How much would you like to take from them?
How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich?
How long till we end up like Venezuela?
I'm not unsympathetic to the idea pushed by conservatives that government should be small. But the idea that raising rates on the rich or the middle class = Venezuela is just silly. Arguably the most successful societies in the world are Scandinavian and they tend to have high tax takes and high public spending.
I think the LDs ought to be aiming to overtake Labour in the projected national vote share in May. They could get around 23% and Labour could slip to just below that if they do really badly.
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
Most of the debt at the time was wartime debt. Cutting the armed forces after 1945 enabled huge amounts of money to be saved. In general though, governments ran a pretty tight ship in the 1950s, running either budget surpluses, or low deficits.
Indeed - but much of our Debt today is longterm and interest rates are exceptionally low.
Labour is stuck until Corbyn goes and that will not happen until next year. Only then can it even begin to start thinking about what it is actually about and how it can achieve power. And for the reasons a few of the more thoughtful Tory posters on here have provided - and many more on top - there is a lot of thinking to do. But I'd say that actually applies to all the parties, not just Labour.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that a policy of eliminating the deficit by a fixed point in the future is a particularly helpful way of managing an economy; nor do I believe that solely focusing on cutting services and spending is the way to do it. There are a range of levers open to a country that controls its own currency, while it seems silly not to be taking better advantage of historically low interest rates.
I look at the Tories and a cabinet ram-packed with mediocrities and far worse, and I get frustrated because it is clear that a half-decent opposition with a quarter decent leader could be causing it significant damage. What's more the country needs this. Giving any government a clear run is not a good idea, but leaving one as bad as this one to just get on with it is unforgiveable.
That said, I do agree with some comments that Labour have big problems (beyond Corbyn) with regards to the economy, but I think it's different to the problems people in this thread are saying. There's still no evidence that Joe Public cares that much about "the deficit" -- there was a poll just before the Budget which showed something like only 15% said the economic priority right now should be to reduce the deficit, with the overwhelming majority saying the priority should be either increasing spending or cutting taxes.
In my view Labour's problem is not that people think the overall level of spending under them would be dangerously high, it's more that they don't trust what Labour would spend the money on. Right now people think Labour are so incompetent and/or soft that any extra money would just get wasted on back-office staff and the like, rather than actually improving hospitals or schools themselves. People think Labour would just have the downsides of increased spending, without even the upsides of improved services to compensate.
I think their priority should be to point to examples of wasteful spending (stupidly high wages for public-service administrators, various pointless and inefficient schemes that have grown up, a few benefits which really aren't that helpful) and say they'd cut them, not to "reduce the deficit", but to put into the "front-line" services. Prove that, even if they increase spending, they're not just going to say "yes" to any request, and will instead be focussed on delivering for the taxpayer. More Labour-controlled councils would be a big help as well, since it would demonstrate concretely to people that they really can deliver services competently (so that people wouldn't just dismiss it as empty words) - but more Labour-controlled councils is obviously much easier said than done right now.
That is a very honest assessment, with some thoughtful ideas on public service delivery that should appeal to those who use them.
I agree that a campaign against public sector 'fat cats' would be a good starting point, but Labour councils would need to get their own houses in order first and lead by example. They need to get away from the perception that public services exist primarily for those who work in them, rather than their customers - perhaps this is a consequence of much-reduced private-sector union membership in the last couple of decades?
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
As mentioned, they could have said we will not adopt austerity, and we'll grow our way out of it. Perfectly literate economically. OK the country wasn't in the mood for it but it would have been a differentiation from the three "me too Tory lite" candidates and would also have headed off Jezza.
We do need to grow our way out of it. But you cannot do that by having borrowing at a higher percentage rate than GDP growth. We are only this year going to come close to having borrowing lower than GDP growth. I don't think we will quite make it despite my optimism on growth.
I think the LDs ought to be aiming to overtake Labour in the projected national vote share in May. They could get around 23% and Labour could slip to just below that if they do really badly.
That is a bold prediction. Are you talking actual votes or equivalent national share?
This may make me a closet Tory in certain circles, but that sounds very reasonable. Never mind who is most at fault for the deficit, who agreed with the choices that led to it, how much could be done to prepare for it, bottom line how the government has dealt with it and continues to deal with it is the question.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
From 1957 to 1960 the budget was broadly balanced, public debt was falling as a share of GDP and the debt interest burden was also falling. This is what we need to achieve again.
I accept it was falling - having been circa 200% at the beginning of the 1950s - but economic growth was the means by which this was achieved.There are many economists who believe that Osborne's policies post 2010 election made it more difficult to repeat the trick and that austerity - because of the multiplier effect on Aggregate Demand - eventually landed us with a higher deficit and Debt to GDP ratio than would have been achieved with an Ed Balls type strategy.
In answer to Mr Brind, Labour are good at identifying these sorts of problems but what is their solution?
1) Borrow and spend 2) Tax and spend
In regards to the 1st option, we are still running a deficit and have a large debt pile. In regards to the 2nd option, no-one can say we are a low tax country.
If Labour want to get a hearing again, then they need to move away from the idea that more spending=better public services and look at how we can do more for less.
The problem is that Labour are in hock to producer interests, which stifle any attempts at innovation.
We're not a low-tax country for the average Joe, but we certainly are a low-tax country for the super-rich (including the people who dodge tax altogether, and have a blind eye turned to them by the authorities).
The silver lining for Labour from the Brexit referendum is that it showed how threats of "we'll leave Britain if you don't do as we like" from rich people have no effect at all on Joe Public. People's responses last year (including from Tory voters) were either "we don't believe you'll really leave" or "if being in Britain really means that little to you then good riddance". Therefore, IMO, there would be no political cost to Labour to promise to tax the rich til the pips squeak.
Perhaps you could put some numbers on that.
What level is 'rich'?
How much would you like to take from them?
How much more will middle class people pay when there isn't enough from the rich.
How long till we end up like Venezuela?
Since the top 1% alone have more than a quarter of Britain's wealth, I'd say it's definitely possible to get them to cough up without touching the middle class.
The top 1% already pay a touch under 1/3 of all tax. They're not a limitless well from which money can be extorted. Witness the falling tax take on Stamp Duty. The Laffer Curve is not a fairy tale.
Yes, because the authorities turn a blind eye to them dodging tax.
Why do the top 1% pay 30% of income tax? Because income inequality has increased considerably since the top rate last stood at 83% and Mrs. Thatcher was PM. The marginal tax and NI rate is now higher if one earns £100k/y than if one earns £1-10M. One loses the personal allowance and beyond a point one pays no more NI. That makes little sense.
Ending the NI upper limit would have support I think if it goes to 'health and social security'. We could also pay a higher state pension on much higher incomes, in return for some but not all of the extra NI. The US does.
These so called 'cuts'are actually no more child benefit if you have more than 2 children (if you want more get a job to pay for them) and an extra £8 billion announced for the NHS
Almost; no more tax or universal credit beyond the second child unless it's a multiple birth or through non-consensual intercourse (their words). Child benefit is unaffected.
It's good that the government has finally gasped this nettle. Trust the BBC to give it the most negative headline possible:
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about how we got to the unsustainable position we did in 2007 is now pointless. And I accept that the Tories were not exactly shouting "unsustainable" from the roof tops at the time. The question as you rightly say is what do we do now?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
On topic, it appears that Don thinks that the answer that Labour should give to everything is to spend more money no it. Labour needs to understand that austerity is not a lifestyle choice; it's an economic necessity. The public gets that: until Labour does they will keep losing.
Many academic economists disagree and see austerity as a political choice rather than an economic necessity. The 95% of the electorate who are ignorant of Macroeconomics have been conned - though Labour bears significant responsibility for that by their failye to effectively respond post 2010.
We can debate timings but no credible economist would argue that you can run a 10% deficit for a prolonged period of time. In as far as austerity was a political choice, the choice was simply 'when' and 'how fast'.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
From 1957 to 1960 the budget was broadly balanced, public debt was falling as a share of GDP and the debt interest burden was also falling. This is what we need to achieve again.
I accept it was falling - having been circa 200% at the beginning of the 1950s - but economic growth was the means by which this was achieved.There are many economists who believe that Osborne's policies post 2010 election made it more difficult to repeat the trick and that austerity - because of the multiplier effect on Aggregate Demand - eventually landed us with a higher deficit and Debt to GDP ratio than would have been achieved with an Ed Balls type strategy.
This ignores the fact that the reality was that the government did run a hugely expansive policy in the period 2010-2015 with massive amounts of borrowing boosting domestic demand in a highly Keynsian way. That is how Osborne kept the economy growing (just) and employment high. It is simply not true to suggest that there was harsh austerity in those years. Ask Greece, Portugal or Ireland what harsh austerity was like. We have no experience.
Would even more borrowing have produced faster growth? I very much doubt it in a world where austerity was King and demand everywhere was being restricted. Maybe in a world where the EZ were also running a more expansionary policy it might have been possible but I fear it would have simply resulted in currency instability, higher borrowing costs, mortgage defaults and repossessions (as in the 1990s) and much higher unemployment.
That said, I do agree with some comments that Labour have big problems (beyond Corbyn) with regards to the economy, but I think it's different to the problems people in this thread are saying. There's still no evidence that Joe Public cares that much about "the deficit" -- there was a poll just before the Budget which showed something like only 15% said the economic priority right now should be to reduce the deficit, with the overwhelming majority saying the priority should be either increasing spending or cutting taxes.
In my view Labour's problem is not that people think the overall level of spending under them would be dangerously high, it's more that they don't trust what Labour would spend the money on. Right now people think Labour are so incompetent and/or soft that any extra money would just get wasted on back-office staff and the like, rather than actually improving hospitals or schools themselves. People think Labour would just have the downsides of increased spending, without even the upsides of improved services to compensate.
I think their priority should be to point to examples of wasteful spending (stupidly high wages for public-service administrators, various pointless and inefficient schemes that have grown up, a few benefits which really aren't that helpful) and say they'd cut them, not to "reduce the deficit", but to put into the "front-line" services. Prove that, even if they increase spending, they're not just going to say "yes" to any request, and will instead be focussed on delivering for the taxpayer. More Labour-controlled councils would be a big help as well, since it would demonstrate concretely to people that they really can deliver services competently (so that people wouldn't just dismiss it as empty words) - but more Labour-controlled councils is obviously much easier said than done right now.
That is a very honest assessment, with some thoughtful ideas on public service delivery that should appeal to those who use them.
I agree that a campaign against public sector 'fat cats' would be a good starting point, but Labour councils would need to get their own houses in order first and lead by example. They need to get away from the perception that public services exist primarily for those who work in them, rather than their customers - perhaps this is a consequence of much-reduced private-sector union membership in the last couple of decades?
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
This is also another point which will help Labour a bit, after Corbyn has gone. In the 1980s, Labour councils were still acting up right til the end of the decade, even after Kinnock had started putting the national party's house in order. (In the 1987 election, in London in particular, actions of Labour councils were often cited by people as the main reason to vote against them, rather than the national party's policies.)
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained. And that doesn't look like it's going to change, because deselections of current councillors are still very rare, despite all the dire warnings when Corbyn first came in.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about hoously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
This is also another point which will help Labour a bit, after Corbyn has gone. In the 1980s, Labour councils were still acting up right til the end of the decade, even after Kinnock had started putting the national party's house in order. (In the 1987 election, in London in particular, actions of Labour councils were often cited by people as the main reason to vote against them, rather than the national party's policies.)
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained.
Yep - there are Labour councils making very tough choices across the country right now, often with demonstrating Momentum and Unite members on the pavement outside the council chamber demanding deselections and lawbreaking. There is a strong base of councillors who are demonstrable proof that Labour politicians are able to protect services while managing extremely tight budgets. A smart party would make a lot more of that.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about hoously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
Unfortunately, politicians love talking about "investment" when really they mean spending. What was the ROI on Gordon's spending binge.
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
Come off it... The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher. There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
I agree that arguing about hoously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means thaly dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
Unfortunately, politicians love talking about "investment" when really they mean spending. What was the ROI on Gordon's spending binge.
Well if you divorce spending from productivity gains then you are in big trouble. The point is that as @DavidL has pointed out, George Osborne's actual austerity, and Lab's non-austerity might have come down to the same thing.
That is a very honest assessment, with some thoughtful ideas on public service delivery that should appeal to those who use them.
I agree that a campaign against public sector 'fat cats' would be a good starting point, but Labour councils would need to get their own houses in order first and lead by example. They need to get away from the perception that public services exist primarily for those who work in them, rather than their customers - perhaps this is a consequence of much-reduced private-sector union membership in the last couple of decades?
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
Good luck to them!
In an alternate universe, whoever's in charge of DCLG and campaigns this week would have been telling the world about these good authorities, every day during the quiet time, to everyone who'll listen and cares about more than Easter eggs and Gibraltar. They've got one month.
Of course, in the real world, they didn't do the legwork for a campaign like that months ago, so if they try it now it will come crashing down with headlines of "Model Labour council hires finance manager on £300k per year!!!"
But seriously, good luck to them - we need we'll run and prudent councils no matter who's in charge of them politically, and we need an opposition to the government at national level too.
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
This is also another point which will help Labour a bit, after Corbyn has gone. In the 1980s, Labour councils were still acting up right til the end of the decade, even after Kinnock had started putting the national party's house in order. (In the 1987 election, in London in particular, actions of Labour councils were often cited by people as the main reason to vote against them, rather than the national party's policies.)
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained. And that doesn't look like it's going to change, because deselections of current councillors are still very rare, despite all the dire warnings when Corbyn first came in.
I'm now fairly active in Nottingham Labour (as distinct from the County where I was based before), and the private briefings from councillors are quite heart-warming - full of detailed factual information, with crisp political criticism of the Governmnent's cuts supplemented with eagerness to take advantage of any positive aspects for the people affected: "there is nothing socialist about people on emergency beds waiting in corridors if we can find a way to avoid it", as one said.
The quite extraordinary squeeze on local authority spending has gone largely unremarked in the general public, though the effects are certainly noticed (and often blamed on the local authorities).
That is a very honest assessment, with some thoughtful ideas on public service delivery that should appeal to those who use them.
I agree that a campaign against public sector 'fat cats' would be a good starting point, but Labour councils would need to get their own houses in order first and lead by example. They need to get away from the perception that public services exist primarily for those who work in them, rather than their customers - perhaps this is a consequence of much-reduced private-sector union membership in the last couple of decades?
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
Good luck to them!
In an alternate universe, whoever's in charge of DCLG and campaigns this week would have been telling the world about these good authorities, every day during the quiet time, to everyone who'll listen and cares about more than Easter eggs and Gibraltar. They've got one month.
Of course, in the real world, they didn't do the legwork for a campaign like that months ago, so if they try it now it will come crashing down with headlines of "Model Labour council hires finance manager on £300k per year!!!"
But seriously, good luck to them - we need we'll run and prudent councils no matter who's in charge of them politically, and we need an opposition to the government at national level too.
As I say, the Labour councillor base is generally much more centrist than the leadership at national level, so will never be seen as an asset by Corbyn and his team.
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
This is also another point which will help Labour a bit, after Corbyn has gone. In the 1980s, Labour councils were still acting up right til the end of the decade, even after Kinnock had started putting the national party's house in order. (In the 1987 election, in London in particular, actions of Labour councils were often cited by people as the main reason to vote against them, rather than the national party's policies.)
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained. And that doesn't look like it's going to change, because deselections of current councillors are still very rare, despite all the dire warnings when Corbyn first came in.
I'm now fairly active in Nottingham Labour (as distinct from the County where I was based before), and the private briefings from councillors are quite heart-warming - full of detailed factual information, with crisp political criticism of the Governmnent's cuts supplemented with eagerness to take advantage of any positive aspects for the people affected: "there is nothing socialist about people on emergency beds waiting in corridors if we can find a way to avoid it", as one said.
The quite extraordinary squeeze on local authority spending has gone largely unremarked in the general public, though the effects are certainly noticed (and often blamed on the local authorities).
No political capital in sticking up for local authority spending, and ita absorbed the reductions very well so no noone cares it is now hurting.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
That depends on what the pay-off is. Far too many pseudo-Keynisan projects have been spending for the sake of it. That policy might tide things over in tough times but there's a legacy down the line.
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it doesn't mean that the debt will be serviced in a continually low environment. That might not matter if the debt is long-dated, will be paid off or substantially eroded by inflation, but those things can't simply be assumed by any means. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
That depends on what the pay-off is. Far too many pseudo-Keynisan projects have been spending for the sake of it. That policy might tide things over in tough times but there's a legacy down the line.
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it doesn't mean that the debt will be serviced in a continually low environment. That might not matter if the debt is long-dated, will be paid off or substantially eroded by inflation, but those things can't simply be assumed by any means. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
.
.
To an extent. But:
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
Having taught Macroeconomics at degree level I am well aware of the distinction between the accumulated National Debt and the Budget Deficit. We have had much higher Deficits and Debt/GDP ratios during both World Wars and for an extended peacetime period after them.The interest burden relating to the National Debt was actually much higher when Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor in the 1930s than at any time since 2007.Moreover, it is far from clear that an ongoing Budget Deficit of 3% or so is unsustainable even on a longterm basis when we look at the experiences of Scandinavian countries and Japan. As for being able to magic growth, the problem at time of severe recession /depression is the lack of Aggregate Demand.There was clearly plenty of spare capacity but demand from the Consumer, Corporate and Overseas sectors was very weak. It, therefore, made perfect sense for the Treasury to seek to offset that weakness by boosting Government Expenditure and /or reduce taxation. To some extent Alastair Darling did that via lower VAT and the Vehicle Scrappage scheme etc.Osborne tightened fiscal policy far too early - and failed abysmally in meeting his own objectives. Yes Labour continued with austerity policies post 1945, but that was because it inherited an economy that needed to be transferred from a war footing to producing domestic goods.The system of Direct Controls via rationing was complemented by high levels of Taxation to prevent pent up demand feeding through into inflation - such as had occurred post World War 1.It was also not so much a qustion of the state of the Public Finances as the need to pay our way in the world via exports to keep the Balance of Payments in a reasonable state. That obviously mattered a lot more then due to the Bretton Woods Excahange Rate system and the obligation to sustain the pound at a particular parity.Today ,of course, the Balance of Payments is in a hell of a mess yet many appear not to care at all. I agree with those commentators who say we have been focussed on the wrong Deficit.
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
Come off it... The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher. There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
The tax relief to private pensions is about £50 bn per yr. Largely undeserved. On a lowish to middle income, with a pension pot of £100-200k, you lose means-tested benefits in retirement which on average roughly cancel this sum out, so it's a con. On middling to high incomes, most people can afford to save anyway if they don't want to live at the state pension level. It could be withdrawn in stages; tax relief on mortgage interest was phased out over a period I think.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
Fair go, but when the economy has been growing for a long time how can we be said to be in difficult times? Yet we still have a zonking great deficit, better than it was but still far too large, adding to our debt pile and interest burden all the time. Furthermore, if the economy performs to trend we will have a recession in the next year or two, and interest rates will not stay this low for ever.
If I was a youngster I would be screaming blue murder because all that debt being piled up is my future wealth being pissed away now.
Actually, there are a number of very good Labour-run local authorities providing very good services under very difficult circumstances. These are largely run by the moderate wing of the party and so do not get a look in at national level right now. But it is from these that any Labour fight-back will begin.
This is also another point which will help Labour a bit, after Corbyn has gone. In the 1980s, Labour councils were still acting up right til the end of the decade, even after Kinnock had started putting the national party's house in order. (In the 1987 election, in London in particular, actions of Labour councils were often cited by people as the main reason to vote against them, rather than the national party's policies.)
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained. And that doesn't look like it's going to change, because deselections of current councillors are still very rare, despite all the dire warnings when Corbyn first came in.
I'm now fairly active in Nottingham Labour (as distinct from the County where I was based before), and the private briefings from councillors are quite heart-warming - full of detailed factual information, with crisp political criticism of the Governmnent's cuts supplemented with eagerness to take advantage of any positive aspects for the people affected: "there is nothing socialist about people on emergency beds waiting in corridors if we can find a way to avoid it", as one said.
The quite extraordinary squeeze on local authority spending has gone largely unremarked in the general public, though the effects are certainly noticed (and often blamed on the local authorities).
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside tly dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
That depends on what the pay-off is. Far too many pseudo-Keynisan projects have been spending for the sake of it. That policy might tide things over in tough times but there's a legacy down the line.
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it doesn't mean that the debt will be serviced in a continually low environment. That might not matter if the debt is long-dated, will be paid off or substantially eroded by inflation, but those things can't simply be assumed by any means. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
Indeed. Look what happened to Greece
David is right - you can't run a deficit forever. But Greece was a special case and, in the immortal words, they shouldn't have started from there. But for an own currency-issuing country you can run it for quite some time.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
From 1957 to 1960 the budget was broadly balanced, public debt was falling as a share of GDP and the debt interest burden was also falling. This is what we need to achieve again.
I accept it was falling - having been circa 200% at the beginning of the 1950s - but economic growth was the means by which this was achieved.There are many economists who believe that Osborne's policies post 2010 election made it more difficult to repeat the trick and that austerity - because of the multiplier effect on Aggregate Demand - eventually landed us with a higher deficit and Debt to GDP ratio than would have been achieved with an Ed Balls type strategy.
This ignores the fact that the reality was that the government did run a hugely expansive policy in the period 2010-2015 with massive amounts of borrowing boosting domestic demand in a highly Keynsian way. That is how Osborne kept the economy growing (just) and employment high. It is simply not true to suggest that there was harsh austerity in those years. Ask Greece, Portugal or Ireland what harsh austerity was like. We have no experience.
Would even more borrowing have produced faster growth? I very much doubt it in a world where austerity was King and demand everywhere was being restricted. Maybe in a world where the EZ were also running a more expansionary policy it might have been possible but I fear it would have simply resulted in currency instability, higher borrowing costs, mortgage defaults and repossessions (as in the 1990s) and much higher unemployment.
But much of the additional Borrowing was due to the impact of automatic stabilisers kicking in and was ,therefore, largely a consequence of the weakness of Aggregate Demand. The one thing I do credit Osborne for is not repeating Geoffrey Howe's mistake from 1980/1981 when he effectively reduced public expenditure to offset the autmatic stabilisers.
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
Come off it... The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher. There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
The tax relief to private pensions is about £50 bn per yr. Largely undeserved. On a lowish to middle income, with a pension pot of £100-200k, you lose means-tested benefits in retirement which on average roughly cancel this sum out, so it's a con. On middling to high incomes, most people can afford to save anyway if they don't want to live at the state pension level. It could be withdrawn in stages; tax relief on mortgage interest was phased out over a period I think.
Pensions tax relief at the higher rate has been severely curtailed in recent years with the lifetime allowances.
If the answer is, 'it doesn't matter" that's fair enough although clearly such a view is not pitching for my vote. If it is "this government has done a very poor job of it" I'm very persuadable on that. It if is "these people are wicked" as you see sometimes, well that would be much harder to convince me.
But I appreciate Don's take on matters, narrow though it may well be.
.
.
To an extent. But:
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
..snip .. It was also not so much a qustion of the state of the Public Finances as the need to pay our way in the world via exports to keep the Balance of Payments in a reasonable state. That obviously mattered a lot more then due to the Bretton Woods Excahange Rate system and the obligation to sustain the pound at a particular parity.Today ,of course, the Balance of Payments is in a hell of a mess yet many appear not to care at all. I agree with those commentators who say we have been focussed on the wrong Deficit.
Isn't there an identity connecting the private sector deficit, the public sector deficit and the foreign sector deficit? You have to articulate a causal process to make inferences about those things. Under Bretton Woods the exchange rate was exogenous (i.e. causal). But now?
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
Come off it... The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher. There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
The tax relief to private pensions is about £50 bn per yr. Largely undeserved. On a lowish to middle income, with a pension pot of £100-200k, you lose means-tested benefits in retirement which on average roughly cancel this sum out, so it's a con. On middling to high incomes, most people can afford to save anyway if they don't want to live at the state pension level. It could be withdrawn in stages; tax relief on mortgage interest was phased out over a period I think.
Wow. That's staggering. And to think the government is quibbling with Simon Stevens over a few billion for the NHS...
A cap on the total amount you can have in an ISA would surely be both popular, fair and good for the budget. The idea that some people have millions sitting there tax exempt seems crazy to me.
Mr. rkrkrk, not so sure about that. ISAs must be one of the best known saving account types. Set the limit high and it'll bring in no tax revenue. Set it low and ordinary savers get dragged in.
I don't think they do. Most of the 1% pay rather a lot of tax. It's difficult to have a high income, and be lawfully resident in the UK, without paying a considerable amount of tax.
Come off it... The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher. There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
The tax relief to private pensions is about £50 bn per yr. Largely undeserved. On a lowish to middle income, with a pension pot of £100-200k, you lose means-tested benefits in retirement which on average roughly cancel this sum out, so it's a con. On middling to high incomes, most people can afford to save anyway if they don't want to live at the state pension level. It could be withdrawn in stages; tax relief on mortgage interest was phased out over a period I think.
Wow. That's staggering. And to think the government is quibbling with Simon Stevens over a few billion for the NHS...
A cap on the total amount you can have in an ISA would surely be both popular, fair and good for the budget. The idea that some people have millions sitting there tax exempt seems crazy to me.
I thought there was a limit on ISAs? Maybe it's yearly, but that still is in essence a cap on the total amount. As for pension tax relief, isn't it to encourage people to save more?
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside tly dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
That depends on what the pay-off is. Far too many pseudo-Keynisan projects have been spending for the sake of it. That policy might tide things over in tough times but there's a legacy down the line.
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it doesn't mean that the debt will be serviced in a continually low environment. That might not matter if the debt is long-dated, will be paid off or substantially eroded by inflation, but those things can't simply be assumed by any means. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
Indeed. Look what happened to Greece
David is right - you can't run a deficit forever. But Greece was a special case and, in the immortal words, they shouldn't have started from there. But for an own currency-issuing country you can run it for quite some time.
We're not the only ones who act like fools over this. No doubt the Spanish will do this regularly
"These incursions are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on, but Gibraltarians and Europeans have been let down by both sides because the British government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. After today’s disruption, I urge both sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table and stop it happening again.” - Eduardo Milibando.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside tly dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
When Harold Macmillan informed the country in 1957 that 'it had never had it so good ' the Debt to GDP ratio was circa 120%. He did not pursue a policy of austerity. Economic growth was the route chosen to deal with the problem.
To an extent. But:
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
In a low interest rate environment your eye shouldn't be on the deficit. It's what every government runs in difficult times. Your eye should be on growth and investment.
That depends on what the pay-off is. Far too many pseudo-Keynisan projects have been spending for the sake of it. That policy might tide things over in tough times but there's a legacy down the line.
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it domeans. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
Indeed. Look what happened to Greece
David is right - you can't run a deficit forever. But Greece was a special case and, in the immortal words, they shouldn't have started from there. But for an own currency-issuing country you can run it for quite some time.
You can run a deficit forever.
Yes I suppose you can, as long as you can cover the interest payments on the debt and politically no one worries about how much of the budget you are eating up thereby.
With appropriate growth, it is not healthy to do so though in the "good times". Keynesian works on the basis of spending more when times are lean, and less when times are good.
Comments
Far better than sickly eggs......
On child benefit, it seems very generous to me and I don't see the fuss. Yes, I'm single with no children, how did you know?
In 2007 (ignoring PFI and public sector pensions) the national debt was approximately 40% of GDP and Gordon Brown was committed to keeping it there. Now it is seriously close to 90%. This massively reduces the room for manoeuvre should another recession come along as it inevitably will and it also diverts a substantial share of tax revenues.
In my opinion this means that the only alternative to austerity is much higher taxes. Putting aside the vexed question of whether those higher taxes will reduce the take by damaging the economy that is the choice the Labour must make. Either they accept the need to constantly bear down on public spending or they say, no, we must all (not just the rich, there is not enough of them) pay more taxes for a decent society. But they are too scared. We cannot have Nordic levels of provision without Nordic levels of tax. It is simply dishonest to claim otherwise. That is what Labour seem to me to be: the dishonest party.
Osborne actually did a very good job indeed of moving money around to repaying debts and cutting the annual deficit while (just!) avoiding a recession, he deserves credit for the outturn but the messaging was terrible. For someone who tried to see the political angle in almost everything, he failed at what was really his primary task.
Had the Ed Miliband opposition been more competent, the election result in 2015 may have been much closer.
In my view Labour's problem is not that people think the overall level of spending under them would be dangerously high, it's more that they don't trust what Labour would spend the money on. Right now people think Labour are so incompetent and/or soft that any extra money would just get wasted on back-office staff and the like, rather than actually improving hospitals or schools themselves. People think Labour would just have the downsides of increased spending, without even the upsides of improved services to compensate.
I think their priority should be to point to examples of wasteful spending (stupidly high wages for public-service administrators, various pointless and inefficient schemes that have grown up, a few benefits which really aren't that helpful) and say they'd cut them, not to "reduce the deficit", but to put into the "front-line" services. Prove that, even if they increase spending, they're not just going to say "yes" to any request, and will instead be focussed on delivering for the taxpayer. More Labour-controlled councils would be a big help as well, since it would demonstrate concretely to people that they really can deliver services competently (so that people wouldn't just dismiss it as empty words) - but more Labour-controlled councils is obviously much easier said than done right now.
Edit: Seeing conflicting numbers on this actually, OBR says it was actually in deficit - http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/government-spending-percent-gdp-obr-14.jpg
Labour supporters should be angriest that no one has sought to come forward with a compelling story how the poor in a First World country can be supported effectively in an era of globalisation. Don't worry about people or events, those are second order problems.
"In many languages, the words for "Easter" and "Passover" are identical or very similar."
What does Ken Livingstone have to say about this?
Equally, Labour should have heartily welcomed the rise in self-employed NI as a progressive tax measure. The triple lock could also be seen as, while useful when it was introduced, is now indefensible.Even a reduction to RPI would be more than most employed people are getting, and would save huge amounts. Then there would be 2 measures to show where the £ is coming from.
From 1957 to 1960 the budget was broadly balanced, public debt was falling as a share of GDP and the debt interest burden was also falling. This is what we need to achieve again.
But the idea that raising rates on the rich or the middle class = Venezuela is just silly.
Arguably the most successful societies in the world are Scandinavian and they tend to have high tax takes and high public spending.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that a policy of eliminating the deficit by a fixed point in the future is a particularly helpful way of managing an economy; nor do I believe that solely focusing on cutting services and spending is the way to do it. There are a range of levers open to a country that controls its own currency, while it seems silly not to be taking better advantage of historically low interest rates.
I look at the Tories and a cabinet ram-packed with mediocrities and far worse, and I get frustrated because it is clear that a half-decent opposition with a quarter decent leader could be causing it significant damage. What's more the country needs this. Giving any government a clear run is not a good idea, but leaving one as bad as this one to just get on with it is unforgiveable.
I agree that a campaign against public sector 'fat cats' would be a good starting point, but Labour councils would need to get their own houses in order first and lead by example. They need to get away from the perception that public services exist primarily for those who work in them, rather than their customers - perhaps this is a consequence of much-reduced private-sector union membership in the last couple of decades?
Just sayin'...
@alexmassie: @PolhomeEditor In a way it is, though.
Ending the NI upper limit would have support I think if it goes to 'health and social security'. We could also pay a higher state pension on much higher incomes, in return for some but not all of the extra NI. The US does.
1. you're once again confusing debt and the deficit. If the deficit is under control, a sizable debt will take care of itself. Britain's deficit was not under control in 2010 and still isn't fully under control, though it's a lot better than it was.
2. You cannot magic growth. Governments can enable it but you can't simply push a button that says 'growth'. You can create false growth, as Brown did, by pumping unearned money into the economy, which inflates GDP. Sometimes, it's even sensible to do so and the Great Depression was one such time - but you have to unwind the measures afterwards otherwise you end up with a bubble.
3. Labour, after 1945, *did* pursue austerity; massively so, to the extent that staple items not rationed even during the war became controlled. They had no choice given the state of the economy; it's what happens when you run out of money.
Would even more borrowing have produced faster growth? I very much doubt it in a world where austerity was King and demand everywhere was being restricted. Maybe in a world where the EZ were also running a more expansionary policy it might have been possible but I fear it would have simply resulted in currency instability, higher borrowing costs, mortgage defaults and repossessions (as in the 1990s) and much higher unemployment.
By contrast, this time round, Labour councils have been very restrained. And that doesn't look like it's going to change, because deselections of current councillors are still very rare, despite all the dire warnings when Corbyn first came in.
The government admits they missed out on 36billion/year... The real figure is surely far higher.
There's a whole industry around helping the super rich dodge taxes.
There are non doms basically can cough up 90k to avoid tax... over 100k of them. That's billions lost.
I don't know exactly how you get at all of that money - but there are some ideas out there... And the potential benefit is enormous. Should be a priority.
That's eggstremely silly.
In an alternate universe, whoever's in charge of DCLG and campaigns this week would have been telling the world about these good authorities, every day during the quiet time, to everyone who'll listen and cares about more than Easter eggs and Gibraltar. They've got one month.
Of course, in the real world, they didn't do the legwork for a campaign like that months ago, so if they try it now it will come crashing down with headlines of "Model Labour council hires finance manager on £300k per year!!!"
But seriously, good luck to them - we need we'll run and prudent councils no matter who's in charge of them politically, and we need an opposition to the government at national level too.
The quite extraordinary squeeze on local authority spending has gone largely unremarked in the general public, though the effects are certainly noticed (and often blamed on the local authorities).
Flesh and bone by the telephone,
Lift up the receiver,
I'll make you a believer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI
I kid. Mostly.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/848925531227770880
Likewise, just because the borrowing is done in a low interest rate environment, it doesn't mean that the debt will be serviced in a continually low environment. That might not matter if the debt is long-dated, will be paid off or substantially eroded by inflation, but those things can't simply be assumed by any means. The risk is that in a few years' time, you end up with a massive debt pile which needs significant servicing and which acts as a distorting factor in the economy.
As for being able to magic growth, the problem at time of severe recession /depression is the lack of Aggregate Demand.There was clearly plenty of spare capacity but demand from the Consumer, Corporate and Overseas sectors was very weak. It, therefore, made perfect sense for the Treasury to seek to offset that weakness by boosting Government Expenditure and /or reduce taxation. To some extent Alastair Darling did that via lower VAT and the Vehicle Scrappage scheme etc.Osborne tightened fiscal policy far too early - and failed abysmally in meeting his own objectives.
Yes Labour continued with austerity policies post 1945, but that was because it inherited an economy that needed to be transferred from a war footing to producing domestic goods.The system of Direct Controls via rationing was complemented by high levels of Taxation to prevent pent up demand feeding through into inflation - such as had occurred post World War 1.It was also not so much a qustion of the state of the Public Finances as the need to pay our way in the world via exports to keep the Balance of Payments in a reasonable state. That obviously mattered a lot more then due to the Bretton Woods Excahange Rate system and the obligation to sustain the pound at a particular parity.Today ,of course, the Balance of Payments is in a hell of a mess yet many appear not to care at all. I agree with those commentators who say we have been focussed on the wrong Deficit.
If I was a youngster I would be screaming blue murder because all that debt being piled up is my future wealth being pissed away now.
"The belated change comes after a report to the authority’s cabinet earlier this year and suppliers are now being asked to bid for several contracts."
Why is a report needed to realise that painting fleets of vehicles orange costs more than just taking the plain white ones ?
It's just that the national media have Gibraltar on their minds this week.
And to think the government is quibbling with Simon Stevens over a few billion for the NHS...
A cap on the total amount you can have in an ISA would surely be both popular, fair and good for the budget. The idea that some people have millions sitting there tax exempt seems crazy to me.
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2017/04/livingstone-claims-the-gestapo-worked-with-israeli-agents-before-israel-existed.html
- Eduardo Milibando.