Did Labour crash the economy?

[matthew]

Had a detailed lecture on this th other day, if only there was a way of sharing a powerpoint. Anyway turns out it was some dodgy equations.

 

[Beach Hut]

You all know my politics however as much as it happened on Labour watch there were many other decisions not all theirs and would never have been theirs that culminated in this.

It did not help though that Brown sold out on gold and the Labour Government pumped money into the benefits system which was really stupid

 

[Hampster Gull]

Up to 2008 then exactly where were they overspending? In the first two terms they had already paid down the national debt to a level lower than it had been any time since 1993 (as a % of GDP which is the best way to measure it). Of course a labour government are going to spend more on public services than a tory one but the spending was far from out of control. It was only when the government then had to support failing banks and pump money into the economy that the debt rocketed up.





But that is a ridiculous comment. It's like blaming the Conservatives for World War II because it started on their watch, or the Liberals for WWI for the same reason.

Not at all, a very well informed one. It would be an idiot who thought all countries entered the crisis in the same situation.

 

[scousefan]

Crash would have happened whoever was in charge.

 

[drew]

Not at all, a very well informed one. It would be an idiot who thought all countries entered the crisis in the same situation.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that we did enter the global meltdown in the same position as other countries however the Tories would have had you believing we were in the same dire straights as Greece and Spain yet our economy was always far more robust than those countries however it served a political purpose to misinform and scare people.

The point remains that the global meltdown was not caused by the Labour party.

 

[BLOCK F]

business leaders are interested in wider society and its a sad state of affairs the polarisation of our politics that people dont see this. the better off, financially and in wellbeing, that the country is, the more people want to spend, the better it is for business. i dont know why the image of 19th century robber barons is the only image people have of business, i doubt it was common even then. your typical businessman will find a way to make money this way or that and they'll generally want the easier way - like we all do - which is to have a prosperous economy that businesses can flourish in.

Hear,hear.
It is quite extraordinary that many amongst us still appear to hold the view that 'business is bad and doesn't give a damn',but public sector and big Government is good.'
Certainly,business is not perfect,but without it,none of the social justice and welfare plans that governments of any persuasion may like to implement can be carried out.
There can be no doubt that many business leaders believe that Labour is anti business and for good reason too.Can't really believe that the likes of Chukka Umana and even Ed Balls,would present such a perceived anti business stance as does their leader.
I have to disagree with Drew that business leaders don't want a Labour Government merely because it threatens the amount they can earn.These guys are pretty smart and would ,no doubt, be able to earn a good living,whatever and wherever.I genuinely believe that they do perceive a threat to broader society from a party that appears to be more left wing than we have seen for some time and is lead by a guy who is thought, by many, not to be up to the job of Opposition Leader,let alone Prime Minister of this country.
As a non Labour voter,I wasn't too bothered by Blair's first election victory, and anyway,the country needed a change.Have to say though, that the thought of a Government led by Milliband does worry me.
Ed Milliband,Prime Minister........it won't really happen,will it?
HELP!!!!!!!

 

[Triggaaar]

So really, not total bollocks then? Just presented with a particular slant, as is all opinion. Perhaps you just overreacted to the initial part of the blog?

How ****ing dare you! I did react strongly because the blog was touted as being informative from a respected macro economist and I was hoping to learn something from it, but it read like it was straight from Labour's press office. Had my expectations been lower, I wouldn't have reacted as much. But yes, I think his opinion is bollocks, because he's deliberately twisted it to suit his agenda.

You keep on saying certain things, without justifying them.

Are you going to justify that by showing all the things I've said and how they're not justified?

Economies tend to rebound quite well after recessions, as there's plenty of spare capacity that has been lost during the downturn. The economy did in the two other recessions featured in that graph, but it's been painfully slow this time round. So why can't we blame the incumbents this time round?

For the same reason that we've not blamed the incumbents for the recession in the first place. As I said in my first post 'I don't blame Labour for the fact we had a recession' because it was largely caused by a world wide financial crisis. Given how much our economy relies on the finance sector it was always obvious that we'd be hit hard and that our recovery would be slow regardless of who was in power.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that we did enter the global meltdown in the same position as other countries however the Tories would have had you believing we were in the same dire straights as Greece and Spain yet our economy was always far more robust than those countries however it served a political purpose to misinform and scare people.

The point remains that the global meltdown was not caused by the Labour party.

As i said in my first post, it was a global crisis so we agree. However i strongly believe they made the situation worse than it should have been, competing with New York for the lightest regulation of the financial sector, not saving when the times were good but rather bloating the state to a place that was unsustainable, for telling the country they were in control and there would be no more boom and bust, etc. don't get me wrong i also believe all main parties are relatively incompetent as they continue to pander to vested interests etc. But Labour did make the situation worse for us, as they did in the seventies

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you going to justify that by showing all the things I've said and how they're not justified?

The notion I had in mind is that you regularly indicate that so long as there's growth, it doesn't matter how much the wealthy get as it'll be spread around (which is perhaps another version of the 'trickle-down effect'). I have two problems with this:
First, it's not happening. There hasn't been that much growth of late and, what there has been, has gone to the top (0.?)x%.
Second, even if it was happening, increasing wealth inequality mean that the rich will colonise key parts of society (the media, most prominently) and peddle their own agenda. This, of course, is what's happened over the past three or four decades.

 

[Nibble]

To answer the OP once and for all and put an end to it all.

No. They didn't. Gordon Brown was doing a good job and was trying to warn the banks and the rest of the world a crash is coming and they need to follow his lead to avoid global depression. They ignored him. There was a global depression. Everyone blamed Brown and voted in Cameron.

 

[simballs]

To answer the OP once and for all and put an end to it all.

No. They didn't. Gordon Brown was doing a good job and was trying to warn the banks and the rest of the world a crash is coming and they need to follow his lead to avoid global depression. They ignored him. There was a global depression. Everyone blamed Brown and voted in Cameron.

He never did any such thing! Brown was going round saying he'd got rid of boom and bust which everyone knows is impossible. Further, his economic policy banked on the easy supply of credit to the banks and the general population so the economy could grow.
Not once did Brown or anyone warn about a crash. The BofE even said it couldn't have been predicted so how did Brown know!
Total rubbish!!
The financial crisis was not Browns fault. But he nor anyone in the British political establishment saw it coming until it was breaking.

 

[jimbob5]

In soviet Russia, crash labours you.

Could you put that in English?

 

[Nibble]

He never did any such thing! Brown was going round saying he'd got rid of boom and bust which everyone knows is impossible. Further, his economic policy banked on the easy supply of credit to the banks and the general population so the economy could grow.
Not once did Brown or anyone warn about a crash. The BofE even said it couldn't have been predicted so how did Brown know!
Total rubbish!!
The financial crisis was not Browns fault. But he nor anyone in the British political establishment saw it coming until it was breaking.

You need to do your research.

 

[pauli cee]

Excuse my ignorance, have read through the entire thread, ( boring sunday afternoon), and have found it most enjoyable.
Though still can't work out who we owe this national debt to?

 

[FREDBINNEY]

You need to do your research.

No, no he doesn't, what he says is bang on the money , however what you said is totally and utterly clueless.

 

[Nibble]

No, no he doesn't, what he says is bang on the money , however what you said is totally and utterly clueless.

If you wish to address me please use your primary account Bushy. Multiple accounts is not only borderline banning offence, it's ****ing pathetic.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

If you wish to address me please use your primary account Bushy. Multiple accounts is not only borderline banning offence, it's ****ing pathetic.

This accusation has been levelled before, it's wrong , but let's not let that distract from the absolute tosh you posted about Gordon Brown and his handling of the Credit Crisis, because that's exactly what it was, complete and utter rubbish.

 

[Nibble]

This accusation has been levelled before, it's wrong , but let's not let that distract from the absolute tosh you posted about Gordon Brown and his handling of the Credit Crisis, because that's exactly what it was, complete and utter rubbish.

Oh, it's not wrong and you know it. Can call you John if you'd prefer? Up to you. Or you could just **** off you multiple account tosspot? Either account you use you don't come across well.

Edit: life's too short, laters Bushy.

 

[e77]

People get bogged down with party politics and forget the direction of travel in financial markets since the 1980s has been deregulation. If Labour hadn't done it they would have been accused of being anti-business.

The problem is the markets and business have in the main completely forgotten any social responsibility or thinking beyond the next set of results.

 

[Hampster Gull]

"No more boom and bust"

Pillock