Cameron's certainty contrasts with Miliband's equivocation

Sally Chatterjee

Sounds like Miliband is floundering already.

He's got plenty of time to up his game but you'd think he'd know a set piece speech like this is all about getting a clear message across?

Pettros

Just as so called looney lefties get there anti-coalition fix on the BBC, so do the pro-coalition crowd get there self-congratulating slant on things from the Coffee House. Its so one sided it embarassing.

Ed P

The Unions' mouthpiece really has little to offer. I almost feel sorry for him, hidden under the huge maelevolent shadow of the worst PM ever.

Marcus Cotswell

'The Labour leader's claim that, "globalisation – trade and immigration – had the effect of squeezing out middle-income jobs, and holding down wages in a number of sectors in our economy," struck me as significant.'

Whereas it strikes me as just flat wrong - a classic example of the lump of labour fallacy. Insofar as globalisation and immigration squeeze jobs at all (and if you take account of dynamic effects on the economy they just don't), it is down the lower end of the scale.

Steve

Hmm where's all the Lefties gone?

They're mouthing off on the Guardian blog, but not here lol.

Where are they?... Here Lefty, Lefty...

normanc

"The new jobs, the new products, the new ideas that will lift us up will be born in the factories and offices you own, not in the corridors of Whitehall"

It baffles me that the PM can make such a sensible statement as this one day then the next day (possibly even in the same speech!) talk about green investment banks and the UK becoming a world leader in buying (subsidised) windfarms from abroad.

If we are going to have an energy crisis get out of the way and trust in private enterprise to solve it - big government has no chance of doing it in either an efficient or effective manner.

If anything government interference will only make matters worse.

Verity

Petross - speaking of embarrassing, how is it you cannot spell simple words in what I assume is your native tongue? I can see someone who doesn't read much misspelling, oh, eleemosynary, say, but could you please study how to spell "their" in context?

When you refer to the "pro-Coalition crowd at The Speccie, I hope you refer to the writers and not the posters who are, almost to a man, anti-Coalition.

Fatbloke on tour

PH

Who isn't for tackling the deficit this parliament?
Political motherhood and apple pie at the moment.

The issue is whether or not you try to remove the structural deficit identified by the OBR in one go over 4 years is both credible an economically literatte?

Different situation entirely from "tackling the deficit".

As noted by Mili-E, what is the true state of the structural deficit at the moment? The figures being used by the dog boilers in government are open to much questioning.

OBR had it at 8.8% in June based on an output gap of 4%.

My view is that is a pure fairy story generated by a politically influenced body who are the "Three Brothers Grimm" of current economic forecasting.

With an 11% total deficit, to split it as the OBR did in June:

80% / 8.8% = Structural
20% / 2.2% = Cyclical
6.4%'ish fall in GDP
Peak to trough in the credit crunch.
4% output gap.
Down from the previous Treasury figure of 6% which is interesting in itself.

This is rubbish full stop and to base an economic policy on such questionable numbers suggests that you are using the OBR as a human shield. Why you might ask? Because Sniffy is acting out a dog boiling fantasy, sadism for the masses from a bunch of millionaires.

AD = Wanted to half the deficit, 5.5% / 5.7% of GDP in 4 years.
Sniffy = Wants to eliminate the structural deficit, 8.8% in 4 years.

One was growth strategy with Mandy working the industrial policy with all the vigour hen used to work the media while the other is a leech doctor's cure being put forward by a political operative playing fantasy economics.

toco

Ed who?The man Milliband has never had a proper job and has been brought up on a diet of non stop left wing politics ensconced in a rich and comfortable environment since the day he was born.Small wonder he sounds exactly like a broken record.

Liberty

But Labour are still ahead in the polls. The lie that public spending is money that otherwise wouldn't be spent must be nailed. If the government didn't spend it WE would. It would be spent, saved or invested - and if it is saved in a bank then the bank will lend [when it can] ten times more than is saved. Even if a banker has champagne lunches daily the money is still spent employing caterers, etc. The issue is whether the government spends money better or worse than we do. The private sector has increased productivity by more than 100% over the last ten years whilst the public sector has had NEGATIVE growth in productivity. There is no doubt that private spending is far, far more productive than government wealth. The vast improvements in technology and management techniques over the last 60 years has largely passed government by. It is time that changed and the government was committed to reducing costs by at least 5% a year for the indefinite future.

Pettros

Verity - hands up my grammer is shocking.

I would disagree with your view on the average poster here, unless I am completely misunderstaning there comments.

TrevorsDen

Halving the deficit still leaves us borrowing to pay it as well as the normal cyclical deficit; still paying loan interest.
Dear fatarse - you give no evidence for your fatuous opinions, merely calling Alan Budd a liar.

What is your definition of trend growth for our economy? How much GDP was lost as a result of the crisis. Was it ever there?

Chris lancashire

It's a shame that the TUC can't emulate the open-mindedness of the CBI and invite both major party leaders to speak at their conference.

dorothy wilson

'The Labour leader's claim that, "globalisation – trade and immigration – had the effect of squeezing out middle-income jobs, and holding down wages in a number of sectors in our economy," struck me as significant. This keys right into what Fraser calls the British Economic Dysfunction, and is likely to be a crucial battleground over this parliament.'

So what's the alternative to globalisation? Protectionism? And if immigration had the effect of squeezing middle incomes and holding down wages why did Labour open the flood gates?

oldtimer

His green schemes, eg the wind farms, depend on massive subsidies paid by industry and the consumer, either directly through taxes or through the electricity tariff. They are not sound, economic free standing investments. Nor are they particularly green because they have to be backed up by conventional energy sources. Quite how these ideas are supposed to convince us all that we will have a more efficient future escapes me.

The CBI is right to say that getting the deficit down is No 1 priority. Right now all they see is the deficit growing month by month. It has yet to start to come down. On the government`s plans the only way it will come down is through raising more tax revenues from you and me. And the deficit as a % of GDP is likely to owe more to the impact of inflation than real cuts by the time we reach the end of this Parliament.

Just like the last lot - beware the smoke and mirrors.

Private Schultz

@ Pettros

That may be, but the Spectator is not funded by an obligatory, universal licence fee. Private media enterprises can take whatever line they like and no doubt attract an audience broadly sympathetic with that line (plus a few trolls). The BBC should report all sides equally because it is funded by all. That it does not currently do that is the problem.

Cynic

Miliband's speech had 'too much equivocation about the "important lessons to be learned about why the deficit went up so significantly".' Well, he's hardly going to admit that the deficit went up so significantly because Labour p*ssed all our money up the wall and borrowed even in the good times, is he?

SUSAN HILL

What Private Schultz said.

Tiberius

MiliEd: endless parentheses but without the donkey jacket.

GDT

@ Private Schultz...
total agreement. BBC is meant to be impartial. It is funded by tax payer. It is a monoply. It is an unelected, fairly unaccountable QUANGO.
The Spectator is a private venture and is free to comment however they like.
I chose to come here, read and comment.
I do not have a choice regarding the BBC.

GDT

Still can't make head or tails of what FBoT is on about.

Fatbloke on tour

Failed Blogger @ 3.16

Crack shot my man, one bullet both feet.

OBR long term trend growth = 2.1%
2010 growth stimate in June = 1.3%

With those figures should the output gap go up or down?

The OBR said that the output growth would shrink this year, starnge I know but that is what the good Tory placeman said.

We have lost about 10-11% of output.
Actual fall was 6.2%'ish.
Two years in recession meant we lost the 4-5% increase in output we would expect during normal times.

As for growth not being there, one place you don't have to look is the Banking sector where bonus rates are returning to "normal" at a fair rate of knots.

As for borrowing what is so bad with that?
As I explained earlier

KC -- 96/97:
Annual Deficit was £27mill / 3.4%
Public sector investement did not cover this and it did not cover public sector depreciation.

AD -- Pre Credit Crunch:
Annual Deficit was £38bill / 2.9% of GDP
Public Sector investment = £50bill / 4% of GDP.
That is covered both the deficit and the public sector depreciation charge.

One chancellor was playing fast and loose with the public finances and one was playing it pretty straight.

I know which one my money is on for keeping things tight.

The same point can be made the resources needed to service the public debt over the past 40 years.

Maggie take a bow, when it comes to wasting money on the interest on public debt she wins the "MOD Procurement" award for throwing public money down the drain.

The question for you has to be are you a hypocrite, or are you just badly informed.

Credit Crunch = Worst financial shock for 130 years.
The UK is not Greece.
We are not going to go bankrupt.
Bond vigilantes will disappear into the night in the face of economic reality and the scorn of "Growth Guardians".
That is the owners of the money they manage.

PS
I never said AB was a liar.
I just said that he was playing to his Tory placeman type.

Fatbloke on tour

CAD Monkey @ 3.57

That is why you read / blog on the web site of a magazine that doesn't understand economics.

Morgan O'Neill

I think Ed Milliband is a breath of fresh air and what's wrong with a good bit of socialism? Look where Thatchers greed has got us.

Pettros

Private Shulz etc

You have a valid point regarding the BBC. It should be impartial. Maybe the Daily Mirror would be a better example! What is a Troll?
The Spectator is private and its contributors can make comment as they see fit. It does not feel politically unaligned though but then its fard to find anywhere that is.

Chuck Unsworth

Miliband is no leader. As such, he's never going to get the CBI on board - or anyone else, for that matter. I give him four years at most, and would not be surprised to see him go long before the next General Election.

streborjm

GDT 3.57

I never have. Join the club. And 'dog boiler' - what? Daft bugger.

Oh - 4.19: Of course, that's it.

Wonder if he used to advise GB?

Ian Walker

I've come up with a brilliant idea - a Leftie Blog Comment computer programme. It just strings together short sections of meaningless phrases and spews them out at random.

Maybe I can get some of that Innovation cash to develop it......

PS - Note to Cameron, government has a horrendous record of investing in technology, with a history of hosing money over doomed projects. This is probably due to two factors; one - civil servants have never in their lives had to evaluate anything for profitability; and two - once these ideas get latched onto the public teat the white heat of the need to be competitive dulls to a feeble crimson.

Verityred

Fatbloke gets sillier by the day, bless him.

Every night he kisses his photo of Ed Balls beside his his bed.

A toytown cut and paste Goebbels for Labour.

Paddy

Miliband "a breath of fresh air": You can say that again. He didn't bring his granny with him today.

That fatbloke is talking about 'dog boiling' again.

The coalition must be doing well today - all the labour trolls on here.

Anyone seen Gordon?

Fatbloke on tour

Cheap Tacky underwear @ 6.40

Cut the crap and do some numbers.

KC in 96/97 = £27bill deficit / 3.4% of GDP
KC borrowing money to pay the bills not investement.

Something to be proud of?

daniel maris

What is the basis for the certainty? I see none. So this mask of certainty can only be bluff.

The chances of our bonus-guzzling, unimaginative private sector actually filling the jobs gap is laughable. Business people's first objective is to make a profit NOT to create jobs. To talk to them as though they are philantropists is absurd.

Milliband's alleged equivocation was perfectly reasonable in teh circumstances. The government has taken a huge gamble with the nation's resources. One hopes it pays off but there is nothing to justify confidence in a happy outcome - quite the reverse.

TGF UKIP

From your report it would seem that Dave was at his super-smooth PR man best this morning and not doing too badly youself at spinning either, Pete. I just hope Dave is duly grateful for the many coats of varnish he is being afforded by his house mag hacks.

Fergus Pickering

Cripes, don't encourage the Fatarse. He might go away if we all ignore the little noticebox.

Major Plonquer 1

Hey Fatbloke. When KC left office the UK was in surplus. When AD left office the annual defecit was £180 Billion.

The results speak for themselves.

Major Plonquer 1

daniel maris - I've yet to find a way of making a profit without first creating a job.

If you're so clever, why don't you do it? Carping from the cheap seats?

daniel maris

Major Plonquer,

Well give me the resources that the average CBI rep commands and I will happily create you some jobs. I also help create jobs through my expenditure.

The issue it not whether the private sector creates jobs and (in large part) sustains the public sector, it is whether the government has made the right decision in this particular set of circumstances. I don't think it has. I think a more cautious approach to creating public sector unemployment was required.

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see the risks and I don't think our overpaid business execs are really that brilliant. The ones who appear to be - say Sir Philip Green - are often only achieving success at the expense of others, just as it is difficult to see how Tesco's expansion has really created "new" jobs, just eliminated others and substituted Tesco jobs for them in large part. There may be some job creation at the margin, but not a lot.

Where we would see real job creation is through increased exports and developing indigenous energy and materials industries. Wind turbines are an excellent area for success in both. We should also be looking to create materials that can be sourced from home...ceramics, non-oil polymers and so on. I'd like also to see us create land resources through reclamation as in the Netherlands.

Fatbloke on tour

Major P @ All over the place

You are talking tripe.
KC -- 96/97 -- £27bill / 3.4% of GDP deficit
This after 5 years of the JM economic miracle.
Low pound pleb selling more like.

Look up the numbers, you are spouting pish.

GDT

@ streborjm
I think FBoT is GB. Would explain the dramatic increase in posts since May and his continued lack of presence at Westminster.

Fatbloke on tour

CAD Mokey @ 1.09

Any chance of some numbers?
Like KC's deficit in 96/97?
Was he borrowing money to pay the bills?

Any thoughts on how much money Maggie had to use to finance her deficit?

Howling at the moon regarding today's issues is not really advancing any sort of argument or debate it is self therapy, you and your dog boiling chums need to understand what has happened in the past before you can pass comment on where we are today.

Finally respect to AD.
His efforts have been rewarded by today's growth figures.
As in almost everything politics is all about timing.

Rhoda Klapp

Daniel Maris, wind turbines? So much wrong with that. They come from abroad. The workers putting them up are imported, or indeed for the sea-based ones may not even base their boats here. They require to be subsidised, by what is an effective tax on everybody's electric bill. They aren't very good. They probably won't last as long as they are supposed to. They are in fact the stupidest vanity project to have come out of Whitehall since...well, ever. And nobody is saying anything about it. The project faces no cuts because of the stupid lib-dems having to be bribed.

Be nice if the Spectaor was inclined to question the wisdom of this farce. Yes, even if I am wrong about it all, let's see it examined critically. That used to be the job of the press, once.