Unpicking Miliband’s deceits

charles hercock

Labour was not to blame for the deficit

So who was?

Were it not for Browns incompetent pumping of my hard earned cah into the NHS etc without financial controls we for example would not need the VAT increase that Lightweight bemoans

Ed M is happily a personal turnoff as well as stupid

R.McGeddon

Ed Miliband and Alan Johnson: combined economic IQ in single figures.

Jonathan Woolf

This graph doesn't show any cuts - simply projected fiscal consolidation. As John Redwood points out very eloquently on his blog, in cash terms there are no cuts at all, simply continued growth in state spending throughout this Parliament. Only taking into account expected levels of inflation produces any "cuts" whatsoever in government spending.

What fiscal consolidation there is will I suspect come from this inflationary effect plus tax rises (which, unlike the cuts, are very real). Neither inflation nor tax hikes will do anything to boost growth, grow the private sector, or reduce the overall bloated size of the public sector. Tax rises, in an over-taxed economy like ours, are actually pro-deficit, because raising rates that are already destructively high will reduce growth, economic activity, compliance, and therefore overall revenues.

The Coalition is doing and is going to do nothing at all to re-balance the British state away from state socialism and universal benefit dependency and towards the market, self-reliance, enterprise and freedom.

Good job we're not sitting on a demographic time-bomb where the proportion of wealth-generators to wealth consumers is going to rapidly get very unhealthy, isn't it?

Fubar Saunders

Its all about scaring the bejesus out of the proles in order to ride on their backs into power again, pure and simple. Nothing else.

Oh, apart from giving the unions some value for the 11 million they've used to keep Labour out of the bankruptcy courts...

David Lindsay

Really, charles hercock? Next Friday, when a three-way marginal has become a safe Labour seat, will they finally get the message about the man with the comfortable lead of several months' standing?

No, of course not. "It 's Oop North, so it must always have had a Labour majority of a million, and The Wrong Miliband has therefore been humiliated," they will say. "It should have been his brother." Course it should, dear. Course it should.

Check out the disgraceful choice of callers in to today's Jeremy Vine. Anything, anything at all, to stop the 2015 Election from being what the 1997 Election would have been if fate had not taken so tragic a turn.

TrevorsDen

Miliband is just a plain liar. Appalling.

But it simply tells you what he thinks of the intelligence of his likely voting public.

TomTom

Grommit did not write this piece, it was probably drafted by some weenie on work experience. That Grommit is economically illiterate would not be a revelation.

Labour is not responsible for anything - it is a Politically Irresponsible Party.

That Grommit now admits it is an Irresponsible Party is however a turning point, but to do so in a low-circulation paywall publication is not sufficient - billboards perhaps ?

Ken

MiliRed has joined those of a certain persuasion who hold that it is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, to deceive and lie to all Dhimmis who choose not to embrace their incoherent belief system.

But then, many moons ago, Coffeehousers dissected both Milipedes for what they are, shrill adolescent wannabees.

Keep going MRJunior, you're doing those who despise your perverse parteh a welcome service.

AndyLeeds

Miliband is a liar, plain and simple. Why even bother listening to this increasingly stupid man. And let us all remember he worked for the Moron Brown.

Chris lancashire

Everybody knows that Labour didn't create the defecit. It wos big boys wot did it and ran away.

Simon Davies

In 1997 the structural deficit was at an unusually low level in comparison to most of the last 40 years. Using that year as a starting point for your graph probably doesn't provide enough historical context.

If you follow this link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/5260056945/

You'll find another graph (also taken from the Treasury) showing the structural deficit since 1973 as a percentage of GDP. As you can see, the structural deficit before the financial crisis was not exceptionally high by any means.

You refer to enormous public sector expansion being "unsustainable even without the global financial crisis", but then you go on to use the post-crisis public sector debt figure of £893 billion.

It would be more appropriate to compare with a pre-crisis year and use percentage of GDP: In 1997, public sector net debt was £351 billion (around 40% of GDP), this increased to £415 billion in 2005 - a relative decrease to roughly 35% of GDP. In 2007 public sector net debt was £497 billion, 37% of GDP.

True, my comparisons aren't as shocking as yours, but they do provide a more accurate picture of what was going on before the financial crash.

toco

Telling lies is in Red Ed's genes but this level of denial is so worrying its calls into question whether he ought not to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Simon Stephenson

Miliband? Deceits?

You're pulling my leg.

Nick

He won't object to a debt tax then.

This tax pays for

Civil service pensions
Past state pensions (they've borrowed the cash from future taxpayers)
Gilts
PFI
Guarantees

Mind you, I suspect people might get a little pissed off with a tax of 50% just going on past spending.

Ewan

First of all your time scale is wrong. The period everyone (coalition & Labour alike) are talking about here is until 2008, so your graph is misrepresentative. The deficit in 2008 was much smaller than in 2010.

Debt did grow towards 2008 – but in part that was because some sectors of the economy were in difficulty at that time. Arguably public spending kept us out of an earlier recession that the policies now espoused by Cameron and Osborne could have pushed us into.

You point out that Blair has subsequently decided public spending was too high, but not that at the time Cameron supported the Labour spending plans and committed to maintaining them.

Finally the bottom graph is problematic.
(1) You refer to it as evidence that Miliband is mis-stating cuts but the graph shows consolidation (i.e. including tax rises).

(2) Showing the figures as a %GDP understates the difference in scale of consolidation.

(3) the graph is based on the OBR’s forecast of growth given the coalition government’s budget — a government that planned to support growth from the start would likely mean higher GDP in the future The coalition seem to be coming to a plan for growth as an afterthought.

(4) It is arrogant to imply that £40bn difference in cuts would have little real impact.

David Ossitt

DAVID BLACKBURN

"He makes two substantial points. “First, that the coalition is deceiving people”: “Labour was not to blame for the deficit.” And second, “the coalition’s cuts package (in its entirety) is unnecessary.”

David surely that should be three 'deceit' 'blame’ and unnecessary cuts?

Fatbloke on tour

DB

You have managed to do a piece that I thought was impossible, you have tried to talk economics and ended up talking more tripe than your boss, the MOD educated financial numpty that is:

Trevor - aka "Fraser" - the fastest spinner in the Nelson household even though my brother is a DJ.

Ther was no structural deficit in the run-up to the credit crunch. GB to his credit saw that the growth in public spending had to slow down to below the envisaged GDP growth rate.

The plan was for 1.8% growth in public spending at a time of GDP growth of 2.8%'ish. That much is part of the public record and you should have no trouble finding the documents to back this up if you are indeed interested in journalistic accuracy and are not the militant wing of the Tory party spin machine.

So in the run up to the credit crunch, there was no structural deficit and public spending was under control and the plan was to have growth below GDP growth.

Consequently what was wrong with this situation? Middle class anger at the public realm being improved to the benefit of the working class would be my guess at your response.

Finally regarding the use of a Tory treasury inspired grapth to back up tour story is beyond parody. Your analysis is wrong to the point of being painfull to read, so bad is your understanding of the figures.

At least the Tory placeman in the OBR had the decency to walk when his forced, partial and slanted analysis made the public domain, any chance you will apologise for the rubbish you have served up today?

yank

More partisan bickering then, Mr. Blackburn? My soccer club is better than your soccer club? A 1/8th of 1% (projected) deficit delta engenders a shout-from-the-rooftops level of glee? Please.

One of the most concise but important things I've yet read here, and which we should all read again, is written just above in this comment string by:

Jonathan Woolf
January 6th, 2011 3:08pm

There are no "cuts". There will be low growth. There may be hyperinflation. There will be an expansion of regulatory power. There will be tax and fee hikes. The demographic clock is ticking.

Cheerleading and waving pom pons and casting aspersions addresses none of this. You seem committed to keeping it that way.

Chris lancashire

Is there anyone available to precis FBOT?
I can't be arsed to read the whole drivel.

Gawain

Leave Milibland alone, the creep is only engaging in electioneering. Deceit, smoke and mirrors won Old and Sad last time and they're trying it again. The coalition strategy is to hang together for as long as possible and hope that the economy improves. Red Ed's strategy is to pretend that Labour's period in government was a golden age and hoPe that the economy doesn't im

Doug

God it is mind numbingly painful to read drivel like this. It's a shame everyone is too swept up in the blatant lies produced by this government to hide its damaging policies to realise that actually britian is not in a financial crisis. Our debt isn't a great concern, our deficit isn't a great concern.
The graph shown here is grossly deceitful as if you went back a further 20 years you'd see britain not getting out of defecit from the majority of Thatchers government until Blair got in. Honestly it's just getting pathetic that everyone keeps blaming labour for the conservatives policy of cutting the state and damaging families.
Also baffles me how people dont quite realise the majority of cuts aren't even aimed at reducing deficit, indeed a number of them are expected to greatly increase it like it has done since this government got in, drastically so. How anyone considers cutting anything other than true waste a good tool for deficit reduction is beyond me in the first place, economic growth is the only real method and reducing consumer spending power isn't going to great that no matter how this government spins it.

David Ossitt

“Oh what a tangled web he's weaved. His argument is a maze of conceits, sleights of hand and subterfuge, and he interchanges between debt and deficit at his convenience. But, occasionally, his position is exposed.”

We have come to expect that most politicians will on occasion tell us lies, that said, I am convinced that many do try to be as honest as is humanly possible.

I should have qualified that last bit I should have added, other than labour, the labour party has form, for over thirteen years, whilst in power, the truth was never ever allowed to get in front of a good lie and the bigger the lie the better they liked it.

They knew that they lied; we knew that they repeatedly lied and they knew that we knew.

They got away with it mainly because much of the media were complicit in rarely challenging any lie and also because the BBC and the huge swathe of quangos were and still are crammed to the rafters with Marxists, socialist, fellow travellers and all kinds of labour luvvies.

It is high time that this coalition government put a stop to this, lies from labour must be challenged on each and every occasion, the BBC and the established quangos must be purged and be forced to be truly impartial.

Fatbloke on tour

DB

On the use of the second chart to reinforce the point you are trying to make, did you ...

1) Look at the chart and understand it?
2) Have the chart explained to you?
3) Put up the right chart?

You really are a godsend to the Milli-E crusade for economic truth and sense to re-enter British politics after the dog boiling orthodoxy of Sniffy and his "fire up the chainsaw for a big bit of slash and burn" political sado masochism.

Consequently tip of the hat to you my good squire, you really have put a spoke in the ConDem's economic propaganda.

David Ossitt

Fatbloke on tour.

"GB to his credit"

To give any credit to 'GB' is revolting and loathsome, please desist.

DavidDP

Chris,

It's rather difficult, given he doesn't appear to understand basic English, but his post essentially refers to the growth in spending vs the growth in the economy, which doesn't really help if, as the graph shows, you are already spending more than you are taking in.

A poor attempt at spin in other words, only marginally better than the usual approach of confusing debt and deficit.

Fatbloke on tour

DB

You keep making my points for me:

2007-08 = Last year before the Credit Crunch.
The Credit Crunch the biggest economic shock in 80 years and the biggest financial shock in the last 135 years.

Started in the US, you know after Dubya's guys tried to keep the party going until after the 2004 election, a very political case of making bricks without straw if ever there was one. Add in a bit of in the know "lead being sold as gold" and it was sure to all end in tears for America.

Consequently back to 2007/08, where GB was looking at a deficit of 3%'ish covered by a net public sector investment figure of 3.5%'ish.

The deficit was not out of control and anyone who tries to peddle this argument is lying as only a right wing, establishment, public school educated, dog boiler could.

I think that all the Speccy scribblers need to either re-read their own personal copies of the Ladybird Book of Economic for Dog Boilers or they need to fess up and admit that economics is not their strong point but they need to do their bit Dave the Rave and ConDem propaganda.

My only contention would be that no matter how bad this article is, "Trevor" would have been even worse.

David Ossitt

Doug

“God it is mind numbingly painful to read drivel like this. It's a shame everyone is too swept up in the blatant lies produced by this government to hide its damaging policies to realise that actually britian [sic] is not in a financial crisis. Our debt isn't a great concern, our deficit isn't a great concern.”

Complete and utter rubbish, consummate garbage of the highest order from the beginning to the end.

A post of nonsensical codswallop.

Chris lancashire

That's a bit better FBOT - getting shorter.

Fatbloke on tour

Dave the Banker @ 5.02

Cut the Tory schoolboy crap.

Grow up, GB got the big economic stuff correct. It took the worst banking crisis for 135 years to undermine his legacy.

Compare and contrast with the Tory muppets who came before and failed at the first sign of an economic headwind.

AndyLeeds

My God the Labour trolls are out in force today. You really have upset that lying toad Miliband.

DavidDP

Does anyone know why FBOT is obsessed with boiling dogs?

Fatbloke on tour

Chris @ 5.16

Cut the crap and work the numbers.

The first chart does not tell the whole story, it is missing the info on public sector investment that would tell the full picture.

In addition the context would be improved if it covered the whole of the 1979-2010 period and included Maggie's stealing the family silver to fund her unemployment habit.

As for the final chart, AD has been proved right by a right wing economic numpty.

Who would have believed it?

DavidDP

"GB got the big economic stuff correct....
Compare and contrast with the Tory muppets who came before and failed at the first sign of an economic headwind."

GB grew the deficit in a boom, which, as a prefessed Keynsian, should be considered a pretty poor piece of economic management.

GB sold off gold reserves at the bottom of the market, announcing it beforehand, which drove the price even lower.

GB claimed to have ended boom and bust, before one of the largest busts in decades, if not centuries.

GB created a brand new tri-partite financial regulatory regime, which buckled at the first sign of trouble.

GB overuled the OFT to ensure the merger of Lloyds and RBS, crippled Lloyds and will likely be reversed once the IBC reports.

GB evidenced no nuanced sense of economics other than "spend." A stopped clock will be right twice a day. It's a shame when we did need to spend, we'd already busted the bank.

TomTom

"Started in the US"

Rubbish. CDOs were run out of London. British banks were lending 10% US GDP in the USA. Largest lenders in Oz were HBOS and RBS.

Britain was out of control with the lowest banks cash reserves in the OECD. Speculative lending produced fictional profits but contingent liabilities.

One off taxes on Utilities and Mobile Operators flattered tax revenues but ignored huge tax writeoffs down the road as Vodafone etc charged impairments.

The SIVs used to hide PFI liabilities and the fact that 50% British mortgages emanated from Northern Rock to feed its Channel Islands CMO scam indicates that Britain created its own disaster following Greenspan's senile policies - after all Brown made Sir Alan Greenspan a Treasury Adviser out of sheer admiration at his chutzpah !

Page n' Plant

Mr Milliband it is definitely time to worry when Tony Blair starts to look honest by comparison.

JohnOfEnfield

I am amazed, amused and delighted that Miliband should take the path of complete denial.

A party that destroyed our economy, just as it did in all its past periods of power. Destroyed our banks by not regulating the boom in property prices. Planned to quadruple the national debt. Did it ever achieve a budget surplus? Destroyed our civil liberties with 3,000 or more new laws on the statute book (are you SURE that ignorance of the law is still no defence).
Interfered with everything I do in my private life, and wanted to know at every turn what I think and what is my ethnicity (who knows, who cares).

The lying b******s have been evicted from office - their continuous lies and propaganda has ceased. Peace reigns in the airways.

E-Mili is merely a tragic echo of another mentally ill idiot striving for power reminding us that we must always be on our guard.

alan scott

Would Fatbloke on Tour (Tour de FRance?)kindly let us know his qualifications for his outright pontificating?
This is offered in the nicest possible way - for I really would like to know more about someone whose omniscience rivals Igonikon Jack.

Pete

@ fatbloke

Ever heard of monocrop taxation and the imprudence of assuming it is a reliable source of revenue?

salieri

Woven, not weaved.

TrevorsDen

Fathead Prancing seems to think somebody called 'Trevor' is in fact somebody called 'Fraiser'. He is as wrong about that as he is about everything else.

But he is a classic example of the thick socialist that Miliband is relying on.
As an example - Fatman will not recognise that unemployment rises after '79 were because like now Tories inherited a battered economy.

The facts are that from 2002 spending exceeded revenues - Brown ran deficits whilst the economy was growing. The economy could not sustain Browns spending plans.
%age of GDP is meaningless when growth is fuelled by immigration not production and immigration brings ever more calls on the very services we cannot afford.

Privatisation of course meant reform - something Brown never did before he sprayed the borrowed money around.

TrevorsDen

Public sector investment? Was was that investment made with? Money that did not exist. Borrowed money when the nation should have been running surpluses. But even in a boom the economy was not generating income enough.

The idea that Brown got the 'big' economic decisions right is hysterically funny.

Simon Stephenson

Fatbloke on Tour - an interpretation

He's a political evangelist, who starts from the position that socialism is all-good, and that therefore any policy that is put in place by a well-intentioned socialist is "right", however much it may appear to be wrong, or to disadvantage the population in the short-term.

Principal amongst this approach is the belief that the state is superior to any individual or group of individuals, and that the nation's economic product belongs to the state, and is for the state to distribute as it sees fit. Taxation isn't an imposition on individuals, it's just a practical way of allowing people a little pocket-money with which to make non-serious economic decisions. The concept that we should be working towards individual autonomy is an anathema.

There really is no meaningful discussion possible with people like this, because no matter how much reason and logic points to the errors of their assertions, in their own minds they can't be in error, so it must be the reason and the logic that are wrong. At no stage are they ever prepared to accept that their entire argument rests upon an assumption about how the world should be that is neither proven to be advatageous, nor part of the gut-feeling of the vast majority of the population - and, indeed, only attractive to themselves on the basis that they personally will be active parts of the omnipotent state apparatus, and not merely subjects forced to be obedient to its whims.

TrevorsDen

The seeds of the sub prime crisis began under Clinton when the democrats forced lenders (by threatening them with racism) to lend to people who could not afford it. Bush tried to stop it but the Democrat Congress would not let him.

Dead Ed

Jewemy Vine hath been pwerfectly beathly to me today when all I twied to do was explain that Gordon and I bqwueathed a golden legacy to an ungwateful electorate and torwy coalition who are now saying howwid things about huge debts that we never wan up because it was Margawet Thwatcher that cweated them and the nasty amewicans who twiggered the latest cwisis.

Simon Stephenson

David Ossitt : 4.53pm

"We have come to expect that most politicians will on occasion tell us lies, that said, I am convinced that many do try to be as honest as is humanly possible."

But being basically honest is no longer any good in the political culture. It isn't quite true to say that New Labour introduced lying for advantage into the political arena, but it is without doubt that this was the principal weapon in their armoury, and that they took it to a level where dealing in honesty became so old-hat as to be political suicide. What has been created is a political environment that is as poisoned with dishonesty as is trade and commerce, and the only people who are able to prosper are those who are in it for themselves and have been able to bury their consciences in the cause of self-advancement.

Olaf Rye

Wait a moment: what 'family silver' was stolen by Thatcher ? She reduced subsidies to failing industries. They closed because they were inherently uncompetitive because of the unions. As for no structural deficit, you must be joking ! Is this what they write in leftist economic journals ? The Labour government could never balance its books, except when it followed the Conservative plan for the first few years of its time in office. Even when it took vast quantities in tax, amounting to nearly 40% of GDP, it was insufficient to balance the books for them. Where did this money go ? Well, largely on a civil service that is there to manage and control our lives. It is this that most of us want to see vanish. The Labour employment strategy was to create more laws and hire civil servants to implement them. Oh, and what of GB's claim that Britain was in the best position to weather the economic storm ? I have heard GB is a nice fellow, but his economic competence was farcical. The problem is, the cuts we have are insufficient. Only those dependent on the state worry about the cuts, whereas those of us that do not rely on public money just want to cry at the waste and the inevitability of higher taxes to keep the civil servants employed so they can vote Labour.

Stuart Seacole Smith

They say that if you're going to tell lies, make them real whoppers. Ed Miliband certainly seems to have taken that to heart.

That the likes of FatBOT can stand up for this, apparently without shame, beggars belief. And mixing it with defence of the the unspeakable fiasco that was Brown only serves to turn a desperately weak case into a lost cause to end all lost causes.

I can only hope that people neither forget nor ever forgive Labour for what they've done.

Fatbloke on tour

Dippy David @ 5.31

Full marks for effort, nil points for depth of analysis.

The usual GIB'by laundry list put forward by those who have the DT read to them.

Now onto your points, one by one ...

1) When was the boom you talk about?

From the Asian Flu of 98 to the oil price spike of 2005 onwards, GB was up against some pretty heavy economic headwinds. He kept the show on the road as he re-generated the run down public realm of the UK. The deficits, 1997-2008 were cyclically neutral and included a huge increase in the net public sector investement.

2) Gold reserves, selling off a non productive asset after 18 years of Tory stagnation and ineptitude seems like a plus point to me.

Just how much money did Maggie lose with her inability to work the UK's reserves?

3) Eleven years of growth in the economy is a better record than any Tory can muster. The fact that it took the biggest global financial shock in 135 years to knock him off his stride suggests he did quite well.

Compare and contrast with TB / GH / NL et al.

4) The old regime had failed. The secondary banking crisis in the 70's, third world debt in the 80's and BCCI debacle suggest it was well past its sell by date.

The BoE was not fit for purpose regarding bank regulation and a new arrangement was needed.

I personally would have gone for the Admiral Byng method. You know "hang" a few "pour encourage les autres".

5) You have got your facts wrong so I suggest you mug up on it and get back to me when you understand the issue.

I do hope your parents didn't pay good money to get you a bad education?

6) As noted before the plan put into action was for public spending to grow at 1.8% with GDP growth estimated to be 2.5% to 2.8%. There had been 7 years of above trend growth in public spending and GB et al realised that it was time to slow down.

Consequently he was right and the right wing dog boilers trying to save the Speccies blushes when it comes to economics are wrong.

Next !!!

Fatbloke on tour

Lost Lost @ 5.47

The whole sorry episode started in the US where those in the know parceled up crap loans and got a useful idiot from the one of the ratings agencies to stamp it "AAA" and then sell it on to those with more money than sense.

Add in the really fly playing games with exotic derivative products and passing on the tip to their pals and the only question to me is how did it last so long.

Unfortunately the US had nothing to sell but its own junk and the global liquidity wave meant that they had plenty of buyers. The prevailing greed or get rich quick attitude meant that nobody noticed that the emporer was rapidly losing his clothes along with his dignity.

Regarding your other comments, some banks survived and some have failed. They did not fail in the same manner so the situation locally is much more complex than you suggest.

On the NR front the guy running the show went from city hero to public enemy No.1 in the blink of an eye. Their whole business plan was growth based on wholesale funding and the city cheered every profits increase and the BTL chancers lapped up all their deals.

GB or the UK was not to blame for a bout of global financial madness.

The only question live at the moment is how do we stop the next bout?

I suggest hedge funds are put in the spotlight, actually greater transparency all round and the Tobin Tax is introduced pronto.

And your ideas are?

Baron

DavidDP @ 5.31 sums it just right; the Fatbloke on tour should be re-admitted for his own good.

amongst all the sins Brown committed, and there were many, one is inexcusable. At a time the Treasury receipts were the juciest ever, he, instead of tucking some of the cash for the rainy days, borrowed more and spent it all. For this alone, the man should be barred from ever holding any public office.

Sarah

Er, Fatbloke, your analysis is ludicrous. The UK's indebtedness is now at a massive record high; much greater than at any point in our peace-time history. It is simply not true that Gordon Brown steered us through anything competently at all. Moody's (and the IMF, I believe) warned about sovereign debt a year before the CDO disclosures began. You're running a line. And its not plausible.

yank

Don't throw away all of the corpulent fellow's analysis, however. He's near bang on with his analysis of matters over here with the US financial and investment assclowns.

Not that the greedheads in London didn't play their part... they did. And both London and Washington pols played along and got paid off by the banksters. It's the future, you know. Shuffling money. Skimming off a bit. Shuffling some more.

And whoever is trying to absolve George W. Bush of responsibility for the housing crisis... guess again. He was the architect of the stupid "ownership society" nonsense... a continuation of the pushing people into homes foolishness we've been at for going on 20 years now. The fool... those people didn't "own" anything but a bad mortgage based on liar loans, in many cases. That created bales of bad paper, which either caused or exacerbated the crash. It had to go somewhere, and it did. Many other countries were doing the exact same thing, but as in many cases, we did it bigger and "better".

Give him (small) credit for seeking legislation to address derivatives and credit default swaps, but he was unsuccessful and didn't see clear to make it a priority. If he had, in mid decade or even earlier? But like his soulmate Blair, he didn't, as other matters held priority.

Hang 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

Ken

@ Yank:
"Hang 'em all. Let God sort 'em out."

Hear hear ... on both sides of the Atlantic and all their political buddies with them. Confiscation of all their bonuses too until every penny/cent of the bailouts is repaid.

Clear Memories

Why is anyone wasting time analysing his words?

He's a socialist, so if the mouth is open, he's lying. If the hand is moving, he's stealing.

Simples.

DavidDP

1) When was the boom you talk about?

If you are aguing that there was no boom, that makes the Brown record even worse. Stagnant growth, deficit levels of spending follwed by deep recession. Further you appear to be saying that Brown was incapable in the face of economic events, which hardly makes for claims of a good record as chancellor.

"Gold reserves, selling off a non productive asset"

If the argument is that the assets are unproductive (which fundementally misunderstands the point of reserves, but we'll gloss over that) and that you want to realise them through selling, the worst thing to do is to depress their value before hand. That's just pure incompetance.

"The fact that it took the biggest global financial shock in 135 years to knock him off his stride suggests he did quite well."

Except that what seemed "quite well" was illusionary.By 2007, before the crisis, we had the largest structural deficit in the G7. Spending had grown on average by 4.4% in real terms. Given your earlier claims that there was no boom in the real economy, that growth in spending was clearly unfunded by your own arguments.

"The old regime had failed. The secondary banking crisis in the 70's, third world debt in the 80's and BCCI debacle suggest it was well past its sell by date. "

The old regime never oversaw anything as poor as this. Regardless, the system Brown set up was simply not fit for purpose. Saying that one useless scheme has replaced another is not mitigation. if I'm charged with fixing something, if my solution is a bodge, I get the blame.

"You have got your facts wrong so I suggest you mug up on it and get back to me when you understand the issue. "

Which facts? That the OFT blocked the merger? That the government overuled this independent advice after introducing emergency legislation to allow it to do so? That Lloyds has since struggled? That the IBC has indicated it is minded to break the new group up?

I think you'll find that these are bald statements of fact.

"As noted before the plan put into action was for public spending to grow at 1.8% with GDP growth estimated to be 2.5% to 2.8%. There had been 7 years of above trend growth in public spending and GB et al realised that it was time to slow down."

Public spending grew at over 4% in real terms. Your figures are simply inaccurate. You seem to be arguing that what was "planned" is the reality, and that reality should be dismissed in favour of prior forecasts. "It woudl have be okay if it hadn't gone wrong" in other words.

Stephen Green

Broon the Goon was buying votes with his unfunded expansion of the public sector.
As the Red Queen rightly said:-
"Off with his head".

Fatbloke on tour

Dippy David @ 9.41

RBS vs HBOS - Discuss?
All Scottish bankers must look the same to you.

GB = 11 years of growth in the UK.
Growth rate = 2-3% of GDP pa.

Great result with little sign of the "boom" you suggest unless you were in IT in 99.

2007/08 = There was no discernible or statistically significant structural deficit.

You can work the numbers to show a possible structural deficit of less than 0.3% of GDP over the 12 months of the 2007/08 financial year if you are that way inclined but it is all a bit subjective and open to a politically slanted interpretation.

My view is that there was no structural deficit in the UK for the year 2007-08 and I stand by this assertion but I do acknowledge that others have identified a figure of £3-5bill, which is a rounding error in a £1.5trill economy.

Your G7 point does not stand as the US at this time was running a deficit that would choke a horse in 2007/08.

Consequently back to your books ya numpty.

Fatbloke on tour

Dippy David @ 9.41

RBS vs HBOS - Discuss?
All Scottish bankers must look the same to you.

GB = 11 years of growth in the UK.
Growth rate = 2-3% of GDP pa.

Great result with little sign of the "boom" you suggest unless you were in IT in 99.

2007/08 = There was no discernible or statistically significant structural deficit.

You can work the numbers to show a possible structural deficit of less than 0.3% of GDP over the 12 months of the 2007/08 financial year if you are that way inclined but it is all a bit subjective and open to a politically slanted interpretation.

My view is that there was no structural deficit in the UK for the year 2007-08 and I stand by this assertion but I do acknowledge that others have identified a figure of £3-5bill, which is a rounding error in a £1.5trill economy.

Your G7 point does not stand as the US at this time was running a deficit that would choke a horse in 2007/08.

Consequently back to your books ya numpty.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

The only honest thing Ed Millipede has done is not putting his name as "Father" on that baby's Birth Certificate.

Fatbloke on tour

Failed Blogger @ All over the place

You are talking tripe.
All governments of whatever stripe run up deficits.

The issue in all of this is the context:

Maggie: 11 years - 2 in surplus, 9 in deficit.

This at the time of North Sea oil and the huge tax receipts it generated. This at a time where she was selling of the family silver and boasting about it.

Consequently why did the national debt go up by 90% under her tenure especially when the public realm was being destroyed and the NHS was only surviving by making waiting times longer?

Add in the help she received with high inflation and the Maggie lovers on here should be holding their heads in shame.

JM: 7 years approx, all in deficit, every last one of them.
The national debt rose by 135% over that time in the so called golden age of the UK economy. Again all you Tory / KC fans should fall silent in any discussion about economic stewardship.

JM shafted us all even if only EC got any pleasure from it.

The 90/92 recession saw a fall in GDP of 2.4% but this produced a deficit of 8.7% all because of an economic molehill that passed the world by.
And remember that 8.7% deficit included very little in the way of public sector investment.

Compare and contrast with the situation in 2009/10 in the teeth of the biggest banking shock for the last 135 years.

GB / AD had a plan and it was working.

Dave the Rave / Sniffy do not have a clue beyond dog boiling orthodoxy and it certainly is not working.

Fatbloke on tour

Plank @ 1.56

The correct name for the financial transaction you describe is "Coin Clipping".

It is incredible how many bankers are fans of the AWB, how else can you explain the fact that the anthem of modern banking is "Lets go round again".

Simon Stephenson

Fatbloke on tour : 12.16pm

"GB / AD had a plan and it was working."

Working in what sense?

What outcomes were this "plan" aiming for?

Where does individual autonomy stand in this "plan"?

You speak in weasel words, Fatbloke, just like the rest of your political comrades. None of you are to be trusted further than you can be kicked.

Johnathan Pearce

The brutal truth is that even in his last budget, Alistair Darling's own arithmetic assumed the need for some fairly sharp cuts. Milliband seems to have airbrushed that fact away. For all his faults, Darling is one of the few people to have emerged from the previous administration with any credit.

And Fatbloke would do well to remember that it was a Labour minister in the Treasury who told his successors that there was no money left.

As Margaret Thatcher used to say, Labour governments always run out of other people's money. Truest thing she ever said.

Fatbloke on tour

Nurse Chaser @ 1.13

The plan was working, the economy was back in growth, the banks had stabilised and unemployment was falling.

Regarding outcomes the plan was working towards a rebalancing of the economy, employment growth and a reduction in the deficit.

Reagarding individual autonomy in all of this then you are 75 years behind the times with your thoughts on how the individual can deal with a systematic economic breakdown..
You are a true dog boiler if you think that we as individuals can sort out the financial wreckage caused by the Credit Crunch

Consequently away and thro' shite at yersel ya rocket.

Stuart Seacole Smith

What's a dog boiler, someone who mans a hot-dog stand?

FatBOT: you certainly are prolific, but not even remotely convincing for all that. Labour governments have repeatedly shown themselves to be utterly untrustworthy when it comes to the economy, and (to be charitable) mostly deluded do-gooders when it comes to improving the social lot.

There was a time, not so long ago, when I was less fixed in my views - take the early Blair years - what seemed like a trustworthy smile, the Bamby-look of innocence. I don't mind admitting I was taken in for a while there. But with time it became clear that this was just a slick facade which allowed the dirty-work to go on unchallenged in the shadows. I feel queasy just thinking about it now.

Your kind of labourite wannabe aggressive double-talk and fact-twisting only serve to underline why there was a need for a change of government. Spin (aka smoke and mirrors) was elevated to an art-form by new-labour, and here you are trotting out more of it on this comments thread. Ed Miliband's just trying to lie his way out of a corner, and most people can smell it from a mile off I reckon. It won't work.

yank

Over-Caloried Gentleman: "Your G7 point does not stand as the US at this time was running a deficit that would choke a horse in 2007/08."

.

I gave you small credit earlier, but you're on your own with this one. The US budget deficit didn't explode until after the crash. Oh yes, Bush ran it up to 5% of GDP, during the dot com crash recession and 9/11 aftermath, and we conservatives wanted to go medieval on his ass, and we eventually got him and Congress to bring it down to less than 3%, which even the Eurocrats would bless. See here:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

If the Gord didn't beat those numbers, numbers we here wanted to draw and quarter the politicos for not achieving, then he's an incompetent fool. These others claim he didn't, and you haven't proven otherwise.

Add in the gold sale, which put him into laughing stock territory over here, not to mention the expenses business, although that one spread far and wide I'm sure.

Look, Brit politics barely scratches onto our radar screen over here, unless it's for one of your sexual scandals (always more entertaining than our boring little trysts) or just sheer incompetence. This guy made it onto our screen, more than once. That should tell you something.

David Ossitt

Hello everyone; is it not high time that we all recognised and agreed that ‘Fatbloke on tour’ is in fact is in fact a ‘troll’, in point of fact he might even be a planted troll.

If I am correct; then we must use the only remedy we have available, for dealing with a troll, we must starve him to death, by never replying to or commenting on his insane, socialist cant.

David Ossitt

I am sorry for the extra 'is in fact'.

BenM

Oh dear.

The only deceits I see write large are those from the author. EdM is wholly right.

Nice attempt at twisting the facts to fit a narrow and erroneous rightwing fantasy though.

What is a "structural" deficit by the way? A deficit (or a surplus) can easily be wiped out by the stroke of a bureaucrats pen. They are not fixed or inevitable, they are the result of political choices.

Funny thing is, the choices taken by this coalition are the wrong ones and will do nothing to close the deficit, because the economy does not work in the highly simplistic terms fancied by the Right.

Hans Castorp

Oh dear. Gets pretty bad when you have to quote Tony Blair on economics to bolster your argument.

Looking at the graph objectively it bears out ED M's analysis exactly. Unless there's some sort of Tory Magic Eye thing going on: the gap between spending and receipts shrank between 2004 and 2008, only to see a gap widen drastically almost entirle because the red line falls off. Look at the spending levels - they are almost on trend.

Hans Castorp

Also, this article switches from deficit to debt halfway through, without recognising that debt rose because of nationalisations that stopped our banking system from falling over. Now, I knwo it was not the Torie's finest hour to have Osborne oppose this only to be smacked down by every world leader and economist worth their salt, but it did happen. Moreover, because all that debt was used to aquire assets, the sale of thise assets at the right time should remove that debt (and hopefully a bit more). Bu tthen, mentioning anything that is not designed to make everyone scared doesn't cut it at Speccie towers.

Fatbloke on tour

DB

Any chance you could have another go at a bit of economics / UK public sector finances?

I haven't seen an article that proved so supportive of the GB / AD budget plans for a long time.

Consequently when you are ready ...

stevie1888

Having (surprisingly) just enjoyed reading through these posts, my conclusion is;

FatBoy On Tour 1 - 0 tories

Go on yersel big lad!

Old Slaughter

Fatbloke.

Compare and contrast the economy inherited by Thatcher to that inherited by Brown.

If Brown is to be credited for the growth why is he to be absolved from the crash? Surely by your analysis the international situation is responsible for both.

Also, he broke his own rules. Was he lying and it was planned or was he incompetent and it was unplanned?