Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour joy and Tory gloom

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour joy and Tory gloom

A few weeks ago I was helping a front bencher prepare for a TV appearance and we guessed that one of the questions might be “Do you agree with Laura Pidcock?” She is the newbie MP who declared she wouldn’t hang out with Tory women because she regards them as “enemy”.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,021
    'neglected the productivity gap... '
    Perhaps true, but no one really understands this, let alone has policies to address it, least of all Corbyn.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    edited October 2
    Second like Labour.

    Comments on “Tory borrowing” I’m afraid are completely disingenuous- borrowing is only what it is today because Gordon Brown left Office with a £166,000,000,000 black hole in the public finances. Despite what some have called a “Decade Of Austerity” we’re still £50bn a year short of balancing the books.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,166
    edited October 2
    FPT.
    Dura_Ace said:

    Monarch has gone. A complex and multifaceted situation but the Brexit devaluation impacting an operating model with no slack was part of this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/02/monarch-airlines-flights-cancelled-as-airline-goes-into-administration

    Congratulations. You have won the BBC Prize for the Most Farfetched Blame of Brexit.

    Seriously? An airline that has been making losses for years finally goes bust and you blame Brexit?
    Everything is going to get blamed on Brexit for the next few decades. We rejoiners have been well schooled in mendacity and cynicism by the Leave campaign. Everything that goes wrong is the fault of Brexit.
    That's very true. They're making a new 'Johnny English' with Rowan Atkinson and I was talking to someone on it who said the EU film industry in terms of locations and money is on the way to competing with Hollywood and the UK were likely to be at the centre but Brexit was going to screw it up......
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,206
    Partisan nonsense. This site really doesn’t need any more articles from Mr Brind.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    Labour government’s are more prudent than Tory governments — Tories have been the biggest borrowers since the war and that picture holds good if you run the numbers from 1979.

    And at that point, I swear I saw a shark fin under the words and gave up....
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,166
    edited October 2
    RoyalBlue said:

    Partisan nonsense. This site really doesn’t need any more articles from Mr Brind.

    We should get Boris to write the next one on the side of a bus. Part of his series "The Greatest Fibs Ever Told"
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 637
    Jjust heard on Radio Scotland news that May is going to announce today that "She" and Ruth Davidson saved the Union in iRefScot.

    Ta! Very much, May has just wiped out the relevancy of the Tories in Scotland.

    Many people voted in the referendum having weighed up the arguments, pro and anti, with their hearts and minds, So, while Tory, Labour, LibDems could have been considered natural No's, many voted Yes, while many in the SNP voted No. The question of Independence had been argued for years, especially since 2007 when the SNP came to power, the clue being in the name and the realisation that the leadership of the party would be demanding a referendum at some point.

    That many in Scotland now look at Brexit and see what a near miss the result of iRef was, has even many in the SNP questioning the relevance of the Party to Scotland. The Leadership were expected to announce next week, at their conference, that they will now concentrate on the bread and butter issues of running Scotland and put the arguments for iRef2 on the back burner until Brexit had been sorted (which, brings to mind, what on earth have they been doing since '07).

    So thanks Theresa, for nothing, your presence was non existent in the run up to iRef, and Ruthie, poncing around in her little white tank doing Thatcher impressions was mostly ignored. And May, in her ignorance of how her speech will play, has virtually killed off Ruthie's chances - unless, of course, that was what was intended.....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    What's happened there?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    At least 20 being treated in hopital.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,319

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Cyclefree said:

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    What's happened there?

    Shooting on the Strip, sounds like gunmen in an hotel tower firing down on festival goers on the street below. Reports now of at least two dead

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-strip-shooting-multiple-casualties-reported-near-mandalay/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    What's happened there?

    Shooting on the Strip, sounds like gunmen in an hotel tower firing down on festival goers on the street below. Reports now of at least two dead

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-strip-shooting-multiple-casualties-reported-near-mandalay/
    How awful. Not again.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    Good to have a pro-Corbyn thread every so often I think although I suppose most on this forum would disagree!

    Don is right that neither Labour nor Tories have a monopoly on economic mismanagement. Prudent of course means much more than just how much you borrow - but i suppose labour have to start somewhere in combatting Tory myths...

    One of the criticisms often levelled at Corbyn is that all his ideas are from the 1970s.
    Actually he has created space for a lot of new ideas - peoples qe, land value tax, lifelong learning from national education service...

    Are the British people ready to trust this geography teacher lookalike with the economy? I still have my doubts - but if he creates space for new ideas and emboldens the Labour Party to be more radical - I think that's an excellent legacy.

    For me it's a shame that Ed M. wasn't bolder... I think he could have run on a 2017 style manifesto and maybe done a lot better.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,046

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    edited October 2
    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,277
    edited October 2
    RoyalBlue said:

    Partisan nonsense. This site really doesn’t need any more articles from Mr Brind.

    Who are you to say that?

    And why does this site need your contributions?

    How about you show a bit of respect?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    Since Gordon Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust, it was only fair to blame him when the economy had its biggest bust since 1930.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,336
    These pieces of Brind's are barely rational. Let's just take one example:

    "I believe that Labour is developing an industrial strategy that will deal with both the opportunities and threats created by the digital revolution. An interesting meeting organised by Labour Business and Fujitsu was addressed by two of the smartest people on Corbyn’s front bench, Chi Onwurah and Liam Byrne. "

    One would have thought the piece might then spell out the strategy, or at least give some ideas as to what Liam and Chi said that caused Brind's belief that a strategy was under construction.

    No. The next sentence just chips ahead with "They are people to watch". That's it. No evidence, no ideas.

    Whatever happened to Henry G Manson? His pieces as a Labour insider were always thoughtful and interesting.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
    I don't disagree with you about the Tories. But Labour are simply not to be trusted IMO. If they don't understand what they did wrong when they were last in power there's very little chance of them getting it right this time around. Brown was delusional about his achievements and McDonnell is equally delusional about his claims.

    Fresh and radical thinking is certainly needed. Spending money you haven't earned is neither fresh nor radical and is likely to end in the same mess the last time it was tried.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,424
    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.
  • I agree with the general assessment on here of Don Brind's economic analysis and credibility.

    But the conclusion that he shouldn't write leaders on the UK's top political blog is wrong-headed. His view needs hearing---not because he is right, but because he explains an increasingly widely held view.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
    I don't disagree with you about the Tories. But Labour are simply not to be trusted IMO. If they don't understand what they did wrong when they were last in power there's very little chance of them getting it right this time around. Brown was delusional about his achievements and McDonnell is equally delusional about his claims.

    Fresh and radical thinking is certainly needed. Spending money you haven't earned is neither fresh nor radical and is likely to end in the same mess the last time it was tried.
    What would be nice if we had a reasonable debate about what the causes were, rather than blaming labour for the whole shebang. Spending money on the NHS did not cause the global financial crisis. Watch/read the Big Short and tell me where Labour features.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    It's not the fact that the son wants to go into politics that JJ is objecting to. It's whether this plum position was open to all those others who would like to go into politics: a free and fair competition appointing the best person for the job from all those applying. The suspicion is that might simply have been a favour to a friend's son. And, if so, unfair to all those without such connections. Not very different to what Labour accuse toffs and the Establishment of doing for their friends' sons and daughters. Just another elite in other words.

    As too often with Labour, their words are one thing, their actions another.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    Being the child of an MP, yet alone the Labour leader, already gives you many advantages in the form of people you know and our experience of the political world. There's little need for such an obvious and egregious taxpayer-funded leg-up. Corbyn also apparently employs McCluskey’s daughter, who coincidentally was also the best person for the job.

    Imagine if one of your grandchildren had wanted to get the job, and despite being a better fit for the role, was beaten by a child of the boss's friend.

    Corbyn's hypocrisy is profound: apparently nepotism is bad for Tories, but good for Labour.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    Nigelb said:

    'neglected the productivity gap... '
    Perhaps true, but no one really understands this, let alone has policies to address it, least of all Corbyn.

    Corbyn's robot tax is a big clue. To actually penalise the use of technology that reduces work (much like steam or electricity) is a ridiculous stance. In a Corbyn led Britain never mind catching up we would be set to fall even farther behind.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    Sean_F said:

    Since Gordon Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust, it was only fair to blame him when the economy had its biggest bust since 1930.

    Gordon was half right.

    He did abolish the boom part.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
    I don't disagree with you about the Tories. But Labour are simply not to be trusted IMO. If they don't understand what they did wrong when they were last in power there's very little chance of them getting it right this time around. Brown was delusional about his achievements and McDonnell is equally delusional about his claims.

    Fresh and radical thinking is certainly needed. Spending money you haven't earned is neither fresh nor radical and is likely to end in the same mess the last time it was tried.
    What would be nice if we had a reasonable debate about what the causes were, rather than blaming labour for the whole shebang. Spending money on the NHS did not cause the global financial crisis. Watch/read the Big Short and tell me where Labour features.
    I know rather more than you about what caused the GFC and, in particular, about the circumstances in the UK and Labour's role in Northern Rock and the RBS/Barclays/ABN Amor fiasco. I have written a thread header on some of what went wrong. Labour were not responsible for the whole shebang and I have never said it was. Labour were however responsible for the UK economy for the decade leading up to the crisis and cannot claim, as they have repeatedly, tried to do that it was some sort of Act of God originating in America - like a hurricane - and that there was nothing they could do. Warnings were repeatedly given in public to the Labour government about the problems they were storing up with the way they were managing the economy. Warnings were also given in private about some very specific issues which, if they had been addressed, would not have exploded so publicly and messily when they did. They too were ignored. Labour is responsible for what it did and what it did not do in that decade. We are still paying the price and it is pure chutzpah for Labour now to claim that they have answers to the problems they were, in part, responsible for creating and which we are still trying to resolve.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    'neglected the productivity gap... '
    Perhaps true, but no one really understands this, let alone has policies to address it, least of all Corbyn.

    Corbyn's robot tax is a big clue. To actually penalise the use of technology that reduces work (much like steam or electricity) is a ridiculous stance. In a Corbyn led Britain never mind catching up we would be set to fall even farther behind.
    People pay income and NI taxes, robots don't. That's not fair.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Someone in Mossad has a sense of humour:



    (Assuming that is a genuine Mossad feed ...)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,166
    edited October 2
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
    I don't disagree with you about the Tories. But Labour are simply not to be trusted IMO. If they don't understand what they did wrong when they were last in power there's very little chance of them getting it right this time around. Brown was delusional about his achievements and McDonnell is equally delusional about his claims.

    Fresh and radical thinking is certainly needed. Spending money you haven't earned is neither fresh nor radical and is likely to end in the same mess the last time it was tried.
    What would be nice if we had a reasonable debate about what the causes were, rather than blaming labour for the whole shebang. Spending money on the NHS did not cause the global financial crisis. Watch/read the Big Short and tell me where Labour features.
    Well said. Labour's biggest recent mistake was allowing those with ill intent to get away with blaming Labour for the world's financial crisis.It''s interesting that they think the UK had that sort of muscle! The Big Short is a good starting point
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429

    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.

    Labour are a government in waiting only because the Tories are so bloody useless and are embarking on one of their periodic kamikaze missions.

    It's like saying that I'm an Olympic 10,000 metre champion in waiting because the only other competitor has broken both her legs.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.

    Comments on “Tory borrowing” I’m afraid are completely disingenuous- borrowing is only what it is today because Gordon Brown left Office with a £166,000,000,000 black hole in the public finances. Despite what some have called a “Decade Of Austerity” we’re still £50bn a year short of balancing the books.

    Yet Osborne still borrowed hundreds of billions more than he said he would and used them to pump up a consumption and house price bubble.

    One consequence of which is that the UK had a current account deficit of £115bn in 2016:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp

    You could build a lot of houses and fund a lot of students and social care with that.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    Jonathan said:

    People pay income and NI taxes, robots don't. That's not fair.

    Taxing businesses that improve their productivity by applying technology is a good way of 1) ensuring we don't benefit from that application, and 2) ensuring we don't develop it in the first place. Corbyn's ideas seem to have more in common with those who broke the looms.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    I agree with the general assessment on here of Don Brind's economic analysis and credibility.

    But the conclusion that he shouldn't write leaders on the UK's top political blog is wrong-headed. His view needs hearing---not because he is right, but because he explains an increasingly widely held view.

    No problem hearing from a Corbynista. I do have a problem with using utterly misleading statistics to make a point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,646
    edited October 2
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    What's happened there?

    Shooting on the Strip, sounds like gunmen in an hotel tower firing down on festival goers on the street below. Reports now of at least two dead

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-strip-shooting-multiple-casualties-reported-near-mandalay/
    Yes now breaking news on both BBC and ITV there has been a shooting in Las Vegas at a country music concert, at least 2 dead and many more injured. With this tragic news today and the Catalan referendum violence yesterday the Tory conference is being almost completely overshadowed (not that given yesterday's headlines many Tories will be complaining)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Roger said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Labour have shown no understanding at all of what caused the financial crisis of 2007/2008 nor of their own part in ensuring that it was as bad as it was in the UK. They had, after all, been in power for 10 years by then, had been repeatedly warned by the IMF about the dangers for the economy and did nothing about it.

    There was nothing in McDonnell's speech or Corbyn's that suggests that they have the first clue how to remedy the problems which led to the GFC, let alone fashion an economy fit for the 21st century.

    After nearly 8 years, it's abundantly clear that the Tories have nothing to offer. AAA Labour vs. double downgraded Tories.
    I don't disagree with you about the Tories. But Labour are simply not to be trusted IMO. If they don't understand what they did wrong when they were last in power there's very little chance of them getting it right this time around. Brown was delusional about his achievements and McDonnell is equally delusional about his claims.

    Fresh and radical thinking is certainly needed. Spending money you haven't earned is neither fresh nor radical and is likely to end in the same mess the last time it was tried.
    What would be nice if we had a reasonable debate about what the causes were, rather than blaming labour for the whole shebang. Spending money on the NHS did not cause the global financial crisis. Watch/read the Big Short and tell me where Labour features.
    Well said. Labour's biggest recent mistake was allowing those with ill intent to get away with blaming Labour for the world's financial crisis.It''s interesting that they think the UK had that sort of muscle! The Big Short is a good starting point
    No, it isn't. It's a good film. But it gives a very partial picture of only one aspect and is only focused on the US angle. It tells you nothing about what was happening in the UK and why the UK suffered as it did.

    Labour wants to take the credit for all the good things that happened when it was in power but none of the bad things.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    rkrkrk said:

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
    I'm far from convinced that that is relevant. Imagine the howls from Labour if David Cameron's son had become George Osborne's aide (yes, I know they weren't old enough).

    Either nepotism in public life is fine and accepted, or it is not. If this is fine in Corbyn's book, then so is a Conservative MP employing children or spouses.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,384
    If we tax technological improvements and other countries don't, work will shift overseas, reducing employment here (a factory with more robotics will still employ more people than no factory) and we'll end up buying more from abroad.

    By all means, tax the mills. But that technology won't be uninvented, however much socialists stamp their little feet.

    There's a genuine challenge about facing the way technological innovation is changing the economic picture. Pretending you can wind back the clock isn't the way to do it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.

    Comments on “Tory borrowing” I’m afraid are completely disingenuous- borrowing is only what it is today because Gordon Brown left Office with a £166,000,000,000 black hole in the public finances. Despite what some have called a “Decade Of Austerity” we’re still £50bn a year short of balancing the books.

    Yet Osborne still borrowed hundreds of billions more than he said he would and used them to pump up a consumption and house price bubble.

    One consequence of which is that the UK had a current account deficit of £115bn in 2016:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp

    You could build a lot of houses and fund a lot of students and social care with that.
    You're in a position to make that point. The Labour Party, less so.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Jonathan said:

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    'neglected the productivity gap... '
    Perhaps true, but no one really understands this, let alone has policies to address it, least of all Corbyn.

    Corbyn's robot tax is a big clue. To actually penalise the use of technology that reduces work (much like steam or electricity) is a ridiculous stance. In a Corbyn led Britain never mind catching up we would be set to fall even farther behind.
    People pay income and NI taxes, robots don't. That's not fair.
    It won't be robots paying the taxes, though will it. It will be the people using or benefiting from them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,023
    Liam Byrne is on the front bench?

    Is this correct?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    Cyclefree said:



    I know rather more than you about what caused the GFC and, in particular, about the circumstances in the UK and Labour's role in Northern Rock and the RBS/Barclays/ABN Amor fiasco. I have written a thread header on some of what went wrong. Labour were not responsible for the whole shebang and I have never said it was. Labour were however responsible for the UK economy for the decade leading up to the crisis and cannot claim, as they have repeatedly, tried to do that it was some sort of Act of God originating in America - like a hurricane - and that there was nothing they could do. Warnings were repeatedly given in public to the Labour government about the problems they were storing up with the way they were managing the economy. Warnings were also given in private about some very specific issues which, if they had been addressed, would not have exploded so publicly and messily when they did. They too were ignored. Labour is responsible for what it did and what it did not do in that decade. We are still paying the price and it is pure chutzpah for Labour now to claim that they have answers to the problems they were, in part, responsible for creating and which we are still trying to resolve.

    For someone who claims superior knowledge (v. risky on PB) you do rather tend to lose all nuance in your posts. There was broad consensus on economic policy that Labour went along with (when perhaps it shouldn't have). The failings were transatlantic and effected all political parties in the UK. There is no evidence that other party elected in 2001/05 would have significantly changed events. By 2005/6 the Tories were arguing for more spending. We were set on a track long ago.

    If you look at Labour. If you atribute blame, you have to accept that they did some good, especially once the storm hit. And again NHS spending was not the cause.
  • "as the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown."

    I think that Richard Murphy's expertise is fairly widely disputed.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853

    If we tax technological improvements and other countries don't, work will shift overseas, reducing employment here (a factory with more robotics will still employ more people than no factory) and we'll end up buying more from abroad.

    It will certainly make onshoring manufacturing into the UK very unattractive if the factories full of robots attract a special tax.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,458

    "as the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown."

    I think that Richard Murphy's expertise is fairly widely disputed.

    If we were in any doubt of that, the choice of statistic and manner of its presentation confirms that Murphy is full of...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    'neglected the productivity gap... '
    Perhaps true, but no one really understands this, let alone has policies to address it, least of all Corbyn.

    Corbyn's robot tax is a big clue. To actually penalise the use of technology that reduces work (much like steam or electricity) is a ridiculous stance. In a Corbyn led Britain never mind catching up we would be set to fall even farther behind.
    Robot taxes were not invented by Corbyn. The idea has been floating around in America for some time. Most famously, Bill Gates is an advocate. They might come, they might not.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,023
    Telegraph:

    "Ministers will today face down Tory rebels and announce that they will push ahead with the continued rollout of Universal Credit."



    ...and so they head to yet another self-imposed cliff.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,319
    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
    I'm far from convinced that that is relevant. Imagine the howls from Labour if David Cameron's son had become George Osborne's aide (yes, I know they weren't old enough).

    Either nepotism in public life is fine and accepted, or it is not. If this is fine in Corbyn's book, then so is a Conservative MP employing children or spouses.
    If he had worked as a farmer or a teacher up until now then yes.
    But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position.

    Indeed it looks similar to Nick Timothy when he became TM chief of staff at HO.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,023
    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Whereas this time we are really well prepared. I think not.

    Interest rates at all but zero. QE maxed out. Deficit still an issue.

    If there is a severe downturn what are policy makers going to do? Japanese style QE?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831

    "as the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown."

    I think that Richard Murphy's expertise is fairly widely disputed.

    but not his arithmetic?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,206
    Historians and veterans among us will remember the Selective Employment Tax from Wilson's first government, which was designed to protect manufacturing jobs by taxing service sector jobs. Needless to say, it failed miserably in its objective.

    We will have more jobs in manufacturing if British firms make things that people want to buy at a price they can afford. Punishing innovation is never the answer.

    A better reform would be to start to bear down on employer national insurance, to make it easier for firms to give pay rises (particularly at a time when pension costs are going up). The tragedy is that Corbyn's Labour Party won't even consider this because they like the idea of taxes on business (even if they fall effecitvely on employees) and Osborne helped legitimise this nonsense with his payroll levy for apprenticeships.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Second like Labour.

    Comments on “Tory borrowing” I’m afraid are completely disingenuous- borrowing is only what it is today because Gordon Brown left Office with a £166,000,000,000 black hole in the public finances. Despite what some have called a “Decade Of Austerity” we’re still £50bn a year short of balancing the books.

    Yet Osborne still borrowed hundreds of billions more than he said he would and used them to pump up a consumption and house price bubble.

    One consequence of which is that the UK had a current account deficit of £115bn in 2016:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp

    You could build a lot of houses and fund a lot of students and social care with that.
    You're in a position to make that point. The Labour Party, less so.
    Indeed.

    Concepts such as wealth creation and living within your means are pretty rare among modern politicians and especially so in the Labour party.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
    I'm far from convinced that that is relevant. Imagine the howls from Labour if David Cameron's son had become George Osborne's aide (yes, I know they weren't old enough).

    Either nepotism in public life is fine and accepted, or it is not. If this is fine in Corbyn's book, then so is a Conservative MP employing children or spouses.
    If he had worked as a farmer or a teacher up until now then yes.
    But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position.

    Indeed it looks similar to Nick Timothy when he became TM chief of staff at HO.
    That's a rubbish excuse: there will be plenty of people capable of doing the job (and note that Corbyn employs another friend's child), even given that experience.

    The fact he has had a massive leg-up is still relevant.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,319
    Pong said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Partisan nonsense. This site really doesn’t need any more articles from Mr Brind.

    Who are you to say that?

    And why does this site need your contributions?

    How about you show a bit of respect?
    @HenryGManson used to write great headers from a Labour perspective but they were always well argued

    @david_herdson is an active Tory but his headers are balanced and thought provoking

    @donbrind is just a partisan hack. His headers are just about the only ones I don't bother with - they are rarely insightful and just regurgitate the latest Labour attack lines
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,166

    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.

    I had a Brind moment last week when I went from considering voting Tory for the first time to pondering who would I like least as PM Johnson May or Corbyn. Obviously Johnson came out top but then I thought about Corbyn and May and May's grovelling to Trump and the Saudi's and Netanyahu which Corbyn would never do.......

    So why not Corbyn?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Thanks - I've not heard that before.

    "Do as I say not as I do"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,384
    Mr. Jonathan, Labour's simultaneously complained the deficit was cut too much (boo hiss to austerity!) and that debt has increased too much. It is a numerically unorthodox application of thinking.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Wrong on both counts, shirley? If Labour left us unprepared to deal with the crash, why was the economy recovering when Osborne walked into Number 11? Why had Osborne pledged to follow Labour's spending plans?

    Oh, and
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3214999/Financial-crisis-David-Cameron-blames-Gordon-Brown-for-Britains-broken-economy.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Roger said:

    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.

    I had a Brind moment last week when I went from considering voting Tory for the first time to pondering who would I like least as PM Johnson May or Corbyn. Obviously Johnson came out top but then I thought about Corbyn and May and May's grovelling to Trump and the Saudi's and Netanyahu which Corbyn would never do.......

    So why not Corbyn?
    Because the people Corbyn would grovel up to are just as bad, if not worse, than the ones you mention. Worse, he'd be doing out of ideological belief, not realpolitik.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    Roger said:

    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.

    I had a Brind moment last week when I went from considering voting Tory for the first time to pondering who would I like least as PM Johnson May or Corbyn. Obviously Johnson came out top but then I thought about Corbyn and May and May's grovelling to Trump and the Saudi's and Netanyahu which Corbyn would never do.......

    So why not Corbyn?
    Corbyn is better than May and Johnson. LDs currently a dead irrelevance.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    Jonathan said:

    Roger said:

    Don Brind has an excellent article. Labour are not yet a government in waiting, but they are far closer to that point than they were last year. When an avowed Corbynsceptic starts to see merit and rationality in Corbyns plans, we are at a position where the centre ground can be won over.

    Centrist Dads are the new Mondeo Man or Worcester Woman.

    I had a Brind moment last week when I went from considering voting Tory for the first time to pondering who would I like least as PM Johnson May or Corbyn. Obviously Johnson came out top but then I thought about Corbyn and May and May's grovelling to Trump and the Saudi's and Netanyahu which Corbyn would never do.......

    So why not Corbyn?
    Corbyn is better than May and Johnson. LDs currently a dead irrelevance.
    Define 'better'.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Labour is responsible for what it did and what it did not do in that decade. We are still paying the price and it is pure chutzpah for Labour now to claim that they have answers to the problems they were, in part, responsible for creating and which we are still trying to resolve.

    For someone who claims superior knowledge (v. risky on PB) you do rather tend to lose all nuance in your posts. There was broad consensus on economic policy that Labour went along with (when perhaps it shouldn't have). The failings were transatlantic and effected all political parties in the UK. There is no evidence that other party elected in 2001/05 would have significantly changed events. By 2005/6 the Tories were arguing for more spending. We were set on a track long ago.

    If you look at Labour. If you atribute blame, you have to accept that they did some good, especially once the storm hit. And again NHS spending was not the cause.
    I have said that Labour did some good. I have said nothing about NHS spending because it was irrelevant to the reasons why the financial crisis happened. I have quoted the IMF so complain to them about the lack of nuance. I talk about the matters about which I have direct knowledge and the full story about the financial crisis in the UK has not been told. The role of the Labour government and the regulator is not a glorious one though, as I have stated on here before several times, the one Labour politician who comes out of it with any credit at all is Alastair Darling, not Brown. He helped mitigate the crisis when it happened but there was dithering for far too long and, in the case of one UK bank, action should have been taken on the specific warnings given at the time, 18 months before it was finally taken. The blame for that lies very squarely with the UK regulator and the UK government.

    To say that other parties agreed with the general economic policies followed is a cop out. Labour were in government. They had responsibility for what they did and did not do. They need to take responsibility not claim that somehow because others would have done the same Labour are not responsible for their own actions.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999

    Mr. Jonathan, Labour's simultaneously complained the deficit was cut too much (boo hiss to austerity!) and that debt has increased too much. It is a numerically unorthodox application of thinking.

    Tories said they would cut our way to growth and retain our AAA.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,336
    edited October 2
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job position, Corbyn's son got it. Of the many people out there, Seb was the ideal candidate. Obviously. Of all the young men and women who could perform the taxpayer-funded job, Seb was, by chance, the best candidate. No nepotism was involved.

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
    I'm far from convinced that that is relevant. Imagine the howls from Labour if David Cameron's son had become George Osborne's aide (yes, I know they weren't old enough).

    Either nepotism in public life is fine and accepted, or it is not. If this is fine in Corbyn's book, then so is a Conservative MP employing children or spouses.
    If he had worked as a farmer or a teacher up until now then yes.
    But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position.

    Indeed it looks similar to Nick Timothy when he became TM chief of staff at HO.
    The curious thing is you have noted that your source is wrong. There is no PPE course at Cambridge.

    I can see the point of arguing this if you had some solid facts.

    Can you supply them ? What did Corbyn's son read at Cambridge, & what class degree did he get ?

    "But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position."

    What else is in his CV, as you have apparently seen it?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
    We have a choice between two malign and incompetent parties. Hobson's choice, frankly.

    But, genuine question this: hasn't the deficit come down since 2010?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Mr. Jonathan, Labour's simultaneously complained the deficit was cut too much (boo hiss to austerity!) and that debt has increased too much. It is a numerically unorthodox application of thinking.

    The point as you probably know was that efforts to cut spending, particularly investment, would be self defeating as they would slow the economy down.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
    Is the argument that the Tories in government have borrowed too much, or that they’ve borrowed too little?
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,248
    Just to fulfill my constitutional role of blaming Brexit for everything: Why is a Robot Tax to prop up wages worse than restricting immigration to do the same ? While labour is a social good it's an economic cost. We need to be brave and defend free markets. Creative destruction is very painful if you are on the receiving end of it. But if goods become more efficiently produced and cheaper consumers benefit and the economy can use the freed up resources for other things.

    The falls in relative western wage rates since the early noughties have complex and multifaceted roots. Folk are searching for simple stories and solutions. Unfortunately Brexit validated one of those simple stories on pay. Why is a Robot Tax worse ? We are where we are and will probably have to return to our senses the hard way.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,319

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Whereas this time we are really well prepared. I think not.

    Interest rates at all but zero. QE maxed out. Deficit still an issue.

    If there is a severe downturn what are policy makers going to do? Japanese style QE?
    Sure.

    But that's nothing to do with my point
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999
    Cyclefree said:



    To say that other parties agreed with the general economic policies followed is a cop out. Labour were in government. They had responsibility for what they did and did not do. They need to take responsibility not claim that somehow because others would have done the same Labour are not responsible for their own actions.

    Of course Labour are responsible for their actions, but I think you go wrong because you have the benefit of hindsight and selectivity. Who knows how many warnings governments get, they can't act on all of them all of the time. You pick out one of many warnings.

    I think you overestimate the power of the UK govt in the economy and the prevailing political/economic culture does shape and constrain what you can do and we're all culpable for that. One political party is not responsible for our credit culture.

    FWIW I think Labour can be heavily criticised, but not on the terms most people make.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,854
    Jonathan said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I know rather more than you about what caused the GFC and, in particular, about the circumstances in the UK and Labour's role in Northern Rock and the RBS/Barclays/ABN Amor fiasco. I have written a thread header on some of what went wrong. Labour were not responsible for the whole shebang and I have never said it was. Labour were however responsible for the UK economy for the decade leading up to the crisis and cannot claim, as they have repeatedly, tried to do that it was some sort of Act of God originating in America - like a hurricane - and that there was nothing they could do. Warnings were repeatedly given in public to the Labour government about the problems they were storing up with the way they were managing the economy. Warnings were also given in private about some very specific issues which, if they had been addressed, would not have exploded so publicly and messily when they did. They too were ignored. Labour is responsible for what it did and what it did not do in that decade. We are still paying the price and it is pure chutzpah for Labour now to claim that they have answers to the problems they were, in part, responsible for creating and which we are still trying to resolve.

    For someone who claims superior knowledge (v. risky on PB) you do rather tend to lose all nuance in your posts. There was broad consensus on economic policy that Labour went along with (when perhaps it shouldn't have). The failings were transatlantic and effected all political parties in the UK. There is no evidence that other party elected in 2001/05 would have significantly changed events. By 2005/6 the Tories were arguing for more spending. We were set on a track long ago.

    If you look at Labour. If you atribute blame, you have to accept that they did some good, especially once the storm hit. And again NHS spending was not the cause.
    Which completely ignores the fact that Labour built up a substantial deficit when times were good which then meant we were in a far worse position to deal with the crisis when it arrived. It is Aesop's fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper writ large.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'm always bemused when I see Jeremy Corbyn and 'for the many, not the few'.

    After all, when Corbyn's friend McDonnell had an open influential job posi

    As is often the case, it became: "For the many, not the few - except when the few includes me and my family."

    Corbyn job losses - for the many, not the few....
    So Corbyn’s son shouldn’t have got it, on principle?

    It’s often a good idea for a child to go for a different career to their parents, but what if that’s what they want to do?
    He should have got it, if he was the best candidate. The chances of his being the best candidate for such an influential and well-paid job are, frankly, negligible - unless the job spec was written to match his CV.

    He studied PPE at Cambridge (according to express - I thought ppe was oxford not cam as an aside) and has spent the past two years working directly for the Labour Party leader. That's a very strong CV to take a political position in the Labour Party - even without knowing what he did before...

    Nepotism a much more potent allegation on how he was working for his dad in the first place - but I suspect the queue for Corbyns leadership campaign back then was not long...
    I'm far from convinced that that is relevant. Imagine the howls from Labour if David Cameron's son had become George Osborne's aide (yes, I know they weren't old enough).

    Either nepotism in public life is fine and accepted, or it is not. If this is fine in Corbyn's book, then so is a Conservative MP employing children or spouses.
    If he had worked as a farmer or a teacher up until now then yes.
    But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position.

    Indeed it looks similar to Nick Timothy when he became TM chief of staff at HO.
    The curious thing is you have noted that your source is wrong. There is no PPE course at Cambridge.

    I can see the point of arguing this if you had some solid facts.

    Can you supply them ? What did Corbyn's son read at Cambridge, & what class degree did he get ?

    "But his CV is pretty much as I would expect for someone in that position."

    What else is in his CV, as you have apparently seen it?
    He studied at Cambridge, worked for McDonnell as a researcher, then for Corbyn campaign for two years. That I am confident on. Express says PPE but I suspect it is SPS - the Cambridge equivalent which is not as widely known...
  • eekeek Posts: 1,884
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
    We have a choice between two malign and incompetent parties. Hobson's choice, frankly.

    But, genuine question this: hasn't the deficit come down since 2010?
    Nope its continually rising see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x - Labour's magic money tree of tax credits, pensions (oh and housing benefit) are a large part of the issue...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    Scott_P said:
    Now that's a funny cartoon - local freshet editor to note...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Well done to the Civil Aviation Authority, looks like they’ve got over a dozen chartered planes in the sky this morning to pick up stranded Monarch customers abroad.

    https://monarch.caa.co.uk <<<— CAA information website for those affected.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,319

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Wrong on both counts, shirley? If Labour left us unprepared to deal with the crash, why was the economy recovering when Osborne walked into Number 11? Why had Osborne pledged to follow Labour's spending plans?

    Oh, and
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3214999/Financial-crisis-David-Cameron-blames-Gordon-Brown-for-Britains-broken-economy.html
    The economy wasn't recovering. Brown just pulled forward spending. Osborne' commitment was a political move (which I think he abandoned after the election anyway)

    The economy is not in great shape now, but it's a lot better than it was.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    Sandpit said:

    Well done to the Civil Aviation Authority, looks like they’ve got over a dozen chartered planes in the sky this morning to pick up stranded Monarch customers abroad.

    https://monarch.caa.co.uk <<<— CAA information website for those affected. </p>

    My colleague caught the last(ish) Monarch flight out yesterday. She's booked for crimbo with them too, I assume she can reclaim through ABTA/credit card protection.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,952
    the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown.

    I'm sorry - you lost me at that.

    If the Tories were so rubbish & Labour so wonderful, it would be Labour inheriting deficits and the Tories inheriting surpluses from their predecessors, not the other way round......as Mrs T said, the trouble with Socialists is they always run out of other people's money.....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,384
    Mr. Jonathan, credit rating agencies also thought SIVs and CDOs were fantastic investments. Their judgement is far from infallible.

    If you compare the economic performance of the current government and the last Labour government, I think the blues would be quite happy with that.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 1,955
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Carnage in Las Vegas, it sounds like.

    What's happened there?

    Shooting on the Strip, sounds like gunmen in an hotel tower firing down on festival goers on the street below. Reports now of at least two dead

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/las-vegas-strip-shooting-multiple-casualties-reported-near-mandalay/
    Yes now breaking news on both BBC and ITV there has been a shooting in Las Vegas at a country music concert, at least 2 dead and many more injured. With this tragic news today and the Catalan referendum violence yesterday the Tory conference is being almost completely overshadowed (not that given yesterday's headlines many Tories will be complaining)
    Doubt the Vegas story will overshadow the Tory conference, a mass shooting in the US is hardly unusual.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 1,955
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
    We have a choice between two malign and incompetent parties. Hobson's choice, frankly.

    But, genuine question this: hasn't the deficit come down since 2010?
    Nope its continually rising see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x - Labour's magic money tree of tax credits, pensions (oh and housing benefit) are a large part of the issue...
    When it comes to pensions, the Tories have done far more tree-shaking than labour ever did with their absurd triple lock.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 8,602

    Just to fulfill my constitutional role of blaming Brexit for everything: Why is a Robot Tax to prop up wages worse than restricting immigration to do the same ? While labour is a social good it's an economic cost. We need to be brave and defend free markets. Creative destruction is very painful if you are on the receiving end of it. But if goods become more efficiently produced and cheaper consumers benefit and the economy can use the freed up resources for other things.

    The falls in relative western wage rates since the early noughties have complex and multifaceted roots. Folk are searching for simple stories and solutions. Unfortunately Brexit validated one of those simple stories on pay. Why is a Robot Tax worse ? We are where we are and will probably have to return to our senses the hard way.

    Robots tend to increase productivity while low skilled immigrants don't.

    Nor do robots claim benefits, require housing, use public services or add to pressure on transport and the environment.

    And I have never seen a robot begging on the street.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,336
    rkrkrk said:



    He studied at Cambridge, worked for McDonnell as a researcher, then for Corbyn campaign for two years. That I am confident on. Express says PPE but I suspect it is SPS - the Cambridge equivalent which is not as widely known...

    I suspect without more hard information we just can't say whether Corbyn's son was a stand-out candidate.

    I do know many people who have worked as researchers for Labour MPs having come down from Oxbridge with good degrees. I do know the jobs are very, very competitive and will generate a very strong shortlist.

    I also think that, in a political job, you might place heavy emphasis on hiring someone you trust who shares your commitment & ideology.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 6,999

    Mr. Jonathan, credit rating agencies also thought SIVs and CDOs were fantastic investments. Their judgement is far from infallible.

    If you compare the economic performance of the current government and the last Labour government, I think the blues would be quite happy with that.

    The economic approach of this govt is flawed. It's like someone preparing to run a marathon. They know they need to lose weight.

    So they vow to make the tough decisions. They cut a leg off. The weight is lost. And then they go for a run. It does not work out.

    Meanwhile, bored with austerity they have a moment of madness do a Brexit and eat a massive cream cake.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Well done to the Civil Aviation Authority, looks like they’ve got over a dozen chartered planes in the sky this morning to pick up stranded Monarch customers abroad.

    https://monarch.caa.co.uk <<<— CAA information website for those affected. </p>

    My colleague caught the last(ish) Monarch flight out yesterday. She's booked for crimbo with them too, I assume she can reclaim through ABTA/credit card protection.
    Lucky her, yesterday anyway.

    If her Christmas trip is a package sold through an ABTA agent then ABTA will make her good, if she booked a flight only then she’ll need to rely on whatever insurance she has.
    https://monarch.caa.co.uk/customers/i-have-a-future-booking-and-have-not-travelled-yet/
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    rkrkrk said:



    He studied at Cambridge, worked for McDonnell as a researcher, then for Corbyn campaign for two years. That I am confident on. Express says PPE but I suspect it is SPS - the Cambridge equivalent which is not as widely known...

    I suspect without more hard information we just can't say whether Corbyn's son was a stand-out candidate.

    I do know many people who have worked as researchers for Labour MPs having come down from Oxbridge with good degrees. I do know the jobs are very, very competitive and will generate a very strong shortlist.

    I also think that, in a political job, you might place heavy emphasis on hiring someone you trust who shares your commitment & ideology.
    Yes that's fair I think.
    I'd add that having worked for McDonnell before - you would be at an advantage.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 6,831
    edited October 2

    the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown.

    I'm sorry - you lost me at that.

    If the Tories were so rubbish & Labour so wonderful, it would be Labour inheriting deficits and the Tories inheriting surpluses from their predecessors, not the other way round......as Mrs T said, the trouble with Socialists is they always run out of other people's money.....

    If you think Conservatives run surpluses, look at the figures. The last Chancellor to run a surplus was Gordon Brown.

    Edit: and read the link, the one that shows Conservatives borrowed most, even before the financial crisis.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,884

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Nah, Don.

    The Big Lie is the straw man you and other Labour figures put up to try and wriggle off the hook.

    The Tories argued that you were responsible for the UK's complete lack of preparedness to handle to consequences of the crash, not that you started it.

    Tories have proven in eight years they can do no better. The Tory logo represents their own magic money tree, ready at short notice to fund their own pet projects, like Brexit.
    We have a choice between two malign and incompetent parties. Hobson's choice, frankly.

    But, genuine question this: hasn't the deficit come down since 2010?
    Nope its continually rising see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x - Labour's magic money tree of tax credits, pensions (oh and housing benefit) are a large part of the issue...
    When it comes to pensions, the Tories have done far more tree-shaking than labour ever did with their absurd triple lock.
    Compared to the damage tax credits have done the triple lock is almost irrelevant - that just gives older people more money, tax credits have removed the incentive for people to work and actual act for many people as an incentive not to work.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660

    rkrkrk said:



    He studied at Cambridge, worked for McDonnell as a researcher, then for Corbyn campaign for two years. That I am confident on. Express says PPE but I suspect it is SPS - the Cambridge equivalent which is not as widely known...

    I suspect without more hard information we just can't say whether Corbyn's son was a stand-out candidate.

    I do know many people who have worked as researchers for Labour MPs having come down from Oxbridge with good degrees. I do know the jobs are very, very competitive and will generate a very strong shortlist.

    I also think that, in a political job, you might place heavy emphasis on hiring someone you trust who shares your commitment & ideology.
    There will be many people who share commitment and ideology: it doesn't have to be children of your friends. Besides, I'm unsure why a child of a friend equals 'commitment'.

    It's the sheer hypocrisy of it that's so hilarious.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,277
    edited October 2

    Just to fulfill my constitutional role of blaming Brexit for everything: Why is a Robot Tax to prop up wages worse than restricting immigration to do the same ? While labour is a social good it's an economic cost. We need to be brave and defend free markets. Creative destruction is very painful if you are on the receiving end of it. But if goods become more efficiently produced and cheaper consumers benefit and the economy can use the freed up resources for other things.

    The falls in relative western wage rates since the early noughties have complex and multifaceted roots. Folk are searching for simple stories and solutions. Unfortunately Brexit validated one of those simple stories on pay. Why is a Robot Tax worse ? We are where we are and will probably have to return to our senses the hard way.

    Nor do robots claim benefits, require housing, use public services or add to pressure on transport and the environment.
    That's the key problem - and why they have to be taxed.

    They live in the cloud and will instantly financially restructure themselves to benefit from the most favourable tax treatment at any given time.

    They need to be taxed if they want to access our markets and compete with yours and my labour.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 13,797

    the public finance expert Professor Richard Murphy of City University, has shown.

    I'm sorry - you lost me at that.

    If the Tories were so rubbish & Labour so wonderful, it would be Labour inheriting deficits and the Tories inheriting surpluses from their predecessors, not the other way round......as Mrs T said, the trouble with Socialists is they always run out of other people's money.....

    If you think Conservatives run surpluses, look at the figures. The last Chancellor to run a surplus was Gordon Brown.
    Technically correct but totally misleading.

    Gordon left office in 2010 with the government borrowing £166,000,000,000 a year, that’s around five hundred million pounds a day. Are you saying that the Tories should have got the deficit down faster?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,113

    Telegraph:

    "Ministers will today face down Tory rebels and announce that they will push ahead with the continued rollout of Universal Credit."



    ...and so they head to yet another self-imposed cliff.

    Yes it seems until it smacks them in the face with consequences , they carry on regardless.
This discussion has been closed.