There is a hugely depressing article in the Guardian this morning on a speech that Chris Leslie MP, Labour's shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will make today at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. It begins by saying:
Labour cannot afford to undo the coalition's cuts in the next government and must expect to be unpopular, one of the party's most senior finance spokesmen will say on Friday.
And continues:
Chris Leslie, the shadow chief secretary to the treasury, will say some of the spending decisions "will be the toughest faced by an incoming Labour government for a generation" if Ed Miliband wins the next election.
Before quoting Leslie saying
"We won't be able to undo the cuts that have been felt in recent years, and I know that this will be disappointing for many people. A more limited pot of money will have to be spent on a smaller number of priorities. Lower priorities will get less."
But of greatest concern in all this is the following commitment
"Labour will get the current budget into surplus and national debt falling as soon as possible in the next parliament," he will say, echoing Balls's pledge from last year's party conference.
I have already explained on this blog why the UK does not need a balanced budget, let alone a surplus. In summary, we can run a deficit equivalent to GDP multiplied by the rate of inflation and effectively stand still in budget terms: that's a deficit right now of about £35 billion. And as for repaying debt, why do that? The market wants to buy it and is paying for the privilege of doing so. Why on earth deny them that chance when it's the best investment in town? That would be crazy.
That's especially so when implicit in this promise is a commitment to the massive austerity needed to make this balanced budget work - austerity that will continue to ruin the lives of millions in this country?
And it's also crazy when what this whole policy implies is that Labour thinks it must be beholden to bankers, the City establishment, and their neoliberal economics that demands they must have the right to do what they wish whilst requiring the shrinking of the state - which they are enforcing through budget cuts.
If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country.
Why, oh why, oh why, I ask?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Because of a combination of two factors: the right-wing Progress faction (still very powerful in the PLP and in candidate selection, and very well funded) and Ed Balls’s (and to a certain extent Miliband’s) cautiousness, which is the legacy of the Treasury mentality when they were both Gordon Brown advisors. The dead (not literally but metaphorically) hand of Brown hangs heavy over Ed’s team and they seem totally unwilling to countenance a more radical approach – which may, unfortunately, cost them the election (although I still think they will scrape through).
I saw Chris Leslie give a talk in December and it was the most anodyne, conservative presentation I have ever seen from a front-line politician (and as an ex-employee of IPPR I’ve seen some clunkers, believe me). With this guy in charge of the public finances, I’m worried Labour’s up the creek before its term in office has even started.
Howard
I recall I was sitting next to you in December – and we agreed on that speech then and now
As on much else
Richard
Maybe they should keep individual Polling Stations open until at least (say) 60% turnout has been acheived… At least that way the ‘named and shamed’ electorates could/would then be encouraged to conclude their mission by harrassing non voters into making a flipping decision ? Meanwhile , no results would be published of course.
I’m pretty depressed about the article though, it seems there are more (better) ideas on how to run the country on Twitter than in the offices of the expert advisors..whoever they are. In the end though, it is the vision of the leaders in the parties that set the tone and I’m afraid EM and Co. are just more grey men without any ability to think outside the box.
Eventually I guess we’ll just bring in private corporations to run the country on a 5 year contract…and forget all this mullarky about elections, MP’s and Lords and of course the expenses.
It must be the future…
It is very depressing. They have said this kind of thing before but seem to be spelling it out very clearly and loudly today. Is it Ed Balls’s influence? Is it something all those at the top of the party agree on? Are they scared of being seen as “anti-business”? Believe the electorate won’t vote for them unless they ape The Tories? (being ‘credible’ they call it). Or do they really genuinely believe it is the best approach in the current circumstances?
It’s so ridiculous and disheartening. There is no real choice at the next election. It makes me despair that they won’t listen to respected economic voices who argue for alternatives to there is no alternative.
I don’t think pressure group campaigns are going to have any influence on the Labour Party in the next 12 months. They aren’t going to change their minds now are they? How on earth do we get Labour to change?
I think it all the things you list
I have no real answers to how to change Labour – but am not a member, I stress
“There is no real choice at the next election.”
Of course there isn’t. Not on taxation, not on wasteful spending, not on the EU, not on the insanity of ‘green levies’….there is no choice (regardless of which way you lean) if you are non-centrist.
I can’t see centrist parties amongst the major choices – only right wing ones
I speak as someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s
Labour is to the right of the Tories of that time
“In summary, we can run a deficit equivalent to GDP multiplied by the rate of inflation and effectively stand still in budget terms: that’s a deficit right now of about £35 billion.”
I don’t think anyone would have a problem running a deficit of £35bn (a 2-3% deficit has been pretty much the trend for the last few decades). The trouble is the current deficit is £108bn.
Note comment already made
“we can run a deficit equivalent to GDP multiplied by the rate of inflation and effectively stand still in budget terms: that’s a deficit right now of about £35 billion.”
And as the current deficit is around three times that level, what do you think that tells us?
It isn’t three times that level
And my figure does not take net investment into account either
For the financial year up to April 2014, the UK budget deficit was 107.7bn.
Yes
But there is no need – as I said – for it to be zero and many ways to reduce it bar austerity
You are, I suppose, right that it isn’t three times 35bn. It is rather more.
You clearly can’t do maths
Taking your GDP*CPI argument into account, there is still a rather large difference between the 35bn “standing still” number and the 107.7bn deficit the UK currently has.
That same GDP*CPI argument was also what got Gordon Brown in trouble. You are basically saying that there will be no more boom and bust. Of course, if there is a recession, your GDP denominator in the debt/GDP ratio will decrease, not withstanding that tax receipts will also likely fall – forcing the government to issue more debt.
I also allow for inflation
And I believe in fiscal policy – the need for the government to stimulate the economy when the private sector can’t or won’t
Add that together and all arguments for a balanced budget are simply an appeal for economic suicide and untold harm
It seems though, with UK GDP likely to print above 3%, unemployment falling (and falling faster than anywhere in Europe) and the nominal number of people in work at an all time high – despite what you call unwarranted austerity – that the coalition economic plan seems to be working.
With incomes falling?
And no prospect of the books balancing – which they said was their goal?
How?
Sure the deficit is £108bn, but a lot of that deficit was *caused* by the ConDem austerity measures (after all, they originally claimed the deficit would have almost disappeared by now). Reverse austerity (along with some well targeted tax increasing measures – e.g. Land Value Tax, General Anti Avoidance Rule, reversal of ConDem corporation tax cuts – and we’d probably get most of the way towards a balanced budget. Not all the way, but a good proportion of the way.
Indeed….
I can appreciate that if the deficit were too high then inflation could be an potential problem but I can’t think of any other.
Even the Thatcher government ran some pretty big deficits! There’s never been any question of repaying them. On the very rare occasions when governments have run surpluses (1990, 2000) they’ve turned out to be mistakes and recession has inevitably followed.
@ Howard Reed
You are basically saying we should tax and spend our way to a balanced budget. Can you give me a single example where that has ever worked, starting form the massive budget deficit the UK was left with thanks to the previous Labour government?
You’ll also notice that similar high tax policies are being tried in France at the moment – with utterly disastrous results.
Shall we start with the 1930s?
And the New Deal?
And then just note Labour did not leave a budget deficit: the UK’s banks created that?
And shall I continue by saying your repeating a lie does not make it the truth?
What has the New Deal (US) got to do with anything in the UK, which ran roughly balanced budgets through the 1930s?
Labour were running budget deficits from 2002 onwards. They were also running massive structural deficits. This is factual, so I’m not sure how you can call this a lie.
Blame the banks all you want, but it is undeniable that post the 2008 crash, the UK was left with it’s largest peacetime budget deficit. It is impossible to argue that Labour policy had nothing to do with this, unless you believe Gordon Brown’s “no more boom and bust” rhetoric.
Under Labour, spending was increased in inflation adjusted terms, every year from 2001 – leaving a structural deficit as keeping the budget deficit low became wholly dependent on GDP growth (the denominator growing as fast as the nominator). Any recession would have caused the budget deficit to explode. As it was, we had the worst recession since the 1930s, with GDP falling dramatically just as hard to cut public spending was ramping ever upwards.
Blaming the banks doesn’t remove the underlying policy mistake.
There is nothing factual about Labour running structural deficits: there is no agreement on that issue, at all
And you asked for evidence that spending works. I gave it
You are, very simply, wrong on every point
It is fact that Labour ran deficits from 2002 onwards.
It is also fact that a large portion of those deficits were structural. it stands to reason – if there was no structural deficit, the overall budget deficit would not have gone from around 3% to 11% during the crash. Let me provide you with a definition.
“A structural (permanent) deficit differs from a cyclical deficit in that it exists regardless of the point in the business cycle due to an underlying imbalance in government revenues and expenditures. Thus, even at the high point of the business cycle when revenues are high the country’s economy may still be in deficit. The structural component of the budget is a good indication of a government’s financial management, as it indicates the underlying balance between long-term government revenues and expenditure, while removing factors that are mainly attributable to the business cycle.”
The only point of contention is how big that structural deficit was under Labour.
I also suggest you review your thoughts regarding the US New Deal(s – there were two) in the 1930s. The US ran a budget deficit, but it did not increase during the New Deals. Roosevelt actually favoured running a balanced budget, and the Keynesian idea of government spending as a vehicle for recovery was rejected. The US also fell back into recession in 1937-38, and it was only the war which dragged US GDP and employment back to pre-depression levels.
Labour ran deficits – so have almost all governments
Calling them structural is like saying it’s structural that the sun rises
You have also utterly misread one year of Roosevelt
Labour did indeed run budget deficits, much like most other governments.
The structural part (see the definition I posted) is what leads most observers to say that the UK was fundamentally prepared for a recession – thanks to Brown’s hubris.
Few other economies deficits reacted as violently to the crash as the UK’s.
I’m not sure what I have misunderstood about Roosevelt and the New Deal. He favoured balanced budgets, and indeed almost eliminated the deficit in the 37-38 year. The US certainly didn’t increase deficit spending during the New Deal years. It is fairly easy to find data on this – try Wikipedia for a start.
You ignore the enormous number of observers who do not agree with you
You also ignore the very obvious fact that austerioty has failed and we now run much larger deficits than Brown ever did
Why is that, after 4+ years?
Most commentators and economists agree that the UK was running a large structural deficit running up to the crash, masked by revenues from a credit bubble.
“You also ignore the very obvious fact that austerioty has failed and we now run much larger deficits than Brown ever did”
When Labour left government, the budget deficit was 11%. It is now 5.8%.
It is hard to argue that austerity has failed when the UK is growing faster than almost every western country, unemployment is falling fast and the nominal number of people employed has never been higher. If anything, given that the coalition hasn’t managed to close the deficit as fast as it planned to, you could say there hasn’t been enough austerity. You’ll also notice that the UK has not been alone in this – the US has also cut government spending dramatically.
I really can’t be bothered to spend more time dealing with such gross misinformation
Who is paying you, I wonder?
“I really can’t be bothered to spend more time dealing with such gross misinformation”
Please point out what this “misinformation” is. I’m not sure why you have such a revisionist view of history – when this is all documented as fact.
The IMF have stated that pre-crash, the UK had one of the largest structural deficits in the world at 6.5% (2008). Even the Labour government admitted there was a structural deficit in the 2007 budget, of 2.5%.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=1997&ey=2017&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=112&s=GGSB_NPGDP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=50&pr.y=5
When Brown was in power, the UK budget deficit peaked at 11.4%. Now it is 5.8%.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_358053.pdf
I’m sure you can find the unemployment data on the ILO website or one of the many other news articles showing that the number of jobs has been increasing despite cuts to public sector jobs.
Who is paying you, I wonder?
No-one. Why would they? I got to your website by following links on twitter expecting to find serious work. Who pays you to churn out your stuff?
The misinformation starts with the claim that you are stating ‘facts’
You are not
You are offering widely contested opinion
OK, I think you have simply jumped the shark here.
The only piece of “contested” information is how big the structural deficit was, not that it existed. I don’t know any serious sources who suggest that there was no budget deficit and no structural deficit pre-crash. Maybe you can provide some.
Other than that, all the other data I have mentioned is factual given the constraints of the data gathering provisions.
It is a fact that Brown left the UK with it’s highest ever peacetime deficit.
It is a fact that the deficit has since fallen to 5.8%
It is a fact that the unemployment rate is falling.
It is a fact that in nominal terms, the UK has the highest number of people in work on record.
It is a fact that the UK is currently growing at 3.1% YoY.
These are numbers from the Treasury. Unless you are arguing that they fiddle their data?
It’s a fact that the sun comes up, but that does not explain why
And Brown left a deficit for reasons very clearly not within his control – unless he ruled a great deal of the world – so you are ignoring cause and effect
As for the other ‘facts’ – yes I do dispute them
Bogus self employment enforced by the state is not employment, for example
And growth is by a very particular measure
Is that data fiddled – yes, you can be sure it is. I show so, often.
“Is that data fiddled — yes, you can be sure it is. I show so, often.”
So you are saying that pre-coalition the treasury numbers were accurate, yet once the coalition came to power they were suddenly falsified? Let alone the fact that the validity of a lot of your “research” has been called into question.
Brown was running a deficit before the crash, and because of the large structural deficit left us with a huge overall budget deficit. Compare Brown’s 11.4% budget deficit with Germany’s 4% peak deficit. That is the whole point of a structural deficit – it exists regardless of the point in the business cycle due to an underlying imbalance in government revenues and expenditures. In other words, Brown was spending too much despite the UK’s credit fuelled growth.
GDP is accepted as a measure for growth. What measure would you use?
“Bogus self employment enforced by the state is not employment”
Self-employed people in the Labour force survey are earning money. How does this constitute not having a job, and moreover, how is this “enforced” by the state? Are you suggesting that the state should be supreme in everything, give people jobs regardless and control everything in the economy?
I am giving up wasting time replying to your pettiness
I have a life to lead and work to do
“Self-employed people in the Labour force survey are earning money.” Seemingly many aren’t, anecdotal evidence suggests many are there because their work providers or JC+ advisors are telling them they can get the same dosh by pretending to be self-employed as they would if they carried on claiming JSA but they’d get no hassle about finding a job. This is very likely where many these new so-called jobs are coming from and gives a good idea of why the unemployment figures appear to be coming down when in fact they aren’t. It also explains why productivity PC is lower than expected, these people aren’t actually working, just pretending to so they can claim WTC. It’s disguised unemployment from the Tories just like they used to do by pushing people on to the sick and off unemployment benefits.
Perhaps you have discovered the reason that Scottish Independence is so popular.
I listened to Christ Leslie MP at a talk in Birmingham earlier this year. His analysis of our economic situation was based on a complete
Acceptance of the ‘Austerity scenario’ being sold to us by the media and, Osbornomics. There was little innovation, creative thoughts
or efforts on his part to dispel the lack of flexibility from Labour. Tax evasion and avoidance were barely mentioned. Professional politicians merely churning out tired lines will not win an election for Labour. Regional policy is key. Again, little was said about the dire
Performance of Enterprise Zones. If we are to broaden our economic base new perspectives are urgently needed.
Failure has not really embraced the tax debate at all
It’s current offering on tax is already well out of date
As I understand it, the fight is on in the LP for the GE manifesto.
I am supremely depressed by this article but it must be remembered that Leslie is the quintessential blairite politician and is being interviewed by a Guardian reporter who has nearly as much form as Patrick Wintour for a particular slant. However, I cannot get my head around the idea that Balls believes that matching Osborne’s cuts is how to gain economic credibility.. but then he spent last summer in the US with Larry Summers and has become chummy with Peter Mandelson.
Ed Miliband should replace or marginalise Ed Balls asap.
Maybe its because ED Miliband is too busy reading the US newspapers!
In this singularly depressing comment, Polly Toynbee reveals why the established media she represents are so often out of touch with the huge numbers of people who don’t vote. This is why they don’t vote.
“No vote, no say. There is a wide range of parties – and there is ALWAYS a least worst. There may never be my perfect party – it might be a party of one! But you just have to go out there on the day and keep out what you think is the worst, if you can’t find anything you positively support.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/23/dismal-eu-ballot-corrupt-electoral-system-safe-seats-rotten
Why?
I would, to some extent, agree with that comment
Because it’s letting the political classes off the hook. How do you engage an already disillusioned electorate by asking them to vote for something they cannot positively support? Where is the message of hope in that? How does that fit in with The Courageous State and a message of hope? Voting for something just because it’s not something else? Surely it’s up to society to work on giving people something to engage with and vote for because they DO positively support it? A couple of years ago, I met a woman called Gigi Ibrahim. She was one the young people who had been occupying Taksim Square in Cairo during the uprising. When I asked her what type of democracy she was fighting for she said ‘not the type you have in the UK; it is as corrupted by the powerful as our regime in Egypt’. People have died for many things – ‘King and Country’ ‘The American Way’. That does not mean that we have to agree with the outcome of what they died for. The current system of voting in the UK, and in many or most nations around the world, is, in fact, an insult to those who died for the right to vote, who lost their liberty for the right to gain liberty; perpetuating an undemocratic regime is an insult to their name. We should be striving for something that is worthy of those who gave their lives. For me, continuing to take part in a voting process that is no longer even trying to act like an illusion of true democracy is not the way. If, like me, you have voted in every election -general, local council and European – for 25 years yet the direction of the world has gone in the exact opposite to what you, your friends and your family want to see, what conclusion do I draw? Should I lambast those who didn’t vote for the parties for whom I voted for allowing someone else’s ‘less nauseating’ party in? When I can then see that voting for the parties I was voting for actually yielded the exact opposite outcome for society that I wanted? Yet people will tell you to do that every few years, to keep trying the same approach time and time again expecting a different result; that is a definition of madness.
Thanks
All good points and I appreciate them
@DavidKirham. Agreed. I have continuously voted in all elections for 45 years & Labour member for some time. Since Blair I’ve agonised but voted Labour – hoping for a good outcome, Polly Toynbee has made pre-GE day arguments not to “waste votes” – what tosh. I’ve turned ‘Green’, I once thought it was a single issue party i.e. environment.
Mini Green manifesto.
http://issuu.com/lifework/docs/minimaniissuu?e=7496317/7612527
David -I totally agree. personally, I feel the best option is for huge numbers of people not to vote at all and de-legitimize the our undemocratic voting processes and parties that have morphed into each other due to corporate capture.
In other words NOT VOTING will be exercising a REAL VOTE!
I stall can’t persuade myself that’s the right thing to do
Why not spoil the paper? That’s a statement
Totally agree Mr. M., people should vote – just a pity there is no NOTA box on the ballot paper.
Spoiling the ballot paper would be equally good-of course, what we really need is a recordable abstention option.
Spoiling the ballot paper opens the way for politicans to count it as accidental and therefore incidental damage. I have no doubt the reason we can’t state NOTA is so our politicans don’t have to come out and admit what many know, many have no faith in the system itself no matter who mans it. And as for the value of the vote, who voted apart from no-one ever, for Branson to own hospitals with NHS on the front? Yet here in Surrey he does, so there’s what voting gets you nowadays. I don’t suppose anyone who died for the vote did so with that outcome in mind nor anything similar.
How do you pay for stimulus in the bad times if you operate on the limit of what is sensible in the good times? Didn’t keynes advocate surplus in times if growth? Sounds like cherry picking economic policies when the theory requires taking the rough with the smooth.
Labour ran surpluses
Try to find them under the Tories
So you advocate surpluses?
No, I can rarely think of a reason for one to be candid
As I’m sure you’re fully aware, the Labour surpluses at the start of their tenure were a product of a) inheriting a strong economy and b) following the Conservative spending plans initially.
Quite how you expect a government to run a surplus when it takes on an economy moving into recession, when there is already a huge structural deficit and where any cuts to spending (even in real terms, let alone nominal terms) is beyond me.
Perhaps you’d like to explain…
Regardless, claimng that governments can ‘subsidise’ the economy in the bad times but quite happily borrow at the limits at other times is the sort of economics that led to the Sovereign debt crisis in the first place.
🙁
Undoubtedly a tactical position they’re taking with next years ‘it wuz Labour wot broke it’ onslaught in mind from the Tories and lickspittle press.
Talk up how tough they are, how they are going to double down on austerity etc etc.
I don’t believe them – i think one year in (assuming they have a majority) they will relent and start investing instead. If they are crazy enough to actually try and attain a surplus they’ll disappear into the electoral abyss.
Labour don’t seem to know how to do anything apart from spend, spend, spend.
What a spectacularly trite analysis – i can’t wait for the General election campaign (rolls eyes).
Of course the Conservatives never ran deficits. Never. They are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Well, apart from 1979. But that was Labour’s fault.
And 1980
And 1981
And 1982
And 1983
And 1984
And 1985
And 1986
And 1987
In 1988 and 1989 the Conservatives finally cleared up the mess of the last Labour government and posted surpluses.
From there onwards it was surpluses all the way.
Apart from 1990
And 1991
And 1992
And 1993
And 1994
And 1995
And 1996
This is completely wrong
The Tories ran a very small surplus in 1987
And from 1979 to 1997 that was it. Data here:
http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2013/06/the-uks-government-debt-since-ww2/
Otherwise only Labour has done it
This is a better chart of UK deficits. Tories ran a surplus in two years in the late 80s, Labour for four years 1998-2001.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
Surely the thing about deficits is that there is no harm in deficit spending (or rather a positive good) so long as it is spent on something of either a social good or that reaps an economic benefit. Thus I suspect even the most vociferous Keynesian wouldn’t reccomend running a large deficit in order to buy expensive American-made military equipment. And few would argue that health and education aren’t crucially important, hence they being the two largest spending departments (not counting pensions as a spending dept).
I couldn’t find that one – thanks
I think Keynesians would argue that deficit spending on investment in a time of economic prosperity was fine
I can think of no reason why it is not
I would not agree for current spending – but there Labour run a much tighter arrangement
many on this blog seem to be following the fallacy of composition argument connected with surpluses that think that Governments are households. I’m sympathetic to the MMT approach where deficits and surpluses are operated like a steering wheel, guiding the economy-the notion that a surplus/deficit has any qualitative value per se is nonsensical.
here’s MMT’s BIll Mitchell on the subject:
“it should never be forgotten that the pursuit of public surpluses has necessitated an increase in the net flow of credit to the private sector and increasing private debt to income ratios.
The current financial crisis is now evident that a threshold has been reached where the private sector, by circumstance or choice, becomes unwilling to maintain these deficits? It also means that reliance on rising indebtednesses to underwrite private spending is now unsustainable and an alternative growth strategy, based on fiscal expansion has to be introduced.
In terms of fiscal policy, there are only real resource restrictions on its capacity to increase spending and hence output and employment. If there are slack resources available to purchase then a fiscal stimulus has the capacity to ensure they are fully employed. While the size of the impact of the financial crisis may be significant, a fiscal injection can be appropriately scaled to meet the challenge. That is, there is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending.”
Of course, this requires the Central Bank to be able to create and control the money supply -at present the Banks do this as private debt. If the Labour part were not a zomboid and intellectually defunct outfit, it would be campaigning for this.
I am very sympathetic to this idea
Couldn’t agree more. Governments are not households. Fortunately for Balls, Osborne and Danny Alexander etc. the misconception that Governments are households is believed because the truth (MMT) is so very counter-intuitive…
(1) Taxes don’t fund anything
(2) The government doesn’t borrow from anybody to finance its spending
(3) The government’s fiscal balance (deficit) is the non-government sector’s surplus.
(4) The government creates currency by fiat (‘out of thin air’)
(5) Bond issuance is not borrowing.
(6) Banks lend without reserves constraints imposed by the central bank.
http://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/why-sometimes-ive-believed-as-many-as-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-or-whats-so-hard-about-mmt/
I find myself unable to positively support central government. How do you vote when to do so seems to endorse a system which presents you with Duncan-Smith?
Bill,….or “go with my gut” Grayling, “Michael Green” alias Shapps, or petrol can Maude, or know it all but know nothing Gove, or the Eton crowd who, almost by definition, know little of the real world.
I’m not exactly enamoured of Labour after all their betrayals and cowardice but, if I have to vote for them to keep the morally bankrupt Tories out, ie the least worst option, it seems to me that I’m obliged to vote for their likeliest opponent rather than roll over and take even worse Tory crap, particularly when there’s just not enough time for the party I’d like to vote positively for, the Greens, to be able to fend off the Tories.
Depressing but, I believe, realistic.
Then you end up with morally bankrupt Labour. If you vote Green, eventually along will come a Green version of Tony Blair who’ll just be another neoliberal in disguise. The structure of society is designed for that, being one of imposition, and it’s one that was imposed on us specifically by Rome and not for our benefit either. All votes, then, leads to rule by whichever set of temporary dictators fill the vacant Roman chair. It’s interesting, but probably coincidental, that Cameron appears very Roman in his attitude to women. A genuine alternative would be an entirely different form of governent, possibly along the lines of the one we had before the Romans came along and buried it in history. It seems to have been druid-led distributed government. By druid I don’t been toga-wearing tree-huggers, I mean the then professional classes as they would have been the druids. I’ve read the whole white-sheeted weirdy-beard idea of druids stems from a popular fictional story which caught the public’s imagination and has taken hold, despite any lack of empirical foundation, just as Ancel Keys unsubstantiated suggestions about dietary fats have caught on. We had something similar in the bank manager network, when they were in charge of money creation across the nation. I’d name that system as a form of distributed government, one that we know has merit. Setting up a similar network of independent but socially responsible money creators may well be the answer to our current woes. I could see it taking a generation or two to get established, but what else are we going to do?
Bill, are you saying that we should ignore the neo-liberal consensus for the generation or two it takes it takes for a new way to be identified and become politically viable? And that, in those generations, we should do nothing to resist the worst effects of neo-liberalism?
I genuinely share your desire for a different and better type of politics but, if we allow the worst of neo-liberalism to go unchecked, if we’re too proud to compromise and fight it with the imperfect tools available to us while we search for and find that different and better politics, there will be damn all left to fight for, no NHS, no social security, because the rentiers will already have taken it all over.
You might just as well say that you’re going to stop eating until all the rubbish has been removed from our food chain.
Finally, regarding the Greens, I find what I know of their policies immensely sensible and appealing, not least because they have, in Caroline Lucas, just about the only politician I can identify who has the conviction to take neo-liberalism on for the common good, not just the personal aggrandizement that seems to motivate most of our politicians. I only wish they had the means and widespread support to be a viable alternative in less than a year’s time.
Nick
Wise words to both Bill and re Caroline – who i think as good as you do
Richard
We need to develop alternatives. We should have been developing alternative currencies years ago in this country so we can be less dependant on the privately-owned banking network for our money supply, we should have been developing local farms so we can be self-sufficient in food provision, and we should too be more aware there are entirely viable alternatives to western medicine. This country by and large is far too taken in by the TINA narrative. There ARE alternatives and the survivors will be those who embrace them.
Steve Keen shows with Minsky modeling that includes banks and money that surpluses causes economies to shrink. As you state, a deficit is counter intuitive but actually a well managed deficit is perfect way to achieve long term steady growth and is counter intuitively fiscally stable/neutral.
That is bound to be the case
Of everyone saves less happens
It is that glaringly obvious
And contrary to econ theory when gov’t cuts people save as they know there is no safety net left. Econ theory does not value the safety net as it is an externality
Here in The Netherlands the same is going with our ‘Labour’.
Still, we do have competition in the parliament: people now vote massively on the competitor (SP: Socialist Party). Results for ‘Labour’ are devastating.
Chris Leslie’s position is simply typical of the turgid, moribund thinking that dominates British Politics. Morally bankrupt, intellectually bereft, economically illiterate it is the result of a political system almost wholly rooted in the narrow thinking of the ‘Oxbridge PPE’ elite.
The central flaw with this is the conflation of education with intelligence and the mistake so often made that education can somehow make a person smarter. You can send a chimp to Oxford, but the best you can hope for is an educated chimp.
What is lost as a result is the capacity for joined-up thinking.
Truly intelligent politicians would look for solutions that combine two or more negatives to create a positive. Call it ‘using a flood to put out a fire’. Instead we have policies instead of strategies.
Energy is a good example. 2013 saw the closure of a power station in Essex that had converted from gas to biomass (wood chip). Audited figures showed the plant to be 85% cleaner than its gas equivalent. Not perfect, but worth considering as a transition fuel of choice. Yet the plant was closed due to the refusal on the part of Government to offer the same subsidies offered elsewhere.
At the same time we are experiencing major flooding due to climate change, no small part of which, is due to deforestation.
We also have an agricultural industry that is struggling to survive.
So, invest in biomass generation, invest in upland farmers to pursue afforestation programmes (eventually adding to the potential domestic supply of biomass, thus lessening our dependency on imports) reducing flood risks and combating CO2 emissions along the way. Additional benefits are the recreation of upland woodland habitats, and a steady revenue stream to our embattled hill farmers. The ultimate aim is to indemnify British society, agriculture and Industry against the worst vicissitudes of the global energy market, and would of course be only one part of an overall strategy that would see us move, eventually to renewables.
Which of the three main parties are thinking like that, exactly…?
You’re saying we should grow hemp?
The DRAX power plant is to be/has been/maybe will, be converted to run on biomass, specifically; wood.
http://www.pelheat.com/Drax_Biomass.html
The reduction of CO2 emissions comes not because the wood is cleaner burning, but because it is ¨Carbon neutral¨ (it takes carbon out of the environment when growing, so the carbon is emits isn´t there!). Make of that what you will. It also gets various subsidies for using wood instead of coal. Those offset the loss made by using wood as a fuel (calorific efficiency).
Everything is a trade-off. Add to that the fuel used to cut and process the tree into pellets, and then transport it from the USA to the UK (!?)
In any case, it is the consumer that pays the various payoffs.
Now, if we move to Spain…..austerity is about to embrace deliberate pauperism of the population:
¨“The people must pay” if they want to maintain the current levels of public services, warned James Daniel, the man in charge of the IMF’s mission in Spain, who, as an employee of the IMF, pays no income taxes to any country¨
http://ragingbullshit.com/2014/05/31/wreckonomics-round-two-the-troika-accelerates-its-demolition-of-the-spanish-economy/
Coming to a UK near you if Osbournomics continues in Round 2 (2015-2020).
Clean journalism from David Graeber in today’s Guardian on savage capitalism, concluding “we’re just going to have to figure out a way to unplug the machine and start again” [1]. Quite a challenge! Radical alternatives of Graeber need consideration compared to Piketty’s moderation of “unchecked capitalism”. Graeber notes [2] the extent Capital has gone to protect it’s interest, not to be conceded easily: “A quarter of the American population is now engaged in ‘guard labor’–defending property, supervising work, or otherwise keeping their fellow Americans in line.”
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/savage-capitalism-back-radical-challenge
[2] The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York: Spiegel & Grau. (2013) ISBN 9780812993561