This is from Martin Kettle in the Guardian:
Cameron's speech confirmed the sense of direction signalled by Osborne. It is clear that the cuts programme would start on day one. "It's the waiting that's the problem," he announced. "The longer we wait the more we waste." Ideologically, though, Cameron's speech went even further. Running through it, like the lettering in a stick of rock, was an attack not just on big government, but government itself.
"It is more government that got us into this mess," Cameron said. "Why is our economy broken? Not just because Labour wrongly thought they'd abolished boom and bust. But because government got too big, did too much and doubled the national debt." When Britain was in recovery, he said in his peroration, it would not be because of government or ministers, but because "you made it happen".
This was a revelatory political moment. Does anyone else in the economically developed world believe that the financial crisis has all been the fault of government? Or that the recovery, when it happens, will have nothing to do with ministers' actions? It is hard to believe that the word "market" did not appear anywhere in Cameron's hour-long speech, but it didn't. Nor was there anything about the banks. This is ignorant or dogmatic — or both. Either way, it raises a massive question about Cameron's claims to lead the country.
Staggering that a crisis created by too little government allowing markets to abuse us all is now blamed wholly on government when, just before the failure happened, Cameron and Osborne were arguing for less regulation that could only have made the crisis worse.
I hate the lies inherent in this. And yes, I use that word again, deliberately.
Do you want a man so blinded by ideology, so willing to lie, so palpably willing to ignore where the blame really lies to lead this country?
I don’t.
I don’t like much of what Labour has done, and not done.
I don’t like the direction in which Clegg is taking the Lib Dems.
But Cameron is worse. And in all it’s a sorry tale.
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:
More relevant is what the voters think, but why do you care what Clegg is doing? unlikely that he will get anywhere near power.
BTW the underlying (global) credit crisis was clearly caused by US Government intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending policies, and subsequent failed regulation of the outcome of that policy. Why do you think Banks stopped lending to each other.
And Cameron’s analysis of Big Brother Brown is spot on.
“Unlikely that Clegg will get anywhere near power” – really? Based on recent polls a hung parliament is a big possibility. Clegg could be right in there.
The crisis is a failure of unregulated (or at least under-regulated) capitalism. Pure and simple. The only people who saw this coming were the post-Keynesians and neo-Marxists. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act were mere sideshows which the Right have tried to use as scapegoats for the crisis, but fortunately few people are listening ‘cos it’s so implausible.
Fortunately, if Cameron is serious about following a “deep cuts” policy, the economy and public services are going to tank so badly that he’ll be easily defeated in an election in 2015 if the opposition can even half get its act together (admittedly a big “if”.) And I can’t wait.
hmmmm, Howard.
Since when have the liberals been able to translate their % vote into seats? Will take a change in the voting method to make that happen. The nearest we have to that is a failed PM offering a review – Westminster speak for its not going to happen.
By all means ignore the realities of the world – but to my knowledge marxists have been predicting the end of the world ever since they convened.
Cameron will do what all incoming leaders do – he will talk a good election, and then come to terms with the realities of the government machine. At least he won’t have a Brown type figure stabbing him in the back at every opportunity. He might manage to get some of his reforms through – the education establishment is a tough nut to crack but the groundwork has already been well laid, even if Balls/Brown managed to delay it. BUT no one has yet managed to reverse the size of the government machine.
Unfortunately your analysis of the medium term is flawed on the rocks of the IMF, who will soon be telling us what we can spend. Brown might even doff his cap to them on his way out.
“I hate the lies inherent in this.”
Richard,
What you discern as lies is a difference of opinion. You may think Cameron is an idiot but it is not impossible to believe that excessive government intervention had a role in the crisis. Indeed, many respectable people believe the seeds of the crisis were sown when the US bailed out LTCM, and with it saved Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros from huge (but not bankrutpcy scale) losses in 1997.
If you want examples of lies, you could try:
1) “Tory cuts versus Labour investments”;
2) “We never said “Tory cuts versus Labour investments””;
3) We promise a referendum on Lisbon;
4) No rises in income tax during the life of the parliament.
I’m sure there are more. “0% growth for the current year” remains a favourite insight into how Gordo lies to himself.
was it gordon brown who paid his private expenses with public money?
Not sure
But Cameron certainly did
He cut the wisteria with public cash