If you want to know the difference between Labour and Tory governments this is it:
Labour made good the failure by the Tories to invest.
Now the Tories are failing to invest in our future, again.
And the result will, inevitably, be recession.
Data from HM Treasury budget reports: forecast data from June 2011 budget. GDP data from HM Treasury, October 2011.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
You think Labour delivered prosperity? The deepest recession since the 1930s, rising unemployment, massive deficits – failure more like.
No – that’s the banking system, globally that delivered that
If it was Labour please explain how they so effectively ruled the US and the whole of Europe too
Alternatively – stop talking complete and utter rubbish
So, are you saying the next recession will be purely the fault of the Tories, and nothing to do with the problems in the Eurozone, and continued fall out from the financial crisis? Yet the last recession was not political and nothing to do with Labour?
The banking system caused the gloabl crisis, the labour government made it impact our economy and budget position worse than most other other economies in the world. Given the Tories had committed to match Labour spending, it is likely they would have done the same, but history will remember who was (supposedly) in control. You don’t excuse the bus driver who crashes by saying another bus driver would have driven as fast!
As for the graph, it looks like investment during one of the most drastic spending cutting progams in UK history will still be above the levels for around half of Labour’s 13 years in power?
Labour made it worse? How? When it left office we were back in growth
We’re not now
And investment and the lack of it explains that
Rory Hamilton-Brown
One Labour achievement shines above this crisis brought on by neo-liberal rightwing economics – despite the deepest recession since the Great Depression, Labour still haven’t posted the 3 million plus unemployed we “enjoyed” under the Tories in their recessions.
So when Labour are in charge any economic disasters are the responsibility of external factors. But when the Tories are in power any problems are their fault. Glad we’ve cleared that up.
Not at all
Tories inherited a problem not created by Labour
The reality is they’ve made it worse in the UK by seeking to blame Labour and by cutting
They are responsible for that
Labour gave them growth when tehy left office
Tories have destroyed it
But if Labour were still in power we’d be still heading in the same direction.
Far from it
Yes, there’d be some cuts. But slower, more measured, and with significantly more wisdom about the need to be flexible in the light of the evidence and with a commitment to jobs at the core of it
To say that’s the same is like saying cats are dogs. They’re both pets but….
I was meaning heading into recession…….
But I suggest we would not be – we’d still have growth if Labour in office now – the recession is home made
Of course the picture would not be rosy – I agree that – bit not nearly as bad as Tories have made it
Richard
Keep up the good work. It’s a pity that Milliband does not say what you do ie Labour cannot be responsible for a world wide recession. And he may have had his faults but Merkel and company look clueless without Gordon Brown.
Howard
You are so right about the impact of Gordon Brown’s absence. He cannot be held responsible for all the developed world’s debt problems and although he had his faults just like the rest of us I think that historical analysis will be kinder to him. Basically he was a caring person as evidenced by his concern about Third World Debt. My own view is that Sarkozy is shallow and Merkel’s political ‘life cycle’ has expired.
I despair of the current Labour leadership, Ed Miliband might be playing a long game but as Keynes remarked in the long term we are all dead. When is Labour going to promote the interests of ordinary people and small to medium enterprise rather than continue to be in thrall to the City?
Is that the same Gordon Brown that together with Darling dithered about allowing Barclays to rescue Lehmans and failed to tell the US of their decision to block it before it was too late to save Lehmans, hence plunging the whole world into liquidity crisis? Or the Gordon Brown that pushed Lloyds into rescuing HBOS, bringing it down in the proces.?
I’d rather have Darling back thanks.
Oh Brown was flawed – I don’t doubt it, but Darling much more so
And what can undoubtedly be said is that in October 2008 Brown did really lead the world
And thank goodness he did
As for Lehman and Barclays et al – odd how you think their own directors were incapable and incompetent. I’d agree. But that’s what Brown had to face: it was not his responsibility
The point I was making is that peoiple love to talk about Brown’s rescuing the world in October 2008 ( when in fact it was all aboput rescuing the UK which was closer to total economic collapse than any other major economy), but miss the story from Paulson aboput how the UK governments dithering about Barlcays rescuing Lehmans prevented the US from being able to rescue Lehamsn in time (the US thought Barclays were going to rescue Lehmans but the UK at the last minute blocked the deal and had failed to give the US notice of this). So Lehmans went and the rest is history.
And yes the director of Lehman’s were totally incompetent, but as much as I hate to say this, Barclays probably weren’t given they managed to weather the strom despite being in the centre of most of exotic products. So certainly responsible for devising some of the off balance sheet prodcut that blew up, certainly greedy but probably not incompetent, certainly not like the management of HBOS, Northern ROck, Nationwide, B&B, Alliance & Leicester, RBS!!
As a UN NGO representative the only politician I have ever heard praised at international conferences was Gordon Brown.
Yes, Labour are foolish not to remind the people of the state of public infrastructure when they came to power after long stretches of Tory government. Labour did make hay while the sun shone. They put an enormous amount into renewal of schools and hospitals. And I wish they would say that more public investment is what is needed now.
I’m not sure that by selling 400 tons of our gold reserves at a rock bottom price – costing us nearly 7 billion – really constitutes ‘making hay while the sun shone’. Sadly the man was a buffoon and Darling was much better. I would suggest he led the world in 2008, not Brown.
You’re part of an interesting narrative of denial by the right which has adopted Darling – a cautious neoliberal to the core with no record of economic thinking or competence as the face of 2008. It’s a myth you enjoy, but it has not a shred of substance to it
I guess you’re super rich knowing when the bottom of the gold market occurred at the time. In any case, as commented in the FT recently, governments should not be in the business of gold speculation at any time. GB did the right thing in the circumstances.
“As a UN NGO representative the only politician I have ever heard praised at international conferences was Gordon Brown”
Well, one is tempted to observe that the NGOs would say that about someone who was quite handy (some might say utterly profligate and imprudent) throwing public money around wouldn’t they?
“Darling — a cautious neoliberal to the core with no record of economic thinking or competence”
Well although I agree that there is no great record of competence by Darling, I have to say that in the land of the demonstrably utterly incompetent (which in my opinion includes Balls and Brown), the merely incompetent (Darling) is king.
If it is quite so obvious that Brown “saved the world” from a 1930s style depression by his unique abilities during the banking crisis then why wasn’t Gordon Brown recommended for the IMF role by the governments of the USA, France, Germany and Japan ?
The reason is simply that Brown’s role during the banking crisis was largely ceremonial, as the UK happened to hold the revolving chair of the G20 at the time. Bar the normal diplomatic niceties no one outside the UK holds Brown is such high regard as his tribal supporters in the UK believe.
It is parochial nonsense to suggest that Germany, France, Japan and America only bailed out their duff banks and implemented a fiscal stimulus programme because they were told to by Brown. The chronology of the banking crisis actually shows the UK lagging behind these countries in dealing with the banking crisis. Bear in mind Brown dithered for a year in dealing with Northern Rock. He had form in this area.
And seeing as the banking crisis didn’t just “start in the USA” but was also hugely increased by the activities of organisations like AIG working out of London (because the US regulatory regime wouldn’t allow them to take such risks back in the USA) then most of the rest of the world actually hold the UK, and therefore Brown’s regime, equally responsible for the banking crisis.
@Rob Hollis
“why wasn’t Gordon Brown recommended for the IMF role by the governments of the USA, France, Germany and Japan ?”
Bit difficult, when the current (wonderfully capable!!) UK Government had clearly flagged up (and understatement – “shouted from the rooftops” might be more accurate) their intention to veto such a move.
“Brown’s role during the banking crisis was largely ceremonial”
Not the view of several leading economists – Krugman, Stiglitz, Wolfensohn and our own Blanchflower, Skidelsky. Suggest you view this YouTube offering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70RfPGNhA8
Thanks Andrew
“I guess you’re super rich knowing when the bottom of the gold market occurred at the time. In any case, as commented in the FT recently, governments should not be in the business of gold speculation at any time. GB did the right thing in the circumstances”
Maybe, but he was stupid in pre-announcing the sale, which simply caused the price to fall even further.
As pointed out by a commenter above, the biggest casaulty of the banking crisis was AIG, brought about by the collapse of AIG Financial Products. AIG, the parent company, is a dull US insurance company. AIG Financial Products, which ran up $75bn of losses, was based in the UK because the USA wouldn’t have anything so risky.
It was a global banking crisis, but a global banking crisis heavily biased towards America and the UK. And Gordon Brown was right at the heart of UK government for over a decade, presiding over the creation of the failed FSA, massive deregulation, private-equity friendly CGT rates, favourable treatment to non-doms, and a two-speed economy which relied on little other than the City. Of course blame cannot be wholly attributed to one individual but Brown, along with Greenspan, was probably the most prominent financial policy maker in the first half of the last decade.
The Goodwins, as incompetent as they were, were allowed to do it because Brown let them get away with it – even encouraged it.
I have to admit I find these discussions utterly and completely irrelevant
All we need to know is that the Tories wanted much much laxer regulation and all who say Brown was a charlatan are exposed as complete hypocrites
And as for the gold sale? I have to say that’s the most massive ‘so what?’ in economic history
This is exactly as planned by Alastair Darling in his last budget; public sector net investment falls to 1.3% by 2014-15. In fact, the figures in Osborne’s March 2011 budget look 0.1% higher than the Darling plans in each fiscal year, though that might be because the forecast for money GDP is different.
The difference is I am quite sure Labour would have changed its mind in the face of the evidence
So Mr Murphy,
The fact that Gordon Brown’s spending was in deficit all the way through the boom, and when the bubble that he exploited for tax revenues and popularity popped, tax revenues crashed… Is all the bankers fault, and nothing to do with a lack of fiscal discipline???
It seems a simple distinction to me – the banks caused a recession, but Labour never made any preparation for it. And you criticize Tory cuts, yet Darling proposed that Labour would make 80% of the same cuts…
This isn’t objective criticism, it’s Toynbee -esque shilling…
It’s also just wrong – as data I have published this week shows
But why let facts get in the way of your bigotry?