Labour must stop taking the blame...

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://gu.com/p/353qh

I happen to think William Keegan's right.I'd be interested to hear the case against.
(btw,Canvey, I see that G20 summit I was on about was in April 2009.My mistake).:blush:

 

[Dick Bate's Protege]

Didn't even bother reading the article. I can't bring myself to trust anyone with a comedy Mexican moustache. But as it happens I'd like to see the Labour party become a little more relevant, a strong government requires a strong opposition IMO.

 

[Neil_F]

This is one of the most staggeringly pathetic and inane articles I have ever read.

Labour turned the spending taps on in 2001 and ran a deficit from 2004 onwards. This was all based on the reckless assumption that they had somehow abolished the economic cycle.

During this time they managed the education decline that saw the UK plunge down the international league tables whilst structual youth unemployment went through the roof.

They introduced a benefit system that trapped people in workless households such that it became impossible for them to take a job even if they had the skills to get one.

They re-designed the financial regulatory framework and turned it into an ill-equipped shambles that allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves to the max through complex derivatives. When the market turned they then threw billions of pounds of taxpayer money at the banks and failed to introduce the structural and market reforms required to reform the banking system.

Labour, and specifically Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, should be considered the absolute villains they are. In my mind they should never be taken seriously as a party of government again.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Labour, and specifically Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, should be considered the absolute villians they are. In my mind they should never be taken seriously as a party of government again.

And Blair, wouldn't trust any of them, ever. Pontificating hypocrites.

 

[canveyshrimper]

This is one of the most staggeringly pathetic and inane articles I have ever read.

Labour turned the spending taps on in 2001 and ran a deficit from 2004 onwards. This was all based on the reckless assumption that they had somehow abolished the economic cycle.

During this time they managed the education decline that saw the UK plunge down the international league tables whilst structual youth unemployment went through the roof.

They introduced a benefit system that trapped people in workless households such that it became impossible for them to take a job even if they had the skills to get one.

They re-designed the financial regulatory framework and turned it into an ill-equipped shambles that allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves to the max through complex derivatives. When the market turned they then threw billions of pounds of taxpayer money at the banks and failed to introduce the structural and market reforms required to reform the banking system.

Labour, and specifically Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, should be considered the absolute villians they are. In my mind they should never be taken seriously as a party of government again.

...and I thought Gordon Brown saved the world. :nope:

Well said sir, the only thing I'd add was the creation of the numerous non jobs in the Public Sector which they hoped would create a whole mass of Labour reliant voters.

 

[South Bank Hank]

http://gu.com/p/353qh

I happen to think William Keegan's right.I'd be interested to hear the case against.
(btw,Canvey, I see that G20 summit I was on about was in April 2009.My mistake).:blush:

As I doff my cap to Neil_F for his mere tip of the iceberg refutation, I ask the question "perhaps it's time to stop reading the same old **** socialist agenda newspaper?" It's definitely time you stopped the misguided propaganda on here anyway. If people want to read the Guardian, we know where we can find it, thanks.

Politics would be more worthwhile if the Government couldn't excuse its every action on the basis of having been left with no choice. But that's the point, they CAN!

Rather than stop taking the blame (a laughable notion in itself as they never have), if Labour actually started to accept some of the blame for its part in bringing us to this calamitous position, we could all move on and they could begin to reform themselves as the credible opposition this country needs. Right now, they're just clueless and rudderless, with outdated ideas, and fronted by a man who isn't even the most obvious leadership candidate in his own family, let alone his party.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

And Blair, wouldn't trust any of them, ever. Pontificating hypocrites.

I don't think that is something you can just paint Labour members with, the Tories are just as guilty of faux praise and self supplication IMO

 

[Smudger]

This is one of the most staggeringly pathetic and inane articles I have ever read.

Labour turned the spending taps on in 2001 and ran a deficit from 2004 onwards. This was all based on the reckless assumption that they had somehow abolished the economic cycle.

During this time they managed the education decline that saw the UK plunge down the international league tables whilst structual youth unemployment went through the roof.

They introduced a benefit system that trapped people in workless households such that it became impossible for them to take a job even if they had the skills to get one.

They re-designed the financial regulatory framework and turned it into an ill-equipped shambles that allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves to the max through complex derivatives. When the market turned they then threw billions of pounds of taxpayer money at the banks and failed to introduce the structural and market reforms required to reform the banking system.

Labour, and specifically Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, should be considered the absolute villains they are. In my mind they should never be taken seriously as a party of government again.

Post of the year so far for me. And for Anthony Hutton no doubt.

 

[osymandus]

This is one of the most staggeringly pathetic and inane articles I have ever read.

Labour turned the spending taps on in 2001 and ran a deficit from 2004 onwards. This was all based on the reckless assumption that they had somehow abolished the economic cycle.

During this time they managed the education decline that saw the UK plunge down the international league tables whilst structual youth unemployment went through the roof.

They introduced a benefit system that trapped people in workless households such that it became impossible for them to take a job even if they had the skills to get one.

They re-designed the financial regulatory framework and turned it into an ill-equipped shambles that allowed financial institutions to leverage themselves to the max through complex derivatives. When the market turned they then threw billions of pounds of taxpayer money at the banks and failed to introduce the structural and market reforms required to reform the banking system.

Labour, and specifically Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, should be considered the absolute villains they are. In my mind they should never be taken seriously as a party of government again.

Which was of course done with the blessing and on the insistence of the banks and financials systems themselves , of which both are often staunch right wing supporters or backed by lobbyist groups ... made up across all the political spectrum of people with finical self interest .

After all that has happened are we really still arguing that one part of the political spectrum is better then the other ?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Which was of course done with the blessing and on the insistence of the banks and financials systems themselves , of which both are often staunch right wing supporters or backed by lobbyist groups ... made up across all the political spectrum of people with finical self interest .

After all that has happened are we really still arguing that one part of the political spectrum is better then the other ?

You are of course quite right here.

 

[canveyshrimper]

You are of course quite right here.

Possibly but they should have regulated it.

What about the other 4 points of Neil's excellent post?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

. If people want to read the Guardian, we know where we can find it, thanks.

As a matter of fact, this article came from The Observer, and not its sister paper The Guardian.I've been reading William Keegan in The Observer ever since I was in the 6th form studying Economics,(which in my particular case was some time ago),in the days when David Astor was still the Editor.
I'm aware(as no doubt you are)that The Observer was bought by The Guardian some years ago but they're still very different and separate newspapers,each with its own distinct personality.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Possibly but they should have regulated it.

What about the other 4 points of Neil's excellent post?

The silence is deafening................:tumbleweed:

 

[canveyshrimper]

As a matter of fact, this article came from The Observer, and not its sister paper The Guardian.I've been reading William Keegan in The Observer ever since I was in the 6th form studying Economics,(which in my particular case was some time ago),in the days when David Astor was still the Editor.
I'm aware(as no doubt you are)that The Observer was bought by The Guardian some years ago but they're still very different and separate newspapers,each with its own distinct personality.

The only difference between the two is that The Observer is a Sunday paper and the Grauniad a weekday paper.

 

[Jam_Man]

As I doff my cap to Neil_F for his mere tip of the iceberg refutation, I ask the question "perhaps it's time to stop reading the same old **** socialist agenda newspaper?" It's definitely time you stopped the misguided propaganda on here anyway. If people want to read the Guardian, we know where we can find it, thanks.

Politics would be more worthwhile if the Government couldn't excuse its every action on the basis of having been left with no choice. But that's the point, they CAN!

Rather than stop taking the blame (a laughable notion in itself as they never have), if Labour actually started to accept some of the blame for its part in bringing us to this calamitous position, we could all move on and they could begin to reform themselves as the credible opposition this country needs. Right now, they're just clueless and rudderless, with outdated ideas, and fronted by a man who isn't even the most obvious leadership candidate in his own family, let alone his party.

The moment they voted him in as leader was the moment Labour gave up any chance of winning the next election. He is too unlikeable to win and was a very strange choice.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As William Keegan says "Labour was not responsible for the Great Recession, and was doing its best to emerge from it."
Neil is right that long term youth structural unemployment first started to grow again under Labour but that was hardly a phenomenon restricted to the UK alone.The same thing was happening in many other European countries,including France and Spain(where youth unemployment is now running at just over 51%).
I would also agree with Neil that Labour under Blair/Brown did little to reform the benefit system but it was Thatcher,after all, who first used North Sea revenues to finance mass unemployment.We are still dealing with the consequences of that.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The only difference between the two is that The Observer is a Sunday paper and the Grauniad a weekday paper.

That has always been the case as far as I'm aware.

 

[Neil_F]

Which was of course done with the blessing and on the insistence of the banks and financials systems themselves , of which both are often staunch right wing supporters or backed by lobbyist groups ... made up across all the political spectrum of people with finical self interest .

After all that has happened are we really still arguing that one part of the political spectrum is better then the other ?

I wasn't arguing about the relative merits of the main political parties; I was rebutting the notion that the financial crisis was nothing to do with the then Labour government.

No one held a gun to Gordon Brown's head when he setup the FSA. I have no idea whether banks were in favour or not, and if they were why did the Chancellor then do it? I do know that the then governor of the BoE, Eddie George, gave Brown both barrels at the time and nearly resigned over the issue.

 

[osymandus]

Possibly but they should have regulated it.

What about the other 4 points of Neil's excellent post?

How can a government of any sort regulate an industry in which they all have vested interest and powerful lobby groups . This is a repeat of the early attempts to stop or prohibit smoking from the government's (Labour and Tory ) of the 1950's

The other 3 points I wasn't addressing as they are extensions of my main point however . And teh last one is Neil_f's opinion on them .

1) Yes you will do that when you fight 3 wars in 17 years , the money has to come from somewhere , he doesn't state the reasons , which would be universal for any government, international power , influence and the possible access to resources not native to our soil (still of course aiding the city and finance's ) . Also expensively, poorly managed rebuilding and exit strategics from all involved .

2) The bad mix of education and business we have had in this country . We don't educate the individual to suit their best skills we do so to fit the current and most influential part of the economy . We became finical services and service industry leaders ... the markets changed our skill sets didn't . The opportunity of allowing everyone to go to furthest academic education was not the fault. The fault was leading everyone to believe that it was always the best option for them and failure was their other option.

3) A product of the economy and education as already mentioned . If you have a population with a narrow skill set and the market changes what happens ? If the economy you live in is a consumer based one , and the value of goods based on those buying often and frequently , then those with the least or access to less work or income , what happens to them ?

I'm a fan of the free market , it made the middle class , it produces greater access to education for all , removes women from being dependant on the natural birth cycle and or male dominance (i paraphrase from Christopher Hitchens on that regarding the surest way to remove an economy from poverty ), a society must also hold to some level of socialist ideals or you live in a dictatorship or feudal system (which then destroys a free market ). At present our anger and fury is being aimed at the wrong people the old targets , those who wear a different colour sash or flag .

 

[Neil_F]

As William Keegan says "Labour was not responsible for the Great Recession, and was doing its best to emerge from it."

Just because someone wrote it in a newspaper column it doesn't make it true.

Are you seriously suggesting that the government of the time can't be blamed for the weak regulatory framework that facilitated the growth of leveraged CDS and derivative trading? I presume you don't think they can be blamed for running a structural deficit since 2004 either?