Which way for Labour economic policy?

Labour are in a fix, they know they need a new economic policy,  but they have the same old guys who failed with economic policy in govt, aided & abetted by the Union Leaders who sponsor them.
 
Until Labour can come up with a new credible economic policy they will not, nor should they, be elected to govt., it can be done but only with some radical thought and perhaps a look at what the Nordic countries have done over the last 20 years.
Check this article from the Economist http://www.economist.com/search/apachesolr_search/Northern%20Lights
 
We need an opposition that stops navel gazing and puts this country first, acknowledges the disastrous state of our economy and gives the electorate a genuine and credible alternative
 
,

Welcome to the endless debate, richardcalhoun.

"We need an opposition that stops navel gazing and puts this country first, acknowledges the disastrous state of our economy and gives the electorate a genuine and credible alternative."

To paraphrase a very old joke .... You wouldn't start from here.

richardcalhoun wrote:Labour are in a fix, they know they need a new economic policy, but they have the same old guys who failed with economic policy in govt, aided & abetted by the Union Leaders who sponsor them.

Until Labour can come up with a new credible economic policy they will not, nor should they, be elected to govt., it can be done but only with some radical thought and perhaps a look at what the Nordic countries have done over the last 20 years.
Check this article from the Economist http://www.economist.com/search/apachesolr_search/Northern%20Lights

We need an opposition that stops navel gazing and puts this country first, acknowledges the disastrous state of our economy and gives the electorate a genuine and credible alternative

I agree entirely that a new economic policy is needed - but it's not one that's going to be achieved by re-hashing the same old 'keep the markets happy' nonsense that Woolridge is recommending. The Nordic countries do well because they have small populations and - until recently - few immigrants, and because people there buy in, in a big way, to the concept of social responsibility. But even that is now coming under threat.

What people in the UK need is a complete worldview-change, and a government that's not afraid to present an idea of how things can be genuinely different - not just a slightly-kinder version of what the Tories are doing now and calling 'credibility'.

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/the-radical-imperative-who-dares-wins/

http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/root-branch-balls-mistake-in-letting-the-tories-choose-the-battleground/

We don't have to limit ourselves to just applying coats of paint to the existing structures - the establishment just wants us to think we do. But as long as that continues, most people will continue to think 'all politicians are the same'.

One solution revolution. We can not just replace one form of neo-liberal capitalism with a version thats got about a fag papers difference in its less destructive and evil ways.

Long-established and previously successful commercial companies are falling by the wayside due to the march of electronic progress. It's not a new phenomenon, spears gave way to guns, and horses no longer pull the Number 11 omnibus.

The time must soon arrive when the entire 700-year-old Parliamentary system comes under the microscope to confirm its fitness for purpose. MPs are not likely to begin a process leading to their redundancy, so it's up to nebulous "Public Opinion" to start a groundswell.

The Internet provides a precise instrument for consulting anyone and/or everyone on anything, presents the prospect of truly universal suffrage, and supersedes the notion of elected representatives.

skywalker 1964
Read your blog but no ideas, just the usual tribal politics which until we get away from will mean no progress.
You dismiss the Nordic countries without even considering, except it doesn't fit your mantra.
You ignore that the last 2 labour govts, Brown/Blair and Callaghan/Healy left us virtually bankrupt.
Its not about left & right, ordinary people don't care about that, they are more interested in the £ in their pocket.
We need commonsense policies that need implementing, it seems to me the Nordics, who were probably are most left of centre govts, until they realised it was no longer sustainable have adopted policies that work for the people.
Forget the bitterness and tribalism, try something that works, if Labour win in 2015 they will need policies that work or else its back to the IMF as Mr Healy discovered

no ideas, just the usual tribal politics

richardcalhoun. Welcome to Cutting Edge.

Apart from your reference to the policies of the Nordic countries – which would be infinitely preferable to what we’re getting at the moment – I can only see Tory tribal politics in your posts.

One favourite Tory myth is that somehow Ed Balls was responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the subsequent global credit crash. Mr Balls was Education Secretary for the whole time that Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, 2007-2010.

I don’t consider presiding over the longest period of uninterrupted growth for at least 200 years, bringing our debt below 40% of GDP and keeping it there until the crash of 2008, and getting our economy out of recession by the time that Osborne took over and snuffed out the fragile growth, as failures.

We weren’t “virtually bankrupt” in either 2010 or 1979. The closest we’ve ever been to bankrupt was in 1956, when our gold reserves fell by one-eighth in just a week and the Tories had to get an IMF loan, the condition for which (imposed by Eisenhower) was that we got out of Africa.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t739-has-the-international-monetary-fund-betrayed-its-founding-principles

Ivan
So tribal its so sad!
We need to think for ourselves!
Its clear last govt's policies bankrupted us
Its clear this govt's policies are not just increasing the debt but doubling it in 5 years
Its clear this is totally unacceptable for our children and our grandchildren
Its clear we need some clear thinking and forget the usual political mantra

Ivan
U do realise that it is the budget deficit which is our problem?
We are spending far more than we are bringing in revenue
It is not sustainable, already we are paying £15BN in interest payments on the debt.
These interest payments will increase btw now  and 2015 as the Tories continue to increase the debt, it really is unsustainable

richardcalhoun wrote:Ivan
U do realise that it is the budget deficit which is our problem?
We are spending far more than we are bringing in revenue
It is not sustainable, already we are paying £15BN in interest payments on the debt.
These interest payments will increase btw now and 2015 as the Tories continue to increase the debt, it really is unsustainable

There is more than one way to balance the equation. Contrary to the government's assertions and in spite of its sleight of hand with things like pre-banked 'income' from a telecom sale that hasn't happened yet, the deficit is rising. What's clear is that the Tories' policies are making things worse, not better - crushing growth, killing confidence only lowers revenue. Labour had the economy growing, the coalition has killed that.

Labour had the deficit lower than under the preceding Tory government, right up until the emergency bank bail-outs - which Cameron and co approved. Cameron had been campaigning for less banking regulation not long before the crash.

A few more facts and a few less unfounded assertions would make your argument less obviously specious.

Ivan
You are resorting to the tribal again, it is so counter productive,
I am not supporting the Coalition govt, they are making a mess of a very big mess they inherited
Labour in power until 2010 not 2007, the nordic countries coped cos they had their spending under control.
We didnt have spending under control and we still haven't
Global recession is going to continue, a lot of hardship will ensue but those countries without enormous deficits/debts will come thro strongest.
Read the  Nordic story again, it would be a good place to be for Labour, they are desperate for some economic policies and the Nordic's have shown the way.

richardcalhoun wrote:Ivan
You are resorting to the tribal again, it is so counter productive

I'm not Ivan, and you've already replied to him without further response back from him, so I assume you're now addressing me. It's not a good advert for your argument.

skywalker1964 Apologies, but have u nothing further to say in response? U address none of the issues raised?

richardcalhoun wrote:skywalker1964 Apologies, but have u nothing further to say in response? U address none of the issues raised?

The real Ivan already did.

I think not!
Debate is sterile
The Nordic socialists have shown the way but ur tribal mantra does not permit you to address.
It is an indictment of socialism in this country, they are led by pygmies and they are failing our country

Yep! Things are tough all over.

richardcalhoun. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re on commission for using the word ‘tribal’ as often as possible…..

I don’t support everything the Labour Party does or has done and I doubt if anyone on this forum does. Some of us support the EU, some don’t. Some of us support means-testing and the monarchy (and maybe even means-testing the monarchy) while others don’t. Some of us are socialists and others are social democrats. However, one thing is obvious to most members of this forum: after the next election, there will either be a Tory government or a Labour one. As far as I’m concerned, the Labour Party is, realistically, the only vehicle for driving us towards the fairer and more decent society that I’d like to see. If that makes me ‘tribal’ in your eyes, so be it.

As to economics, in my book it all comes to a choice between Keynes, who said "take care of unemployment and the budget will take care of itself”, and Friedman, whose ideology is being followed by these Tory morons and will take us back to the nineteenth century if not stopped.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t646-keynes-friedman-and-the-paradox-of-thrift-who-is-right

I don't think austerity has ever worked anywhere; have you heard of an unemployed man being able to pay off his debts? Austerity is an excuse for dismantling social programmes and flogging off the infrastructure to your cronies and financial backers. We need an emphasis on growth and a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, who will spend any money they have and help to stimulate the economy. Cutting tax for the very rich, as this government is doing in April, will do nothing for the economy, as the rich tend to save more of their money, often in off-shore accounts.

Someday soon, an author is going to draw the parallel between the way the Tory-led Coalition tore-up all their election pledges and flushed their manifestos down the toilet in order to copy the modern post-Soviet Russian paradigm.

What's the English for "Oligarch"? Is bandit an adequate translation?

What's the English for "Oligarch"? Is bandit an adequate translation?

Robber Baron or an aristocracy depending on how power is measured.

Here's hoping that Labour don't follow Frances socialist government, "they won't will they?"

France worse off than UK in the 1970s: Axa chief
France is in a worse state than Britain was at the time of its 1976 bail-out by the International Monetary Fund, one of the nation’s best-known businessmen has declared.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10093809/France-worse-off-than-UK-in-the-1970s-Axa-chief.html

tlttf. France had right-wing governments from 1995 until 2012, but no doubt all the country's problems have arisen in the last year in your jaundiced view.

Now you'll no doubt tell us how well Spain has been doing - with unemployment up to 25% - under a Conservative government........

The King of Spain has given his yacht back to the Nation, but the Nation doesn't want a yacht.

bail-out by the International Monetary Fund

Unfortunately this is the root of the rot.

Debt

The UK economy has shifted from a profit and loss economy to recirculating the national debt, into personal debt and vice versa. The question 'where is all the real money?' is one that this Tory government is trying to get to grips with. Hence interviews with banking CEO's which prove that the banks have no intention of telling anyone where all the real money has gone. And they have not desisted from paying themselves obscene bonuses out of our losses. The fact is that the banks, which have been bailed out with national debt, could foreclose on everyone's personal debt and take everything.

Europe is up the creek without a paddle and the UK is buying time by playing along with some pretty dangerous financial and oligarch predators.

Until we begin to understand the game that the big players are winning we have no chance of changing the rules.

For those Groupies anxious for Labour policy to be spelt out in letters of fire - two years before the likely date for a General Election - there is a lesson in today's News. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls announced that a Labour Government would cease paying things like Winter Fuel Allowance to higher-rate taxpayers. Almost before he'd finished speaking, a Tory Twat responded that it was too small a change* to make any difference to the national budget.

Any and all Labour proposals will receive similar treatment. Probably better to keep their cards close to their chest until nearer the announced date.

*Estimated about £100million.

I heard that - thought it was a bit of a blunder on his part - but they are a bit between a rock and a hard place on this - damned if they do, damned if they don't

While it may not be wise, possible or necessary to spell out policy, it would be useful for Joe Public to hear something about principles and to hear and see some tangible opposition to the spectacularly nasty actions of Cameron's Diseased Army. If that proves too much to ask, then it is not clear how the hearts and minds of Britain will be captured - unless there is a belief that the promotion of a crash-course entitled " Why Labour is jolly good for you" at the eleventh hour will have the necessary impact...

Politics, and Politicians of whatever Party stink equally in the nostrils of most voters just now. Polls are not an exact science, because people tell lies to pollsters, but a current Poll of 1121 people by Survation (for the LabourList website) showed that 30% believed that Labour can be trusted with the economy, while 47 percent do not. There were 23% of Don't Knows. Fewer than three in four (72%) of those who voted FOR Labour in 2010 trust the party on the economy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-labour-would-scrap-winter-fuel-allowance-for-500000-rich-pensioners-8641344.html

Labour need something pretty convincing to change such opinion. Any constructive ideas out there?

It's nice to see Ed Balls is consistent in his denial that the previous government was wasteful with the taxpayers money, running up debt as fast as possible. His latest wheeze is to (wait for it) stick to the tories spending plans and then borrow more money. What a bonus he is to the present bunch of idiots in power. Lets see, cut winter fuel bills for the "wealthy" pensioners (how universal can you get) saving approx £100 million (maybe) then borrow a couple of £billion (probably to pay the wages of a quango to oversee it), or will he use ATOS as they've already got their feet under the table?

You couldn't make this shyte up!

http://t.co/sulQsE1w1i

You might like to look at what he actually said - the whole statement, which to my mind is not unreasonable as an initial statement of general intent.
This is not the time for Labour to be setting out detailed policies, but maybe as a general statement to show that they do have something a little different this wasn't a totally bad start.

to raise living standards, increase growth and wealth creation by building a reformed One Nation economy where we use, and invest in, the talents and industry of all and not just some

seems a pretty fair goal to me

You couldn't make this shyte up!

tlttf. What a hypocrite you are! You’ve made up more “shyte” than anyone else on this forum, such as “shyte” about how child benefit was paid in the past, distorted figures about one hospital in Staffordshire, and many more examples that I can’t be bothered to dig out. Any lies to tell us about the Miliband brothers today?

You must be really desperate if you’re still peddling that tired old “shyte” about Labour “running up debt” and “wasting taxpayers’ money”. Why not just come out and say that Labour caused the global credit crunch? Tell us that Labour caused the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the USA and caused the Greek economy to implode.

Fact, not “shyte” – debt as a percentage of GDP was lower from 1997 until 2008 than what Labour inherited from the Tories. If your idea of “waste” is rebuilding schools and hospitals and employing more nurses, doctors and teachers, then that just speaks volumes about you and your “shyte” philosophy. And that’s before we get on to the “shyte” about France that you tried to pass off as a reasoned argument on this very thread.

Go back to the drawing board and try again.

Oh dear, only using part of a statement now Ivan. Isn't that the same as quoting incorrectly? I note you've got nothing to reprimand me for regarding the facts and are simply using one line of a statement to give me a lecture. Does that mean there's nothing to "big up" about Labour?

Smashing statement boatlady and one I'd agree with, unfortunately it's just more soundbytes with no reality attached. Lovely sentiment though.

Isn't that the same as quoting incorrectly?

tlttf. Try not to be quite so absurd. I quoted a whole sentence of your latest load of drivel.

I note you've got nothing to reprimand me for regarding the facts

Try reading it again. I “reprimanded” you for peddling the same tired old Tory lie. Repeat it as often as you like and it will still be a lie.

Keep your mouth shut and people may think you’re stupid; when you open it, you remove all doubt.

Please don't ban landy!

It'd be like archery without a target...

tlttf - I think things might go more smoothly if we were all careful to be clear about the difference between fact and opinion.

Quoting out of context from one newspaper and presenting this as fact is in fact intellectually dishonest and sort of strangles debate. If you want to present your personal opinions, that is absolutely OK, as long as they're not presented as fact, and as long as you are able both to back them up and engage reasonably with debate when challenged.

If you want to present a matter as factual, you need to refer to several sources, including eye witness reports from more than one political perspective, and even then you need to be prepared to defend your position - calling things 'shyte' just doesn't cut it in terms of debate. That's what the red tops do, and I think this forum is about something different.

You're quite right that personal abuse is not acceptable - and I hope in future we'll all try harder not to resort to it.
I know when passions get high it's sometimes difficult to keep a civil tongue, and I believe you've offended along those lines yourself at times, as have we all.

Complaining about moderation styles within the thread is I think one of the things that is specifically discouraged on Cutting Edge, so maybe if you have an issue with Ivan about his comments in future, you could address it via a personal message? I'd be much obliged if you would - I think this kind of squabbling does tend to put off new contributors - and that's a loss to us all.

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Diversion dealt with, what should Labour say about their proposed treatment of the economy? Would the Public allow them to get away with a simple promise to start with a clean slate in 2015?

oftenwrong. Thanks for the lesson. Perhaps you can also find a Latin expression that covers the issue of where you quote someone verbatim and then they accuse you of “quoting incorrectly”?


Perhaps we could all learn from this document:-
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

In my opinion, difficult issues should be met head-on, so I probably wouldn’t make a very good politician. For example, I think the Labour leaders should rebuff claims they are being ‘undemocratic’ if they don’t follow the agenda set by Farage and the rabid right of the Tory Party. If an EU referendum is the wrong course of action, then come out and say why:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t837-is-it-undemocratic-to-be-opposed-to-an-eu-referendum

The same applies to the lies that the Tories have been peddling for the last four years about what happened in 2008-9. Hit them hard with a few facts:-

1. By spending on hospitals and schools, Labour did not cause the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the banks in Iceland and the economy in Greece and other countries, there was a global meltdown.

2. In 1997, Labour inherited debt equivalent to 43.76% of our GDP. Gordon Brown pulled that below his own target of 40% and kept it there until the global crunch.

3. Until the global crunch, Cameron and Osborne were promising to match Labour’s spending plans if they won power.

4. In March 2008, Cameron said: “Labour’s economic failure was the excessive bureaucratic interventionism of the past decade, too much regulation.”

When Tory idiots start banging on about Labour being “wasteful with taxpayers’ money”, maybe we should let them have a dose of your ‘ad hominem tu quoque’ and point out the West Coast mainline fiasco, those pointless PPC elections, the £3bn on an unnecessary NHS shake-up and the cost of Thatcher’s funeral.

Labour should also go on full attack and nail the myth that the Tories are any good at running the economy. Apart from Osborne’s recent stupidity, we had near bankruptcy in 1956, the balance of payments mess in 1964, double-digit inflation and a three-day working week in 1974, Thatcher and Lawson causing two recessions, and then ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992.

Above all, austerity should be ditched. It didn’t work in the 1930s, and as far as I can see has never worked anywhere, which is hardly surprising. You don’t make the economy grow by shrinking it; an unemployed man can’t pay off his debts. Austerity is just an excuse for right-wing ideologues to transfer the state from democratic accountability to their corporate cronies, which is, in effect, fascism.

Whilst they're busy quoting what they'll do, perhaps telling us what their intention is regarding Child Benefit wouldn't go amiss, or will they save that for tomorrow?

tlttf. Haven't you got anything better to contribute than just snidey comments? If you paid attention, you'd know that Labour has decided (wrongly in my opinion) not to restore child benefits to higher earners. Apparently, Cameron thinks that's a bad thing - yet it was his mob who broke their election promise and removed the principle of 'universality'.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100220374/pmqs-david-camerons-confusing-attack-on-labour-over-child-benefit-cuts/

Of course, if Labour decided to restore child benefits for all, people like your pal from Jersey, and possibly you, would try to portray Labour as the party of the rich, however absurd that idea might be.