Well maybe he is.
But that will – according to the budget figures – lead to 10% cuts in the remaining areas.

Yet that is the “attack line” on the Tories, who are only guilty of using Darling’s own figures.
It’s pathetic – and so transparent it is hurting you.
Wake up!

The normally mild-mannered Evan Davis almost exploded at Jack Straw this morning (listen on the R4 website it’s around 7.50-8am).

He said something like
“This is an important debate yet we’re hearing figures read out – nominal figures which take no account of inflation or interest payments or benefits – while spending is in fact being cut”.
The proximate issue was the probation service but Davis and I suspect every journalist has seen through the lie and it is rebounding on you.

No it didn’t. Thatcher’s policies in the short term made things worst (as my last comment partly shows), and in the long term, the financial deregulation stuck around till the present day, contributing massively to the current crisis.

“All that’s happened now is the pain is spread out over a longer period. Rather than a deep, cleansing recession we’ve had a nu labout “recession lite” which will of course be followed by 2-3 decades of stagnation.”

This is patently absurd. Economic stagnation is actually what you get WITHOUT government intervention. In fact, since this was a massive failing in the financial sector along with the recession, a depression would’ve resulted, rather than the recession we see now. And government intervention is there to SHORTEN the recession, not “the pain is spread out over a longer period”.

Certainly not that one. Anyone who believes that is economically iliterate.

Here’s a good place to start:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2006/speech269.pdf

Also, quoting the Telegraph article:

“The 364 were wrong because they believed the Keynesian consensus of the time. Indeed, they taught it to nearly every undergraduate in the country. The textbooks used by nearly all British undergraduates did not pay any attention whatsoever to alternatives. It was as if economic theory began and ended with the naïve Keynesianism of Keynes’s immediate followers.”

The same Keynesian consensus which exists to this day. Calling Keynesianism “naive” is like calling General Relativity “naive”. Criticizing undergraduate textbooks for not talking about alternatives would be like criticizing biology textbooks for not mentioning Genesis. Fuck “teach the controversy”. There is no controversy, except in the minds of conservative journalists and politicians.

It’s in the effing budget.

Anyway no-one believes a word Balls says – do they??

The Tories have all but set in stone their comitment to 10%, whereas Balls, I repeat, stated that the moves on spending, to outdo Tory plans on 10% spending cuts “will depend upon what happens to the economy and to unemployment and debt interest.”

Even Nigel Hawkes in The Times yesterday called it “a lie shouted loud enough will drown out the truth.” But there is nothing fictitous about what Balls is saying. In fact the “lie shouted loud” is the one that is saying Balls’ has not been cautious in his comitment to spending.

Thing is – people know he’s lying

The Tories desire tax and spending cuts, so no I don’t think I am saying what they are. Not all in fact, since I share Balls’ direction – cautious conditions for avoiding 10% cuts. And I do believe he is being honest about it.

I have my own reservations about George Osbourne’s appeal to ‘truth’ about cuts. I rather think it is as basic as tax cuts for the rich.

Thatcher did it and it seemed to work ?

All that’s happened now is the pain is spread out over a longer period. Rather than a deep, cleansing recession we’ve had a nu labout “recession lite” which will of course be followed by 2-3 decades of stagnation.

IF the banks are privatised and IF the assets that are backing them are actually worth anything – both of which are unknowns. Back on planet earth, whether it’s on the balance sheet is pretty much irrelevant, an accounting technicality (See PFI financing), the cash still has to flow to service that debt and has to come from somewhere.

So with “tough choices” elsewhere – ie cuts – we can protect health and education.

Hello?

Isn’t that what the Tories are saying – only they are saying it more honestly?

And on the growth forecasts – yes, the Treasury (it isn’t Darling’s or Brown’s personal forecast you know) has done a reasonable job on growth forecasting.
But they are not “in charge” of the economy.
They are in charge of the public finances – and they have consistently over-forecast tax receipts, which is the number that matters!

Have you read the redbook Carl — look at the treaury estimates please.

Also do you have any idea how much money we are borrowing every day?

Well, at least we get to have that theory tested, I suppose, and we’ll find out which view of economic history was really correct: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3623669/How-364-economists-got-it-totally-wrong.html

You cannot bail out the financial system to the tune of £XXX billion and just carry on as normal (unless you want to bankrupt the country).

No, that’s the opposite of the situation.

The “asset-backed debt of state-owned banks” component of the national debt should be ignored when we’re looking at how much we’ll have to raise taxes in future, because it’ll come off the public balance sheet when the banks are privatised and lose their state guarantee. It’s relevant if you’re doing technical things with government bonds, but only then.

The actual problem is, state spending plans assumed 3% GDP growth forever, whereaas it actually fell below trend rates in 2008 and to strongly negative levels in 2009. Because slashing state spending in the heights of a depression would be a gibberingly insane thing to do, the government has stuck to those plans and indeed has brought some capital projects forward.

It’s *that* debt – state spending that was intended to be funded by taxes that were never actually incurred – which is driving the current deficit, and which we’ll have to pay down over the next 5-10 years. The financial crisis caused the recession in the first place of course, but it doesn’t have a significant impact on government debt.

Whether or not cuts will affect “front line services” is a moot point, but it’s hard to see how sustained cuts of 10%+ can be implemented without affecting some services, although Iit might just trim some of the fat that nu labout have put on the public sector in the last 10 years.

Most quangos could be scrapped and no one would notice, the Government is currently the country’s biggest spender on advertising, the CSA costs £8 for every £1 it collects, the Tax credit system is woefully inefficinet. These are the places that the tories will hopefully start wielding the axe.

The problem nulabour have is that it simply isn’t in their DNA to reduce the size or scope of government. They have expanded the state to the point where it is central to practically all aspects of life in the UK, there is no problem which cannot be solved by legislation, regulation, targets, leaflets and all the apparatus of a stalinist bureacracy. This is why a change of govt is essential if the country is ever to recover a healthy economy.

And back we come to a cautious Ed Balls, who stated that Health and education spending “will depend upon what happens to the economy and to unemployment and debt interest. But I think that with tough choices we can see real rises in the schools budget and the NHS budget in future years.”

Those “tough choices”, what of they? Well I can think of two off the top of my head; Trident, ID cards. Lets say that we couldn’t afford those two things and the saving of jobs, it seems rather clear which option we should like to keep.

My main thesis in the article above is to ask whether Darling and Byrne are selling us the real ticket, and, further, why is Darling removed from Balls’ sentiments.

The number of people in public sector employment was 6.02 million in March 2009, up 15,000 from December 2008. The number of people in private sector employment was 23.09 million, down 286,000 from December 2008 (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, first release June 2009).

In the three months to April average earnings, including bonuses grew by 0.3% in the private sector, compared to a rise of 3.6% in the public sector (ONS, Labour Market Statistics, first release June 2009).

And so the public sector pension timebomb grows even larger, never mind the structural deficit (@3) which everyone – except Brown and Balls of course – knows must be tackled.

http://petespolitics.wordpress.com

The UK may “recover” – ie stop shrinking – sooner than Europe, thanks to the fact (as Krugman pointed out) that the UK has full interest rate and exchange rate flexibility, but to stop unemployment rising demand must grow north of 2.5%, that is a different matter.

Cuts in the public sector is where the Tories are at their most vulnerable

No – it’s Labour’s lies about where spending is headed which are helping them.

*No-one* believes that public spending (ex interest and benefits) will do (can do) anything but fall. The only question is – where exactly?

Every economist, commentator and just about every voter understands that.

Brown’s and Balls’s lies are hurting not helping you.

Now you might just be able to make a case that Labour is the better party to manage that process.
But to pretend that Tories = cuts and Labour = growth will only hurt not help you.