No, the deficit is not caused by the meltdown.

The deficit is caused by Gordon’s dangerously irresponsible tendency to borrow excessively when the economy was healthy.

As a leftie, I know it’s temptingly easy to kneejerk blame GREEDY BANKERS, but in this case it’s something as simple as GORDON’S FISCAL INCOMPETENCE.

The problem with Keynesian economics is that it requires you to understand two things about the economy, and unfortunately Gordon only ever grasped one thing.

Calling the EU neo-liberal is really stretching it rather a bit.

But the basic thought, that we’ve got a rigid form of governance covering a continent when of course we need a much more flexible system stands.

Which is of course why we should leave and why you should vote UKIP. QED.

It would be very surprising if there were no deficit.

The relative size of the deficit is, however, down to Brown.

When was there last a surplus?

@cjcjc:

There’s a pretty graph here:

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

Looks like we were in surplus 89-91 and 98-2002.

@Martin:

“98-2002″

You mean when Gordon Brown stuck to the spending plans outlined by the Conservatives, which beared at least some relation to how much we could afford as a country?

@4 Martin – thanks

Though I wouldn’t call it “pretty” !!

Hurrah! Left-wing euroscepticism!

I thought that had all but died out in the UK – after all, if you believe the right-wing eurosceptics, the EU is little better than communist (the lovely EUSSR meme).

“The European Union is wholly based on the entrenchment of neoliberal norms” – I genuinely love that phrase. I’ve bookmarked this to point right-wing eurosceptics to whenever they decide to claim that the EU is a vast left-wing conspiracy.

(It should perhaps also be noted that the 3% figure is pretty much a guideline – it’s certianly not a strict requirement – and that any warnings are effectively automatically generated. Plenty of EU member states have broken this “rule” – often for years at a time – and rarely have they got into any trouble over it. For more on the current Commission approaches to the deficit situation, there’s a handy short overview here: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1428)

Nosemonkey – it depends which aspects of it one concentrates on. If you’re a right-winger you’ll look at the social chapter and think “left-wing”. If you’re a left-winger you’ll write the above article.

Richard – indeed. Which is part of the reason why, sitting in the centre as I am, I reckon it’s probably got things pretty much right.

I do wish there were more vocal left-wing eurosceptics in the UK, though. The right-wingers have got a monopoly on slagging off the EU these days – we need more balance! (And not just because the very existence of left-wing anti-EU arguments may help to tone down the prominence of right-wing ones…)

3. cjcjc

‘ It would be very surprising if there were no deficit.

The relative size of the deficit is, however, down to Brown.

When was there last a surplus? ‘

The relative size of the deficit is the counterpart to saving in the private sector. When the private sector i.e. households and firms stop borrowing and start saving then a fiscal deficit is forced on the government. Why this should be so difficult for people to understand is puzzling. The only way this could not be the case is for the nation to have an external surplus. The alternative would be to have a full scale depression but even then there would still be a deficit. The problem is there is not enough growth in the economy.

The illogical heart of the European Union

As much as the discipline of the Stability and Growth Pact is inappropriate the real problem is the euro. The members of the monetary union are trapped in a modern gold standard of fixed exchange rates. Just as the historical gold standard crushed labour and nations so will this one. Who knows for certain how things will play out. However, one thing is for certain the euro and the EU will not survive in its present form over the next decade.

‘ You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.’

That is what the euro is doing to the periphery of Europe. Although reading Schaeuble’s neo-calvanist rant in the FT last week it would be too much to say Germany are looking for an exit. However, it is possible to interpret his comments as at least creating an option for a German exit. ‘ If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. ‘ The current Europe cannot go on and I suspect a lot of turmoil and social unrest is on its way.

“The only way this could not be the case is for the nation to have an external surplus. ”

And the problem with this is? Several countries, you might note, do have such?

- close coordination of Member States’ economic policies
- the internal market
- the definition of common objectives,
- the principle of an open market economy
- free competition

Can someone please point out what is “neo-liberal” about it. If a word is used to make people emote rather than understand, I think it best that it not be used at all. But if it must be, then I would like a pointer as to what it means in this context. What is special about this list that has not happened in each of the EU member states since the beginning?

This piece of stupidity demonstrates why I will never vote labour again. The idea that not running a huge budget deficit makes racist riots OK is one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen, that out of a party which has made a speciality of the most vile xenophobia.

Re: 13

Er, but Labour is running a huge budget deficit, not claiming that racist riots are okay.

Did you leave a word out somewhere? Your post seems to be missing some context.

Gwyn, my post is about the article above, the one in which a labour politician suggest that “explosions of racial hatred” will result if governments do not run a large deficit. He appears, as does his party, to suggest that violent racism is a natural and excusable state of mind.

Tim @2: First time we’ve ever agreed on anything then…even though only partially.

@15 That’s a ridiculous interpretation. There is decet evidence that where people are both put under major financial/social pressure, and where rightwing/racist parties exist to exploit these pressures, then it can end up with people taking it out on each other rather than agitating against those who really created those financial/social pressures. This is exemplified in the UK by the rise of the BNP, and in Spain, for example, where rightwing parties are deliberately trying to foment anti-immigrant feeling where there has traditionally been great tolerance.

Combatting this rise of worker-against-worker reaction is a central challenge for socialism. Part of that combatting, I am suggesting lies in the Left acknowledging that the technocratic economic management within the EU needs to be challenged.

To suggest that I am saying violent racism is “natural and excusable” is about the bizarrest and wrongest (not to mention pretty offensive) comment I’ve ever seen on LibCon, and I’ve seen a few bizarre and wrong ones.

Re: 15

No idea what planet you’ve been living on, but racism happens worldwide and appears to be an evolutionary trait, and hence pretty fucking natural.

It’s in fact so natural that we know exactly what kind of conditions cause racist thought to take root in a community, so that we may strive to prevent them from being widespread.

But of course, I’m sure you think it’s more productive to just lock everyone up who votes BNP. Which is why you’re nobody, and Mr. Cotterill’s a Councillor.