Britain is running a budget deficit amounting to 11% of GDP. This is not a situation which can be blamed entirely on Gordon Brown but such a deficit cannot continue indefinitely and some public spending cuts are inevitable – sooner or later.

The relevant issues are the timing and scale of spending cuts and how much of the deficit is paid down through tax increases – such as the increase in VAT next year. The Labour Party will lose credibility if it comes across as opposing all public spending cuts regardless. For staters, the replacement of Trident and the costly Eurofighter are essentially cold war weapons systems and back in 2006, Tony Blair as PM was saying that about a million of the 2.4 millions on Incapacity Benefit really should be in work.

What we now have is a government that is going to pay off this huge debt very quickly even though it is considerably smaller than the debt that the country survived on for the previous century and particularly after the Second World War

Do any Labour MPs know anything about the history of their own party? The Atlee Government inherited a budget deficit larger than that inherited by the Coalition – and were sufficiently scared by it to run budget surpluses throughout their first term in office. The Coalition is proposing to reduce the deficit over the course of five years to the point where the country will be approaching a balanced budget.

As a bonus point for economic illiteracy, the “huge debt” will be increasing throughout the Coalition’s first term, with any reductions not happening on even the most optimistic forecasts until after the full five years.

On a sidemark for political and psephological illiteracy, how about this?

I think they’ve created in that an incredible alliance against themselves in a way that Thatcher didn’t have an alliance against her until she’d been in office for 7 or 8 years – they’ve done it in 3 months.

In August 1979 (ie: at the exactly comparative stage) the Tories were running behind Labour in the opinion polls. By December 1980 the polls stood at Con 32, Lab 56. Some way to go.

More proof that a pig’s bladder on a stick can get elected MP.

“More proof that a pig’s bladder on a stick can get elected MP”

Yet no doubt you’ll still be arguing against changing the way MPs are elected

Yet no doubt you’ll still be arguing against changing the way MPs are elected

Oh, it’s far more fun complaining about the results than trying to change the process! (Although you win a gold star if you can explain to me how AV would have made any difference to Corbyn, who won 54% of the vote in Islington North.)

That’s Kate Hudson of the Communist Party of Britain, and wife of the late Redmond o’Neill of Socialist Action?

I think this proves how difficult it will be for Labour to become rehabilitated with the electorate. I suggest they take a break, re-assess their goals, and come back when they’ve realised where they went wrong and what they can do to make up for paving the way for the Tories.

“Although you win a gold star if you can explain to me how AV would have made any difference to Corbyn, who won 54% of the vote in Islington North.)”

On a 65% turnout. So room for a more motivated opposition that sees the opportunity provided by being able to pick up second and third preferences. Plus he has been elected on less than 50% of the vote in previous elections – his 50% + vote reflects his long standing personal vote and following.

The point is the amount of safe seats gets reduced from about 2/3 to 1/3, which is an improvement no?

““I don’t think he [Cameron] understands what the voluntary sector is about…it’s highly professional people, locally around here where our offices are for CND, working for publicly funded psychiatric services for people that have suffered domestic violence, violent crime, or asylum seekers who have suffered crimes of war in other parts of the world, they are highly professional people…What he’s proposing is simply daft.”

I’m not sure whether Corbyn understands either what the voluntary sector is about either. The professionalised and salaried end of it that he describes here, whose main raison d’etre is to campaign on national issues, or win and deliver government contracts, are only a noisy, visible tip of a far more complex iceberg. I’m not surprised that an MP would have a fairly limited view of the sector – these are the organisations who have the scope and the salaried communications teams to make contact with MPs, after all. The problem with the professional service delivery charities he describes is that they take oxygen away from the much more diffuse grassroots community efforts, which may not have the salaried staff or expertise to do well at funding bid time (or at things like currying favour with their local MP). This is an acknowledged tension within the sector – the tall trees crowd out the grassroots.

I had the impression, from the rhetoric at least, that this is what the big society schtick is really about – encouraging the small, grassroots community efforts. The reality may be very different of course – he’s right to be dubious about volunteer police (although that began under Labour didn’t it? Special Constables?) and I’m dubious about how one targets money at the minnows without just attracting the communications/bid-writing skills of the big fish. But I don’t think Corbyn has diagnosed the right problem. He seems to be fretting that the entire voluntary sector will stop looking like the public sector. At the professionalised end, I can’t see any reason why this would be the case – if they deliver services well, I’m sure the government will continue to contract to them insofar as their own departmental cuts allow. At the unprofessionalised end, we actually don’t want them to look alike. The entire voluntary sector is not, and shouldn’t be, a co-opted professionalised extension of the public sector.

Bob B: “Britain is running a budget deficit amounting to 11% of GDP. This is not a situation which can be blamed entirely on Gordon Brown”

Indeed it can’t be blamed entirely on Gordon Brown: it can mostly be blamed on unregulated casino capitalism forcing a vast bailout to save the population’s bank accounts – i.e. primarily the actions of very wealthy financial sector employees.

Bob B: “but such a deficit cannot continue indefinitely and some public spending cuts are inevitable – sooner or later.”

Large cuts are ‘inevitable’ only because the alternative that would seem fairer to most – increasing taxes on the financial sector, on high earners, and cracking down on the use of tax havens – is declared completely off the table from the start because of the political clout of the people it would inconvenience.

Even within the public sector, the core causes of wastage and ludicrous bureaucracy – the byzantine management structures and highly profitable PFIs and PPPs run by highly paid consultants and lawyers – seem likely to remain protected while essential services to the disabled are cut, and the unemployed find themselves unable to afford a roof over their heads.

But I can’t argue with the fact the Labour Party have lost credibility on opposing many of the cuts. They publicly embraced the right wing idea of benefit claimants being basically all lazy scroungers who won’t work years ago; now they are left without a consistent argument when it comes to defending the existence of a social safety net.

Indeed it can’t be blamed entirely on Gordon Brown: it can mostly be blamed on unregulated casino capitalism.

Everyone who says this should be forced to read and memorise FSMA2000, The Companies Act 2006, FS Regulations, Basel II, etc etc etc. Corporate Britain in general, and the financial sector in particular is massively, massively regulated.

Alix,

he’s right to be dubious about volunteer police (although that began under Labour didn’t it? Special Constables?)

No, far older than that.

“In fact, the origins of the Specials date back several hundred years to Anglo Saxon times, when the people policed themselves.”

Oh come on! What ahistorical bullshit is this?

Otherwise interesting. From the description, the 1673 Act does seem to be a reasonable starting point.

Alix, the Anglo-Saxon bit is a stretch isn’t it?

As someone who does 2 jobs in the the voluntary sector and volunteers in my spare time I definitely agree with you about the tensions and strengths of charity-type working at the moment.

Disagree about volunteer ‘beat-level’ policing though. I don’t really want highly trained professional police spending time on the beat when they could be doing fancy high level policing stuff that makes our streets much safer. I think ‘bobbies on the beat’ stuff being done by well trained and supported members of the community not on a salary is pretty good value for money.

Tim J

I feel I probably should ask – as you raised history and I’ve started pointing out historical flaws in people’s assertions recently.

You do understand somewhat why Atlee’s inherited defecit was somewhat different to the tories’ inherited defecit don’t you? I mean you do understand the rather different nature of the debts run up in a war time that had come to and end and that were largely to specific creditors – when compared to the defecit of today?

I feel I should ask as post #2 suggests they are somewhat comparable.

Not that I’m defending Corbyn at all. Most of his assertions are weak.

You do understand somewhat why Atlee’s inherited defecit was somewhat different to the tories’ inherited defecit don’t you? I mean you do understand the rather different nature of the debts run up in a war time that had come to and end and that were largely to specific creditors – when compared to the defecit of today?

The point stands. Faced with a shatteringly large debt, and a continuingly large deficit, the Atlee Govt moved heaven and earth to reduce the debt – retaining and extending rationing, devaluing, extending bi-lateral dollar loans, selling assets, increasing taxation, and cutting discretionary spending. You can argue whether this was the correct thing to do (although you’d have to use 20/20 hindsight), you can argue whether it was done in the correct way. What you can’t argue is that it wasn’t done. Look at what Corbyn says:

What we now have is a government that is going to pay off this huge debt very quickly even though it is considerably smaller than the debt that the country survived on for the previous century and particularly after the Second World War

Ignoring the fact that Corbyn doesn’t appear to understand the difference between debt and deficit (although that’s a doozy: it makes the whole of that previous sentence a flat out lie), the fact stands that in the post-war period the Govt responded to large debts by running budget surpluses to reduce them. The Coalition proposes to run reduced deficits, eventually balancing the budget (over a period of, what, six or seven years?). Corbyn is making precisely the opposite point to that which he intends. Corbyn is an idiot.