It’s likely to destroy conventional left win and right wing economics. Both have failed, and failed hard.

The entire political class has failed, left and right.

The two great post-war economic doctrines, Keynesianism and Monetarism, have failed.

Maybe even Democracy has failed.

So, where does it leave us? I dunno, but nowhere good.

It’s likely to destroy conventional left win and right wing economics. Both have failed, and failed hard.

The entire political “elite” has failed us, left and right.

The two great post-war economic doctrines, Keynesianism and Monetarism, have failed.

Maybe even itself Democracy has failed.

So, where does it leave us? I dunno, but nowhere good.

Join #Occupy near you to explore ways out of this mess.

“I doesn’t need repeating that bloggers at Liberal Conspiracy have been saying for years that massive cuts to public spending during the deepest recession in 80 years was a manifestly idiotic idea.”

Yet all the evidence from the OBR is that it was entirely inflation that has caused the UK economy to miss the OBR’s forecasts.

Higher commodity prices (most importantly oil up 40% in the midst of a global slowdown) contributed to a loss of economic growth of 1.5%.

Nothing to do with austerity or “massive cuts”. And (as it is always pointed out) there may well be massive cuts in some departments’ spending but OVERALL government spending hasn’t been cut.

You may well have predicted an economic slowdown but your reasoning was wrong.

@ 2

“The entire political “elite” has failed us, left and right.”

What would you replace the political “elite” with, out of interest, and how?

“Higher commodity prices (most importantly oil up 40% in the midst of a global slowdown)”

Not just oil as well.

Its looking to me as if we’re actually in the first environmental crisis of the 21st century – just we can’t see it. Our economy is only going to recover once we have substitutes, new technologies, and different ways of working.

Neo-liberal economics, of the right and “left”, has failed for the last 30 years – you only need to look at the stagnation of median incomes over that period, and it’s worse in the US.

Another wonderful fact-free piece.
What would you do about the debt Sunny?
We each owe over £21K. Where’s that going to come from?

ps Don’t tell me that Conservatives want stagnation, what tosh!

Raise your economic potential through investment: in machines, research and better skilled people; re-orientate to different export markets; and disincentivise the importation of low-skilled operations. I.e. become a high-skill, high productivity economy oriented to the world, not Europe.

If you reverse the last three words, this is pretty much the Wilson manifesto for 1964.

Yep, capitalism is failing and we have had both right and left attempting to make it work. Where do we go from here?

@8 – Nope, stagnation’s too good, you need a falling economy for your dreams of properly punishing the poor! Gotta punish them more for existing!

@4 – Caused by QE which was necessary because of the Austerity…

@Leon Wolfson:

“@4 – Caused by QE which was necessary because of the Austerity…”

Nice try but untrue.

The fall in sterling (from $2 to $1.4) took place at the end of 2008. Since then sterling has largely been flat. Sterling’s fall has nothing to do with austerity at all. In fact since OSborne became Chancellor sterling has actually strengthened (from $1.45 in June 2010 to over $1.60 for most of 2011)

The OBR was fully aware of the level of sterling and the VAT rise when they made their forecasts so neither of those explain why inflation was higher than they anticipated.

The surprise was that, in a slowing global economy, oil should rise 40%.

And gas prices and soft commodities as well.

The surprise was that, in a slowing global economy, oil should rise 40%.

Libya, Syria and Iran, I’d have thought, rather than predominantly economic reasons.

We need a plan – and not the trite plan A/ A+ or even B type, but a bold route map as to where we want the economy to be.

Do we want to (continue) the race to the bottom, where we strip away, pay and conditions and allow unfetted access to our employment markets to allow employers to import cheaper pre-trained workers?

Or do we take a deep breathe and work out how we get to a highly trained work force, dare I say emulate the Germans(!)

We need a mix of sectors, high end manufacturing, a strong financial and export orientated service sector.

We also need a way of providing employment for those who don’t have the necessary skills – and there will be people unsuited for this type of economy, we cannot continue to exist with between 2 and 5 million excluded workers. It is corrosive both economically and socially.

Above all we need to invest, we need to invest in plant and businesses, but we need to invest in the workforce. Employers need to be partners in training, workers need to be partners in the businesses they work in. We should get back to a situation where self improvement and training are seen as an activity workers want to engage with.

We need to protect our workers as an asset, not something to be discarded when times get bad, this recession has shown workers are willing to be flexible, business and the state should have met them half way, with schemes to keep workers in employment to retain their skills.

We can’t go back to a post war planned economy – although its inefficiencies are beginning to look like a picnic, compared with the world the Neo Liberals have delivered. But neither will the tear it down and hope a new stronger economy takes its place approach we are being sold now and had in the 1980s, the fact is the 1980s experiment is hitting the buffers and the fall out is worse than anything we have experienced before.

The central challenge – how do we rescue the economy and bring about sustainable growth – in many ways puts us in new territory.

But it also makes that most traditional of left causes more relevant than ever: equality. From the Spirit Level, through to the “squeezed middle” (or Resolution’s more accurate “squeezed low-to-middle”), to the “99%” and the work of the High Pay Commission, there have been increasing political stirrings.

Now with a long period of stagnation expected, any remaining arguments for “trickle down” economics go out the window, while a shift of wealth from rich to poor is essential to boost demand, stop ever more sliding into poverty, and to reduce reliance on household debt (even the IMF recognises the role that inequality played in the private debt explosion).

The challenge for the left is turn support for equality from an abstract idea to real policies (that are about more than tax redistribution) – as well as spelling out why weaker employment rights are a sure way to make inequality worse.

“Libya, Syria and Iran, I’d have thought, rather than predominantly economic reasons”

Nothing to do with a combination of increasing scarcity and increasing demand for China and India then?

Redfish – agree. We need a route map to where we want the economy to be in 2025, and need to understand that it’s impossible to go back to 2005 with an economy dominated by the city.

@12 – “The OBR was fully aware of the level of sterling and the VAT rise when they made their forecasts so neither of those explain why inflation was higher than they anticipated.”

And? The government told them what to predict, and they did.

I don’t call them the Office of Budgetary Fiddling for nothing!

Sunny,

The ‘idiot’ chancellor has only been in power since 2010. He has a bankrupt country, collapsing export market and bloated state to contend with.

According to you he should have turned round a mess that has been in the making for 13 years in less than 2.

The only idiot here is YOU. YOU and YOURS got us into this mess and were you still in power we’d be bankrupt in a year.

Stuart @8:

We each owe over £21K. Where’s that going to come from?

Perhaps a better starting question is: who do we owe it to?

http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docname=publications/quarterly/jul-sep11.pdf&page=Quarterly_Review (bottom left, page 1)

Mostly to ourselves.

@Leon Wolfson:

“And? The government told them what to predict, and they did.”

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

The VAT rise was in the public domain and so was factored into the OBR forecasts.

“Perhaps a better starting question is: who do we owe it to?

Mostly to ourselves.”

Always thought this was an odd approach to take by those who favour greater borrowing.

Taxing hard working school teachers and nurses so as to fund Sir Fred Goodwin’s £500k pa pension doesn’t seem very, you know, fair.

@20 – Er? No, you’re being deliberately obtuse. The OBR were ordered to, and produced, a forecast showing certain things. End of story.

May I suggest that the problem here is inherent in Capitalism.
No matter how you stack the deck chairs all institutions be they state, political parties or unions are all inherently conservative and have lived off a system which has increased inequality, reduced competition, created political instability and has wrecked the planet.

Leon Wolfson.

“Er? No, you’re being deliberately obtuse. The OBR were ordered to, and produced, a forecast showing certain things. End of story.”

The OBR makes independent forecasts.

They are informed what tax/spending changes the government is to announce.

Thus “inflation is higher than we expected because of the VAT rise” isn’t correct. The VAT rise would have been included in the OBR’s forecasts.

@24 – Look, if you want to believe in myths, that’s great, but don’t pretend I have to believe them.

Moreover, YOU are the person talking about the VAT rise…

The very brave BoE

don’t attack the wrong target.

this is hyperbole – imho, considerably less than “re-orientating the entire British economy” is required – and the old rule book still has lots of wisdom in it. But some big changes, sure. It would be nice to start thinking in concrete terms what they would be, instead of claims like “we need a financial sector that benefits the real economy” which has all the insight of “we need more good things and fewer bad things”.

“Mostly to ourselves”

We have the highest external debt/GDP and external debt per capita figures of any developed economy. By a large margin.

I wouldn’t get too comfortable with the current structure of gilt holdings, particularly given the shape of the graph next to the table you cite.

Man on Clapham Omnibus:. You suggest that the problem here is inherent in Capitalism. Can you show me any other system that has worked any better? Not some imaginary one but something that has actually functioned somewhere for any length of time. After all, we have had over 4,000 years of civilisation to figure one out. Capitalism is like democracy; the worst system, apart from all the others.

“Mostly to ourselves.”

We’ve the highest external debt/GDP and external debt per capita numbers of any developed economy. By a big margin.

Unwise to get too complacent about the current structure of gilt holdings anyway, take a look at the shape of the graph next to the table you cite

Oops, thought #27 was lost in the aether.

First off, there needs to be continual finger pointing and declarations of ‘We told you so!’ by the left, because we’ve earned it. And because the right in this country, and around the world, has caused the sort of massive devastation normally associated with attacks by Godzilla. The warming glow of having been correct all along might just help stave off hypothermia for many families this winter.

Longer term we just have to try to stay alive to make sure Labour gets elected next time out so they can fix this mess. How they’ll fix it, I don’t know, but as anybody should know by now, the highest priority in an economic crisis is get the Tories as far away from government as possible.

@28

The usual refrain. To say the current circumstance is a result of capitlalism does not have to imply comparatives. Why should it? If by your comment you are expecting me to suggest communism as an alternative then please be disappointed. Because thats not what I am saying. It is quite clear however that a system that allows for the continual accumulation of wealth is ultimately self destructive.

A lot will depend on how long the lie dems want to continue this nonsense. They have chained themselves to a death star for 5 years. The tories and Clegg just extended it to 7 years. And make no mistake, Osborne only solution is austerity. When austerity fails, he will order more austerity. Austerity for the poor and corporate welfare for the rich is what the global elites have demanded, and Osborne answers only to his elite masters.

@Monglor

“the right in this country, and around the world, has caused the sort of massive devastation normally associated with attacks by Godzilla”

Who precided over this disaster:

UK – Labour, ‘light touch regulation’ trumpeted by Brown. Bail oust with no caps on bonuses or salaries.
Greece – Socialists
Portugal – Socialists
Spain – Socialists
USA – Democrats create Fannie May & Freddie Mac

You ‘told us so’. No, you precided over this monumental balls up and you DIDN’T tell us so.

@34 – Really? Nope, the right set the banking regs. And all of whom were pre-occupied fixing the damage the right had done (which is a multi-generational task)

Thanks for trying to argue the democrats are leftists, though, I needed a laugh.

@28 – The free market. Without capitalism.

Nope, the right set the banking regs.

An interesting, albeit unorthodox, classification of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls.

Quite right Labour needs to think big and they need get behind a Land Value Tax.

No avoidance or evasion. Less bureaucracy, and a stronger economy rather than taxing my labour the tax will be on land use and the benefits the landowners get from the nearby environmental, social and economy. Breakdown the landowning/bankster stitch up and breakup land-banks.

http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/

@35 Leon

What exactly did they do to fix the banking regs? Are you really telling me these can’t be fixed in 13 years?

Is it a ‘multi-generational task’ to legislate against liars loans for example?

Weak.

“It would be nice to start thinking in concrete terms what they would be”

I think the first stage is actually establishing what we are trying to do, the policies to get us there then follow. So for example, I’d like the economy not to be orientated around the financial sector and with decisions concentrated in London and the South east. So policies that follow from that are far greater powers (if not outright independance) to Scotland, Wales, and the creation of devolved institutions within England including fiscal and economic development powers.

If we start talking about specifics like land value tax, FTT, greater spending or whatever without that vision then it will just be incoherant and policies will be easily open to attack. Virtually every policy proposed by any side has trade offs and therefore some negative effects, and only a coherant vision means you are able to then consider how to mitigate the negative effects.

Couple of examples; a minimum wage may cost some jobs at the unskilled part of the labour market, but if you also support generous provision of adult education and retraining of people then this negative effect is not important. On the other side of the spectrum, removal of the child care component of tax credits increases the dis-incentive to work for parents, but it becomes mitigated if you lower the overall taper-rate for benefits.

@34 So Harry, given you clearly feel that the ‘socialists’ have wrecked virtually
all the european economies you must applaud current conservative thinking.
My view is that at the end of all this, the only agency left to dig us out the hole will be the state. Maybe you can put forward the conservative view.

@ 34

I like how you had to change the rules halfway through to get the US on that list. It’s funny.

@39 Planeshift

The first thing to do is to reorient the economy toward design and technological inovation. I would pay science teachers a ton of money to inculcate proper skills
and similarly make it free to attend technological science subjects at uni. I’d also raise science research funding. How do we pay for it all? Best way is undoubtedley through a Banking levy. Not only would that be rightly distributive but also in the longer term transfer resource from unproductive banking indrustry of the economy to those more productive.

32: Man on Clapham Omnibus. At least Communism was an alternative (a failed one). You don’t have any alternative. That’s the Left’s problem, there is no big idea to solve all your different and contradictory gripes. Just carry on carping.

43 Neither does the right. Turbo charged capitalism, which the right supports lead in the 19th century to socialism.

And please spare us lectures on contradictive gripes. I mean look at the right with free markets qnd national sovereignty. Or how about how long hours fuck up family life. But then those on the right think that morals, taxes, laws are only for the little people.

@42, I’d agree. The only thing I’d add is that we need a policy of targeting high pay in the banking sector – there are too many physicists, chemists, generally high achieving young people etc attracted to work in finance by the vastly higher pay on offer that sciences are never going to be able to match.

It cannot be remotely efficient for any economy to have its most talented young people designing trading strategies for hedge funds instead of advancing human knowledge in the sciences.

@43 Meh, any alternative posed would only be torn to pieces anyway, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. Anyone familiar with mid-late 20th century history will know/remember just what depths were sunk to, by the so called democratic west, in order to ensure communism’s abject failure.
Depths which have spent the past decade or so returning to bite us on the arse.

The sad thing is that all this has already happened in South America, but nobody paid any attention to that. Unless there is a revolutionary increase in interest in history, it’ll probably happen again somewhere, sooner or later.

I am amazed by some of the views expressed here. It’s as if the left never held the reigns for 13 years.

The left like to appear cuddly but they spend a fortune creating a client state and bribing people with borrowed money. Then they invade Iraq, trample all over civil liberties and steal pensions. Then they bail out failed institutions with no caps on bonusues.

The caring, sharing left.

@48 New Labour held the reins for 13 years. The left only got the barest nod from New Labour during that period, and it currently appears that Newer Labour is still following this ‘winning’ formula.

@ 48 Harry

“The left like to appear cuddly but they spend a fortune creating a client state and bribing people with borrowed money. Then they invade Iraq, trample all over civil liberties and steal pensions. Then they bail out failed institutions with no caps on bonusues.

The caring, sharing left.”

Regarding Iraq, liberties, pensions and bail outs (i.e. four of your five examples), these are all actions caused by the goverment being too rightwing – i.e. hawkish, authoritarian, anti-socialist, pro-big-money. They’re good criticism of New Labour, but hardly a stick with which to beat “the left” – if we’d had a genuinely left-wing government in power from 1997 to 2010, fewer of those things would have happened. Presumably, then, you’re in favour of more left-wing governments than we’ve had in recent memory?

“. It’s as if the left never held the reigns for 13 years. ”

Sunny, is there any chance we can get some software or something whereby new commenters have to demonstrate some basic knoweldge of political theory about what opinions are generally held to be on the ‘left’ and on the ‘right’ before posting? and thus we don’t have to constantly explain why new labour was not a left wing party?

It’s like going on conservative home and saying the problem with Thatcher was she nationalised industries and had a threesome with Arthur Scargill and Castro. But less funny.

@50

What bilge.

War – Socialists (like National ones) love a good war. Communists even more so.
Liberties – East Germany was a great example of the hawkish right then?
Pensions – What’s right wing about taxing savings? Zero.
Bail Outs – State supported industries are as left wing as its comes

If we’d has a genuinely left wing government we’d be Greece.

I love the way you guys cheer endlessly for Labour and then disown them as not truly left wing. Flip-flop.

It’s like going on conservative home and saying the problem with Thatcher was she nationalised industries and had a threesome with Arthur Scargill and Castro. But less funny.

It’s not, it’s just about perspective. You all think that Blair and Brown were right-wingers, and that therefore everything you disliked about the 97-10 Govt can be written off as right wing. It’s the same as people on ConHome thinking that the Tory leadership are basically left-wingers and everything they don’t like about the current Government can be written off as left wing.

Ultimately, people can’t entirely be blamed for following the Herbert Morrison definition of socialism.

Very interesting OP. What are the odds on us living in a post-default economy, with our European friends too, and with all of the big banks nationalised, in five year’s time? Get down the bookies, there could be some money on a £10 bet.

I’m not convinced that the Left actually need a book of ideology to refer to. Helping more people live better lives and trying to bring about a more level society in which prosperity is shared more equitably should be a strong enough basis. A green New Deal is vital and we could be at the forefront if we allowed ourselves to dare. Could a major party be so brave?

@52

Are you 12 or just an imbecile? Nazis? Left-wing? Bail-outs? Those banks are just so socialist …

@55

Oh please. Steel mills, car plants & shipyards aren’t socialist either. Public ownership and bail outs are.

Sunny, I don’t see this as a left/right issue. Yes, “expansionary fiscal contraction”, espoused by many on the right, has failed, but anyone who thinks that left-wing “big state” ideas – high government spending funded by high taxation and high borrowing – will work this time is living in fantasy land. If you consider both public and private debt, Britain is the most indebted nation in the Western world. Private debt is crippling demand, public debt is crippling investment and both are crippling growth. Yes, government borrowing costs are the lowest they’ve ever been, but that doesn’t mean we can borrow lots more. As King said today, private investors are refusing to fund public deficits: even our current borrowing level puts us in dangerous territory, as Fitch pointed out yesterday. I’m sorry if people don’t “get” this, but private investors don’t have to lend to governments if they don’t want to, and private investors’ unwillingness to lend to highly-indebted Eurozone governments is the reason for the exorbitant interest rates many of those governments are now paying. Don’t kid yourselves that Britain wouldn’t go down the same route if it borrowed huge amounts to spend its way out of its problems.

For many years now we have failed to invest adequately in education, training, R&D and infrastructure, so we are simply unprepared for this moment. We are facing a major shift in economic power from West to East, and we simply don’t have the highly-skilled, highly productive workforce that Mason identifies as necessary for an ageing and declining nation to compete effectively with the likes of China. But the government is boxed into a corner, admittedly partly of its own making: the legacy of private and public debt makes it impossible now for us to invest on anything like the scale that we need to. The horror we are facing is due to the policies not just of this government but of successive governments over the last twenty years or so.

52
Perhaps you can point out this ‘all’ who are cheering for Labour.

56
Yep, socialize the cost and privatize the profits.

It’s worth noting that the OBR are still predicting that private debt will *increase* next year in order to provide flat-line growth – a prediction that failed this year and no doubt will again. If that’s the case, then the economy really is in trouble, even without the eurozone problems. Hat tip to Duncan Weldon’s excellent blog.

@ 52 Harry

Sigh. By the standard of Britain in the 21st century – you know, here and now – supporting wars, objecting to civil liberties, reducing public pensions and helping out fat cats are popular with the group known as the “right”. Sticking labels like “right-wing” and “left-wing” on Nazis and Stalinists is pretty irrelevant given that they were both fascist governments. Our left- and right- debates share an assumed common ground that Hitler and Stalin never stood on.

Basically, if you call Stalin, New Labour and the commenters on here “left-wing”, you’re using the word to mean something very different each time. So therefore using observations about one to draw conclusions about another is, well, stupid.

From which industry, one badly affected by the Tory cuts (by almost £900 million), has Labour put forward as a candidate in the Heston and Feltham by-election? Management consultancy! I trust Labour supporters will wear their campaign fleeces proudly.

Tim J @ 53

It’s not, it’s just about perspective. You all think that Blair and Brown were right-wingers, and that therefore everything you disliked about the 97-10 Govt can be written off as right wing. It’s the same as people on ConHome thinking that the Tory leadership are basically left-wingers and everything they don’t like about the current Government can be written off as left wing.

Come on Tim that is not true. The War in Iraq was not some sort of Left Wing crusade. The Left of the Labour Party was against the war in Iraq from the first seconds it was mooted. You know that and I know that and any attempt from the Right to rewrite history is simply pathetic. Blair was hoping for lots of things from the War in Iraq, not least he was hoping that ‘when’ the weapons of mass destruction were found, Blair believed (rightly or wrongly) that he would have gained a ‘Falkland’s effect’ jump in popularity.

The Left of the spectrum where against the War from day one, but the Right (inside as well as outside the Labour Party) only became disillusioned with the War when it became clear that WMDs were not being found and crucially, public support for the War began to dwindle.

To be fair to the Left, many of the issues that people disagreed with New Labour was when they took classic Right Wing stances. Brown’s tenure started to sour when it became clear that his pre-prime-ministerial coronation bribe was backfiring. The ten pence tax fiasco was born as a direct result of Brown pandering to the Right with a cut in income tax (as opposed to say, council tax). Other bug bears being PFI, the continued privatisations of public services etc. The failure to firmly regulate the banks comes well within the type of thing the Right enjoy/demand. As does failure to sign up for the social contract of the EU and the failure to loosen Union restrictions.

Btw the fact that many of the things that Cameron is getting flak for tells you how far to the Right the Tory Party has moved.

Blair was hoping for lots of things from the War in Iraq, not least he was hoping that ‘when’ the weapons of mass destruction were found, Blair believed (rightly or wrongly) that he would have gained a ‘Falkland’s effect’ jump in popularity

I rather thought he was angling for John Major’s other old job as the chairman of Carlyle Europe.

@37 – And punishing the poor (who claim housing tax benefit, it WILL be passed on to tennants), reducing the housing stock (because frex. rooms above shops become prohibitively expensive to live in) …and 101 more objections which need to be solved before I’ll support a LVT rather than rent caps and a simple tax on unoccupied houses and empty brownfield sites.

Get the studies done solving these issues. (Seriously. Not seen good answers)

@57 – And when we get knocked down to the A-rating we deserve for low growth?
Your argument is we’re inevitably screwed. Great, where are you emigrating to then?

(I know where I’ll go if things get to the point of fighting on the street)

64 Leon,

We may well get knocked down for low growth. We would be absolutely certain to be knocked down for high borrowing and spending. As I said, the government is boxed into a corner.

I’m not planning to emigrate. Britain is my home.

@65 – At one time I’d have agreed with that statement. After the barrage of hate from the right against all immigrants lately (and I’m 3rd gen), I no longer do unconditionally. I’m not sticking around when things collapse.

@52. Harry High Pants

What bilge.

War – Socialists (like National ones) love a good war. Communists even more so.
Liberties – East Germany was a great example of the hawkish right then?
Pensions – What’s right wing about taxing savings? Zero.
Bail Outs – State supported industries are as left wing as its comes

If we’d has a genuinely left wing government we’d be Greece.

I love the way you guys cheer endlessly for Labour and then disown them as not truly left wing. Flip-flop.

*Sigh* this sort of sums up the levels of polical ignorance around when people think that just because the Nazi contaned the word “socialist”. They must be ‘left wing’. And then mention them in the same sentence as communists!
I seem to hear this sort of ignorant statement more commonly these days in a way that I didn’t say twenty years ago. I do think the levels of political education must have declined.

Chaise @ 50:

“Regarding Iraq, liberties, pensions and bail outs (i.e. four of your five examples), these are all actions caused by the goverment being too rightwing – i.e. hawkish, authoritarian, anti-socialist, pro-big-money.”

What definition of left-wing and right-wing are you using here?

“What definition of left-wing and right-wing are you using here?”

I thought it best to ask because usual definitions are a bit muddled, hence the BNP and Libertarian Party both being defined as “right-wing”, even though their policies are pretty much diametrically opposed. Even in your list of supposedly right-wing things the last government did, civil liberties erosions would be opposed by the libertarian wing of the Tory Party, which is usually considered quite far to the right. Bank bailouts would also be opposed by right-wing free marketeers, probably even more so than by left-wingers. (Government support for industry is usually considered quite a left-wing thing, so what is it about supporting the banking sector that makes it an inherently right-wing thing to do?)

@68/9 – You’re asking so you can twist the answer against anyone foolish enough to answer, of course.

67
IMO, it isn’t political ignorance in all cases it’s much more subtle than that, – 20 years ago when liberal/capitalism seemed to the ‘only game in town’, socialism/communism was a long bygone threat.
Things have changed and recent events have mobilized people to react against a thoroughly burnt-out system, and there is no place to run. The only reaction from it’s supporters is to point the finger at past regimes, that were frankly disgusting, and hope that that this deters by creating a fear of change.

Thing is you have to start with the assumption that there wouldn’t have been any growth this parliament under Labour either (their predictions would have been downgraded just as often). The future jobs fund, and all the other lab manifesto promises wouldn’t see us any better by and large. This is a systemic crisis encompassing all three parties, and much more besides.

There won’t be any growth, whatever govt policy, for a long time. There hasn’t been any for a long time (in terms of median household incomes, 2002-2016 was a write off). If you work from the assumption that there won’t be any significant growth, then you have to do two things – pay off private and public debt (not just close the deficit) because it won’t decline as a proportion of GDP over time, and hold out the promise of improvement in the living standards of as many people as possible. Not easy: you have to be radical – there’s the possibility of a negotiated default of the first world debt – like that which Geldoff et al pushed in the 3rd world, and the rest has to be paid down hard – by imposing emergency taxes on wealth (land property etc) see http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/content/view/44/45/ and on financial transactions. With zero growth, the only way you are going to improve people’s lives is via redistribution. A citizen’s income would be a good start, see http://www.citizensincome.org/

Neoliberalism.. DEAD. Ding, dong!

@ 69 XXX

“I thought it best to ask because usual definitions are a bit muddled, hence the BNP and Libertarian Party both being defined as “right-wing”, even though their policies are pretty much diametrically opposed.”

Fair enough, and that’s roughly the point I’m making here anyway – if it’s ridiculous to make judgements about a UK liberal based on Stalin because they’re both “left-wing”, it’s equally stupid to judge libertarians based on the BNP. The referent is not the object.

I suppose I’m using the (very loose) definitions as they are normally applied, in my experience, in modern Britain. Obviously said definitions are highly debateable, but here and now it seems bizarre for Mr Pants above to have a go at people for attacking state pensions while AT THE SAME TIME calling them left-wing.

“Even in your list of supposedly right-wing things the last government did, civil liberties erosions would be opposed by the libertarian wing of the Tory Party, which is usually considered quite far to the right. Bank bailouts would also be opposed by right-wing free marketeers, probably even more so than by left-wingers.”

Agreed.

“Government support for industry is usually considered quite a left-wing thing, so what is it about supporting the banking sector that makes it an inherently right-wing thing to do?”

Supporting the banking sector isn’t particularly right-wing. Defending the interests of irresponsible rich people, to the extent of protecting them from their own failed ventures, at the expense of the poor, decidely is – although again a libertarian wouldn’t do it.

@ 71 jojo

“The only reaction from it’s supporters is to point the finger at past regimes, that were frankly disgusting”

Not to mention irrelevant. What people miss (or choose to miss) when they try to tar modern political groups with the Nazi/Stalinist brush is that the most obvious characteristics of both regimes were totalitarianism and genocide. THAT’S why they’re seen as history’s bogeymen, not their specific attitudes towards state spending or whether their political rhetoric was left-wing or right-wing.

So you end up with fake slippery-slope arguments along the lines of “You want to increase tax / cut disabled benefits, so the logical conclusion is that you’ll be machine-gunning people in the streets within a few years!” I’ve seen this go so far that people who support the UK smoking ban are branded Nazis, because apparently Hitler favoured banning smoking too, and obviously that’s why Hitler’s seen as such a monster…

@75 – And the Tory’s pushing of anti-riot tactics against peaceful demonstrations shows that this is untrue, why, on the current trajectory of their arguments? Nope, it is. Batton rounds are marginally-less-than-lethal as it is…

Your right are desperate to avoid being called what you are.

7. gastro george

Neo-liberal economics, of the right and “left”, has failed for the last 30 years – you only need to look at the stagnation of median incomes over that period, and it’s worse in the US.

What stagnation of median incomes?

67. Graham

*Sigh* this sort of sums up the levels of polical ignorance around when people think that just because the Nazi contaned the word “socialist”. They must be ‘left wing’. And then mention them in the same sentence as communists!

And yet the fact that they hated capitalists, supported a welfare state, celebrated May Day, enforced compulsory Trade Unionism, all of these things tend to suggest they are a tad left wing.

69. XXX

I thought it best to ask because usual definitions are a bit muddled, hence the BNP and Libertarian Party both being defined as “right-wing”, even though their policies are pretty much diametrically opposed.

The idea of “left” and “right” tends to revolve around some leading issue. Not the average of their issues, not the general thrust, but one Big Idea, one shibboleth for dividing people up. The best description of the BNP’s policies I have seen is that they are the Labour Party your grandfather voted for. Generally Left Wing. But the Left has moved on and they have different shibboleths now. Racism is an obvious one. If you support racism, even from the Left, you can’t be a Leftist. Some radical re-writing of history is needed to make this work (ignoring things like the first two Presidents of the NAACP in the US, for instance, were White Republicans in the American example). So the BNP is called Right Wing even though it is generally on the Left.

75. Chaise Guevara

What people miss (or choose to miss) when they try to tar modern political groups with the Nazi/Stalinist brush is that the most obvious characteristics of both regimes were totalitarianism and genocide. THAT’S why they’re seen as history’s bogeymen, not their specific attitudes towards state spending or whether their political rhetoric was left-wing or right-wing.

Although what you’re missing is that it is not wrong to point out some people’s background in Stalinist political parties. Kate Hudson was just here recently. Still the Chairman of the Stalinist Communist Party of Britain or whatever it calls itself these days. Many people here come from a Stalinist background. As did even more in Blair’s Cabinet. It is not wrong to point that out.

However some ideas have logical consequences. If you want to have a Jew-free Europe, some form of totalitarianism or perhaps even genocide is not irrelevant to that end. If you want to collectivise agriculture, the same is true as well. It is true there are some useful idiots who do not understand the consequences of the policies they support, but I don’t think there are many of them.

So you end up with fake slippery-slope arguments along the lines of “You want to increase tax / cut disabled benefits, so the logical conclusion is that you’ll be machine-gunning people in the streets within a few years!”

And yet there are, rarely, genuine slippery slope arguments. Don’t forget that.

I’ve seen this go so far that people who support the UK smoking ban are branded Nazis, because apparently Hitler favoured banning smoking too, and obviously that’s why Hitler’s seen as such a monster…

Well that and the fact that they are vile, authoritarian, bullying, crypto-Fascists with a penchant for lying. They are called Nazis because they share a mind set.

@78 – Yes, if you’re historically ignorant then superficially the view that they were not, in fact, very close to your own viewpoints is attractive. Calling your racist views left-wing is a case in point for big lies, for that matter.

That you call everyone who buys into a public health message Nazis speaks of your own viewpoint from the far right.

78
You will find that all political iideologies share certain similar threads, Marxism. for example, is much nearer to libertarianism than anything the Labour Party ever said or did.
Facsism is more of a government process rather than an ideology, the only common thread is the notion of the homogenious citizen/subject, but what that homogeny is massively differs
Both Hitler and Stalin attempted to create homogenity the first by race the other by class, they were, ideologically speaking, like chalk and cheese, but they both appeared to be the same.
Conservatism was also the belief in ‘natural’ inferiority/superiority and that’s why the Gernan aristocracy supported Hitler, so, by your logic, anyone who is a Conservative voter supports that same notion.
Drawing on history can be informative but you need to know where that ends and where the ‘here and now’ is totally different.

80. steveb

You will find that all political iideologies share certain similar threads, Marxism. for example, is much nearer to libertarianism than anything the Labour Party ever said or did.

Really? In what possible way? The Labour Party has never supported Gulags. That means they were not that Marxist.

Facsism is more of a government process rather than an ideology, the only common thread is the notion of the homogenious citizen/subject, but what that homogeny is massively differs

Fascism clearly had an ideology. Poorly thought out and yet hugely influential. So much so that Bloom said that virtually everyone was influenced by it while claiming to be Marxists.

Both Hitler and Stalin attempted to create homogenity the first by race the other by class, they were, ideologically speaking, like chalk and cheese, but they both appeared to be the same.

I am not sure they differ all that much ideologically except the Nazis were more moderate. Nor do I think this is a useful way to think about what they were doing. They did not want sameness. They wanted obedience and mobilisation.

Conservatism was also the belief in ‘natural’ inferiority/superiority and that’s why the Gernan aristocracy supported Hitler, so, by your logic, anyone who is a Conservative voter supports that same notion.

The German aristocracy did not, in significant numbers, support Hitler. Indeed they came close to taking his life. The aristocracy was all over Europe the first group to resist the Nazis. Everywhere.

Drawing on history can be informative but you need to know where that ends and where the ‘here and now’ is totally different.

Perhaps. And yet if we do not learn from history, applying it to the here and now, the only way we will learn is with our own blood, sweat and tears.

@ 78

“Although what you’re missing is that it is not wrong to point out some people’s background in Stalinist political parties. Kate Hudson was just here recently. Still the Chairman of the Stalinist Communist Party of Britain or whatever it calls itself these days. Many people here come from a Stalinist background. As did even more in Blair’s Cabinet. It is not wrong to point that out.”

I’m not sure how I’m “missing” that. I’m talking about when people try to dump unpopular totalitarian systems in the broad “left” or “right” camp regardless of how irrelevant it is. Actual facts about specific human beings are another matter.

“However some ideas have logical consequences. If you want to have a Jew-free Europe, some form of totalitarianism or perhaps even genocide is not irrelevant to that end. If you want to collectivise agriculture, the same is true as well.”

What do you mean by “not irrelevant to that end”? Totalitarianism and genocide certainly wouldn’t be required for either.

“And yet there are, rarely, genuine slippery slope arguments. Don’t forget that.”

Sure, but not at the level that these comparisons are usually invoked.

“Well that and the fact that they are vile, authoritarian, bullying, crypto-Fascists with a penchant for lying. They are called Nazis because they share a mind set.”

No, I’ve seen them called Nazis with Hitler’s support for a smoking ban presented up front as the justification for the accusation. Other people might call them Nazis because of the authoritarian thing.

81
Unfortunately it’s very difficult to enter into a meaningful debate with someone as obtuse and concrete thinking, so here goes for another attempt-
Ideologies are not the same as concrete actions, so we had Waco created by the Branch Davidians claiming to be a Christian group following the teachings of Christ.
The USSR, despite it being called Marxist was nothing like the ideology, in fact, Lenin called the system ‘war communism’ (his terminology) Marx would never have recognized the term never mind the Soviet State (Marx was against central states)
Hitler would never have got into power without the support of the aritocracy even if afterwards they did attempt to kill him, but it wasn’t because of his ideology.
@82 also has a good point, facism is nearly always confused with Nazism and it really is different, as already explained, the first is about homogenity and the other is about race, the seemingly complicated bit that you don’t understand is that they can be separated.

82. Chaise Guevara

I’m not sure how I’m “missing” that. I’m talking about when people try to dump unpopular totalitarian systems in the broad “left” or “right” camp regardless of how irrelevant it is. Actual facts about specific human beings are another matter.

You’re missing the fact that some times it is true. You cannot claim that every attempt to point out Leftists are actually totalitarian mass murderers is the same. Sometimes it would be wrong to say so. Blair for instance. Sometimes it would not be. Ms Hudson for instance. The past lives of most of Blair’s cabinet for another. You are only right for a sub-set of the attempts to do so.

What do you mean by “not irrelevant to that end”? Totalitarianism and genocide certainly wouldn’t be required for either.

It is hard to imagine how either would be possible without one or the other. But each to their own.

steveb

Ideologies are not the same as concrete actions, so we had Waco created by the Branch Davidians claiming to be a Christian group following the teachings of Christ.

No. We had Waco caused by the Federal government.

The USSR, despite it being called Marxist was nothing like the ideology, in fact, Lenin called the system ‘war communism’ (his terminology) Marx would never have recognized the term never mind the Soviet State (Marx was against central states)

Actually Lenin called what he did Marxism. You can insist with the fervour of a true believer it was not, but I think that at least some effort should be made to show why the largest and longest effort by Marxists to apply Marxism in the history of the human race was not in fact actual real concrete Marxism. Marx probably would have recognised the Soviet Union as a genuine attempt to implement his ideology. As others have recognised – like Kowlakowski.

Hitler would never have got into power without the support of the aritocracy even if afterwards they did attempt to kill him, but it wasn’t because of his ideology.

Hitler got into power on working class votes. Not with the support of the aristocracy. He got more support from the Communists. At least they co-operated with him from time to time.

Nor do I have a problem with your point about homogeneity. It is simply wrong. And trite.

84
‘We had Waco caused by the Federal Government’ – so it’s a conspiracy then, and it wasn’t a bunch of people called the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh, I suppose he was a government spy.

‘Actually Lenin called what he did Marxist’:- the attempt was to bring about Marxist Socialism that is true, but it never passed the stage of ‘war communism’ which was nothing to do with Marx, but it might be a good idea to read him rather than debate with me from a position of ignorance.

So, if I am wrong that facism = homogenity then perhaps you can enlighten me?

That’s the problem with wiki, it’s a good source for the bare facts but it often leaves out the detail, and of course as we all know’ the devil resides there’.