Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity


11:53 am - September 14th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The Times has been one of The Chancellor’s biggest supporters from the start. They wanted strong deficit reduction. They wanted austerity.

The newspaper’s leader writers, especially associate editor Daniel Finkelstein (who is close to Osborne), has constantly criticised the left for being against austerity.

And yet, this is what a leader in The Times says today:

It seems increasingly likely that the political price of sticking to this second target could be higher than the cost of scrapping it.

The Government may find that hitting the target could involve significant cuts into public spending that not only hurt vulnerable people but would take money out of the economy just as it was beginning to see fragile signs of growth.

The leader article suggests that George Osborne may need to ditch the deficit reduction target in addition to the debt target.

But re-read that last sentence again. That summarises the entire argument the left has been making since this government came to power.

But no, we were told there was ‘no money left’ and that we were deficit deniers.

Now The Times says cuts will hurt growth (two years too late) and that drastic deficit reduction may not be a good idea.

Am I alone in thinking this is a huge u-turn?

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Wow – the Times is saying what Labour were saying about 30 months ago.

Can’t help but feel Keynsians everywhere are likely to feel a little vindicated.

Yes, it’s just a newspaper…

The left, some body remind me in Labour who are the left.

4. Christopher Heward

Probably is a bit of a U-turn.

Got to say though in response to #1 (sounds like Blind Date…) that what the left generally have advocated hasn’t been Keynsianism, at least not when their views are taken in their entirety. Keynes’s view was that to smooth out growth you should run a surplus during a boom and run a deficit during a bust. The frustration I find, and perhaps others too, is that Labour never recognised (chief of all Brown, and a I guess Balls) that they got it massively wrong and overspent during the good years. Clearly it wasn’t Labour’s fault directly that the economy crashed (or only to a small extent), but they played a significant role in making the UK unable to respond effectively. The first Parliament was fine, but that was when Labour were committed to Conservative spending plans. As soon as we got through that Labour started increasing spending unsustainably. This was largely a result of 1) Brown thinking, rather arrogantly, that boom and bust had been beaten, 2) Brown and Blair trying to out-compete each other by announcing new policies, sometimes without even consulting each other, and 3) a complete lack of recognition that growth (particularly in the housing sector) was highly dependent on personal debt and also, increasingly, government debt.

From a personal point of view, of course it is frustrating when the Coalition use Labour’s record as a get out clause, but at the same time it’s frustrating that Labour never recognised that their economic policies put us in a ridiculous position to respond to the crisis.

I mean look at Switzerland and Sweden for example. I don’t know a great deal about them, but my impression is that neither have been hit particularly badly (relatively), yet they have very different approaches. One is high tax-high spend and the other is low tax-low spend. So they have a largely-balanced budget, and can react positively when a recession hits. In the countries that had low taxes (or poorly-collected taxes) but high spending, it was these nations that that fared (and are faring) the worst. Perhaps one of the things that helps the UK over some of the other European nations is that we have quite a strong charitable/social enterprise sector, as well as a relatively flexible labour market?

So please can we stop saying ‘this is what Keynes would do’, because I think he’s likely a lot less to the left than people think. He was advocating SOME government spending, to smooth out the growth cycle, in contrast to others who wanted practically ZERO government spending, as thought this was pointless as people would just adjust their spending downwards as they knew taxes would rise in the future (so the Austrian School’s main failure was in thinking humans were rational in their expectations, or that they trusted government to secure low debt levels). Keynes therefore didn’t need to be a socialist, as some make out, he was just a pragmatist who saw the need to prevent job losses and other negative effects from recession by planning ahead, storing up in the good years (and weakening the boom) and shoring up people’s livelihood in the bad years.

Sorry for the diversion, and apologies if this is old analysis, but just wanted to set the record a bit straighter, and to share that there is rational basis to hold Labour to account for the economic policies during the ‘good years’.

5. Christopher Heward

Given the current situation, and acknowledging Labour’s role in the past, we should of course concentrate on the future. I personally think that the heart of the Big Society agenda is promising, and so to the desire to simplify the benefits system. However, the Government needs to strategically invest in long-term structural things, that will help the charitable sector flourish. Perhaps in the future that sector will do greater thing, but the intervening period we can’t allow people to be lost in unemployment and endless poverty.

The analogy I like to use is of somebody falling into an ocean. You can chuck them a ring and walk away, and the strong swimmers will be able to swim to the boat and get out. The others might need greater help, so you can give that to them. But once they’re into the safe place, you’ve got to help them to develop the skills so that if they fall in again they can quickly escape. My feeling with the unemployment benefits system previously is that Labour were just chuck floats into the water, and whilst some latter found work largely unaided, other were just having their head kept above water, never getting back into work, or if they manage to get out of unemployment, they later found themselves back in the same predicament, and not any better experienced or prepared to swim.

What we need to transition to is training people to swim, helping them to develop their skills, so that when the jobs are available, they can make the most of the opportunity and succeed. We need to stop focusing on throwing out the arm bands and prioritise teaching people to swim.

Of course, the danger this Government faces is that they stop throwing out the floats before people have made it safe or learnt to swim, and people starting drowning…

I find, and perhaps others too, is that Labour never recognised (chief of all Brown, and a I guess Balls) that they got it massively wrong and overspent during the good years.

Rubbish. I dealt with that here;
http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-reality-of-gordon-browns-spending-black-labour-cant-re-write-history/

@6. Sunny Hundal: “Rubbish. I dealt with that here;
http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-reality-of-gordon-browns-spending-black-labour-cant-re-write-history/

That’s an interesting argument, Sunny. Basically, you are saying that by 2002 the UK economy was so flat that government resorted to Keynesian measures — public spending in services — without acknowledging to citizens that the purpose was economic boost. I rather recall that citizens were told that these were things that we could afford and which we needed. I don’t remember Gordon Brown proclaiming employment or consumer confidence benefits. Apart from the sceptics observing house price inflation and consequences, few economic commentators had much to say either.

The meat in your argument is lack of investment opportunities, today and ten years ago. I’m not suggesting that we are in a “The End of Western Economics?” scenario, but for now at least, companies and investors can’t see chances. We might conclude that the overpriced valuation of Facebook shares demonstrated a desperation to find something that *might* deliver a return. How desperate can you get?

Anatole Kaletsky, the chief economics columnist of The Times until June this year, when he joined Reuters, never made much of a secret of his keynesian inclinations, which is not altogether surprising since he is a Cambridge economics graduate.

By a Guardian report on his debut for Reuters in June, Kaletsky was saying that Germany poses the greatest threat to and “is too big and powerful to coexist comfortably with its European neighbours in any political structure ruled purely by national interests.”

That comes pretty near the reason that Nicholas Ridley was forced to resign his job as DTI minister in July 1990, while in Mrs Thatcher’s government, after giving an interview to the Spectator in which he described the then proposed European Economic and Monetary Union as “a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe.”

There was no way that Tory Europhiles, like Lawson and Howe, were going to allow Ridley to stay in the Cabinet after all the hard graft they had put in to line the Pound up for joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

By October 1990, John Major, as Chancellor, had put the Pound into the ERM. By September 1992, the Pound had crashed out of the ERM.

Btw in the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 on international economic structures for the post-war world, Keynes favoured fixed-exchange rates because he thought then that flexible exchange rates would generate too much uncertainty and thereby discourage the resumption of international trade after the war. The outcome was the adoption of an adjustable peg for exchange rates which finally collapsed in the early 1970s after the Nixon administration unpegged the US Dollar from its gold parity.

The essential ingredient of keynesianism is that the economy in the short-run is demand driven. What matters now is whether increases on consumer spending, business investment and net exports will rise sufficiently to make up for the cuts in public spending, 90pc of which have yet to come.

@8. Bob B: “By a Guardian report on his debut for Reuters in June, Kaletsky was saying that Germany poses the greatest threat to and “is too big and powerful to coexist comfortably with its European neighbours in any political structure ruled purely by national interests.””

This is followed by a 20 year time jump backwards. That was the time when UK sceptics said that the Euro idea was about the creation of a common German currency. It was tiresome at the time and it is tiresome today.

The reason to stay out of EU common currency is that it will never work. Every nation and region has a different economy, so get your heads around different wages, house prices, job opportunities.

Germans must hate the idea that they have to prop up the EU economy (absent UK and a few) but it is their problem. I do not assume that Germans used EU common currency to take control of European nations. They did not understand what they were doing. But they have to pick it up.

Charlieman: “I do not assume that Germans used EU common currency to take control of European nations. They did not understand what they were doing. But they have to pick it up.”

There is evidence – some in the public domain and some from inside knowledge – that Bundesbank officials made remarks in the margins of an international conference that prompted the increasing speculation against the Pound in September 1992, which led to the Pound eventually crashing out of the ERM.

For various reasons, many in mainland Europe are uncomfortable with flexible exchange rates. The point of my detour back to the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 was to show that Keynes also had misgivings about flexible exchange rates because he thought that exchange risk would inhibit trade growth. After all, America’s large economy worked with a single currency.

However, I agree that many European politicians simply don’t understand what is required to enable monetary union to work. EMU was pushed through in a fit of political euphoria about ever closer union in Europe.

In an interview in December 2010, Delors said: The euro project was flawed from the start and the current generation of European leaders has failed to address its fundamental problems
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8932647/Euro-doomed-from-start-says-Jacques-Delors.html

Try googling for: De Grauwe The Governance of a Fragile Eurozone

Political Tennis.
The UK economy shifted profoundly, from heavy Industries and manufacturing during the past 35 years, towards services, financial an personal.
The void left behind by Thatcherism, for the working community to fall into, was inherited by the last Labour government, who followed the USA on a misadventure which potentially could follow the blue print of the first half of the twentieth century?
War certainly creates potential for growth, for those interested parties with the wealth and technology to wage it?
Socialism has become a dirty word, yet those on the left can easily point a stick at the filthy, rotten excesses of capitalism?
Creating wealth is one thing.
Getting people to share wealth and knowledge is another.
If humanity is to survive beyond this century, we all need to talk, look, learn and understand and build the courage to share without fear.

For the immediate future, the most pressing economic policy issue is not redistribution of wealth but how to get Britain’s economy to grow again while reining back on the budget deficit. To see just how large Britain’s budget deficit is, at 8.3pc of national GDP, compared with the other leading affluent countries, try this:
http://www.economist.com/node/21562943

Japan has a comparatively larger budget deficit at 9.1pc of its national GDP although the US, for all the fuss made by the Republicans, has a smaller deficit at 7.6 pc of its national GDP.

Britain’s budget deficit of 8.3pc of GDP is not sustainable.

“During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4% a year.” [Institute of Fiscal Studies]

13. gastro george

“Britain’s budget deficit of 8.3pc of GDP is not sustainable.”

And yet Japan have been recording budget deficits of this order since 2000 without any catastrophe.

It can’t be emphasised too much that the budget deficit is a national accounting outcome, and it’s foolish to target it. You need to target those things you affect directly – like growth and employment.

Gastro: “And yet Japan have been recording budget deficits of this order since 2000 without any catastrophe.”

What happens in Japan is that the Japanese keep buying and holding the Japanese government debt and put up with the low yield on their savings. Britain’s financial markets are open and constitute more of a leading global financial centre than does Tokyo. London has the leading foreign exchange market by a margin over New York and Tokyo. International funds are held in London to cover foreign exchange transactions and because London is also a leading market for launching and trading corporate bonds. All that means profits are earned in London and taxed so maintaining the international credibility of Britain’s national debt is crucial.

Look carefully through the detail of government and BoE announcements to promote growth and and jobs. Many are clearly intended to boost business investment, possibly via an increase in bank lending. A solid reason for scepticism is whether the announcements amount to more than just announcements – as came to light with what happened to the £1.4 bn for the Regional Growth Fund – but part or much of that failing is due to sheer incompetence rather than to an intention to deceive IMO. The government or its advisers know that what matters is whether increases in consumer spending, business investment and net exports will make up for the cuts in public spending – 90pc of which have yet to come, more than enough to make businesses and banks very cautious.

Of course, all this is a very keynesian way of assessing the situation.

Btw try this in Saturday’s The Economist: The north of England – The great divide
http://www.economist.com/node/21562938

“Between 1997 and 2010 gross value-added, a measure of output, grew by 61% in the three northern regions. In London and the South East, it shot up by 92% (see map) [and by more than 100% in London]. According to a study by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change at the University of Manchester, the state accounted, directly and indirectly, for 64% of the jobs created in the north between 1998 and 2007, against just 38% in the south.”

With the financial crisis in 2008, the expectation then was that with the loses of the financial sector, London would disproportionately have to take the fall-out from the crisis. That hasn’t happened.

15. gastro george

Bob B: Is ownership crucial to “sustainability”? I thought the argument was that it was the size of the deficit would lead to an (exponentially?) rising debt?

About 30% of which is held overseas.

In any case, isn’t our debt, as you say, an asset. It forms the main basis of our pensions. So why is that a bad thing?

Stein’s Law: ”Things that can’t go on forever, don’t.”

The question is what happens when they stop.

17. gastro george

Errrr, what can’t go on forever …?

Gastro: “Errrr, what can’t go on forever …?”

A budget deficit amounting to 8.3% of GDP, which means that Britain’s national debt as a percentage of national GDP keeps on rising.

Sooner or later the budget deficit will have to be reined back or the costs of borrowing will rise. Better to rein in the budget defict gently – as Alistair Darling proposed – than shortly, which is apt to fan pessimistic expectations about whether consumption spending, business investment and net exports will increase sufficiently to make up for cuts in public spending. Most agree that Britain’s economy needs rebalancing. The argument is really about how to get there.

As I’ve been posting, general government expenditure in Britain in 2007 as a percentage of national GDP was lower or only marginally higher than in EU peers. The charge of government over-spending doesn’t stick. The main cause of the deficit was the fall in tax revenues because of the banking crisis and the recession.

19. gastro george

I don’t really get you Bob B because while you mainly talk the right talk – the importance of growth, etc. – you then go on about the unsustainability of the deficit.

This is tantamount to conceding the political ground to the neoliberals – that it is the deficit that’s important and policy must focus on reducing it – and we know what policy recommendations that leads to – austerity.

As I said, the deficit is an accounting outcome – because of the automatic stabilisers in the economy. If you put people out of work, then taxation drops and benefits rise. So targeting the deficit is foolish. Better to target growth and employment.

And deficit/debt obsession is also not backed up by the facts. Deficits are normal – they have been run in advanced economies for over 90% of years in the last hundred plus years. Japan has lived with a high deficit/debt for over a decade with no ill effects. Deficits are even more normal in recessions/depressions, for the stated reasons above.

The neoliberals have been very successful in framing the argument since the crisis began. Hyperventilation over the deficit just aids them.

Gastro

Never mind the political language. What matters is the analysis.

A budget deficit of 8.3% of national income is unsustainable. It means that national debt as a percentage of national income will go on rising indefinitely. Sooner or later, borrowing costs will rise and take up a rising share of government spending. Eventually, borrowing will become prohibitively costly, as in Spain now. Those factors are the realities, neither left- nor right-wing.

The challenges facing the government are how to rein in the deficit while getting the economy moving again because recessions reduce tax revenues and thereby increase the budget deficit.

America has a similar problem so the Federal Reserve Bank there has just announced a programme of continued QE (inventing central bank money to buy bonds backed by mortgages) – which is a very keynesian response. Despite that, only one member of the Federal Open Market Commitee (the relevant decision-making body) voted to dissent. In the Eurozone, the ECB has announced a commitment to buy the bonds of governments which run into borrowing difficulties – meaning when borrowing costs become prohibitively costly.

If Britain’s economy becomes mired in recession and the government and BoE measures to boost investment don’t work, similar options will come up here. What then matters is whether economies are becoming “supply constrained”.

If so, the main effect of boosting aggregate demand by QE is to increase prices (and imports) rather than domestic outputs of goods and services. Among the unwelcome consequences of continued recessions, besides lower output and rising long term unemployment, is the loss of capacity to produce as businesses and factories close down. The greater the loss of production capacity, the more likely it is that more QE will raise prices rather than output. The economy will have become supply constrained.

Not long ago, discussing policy options like those was being described as Zimbabwean economics. We need robust technical analysis in these times, not arguments about political spin.

21. gastro george

Bob B: Politics aside, you’re just repeating yourself, and not addressing any of the economic points I made. You’re stuck in orthodoxy, endlessly repeating the “unsustainability” mantra. More points:

Monetarily sovereign countries do not technically need to borrow. It follows from this that any comparison with Eurozone countries is invalid.

“QE … is a very keynesian response”

Que? Keynes advocated counter-cyclical increase in aggregate demand. QE is just a paper asset swap.

“What then matters is whether economies are becoming “supply constrained”.”

The economy is awash with supply-side measures, which are having a marginal effect at best. Supply-side is another orthodox mantra. We need demand-side action.

You are correct about the possibility of supply-side problems as the economy is destroyed, but the solution to that is, well, not to destroy the economy. All indications are, though, that factories are part-idle and companies are storing skilled labour by reducing hours. No sign of supply-side constraints there.

Any reference to Zimbabwe should be subject to Godwins Law.

Gastro: “Que? Keynes advocated counter-cyclical increase in aggregate demand. QE is just a paper asset swap.”

That’s rubbish. As with Britain, America is also constrained from taking counter-cyclical fiscal options because of the size of its budget deficit at 7.6% of national GDP. The commitment by the FED to continue to apply QE to buy mortgage-backed bonds is intended to support the mortgage market there and so boost house building, which creates jobs and incomes.

Budget deficits matter because they increase national debt as a percentage of GDP. As that continues, sooner or later borrowing costs rise and debt service payments rise as a share of government spending. That is what is happening now in Spain. There’s nothing “right-wing” about that analysis. The size of budget deficits matters. Disaster looms if we pretend that it doesn’t.

23. gastro george

Bob B. A bond is a piece of paper that promises to pay interest until until some time in the future when it’s redeemable. Money’s the same, but without the interest. Both have purely nominal values.

QE is just exchanging bond holdings for cash reserves. It was useful in the first stages of the crisis, as a large part of that initial crisis was the absence of liquidity in the banking sector – the cash gave them liquidity. Since then, QE just disappears into bank reserves, in the vain hope that some of it might leak out. As people prefer to hold other assets than cash in order to generate income, then QE has served to prop up the value of other assets. It’s also leaked out into more speculative activity, as the cash searches for somewhere to make some money.

Your comparison with Spain shows that you still don’t understand the difference between a monetarily sovereign nation (the UK) which doesn’t need to issue bonds, and a non-sovereign nation (Spain) that does.

Why do you think that bond yields are so low in the UK compared with Spain? Because the bond markets know that there is a real risk of default with Spain, whereas there is no risk of default for the UK – the only risk they have with us is an inflation risk, which they obviously see as small.

Gastro: “Why do you think that bond yields are so low in the UK compared with Spain? Because the bond markets know that there is a real risk of default with Spain, whereas there is no risk of default for the UK”

That’s because the financial markets believe the UK government is credibly committed to reducing the budget deficit and because the UK unemployment rate is still “only” 8.1%. In Spain’s case, the unemployment rate is already 24%.

Heavily indebted countries have increasing problems borrowing unless steps are taken to reduce the scale of borrowing – which is why the ECB is stepping in with an offer to buy the bonds of Eurozome countries with borrowing problems.

We need to avoid getting to such a situation. Continuing to run a budget deficit of 8.3% will pile up debt and sooner or later raise borrowing costs. There’s nothing quite like a popular sentiment that budget deficits don’t matter to challenge the financial credibility of a government. I’m reminded of what happened in 1976 when the Labour government of that time was forced into borrowing from the IMF to prevent a collapse in the Pound exchange rate.

25. Christopher Heward

On the general point about the deficit, I would like to state these things and see whether people agree, to see at what stage people are diverging on their perspective of the situation.

1) Consumer spending over the last few years has been funded to a large extent by consumer debt.
2) Large rises in house prices between 1997 and 2007 have been largely driven by artificial reasons rather than an improvement in the housing stock, such as an increase in demand due to population increase, and over-investment by people who thought prices would increase, and therefore bought housing as an investment. A lot of these purchases were funded by debt/mortgages.
3) In 1997 and during the first term of the Labour administration, the UK had a budget surplus. During the second term Labour increased government spending, and as a result started to run a budget deficit (and therefore had to borrow).
4) GDP is made up of consumption, investment and government spending (consumption and investment (physical and human capital)), plus exports minus imports. Economic growth is the change in the level of GDP.
5) Consumption as a share of GDP has continued to rise generally over the last couple of decades.
6) Government spending as a share of GDP has continued to rise in recent years/decades.
7) When you consume something in period 1 you must consume the same level in period 2 to maintain the enjoyment level and to maintain GDP. When you invest something in period 1, if you invest the same amount in period 2 then this increases the enjoyment level, but holds its effect on GDP constant. So borrowing must continue, to hold enjoyment at a constant level.
8) These things combined have meant that the levels of GDP we have achieved, and therefore the levels of economic growth we have achieved, have been increasingly, and heavily, dependent on borrowing (and therefore debt), both personal and sovereign.
9) Borrowing to fund consumption is different from borrowing to fund investment, because for consumption there is little expected return other than the enjoyment/’utility’ immediately experienced from the activity, whilst with investment the gains have a longer impact, and might also make future consumption (and therefore the utility/enjoyment derived) more efficient/cheaper to achieve.
10) As a lot of this consumer/household and public-sector borrowing has funded consumption, as opposed to investment, this means that a lot of the borrowing has not necessarily led to a long-term benefit/return, and therefore means that to maintain welfare/enjoyment in society at the same (or greater) levels, similar (or increased) levels of borrowing are needed, meaning an increase to personal and sovereign debt levels (either increasing at the same rate or a faster rate).

These things combine to mean that to maintain the levels of GDP and growth we have, we have to keep borrowing at the same, or increased, levels. However, at the same time, we can only sustain these levels of borrowing (and debt) if our economies continue to grow (or in the case of household, if their household incomes grow) accordingly.

So if for some reason we aren’t able to achieve these levels of growth, then we are left with zero growth and a pile of debt to repay. If on the other hand we pay down the debt (or at least eliminate the borrowing) then we’ll be left with zero growth but we’ll also have a lot less debt/borrowing.

So it’s a vicious cycle where we need debt to fund our growth and we need growth to fund our debt. So if for an external or un-factored-in reason our growth is eliminated, we are left with zero growth then, basically, we’re screwed.

A number of ‘external’ or ‘un-factored-in’ adjustments might be:
1) ecological unsustainability;
2) unsustainable population growth;
3) a demographic timebomb, meaning pensions and healthcare costs skyrocket (already 35-40% of the budget and increasing);
4) a fall in export demand, particularly in the Eurozone/EU;
5) a fall in consumer confidence about future house prices and about sustainability of their own borrowing;
6) a fall in confidence of banks to lend to customers and to lend to each other (basically what caused the credit crunch);
7) a fall in confidence of banks (and also credit-rating-agencies) to lend to the government (and other governments), meaning the cost of borrowing, and of servicing rises;
8) alien invasion (;D).

Sorry it’s a long post, but I firstly wanted to demonstrate that I (and perhaps others) am not just saying the debt is unsustainable because the newspapers or politicians told me. I also wanted to do it to genuinely see where people disagree on this assessment of the situation and the suggestion we cut the deficit.

26. gastro george

Bob B: “That’s because the financial markets believe the UK government is credibly committed to reducing the budget deficit”

Well if you want to believe Osborne’s line, that’s your problem. If you look at the historical figures Spain has less debt and has run less of a deficit than the UK for many years. Yet the bond markets take opposite views of the two countries.

If you won’t discuss, or refuse to accept, the importance of monetary sovereignty, then there is little point in discussing this further.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Jason Brickley

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/sXRzOCnX

  2. sunny hundal

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  3. Owen Williams

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  4. Paul Sandars

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  5. Tentacle Sixteen

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy – http://t.co/gxeKjbpQ

  6. Scott Macdonald

    The Times arguing against austerity? Truly we live in interesting times. http://t.co/12nHclcR ht @sunny_hundal

  7. Ian stone

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/OrlrcjUS via @libcon

  8. Lance Dyer

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NvzENPJq via @libcon

  9. Shantel Burns

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  10. Fiona Laird

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  11. Glenn Williams

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YFYLUq8i via @libcon

  12. Theo Blackwell

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/QiiifQ7r via @libcon

  13. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/H535YUGt

  14. Colin-Roy Hunter

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy – http://t.co/gxeKjbpQ

  15. Duncan Gates

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  16. sunny hundal

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  17. Rosie R.

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  18. PeterJukes

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  19. John Scovell

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  20. Herbert Pimlott

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  21. Mark

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Zudrrt2g via @libcon

  22. toby

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  23. Mark Carrigan

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  24. John McCabe

    The Times has today published a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/laRsot0R

  25. Herbert Pimlott

    #Harper might be losing key UK #ConDem ally in fight against #austerity as "The Times quietly sides with Left #cdnpoli http://t.co/g1gGpTyU

  26. Hilda Palmer

    U-TURN KLAXON RT @sunny_hundal The Times publishes a leader that argues against austerity, echoing the Left. Seriously http://t.co/oYizhP41

  27. Vicki Butler

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  28. Antonio Dorileo

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  29. John McNeill

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  30. Sharon Higgins

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  31. Martin Deane

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  32. Sacha Dylan

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  33. Clifford Fleming

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  34. Collin Whittaker

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  35. Kay

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  36. Lee Standen

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  37. Paul Nelson

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  38. MagsNews

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  39. Val Leeming

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  40. beverleydodds

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  41. Chris Kirby

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  42. hannah snow

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  43. Chris Paul

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  44. R M Wragg Sykes

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  45. Jeni Parsons

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  46. Alexi Peristianis

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  47. Steve Rudland

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  48. Brnch Sec

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  49. John Dyer

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  50. Tim Easton

    @sunny_hundal: Rather quietly, The Times y'day adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/M9uMvJIw Should be bigger news

  51. Tony Whitfield

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  52. liane gomersall

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/4HDc5XR7 via @libcon

  53. Katherine Smith

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/4HDc5XR7 via @libcon

  54. neil lambert

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/4HDc5XR7 via @libcon

  55. Nigel Cox

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  56. Laura Jane

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  57. BevR

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/sMTaWece via @libcon

  58. BevR

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DDosPpm6

  59. Rayya Ghul

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  60. TheCreativeCrip

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  61. Bubble

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  62. Richard Sage

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  63. Nick Ryder

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  64. John Dyer

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  65. Chronic Laconic

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  66. John Dyer

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  67. Rory Hegarty

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2LExsv4s via @libcon

  68. br bbbse

    http://t.co/8Tt9caQ1 http://t.co/BWzOs8bk

  69. Rebecca Devitt

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/0CqECJkD via @libcon

  70. ?????

    Rather quietly, The Times today adopted the Left's opposition to austerity http://t.co/laRsot0R Should be bigger news than it is

  71. elizabeth westgaph

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DnjkI7Lj via @libcon…No you are not alone.

  72. saramo

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DnjkI7Lj via @libcon…No you are not alone.

  73. Culturetrap

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DnjkI7Lj via @libcon…No you are not alone.

  74. ILN

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity http://t.co/wubyx8td

  75. AJ

    The Times quietly sides with the Left against #austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/N4NU6dD6

  76. etonmess

    Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6NkfzZPC via @libcon

  77. John Hurr

    Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/pM1cBtKf via @libcon

  78. ‘MPs are being chosen by tiny bunches of people’ | Inside Croydon

    […] The Times quietly sides with the Left against austerity (liberalconspiracy.org) Rate this:Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailStumbleUponDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.