Is there any point to this article?

This isn’t 2002. The carpet is too hilly for Labour to avoid discussing these issues.

By the way, you haven’t managed to link to Ashley’s latest article.

Of course Labour should have lied: No need for cuts, Gordon Brown can shit diamonds.

How silly of them.

Exactly shatterface. My understanding of Don’s argument is that the Labour Party should not talk about one of the most important economic issues – and that this blackout strategy should also apply to Labour friendly journalists.

Don – spot on. Funny, I was reading Jackie Ashley’s article today and thought – ‘who the hell had the idea that it would be a good strategy to talk about cuts incessantly, and end up legitimising Tory talking points.

Lo and behold, it’s Jackie Ashley herself. Who the hell runs media strategy at Labour these days? They can’t get a single thing right.

They failed in the whole stimulus/debt debate.. Then they failed to lead in the debate about the need for tax rises. And now this.

Public opinion is for raising taxes and slightly cutting spending. But rather than forcing the Tories to come on to their territory, they always, always get into Tory territory and then end up losing the public debate.

Amateurish.

George Osborne is now determined to blame tax rises on Labour, too. This is Phase II of the Tory campaign. Phase I has seen all the parties become cutters. CCHQ now want the need for tax rises to be conceded too

I hadn’t seen that, but from a Tory strategy perspective that makes sense. Well done to Labour for falling for it again.

Praguetory – Don’t think you get political strategy much. I’d suggest doing something more interesting than trolling leftwing blogs.

Don – spot on. Funny, I was reading Jackie Ashley’s article today and thought – ‘who the hell had the idea that it would be a good strategy to talk about cuts incessantly, and end up legitimising Tory talking points.’

Sunny, arguing that Labour should not make cuts is one thing, arguing they should not talk about making cuts even though they intend to make cuts is another.

You actually want them to PRETEND they aren’t going to make cuts?

Sunny – you appear to be working on the assumption that Ashley isn’t a commentator, but a Labour shill. I suppose if I accused her of the same, you’d label it paranoia.

Your idea that public opinion is for raising taxes and ‘slightly’ cutting expenditure flies in the face of all the recent surveys which show that the public accepts that large cuts are necessary/desirable.

Trolling = disagreeing effectively.

You actually want them to PRETEND they aren’t going to make cuts?

You really don’t get it do you?

How you position a debate and the sort of things you say in public is very important. Labour needed to make the case for why they were increasing spending and taxes, while at the same time looking at savings. Instead they moved the debate on to cuts and how the govt was going to collapse without those cuts…thereby legitimising the Tory narrative.

Osborne doesn’t bloody understand economics. The guy was yesterday arguing that it was amazing that the Treasury was predicting rising revenues in coming years. But that will happen once the economy comes out of recession! If anyone paid attention to the debate they’d see how empty the Tory rhetoric is.

But I’ll give them this, they’re way better than Labour right now in having the debate on their turf.

Lastly, if you don’t believe me, just read what Don paskini has highlighted on ToryHome and by D’ancona. Even they agree with me (but from a Tory perspective) – that Labour legitimised the ‘deep cuts needed’ debate rather than forcing the Tories to admit that without nationalising banks, or by increasing spending, we’d be in a much deeper hole.

Labour needed to make the case for why they were increasing spending and taxes, while at the same time looking at savings.

That’s what they were doing, right up until the time that Brown finally accepted that it was a lie, and that they were going to cut spending and raise taxes.

right up until the time that Brown finally accepted that it was a lie

You Lie!!!!!

But seriously, you’re no Osborne, so please stop acting so simplistically. No one in their right minds at the Treasury was thinking they didn’t have to cut spending in other ways because of the recession. But not making it your dominant narrative is not the same as lying.

It’s like saying Osborne lied when he said we didn’t have to nationalise Northern Rock or support the banks. See?

“No one in their right minds… was thinking they didn’t have to cut spending in other ways because of the recession”

Brown is bonkers?

More on why Osborne doesn’t even understand simple economics:

http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/09/osborne-a-boy-in-a-mans-job.html

11 – fair point, I’ll rephrase. Labour’s stated economic policy was that public spending would continue to increase, funded partly by increased borrowing and partly by raising taxes on the rich – which is pretty much what you were calling for at 9.

The problem with maintaining this line was that it wasn’t a true reflection of what Labour’s actual economic policy was. Which is to reduce departmental public spending by almost 10% over three years.

Part of the mess that Labour’s in now is because they stuck to ‘we will increase spending’; ‘Labour investment, Tory cuts’ for so long that when they abandoned it the discourse was inevitably going to focus on what they were now going to cut.

If they’d moved earlier (like, at the Budget) on how they were going to restructure public spending in such a way as to maximise value for the taxpayer without hurting vulnerable families, and at the same time people must realise that they must assist in paying for this great re-shaping of society, then they might have been able to frame the debate.

They didn’t, and chose instead to stick to their ‘ever increasing spending’ line even as it receded further and further into fantasy.

No one in their right minds at the Treasury was thinking they didn’t have to cut spending in other ways because of the recession.

Aaargh! Then why did Gordon Brown, at PMQs and at press conferences, specifically deny it? It’s a perfectly reasonable position for a Government to hold – it was in fact the only possible position for a Government to hold – why the hell did he lie (sorry put forward an entirely misleading denial) about it?

ps. I agree that ‘lie’ is an unhelpful word in this debate, but how would you describe Brown’s answer to Fraser Nelson at the presser after the Euro Elections? Nelson asked him whether there were plans to cut departmental spending by between 7% and 10% over three years. Brown said that it was quite wrong, and that departmental spending was increasing and would continue to increase. Given that there were plans to cut departmental spending in that region, what was Brown’s answer?

13 – what because Peter Mandelson says so? Hmm. Convincing…

Hi guys,

A good, related piece is Duncan’s – http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/labour-investment-versus-tory-cuts/

In terms of an informed public debate on the economy, I think the discussion should be principally about how to grow the economy. Spending cuts and tax rises should be judged against whether they help achieve that aim – if we cut spending (or raise taxes) but the effect is to reduce economic growth, then less spending / higher taxes might lead to an even bigger deficit. The words “economic growth” are entirely absent from most of this discussion in Jackie Ashley’s piece and much of the discussion in the media.

Politically, it is in Labour’s interest for it to be as difficult as possible for a future Tory government to cut public spending.

At the moment, we are getting a poorly informed public debate and paving the way for a future Tory government to slash services and send the economy back into recession. I think this is not a very good strategy.

Tim – I’ll give you one point, Labour has not had a coherent narrative, and they’re too willing to bend over because they’ve not got their narrative sorted.

And Brown has a problem with coming across as sincere. I guess it’s partly because people like Jackie Ashley are offering conflicting and lame advice.

They should have stated from the start they weren’t going to cut spending in key areas because the economy needed a fiscal stimulus. But the stimulus wouldn’t be a big drain on finances because they’d make departmental cuts.

Instead they bodged it up. But the point here is that the minute you go into Tory territory by posturing on who can make the best cuts, you may as well as join the Tory party because the debate moves on to their territory. The Tories themselves acknowledge this above.

13 – what because Peter Mandelson says so? Hmm. Convincing…

Think you missed the point. Mandelson twisted the knife, but only because Osborne’s posturing was so hopelessly naive. The guy doesn’t know simple economics.

I was not going to make and observation , feeling it was too much like intruding on private grief, but then Sunny has make comment 9.

If GB had not changed tack the way he did, consider where the party would have been? The lead up to the conference would have been dominated by endless talk of a delusional GB being under siege form the markets, the press, the back benches and his own Chancellor. if his leadership is under pressure now, imagine what the atomosphere would have been like otherwise?!

As for the author blaming Jackie Ashley for stating what was blindingly obvious and being stated repeatedly and often by many others: You know what, the world and its partner knew it all along.

Browns attempt to make the case for investment now was being roundly ignored / ridiculed because he continually refused to acknowledge in terms, that cuts would have to come at some point. It is wrong to assert that cuts were acknowledged, but not as the main narrative. GB did everything possible to resist the word, and everything possible to resist the notion. (‘ zero percent rise” being a particularly humiliating example).

Sometimes you have no good option. The right thing to do is bite the bullet before the options become even worse. If GB had done that a few weeks earlier the damage to his case might have been minimal. if he had resisted longer, the damage might have been crippling. (especially for him).

The narrative of ‘getting the big decisions right’ on nationalisation etc, was never going to hold. People are not going to credit GB for nationalising banks that collapsed on his watch, under his regulatory regime.

Its a bit like asking for credit for saving the drunk driver from the wreakage, when it was he who handed the keys to the driver when you knew or ought to have known he was drunk. A brief acknowledgement might come your way from the ambulance crew at the time, but don’t be surprised if your instructors licence is not renewed.

‘Politically, it is in Labour’s interest for it to be as difficult as possible for a future Tory government to cut public spending.’

Your argument seems to be that Labour should make promises they can’t keep because they know they aren’t going to win the election in any case, so lets lie and then measure the inevitable Tory cuts against Labour’s fantasy figures?

Sunny – don’t misrepresent public opinion – it’s your opinion!

“Voters are overwhelmingly in favour of cutting public spending rather than tax rises to close the budget black hole, a Sunday Times/YouGov poll finds today.

Sixty per cent want to shrink the size of the state to curb the £175 billion deficit amid mounting government disarray over the public finances.

The survey finds that just 21% would prefer the government to raise taxes to close the growing gap between what the Treasury spends and what it receives in revenue.

The findings will put further pressure on Gordon Brown, who has already announced plans for increases in income tax for the wealthy and in National Insurance.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6832427.ece

And you’re not really suggesting that Ashley is driving Labour policy??!

None of the really matters seeing as nobody believes a word Brown and his morally defunct cronies think or say anyway. Come the revolution, sorry Election, they will be gone with tails between legs and good bloody riddance.

Nice new poll in the Guardian. Only 14% think Labour are telling the truth about finances. Roughly a third think the tories and LDs are telling the truth, whilst a third think they are all lying.

When asked how the finances should be improved, 45% say taxes, 47% say cuts.

Where Sunny gets his majority for tax rises is beyond me.

See here:
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/09/20/third-of-tory-voters-unconvinced-by-tories/

I said the biggest support is for a mixture of keeping spending high while cutting some costs.

One is Labour narrative, the other a Tory narrative. Both are essentially disagreeing on the extent to which the other is needed. So you could say both are ‘lying’.

The point is that Labour should have never seceded territory for strategic reasons. Now they look even more dishonest because it looks like a u-turn.

dontmindme:
If GB had not changed tack the way he did, consider where the party would have been? The lead up to the conference would have been dominated by endless talk of a delusional GB being under siege form the markets, the press, the back benches and his own Chancellor.

Really? The press will report whatever someone says, even it’s an imbecile like Osborne accusing everyone else of lying. The markets and companies have all been clamouring for more spending by the govt. The credit ratings companies admitted that Britain was not going to be downgraded as our debt wasn’t that high.

It would be useful if some of you guys took reality into account.

The article here is about political strategy and how you frame your arguments. It’s about which side of your policies are going to be highlighted and which will be played down.

Labour strategy is all over the place.

“The article here is about political strategy and how you frame your arguments. It’s about which side of your policies are going to be highlighted and which will be played down.”

Since you want reality in the discussion, consider this reality. If you are the Primeminister the only strategy that is worth considering is one that keeps the PM in his Job. If you are the rest of the Cabinet, then your only strategy worth considering is aimed at who will be leader of the Labour Party when the party loses the next general election (thats not partisan speak, but a widely accepted assumption held by many at cabinet level as i suspect you well know). The two are rather contradictory objectives. Hence it is no surprise that

“labour strategy is all over the place”

On that we can all agree!

Labour strategy at the moment has nothing whatsoever to do with policy promotion. I should of thought that much is obvious

If you are the rest of the Cabinet, then your only strategy worth considering is aimed at who will be leader of the Labour Party when the party loses the next general election

Not necessarily. If there’s a big Tory rout then half of those in the cabinet will lose their seats. So it still makes sense for them to push for a coherent opposition to the Tories. Unfortunately they can’t seem to manage it.

25. As much as I love the idea, I can’t imagine half the cabinet being wiped out. Besides even if it is a realistic scenario , the safe ones in the cabinet have even more incentive to position themeselves for the aftermath. The other half will will be spending far too much effort saving themselves to worry about party strategy

Never underestimate an MP’s sense of self awareness of his own interest.

ypui have to wonder…is Brown’s ambition now limited to being the most despised Labour Prime Minister of all time…thereby outdoing Ramsay MacDonald, a real working -class Scot, rather than a pompous, time-serving, ungrammatical twaddle-writing bourgeois-on-the-make like Brown.

“I think that’s also partly because the left has not developed a coherent and forceful economic alternative”

A long time ago, I asked one of those business consultants that government departments tend to hire to advise them on policy options whether he thought that Britain needed a comprehensive industrial strategy or an integrated industrial strategy? He looked puzzled. To alleviate his anxiety, I suggested that it might be a silly question.

As for the search for an economic alternative, try Joe Stiglitz: Whither Socialism? (MIT Press, 1996).

Of course, things might have turned out a mite better for Britain if GB had not gone around saying that he had abolished “boom n’ bust”. What probably made things much worse is that he seems to have really believed his own propaganda. His grasp of economics – and that of his highly qualified advisers – might have alerted them that something was going seriously amiss from this:

“American house prices rose 124% between 1997 and 2006, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell by 8%; half of US growth in 2005 was house-related. In the UK, house prices increased by 97% in the same period, while the FTSE 100 fell by 10%.” Robert Skidelsky: Keynes – The Return of the Master (Allen Lane 2009) p.5.

See news report by Philip Thornton from 1 May 2002 on rising house prices:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/is-the-house-price-boom-an-unsustainable-bubble-653078.html

And try this on the prescience of The Economist and especially on how much worse the house-price bubble inflated in Britain compared with almost all the other economies shown:
http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/this_is_money_blog/2009/09/why-britains-house-price-crash-is-far-from-finished.html

Bob B is right

The Government’s current claim to economic competence is based upon the idea that it was “right about the decisions that matter” – as evidenced by its handling of the financial crisis.

The problem with that claim is that, it is only credible in terms of dealing with the crisis – it pre-supposes that it was better to have the boom and deal with the bust than to have leaned against the wind. Find me a minister who is prepared to stand up and say that we are better off now than we would have been if there had been no boom in financial services and house prices and I will consider his/her argument but it is likely to be a tough sell with the public.

In reality, the government has tended to pretend that nobody knew there was a boom and therefore that it could not have been prevented. Not so.

The Bank of England was told to base its policy on two measures of inflation, RPI and CPI which do not properly account for house price inflation. So RPI and CPI remained stable below 4% while the value of housing (as opposed to the cost of mortgages or rents) grew at 10% per annum.Yet house price inflation was driving the economy. Everyone knew it was a bubble.

The BoE knew there was a bubble but did not lean against the wind because its remit was stability of RPI and CPI and they were within limits. House prices were therefore the remit of someone else – the Treasury.

Did Brown’s Treasury do anything to damp house prices? Did it even warn they were getting out of hand? No, in fact, it gloried in the lower interest rates that allowed people to borrow more in order to access home ownership (anyone see the flaw in that argument?) It was only narrowly prevented from funnelling more buy to let money into the housing market through its changes to Self Invested Pension Schemes and it reduced Stamp Duty.

So, when we consider Government claims to have been right about the decisions that mattered, we have to ask whether it was right not only about the decision during the bust but also the decisions taken during the boom. Could we reasonably have expected anyone to have made better decisions?

The answer to that question is, emphatically, no – although I would be the first to admit that the decisions that the Tories might have made could well have been worse still.