Gordon Browns Economic Miracle?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
tbaldwin said:
It is just the boom-bust cycle. Yes, it will come to an end. No Chancellor has managed to avoid the cycle, but every Chancellor decalres at the hieght of boom that they have done just that.
To some extent the 'boom' itself has been sustained by credit. Manufacturing is already stagnating/entering a crash. The property boom has tailed off.
The boom has been one of the weaker 'booms' of recent times. A whole host of problems are storing up. Tax revenues have not been sustained and the cost of the Iraq war has put pressure on the public purse.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
"economic miarcle" for whom, exactly? The rich? Maybe. The middle-classes? Possibly. The poor and working classes? Don't make me laugh.
Brown has been "the best chancellor ever" for the neo-cons.
Brown has been "the best chancellor ever" for the neo-cons.
One of the interesting things to come out of the programme was that 4 out of 5 jobs created in the last 3years have been in the public sector.
It certainly contradicts those who have argued that NL is substantially different to Old Labour. Having said that though they certainly seem to have done loads better economically.
The bottom 10% have seen there incomes rise steadily under NL. Which has to be a good thing and there has been masses of new investment in Schools and Hospitals.
But can it continue?
It certainly contradicts those who have argued that NL is substantially different to Old Labour. Having said that though they certainly seem to have done loads better economically.
The bottom 10% have seen there incomes rise steadily under NL. Which has to be a good thing and there has been masses of new investment in Schools and Hospitals.
But can it continue?
poster342002 said:
I concur, though probably not for a large segment of the middle class too. I don't know how anybody can afford to live in britain. I know i couldn't back in the 80s, barely in 2000, now it seems even more improbable.
What the fuck do they even think they're talking about, an 'economic miracle', bollocks man. For most people probably more like an economic mirage.
tbaldwin said:
Not trying to be nasty here, but were you paying attention to last night's panorama at all? One of the main points was that the trend to moving manufacturing offshore has kept inflation, and hence intrest rates down. New Labour is no better than Old Labour, it's just been lucky with the world situation.
I was highly entertained by the Geordies on panorama "ooh yeah gordon brown's great". Yeah, because he's raised government spending locally to 60% GDP! Brown is basically using tax revenue from London & the South East to prop up Labour's core vote in the North. As usual.
tom k&e said:
Well tom, a lot of people seem to view NL as very different from Old Labour.
Obviously there are differences but i would argue that has more to do with different times and presentation rather than any move to the right etc that many people believe in.
And id also say i live and work in London and the amount of money going into the public and voluntary sector in london has increased massivelly as well as up norf.
tbaldwin said:
This really is not the case.
The bottom 10% have seen their living standards decline. Even measures such as longevity are turning downwards for this group. At the same time the rich have seen their living standards increase dramatically.
NL have not done 'loads better' than previous Governments, including Labour Govts. As yet they have not suffered the Black Wednesday stock market crash etc that fucked the Lawson boom right up. Nor has there been the big crisis like the Oli crisis of the 70s.
There is a boom bust cycle that cannot be avoided - it is an inevitabler feature of the capitalist system. Lawson said he had got it beat, bt the very measures he had taken to offset it just made the crash more extreme when it came. The run down of infrastructure and production under Thatcher/Lawson was a key feature and this has continued under Blair/Brown. This creates long term problems. The shift of tax burdon from direct taxation and business rates to indirect taxation shifts the burdon to the poorest. Thus tax revenues have tailed off as retail spending etc decline. Thus the economic priorities of Blairism/Thatcherism mean that come bust the poor will suffer most because public services are unable to cope.
If you really want to do the Daily Telegraph thing of NL same as OL you should point to the recent increase in borrowing. Now borrowing was a feature of Major as well but don't let facts like that deter you. Money into the NHS and schools is largely wasted on privatised provision of cleaning, building maintenance etc - that, together with the spiralling cost of drugs. is where the extra costs are hitting. This the grip of business interests over key public services threatens to create an ever expanding black hole into which public money is poured without any improvements o services - the NHS is on the brink of a major cash problem as a result.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've just reviewedmy recording and the figure was 60%, or 3 out of 5, not 4 out of 5.tbaldwin said:
Come on then, tell us how, give comparative examples. It sn't good enough to just trot out "x did better than y", you know.
The bottom 10% of those in employment have seen their incomes rise by a halfway-reasonable (and only halfway) amount due to the NMW, but theose not in employment? The pensioners may have been wooed with various blandishments, but the long-term sick and disabled have benefitted very little from this "brave new economy".
Can it continue? Not if the economic cycle follows it's usual course.
Groucho said:
Not doing a Daily Telegraph thing. Its just i dont believe people like you who like to pretend their is a massive difference between OLD and NEW Labour.
All the nonsense that all the extra money for education and health has gone towards privatisation. I mean what percentage has gone to privatisation any figures?
The truth is there has been a massive increase in health and education and only a very small % has gone on privatisation.
tbaldwin said:
One of the greatest financial burdens on the NHS is the cost of drugs. There are few suppliers and thus a virtual monopoly held by private manufacturers. Inflation re drugs for theNHS was calculated a few years back as running at 600%.
Private cleaners, private buildings maintenance, use of private anciliaries, in some cases rents to private buildings owners are all adding vastly to NHS costs.
The increased funding on heath and education is not substantial. Instead it is failing to keep up with rising costs, so are not increases in real terms at all. You could as easily argue that there were substantial increases in NHS ad education funding under the Tories (especially under Major).
I am not arguing that there are substantial differences between OL and NL. There is a difference in ethos/ethics/outlook of the adherents but the policies are not radically different in so far as they largely follow the priorities of business. Much more crucially, there is no difference ideologically or in policy between Thatcher and Blair. Both continue the break from 'concensus' politics/economics and 'Keynesian' style Govt intervention (This latter was ended under Callaghan before Thatcher)
Nothing new about drug companies doing very well out of the NHS.
Nothing new about private companies doing very well out of the public sector.
I'd say the major difference between Old and New Labour has been in presentaion and that GB is competent in planning the economy.
Nothing new about private companies doing very well out of the public sector.
I'd say the major difference between Old and New Labour has been in presentaion and that GB is competent in planning the economy.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
The overall gap between rich and poor under New Labour has increased since they took over from the Tories. Some success.
The squeeze that is about to come is already being telegraphed in the public sector - hence the projected Civil Service cuts, the slashing of the Learning and Skills Councils Staff, the projected conversion of training allowances on young peoples apprenticeships and E2E programmes to the (lower) EMA, the proposed attack on public sector pension provision, all this nonsense about bringing in more from the "faith", charity and voluntary sectors into education and training, social services etc etc
Whilst some of what are held up as positive initiatives of new labour may be just that - red meat to throw to the voter base, the paymaster unions facing demands for disaffiliation and the remaining left-of-neo-liberal membership - I would still hold that much of New Labour's Social Policy is more of a piece with ID cards and the expansion of government power. The youth cards, much of the role of Connexions, pronouncements on housing, education and mental health are all as much part of this social control agenda as they are anything to do with meeting social need.
The problem for new labour is that authoritarianism is the only response they are left with in the face of the social disorder and decay as they have capitulated to the neo-liberal agenda. In fact, it is this capitulation to the neo-liberal agenda that further drives social disorder - i.e. extending opening hours for the drinks industry(increased alcohol related/public disorder problems), extending opportunities for gambling for the leisure industry(increased gambling and debt problems), allowing extensive offshoring and casualisation in the economy (more employment insecurity, stress, and eventually long term unemployment when, as said above, the cycle turns) Worse still for new labour, the authoritarian approach does not work - either becuse under neo liberal financial constraints they cannot fund it (e.g. policing) or it is simply going to be unworkable (e.g. ID cards, much of the youth/education agenda). They are reduced to verbally lashing out at social and cultural trends that they cannot control and that are at least in part a result of the social conditions created by the neo-liberal deregulated economy.
Coupled with this, the whole point of PFI/PPP is two fold - a quick fix without annoying the markets too much over too much borrowing (though point taken on the still high level of borrowing) and the perception amongst the managerialist authoritarians at the heart of the new labour project that labour discipline (wages, disputes, etc) is better for "the country" (i.e. the interests of big capital and their own hold on power) in the private sector. Hence, in the long term, these cost more - when the pigeons come home to roost and the final bills come in it will be seen that PFI/PPP are short term political measures that do not make long term sense for the public finances.
The storm clouds are gathering...
Whilst some of what are held up as positive initiatives of new labour may be just that - red meat to throw to the voter base, the paymaster unions facing demands for disaffiliation and the remaining left-of-neo-liberal membership - I would still hold that much of New Labour's Social Policy is more of a piece with ID cards and the expansion of government power. The youth cards, much of the role of Connexions, pronouncements on housing, education and mental health are all as much part of this social control agenda as they are anything to do with meeting social need.
The problem for new labour is that authoritarianism is the only response they are left with in the face of the social disorder and decay as they have capitulated to the neo-liberal agenda. In fact, it is this capitulation to the neo-liberal agenda that further drives social disorder - i.e. extending opening hours for the drinks industry(increased alcohol related/public disorder problems), extending opportunities for gambling for the leisure industry(increased gambling and debt problems), allowing extensive offshoring and casualisation in the economy (more employment insecurity, stress, and eventually long term unemployment when, as said above, the cycle turns) Worse still for new labour, the authoritarian approach does not work - either becuse under neo liberal financial constraints they cannot fund it (e.g. policing) or it is simply going to be unworkable (e.g. ID cards, much of the youth/education agenda). They are reduced to verbally lashing out at social and cultural trends that they cannot control and that are at least in part a result of the social conditions created by the neo-liberal deregulated economy.
Coupled with this, the whole point of PFI/PPP is two fold - a quick fix without annoying the markets too much over too much borrowing (though point taken on the still high level of borrowing) and the perception amongst the managerialist authoritarians at the heart of the new labour project that labour discipline (wages, disputes, etc) is better for "the country" (i.e. the interests of big capital and their own hold on power) in the private sector. Hence, in the long term, these cost more - when the pigeons come home to roost and the final bills come in it will be seen that PFI/PPP are short term political measures that do not make long term sense for the public finances.
The storm clouds are gathering...
One thing we can predict is that when Gordon Brown becomes prime minister it will be a setback for the left. Nowithstanding everything that's been said about his record, there is a good deal of faith in him in tradtionally wc areas and the departure of Blair will be seen as a clean slate. Obviously the disillutionment will come but he'll get 2 or 3 years grace.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i think the real miracle is that people are still taken in by gordon brown.
hibee said:
Probably cos your dad has lived thru the disappointment of previous Labour govts, who talked about making the pips squeak of the rich But But But.
Broken promises and economic incompetence were associated with Labour govts and Gordon Brown has managed to avoid that.
Similar threads
