Gordon Browns Economic Miracle?

[Isambard]

My insight and experience is that there a load of people who find it very easy to blame politicians for all the ills.
Because that is so much easier than taking responsibility for your own actions or lack of them.

So what do YOU do then tbaldwin?

Spouting mis-infomed rhetoric at a level something I'd expect from a GCSE English class on a bulletin board doesn't count.

 

[tbaldwin]

So what do YOU do then tbaldwin?

Spouting mis-infomed rhetoric at a level something I'd expect from a GCSE English class on a bulletin board doesn't count.

Not exactly clear what question your asking?

But id say people who want to change the world for the better have to be honest with themselves and other people.
The problems can not just simply be blamed on politicians or the media etc.
There really is no point in that.
I believe in rights and responsibilities. Too many people want to scapegoat politicians for all evils. As though they were alien beasts sent from another planet to fuck things up for us.
Its a very tempting thought for people who are intellectually too cowardly to really look at what is going on around them.

 

[Isambard]

Not exactly clear what question your asking?

What do you DO to make the world a better place?

 

[tbaldwin]

What do you DO to make the world a better place?

Well personally loads of different things over the years. Some through work,some through politics and some socially.
In all these areas i have at least tried to tell the truth and have come across too many bullshitters.
I was involved for loads of years in Anti Fascism and through work i have come across some real slimy wankers in education,social services,charities and of course regeneration.
There are loads of people i know who i respect who work in all those areas but they are dragged down by some of the people who are attracted into these jobs as an easy option.
What do you do as a matter of interest?

 

[fela fan]

My insight and experience is that there a load of people who find it very easy to blame politicians for all the ills.
Because that is so much easier than taking responsibility for your own actions or lack of them.

I agree. It won't be until the mass of people come to this realisation that things will improve politically.

The media help none.

 

[fela fan]

Not exactly clear what question your asking?

But id say people who want to change the world for the better have to be honest with themselves and other people.
The problems can not just simply be blamed on politicians or the media etc.
There really is no point in that.
I believe in rights and responsibilities. Too many people want to scapegoat politicians for all evils. As though they were alien beasts sent from another planet to fuck things up for us.
Its a very tempting thought for people who are intellectually too cowardly to really look at what is going on around them.

Another good post!

 

[fela fan]

In all these areas i have at least tried to tell the truth and have come across too many bullshitters.

I haven't read stuff like this on urban for ages mate. Good to read.

Bullshit baffles brains though.

 

[mk12]

I haven't read stuff like this on urban for ages mate. Good to read.

Bullshit baffles brains though.

Are you being sarcastic?

 

[Isambard]

What do you do as a matter of interest?

Do volunteer work for a socially engaged charity as it happens.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well Violentpanda, I would concede you do have a clue. Your not quite as stupid as a lot of people on here. But what you still seem to lack is honesty,i may be wrong but that is the way it appears to me.

Like a lot of people you are clever enough to realise there is something wrong with the ideology of "Scapegoating Politicians" but your not intellectually brave enough to take the next step.
And that next step means looking at a lot of people who are in the position to do something positive but dont.
It means looking not only at the hierarchical way the public and voluntary sector is run but looking at people at all levels in those organisations.
It also means looking honestly at Crime and the Liberal lefts pathetic record and statements on the issues.
It means not dismissing out of hand as "man of the people" etc anyone who recognises that Socialism without Populism is like Shoes without Feet.

I'll address your points one by one:

1) "...the next step...".
I'm under no illusions that the amount of people prepared to take part in general Labour political activism (rather than single-issue causes) is vanishingly small compared to the size of the population BUT although much of the non-engagement can be attributed to apathy and non-engagement on the part of the so-called "natural left", a significant minority of disaffection comes from "old lags" who have been active and who have deliberately disengaged as Labour party members have become progressively disenfranchised from their policy-making and policy-shaping functions. Look at it any way you like; if you take away the power of party members to actually make a difference, what is there left to them except to be a fig-leaf and rubber stamp on the policies of the leadership?

2) "...looking at people at all levels..."
I don't disagree, but structural change has to be a progressive endeavour, not a "rip it up and start again" action. Revolutionary change in any structure that has social welfare as part of it's remit carries the possibility of great harm if things go wrong. I believe that the WFTC fiasco stands as a prime example of that. If you're wedded to the current neo-liberal (with a nod to social democracy) system that we currently have then you have to acknowledge that policies should be formulated to harm the least and benefit the most, rather than being formulated to benefit interest groups and garner votes.

3) "It also means looking honestly at Crime and the Liberal lefts pathetic record and statements on the issues".
Again, I don't disagree. There is a problem with your formulation, though. It's that the right have an equally pathetic record of policy and rhetoric.
This is mostly because neither the left or right feel themselves able to "think outside the box" on crime and criminal justice, both sides have painted themselves into a particular outlook which, even though they lard it with lip service to initiatives such as "restorative justice", always falls back on custody with little emphasis on rehabilitation. It's my experience that if you don't offer the possibility of rehabilitation then the state has no-one to blame but themselves if they end up with a progressively worsening criminal justice situation, because they've removed a possible route away from crime. Rehabilitation may not actually reduce recidivism, but guess what? Neither does any other currently-deployed criminal justice mode, whether authoritarian or liberal.

4) "...It means not dismissing..."
I don't dismiss you, I castigate you for your assumption that your opinion is any more valid than anyone elses. You're the person who has repeatedly used the phrase "most people..." (without ever actually providing any evidence to support your contention, naturally) whenever trying to lend support to your claims. if that's not presenting yourself as a "man of the people" then what is?
As for socialism/populism, if that's the case then you're claiming that all policy should be produced with an eye to addressing populist concerns, whether those concerns have any inherent value or not. That way lies a fucking big shitpile.

My insight and experience is that there a load of people who find it very easy to blame politicians for all the ills.
Because that is so much easier than taking responsibility for your own actions or lack of them.

My insight and experience are such that I take responsibility for my own actions while still expecting politicians to take responsibility for the actions they take in my name. That means that if politicians (especially if they are truly "populist", as you wish them and their policies to be) take a decision that a significant part of the electorate disagree with, then they should at the least investigate their policy's validity, and at best either amend or remove it.
But we both know that no government, however populist, is ever going to any derogation of it's powers.

 

[tbaldwin]

I'll address your points one by one:

1) "...the next step...".
I'm under no illusions that the amount of people prepared to take part in general Labour political activism (rather than single-issue causes) is vanishingly small compared to the size of the population BUT although much of the non-engagement can be attributed to apathy and non-engagement on the part of the so-called "natural left", a significant minority of disaffection comes from "old lags" who have been active and who have deliberately disengaged as Labour party members have become progressively disenfranchised from their policy-making and policy-shaping functions. Look at it any way you like; if you take away the power of party members to actually make a difference, what is there left to them except to be a fig-leaf and rubber stamp on the policies of the leadership?

2) "...looking at people at all levels..."
I don't disagree, but structural change has to be a progressive endeavour, not a "rip it up and start again" action. Revolutionary change in any structure that has social welfare as part of it's remit carries the possibility of great harm if things go wrong. I believe that the WFTC fiasco stands as a prime example of that. If you're wedded to the current neo-liberal (with a nod to social democracy) system that we currently have then you have to acknowledge that policies should be formulated to harm the least and benefit the most, rather than being formulated to benefit interest groups and garner votes.

3) "It also means looking honestly at Crime and the Liberal lefts pathetic record and statements on the issues".
Again, I don't disagree. There is a problem with your formulation, though. It's that the right have an equally pathetic record of policy and rhetoric.
This is mostly because neither the left or right feel themselves able to "think outside the box" on crime and criminal justice, both sides have painted themselves into a particular outlook which, even though they lard it with lip service to initiatives such as "restorative justice", always falls back on custody with little emphasis on rehabilitation. It's my experience that if you don't offer the possibility of rehabilitation then the state has no-one to blame but themselves if they end up with a progressively worsening criminal justice situation, because they've removed a possible route away from crime. Rehabilitation may not actually reduce recidivism, but guess what? Neither does any other currently-deployed criminal justice mode, whether authoritarian or liberal.

4) "...It means not dismissing..."
I don't dismiss you, I castigate you for your assumption that your opinion is any more valid than anyone elses. You're the person who has repeatedly used the phrase "most people..." (without ever actually providing any evidence to support your contention, naturally) whenever trying to lend support to your claims. if that's not presenting yourself as a "man of the people" then what is?
As for socialism/populism, if that's the case then you're claiming that all policy should be produced with an eye to addressing populist concerns, whether those concerns have any inherent value or not. That way lies a fucking big shitpile.

My insight and experience are such that I take responsibility for my own actions while still expecting politicians to take responsibility for the actions they take in my name. That means that if politicians (especially if they are truly "populist", as you wish them and their policies to be) take a decision that a significant part of the electorate disagree with, then they should at the least investigate their policy's validity, and at best either amend or remove it.
But we both know that no government, however populist, is ever going to any derogation of it's powers.

1 When i talked about the next step i meant people going further than shallow hypocritical criticisms of politicians. It was about a lot more than just narrow political activity either within or outside the LP.

2 The self interested growing middle class have fucked things up for poorer people in this country and abroad. NL have put loads more money into the public and voluntary sector. Middle class liberals have wasted billions of it.
(Only total wankers really believe most of the moneys gone on privatisation)

3 Your right the right are just as shit on crime as the left. But as somebody on the left it is important to speak some kind of sense about anti social crime in particular and to argue that its important to not only tackle crime buts its causes.
I am not against rehabilitation,but i am against soft sentences for anti social crimes.And most of the left has very little to say of any worth on the Criminal Justice system.

4 The reason i use the pharse "most people" repeatedly is that most people on U75 seem to have so little regard for the views of the majority of people.
To me many of the views on here are elitist bollocks.
I dont really know what to say about your point "presenting myself as a man of the people" it just seems a bit shallow to be honest.
You seem to be falling in to the trap of believing that populism is a bad thing and that good people (people like yourself?) should resist it, in favour of what? The educated caring elite who really know ahts best for other people.

Down that path leads to the tyranny of minority rule.Which really is not too different from supporting the Class system.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think it's possible to see Brown's achievements as positive, but only if you implicitly accept, as he seems to, the current global economic system in which corporation tax has to be kept at about 25% and even then sweetened with a whole bunch of back-handers and corporate welfare, if those corporations aren't going to leave and take jobs with them.

Under that system, the room to make social improvements gets squeezed year on year because there is competition between nations to see who can be the most corporation-friendly. Under that system, we've got a choice between personal taxation (direct or otherwise) and cuts in services. Under that system, growth is God, so there is no hope of achieving sustainability. Brown seems to accept wholeheartedly Thatcher's dictum that "There is no alternative" to this global system.

I would argue that there is no alternative to getting rid of it.

 

[tbaldwin]

If there is no alternative to getting rid of the global system then you have to have a good idea of how to replace it.
It doesnt seem like most people on the left have any credible ideas. The lack of Internationalism that is exposed on here( just look at some of the contributions on immigration on durruttis thread) show just how far some people are going to have to go.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm happy to take responsibility for my words. I decline to take responsibility for anyone elses.

If you want to seriously discuss alternatives, try this thread

 

[lastmanineurope]

If the Tory boom and bust was the equivalent to a hilly path, the current path is a gentle slope up to a cliff edge. Our economy for the last 300 years or so has been based on exploitation and/or debt, and now the economy is totally at the mercy of the Bank of England who will crash the economy whenever it is most profitable for their owners to do so. Brown is typical of the fabianist mould of being a whore for big business and the global bankers whilst at the same time utilising Keynsian methods like the minimum wage, New Deal, public sector funding and excessive borrowing to make the economy appear stable.

Being a modern, shiny new, market conscious party, NeoLabour are well aware that projected image is more important than the reality, and as such they are utilising any misdirection or tricks their magicians can pull out of the hat to divert us from the fact that a massive crash is now inevitable, unless radical change happened very soon. The housing market and easy to get loans are snaring millions in unsustainable debt. When the balloon bursts (its a better analogy than bubble) hundreds of thousands will lose their homes and essentially become owned by the banks.

 

[the B]

Why the focus on the largest amount of debt around? Why not - the large amounts of credit around? Debits = credits after all...

Having debt is not intrinsically a problem.


Meanwhile, some kind of magic economic cycle does not exist. Shit happens in an economy, mostly because shit happens. There are 'shocks'. Oil prices rocket, war happens etc.

And I don't buy into some kind of grand conspiracy involving powerful bankers aiming to make a tidy profit.


Brown hasn't done anything remarkable, nor performed any miracles. He has largely avoided doing any major fuck ups (it would seem). Which is something of a miracle among politicians...

 

[tbaldwin]

Being a modern, shiny new, market conscious party, NeoLabour are well aware that projected image is more important than the reality, and as such they are utilising any misdirection or tricks their magicians can pull out of the hat to divert us from the fact that a massive crash is now inevitable, unless radical change happened very soon. The housing market and easy to get loans are snaring millions in unsustainable debt. When the balloon bursts (its a better analogy than bubble) hundreds of thousands will lose their homes and essentially become owned by the banks.

Why do you think a massive crash is inevitable? People have been saying this for years. But living standards have been steadily rising.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why do you think a massive crash is inevitable? People have been saying this for years. But living standards have been steadily rising.

Look at economic history, compare the peaks and troughs of cycles and then ask yourself "is a crash more likely than less likely to happen?"

Bear in mind it isn't the chancellor who in the end controls the economy, it's "the market".

 

[lastmanineurope]

You do not have to buy into any 'conspiracy' to know that a private bank with a total monopoly controls the economy by setting interest rates which then dictate the amount of money in circulation, and thus whether the money supply and so the economy is expanding or contracting.

Debt is a problem when it is at £1.1 trillion and when every new loan creates money which didn't exist before out of thin air. This then devalues the currency and falsely boosts the economy.

 

[chooch]

Why the focus on the largest amount of debt around? Why not - the large amounts of credit around? Debits = credits after all...

It's a question of who's in debt and who's in credit though innit. When it becomes respectively almost everyone against a handful of institutions and owners...

 

[tbaldwin]

Look at economic history, compare the peaks and troughs of cycles and then ask yourself "is a crash more likely than less likely to happen?"

Bear in mind it isn't the chancellor who in the end controls the economy, it's "the market".

So are you saying there is nothing politicians can do to avoid recessions etc?
That boom and bust is unavoidable? And that economic policies have little or no effect on whether or not there is a recession?

 

[redsquirrel]

D sadly a lot of this is being wasted by middle class liberals , who are usually first in the quee to say "NL really hasnt made a difference"

Which is why the vote in Labour heartlands didn't collapse last election eh?
This bullshit about how all the working class support new labour and that it's only some middle class lefties that argue against Blair is not only stuoid it's quite obviously false.

 

[tbaldwin]

Which is why the vote in Labour heartlands collapsed so abdly last election eh?

Well partly down to the media luvvies falling out of love with NL and the influence they can have with their cynicism. But also down to the fact that NL have not been able to make as much difference as they could have done,due largely to so much money going thru the hands of middle class liberal parasites.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well partly down to the media luvvies falling out of love with NL and the influence they can have with their cynicism.

Ha ha ha, so the working classes do exactly what the media tells them eh? And you have the cheek to tell others they're patronising the working class.

But also down to the fact that NL have not been able to make as much difference as they could have done,due largely to so much money going thru the hands of middle class liberal parasites.

I don't even no what this means. Instead I'll just point out that the whole point of New Labour was to attract the middle classes to the party in the first place. Hence Blairs constant cosying up to the CBI and the like.

 

[tbaldwin]

Ha ha ha, so the working classes do exactly what the media tells them eh? And you have the cheek to tell others they're patronising the working class.I don't even no what this means. Instead I'll just point out that the whole point of New Labour was to attract the middle classes to the party in the first place. Hence Blairs constant cosying up to the CBI and the like.

SAID

RS I dont think the working class do exactly what the media tells them.
If i did i would have said so,but i dont so i havent.
But i do think that everyone is influenced to an extent by the media.

Glad you think you know what the whole point of NL was "to attract the middle classes to the party"
I would humbly suggest your talking out of your egotistical arse as usual.
Labour lost succesive elections because it had lost the support of working class people. Thatcher appealed to people who had grown tired of Labour and the Left. They were not the middle class liberal types.

 

[redsquirrel]

SAID

RS I dont think the working class do exactly what the media tells them.
If i did i would have said so,but i dont so i havent.
But i do think that everyone is influenced to an extent by the media.

Still patronising the wc, something you have a go at others for doing.

Glad you think you know what the whole point of NL was "to attract the middle classes to the party"
I would humbly suggest your talking out of your egotistical arse as usual.
Labour lost succesive elections because it had lost the support of working class people. Thatcher appealed to people who had grown tired of Labour and the Left. They were not the middle class liberal types.

Then wahy was clause 4 dropped? Why did Blair (and Kinnock) spend so much time and effort cosying up to the CBI and co? I can't be bothered debating with you anymore you're the british equivalent of pbman.

 

[tbaldwin]

Still patronising the wc, something you have a go at others for doing.Then wahy was clause 4 dropped? Why did Blair (and Kinnock) spend so much time and effort cosying up to the CBI and co? I can't be bothered debating with you anymore you're the british equivalent of pbman.

RS.
How is saying people are "influenced to some extent by the media"
patronising them?

Clause 4 that really is the sound of you clutching at straws.
Who really gave a shit about that apart from a few political activists?

 

[greenman]

I seem to remember a certain poster on here, not a million miles away from the posts above going absolutely ape during a thread in which I gently suggested that he, and the hypothetical "working man in the street" he is so fond of claiming to speak for, might just be a little influenced by the right wing media

Apparently now it is only the liberal media who have any influence and right wing views are acquired naturally (or are not actually right wing at all, but by some stange alchemical process become "left wing" if popular enough )

Added - that thread in all its glory -
the other thread

 

[ViolentPanda]

So are you saying there is nothing politicians can do to avoid recessions etc?
That boom and bust is unavoidable? And that economic policies have little or no effect on whether or not there is a recession?

I'm saying that policies can only mitigate recessions (although mitigation is often enough for "the man on the Clapham Omnibus"), no economy has the power to avoid recession.
As for "boom and bust", again, you can smooth the peaks and troughs, but you can't "avoid" them because the factors that cause them are outside of direct control.

Policy CAN have significant effects to mitigate economic problems, but it has to be the right policy(s) applied at the right time, or else the effect won't be what was wished for.

 

[Fledgling]

As far as the original title of the thread asks I would say that fortune has played a great part in the last 8 years of Brown's reign of the purse. The Labour party inherited an already growing economy which had recovered from the early 90's recession and had a surplus to fall back on. We have relied for much of our growth and prosperity on house price booms, decreases in savings, a growth in private credit card companies and cheaper imports from countries such as China. Oil prices hit a low in 1999 and have not until recently really challenged our confidences (2000 can be read as a exceptional blip). The Chancellor has also built up public borrowing to levels which concern private eoconimsts while government economists only appear to beleive that this borrowing has been acceptable as it has not been as bad as the rest of Europe. In fact comparisons are possibly the only thing the gpvernment can now use to "prove" that our eoconmy is robust. But who do we compare to? Germany and the Eurozone.

The prosperity has I think been fuelled by consumer spending, not a good way to ensure continued growth because it is so fickle and dependednt on my original idea, fortune. I agree also with previous posters who pointed out that job creation has been a public sector affair and that travel costs have increased also. Our serious lack of investment in hard capital is skated around by the North Sea still managing to pump a little oil and gas out but this issue also has to faced upto.

In short this is a stop gap chancellor, stalling for time and putting off the inveitable, using fortune to place a mirrage of prosperity and prudence and developing an economic basis which has no stability.

As for the rest of the thread, there has been too much talk by one psoter of "middle class liberals/lefties/scum/etc and this user should try and mend their damaged reputation by telling us firstly who these horible people are and how he/she is so very different from them.