Why did Labour accept austerity?

[Humberto]

It hasn't worked and it hasn't reduced the deficit (or so I'm told). Plus there are worse things than running a deficit when its convenient e.g. after a global recession.

It was a global recession, yet the argument is that Brown ruined the economy by overspending. Where is Labour's argument instead of meekly acting like they have been rightly told off by their betters?

I realise this is well too late but my question would be: why allow your credibility to be traduced without complaint?

 

[free spirit]

because they were following the strategy of being the tory-lite party to attempt to appeal to soft tories, but instead they merely shot themselves in the foot and helped the tories to paint them as being economically incompetent and responsible for the massive deficit, rather than that being a sensible response to a massive global economic crash. idiots.

 

[Humberto]

that'll be it. ta

 

[emanymton]

Cos they're a bunch of pricks.

 

[BigTom]

Because their economic ideology (neo liberalism) tells them that austerity is the right thing to do.

 

[redsquirrel]

Because many in the Labour party, particularly at the higher levels, are neo-liberals and so why would they oppose austerity. (Or what emanymton said basically)

 

[danny la rouge]

Because they believe in it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Because they hate the working class.

 

[DotCommunist]

nothing new either, wilson's gov introduced austerity measures too.

 

[Old Spark]

Bit of nostalgia innit.

Well big gordie and alastair saved the world in 2008 ,I mean the banking system,and that cost a packet plus the recession that flowed throughout the world capitalist system from the crash.

After that tricky as the electorate ,lead by tories and the msm, blamed labour for the crash.Electorate didnt understand what had happened,how close we came to armageddon (troops on the street,credit cards not working,atms shut down ,widespread looting etc),so as usual when hard times hit politics goes right.

What would Labour have done differently if it had been in coalition after 2010.Not much -like the tories protected health and education as much as they could.Wouldnt have protected pensioners as most vote tory.Increased benefits more and maybe cut ni as well as tax for the low paid.Prob wouldnt have put taxes up for the rich or done as much as the tories on tax evasion.Would have run bigger deficits I guess.£ would have gone down more .

Might have AV tho and even PR for english local.government.No referendum of course.Ed Balls ,David Miliband and Ed Miliband would have lost to someone in leadership contest in 2014.

Anyway we have Brexit and Trump so suck it up.Live for today .

 

[two sheds]

and partially I think because they and the tories view the economy like a household economy - if your income goes down you 'tighten your belt'.

 

[Old Spark]

and partially I think because they and the tories view the economy like a household economy - if your income goes down you 'tighten your belt'.

Thats how the electorate view it of course so you have to pretend to go along with it to win but then if you win in office you go back to keynes.

 

[two sheds]

Thats how the electorate view it of course so you have to pretend to go along with it to win but then if you win in office you go back to keynes.

I thought Keynes believed in increased investment in the economy during a recession?

 

[Old Spark]

I thought Keynes believed in increased investment in the economy during a recession?

Yes do the opposite of the economy .Thats what McDonnell is proposing.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It hasn't worked and it hasn't reduced the deficit (or so I'm told). Plus there are worse things than running a deficit when its convenient e.g. after a global recession.

It was a global recession, yet the argument is that Brown ruined the economy by overspending. Where is Labour's argument instead of meekly acting like they have been rightly told off by their betters?

I realise this is well too late but my question would be: why allow your credibility to be traduced without complaint?

Because they are the same, self serving bunch of arseholes as any other political party.

 

[J Ed]

It hasn't worked and it hasn't reduced the deficit (or so I'm told). Plus there are worse things than running a deficit when its convenient e.g. after a global recession.

It was a global recession, yet the argument is that Brown ruined the economy by overspending. Where is Labour's argument instead of meekly acting like they have been rightly told off by their betters?

I realise this is well too late but my question would be: why allow your credibility to be traduced without complaint?

Well, you can see what happened in France when a leader of a Social Democratic party campaigned on an anti-austerity platform which he had no intention of implementing. An incredible 4% approval rating, a lower approval rating than Fidel Castro (5%), Chavez (9%) or the US becoming communist (11%) in the USA. You can also see how Labour MPs have reacted to a leader who for his many, many faults has proposed an anti-austerity platform. Ed Miliband, who was probably quite far to the left of where he propose to govern, would have known that they would react that way to him, too.

 

[two sheds]

Yes do the opposite of the economy .Thats what McDonnell is proposing.

yes and Richard Murphy too, shame he seems out of favour with Corbyn. So what we got now is post-Keynsian.

 

[not-bono-ever]

all of the above ^^^

Do labour have a role any longer ?

 

[two sheds]

all of the above ^^^

Do labour have a role any longer ?

UKIP or Lib Dems our only chance of getting rid of the tories you reckon?

 

[agricola]

Because their only other option would be to admit that almost all that the Blair / Brown government had done - PFI, outsourcing, privatization, benefit "reform" (of the ATOS kind), weakening regulation and the rest - had wasted an unheard of amount of money, and they would have been wiped out as a party as a result.

 

[Argonia]

They haven't accepted austerity. Every speech he makes corbyn rails against it.

 

[brogdale]

They haven't accepted austerity. Every speech he makes corbyn rails against it.

Until 12th September 2015 they didn't accept, but implemented (or planned to) austerity.

 

[Old Spark]

UKIP or Lib Dems our only chance of getting rid of the tories you reckon?

Tories are now ukip -if nuttall loses in stoke just a slow death for them-reckon carswell will just vote with the tories as well.

Labour has 231 seats,Lib dems have 9.Now which one is more likely(eventually ) to replace the Tories?

Labours AB1 vote remains solid in opinion polls.DE and C2 vote has gone walkabout and not likely to return(much) under JC.

 

[mauvais]

I think it's fundamentally simple. Not in terms of core ideology but the space that exists/existed for the Labour party to fill. They were trying to shed or combat the popular idea that Labour are the party of profligate spending, without or instead of tackling the idea that spending and borrowing is inherently a negative, which would have been far too much like hard work. This is the root cause of a lot of things: failing to express a compelling alternative narrative and thus constantly having the Tories redefine the lines of the battlefield.

Tory and Labour electability on economic grounds is traditionally cyclical. 'An end to boom and bust' didn't exactly work out any better.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Because they assumed FPTP meant the left had nowhere else to go, and so the only thing they needed to do to regain power was to implement into policy what focus groups of voters in swing constituencies thought was important.

These groups tended to buy the view that Labour had crashed the economy and fiscal health of the nation through reckless spending, whereas sober analysis of the figures showed only a modest levels of pre-crisis deficit and debt (i.e. problems were caused by tax revenue collapsing and a surge in unemployment caused by the crisis itself). I agree with those who say what Labour should have done was order an independent review of the issue. Instead they meekly acceded to the story the Tories wrote for them, and promised to ape key parts of the austerity agenda.

 

[two sheds]

Labour has 231 seats,Lib dems have 9.Now which one is more likely(eventually ) to replace the Tories?

Indeed - my question was in response to the statement that Labour doesn't have a role any longer.

 

[Pickman's model]

Tories are now ukip -if nuttall loses in stoke just a slow death for them-reckon carswell will just vote with the tories as well.

Labour has 231 seats,Lib dems have 9.Now which one is more likely(eventually ) to replace the Tories?

Labours AB1 vote remains solid in opinion polls.DE and C2 vote has gone walkabout and not likely to return(much) under JC.

yeh. right around a hundred years ago you might have asked the same question and we all know how that turned out.

 

[Dogsauce]

Instead they meekly acceded to the story the Tories wrote for them, and promised to ape key parts of the austerity agenda.

I think the difficulty they faced in challenging the story is that it was accepted and reported as fact by most of the media, the BBC in particular. I don't think they had the spine for such a fight.

 

[treelover]

There was to be a series of programmes around the cuts/austerity, Cameron called in Thompson(DG) and they were axed, completely

 

[Wolveryeti]

I think the difficulty they faced in challenging the story is that it was accepted and reported as fact by most of the media, the BBC in particular. I don't think they had the spine for such a fight.

Yep. The idea that the BBC has a left wing bias is a joke. Seems the main qualification you need to score an interview on economics/fiscal stuff with them is a sharp suit/tie and no heterodox views.