The Earl of Chesterfield, on 03 February 2024 - 07:33 AM, said:
But you yet again dodge the point.
You sneered that Labour 'might not do everything they promise' after winning the next election (sorry pal, I know it hurts, but it's gonna happen). Despite spending years - and repeating it here - excusing and defending Lib' Dem's who totally tore up their manifesto.
Which you now dub a "compromise". Yeah, let's see if you use that same term if Labour 'compromise' after inheriting a national debt way more than double that of 2010.
Then, despite all the eye rollingly predictable denials, your anti-Labour prejudice is in full display with the "TB decided to give everything away" line. Call yourself a numbers man? What was the national debt when Labour left office? What was average growth under TB? How were public services performing?
Every rational person knows austerity was an ideological decision made using the international financial crisis, which began in the 'States, as an excuse. With both Brown and the late Darling leading the world in addressing it. Let's also remember Cameron, Johnson and many more in their party demanding less - LESS - City regulation prior to that crash.
All that said I've gotta give you credit though, Ian. Your Labour hating hypocrisy pales into insignificance against that of someone who now quotes the Liam Byrne thing after continuing to vote for them - alongside turning typically blind eyes to the billions upon billions upon billions squandered by tory corruption and incompetence...
My point is Labour will have to compromise to get in power, stay in power, balance the books. They all do it. My view on the coalition is simple, we saw the value in it when you look at the first actions Cameron took when he had power his own way. Compromise is what life is all about, and achieving good is better than aiming for great and doing nothing (to paraphrase some saying). If Labour stick to the middle ground, keep most people happy and get a second term, I'll probably be happy because that means they have probably done OK....
I dont think you can compare national debt pre and post covid. Austerity as you call it, balancing the books as others call it, is a view that comes from economics yes, it says you cant just keep borrowing or your govt debt becomes too expensive, your interest rates go up, your ability to do stuff goes down and growth disappears into a more desperate form of financial crisis (see Greece, Ireland). You should borrow money in the bad times and pay it down in the good times. My criticism of Blair and Brown is they borrowed loads in the good times - and made benefits pay. But I'd take them again tomorrow over the current options.... because they had a belief, a set of principles, a goal. All of the current lot just seem to want power and will flip flop to get it....
Its easy by the way to throw money at a problem and say look how well I am doing. But that isnt a long term solution, you have to find a way to make things better in a way the country can afford. Every rational person (see what I did there) knows that is how you manage your finances at home, why would it be different for the govt? Maybe because someone else can pay for the debt?
I know you like links, so one for you to read. I'm off to explore my surroundings as away with work this weekend (its not overtime and I dont get paid... imagine that!)
https://www.imf.org/...2018/03/alesina
Stay Home. Stay Safe.