I have no idea, but it's an incredibly daft political strategy. If you think Labour have an economic credibility problem now, just imagine what it's going to be like next time when the Tories are armed with attack lines like "even Labour admit they overspent, there's the proof it wasn't just a Tory scare story, so why on earth would you trust them again?"

 

Not to mention, the implication that the deficit was "too big" in 2007 -- it will almost certainly be bigger than that in 2020, so they're giving licence yet again for the main issue of the next election to be the deficit yet again. But apparently these people still haven't learnt that if your opponents want you to do something, it's the very last thing you should do.

Well, imo it's not true that they overspent at all; the deficit before the banking crash really was small by historic standards.

 

But even leaving aside whether it's true in reality, it makes no sense for Labour to say it. It's like an electrician putting an ad in the paper bragging about all the faulty wirings they've done; you're not exactly going to be rushing to them are you. People aren't going to think "aw they're so modest to admit they screwed up!" like these clueless politicians think -- all the public will hear is an admission of failure and resolve never to go back to them.

This is looking at it in totally the wrong way. If you thought an electrician had done you faulty wiring, why would you ever hire them again if they insisted they hadn't done it wrong, let alone even mentioned how they'd stop . It's not a case that there are loads of people out there that think Labour did just fine and dandy on the economy who are suddenly about to leave us if we admit, actually, we shouldn't have run a deficit (and yes, even if it was small by historic standards it doesn't mean it wasn't overspending. Going a tenner into your overdraft is still overspending, especially if you ought to be building your position up for big spending for stimulation during a recession) and if we say we won't run a deficit unless there's a recession next time.

 

It isn't giving it licence in 2020 - it's closing it down and moving on. And if it is bigger in 2020, the Tories certainly won't be in a position to lecture on fiscal responsibility given they'll have had ten years by then and given how many unfunded promises they just came out with during this campaign.

This myth that Miliband D would have done better than Miliband E is almost entirely an invention by the Tory press. It's all been part of their campaign to discredit Miliband E. Just look at the number of times they have shown that awkward picture with the bacon buttie. If Miliband D had won, they would have used that picture with the banana instead.

 

Similarly, if Andy Burnham becomes leader, they will remind readers that he was booed at a Hillsborough memorial service. Even The Sun will try that line, despite their utterly shameful record on Hillsborough. They will ignore the fact that the reaction to that booing was the establishment of the enquiry that finally reported the truth.

 

They will continue to ignore Cameron's failings - his role in Black Wednesday, leaving his daughter in the pub etc. - and his lies - "no top down reorganisation of the NHS", "I'm a passionate Aston Villa supporter" etc. If Boris Johnson becomes leader, they will ignore his serial adultery. As with Cameron, there will be no mention of the Bullingdon Club.

This is looking at it in totally the wrong way. If you thought an electrician had done you faulty wiring, why would you ever hire them again if they insisted they hadn't done it wrong, let alone even mentioned how they'd stop . It's not a case that there are loads of people out there that think Labour did just fine and dandy on the economy who are suddenly about to leave us if we admit, actually, we shouldn't have run a deficit (and yes, even if it was small by historic standards it doesn't mean it wasn't overspending. Going a tenner into your overdraft is still overspending, especially if you ought to be building your position up for big spending for stimulation during a recession) and if we say we won't run a deficit unless there's a recession next time.

 

It isn't giving it licence in 2020 - it's closing it down and moving on. And if it is bigger in 2020, the Tories certainly won't be in a position to lecture on fiscal responsibility given they'll have had ten years by then and given how many unfunded promises they just came out with during this campaign.

In their first four years in office, the last Labour government had more years in surplus than the Tories managed in 18 years. Why didn't Labour mention that? Why did they not remind people that the Tories supported Labour's spending plans immediately before the crash. Why did they not ask Osborne and co. how Gordon Brown caused recessions in the USA, Spain, Italy,...? Labour's record on the economy was largely good, but they failed abysmally in defending it.

This is looking at it in totally the wrong way. If you thought an electrician had done you faulty wiring, why would you ever hire them again if they insisted they hadn't done it wrong, let alone even mentioned how they'd stop . It's not a case that there are loads of people out there that think Labour did just fine and dandy on the economy who are suddenly about to leave us if we admit, actually, we shouldn't have run a deficit (and yes, even if it was small by historic standards it doesn't mean it wasn't overspending. Going a tenner into your overdraft is still overspending, especially if you ought to be building your position up for big spending for stimulation during a recession) and if we say we won't run a deficit unless there's a recession next time.

 

It isn't giving it licence in 2020 - it's closing it down and moving on. And if it is bigger in 2020, the Tories certainly won't be in a position to lecture on fiscal responsibility given they'll have had ten years by then and given how many unfunded promises they just came out with during this campaign.

 

I don't understand this "conceding and move on" mantra. The Tories are not going to let you "move on" after an admission that you wrecked the economy :lol: (and no, the average member of the public isn't going to pay attention to the contorted nuances of "we spent too much but that didn't cause the crash"). Whoever is the Tory leader at the next election are going to at any opportunity say "even they admit they made a mess, so you sure as hell shouldn't trust them". If people think you royally screwed up, they're not going to trust you again.

 

All the public are going to be hearing right now is "the Tories really must've been right all along if Labour are admitting it".

Edited May 17, 201510 yr by Danny

Well no, because again - saying you overspent a bit isn't the same thing as saying 'yeah, we wrecked the economy'. And the public isn't so stupid as to lose track of an argument the second you put a second statement into a sentence. Spending a little too much doesn't crash an economy - if it did, the economy would be wrecked now and would have been wrecked almost every year of Thatcher's government. But it comes back to hurt you when the crash comes, because you can't borrow and spend as much to prop up the economy.

 

This also ignores that we're mocked and laughed at every time we insist we didn't overspend, and the Conservatives have long since insisted we did overspend. People don't take flat earthers seriously, and that's the stage this argument is at. What exactly is gained by looking ridiculous every time we say it? It's not just saying 'we spent too much', it's about saying why we won't spend too much next time - people don't trusting you to do it again, regardless of how many promises you make, if you don't recognise you did it the first time.

 

Would you hire the electrician who wrecked your wiring who didn't admit it? How about the one who admitted the mistake he made and said exactly how he'd make sure it didn't happen next time? The competitor might laugh if he admits the mistake. When he's wrecking wiring of his own next time and fervently admitting that he isn't, he probably wouldn't look so wise compared to the one who admitted what they got wrong last time a good five years ago by then and had a believable solution for how they'd fix the wiring now.

All the public are going to be hearing right now is "the Tories really must've been right all along if Labour are admitting it".

We just had an absolute shellacking of a loss and you think they haven't already come to the conclusion we can't be trusted on the economy? You don't get out of a hole by digging deeper.

 

*Countless* people who were considering voting for us got turned off by Ed refusing to say the last government made any mistakes on spending. It wasn't the only thing that turned them off (without even beginning to consider the plenty who'd not even considered voting for us because they thought we couldn't be trusted on spending at all) but it was one of the biggest. How do you get them back - still insisting we didn't overspend when that's what they've made their mind up on? If there's one thing that impresses them less than an admission, it's carrying on. We're in a dreadful position on this having poker faced it for five years, but only one option even allows a potential recovery on this.

Well no, because again - saying you overspent a bit isn't the same thing as saying 'yeah, we wrecked the economy'. And the public isn't so stupid as to lose track of an argument the second you put a second statement into a sentence. Spending a little too much doesn't crash an economy - if it did, the economy would be wrecked now and would have been wrecked almost every year of Thatcher's government. But it comes back to hurt you when the crash comes, because you can't borrow and spend as much to prop up the economy.

 

This also ignores that we're mocked and laughed at every time we insist we didn't overspend, and the Conservatives have long since insisted we did overspend. People don't take flat earthers seriously, and that's the stage this argument is at. What exactly is gained by looking ridiculous every time we say it? It's not just saying 'we spent too much', it's about saying why we won't spend too much next time - people don't trusting you to do it again, regardless of how many promises you make, if you don't recognise you did it the first time. Would you hire the electrician who wrecked your wiring who didn't admit it? How about the one who admitted the mistake he made and said exactly how he'd make sure it didn't happen next time?

 

You're right that it's a problem that Labour are mocked everytime they say they overspent, a consequence of not challenging the Tories' argument enough over the past 5 years about how running a deficit is evil. But that's no reason to get bogged down in the quicksand even more and make it even harder to ever get out.

 

And again, this implication of Labour committing to not spending any money next time - what exactly is the point of Labour if they're not going to do anything different to the Tories? Please don't tell me they're going to return to the argument of "we can make things magically better for free while spending no money".

Edited May 17, 201510 yr by Danny

It's not about 'not spending any money next time'. The Tories aim for surpluses so they can cut taxes. Labour don't aim for surpluses so they can fund services. The main reason we have the massive deficit now is because the tax base has been eroded - the big reasons for that are the reliance on self employment since the crisis and the raising of the personal allowance threshold.

Would you hire the electrician who wrecked your wiring who didn't admit it? How about the one who admitted the mistake he made and said exactly how he'd make sure it didn't happen next time? The competitor might laugh if he admits the mistake. When he's wrecking wiring of his own next time and fervently admitting that he isn't, he probably wouldn't look so wise compared to the one who admitted what they got wrong last time a good five years ago by then and had a believable solution for how they'd fix the wiring now.

 

No, I definitely wouldn't EVER hire an electrician who wrecked the wiring no matter how much they apologised (if he was that incompetent to do it before, he could do it again even without meaning to). The only way I'd hire him is if he proved he hadn't wrecked it in the first place.

No, I definitely wouldn't EVER hire an electrician who wrecked the wiring no matter how much they apologised (if he was that incompetent to do it before, he could do it again even without meaning to). The only way I'd hire him is if he proved he hadn't wrecked it in the first place.

!

 

Right, and if you were quite certain he had wrecked it in the first place? How exactly do you expect Labour to 'prove' they hadn't wrecked it?

 

You're right in the bracketed part - there will always be that concern. But the only way you can even *begin* to allay it when you've lost the argument is by saying how you'd make sure it wouldn't happen again and recognising the mistake. As Blair and Brown did with the legacy of the Callaghan government (granted - it helps a lot when your leader didn't play a role in the government that made the mistake).

It's not about 'not spending any money next time'. The Tories aim for surpluses so they can cut taxes. Labour don't aim for surpluses so they can fund services. The main reason we have the massive deficit now is because the tax base has been eroded - the big reasons for that are the reliance on self employment since the crisis and the raising of the personal allowance threshold.

 

That's not answering my question - if Labour aren't for providing public services and government help (which inevitably costs money), what exactly are they for?

!

 

Right, and if you were quite certain he had wrecked it in the first place? How exactly do you expect Labour to 'prove' they hadn't wrecked it?

 

If I was that certain, then I would never hire him again no matter what. It's going to be difficult for Labour to try to change perceptions of what happened in the late 2000s now that they've given the Tories such a huge headstart, but it's their ONLY chance of success, at any point in the next 15 years or so atleast. By making the argument that governments constantly run deficits and the financial markets don't care as long as they're under control.

Edited May 17, 201510 yr by Danny

This arguement seems to be based on arguing on the rights terrain. On the economy since the 1970s the right has dominated just like labour dominated the social arguments.

To return to the argument that Labour can defend their record:

 

"An end to boom and bust..." there was no "as long as our banks and foreign banks aren't pulling the wool over our eyes".

 

Brown set up the watchdogs for British banks. they failed. they went bankrupt. It's all very well saying it's a world crisis, but the world didn't govern Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB, and the Scottish banks. Gordon brown did, the Iron Chancellor and the man who was in charge when it all went tits up.

 

Sorry, I do not buy for a second, and neither do the general public (regardless of the Tory press) that Labour were somehow hapless victims of circumstances out of their control. Sorry if this is rehashing old arguments, but Labour seem to be trying to rewrite recent history when they should just be saying "that's what the Tories would have done, they were in favour they are hypocrites" and going on the attack by quoting the million different quotes available on the economy and banking legislation (which they invented and Labour only mildly tinkered with). The Right-wing created the perfect storm for the banking crisis and all subsequent governments believed their crap, Labour making a mint from the banks in tax.

 

Till it went wrong.

"An end to boom and bust" was as foolish as the Lib Dem pledge on tuition fees. Nevertheless, to blame Gordon Brown for what happened to the banks just doesn't work. He didn't deregulate the banks, the Tories did. Of course, Labour could have done more to re-introduce banking regulation. However, it would have taken up a lot of time, so it is not hard to understand why they didn't do it. With the benefit of hindsight, that can be portrayed as a massive mistake. At the time, it's easy to see why they made the decisions they did.

To return to the argument that Labour can defend their record:

 

"An end to boom and bust..." there was no "as long as our banks and foreign banks aren't pulling the wool over our eyes".

 

Brown set up the watchdogs for British banks. they failed. they went bankrupt. It's all very well saying it's a world crisis, but the world didn't govern Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB, and the Scottish banks. Gordon brown did, the Iron Chancellor and the man who was in charge when it all went tits up.

 

Sorry, I do not buy for a second, and neither do the general public (regardless of the Tory press) that Labour were somehow hapless victims of circumstances out of their control. Sorry if this is rehashing old arguments, but Labour seem to be trying to rewrite recent history when they should just be saying "that's what the Tories would have done, they were in favour they are hypocrites" and going on the attack by quoting the million different quotes available on the economy and banking legislation (which they invented and Labour only mildly tinkered with). The Right-wing created the perfect storm for the banking crisis and all subsequent governments believed their crap, Labour making a mint from the banks in tax.

 

Till it went wrong.

 

Brown was an idiot who constantly said stupid things to get a good day's headlines, and he didn't regulate the banks enough. No-one disagrees with either of those things. But what we're talking about is whether they overspent; comparing the deficit at the time to historic standards shows they just didn't, and Labour have no chance at all of winning anytime soon if they don't start making that argument.

They will continue to ignore Cameron's failings - his role in Black Wednesday, leaving his daughter in the pub etc. - and his lies - "no top down reorganisation of the NHS", "I'm a passionate Aston Villa supporter" etc. If Boris Johnson becomes leader, they will ignore his serial adultery. As with Cameron, there will be no mention of the Bullingdon Club.

 

 

It wasn't just Cameron's fault that the daughter was left in the pub though. The armed personal protection officers guarding the PM and his family should have realised that one was missing! :rolleyes: They were totally negligent and I'm surprised that no-one was sacked over that. One parent thought she was with the other and vice-versa but the bodyguards utterly failed as far as I could understand. :angry: They obviously weren't watching closely enough. She could have been kidnapped or anything. Can you imagine them guarding high profile royals and driving off without one of them!

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by Common Sense

Brown was an idiot who constantly said stupid things to get a good day's headlines, and he didn't regulate the banks enough. No-one disagrees with either of those things. But what we're talking about is whether they overspent; comparing the deficit at the time to historic standards shows they just didn't, and Labour have no chance at all of winning anytime soon if they don't start making that argument.

 

they didn't overspend compared to income, but the income was not real. It was temporary revenue thanks to the banks. It's like going for a mortgage based on a 6-month temp job instead of a permanent job and saving up for it first to make sure you can afford it.

 

I think the state of the property market is an entirely perfect reflection of what Labour were doing with their economic planning. Brown thought he had invented a new way of avoiding economic history and reality and he was massively wrong.

 

As for Suedehead's earlier comment, sorry Labour had 13 years to sort out the banks and the housing market and essentially did nothing because it suited their political interest, grabbing the erroneous and hideously flawed Tory policy ground to ensure election victories. If you are in charge of the economy (which they were) and it goes wrong (which it did) then it's at the very least a massive failure of their own "worst scenario planning" skills and shows them to be just rubbish at planning for what was entirely predictable based on previous economic history.

 

The only ones doing their actual job in terms of advance warnings were the BBC (and a minority of the press), and to an extent the Libdems, those 2 favourite targets of attack from the establishment. Am I the only one that remembers all those Newsnight pieces on the record-breaking breathtakingly high borrowing figures long before the Crash (personal borrowing as much as government borrowing)?!! I mean really, it was NOT a shock when the bubble burst, the shock was the Government of the day gaily tripping obliviously into it, while they were distracted invaded foreign countries and bickering for power between themselves at the top level.

 

As long as Labour continue to forget about history there will be people like me reminding them of what exactly happened, so any attempt to not accept at least a portion of blame will continue to backfire.

Was Gordon Brown really in charge of those private banks though??

 

Its always the states fault when something goes wrong and when things go right these banks pay themselves huge rewards!!

Edited May 18, 201510 yr by steve201

Was Gordon Brown really in charge of those private banks though??

 

Its always the states fault when something goes wrong and when things go right these banks pay themselves huge rewards!!

 

Yes, brown was in charge. He set up the organisation to oversee them, check their accounts and policies and to ensure that they didn't do anything that would wreck the British economy because they were too big to allow to fail without the UK going under, and to incidentally check they were behaving in a responsible honest fashion. Pretty much their reason to exist, and pretty much his job to make sure they did what they were supposed to do. Nobody involved in any of this has yet to be held to account. So the buck stops with the man at the top who engineered it.

 

Any government who allowed their banks to behave like that is to blame, they can't all conveniently point the finger at the Americans for starting the ball rolling (and it was in any case British workers who invented the selling-on of disguised crap for JPM, and no-one forced British banks to give risky borrowers mortgages and loans, and no-one forced them to buy risky crap from the Americans, they chose to do it). The whole "oh it's alright if everyone else is doing it" excuse doesn't wash. If a bank can destroy you, you make damn sure they are under control.

 

You're right though about the rewards - they all knew the taxpayer would bail them out and they would get off scott-free. Or Scot-free for two of them, being Scottish British banks.

 

Any arguing over the figures of debt in 2008 and now is largely trying to use them to divert attention from the root causes of our current situation and to avoid culpability. They are linked.