No-one can rewrite political history
Peter Mandelson has been re-writing the government's line on public spending cuts but no-one can re-write political history.
I suggested on the Today programme this morning that if you listened hard you might just hear the sound of shredders in Whitehall as Gordon Brown's "lines to take" on spending were disposed of - in particular, the prime minister's insistence that the choice facing the electorate was "Tory cuts" versus "Labour investment". Lord Mandelson suggested that the words had never actually been used. Not so.
On 17 June 2009 (Hansard Column 295)
Prime Minister: "The first thing we are absolutely sure of is that, regardless of economic circumstances, employment, investment and inflation, the Conservatives will cut expenditure by 10%. The right hon. gentleman said it himself last week - Tory cuts versus Labour investment."
And again a few moments later:
Prime Minister: "The issue is that the Conservatives will cut current expenditure in real and cash terms. It is exactly what I said - Tory cuts, Labour investment."
This was at the time that Gordon Brown was labelling David Cameron "Mr 10 Per Cent" after the Tory Health Spokesman, Andrew Lansley had blurted out - also on the Today programme as it happens - that cuts of 10% in other departments would be needed to preserve increased spending on the NHS.
Update, 11:45: When the prime minister spoke of Tory cuts and Labour investment he was, Team Brown now claim, merely quoting David Cameron's own words back at him from the previous week's Prime Minister's Questions on 10 June (Hansard column 788).
Cameron: "The next election - when he has the guts to call it - will not be about Labour investment versus Tory cuts, but about the mismanagement - [Interruption.] It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficit that he has left and his plan for cuts."
Mmmm. Gordon Brown used the phrase repeatedly on 17 June (Hansard column 296):
"His is the party of cuts; we are the party of investment" doesn't sound to me like a quote from the Tory leader.
Or, how about this one which doesn't use the key phrase but embodies the sentiment and talks about investment in the future and not just during the recession (Hansard column 295):
"We are investing to get ourselves out of the recession; the Opposition would cut, and they would make the recession last longer. That would lead to higher debts and higher deficits that would have to be spent for. As for spending beyond 2011, the right hon. Gentleman knows the truth: he wants to spend less - 10% less in most Departments - whereas we want to spend more."
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
For months Labour MPs, not just Brown, kept telling us that they would invest while the Conservatives cut. They really are in trouble if they're relying on everyone having collective amnesia for them to stand a chance at the elections...
Labour seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming the electorate are as stupid as they are themselves. They're in for a hell of a shock come the election...
Complain about this comment
This is indicative of the schizophrenic nature of this government. Peter Mandelson is a bloody joke!
Complain about this comment
Great interview this morning. Is it now a given that it is Mandy who is the official spokesperson for public spending? Not the Chancellor or even dare i say it the PM? I just imagine Darling and Brown huddled around a radio with cushions on their knees that they cower behind when the difficult questions are asked. When it comes to a big issue that they know they have to re-think, send out Mandy. What a pair of weak men they are.
We all know why it is Mandy of course but just a pity that he does not realise that time for weasel words is over. Let him dig the hole and fall in it.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone believe anything newlabour ever says, ever again?
Their plans to cut spending not now but later and still no detail on where they will cut have the familiar ring of the person who is always about to give up smoking but never does. 'I'll start tomorrow...' Yeah, right.
Newlabour will never stop spending until the UK has been downgraded and interest rates have soared and the IMF has come knocking on their door. It's not in their DNA. What is hard wired into newlabour DNA is that govenment knows best and governments spend other peoples' money better than they can. I beg to differ.
After 12 years of non stop spending during which time the NHS budget has tripled; they did nothing to stop index linked final salary public sector pensions rising; the welfare budget exploded due to sure start, the work shy, immigration and every other newlabour interest group had wrung every last penny out of it we are supposed to believe they will exercise restraint. Don't make me laugh.
You can see from the Lord Mandleson comments above that newlabour apologists are still far more interested trying to find a dividing line that trying to solve the problem. They have no intention of doing anyhting about debt either tomorrow or the next day.
We have a bunch of clowns running the country.
Move over and make room for someone who takes this country seriously.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
Funny that, Nick.
They've been doing it for 12 years. You've only just noticed?
To cover up one lie, you need to tell another, then another 2 to cover the first two, then four to cover the next two and it just goes on, exponentially.
What did Blair say back in 96/97? "We will be whiter than white", wasn't it?
Cant believe a single word they say. Roll on 2010.
Complain about this comment
Peter Mandelson lied? A man of such integrity told a lie? I'm shocked.
Complain about this comment
This is why is honesty is the best policy. Sooner or later your lies come back to bite you. Not that I ever expect the Mandelsnake to ever learn that lesson.
Complain about this comment
I see Prime Minister Mandelson has spoken - does he REALLY think we are so stupid as to believe ANYTHING he says, unelected and booted out twice, that will make us think he can sort out the UK - roll on the election and oblivion for ZanuLiebour.
Complain about this comment
Peter Mandelsons is merely the mechanic for our ailing leaders life support machine.
His presence in government is an affront to our political system.
Is anyone really interested in anything he has to say?
Complain about this comment
Just shows the contempt this Government has for the electorate.
Mandy has been behind everything Brown has spouted and now expects us to believe a new trainload of lies - unbelievable.
Complain about this comment
What a surprise conflicting points of view coming from the government. Everyone knows that no matter who's in power come the next election, that there will need to be huge cuts across the whole board. Yet still Labour are creating more pointless quangos to waste more money which we just don't have.
Complain about this comment
Lets cut to the chase, I will state it, as the BBC is unable/not able to. The public sector deficit this year is going to be at least £175 billion, more likely £200 billion. More of an issue will be the inability of the treasury to raise sufficient tax income in the coming years.The idea that education and health can be ring fenced is a pipe dream.
It is likely that a 20% cut in expenditure will be required within 12 months, the gamble on keeping public expenditure high when there is insufficient monies coming in has failed. No doubt New Labour will come up with new smoke and mirrors to postpone the inevitable in the months to come, but ironically it will be the market who will decide the extent of the cutbacks.
The payback for the last 10 years of folly is now due.
Complain about this comment
Mandelson lives in a different universe to everyone else on the planet. In his world the truth is only what he wants it to be. He is the real Prime Minister using Gordon Brown as the front man for that office. He cannot and never could be trusted.
Complain about this comment
Realization droppeth as the scales from a BBC editor's eyes.
Complain about this comment
It is to be hoped that most people remember 1996/7, when Peter Madelson was the "Man Behind The Throne". His intereview this moring with Jim Naughty was positively enthalling for its disingenuousness. Back to the good old days of "SPIN". Brown knows he is probably the least popular PM since time began but to bring Mandy back from Busells, give him a peerage (after having had to resign from government twice for, worst case secnario, "errors of jugement") and then let him get up to his old tricks shows Brown in his true light. Thank God Nick Robinson was able to track down the "Labour Investment versus Tory Cuts" quote in time to throw it back at him. One realises, of coure, that, even then, Mandy merely ignored what was said. Take care everyone, the "Eminence Grise" is well and truly back! Listen to him without thinking at your peril.
Complain about this comment
Well done, Nick!
Maybe you'll be more cynical on 'line to take' spin from the government in future.
Complain about this comment
"We do not believe that we should try to solve problems simply by throwing money at them"
Mandy really said that???
Hahahahahahahaha. Haven't laughed so much in years!!!
Complain about this comment
You can't blame him for trying. The Labour party's credibility has been lost completely, even seemingly within traditional circles. So much so, that even rational statements are rubbished as incompetent lies.
At least with the Conservative party, you know what you are getting. Despite the supposed lack of substance, it is believable that they keep their policies to themselves so Labour cannot use them!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This should really come as no surprise given Labour's constant dodging of this issue. Now the truth is out along with the realisation that Gordon Brown's government has tried to take the British electorate for a bunch of fools. Who is Mr 10% now?
Complain about this comment
Over the weekend Alan Johnson claimed the Tories had called the biggest decision of the Century wrong - that of using spending to get through the recession.
Did Brown therefore call the the other side of the equation (and an equally large decision) wrong - how the deficit caused by the spending should be reduced?
It suggests that Brown made the easy decision to keep spending with no idea how to deal with the additional consequences the policy was sure to cause.
Any recession can be delayed by increases in Government spending, when you are happy to put the burden of debt on future Governments to avoid your own Government having to deal with it - and that is what this Government has done - they have delayed the pain, not eliminated it. They clearly had no idea as to how they would deal with the pain when it would inevitably return, which is why Brown hammered on about Tory cuts. Their prime focus was on delaying it until after the election.
Even now they are petrified to remove their foot from the accelerator, because that is when the second dip is most likely to come, so the accelerator remains flat to the floor, and borrowing continues to rise.
We still have the VAT to increase to pre cut levels, Stamp Duty to be reimposed, for the car scrappage scheme to end, for interest rates to rise to realistic levels and for Government spending to be cut and tax to increase to pay off some of the debt that this Government has accumulated.
Only then can Labours attempts to pull the country out of recession truly be judged as being successful or otherwise. At this point they will be seen for what they have actually done - delay the pain, not remove it.
Brown, as Chancellor, claimed to have abolished Boom and Bust. Instead through over spending, he gave us perhaps 8 years of boom, we now face 20 of bust.
Complain about this comment
#5 Fubar
Whiter than white? I'm afraid this Government is Browner than Brown!!!
Complain about this comment
Mr Robinson you try to make the proverbial silk-purse from the sow's ear even when you are following a Radio 4 Today item in which the 2 leading Politicans systematically deconstructed the interviewers' questions: They never got close to having either one depart from their Party's allotted political-message path.
Whatever one thinks of Mandelsohn (and not much of it would be pleasant) the man is a consumate 'Politician'.
This morning he took over the Today interview! Mandelsohn got his NuLab message over loud, clear and concisely without a verbal challenging glove being laid on him. Naughtie was frankly out of his depth as the usual technique of bullying intervention failed completely.
Of course, whether one then agrees with the content of Mandelsohn's contribution is an entirely different matter: To my ears it seemed to me he was conceding the Conservatives had got it right about 'serious cuts' having to be made very shortly, but, denied the Conservatives had any plausible plans except 'across the board' on 'front-line services'.
Moments later, the Tory battlecruiser supreme (and sad loss as never a PM of the UK), Ken Clarke weighed anchor and hit Mandelsohn just above the waterline by pointing out "Brown wont admit cuts... so they daren't say it openly..".
All good knock-about-stuff: Pity neither one seemed too concerned about the UK's population and much more interested in vote-catching Party points!
Complain about this comment
So will Brown give the TUC conference the good news this week — about public spending cuts? I really doubt it, not unless he summons up some of that stuff he's writes books about.
Perhaps, you'd try the same question on Gordon Brown as David Cameron, Nick, "Leadership, I suggested to him, was about being clear about the pain that voters — not just MPs and ministers — might have to suffer."
Complain about this comment
Politically I'm no great fan of Peter Oborne, but his book on political lying summed this up brilliantly. This particular brand of doublethink is more than Mandelson's modus operandi - it's practically his trademark.
Complain about this comment
Labour have forgotten how to tell the truth. They are insitutionally deceitful.
That is one of the reasons the public hate Labour - treat us like fools and we'll boot you out................
Complain about this comment
Why is the Dark Lord talking (well, lying, actually) to us about the economy and public sector spending?
Don't we have a Chancellor for that?
And, given the looming national emergency that is the British economy, why isn't the First Lord of the Treasury fronting up to the British people about this extremely important matter? Too busy apologising for past court convictions presumably? That's a damned sight easier than fixing the economy.
The Government is an unmitigated shambles; an embarrassment to the nation; political journeymen and shysters. The 12-year Blair/Brown sham has finally started to unravel uncontrollably. Twas always going to happen.
Now we, the British people, are going to pay for it; and some. I just hope that the lumpenproletariat will now at long last realise that Marxism doesn't work; never has; never will.
Watch out now for the trade union dinosaurs chucking their weight about. Cameron will need to slip a steel rod down his back if he finds himself in 10 Downing Street next year. My money's on the next decade being the toughest since the first half of the last century, at least.
Meantime, as far as this Government is concerned, Solzhenitsyn had it right: "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them".
Complain about this comment
#4 rockRobin7
No, you're right, it's virtually impossible to take the government's claims at face value.
However, for once, I agreed with Lord Mandelson - we need targeted cuts thought through carefully rather than the swingeing cuts that the Conservatives are proposing. To start cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs in the public sector would be economic suicide.
Also, dramatic cuts in public sector jobs is highly likely to have a knock-on effect in the private sector and the government will look ridiculous if they criticise it.
The IMF, consequently, has warned against cutting stimulus measures so I think it unlikely that they'll be knocking on our door anytime soon.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see the government come-up with some plans for reducing the deficit - hopefully they'll amount to more than getting Conservative councils to run the country!
Complain about this comment
When are New Labour going to wake up to the fact that, in the age of the Internet and Google, they cannot get away with lying to us any more.
Complain about this comment
'At least with the Conservative party, you know what you are getting. Despite the supposed lack of substance, it is believable that they keep their policies to themselves so Labour cannot use them!'
Eh?
Complain about this comment
Its getting a bit embarrassing watching NuLabour squirm.
10% - surely that's NuLabours share of the vote at the GE, if they are lucky!
Roll On 2010
Complain about this comment
I think a quick look back at Hansard will reveal the PM making that statement on any number of occasions "The issue is that the Conservatives will cut current expenditure in real and cash terms. It is exactly what I said - Tory cuts, Labour investment." was more a 'mantra' than a 'sound bite'!
However, of course, we must remember that Lord Meddlesome will bit have been in the Commons to hear the PM say it.
Complain about this comment
A good summary but I'm surprised that you continue to claim that Andrew Lansley 'blurted out' the 10% comment as if it was an indescretion.
It was, in fact, the natural follow on from the Conservatives pledge to maintain spending in health and education and in line with their other statements at the time. Lansley simply put a nice round figure on it which of course the media love as it makes their job much easier.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure at the time that Brown believed he'd come up with one of those "dividing lines" he likes in party politics. Pity was he hadn't thought it through (again - but like the 10p tax band fiasco!).
Mandelson did talk about planned "efficiency savings" in government spending areas. Traditionally, efficiency is measured by getting more productivity out of people, hardware (and software) either by increased throughput or reduction of assets.
This lot have sometimes grouped a bunch of civil servants and their gear and bundled them into a QANGO, claiming it was a reduction of direct departmental spend (hence the cost of central government). Nonsense, of course, from a tax-payer's perspective... Shiney new premises and some shoe-in QANGOcrats, with all the special communications etc do not an "efficiency saving" make.
And a brand new QANGO will add another bit of social engineering by having a state-sponsored assessment of whether I can trust my neighbour to take my children to school or some club activities.
Meanwhile a state owned public company (Royal Mail Group) has been allowed - by its owners - to rack up pension liabilities that far exceed the ability to close the gap...
Any more "efficiency" savings and we'll all be bankrupt.
Complain about this comment
Brown and Mandleson think themselves oh so smart.
This labour government has got to be the most foolish yet!
Labour ministers and union leaders are saying that the Tories will make cuts now. Correct me if I am wrong but labour are in power for the best part of another year, so how can the Tories make cuts now.
Complain about this comment
Mandy claims to speak for the people. Let me speak for the people , I demand that he is arrested for Treason against the Country , he is lying about everything and has put the state at risk
Big Brother , you could not make this up hahaha
Complain about this comment
On a general note, Mandelson and the Labour Spin Dryer must be seething at this slip of the Dark Lord's tongue ... and it's instant exposure as a lie by Nick Robinson.
Let's just hope that the BBC doesn't let this serious matter fall by the wayside - the matter of an unelected Peer of the Realm (with a dodgy track record in the mortgage market) deliberately trying to deceive the British people ... all in the name of keeping Gordon Brown in power. Sod-all to do with the wellbeing of the nation.
Complain about this comment
The way Politicians see themselves in the run-up to the next General Election is all about their selling of Policy images, or if you prefer the everyday titles Spin and Brain-Washing too make their brands more acceptable to the Voting Public.
To achieve this end all these same Political Parties HAVE TO attack their rivals regardless of any sanity in opposite opinions, and do also wherever is necessary by adjusting their own mantra as many times that is needed to project the view that if you Vote for someone other then them, then you will be worse off.
The problems that the U.K. Economy is in will suffer worse than expected due to the need for a General Election being held in the forthcoming future, while at this moment in time People are losing their Job's AFTER the Government has pumped in Billions of Pounds of Public/Tax-Payers money into our Banking sectors, only to find that CEO's of Companies both in the Private and Public sectors are still making Million of Pounds in Bonuses while the Working-Classes, and our Younger Working age generation are both unable to find, or are being made redundant from Employment.
Therefore, for the foreseeable future all the Politicians know full well that the "Only" thing that they will be manageing is the projected, and very high levels of Unemployment, with no views in prospect for the medium, and long-term in how too reduce these Unemployment numbers, for the state of British Industry is in Terminal Crisis, with no ideas as to what developments are needed for future exports after the next General Election, and Post-Recession, for the next stage in Britains development in the World market place has been sofar unattended to by any Political Party, other than the Views that you Cut, Cut, and Cut again away from the spending power of People avoiding from adding to the National Debt, while at the same time killing-off medium and small time Business who will go under due to a lack of personal cash in the the pockets of the Public at Large, that will have to be cut back also due to our National Debt.
So, with this Catch 22 upon us, ALL the Political Parties are walking a tightrope, by simply not knowing what to say next, other than what might in the heat of of the moment sound acceptable, only to find that events have over taken their comments at the next turn.
Complain about this comment
Labour have been in power for 12 years and nearly all of the UK infrastructure is creaking sewers, roads, railways, schools, hospitals, airports, docks, shipbuilding, manufacturing facilities etc etc and I keep hearing Labour ministers saying there are new opportunities to do ... X, Y and Z.
Yes! these opportuninites have arisen because of waste coupled with a lack of proper government planning of services/infrastructure and a tax and fiscal based incentive plan to encourage age distribution throughout the working population to provide an adequate tax base/birth rate/population structure.
This also means treating OAP's with respect and creating fiscal incentives for them to take up more suitable new build accommodation without stairs and make it worthwhile for them releasing their homes so that these are available for purchase/rent, on the property market. This would help reduce the housing shortage. This is also competent planning of resources to which this government appears to have an allergic reaction.
Britain has had virtually nil energy planning during the last twelve years and now we import most of our fuel and energy from abroad and population is set to soar to 70 million plus with Mr Alan Johnson 'sleeping well'.
The government has over-seen absurd levels of over-lending by the UK mortgage industry on both residential and commercial property - that was the hidden time bomb that has brought everything crashing.
Only in one area have Labour contributed to significantly enhanced performance in the form of agricultural production - there is now more poppy growing in Afghanistan and poppy production and distribution is at a record high.
Let's get one thing straight - the next election is more dependent on trust, integrity and competence than it is about who cuts which service how, where, when and by how much.
As to New Labour continually 'learning lessons' - they've given us one big lesson in 'how not to govern the UK successfully and competently'.
Complain about this comment
All I keep on thinking how right Orwell was in 1984, with people trying to re-write history and change tack. I think we need a conviction politician at this point and I can't see any one up to it at the moment.
After the Libyan debacle, when no-one wanted to say to he was let out as a trade deal and then every one started changing there minds, before Gordon utter a word apart from England & Wales Cricket team's Ashes win, etc. It just seems typical of the Government and they are expecting us to believe it?
Complain about this comment
I heard PM on the Radio and he was about as bull headed and scary as anything i have ever heard.
This non-elected minister appears to be running our country instead of Broon.
It is terrifying that we now have a manipulative spokesperson for the government. Can't say the word 'cuts'!?
Is there any possibility of getting some human beings into government, rather than these script reading dinosaurs?
I suppose he won't be able to say the word 'election' soon, instead calling it a 'redressing of the political landscape to ensure the continuity of government.'
This does not make me feel comfortable at all.
Complain about this comment
So, when Gordon Brown quoted a [Call Me Dave] Cameron comment, that made the sentiment expressed the Prime Minister's own?
Tommy rot!
(That is a quote by the way, one which may or may not be appropriate and one with which I may or may not agree.)
GOOD journalism would have seen an examination of the source which the PM was himself quoting.
As to the claim of Lord Mandelson's re-writing, Nick Robinson states that the First Secretary of State merely "suggested the words had never actually been used."
What DID he say? (In light of recent contentious lapses, I no longer trust the editorialisation which pervades NR's broadcasts.)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The very fact that Brown and Mandelson are still in power is an affront to democracy. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
I thought Alistair Darling was Chancellor and it is he who is responsible for how our money is spent. Is Mandy now doing his job as well as that of PM? I don`t think Alistair is going to be too pleased about this. Watch this space; but has Mandy gone a step too far. If I was Gordon I would be a tad worried about a coup in the next few weeks.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad they've dropped the "Lab investment vs C cuts", that was never going to hold - better to create a "we'll do it but with a Heavy Heart, whereas they will just luv it" type vibe ... which is what LMOHAY is trying to do here
and will it work? ... dunno
Complain about this comment
Mandy says "the voters have a clear choice" and I for once agree with him.
The choice is to vote for anyone except New Labour.
Complain about this comment
I wonder whether any Labour politicians ever read these blogs, as the amount of well deserved anger on them would surely be a huge wake up call.
Complain about this comment
'Wise spenders, not big spenders' is a line that clearly illustrates newlabour have simply not grasped the problem.
Stop spending.
What would a doctor say to an alcoholic who cliamed he was now going to be a 'Wise drinker, not a big drinker'
Newlabour still playing the elcetorate for fools.
Totally agree with Roll_On_2010 - the sound of newlabour politicians squirming and squealing in interviews is highly amusing. my how Mandleson squirmed this morning; he needs to get himself enroled on an anger management course.
But then again; if you were having to constantly intervene to represent Darling and Gordon Brown because they couldn't get their message across you'd be a bit angry.
I also love the patheitc attempt to portray the tories as uncaring, dangerous, axe-weilding lunatics, salivating at cutting public spending.... just how difficult is it to take ten percent off budgets that have tripled over twelve years? Just how difficult is it to take 60,000 workers off the payroll of 600,000 added by newlabour when many of them are diversity officers; equality advisors and other random newlabour agenda hunters?
Cut spending? Newlabour can't even say it, never mind do it.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Well done, spin unspun! Mandy and Campbell will take notice.
To prevent some more spin on Brown's line that it will cost you less if you borrow more now, some numbers about the deficit and debt at grassroots level:
-the deficit per worker in the private sector will amount to 12,760 pounds this year and next (20% of 1.5 trillion GDP divided by 23.5 million);
-the structural deficit, i.e. the deficit that will still be recorded after recovery to trend growth, will be 4,250 pounds per year per person working in the private sector (7% GDP structural deficit forecast by OECD);
-the government debt may hit 114,890 pounds per person working in the private sector (180% debt-to-GDP ratio as bearish European Commission forecast)
As comparison, the median UK wage is just below 25 thousand, with public sector employees on higher wages than their private sector funders.
Complain about this comment
SurreyABC
"I think we need a conviction politician"
Conviction politician" is an oxymoron.... You know just like "The Right Honourable Peter Mandleson"
Complain about this comment
"Our 1997 manifesto described the New Labour approach as being 'wise spenders, not big spenders'. This is and remains a core New Labour principle. We do not believe that we should try to solve problems simply by throwing money at them."
Mandelson may believe what he says. A lot of people suffer like that.
However, the government he served were not simply big, but profligate, spenders.
Wise spenders? Hollow laughter.
(And, by the way, when does our next major power generating station come on line?)
Complain about this comment
Well done to Nick for nailing Lord Mandelson's erroneous claim that Brown had not used those words when talking about 'labour investments versus tory cuts'.
In the Today interview, Mandelelson said "Nick was unable to put his finger on any such quote" (Listen at 03:02).
When confronted on air with the actual quote, Mandelson was left burbling "of course I don't know the context in which he said this". (Listen at 13:20) What a disingenuous answer!
Will Mandelson now apologise for suggesting Nick had given incorrect information? Will Mandelson apologise to the British public for misleading us (albeit, I am sure, inadvertently)?
Unfortunately for Lord Mandelson, no one really takes anything he or New Labour says seriously anymore.
Let us not forget that Lord Mandelson recently said suggestions that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was linked to a UK-Libya trade deal were "offensive" - BBC report 22 August
A few days later, Jack Straw admitted that 'trade was "a very big part" of the 2007 talks that led to the prisoner deal with Libya'. BBC report 5 September
If they can't get their act together, why should we trust them on anything?
Complain about this comment
I hope this is the beginning of all media outlets having the guts to call our politicans (of whatever colour) to heel when they tell outright lies. The British public deserve to be told the truth as the forthcoming election is one of the most crucial in decades.
Keep it up Nick.
Complain about this comment
I'm actually begining to feel a little sorry for Gordon Brown. He doesn't seem to have a clue about what the way forward is. He's stuck in the past and has people around him leading the way. If anyone actually believes that Gordon is running the country anymore then I'd be amazed. The coup that so nearly happened earlier in the year must have actually suceeded without anyone actually admitting it.
This U-turn on their position over spending just serves to show that Brown is not willing to lie to us all in order to win the next election. The Conservatives might say they're going to cut spending, but at least they're honest about it. With Labour, the only thing we can be sure of is that the Prime Minister will continue to make the entire country look like idiots.
Complain about this comment
I have to say that those who accused DC of being a little boring at PMQs pressing the same point week after week and pushing Brown to come out with this rubbish in reply are not looking quite as clever now. I am hopeful that our next PM will be capable of strategic thinking as well as clever tactics.
Complain about this comment
We have a leader who cannot lead, and who certainly cannot communicate. He has hired a communicator - Lord Mandelson to help out. Perhaps now he could also hire a leader just to complete the job.
With or without the right policies there is no way that anyone in their right mind should vote Gordon Brown into office. He lacks so many of the qualities needed for a PM that just his presence would impede even the best policies.
Note his recent "apology" for the treatment of Alan Turing after the war. We know Brown hates to apologise - he thinks it shows weakness and might even imply some responsibility - so what does he do? He thinks a little and comes up with the brilliant idea that he should apologise for something for which he was not responsible. Thus, in one bold move, by apologising for the treatment of Turing he has shown he can apologise and at the same time he need not admit to an error, because Turing's treatment was nothing to do with him! Brown's personality and psychological makeup should preclude him from any leadership role whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
Politician with lips moving probably means some lying going on!
Complain about this comment
As an ex-PM said at the dispatch box when a heated PMQ was in full flow in their final days "we are quite enjoying this!". I am too. Cant wait for Browns speech tomorrow. Bet he will not be sleeping soundly tonight. Great! Suffer Mr Brown.........like what we have since you have been in power.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One foot in each camp eh NICK? Not sure which way to go? Notseen you like this previously this year.
Complain about this comment
Niether Labour or the Tories seem to be particularly good at managing our money, especially in terms of spending it and obtaining real value.
Usually the exact opposite occurs, they squander the tax revenue in the most profligate ways.
So, the subject matter of this blog entry 'Tory cuts' versus 'Labour investment' rather seems pretty academic to this blogger.
Complain about this comment
Labour party members, Voldemort in particular, lying? Say it ain't so!
Complain about this comment
Blair,Brown and Mandelson, the 'brains' behind New labour. And three of the most reviled people in this country. Enough said.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I've been an avid reader of BBC blogs for some time, this one has made me feel compelled to register and comment!
I am frankly amazed at the audacity of this position by Mandelson, whilst neutral politically I have become appalled at the government's mismanagement of the country.
We need to cut spending now, not necessarily public sector jobs, but pensions and these ridiculous initiatives. One poster commented on the proposed register for people volunteering with children, this is a prime example.
What is going to be the cost of this new quango? Whilst it is very important to protect children, this is seemingly disproportionate and unnecessary in the current economic climate.
I understand it was brought in after the Soham murders (a most heinous crime might I add) but the reality is no amount of quangoes can protect EVERYONE no matter if you spent £1000's per child.
The government need to learn the lessons of business soon, when sales are low you need to cut expenditure fact. Sadly all the time the Quantitive Easing happens and bond markets continue you to buy our debt no-one will tackle the problem.
We will end up in a repeat of the '79 fiasco sooner rather than later, perhaps not the IMF bailout, but in the collapse of bond markets.
Complain about this comment
"He who controls the past controls the future.."
Double Plus Good...
Complain about this comment
From the BBC report: Asked about whether Trident and ID cards could be cancelled, Lord Mandelson said it was not certain "that the assumptions that some people are making about that those big projects would offer would actually come about in reality.
Would that be a "no" then?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
I'm glad they've dropped the "Lab investment vs C cuts", that was never going to hold - better to create a "we'll do it but with a Heavy Heart, whereas they will just luv it" type vibe ... which is what LMOHAY is trying to do here
and will it work? ... dunno"
Labour aren't going to make these cuts with a "heavy heart" they are making them because they have started to realise that they need to at least appear to live in the real world to stand any chance of being re-elected.
New Labour would sell not just their grannys but all their close relatives to remain in power.
Complain about this comment
SurreyABC
"I think we need a conviction politician"
No! - what we want is a number of politicians convicted!!
Complain about this comment
THE MINUTE YOU WALKED IN THE JOINT,
I could see you were a man of distinction,
A real WISE spender,
Good looking, so refined.
Say, wouldn't you like to know
What's going on in my mind?
So, let me get right to the point,
I don't pop my cork for ev'ry guy I see.
Hey, WISE spender, spend...
A little time with...me...me...me!
Do you wanna have fun?
Complain about this comment
My God, I think you've got it, Nick!!
Politicians lie. All the time. And for the last 12 years, BBC economic and political journalists (and supposedly good ones, too) went into interviews with senior Liebour party politicians having seemingly done minimal research of the subject on which they are talking. They simply accepted any old rubbish and lies. And didn't have the evidence to repudiate the line.
May be, just may be, a few senior journalists are waking up to the fact that they shouldn't really just be spouting from the New Liebour press release.
But then I heard Sheila Fogherty and Pauline McColl on 5 Live this morning. And my heart sank.
Complain about this comment
Well done, NR. Is this the new, impartial Nick? We may have to reconsider your nickname. To so spendidly hold a politicians' words to account, so nicely, regardless of party, is very refreshing.
Complain about this comment
51#
Conviction Politicians?
No, just more politicians convicted. That'd be a good start.
Complain about this comment
So it appears then that the official government line is to encourage a run on sterling, swingeing interest rate hikes and rampant inflation.
Weimar here we come! Perhaps I should invest in brown textile and jackboot futures.
Complain about this comment
Heyyyyy. Nick. So a Labour politician disembled the actualite. To you. Personally. Tried to tell you black was white?
Welcome to the club. Now you know how the rest of us have felt in fantasy island this past 12 years.
Promised you a referendum on PR and then reneged, promised you a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and then reneged by simply changing the name?
Denied they ever used the phrase 'Tory cuts 'v' Labour investment'?
Pathological liars this government.
Go after them Nick. You remember? The way y'all went after Major et al.
Complain about this comment
A good one for the rewriting history books is also Brown's 1992 letter in The Evening Standard in which he wrote "weak currency is the result of a weak economy which is the result of a weak government".
Last year, that same Brown rubbished Osborne when he warned about the consequences of high deficits and debt on sterling. The latter was unpatriotic.
Complain about this comment
Haa!
Lord Mandy's testy calls exposed in public - how very unfortunate!
Complain about this comment
Mandelson is proof that those who seek power are the last who should ever get it. Politics is a game to you gentlemen, but you're playing with the lives of millions of people. To say you're 'outnumbered' carries threatening undertones, which is not my agenda, but let me just remind you that you're now surfing the wave of a minority party and the cliffs of the citizens are looming big and powerful. Do I want a Conservative government? No, I'm not wealthy/poor enough to benefit. Do I want a Lib Dem Government? No, not really. The Lib Dems are a great idea in theory, but in practice, I think they would crumble under the pressure. I want a Government that supports those who go out and work for a living, who aren't afraid of a bit of hard graft, who look after their families, don't commit crimes, and are valuable assets to their communities: that was supposed to be New Labour wasn't it?
Complain about this comment
I woke up to grumpiness this morning, as the early news seemed to be not much more than a free trailer for what the noble lord was going to say, where he was going to say it and how it important it was.
The day rapidly got better, however. Please ensure he gets as much time as he wants on the Today programme etc. as the election approaches. The once-master of the dark arts doesn't seem to realise that he now comes across as a complete shyster as bereft of positive ideas as the rest of his chums.
Complain about this comment
Brown/Labour have boxed the country into a very difficult corner thanks to their massive negligence over the last 12 years.
Their policy since 1997 was to grow the state as big as they could while igoring the private sector. ie creating false jobs in the public sector to help reduce unemployment, rather than allowing people to keep more of their own cash in the first place and thereby stimulating/growing the private sector.
It was always destined to fail, because there obviously comes a point when what's left of the private sector simply can't afford to bankroll the public sector anymore when the public sector gets proportionally so massive.
These are basic rules of maths/economics which they chose to completely ignore for 12 years; the public sector has no money of its own, it's essentially funded 100% by the private sector. You can't spend more money than you earn without going bust.
So, now we're left in a situation where the state is too big to be funded/fundable and we're forced to make cuts on a scale which will drive up unemployment which in turn will make things even worse.
What Brown/Labour have done is put us into a situation where we have no choice but to effectively cut millions of public sector jobs (either that or as a country we go bankrupt and back to the stone age).
We're in 1979 territory now, where we have to cut the size of the state because there's simply no choice. Short term pain for long term sustainability and to avoid national bankruptcy.
We do need cuts, but hopefully they can stave off cutting too many jobs for the moment while the recession is still bad, and instead cut future projects (like ID cards or trident) and start to manage things better, which won't effect unemployment but which will reduce the debt going forwards. Then allow natural wastage to happen (eg when someone retires, you don't replace them with someone new).
Natural wastage, eliminating pointless government projects that haven't started yet, and generally managing things better; that's the way to go. Once the recession's over and the private sector is in a better state, then they can start looking at job cuts, but not yet; it's too dangerous. Much as I'd like to say "just sack all the public sector pen-pushers that we don't need", I don't think that's the right thing to do now, because the private sector isn't in a state that's able to employ them.
Labour/Brown; what you've done has put us all into a corner where we have to choose the least-worst option to avoid national bankruptcy; your negligence will not be forgotten.
Complain about this comment
Liars. New labour lies. New Labour spin. Rubbish new labour policy.
Not a jot of it has worked; if there was no Blair legacy there is certainly no Brown legacy.
This country desrves better than a Berlusconi type government addicted to lying.
Where is the integrity, the far sighted thinking, the leadership.
This government couldn't guide you down a difficult path never mind the difficult economic times that lie ahead.
If acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery then thsi government is heading for a long spell in oblivion.
An agenda is not a policy - a mistake new labour seem to have committed time and time again. The equality agenda; the social justice agenda and so on...all got us nowhere except high handed politicians without results. All staffed by hundreds of new labour placemen and advised by hundreds of new labour consultants. All a total waste of money.
Call an election - we have been taken for fools for long enough.
Complain about this comment
History repeats itself.
Labour ushers in the 1970's once again; but not out of nostalgia but out of incompetence.
Give them their due, the Tories and the Liberals have been highlighting the need to balance the books for 12 months now.
Yet up until very recently the Evil Overlord Brown and his puppets "Mandle-Foy the Pink" and "Grimer Worm Darling" have continued to extol the virtues of unfettered spending and debt.
However, something is happening in the UK that hasn't happened for an age.
The UK public is begining to wake up and will find that they are strong.
Strong enough to overthrow the Brown dictatorship.
Strong enough to tear down the walls of Westminster.
Strong enough smite labour's ruin across the capital.
Out with Labour.
Out with unelected Titled buffoons.
Out with career politicians that have no life experience.
Ian Pearson Minister to the treasury ... you have had access to proposals to stimulate the economy, usher in sustainable industries providing environmentally friendly zero carbon energy.
What did you do with the proposal Ian Pearson Minister to the treasury?
YOU DID NOTHING...
Do nothing ministers, from a do nothing government with a do nothing Prime Minister.
I sincerely hope that Labour as a political entity is completely destroyed at the general election.
Complain about this comment
Hansard is a great source for embarrassing politicians. I remember Hoon's announcement in the HoC on the new high speed rail travel lines and the benefits it would bring to the manufacturing industry. It sounded fantastic at the time but a day later when the actual smallprint of the deals was made known, his speech, now recorded for posterity in Hansard, looked very duplicitous.
You should use it (Hansard) more often, Nick.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#51 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
SurreyABC
"Conviction politician" is an oxymoron.... You know just like "The Right Honourable Peter Mandleson"
I had been hoping that the conviction was of the criminal variety...
Complain about this comment
One of the most interesting things to be wtaching has been in the US where every state has faced a budget shortfall. Most have been cutting budgets between 10% - 20%. Seems like this has been difficult but has been accomplihed. Both Labour and Tories were on duty during the financial collapse and neither looked out for the public interest so both have responsbilities. The Banks and Financial industries caused the problem and they should be a part of the discussion. Not just the cuts in spending but also about what regulations will be put in place so the bankers cannot do this again. Cuts may be necessary but if nothing else changes we will be watching this movie again.
Complain about this comment
#67
'From the BBC report: Asked about whether Trident and ID cards could be cancelled, Lord Mandelson said it was not certain "that the assumptions that some people are making about that those big projects would offer would actually come about in reality.
Would that be a "no" then?'
Not necessarily!
Complain about this comment
@JC #62
John while it maybe or may not be true that both waste the money.
There is one thing that is indesputable, the Conservatives will inherentally endeavour to tax less therefore will have less to waste.
There's the dividing line that Brown likes to see.
Its a clear choice between money wasted on public services or More money wasted on public services
Complain about this comment
child of 72 @ 65
we will end up with a repeat of the 1979 fiasco sooner rather than later
the return of a Tory government? ... yes that may indeed come to pass, unless we shape up
Complain about this comment
Now even the spin-meister appears to be spinning out of control!
Downing Street rapidly put out a statement after the Today programme.
"The prime minister's spokesman stressed the business secretary's comments should not be taken to indicate that a review of the Trident and ID card programmes was under way.
Speaking at a daily briefing of Westminster reporters, the spokesman said: "I wouldn't characterise it as a review... The government's position on Trident remains exactly as it has been."
He added: "I think [Lord Mandelson] was talking in very generic terms. The government is very clear that there are obviously tough choices to be made on public spending over the coming years."
If you exclude major projects from the selection of things to make "tough choices" about, the benefit is that the choices don't get so tough! That should make it easier for Gordon...
Complain about this comment
There have been a number of interviews over the last few days, including this one:
Brown to claim recession over as union boss warns of poll disaster.
In his most outspoken interview yet Derek Simpson, the joint general secretary of Unite, escalated the threat of a Labour civil war by describing the Secretary of State for Business and Foreign Secretary as "thick" and "Tories".
Well I never, Meddlesome and Millipede Thick and Tories, Who am I to disagree!
Complain about this comment
One of the cries we keep hearing from Labour politicians is that the Tories have not and will not spell out the details of their spending cuts. Yet today at the LSE we have Mandelson telling us exactly where the Tory cuts will be made.
Wow!! Not only is he the most honest man on planet Earth but he has now been blessed with the gift of reading David Cameron's mind.
How lucky we are as a nation that such talented people exist to govern us. :-)
Complain about this comment
Have the Labour party really spun a full 360 degrees? Or are you accusing Mandy of telling pork pies
What next?
Please call for the election
Complain about this comment
Mandelson is so ahead of himself he knows the whole of the Tory manifesto before they've even written it.
He had nothing new to say about what Labour will do so obviously they do not know themselves but plenty on what he surmises the tories will do.
He's back to 1997 when there was a public so eager to get rid of the tories they believed everything they were told about this marvellous new party New Labout.
Unfortunately 12 years later they have been proven to be empty words and words are the only things left in Mandelsons portfolio.
We desperately need a party that can do as well as say.
Complain about this comment
A politician being 'economical with the truth' - goodness ! whatever next ?
Brown is in deep do-do right now as the economic policies he implemented have come to fruition - so I expect he has the view that 'in for a penny in for a pound' - whats a few more half truths now ?
You've all heard the budgets over the last 12 years - say one thing , give the electorate something else. He'll be gone soon enough and good riddance
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Seems to me all cuts made by any party will be "Labour cuts", as Labour's amazing recklessness will have caused them.
Complain about this comment
Rather than come clean, they'll probably say that cutting now is actually an investment for the future, and that is what they meant.
Complain about this comment
Shouldn't Mandelson be better occupied by actually paying more attention to one of the remits of his job? Namely the student funding fiasco for Universities!
This is just plain incompetence - if he had any integrity whatsoever he would fall on his sword over this. As to his speech, Labour must act like "insurgents rather than incumbents" on public spending. What on earth is he on about? Did he have magic mushrooms for breakfast?
Complain about this comment
82. At 1:30pm on 14 Sep 2009, Invader-Zim wrote:
History repeats itself.
Labour ushers in the 1970's once again; but not out of nostalgia but out of incompetence.
Give them their due, the Tories and the Liberals have been highlighting the need to balance the books for 12 months now.
Yet up until very recently the Evil Overlord Brown and his puppets "Mandle-Foy the Pink" and "Grimer Worm Darling" have continued to extol the virtues of unfettered spending and debt.
However, something is happening in the UK that hasn't happened for an age.
The UK public is begining to wake up and will find that they are strong.
Strong enough to overthrow the Brown dictatorship.
Strong enough to tear down the walls of Westminster.
Strong enough smite labour's ruin across the capital.
Out with Labour.
Out with unelected Titled buffoons.
Out with career politicians that have no life experience.
Ian Pearson Minister to the treasury ... you have had access to proposals to stimulate the economy, usher in sustainable industries providing environmentally friendly zero carbon energy.
What did you do with the proposal Ian Pearson Minister to the treasury?
YOU DID NOTHING...
Do nothing ministers, from a do nothing government with a do nothing Prime Minister.
I sincerely hope that Labour as a political entity is completely destroyed at the general election
I don't think i could have put it better my self
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I am disappointed you are pandering to the semi-professional ranters and reactionaries on this blog by putting this forward as a topic for discussion. What's to discuss? This is just I'm right, you're wrong journalism.
More interesting might have been Mandy's assertion that the Tories are foaming at the mouth at the thought of all the cuts they can now make because they don't need to seem nice any more. Public spending is now perceived as the bad guy so anyone who cuts it is the goody. Discuss.
Complain about this comment
potkettle @ 88
The Conservatives might say, as a philosophical point, that they wish to tax less but the actuality, come May next year, assuming that by default, they are back in power, is that they will have to tax more, at least initially.
The reason for that is that the money markets must be convinced that the Government does intend to repay its debts.
The Government absolutely must preserve its AAA rating and therefore taxes will rise and Government spending will fall, whichever party is in power after the General Election.
Whatever they say, it seems to be impossible for politicians to refrain from their favourite pastime, namely spending other peoples money i.e. ours - because they know best, it is why they stepped forward for the job in the first place.
Complain about this comment
68 mark we
New Labour would sell not just their grannys but all their close relatives to remain in power.
I think over the last few years its been well established that the oposite is true I think what you really should have said .
The same old conservatives would sell not just their grannies but all their close relatives to try to get hold of power.
Cameron makes spiderman look like a slouch the speed at which he jums from bandwagon to bandwagon.
Complain about this comment
Just discovered this quote from that Churchill bloke that the Maximum Lunatic likes to quote at every opportunity in the hope that some of the great man's greatness will rub off..
Cameron should use it in relation to the economy...
'Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger.... The era of procrastination, of half measures,... of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.... We cannot avoid this period; we are in it now.... Unless [... management] resolves to find out the truth for itself, it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel.'
Complain about this comment
You cant rewrite history but the Conservatives would like us to ignore it. Under the last Conservative Government, led by Margaret (mends the roof while the sun shines) they decided they didn't need all these troublesome industries with their unions because we have all this easy money coming in from the city and from North sea OilThey also underspent on our infrastructure in my view to borrow from the future. This lasted 18 years. We were left with no industry and a dependancy on finance sector. Labour left with this legacy of neglected infrastructure and perhaps choice to depend on funds available. Perhaps wrongly decided to use pfi to quickly remedy the situation but they had a Tory leader in blair and did nothing to remedy the imbalance in the economy. Its quite depressing to see so many people so happy about a Conservative victory the party that started this mess. That is my opinion. Of course many of you will disagree but thats what politics should be about. arguing things out to find a concensus instead of point scoring, PR and propaganda.
Complain about this comment
"Total spending will continue to rise and it will be a zero percent rise in 2013-14.".... Mr Brown, July 2009 ??
Regards.
Complain about this comment
why on earth is it that the BBC keeps giving mandelson air time? He might be a new friend of the PM, he may have been given a department, but he has been given no authority by the people of britain to do anything on their behalf, he is unelected and so feels free to let anything he wants come from his mouth to support the Govt, because he feels answerable to no one. Please next time get someone to defend the government who has a right to be in the govt and speak to the public!
Complain about this comment
I was wrong then I thought brown was ruining the country Sorry did i miss the election then?As I've seen mandlesnake waving his arms all over the place He seems as though he knows whats good for the country,I do think we have two make some cuts though don't you Dennis? WELL WELL WELL.
Complain about this comment
At 1:50pm on 14 Sep 2009, sagamix wrote:
child of 72 @ 65
we will end up with a repeat of the 1979 fiasco sooner rather than later
the return of a Tory government? ... yes that may indeed come to pass, unless we shape up
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's the " we "
Sosmix, i thought you were a floater voter
Complain about this comment
99. At 2:50pm on 14 Sep 2009, excellentcatblogger wrote:
Shouldn't Mandelson be better occupied by actually paying more attention to one of the remits of his job? Namely the student funding fiasco for Universities!
This is just plain incompetence - if he had any integrity whatsoever he would fall on his sword over this. As to his speech, Labour must act like "insurgents rather than incumbents" on public spending. What on earth is he on about? Did he have magic mushrooms for breakfast?
==================================================================
Doesn't matter if they act like insurgents or incumbents, every action at the moment simply shows them as incompetents.
Complain about this comment
So there it is ......PM is now very much the PM , just as we all suspected , where is Gordon , I think we should be told ?
Complain about this comment
56 waitingforthepain
I have to say that those who accused DC of being a little boring at PMQs pressing the same point week after week and pushing Brown to come out with this rubbish in reply are not looking quite as clever now.
So your not denying that Cameron was as you put it a little boring at PMs questions, most people would say very boring and uninspiring,that did'nt worry you, its just that Brown repeated lansbury's words frequently, they were'nt boring they were very revealing and interesting to all but the tories.
I am hopeful that our next PM will be capable of strategic thinking as well as clever tactics.
Well your obviously not expecting Cameron to be elected then.
Complain about this comment
On the bank of the Thames the Westmonster sprawls.
With gluttonous greed, it devours the wealth of the nation.
In the depths of it's belly, parasitic government crawls.
Rending, tearing, gnawing and chewing, in euphoric elation.
Wriggling within is the blood bloated worm, Overlord Brown,
Wretched and wanton, his minions gorge, palms heavily greased.
Left in ruin, Britannia gasps laden with debt doomed to drown.
Financially fat, Brown waggles and wars and doth endlessly feast.
Complain about this comment
well done nick robinson!
i have berated your posts for obvious bias towards the government and constantly challenging the opposition parties whilst letting the government off scot free... but at last you are beginning to see the light that so many voters have been blinded by for at least the past two years if not longer.
this government is not a government because it cannot govern and constantly changes its view/opinions/policies when it suits them
if they propose doing something and its rejected by the people, they simply manufacture circumstances to give them a creditable argument for bringing it in via the back door/small print of new legislation.
with this post, you have done exactly what your job entails, you have exposed a senior member of the government that is telling lies.
they can dress it up in a new slogan or way, they can deny it till they are blue in the face, you have outed mandelson with hard evidence that proves he is up to no good.
well done!
now could you please apply the same process towards the following issues:
- introducing id cards by the back door
- dismantling local authority services to bring in assemblies via the back door
- putting out indirectly, favourable reports on various aspects of the economy showing "green shoots" when the bank of england last week stated that the actual real figures of unemployment/state of banking industries did not reflect the "studies" or "surveys" being put out by bodies/companies with close links to the government
welcome back to the real world nick!
Complain about this comment
OMG, vengeaful and bloody as I am I just cannot get my head around all this.
Why so complicated? Perhaps it is just me. I am after all, just a woman.
I do know that whoever says what to whom or about whom, who actually cares?
What has it got to do with the price of fish on the street? Will it buy the baby a new bib?
So far as I can see out on the street everybody is walking and driving about well heeled and with money in their pockets.
Brown is soooooo stubborn. He just needs to bring the election forward so he can be relieved of his misery and take the next plane back up to Scotland.
Complain about this comment
queenie @ C
I don't think I could have put it better myself
oh I wouldn't say that ... we'll never know if you don't try, will we?
Complain about this comment
For god's sake can't we just get this over with? This government is totally incompetent, they need to go now before they damage this country anymore. I doubt the Tories will be much better but for the sake of this country this awful mismanagement and bumbling, stumbling, lie based leadership needs to cease immediately.
Just call a general election now! Please!
Complain about this comment
no-one can re-write political history that may be true but also it seems that no one learns from political history.
Complain about this comment
Judging by the ferocity of these posts, this could be the straw (sorry Jack) that broke the camels back? Let's hope so.
Election now!
Complain about this comment
So bereft of a defence of their own Government have Labour apologists become that their only, only, argument is now "it would be worse under the Tories". They cannot defend the shambles of the economy that they have made and are reduced to "what ifs" and pathetic jibes about "Tory toffs" as if wallowing in the gutter for generations is supposed to be a good thing as a family background.
Hopefully the next election will consign Labour to the dustbin of history where they belong....
Complain about this comment
Laughatthetories 101
You said:
"Nick, I am disappointed you are pandering to the semi-professional ranters and reactionaries on this blog by putting this forward as a topic for discussion. What's to discuss? This is just I'm right, you're wrong journalism"
I know you are a regular Tory-basher and apologist for NuLab on this board, but still, that is a very disappointing post. Mandelson caught "dissembling" (to put it politely) is a very significant point - not least since today he is the only senior Labour figure up on his hind legs and saying anything. Accordingly, the story is really "Labour tells lies to defend its record". A good piece of journalism, by modern standards at least. To put it another way, if the story was "Tories lie", I hardly think you would be complaining.
Since you are, so far, the nearest thing to the Voice Of Labour on this board today, let me ask you, are you proud of Peter Mandelson's efforts today?
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson is getting more biased towards the Tories as the days go by. I'm sure if he spent 10 minutes tracking Cameron's quotes he would find similar things to say, but he prefers to knock Gordon Brown. This is a growing feature of BBC coverage, fawning interviews with Cameron and aggressive interviews with Labour spokespeople.
Perhaps Nick should go off and work for Cameron directly rather than being his propaganda mouthpiece on BBC news?
Complain about this comment
"Laughatthetories wrote:
Nick,
I am disappointed you are pandering to the semi-professional ranters and reactionaries on this blog by putting this forward as a topic for discussion. What's to discuss? This is just I'm right, you're wrong journalism.
More interesting might have been Mandy's assertion that the Tories are foaming at the mouth at the thought of all the cuts they can now make because they don't need to seem nice any more. Public spending is now perceived as the bad guy so anyone who cuts it is the goody. Discuss."
This has to be a joke? A clever play on the way the more dedicated right-wing posters find any slight against the Tories as an example of bias?
I know that some of the more dedicated Labour supporters have the ability to view anything from the red side of the house as positive but even they have to admit that PM got caught out here.
This is an example of a very senior Minister trying to lie Labour out of a hole that they have dug for themselves.
As to your comment that Nick should write a blog on the back of New Labour spin from a proven liar (see Nick's post above!) - I don't think that we should be basing debate on unproven allegations of either party.
Complain about this comment
#105
Ah, once again, the power of Maggie. So great was she that even if we have a Labour Government in 100 years time, when that Government messes up (as they always do) there will be someone saying that it's all maggies fault.
the fact that Labour have been in power for over a decade is neither here nor there, apparently, it's nothing to do with them that the economy is going down then pan. OK, the IMF were warning that the economy was overheating, that 'tax and spend' just couldn't go on, but there was nothing Labour could do about it because Maggie had been in power years earlier.
So, when in doubt, blame Maggie.
Complain about this comment
#73 – Fubar Saunders
In our dreams, in our dreams……
It was more a point about conviction of the person, Lord PM and others, we have seen how they turn and twist, especially when found out. I thought the No.10 rebuttal of claiming they were quoting Cameron’s words back – hilarious, if the situation was not as bad as it is.
When I hear any politician now, I think of Paxo’s comment when confronting Howard in 1997 and repeating his question 12 times.
Complain about this comment
"grandantidote wrote:
68 mark we
New Labour would sell not just their grannys but all their close relatives to remain in power.
I think over the last few years its been well established that the oposite is true I think what you really should have said
The same old conservatives would sell not just their grannies but all their close relatives to try to get hold of power."
I don't disagree - the Tories are so keen to regain power that they seem willing to re-visit some of their core values in order to be more caring and sharing (or maybe because times have changed and the old values no longer make sense).
However, it is also true that there is little that Gordon Brown and Labour have done to try and win votes. Would GB have brought back PM if he didn't think that it would keep him in Number 10 for longer? Labour have tried to convince the population that they wouldn't make cuts but now that polls show that the public expect cuts they have magically changed their mind. There have been a number of issues where Labour have only changed their stance once it has became clear that the public disagree with them.
"Cameron makes spiderman look like a slouch the speed at which he jums from bandwagon to bandwagon."
He does seem to follow public opinion - in some cases he manages to follow it before the public have fully formed an opinion. However, some people would argue that empathy is a trait that we would like in our MPs. Far better then the Labour way of initially opposing something and then U-turning so many times that they lose all track of their initial starting point and trying to claim that their final view is the one they held all along.
Complain about this comment
107. At 3:37pm on 14 Sep 2009, KeJaMo wrote:
why on earth is it that the BBC keeps giving mandelson air time? He might be a new friend of the PM, he may have been given a department, but he has been given no authority by the people of britain to do anything...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you surprised? The people of Britain and what we think no longer matter to this Government. Most of us disagree with the Government at best and completely loath them at worst. When Gordon said he would "listen to what people have to say" he obviously had no intention of doing so. If he had listened, we would have had an election some time ago.
I am more than happy to have Mandelson paraded in the media. Most people recognise him for what he is - a twice disgraced manipulator and someone who is economical with the truth - and therefore, as the front man for the Labour Party on TV and radio, he merely reinforces what most of us already know - that if he is the best they can come up with, defeat is staring them in the face.
The New Labour experiment is finished. It has fallen off its perch . It no longer has any credibiblity. It is an ex-party.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
You cant rewrite history but the Conservatives would like us to ignore it. Under the last Conservative Government, led by Margaret (mends the roof while the sun shines) they decided they didn't need all these troublesome industries with their unions because we have all this easy money coming in from the city and from North sea Oil"
I am not a massive supporter of Thatcher but if the Unions were left to their own devices we would probably end up with industries which produce items that cost more to make then their market value. Which would probably lead to public industries making products that no-one needs and nobody can afford anyway!
If an industry wants to compete under fair market conditions it needs to either make something that is more desirable then other products in the market or something that is much cheaper - I doubt that increased Union involvement would lead to either!
"They also underspent on our infrastructure in my view to borrow from the future. This lasted 18 years. We were left with no industry and a dependancy on finance sector. Labour left with this legacy of neglected infrastructure and perhaps choice to depend on funds available. Perhaps wrongly decided to use pfi to quickly remedy the situation but they had a Tory leader in blair and did nothing to remedy the imbalance in the economy."
You could argue that every party underspends on infrastructure - but only because you could throw trillions at the NHS, schools, railways etc. and each would turn around looking for more. We have to move away from the spaghetti approach to government spending, throwing money at something in the hope that some of it sticks doesn't work.
"Its quite depressing to see so many people so happy about a Conservative victory the party that started this mess. That is my opinion. Of course many of you will disagree but thats what politics should be about. arguing things out to find a concensus instead of point scoring, PR and propaganda."
You say that the Tories started this mess, but I look slightly further back to the 70s - a different (possibly even worse) mess that encouraged people to vote out a failing Labour party. Which seems to me what is happening again, people are looking to vote in the Tories because Labour is failing.
Complain about this comment
"grandantidote wrote:
I am hopeful that our next PM will be capable of strategic thinking as well as clever tactics.
Well your obviously not expecting Cameron to be elected then."
I think the Chuckle brothers are more capable of strategic thinking and clever tactics than Gordon Brown, so Cameron really doesn't have a high benchmark to match up against!
Complain about this comment
Laughatthetories 101
You wanted discussion of Mandelson's assertion that the Tories are foaming at the mouth at the thought of all the cuts they can now make because they don't need to seem nice any more. A point made by Sagamix at 46 and in numerous earlier threads as well.
Well, here is my view - it is cheap, infantile propaganda, aimed at the dyed-in-the-wool Labour faithful, it has no basis in fact at all and it has precisely zero traction with the wider community who, despite Labour's hopes and beliefs, ARE NOT FOOLS!
Complain about this comment
Last week on Newsnight, Liam Byrne stated that he could not give any detail about Government fiscal policy because he had to wait for the Pre-Budget Statement, to be unveiled this autumn.
What was that , that we heard from Mandelson this morning? It was not publicised as the P.B.S. nor any other official Government statement, so what was this, apart from spin and waffle?
From weekend reading, it seems that there will be one more chance to unseat Brown, left it a bit late. Parliament resumes next month, after the Conference Season and before you know it, will be Christmas, more time off. That leaves Spring for action, just before Easter.
A week is a long time in politics, not any more. Please do something, somebody and quickly.
|
Complain about this comment
When Lord Mendacious-son of Malfoy oiled his way into the Today Studio I nearly fell over on the torrent of unctuous fiction emanating from the radio. He argued that black was white, up was down and the 97 New Labour Project was about wise spending.
Given that spending has been almost as incontinent under New Labour as Mandleson's private dealings have been dubious, I am sure that even the semi-comatose Brown will be having second thoughts about the wisdom of bringing this dangerous fantasist back into the sty.
Complain about this comment
Manly Barrilow sand his song to Mandy on tv over the weekend. Is this an ominous sign? Tell me I am dreaming.
No chance Mandy. Just sit down and be a good boy now. We don't want you or Brown. Talk amongst yourselves but quietly, until it's all over and then you can retire to Corfu and the other one up his own sporran.
Complain about this comment
what's all this tory/labour rubbish? From where I stand tories have been in power solidly since 1979
Complain about this comment
I think i will become a floating bloater. All after me then. Speed bonny boat like a bird on the wing, on- ward the sailors cry ,He wasn't the grouse but a timid little mouse all in favor ock aye,
They'll take him away from this sorry day ,and perhaps he will stay right over the sea to Skye ock aye ock aye.
Complain about this comment
#101, Laughatthetories wrote:
"Nick,
I am disappointed you are pandering to the semi-professional ranters and reactionaries on this blog by putting this forward as a topic for discussion. What's to discuss? This is just I'm right, you're wrong journalism.
More interesting might have been Mandy's assertion that the Tories are foaming at the mouth at the thought of all the cuts they can now make because they don't need to seem nice any more. Public spending is now perceived as the bad guy so anyone who cuts it is the goody. Discuss."
Laughat
EVERYBODY - every political party - is queueing up to cut public spending, just using different words to wrap up the way in which cuts will happen in a nice bright package.
I haven't found any group who wishes to cut "front-line resources".
Though, it should be noted that there are fewer hospital beds available now than there were in 1997. Why that? Efficiency savings? Or just a lot more patients being turfed out before they are really ready?
It was this administration (previous iteration) that negotiated pay and conditions deals with doctors and consultants who even said they were too generous! Then Brown complaining that GPs weren't doing enough - although contracts were forced through by Hewitt and her mates. Remember the Medical Training fiasco that left almost 30,000 UK trained doctors with no post?
Efficiency?
Spending somebody else's money is easy. Especially if you waste it and can simply go back and legally dip into their pockets again.
Mandelson wants the MGRover directors to be barred because of poor performance. A similar approach would mean that ministers who have urinated away billions, then taken nice little earning jobs from companies they selected for national delivery, should also be excluded from any public function.
Complain about this comment
A number of political posters seem to think that a General Election will somehow solve our problems by casting aside Labour and, by default, having the Tories fill-the-boots.
Another view is that it will solve nothing at all.
However, the Scottish independence referendum in November 2010 really does have the power to change everything and in my view will be the signal political event of 2010, not a General Election.
Assuming the Scots do vote for independence, then I think that in England, it will be catalyst for the growth of some of the currently smaller political entities such as the Greens, English Democrats and others.
Which can only be healthy as the current tired old two-party duopoly is not doing us English any favours any more, if it ever did.
Complain about this comment
Just spotted this on the BBC site. Extremely on-topic.
"I'm appalled that some institutions are already wanting to return to the old ways; that some of our financial institutions are taking action which, in my view, is not only wrong but counterproductive in continuing, indeed extending the bonus culture of the past," Mr Brown said.
"Some of our financial institutions are taking action which, in my view, is not only wrong but counterproductive in continuing, indeed extending the bonus culture of the past."
Sorry, Mr. B. Who has effective ownership or control of RBS, Northern Rock, Lloyds Group?
So what are you doing to translate fine sounding words into something effective? Bit late to start, I know, but give it a go!
Complain about this comment
TIC matters!
Trust, Integrity and Competence!
Complain about this comment
51. CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
I agree we need minsters convicted for crimes against the state, throw in the non regulators , we will at least have a building boom in new prisons for the miserable lot that they are
Complain about this comment
Mandy was using Labour's new trick - talking for as long as possible to reduce the number of uncomfortable questions he could be asked in the available time.
He did not answer a single question satisfactorily. Mind you, I didn't hear them all because halfway through, I switched off the radio in disgust.
Is he the 'best' Labour has to offer?
Complain about this comment
"Ah, once again, the power of Maggie. So great was she that even if we have a Labour Government in 100 years time, when that Government messes up (as they always do) there will be someone saying that it's all maggies fault."
If we continue along this economic path then I think its quite fair to criticise the model started in the 80's which the tories want to continue. The Idea is that a change of government will make everything OK again and there will be no need for any change. I don't think it will be OK or that anything will change. Its not just MT though, the Conservatives are just unpleasant people that I find difficult to trust.
Even the Business spokesman The Incredible Mr Toad.
Complain about this comment
andy @ 120
their only argument is now "it would be worse under the Tories"
well, it's not the only argument but it's a pretty good one ... don't you think?
jr @ 121
if the story was "Tories lie", I hardly think you would be complaining
no maybe not - although I'm not sure that would constitute much of a story, to be fair ... would be a bit "dog bites man", wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
I think it was Henry Kissinger who once said
"Their military spending, our defence budget".
Complain about this comment
Lord Mendacious knows no shame when it comes to airbrushing history. Sources tell me last week Brown and Salvador Darling had a domestic about (a) the amount to be cut and (b) whether they'd be called cuts at all...or (get this) 'reinvestments'! Darling wants real cuts called cuts because he has now decided that altered reality has been sussed by the electorate. But Gordon remains steadfast in his belief that we are all thick. The appointment of Kirsty McNeill reflects this rather obviously.
Meanwhile, follow the airbrushing of declining health at www.notbornyesterday.org
John Ward
Complain about this comment
Mandy is losing his touch. He must have known he could not rewrite history. He could have simply put a spin on it namely that the Tory's instincts are to cut because they believe in less government and give people a chance to make their own choices, Labour on the other hand has an instinct to invest in public services in order to make sure everyone is looked after. This is what everyone believes are the positions of the parties anyway. He could then have gone on to say that spending money on the basis of future (a few years hence)needs would have got him to a position that what was said is not incompatable with cuts tomorrow.
It would have been a lot of spin, but it would not have relied on rewriting Hansard. Mandy is losing his touch and shows poor preparation on his part.
Complain about this comment
Today: Delegates at the TUC congress in Liverpool approved a motion opposing any redundancies in the public sector as a way of making savings.
Today: Meddlesome promised Labour would try to create economic conditions which would "enable us to maintain frontline service delivery".
Today: It has been announced that Liverpool frontline fire-fighters are to be cut by 10%
I don’t think you make this up if you tried.
Just who do NuLabour and Meddlesome think they are kidding.
Complain about this comment
#128
"Which seems to me what is happening again, people are looking to vote in the Tories because Labour is failing."
This is the most worrying sentiment, which says a lot about our politicians. Wouldn't it be nice if we voted for the Tories because we thought their policies were really going to take the country into a bright future? They may be better than Labour's but are they any good?
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
Its not just MT though, the Conservatives are just unpleasant people that I find difficult to trust."
Ironically I imagine that there are people out there who think exactly the same of the Labour party - and they won't have to go back to the 80s to find a Thatcher hate figure.
Complain about this comment
Well, well sagamix it appears that the HH magic is not working and her friends are not happy bunnies!
Blair's legacy squandered as Brown loses the women's vote.
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
jr @ 121
if the story was "Tories lie", I hardly think you would be complaining
no maybe not - although I'm not sure that would constitute much of a story, to be fair ... would be a bit "dog bites man", wouldn't it?"
Based on recent form I think "Labour lies" is the non-story! If GB or PM told me that it was raining I would go to the window to check!
Complain about this comment
extremesense @28
"However, for once, I agreed with Lord Mandelson - we need targeted cuts thought through carefully rather than the swingeing cuts that the Conservatives are proposing."
Most commentators are criticising the Tories for not having any specific proposals (other than protecting health and overseas development) so I would be very interested if you could point me to a statement by a Tory front-bencher that substantiates these "swingeing cuts" you mention.
Complain about this comment
"Boilerbill wrote:
This is the most worrying sentiment, which says a lot about our politicians. Wouldn't it be nice if we voted for the Tories because we thought their policies were really going to take the country into a bright future? They may be better than Labour's but are they any good?"
I agree, it would be better if people were going to vote for Tories because of their policies - but have they actually released any?
Complain about this comment
"Ironically I imagine that there are people out there who think exactly the same of the Labour party - and they won't have to go back to the 80s to find a Thatcher hate figure."
Nor do I, I find them all almost equally unpleasant and untrustworth but that isn't relevant to what I was discussing.
Do you see what I mean though when I say Labours haters want us to forget the pivotal years that ultimately lead to this problem?
Complain about this comment
saga 143
As I said in an earlier post: "cheap, infantile propaganda".
Come on then, sagamix, let's have a little list from you of Tory lies, to justify the content of your post. Try and keep to the current century if you can, just to avoid losing the audience.
Complain about this comment
just back from hols. Nice to see that nothing seems to have changed. Labour still on the back foot on just about everything and seemingingly unable to tell the truth about anything. To save me trawling through the blogs for the last two weeks has ther been much comment about Lard M's comment that it was offensive to suggest that the Locherbie bomber was released as part of a trade deal?
Does anyone think that he is deliberately trying to undermine Gordon B in revenge for past slights?
Complain about this comment
Nick's topic was focused on the oddity of politicians trying to re-write recorded history during their periods of office (and despite the presence of recording devices).
How about this, from the Beloved Leader (today from a sister blog on the BBC)...
PM: No, I've been very clear. We should all have been supervising more. In fact, you know, you ask the question: Is the lesson of the last 12 years that we should have supervised more (which is my view) or supervised less (which is the view of our opponents)?
What?
Is this really the same person who swanned around at swanky City banquests and BOASTED that he was running - and did run - a "light-touch regulatory system". One that HE introduced!
If his view over the last 12 years was that finance companies should have supervised more, then HE was in the perfect place to ensure it happened.
Did he? Not likely. Too much tax-take to be milked.
The man is deceitful and trying to rewrite the history of his Chancellorship!
It really is getting too much.
Complain about this comment
majority public opinion favours immediate cuts in public spending and this is reflected in this blog.Vox populi,vox dei.But this judgement is wrong.
The issue is timing: not if but when.To cut in a weak recovery is to threaten output and jobs.In addition it worsens the crisis in public finances by weakening tax revenues and making more demands on government to ameliorate the social consequences of economic crisis.By how much did state spending fall during the Thatcher government?
The crisis was not created by government, but by bankers who didn`t understand the toxic assets they traded.The greater part of the deficit in public finances is down to bank rescue.When the banks become viable this will be repaid, perhaps at a profit to the taxpayer.The government`s stake in the banks should not be ceded prematurely because it is popular,but when it favours the taxpayer.
Cuts vs spend is a non-issue,a distraction.According to Keynes and recent Nobel laureates, you spend in a recession and repay in the upswing.If you reverse this sequence and repay in a recession the result is to prolong it.Only masochists would adopt this policy.
Complain about this comment
If Nick is now starting to question or doubt some of Labour's statements, then we need a new Political Editor.
The BBC will not fancy a Conservative Government in charge of the license fee
Complain about this comment
How can Lord M claim that they have followed their 1997 manifesto promise to be wise spenders not big spenders given the huge increase in spending since then. Beggars belief!
Complain about this comment
oldreactionary 156
"Does anyone think that he is deliberately trying to undermine Gordon B in revenge for past slights?"
It's a credible theory. If so, I think he is just in the subtle, early digging stage of the undermining. A version of events is that Lord M sees his job as being to prevent there being an election prior to the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - an election would probably mean that the Treaty didn't get ratified. Once that little risk to the Euro-project is out of the way, Mandelson has nothing to stay for - he has his title and all that goes with it - so at that point, maybe it will be time to unleash the dogs.
Complain about this comment
Bryhers 158
"By how much did state spending fall during the Thatcher government?"
State spending did not fall at all under the Thatcher/Major government, contrary to how some people on this board would like to rewrite the story.
Try this:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php
Complain about this comment
mark WE @ 151
based on recent form, I think "Labour lies" is the non story!
don't go for the Tory spin, Mark, I beg you ... you're a good guy but if you fall for it, and then you come running to me with tears of bitter regret rolling down your cheeks, then you'll get a cup of tea ... maybe a biscuit ... and that'll be it
jrp @ 155
let's have a little list from you of Tory lies
that's no problem whatsoever, JR ... watch this space!
FOM @ 157
so, based on that quote, Gordon is admitting he should have regulated the banks more, and then (politician that he is) he's tacked on a little jibe at the Cs - if that's enough to get your blood cooking, Fairly, then you need to book your place at The Priory right now for the duration of the General Election campaign
Complain about this comment
161 jrperry
Thanks for that, I was forgetting the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish vote. It has always been Lord M's priority I think to see the treaty ratified. I do not think that Mr Cameron has the appetite for pulling the UK out of a ratified treaty, although perhaps he should consider it. I think that it would be a popular decision and would put a clear distinction between him and the prime minister as a politician capable of taking a hard decision.
Complain about this comment
What we witnessed today by Peter Mandelson was overwhelming evidence of a party in its final death throes.
For those looking on from all sides, there is no more that can now be said; the arguments are pointless
For the faithful, there was a glimmer of hope that resucitation could be applied but they know it will need a miracle; for the majority the end is inevitable and cannot come quickly enough because the spectacle is undignified and ugly.
The last rites were given today.
Everyone knows Labour is finished.
It's over.
Finish it now before you take more people down with you.
The next GE is not one for Labour to win; it is for the Tories to lose.
The constant stream of lies of the last twelve years have been exposed.
As I said before but was modified (and probably will be again), the snows are thawing and life is slowly but surely returning to the kingdom after years of mismanagement, waste and incompetence.
Commentators who had previously been turned to stone are now being set free to say what they like without fear.
A new dawn is coming and mo matter the policy, at least let it be driven by moral principle.
And finally a top tip to PM: never speak between sunrise and sundown.
It's really not you.
Complain about this comment
#157 fairlyopenmind
I to read the Jimmy Brown interview on Pestons site.
Yes the following statement by Jimmy really does beggar belief.
PM: No, I've been very clear. We should all have been supervising more. In fact, you know, you ask the question: Is the lesson of the last 12 years that we should have supervised more (which is my view) or supervised less (which is the view of our opponents)?
Especially in light of the following article:
In 2008 Downing St. admitted they knew about the Housing Bubble but decided to run with it!
It does look as though both Brown and Meddlesome are trying to re-write history.
Complain about this comment
#142, dhwilkinson wrote:
"... If we continue along this economic path then I think its quite fair to criticise the model started in the 80's which the tories want to continue."
dhw
I regretted the probably wrong approach by MT to the coal mining industry. There were plenty of economists predicting that gas and oil would last for a very long time. If Scargill had not wanted to bring down a government, he would probably have helped save mining 9in the UK.
British car manufacturing was a joke, seemingly run for the sake of the employees, rather than to demonstrate the genuine engineering competence that's been around in the UK for a couple of centuries.
Ship building was sabotaged by the unions. If you can't build something that somebody is prepared to buy within a reasonable time or cost framework, you don't have an industry - just a make-work site.
Many nationalised companies had little idea that it would help the country if they could do things more efficiently and effectively. And none of their management had the brass ones (or government backing) to say - OK, folks, if you want jobs for you and your kids, we have to do things smarter.
I'd certainly argue that BT, BA, BG, etc provide much more responsive services than 20/30 years ago. (Even if I don't much like them!)
All of those situations could have been addressed by previous Labour administrations. They chose not to do it.
Tony Blair brought more private company participation into front-line NHS activity than Thatcher would ever have dared.
"The Idea is that a change of government will make everything OK again and there will be no need for any change. I don't think it will be OK or that anything will change. Its not just MT though, the Conservatives are just unpleasant people that I find difficult to trust."
Well, dhw,
I just hope that the next time you need to see a doctor or consultant - even a car mechanic - you check their political views before allowing them to fix something for you.
Or do you just trust that they will try and do a decent job on your behalf, before taking a political acceptability test?
I've worked with some far-to-the-left-of-Lenin or slightly-right-of Attilla people and in terms of personal trust, I couldn't tell them apart. (Actually I've even argued some pretty radical views at each extreme over a lifetime...)
Instinctively, I don't trust politicians - any of them. They all try to sell an election manifesto as if it were blue-prints for something you'd be able to touch and feel.
But circumstances change, so what they actually do has to change. And what they try to do has little likelihood of beng effective on the ground, despite all the laws they pass. True of all parties.
Fact is that now we are all in a hole.
If someone says "I've a good idea. We should dig a bit more. Like that we can use the earth to build steps, so eventually climb out", I'll consider it. With some doubts - especially if they happen to be historians or largely impractical people (who create rather rediculous IT projects, for example).
If someone says "I think we need a ladder now" and calls up resources to get one, I think I'd consider that carefully too.
Maybe I'd take more notice of the people who didn't lead us in the hole in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#158 Bryhers wrote:
"Cuts vs spend is a non-issue,a distraction.According to Keynes and recent Nobel laureates, you spend in a recession and repay in the upswing.If you reverse this sequence and repay in a recession the result is to prolong it.Only masochists would adopt this policy".
==========
Although what you and many fail to say is that you spend with money you saved in the boom years when the going was good.
Keynes and the numerous Nobel Prize winners say this but it is an important part of the solution that is missed out or omitted by those who fail to recognise failure in economic management.
Complain about this comment
Both Gordon Brown's and Peter Mandelson's time in the political sunshine had been and gone. The are essentially yesterday's politicians, who's key political methods - spin, smear, stealth tax, spend, squander and survival - are basically discredited. It happens to all politicians eventually, and their time is up, and has been for some time now.
Also, neither of these two are anywhere near as clever as they think they are.
They may like to re-write political history, but in terms of governing with any degree of direction or vision, they are both already political history.
Complain about this comment
#158
"The issue is timing: not if but when.To cut in a weak recovery is to threaten output and jobs.In addition it worsens the crisis in public finances by weakening tax revenues and making more demands on government to ameliorate the social consequences of economic crisis.By how much did state spending fall during the Thatcher government?"
--------------------------------------------
Cutting jobs doesn't have to be the priority since in a recession this can be counterproductive. What needs to happen is a root and branch review of public sector benefits and projects.
Here are three examples:
(1)
The real cost of a public sector pension according to Deloitte is around 35% of salary with the employee contributing ~ 6%, with most equivalent private sector pensions closing altogether (not just to new members) tis is soon to become a polarising debate in the next GE. I am fortunate to have a company that contributes 11%, one of the more generous private sector schemes. Still an 18% shortfall!
The argument about public sector pay doesn't wash, average pay in the public sector is higher despite not being "skewed" by city traders and executives of FTSE 100 companies.
Solution - Close public sector defined benefit pensions and replace with a competitive money purchase scheme. Jobs Lost - 0!
(2) During the last ten years the salary increases have increased by an average of 1.6% despite working for a very successful organisation. The "guarantee" of inflationary increases is long gone in much of the private sector is gone, why is "strikes" are promised my many unions if pay doesn't increase in the public sector at least in ine with inflation.
Solution - Freeze public sector pay for 2-3 years. Jobs lost -0?
(3) Renegotiate PFI contracts and stop any future initiatives unless they pass strict ROI tests, we've been doing this for 10 years+ in the private sector.
Solution - Stop new quangoes and publish detailed department expenditure for all government spending. Let the people decide a la MP expenses what is reasonable
--------------------------------------------
"The crisis was not created by government, but by bankers who didn`t understand the toxic assets they traded.The greater part of the deficit in public finances is down to bank rescue."
--------------------------------------------
Who reformed the regulatory system again, stripping power from the Bank of England and to the FSA?
Also the debt is structural not from the bailout, we expect much of that to repaid, the issue is the structural deficit not the bailout.
--------------------------------------------
"When the banks become viable this will be repaid, perhaps at a profit to the taxpayer.The government`s stake in the banks should not be ceded prematurely because it is popular,but when it favours the taxpayer."
Unlikely to be at a profit to the tax payer, there was a great article and while the HBOS/Lloyds deal will in the long term yield a profit, the Northern Rock and other bailouts will never be repaid.
--------------------------------------------
"Cuts vs spend is a non-issue,a distraction.According to Keynes and recent Nobel laureates, you spend in a recession and repay in the upswing.If you reverse this sequence and repay in a recession the result is to prolong it.Only masochists would adopt this policy."
--------------------------------------------
Whilst Keynes is seeing a renaissance, his idealogy is being hijacked to justify postponement of urgent cuts.
In simple terms if we don't cut our cloth now then we will lose our credibility and much needed AAA debt rating. If this happens interest payments will soar and the cuts needed will be much worse.
But as I stated cuts don't always mean lost jobs. I suspect if you ask most in the public sector, pay freezes and reduced benefits would be a small price to pay for long-term job security.
Complain about this comment
Things are looking up - a post of mine not moderated, JRP outraged and demanding a list of Tory lies! Is it my birthday?
I'll say hello Fubar first since this might not get moderated.
I tend to agree with Flame Pat as ever! - this is just talking heads Mandy "suggested" Brown hadn't used the offending phrase, it turns out that a couple of times he did. It's hardly Watergate.
Now let's get on to the Tory liars - I'll go with three off the top of my head - where better to start than Jonathan Aitken - sword of truth shield of honesty etc - prison;
Jeffrey Archer - where to start? - prison;
David Mellor etc
Not that I'm suggesting Labour are much different, except Tony Benn obviously
Complain about this comment
168. At 9:07pm on 14 Sep 2009, andfinally wrote:
#158 Bryhers wrote:
"Cuts vs spend is a non-issue,a distraction.According to Keynes and recent Nobel laureates, you spend in a recession and repay in the upswing.If you reverse this sequence and repay in a recession the result is to prolong it.Only masochists would adopt this policy".
==========
Although what you and many fail to say is that you spend with money you saved in the boom years when the going was good.
Keynes and the numerous Nobel Prize winners say this but it is an important part of the solution that is missed out or omitted by those who fail to recognise failure in economic management.
===============================================================
This important condition which forms the central foundation for this approach is based is overlooked by many.
Gordon Brown has managed to spend everything he had coming in when the "boom" was on - and even that wasn't enough for his spending. Even if this future "upswing " takes place soon and is dramatic in nature, it is difficult to see how it can sustain the previous level of spending, let alone start to pay it back.
Complain about this comment
Great interview this morning on Today Nick. I wrote a short blog about it at http://thecorporatebubble.blogspot.com/2009/09/cut-rut-or-nut.html . Quality moment at the end of the interview when you came back at Mandelson, simply brilliant piece of Radio. Good job by the Today team.
Complain about this comment
Why is this always a party political debate?
There is a need for middle ground, big government doesn't work but nor does a completely free market.
If the present government spent wisely as promised in 1997 would we be in this predicament now? Perhaps treasury spending should also be made independent, with a Treasury Spending Committee with much in line with the MPC at the Bank of England!
How much of the much "vaunted" investment went into frontline services, not just in improving public sector pay? How much of the reform agenda promised by Blair was stunted by GB and the Unions when he was PM?
The bottom line is Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, so what incentive do Labour have for delivering the much needed public service reform when doing so will destroy their core support and idealogy.
Complain about this comment
We've been here before people.
Don't you remember Gordon's "There will be no more boom and bust" which miraculously became "What I said was, that there would be no more Tory boom and bust".
I remember tv footage put together which showed him using the words "there will be no more boom and bust" at least a dozen times.
It was priceless. Well no, not really. Not worth the mountain of debt he's built up over the last decade. No, not at all.
Complain about this comment
Laughatthetories 171
Yes, very funny. We have discussed your Archer-Mellor-Aitken mantra before. Like I said to sagamix, try to stay in the current century, just to avoid losing the audience.
Obviously, I was meaning political lies too, rather than asking you to give me a quick list of people who simply lied for personal benefit. So let's have a list of lies designed to steal votes, like we had from Lord M today. After all, I could easily respond with a list that starts with Stonehouse. But I can see you are a bit desperate, so do I have to let that one pass?
Complain about this comment
#171 Tories are fun
Be accurate,Benn was NEVER New Labour
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Apparently Gordon Brown is going to use the word CUT when addressing the TUC tomorrow. Have we really come to this being the lead item on the news ?
Presumably, Team Brown will then issue a "clarification" stating that CUT is actually an anagram of TUC, and should not be taken out of context.
Complain about this comment
Your words from your earlier broadcast about Gordon Brown using the word cut: "...drawing the battle lines between us and the conservatives".
Was this a slip of the tongue or a Freudian slip on your part?
Complain about this comment
167 fairlyopenmind
You can't cancel out failure with failure from the other side. That seems to be quite a common method of arguement. I have a problem with the unions as well. They were and from what I hear from Bob Crowe about possible Stroikes the Conservatives greatest unintentional allies. They held us back as much as the Conservatives. They failed to help modernise our industries and allowed them to fail for the less troublesome easy money of the city. Labour didn't do enough to reverse that I agree.
Over 18 years they managed to selfishly stay in power because thats all they cared about. They made the city rich to buy their votes etc and the system the created has failed. Leading to anger against labour and a vote for the Conservatives!
Its only the Conservative party I don't like not the people who vote them I'm sure they're a diverse range of people and not all city fat cats wrecklessly gambling the ordinary decent hardworking publics money.
Complain about this comment
# 174 childof72
You ask "Why is this always a party political debate?"
It's a good question!
I'm guessing from your chosen name that perhaps you won't remember first hand all the failures of the previous Labour government which was finally put out of it's misery in 1979. You also might not recall how our economy had to be bailed out by the IMF.
The fact is, Labour governments traditionally end in disaster. They don't understand economics. Although describing themselves as 'New' Labour, they are still the same old party underneath and have not learnt from their past mistakes. They believe in Big Government - in other words, lots of State Control. They believe in bureaucracy, lots of tiers of management and making things as unwieldily as possible. They believe that any problem can be solved by chucking more money at it. They believe in high taxation, because they know how to spend our money better than we do. They are obsessed with how to divide the national 'cake', without having any recipe to make the cake bigger. They don't trust people to live their own lives; Nanny knows best.
As Margaret Thatcher once put it, they eventually run out of other people's money. (a quote originally from a bumper sticker I think!)
So why is there this divide along party lines? The reason is, they can't help it. It's in their nature.
There is no chance whatsoever of this government suddenly 'spending wisely'. If they knew how to do that, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
The game is up!
Complain about this comment
finally @ 165
a new dawn is coming and no matter the policy, at least let it be driven by moral principle
that would be excellent, AF, it really would - not looking good on that score though (is it?) if we believe the polls
Complain about this comment
168/170 And Finally/Strictly pickled.
"You spend what you save in the good years`
-------------------------------------------
Not necessarily: Another name for Keynesian policies is deficit financing.In other words governments incur debt in periods of recession.If this misunderstanding goes right to the top of those who believe in cutting now,God help us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
172? Child 72.
Your comments relate to the direction of cuts and that is a seperate debate to their timing.
Yes,regulation lagged behind the pace of change in the banking industry but this is common when the pace of change is so fast.In addition as the bankers didn`t understand the structure of the assets they were holding,why should we expect the regulators to?
Also see my commwent above on deficit financxing.
Complain about this comment
Lovely to see Ben Bradshaw and Frank Dobson making themselves look completely and utterly ridiculous on Newsnight with Paxo.
These people run our lives? Oh, please God, give me a break.
Complain about this comment
The Brown/Mandy approach is almost as pathetic as Comical Ali, the Iraqi Minister of Information who stood in front of american tanks that were passing him in the background, saying "The Americans are nowhere to be seen."
Brown/Labour/Mandy have always used the "black is white" argument (ie simply telling people over and over again outright lies and expecting people to believe them even though their statements make no sense and often contradict themselves).
"I take full responsibility. Which is why the person responsible has been sacked"
"Nobody will be adversely effected by the abolition of the 10pct tax rate"
Once they start lying, they can't stop. It takes another lie to keep the first one going. They've compounded so many lies on so many subjects that nobody can believe anything they say any more. If even the BBC have given up believing what they say then it really must be the end.
It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious.
Complain about this comment
Do you remember Blair selling his soul to the tobacco industry and Bernie Ecclestone, 6 months after he came into power? It has been the same story ever since.
Those Tory posters preceeding the general election in 1997, which seemed so ludicrous at the time: Blair, representing the Labour party, with the glaring demon eyes, now seem incredibly prescient.
Brown replaced Blair, maybe Mandelson will replace Brown, but the same old demons are in power.
God help us all.
Complain about this comment
Sagamix 163
A reasonable time having passed, then more on top, and you still haven’t managed anything to back up your 143. And no useful help from your little friends either! So your post 143 is hereby declared to be baseless sloganising.
But I won’t be too hard on you this time. Being called upon, endlessly and thanklessly, to defend the indefensible and support the insupportable, must be very wearing.
Complain about this comment
Ah pigs might fly, if GB wanted to cut spending he'd start right now, Nick you ought to ask does that include all these expensive inquiries they keep having to have?
They are in a deep, deep hole right now and they will do anything to boost the 'score on the door' sound tough, say this n' that but they still waste money like theres no tomorrow....
.... and right now there just ain't no magic tricks, and now't to pull out the hat, even the hat is bare let alone the cabinet, er' sorry cupboard and coming up to elections well, we'll soon learn that pigs can really fly.
Whats so disappointing with this Prime Minister he was an 'Iron fist Chancellor', a Prudent Chancellor - gee this guy can't even get the 10p tax right let alone whether to have an election or not, are you really telling me hes a darn good Chancellor and a rotten PM?
I very much doubt he was Chancellor at all bet it was all down to that other guy that wagged to the Americans like a dogs tail... they say jump and he replies 'how high'!
Complain about this comment
#184 Bryhers
168/170 And Finally/Strictly pickled.
"You spend what you save in the good years`
-------------------------------------------
Not necessarily: Another name for Keynesian policies is deficit financing.In other words governments incur debt in periods of recession.If this misunderstanding goes right to the top of those who believe in cutting now,God help us.
============
Of course governments incur debt during times of recession; it is just that they use surplus earned in the good years to repay it.
Please, now go back and do some homework rather than rely on one of your party hacks to lead you astray with omissions of the facts.
If you refuse to do the homework and want to follow your argument through, please tell me how and when there is no surplus saved during the good times, where does the 'deficit financing' finance come from?.....no don't worry.....we have already have Gordo as a life study to illustrate the stupidity of it all.
Do not be fooled.
Gordo's economic policy is not led by Keynes nor any other Nobel Prize winning economist; it is politically led.
And political solutions do not solve economic solutions.
All that is said now by Gordo and Labour now is one thing. Come the next GE, it will be 'All Change' by which time it will be irrelevant and consigned to history.
Complain about this comment
#187 Zenkop
"Do you remember Blair selling his soul to the tobacco industry and Bernie Ecclestone, 6 months after he came into power? It has been the same story ever since".
===========
I remember the same Blair as the man who was brought up a Protestant, attended Catholic mass and always carried a copy of the Koran on him?
I also remember the same Blair who spoke of his fondness for Newcastle United and watching Jackie Milburn play football. The only problem was that Wor Jackie had died some years before.
And there was another time.....
There are so many lies about the last twelve years that it becomes embarrassing that nothing was done to stop the nonsense that we have suffered in the meantime.
Soon it will all be over.
Complain about this comment
#163, sagamix wrote:
"FOM @ 157
so, based on that quote, Gordon is admitting he should have regulated the banks more, and then (politician that he is) he's tacked on a little jibe at the Cs - if that's enough to get your blood cooking, Fairly, then you need to book your place at The Priory right now for the duration of the General Election campaign."
Saga,
Don't do boiling blood.
The fact is that Brown boasted, right at the heart of the City - and actually with TV reports I watched with shock at his chutzpah - about his light-touch regulation. He thought it was "the right thing at the right time", as always. Under a regulatory framework he created.
Doesn't matter what anyone else maybe would have done - they weren't in power. He was. He actually weakened the Thatcher model.
So why would he say he really, truly, cross my heart, wanted tougher regulation, when he set up that light-touch, nobody's-really-sure-who's-responsible stuff in the first place?
It's just nonsense to say he wanted tougher supervision when he was actually in charge. With a large majority.
And say he wanted to be tougher (while in charge) but the other nasty people (who couldn't do anything) wanted a weaker regime? What exactly? An even more useless regulatory environment?
As if somehow Brown's hands were tied because his party had an absolute majority, but... Mind-blowing stuff!
Just like bankers saying they didn't really know what was happening in their areas of supposed expertise. Which justifies continued high pay and bonuses in banks we own (or control) and he and his appointee are effectively in charge of. But, despite all the flim-flam, all that big salary, great bonus stuff is still in place.
Saga, you know that I don't really give a stuff about who does it. But if they do it badly, after rejecting sensible advice and a few tries to get it right, they should be demoted or fired.
Brown was just delighted to take tax from any easy source to spend on all the sort of daft stuff you seem to revel in as social progress.
Anyway, Saga, I guess that the Priory is already overbooked with current (but soon to be ex) ministers, worried because they fear that companies they supported during their time in office just don't - for the time being of course - need surplus wealth-shrinkers on the board...
It's not the colour of the politician, Saga, it's the effectiveness that I like. Bull S comes in rainbow hues. Brown promised pots of gold. No more boom or (well - just wait until after 2015 till we roughly sort it out and imagine yourselves elsewhere for a few years) bust. Biggest bust in normal memory, I'd say.
Made in America? Yeah, well, Clinton wanted more lending to poorer people to expand home ownership. Bush didn't stop it. Brown didn't even bother to check whether UK banks were genuinely solvent or simply shovelling money they didn't have to people who couldn't afford to borrow it.
So if Mandy says there will be difficult choices, I'd say yes. Which particular pistol should be applied to the temple... Just hope it was made in the UK.
Complain about this comment
181, dhwilkinson wrote:
"167 fairlyopenmind
You can't cancel out failure with failure from the other side. That seems to be quite a common method of arguement."
dhw,
I didn't try to do that.
"Ihave a problem with the unions as well. They were and from what I hear from Bob Crowe about possible Stroikes the Conservatives greatest unintentional allies. They held us back as much as the Conservatives. They failed to help modernise our industries and allowed them to fail for the less troublesome easy money of the city. Labour didn't do enough to reverse that I agree."
Guess what, dhw, I was a union member.
Even talked for the brothers and sisters for a while. Places I worked, there were practices that I just couldn't stomach. Just rediculous.
I am still in favour of unions. Good way to bring people together, find a voice and try and think about some sort of collective recognition of hope and responsibility for the future.
Later, I've managed quite a lot of people, but even if unions didn't have a proper policy in place, I sort of felt that being decent with people, while finding some practical way of delivering value for money - for individual and company - was a reasonable idea. So, if you fight the "normal corporate system" in order to help somebody who's got a real problem today, does that make you a bad person?
That doesn't make me a Tory. I don't belong to any party. But I like any government to actually ensure they do what they say their laws will do.
dhw, I bet that you have no idea about all the laws and regulations that have been passed over the last decade. I try to keep up to date, but there's no way that any "normal" citizen could possibly keep up. I've challenged my MP to try and confirm how many of those bits of regulation he has actually looked at in detail. Silence. Why? Well at some point, I worked out that there were roughly 18 such items for every day that Parliament sat. How can that make any sense?
If MPs don't know what laws and regulations mean in deetail, how can Joe - or Jane - Public? But these idiots seem to thnk they are in power to legislate. They are not. They are there to govern. That means making things work!
I don't really care about legislative programmes. If nothing happens at street level, what's the point.
Blair seems to have made up the "progressive changes" of the justice system and House of Lords on the back of a fag packet. Or in his case, probably a bare space in the Koran he always claim to carry with him. Even the Law Lords said it was rather odd. If you can't trust government to treat the legal framework with sensitivity, who could sleep easy at night?
"Over 18 years they managed to selfishly stay in power because thats all they cared about. They made the city rich to buy their votes etc and the system the created has failed. Leading to anger against labour and a vote for the Conservatives!"
No party "selfishly stays in power". You, me, we, all voters, choose who should be around at Westminster.
It surprised me that the manufacturing sector in the UK is actually in pretty good nick. Until the crunch, car manufacturing was at an all time high. You wouldn't believe it really, just statistics.
I just couldn't work out why a UK population could only build decent cars when some other people owned the companies. Could you explain why brilliant Brit engineers had so little support from the people they wanted to create good product? (Union organised, of course. Ever read up on the history of Red Robbo - great leader who made jobs evaporate. A bit like Scargill.) I never understood that.
I can't buy that "Tories making the city rich" stuff after 12 years when Blair and Brown have been so far up that you could hardly see the soles of their shoes. Certainly couldn't check what colour socks they were wearing.
Until it went wrong, of course. Now the people they loved to bits - and extracted tax from - should be kicked around. Except that the brave (sound bite) words don't seem to be backed by any limitation on salaries or bonuses, do they?
Can you tell me exactly what the last decade has done to bring corporate productivity philosophy in to help public inefficiency? That's absolutely NOT an anti-public sector comment. Just that government politicians now talk about "efficiency savings" as though it's a brand new idea.
I've worked in so-called high-productivity private companies when you just knew that it would take about a lunch break and a couple of ciggies to chop base costs by 10 percent.
"Its only the Conservative party I don't like not the people who vote them I'm sure they're a diverse range of people and not all city fat cats wrecklessly gambling the ordinary decent hardworking publics money."
Guess what, dhw, I'd be happy to see all the board members of banks we - WE - and our children will be supporting for a while, being disbarred from ever holding roles as company directors in future. Not sure if any legal action has been taken against bankers, has it? Even though some banks called for massive shareholder investment when they SHOULD have known their situation was completely dire. (RBS, as an example.) I don't remember any Tory or LibDem being in government at that time. Do you?
In my worst moments, I'd probably look for a suitable tree branch or old-fashioned lamp post.
I really, truly, didn't like Brown cutting a casual, chummy deal with LloydsTSB to take over HBoS. HBoS was a basket case. (NOT overseen in any reasonable way by the FSA - who exactly created that? Has a sort of Gordon flavour to it.)
Lloyds was a decent company. So we (Brown - not a Tory as I recall) set aside competition regulations and stuffed up the shareholders of a decent company (which of course means all the Pension Funds of private sector workers) and they are laying off 11,000 staff.
Good solid, Labour policy? Not in my experience. Certainly not what I expected.
Anything to do with Tories, LibDems, Greens, whoever?
NO. A City deal wrapped up by Beloved Leader Brown (obviously with some degree of support with the cabinet).
How does that square with "nasty Tories looking after the city", when head honcho, guided by his moral compass, always doing the right thing at the right time, while still being a Labour PM, does a sweetheart deal with a bank? And, by the way, hits the private pension fund investments in what was a pretty decent company.
Sorry, dhw, it's not the "colour" of the government, it's the competence that should be the determinant.
I just don't believe we as a population have received anything like the value we should have for all the money - OUR money - that's been spent.
That's all.
Complain about this comment
#192 fairlyopenmind
#193 fairlyopenmind
Well done. Two comments that I not only applaud, but can identify with.
Complain about this comment
193#
++applause++
Complain about this comment
192#
++more applause, particularly for the pistol. A Glock or a Sig Sauer should do the trick.++
Complain about this comment
Whoever forms the next government will be faced with having to spend less money while providing MORE services, and that is the real challenge.
Because for years we have been force fed like French geese the old mantra - we have invested blah blah millions in blah blah services as if this guarenteed better services. Know what, it doesn't.
That's not to say it shouldn't, but anyone involved in measuring achievement knows that spending is an input, not an output.
So the debate facing our nation, what we as a country actually need, is how to go about providing more services at lower cost. Not party political ya booo points scoring though of course and so very depressingly that will happen.
So how to go about achieving what at first seems impossible?
1. All service targets to be dropped except satisfaction of the person receiving the services.
2. No front line jobs lost, but a heavy cull of auditors, specifiers back room management staff who cost a fortune and make service provision worse. Get the police on the streets, the nurses and doctors on the wards, less paperwork, less computer technology but people in touch with people.
3. Schools to educate children, teach the skills and knowledge so they can succeed in life based on the need of each child as an individual and not on the need of the school to do well in a league table. We need skilled engineers, IT professionals, doctors etc etc who succeed through help in the system, not in spite of it. Chucking money into the system which we ultimately spend in China just makes the balance of payments worse.
4. Small government, as small as possible. Politicians who truly represent their area and don't tow the party line for personal ambition. Fat chance of this, but it would be as it should be. Parliament to be the true power in the government, less 3 line whips and more free votes. NO SPIN please! Tractor stats are for the 60's, no one is fooling anyone.
Local goverment to return to independents, no need for the party system in local government, people should be thinking whats right for their region.
5. Out of foreign wars and occupation of foreign countries unless there is a clear and demonstratable need to be there and in which case with a clear objective, and a clear exit strategy.
Who to do this? I suppose the Tories aren't tainted with the last 10 years, but talk of shared services indicates to me they don't know the answers. Labour would have to say - we got it wrong and are sorry. Given that actually apologising seems a total no no to 99% of politicians, I don't see this happening. Personally I know I have made a lot of mistakes in my life, most with good intention, and to me it has been accepting I was wrong, accepting full responsibility and learning for the future that has been important for me.
Meanwhile my vote is available to whosoever can convince me that they work for me.
FM
Complain about this comment
"I very much doubt he was Chancellor at all bet it was all down to that other guy that wagged to the Americans like a dogs tail... they say jump and he replies 'how high'!"
Thats how Ed Balls went from being a bag carrying SpAd to being parachuted into a very safe Labour constituency to the third most dangerous man in government in less than 10 years. Certainly wasn't all Broon's idea.
Complain about this comment
#193 fairly I have just waded through you last post of the evening ,And you have revealed your true standing Its as i surmised a true red robbo supporter ,As when i challenged you about the sea of blue in your area you had a job to explain why you were unable to follow the flow in donning a blue Rosette and following your natural tendency two go with the crowd IE unions.You stated there were many good people in certain areas of your work place ,You can bet your boots there were these were the same people that if they hadn't joined the union they would have been unable to take up gainful employment in their area unless they subscribed to the limo man that called straight after the received there pay packet to extract the three half crowns for being a spokes person on their behalf,This was and still is my main gripe with the said unions,What type of individual are you that you cannot negotiate with your employer for better wages or work conditions without the needs of a spokes person ?then at the end of the day if you don't get what you think you need ,Hold the rest of the country at Ransom until your demands are met? I say come on fairly be a man and stand on your own two feet You don't need a pair of blinkers like a racehorse to win a race Pin on the white nose band and you will get there.Now soon is your opportunity to make a change for your daughters future i to have three offspring back there and they two deserve two see the light at the end of the tunnel .Give Mr Cameron a chance So you think he's only after lining his own pocket i don't think so Give the man a chance and that goes for all the other doubters give them agrilling at the door step and promise them a hard time if they don't deliver. Just remember they will hold office for five years so you better get it right.And thats without the aid of arthur scargill or red robbo .morning all.
Complain about this comment
190
Does your point relate to the pre-existing state of the public finances before the slump? Or does it refer to the repayment of debt in the good times?
In terms of public debt,Britain entered the recession about midway in the league of industrial countries.However.the salience of the financial sector has created problems specific to the UK economy.This is structural,not politically led.
As for debt incurred prior to the crisis,whether the British government was better or worse placed to incur further debt is a debate.It could be argued that a higher level of governmewnt spend means more built in stabilizers,but this is a seperate issue. The level of public debt prior to recession is fortuitous,the point is that government incurs debt to increase activity in the economy, and apart from the monetarist experiment of the eighties this happens whatever the political complexion of government,left,right or centre.
Finally stop blaming.Ecoonomic crises are a structural feature of capitalist production.Typically they are treated as one off events,tipping points or black swans.People lose work,get frightened,look for scapegoats because their secure expectations have been violated.It produced fascism in Germany and Japan,the New Deal in the USA.We stagnated until rearmament began in the late thirties.This was the environment in which Keynes produced his General Theory of Interest,Employment and Money.
International crises are not an act of God,they are man made, so are the remedies.There has been a growth of knowledge since the thirties.Forget ideology,think economics.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
jr perry @ 188 re the Top Ten Tory Lies! challenge
your post 143 is hereby declared to be baseless sloganising
no steady on, I spit on baseless sloganising - plus, I've had hardly any time at all - main problem is honing things down into a top 10 - guess you know how difficult that can be ... top 10 Michael Caine movies, top 10 "non jobs", top 10 John Redwood speeches ... you must have done it down the pub, right? ... and it's tricky, isn't it? - some of them simply have to be included, but what to leave out? - another few minutes please, is all
Complain about this comment
After watching Dobson and Bradshaw on Newsnight we know what Labour's election soundbites are going to be. The Tories are "drooling" and "foaming at the mouth" at the prospects of cuts. Dobson also threw in the now obligatory reference to bankers, all down to them, I believe. Nothing to do with those actually governing the country and overseeing the economy.
It's good to see we're going to have a mature discussion on public spending over the coming months. Can't wait to see how the Tories top "drooling" and "foaming at the mouth".
Complain about this comment
Well the public are part and partial owners of the said banks but i can't see any dividends being payed out in there names, and replacing the moneys nu lab-our have wasted Or even reinvested in the peoples pension funds, that have been plundered that might give ze nu lab our a chance of re election as the chocolate tea pot i have will not hold water hot or cold. And you can't expect a leopard two change his spots.
Complain about this comment
"dhwilkinson wrote:
Do you see what I mean though when I say Labours haters want us to forget the pivotal years that ultimately lead to this problem?"
I agree that Labour built on a base left by the Tories, however they had a massive majority and a decade in power to turn the Tanker around.
Thatcher might have set the course but New Labour increased the speed before going off and spending their time relaxing on the deck.
Nobody can say if the Tories would have done any better (my guess is that they probably wouldn't have) and I suspect that the country would be in a worst state if Thatcher had constantly surrendered to the Unions when she was in power, for a start we may no longer have a democracy as the Unions would have the power to organise a mass strike and crush any party that tried to stand up to it.
Complain about this comment
171#
Morning, Laugh.
Your finger has probably gone numb from being in that dyke all day yesterday, trying to hold back the advancing tides. Bit like trying to put the Californian wildfires out with a teacup of lighter fluid... :-)
Complain about this comment
bryhers @ 2C
yes, economics can be a helpful discipline (can't it?) but it's too often bent into the dishonourable service of ideology - that's certainly what's happening with this public spending debate - the truth is we had spending running a little too high for a few years, and there would have been a need to tone it down to keep national debt in the comfort zone ... 40 maybe 45 pc, something like that ... but then the "Made in the USA" global credit crunch hits - it hits us harder than most for a variety of reasons, most of them to do with our reliance on property and financial services and the high "spiv factor" in our national economic life - so steps are required (and taken) to first of all stave of a banking collapse, and second of all to prop up economic activity, a.k.a. stop the economy going into a tailspin - it may or may not work (and fingers crossed it does, because I'm doubtful) and there clearly IS a need, regardless, to reduce debt to sustainable levels, and to match spending to revenue over the longer term, but as you say that's where economics comes in - that's where this noblest of the arts can play its proper role - what's very clear to me is that a great many of the most strident voices yelling we must cut BIG! and NOW! ... we must cut the Public Sector "down to size" (clue there in the language) ... these voices belong not to sober sides fretters about the public finances, but to Right Wing "Small State" Ideologues - nothing wrong with being a RWSSI but we could have a better quality conversation if it were disclosed - so c'mon guys ... Loud'n'Proud right?
Complain about this comment
"sagamix wrote:
mark WE @ 151
based on recent form, I think "Labour lies" is the non story!
don't go for the Tory spin, Mark, I beg you ... you're a good guy but if you fall for it, and then you come running to me with tears of bitter regret rolling down your cheeks, then you'll get a cup of tea ... maybe a biscuit ... and that'll be it"
Both parties spin, and both parties will try and rewrite the truth to their own ends. However, the fact is that at the present Labour are the party which are getting caught up in their own lies - mainly because the Tories have been keeping quiet rather then expose themselves to the media's glaze.
Complain about this comment
"Laughatthetories wrote:
Now let's get on to the Tory liars - I'll go with three off the top of my head - where better to start than Jonathan Aitken - sword of truth shield of honesty etc - prison;
Jeffrey Archer - where to start? - prison;
David Mellor etc
Not that I'm suggesting Labour are much different, except Tony Benn obviously"
Why not throw in John Profumo? As it seems that you don't have any recent examples so why limit yourself?
Complain about this comment
"...yes, economics can be a helpful discipline (can't it?) but it's too often bent into the dishonourable service of ideology - that's certainly what's happening with this public spending debate"
"what's very clear to me is that a great many of the most strident voices yelling we must cut BIG! and NOW! ... we must cut the Public Sector "down to size" (clue there in the language) ... these voices belong not to sober sides fretters about the public finances, but to Right Wing "Small State" Ideologues - nothing wrong with being a RWSSI but we could have a better quality conversation if it were disclosed - so c'mon guys ... Loud'n'Proud right?
So... ideaology is bad, but being an idealogue isnt?
Clear as mud.
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson:
That is very much true, you can't rewrite political history; But, in some eyes it can be re-written...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
Saga, something that will interest you......
From Guido..... Harriet is back on maneuvers, which she will no doubt deny later today if past performance is any guide. Her team of volunteers is polling Constituency Labour Party branches for their views on the party leader. Party activists are being asked to rank Gordon and herself as to who is the “best person to sell the Labour Party” on a scale of 0 to 5.
It would be very, very interesting if the results “accidently” leaked, would it not?
Complain about this comment
Mark WE @ 208
as per usual, I agree with you - spin has become more important in politics than either policy or personality, and the "taking us all for fools" feeling is getting stronger every day - the spin won't disappear, however, until people get away from the facile left/right tribalism and, you know, take more of a proper interest in the real issues ... become more like you and me, in other words
Complain about this comment
fubar @ 210
So... ideology is bad, but being an ideologue isn't? Clear as mud
no, both ideology and being an ideologue are fine - but putting forward an ideological argument and pretending it's an economic one is not helpful, that's my point - it muddies the waters, if we must speak of mud
Complain about this comment
The torys are keeping stum because it would be foolhardy not two, As the labour spin off merchants are doing a wonderfull job trying to head off the salvo they are recieving at preasent, So keep on the flank sabur i seem two have lost number two in the cross fire.But may be able to call in an air strike if need be. Mandlesnake is doing just fine with enough rope ,Or give a inch and they take a
Complain about this comment
212. At 10:14am on 15 Sep 2009, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Saga, something that will interest you......
From Guido..... Harriet is back on maneuvers, which she will no doubt deny later today if past performance is any guide. Her team of volunteers is polling Constituency Labour Party branches for their views on the party leader. Party activists are being asked to rank Gordon and herself as to who is the “best person to sell the Labour Party” on a scale of 0 to 5.
It would be very, very interesting if the results “accidently” leaked, would it not?
======================================================================
Considering the current 'anyone but gordon' survey being reported on Sky News, along with Harriets sexist agenda I'm surprised she didn't ask them to rank gordon against 'any woman'.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 207
"but then the "Made in the USA" global credit crunch hits - it hits us harder than most for a variety of reasons...."
Leaving aside the "Made in the USA" bit - how right you were to put that in quotes - weren't we "uniquely well-placed to weather the storm"?
Glad to see you officially burying another dishonest Labour catchphrase.
Complain about this comment
214#
What, like the wriggling that Alan Johnson did about the voluntary top up payments that cancer patients couldn't make until HMG were shamed into reversing it by the Sunday times?
NICE's economic position backed up by New Labour's ideological one about a two tier health service?
"patients cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the NHS and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs. That way lies the end of the founding principles of the NHS."
Wouldnt "Labour Investment/Tory Cuts" fall under that banner headline as well???
Complain about this comment
I don't think there is anything new in this strategy - Brown seems to think we plebs have as much memory as a goldfish. However I would make these points:
We all have fresh in our minds the broken promises, over spending, cruel tax changes, electoral bribes, massive project failures, wars, expenses row, massive public debt; and more recently the general absence of a PM.
Few of us have vivid memories of the last Conservative government following the last 12 years of tribulation and ongoing increases in unemployment, business failures and general hardship.
Labour's new tack of telling fairy stories about the slavering Wolf at the door waiting to make savage cuts (ie the Conservatives) is nothing short of pathetic. It proves they have no credible positive line of attack for themselves, they can only throw mud and make outlandish, unattainable promises.
It is patently clear that the Brothers Grim (the two PMs; P Mandelson and the other PM) have nothing to offer the country. Brown is only now beginning to talk about "cuts" - once again he's the last person in the country to see the actual truth of the situation.
It's not hard to see that Mandy is now in charge of Labour - leading Brown on by the nose; and he's quite clever enough to try and make us believe anything.
Complain about this comment
#199. At 08:13am on 15 Sep 2009, quietoldinthetooth wrote:
"#193 fairly I have just waded through you last post of the evening ,And you have revealed your true standing Its as i surmised a true red robbo supporter ,As when i challenged you about the sea of blue in your area you had a job to explain why you were unable to follow the flow in donning a blue Rosette and following your natural tendency two go with the crowd IE unions."
Quiteold,
It was late. I was tired. Back troublesome. Obviously what I tried to write didn't "work" for you, which evidently meant I wrote it badly.
Every place I've worked there have been "good" and "bad" management and staff. (I probably fell into both types in both categories at various times... Lot's of it comes from attitude and understanding. But you try and learn!)
I've worked in tightly prescribed jobs - where I could glance around and know within a few hundred quid how much my colleagues were paid, simply because of the published pay-scales. Other places, where I hadn't a clue if they were paid half as much or twice as much as me for doing roughly similar jobs. Both approaches can work.
In my opinion, a good Union can look out for some of those safety at work issues which are important for staff and management. And stand up for people who receive abuse from their colleagues - as well as management (both happen. Sometimes the worst stuff occurs between staff rather than as staff/management problems!).
I think some of the destroyers were people like Red Robbo, Scargill and the bloke who effectively closed the Port of London. Lots of UK industry was crippled by Unions with (let's allow) good intentions but a miniscule understanding of the purpose of business. I've actually worked for bosses who seemed to have the same difficulties!!!
Seem to recall that Labour never tackled the problem. Thatcher eventually did. Maybe too shrill a tone, but something had to be done.
I don't plan to wear any party's rosette. I'l vote for somebody, but happily get grumpy (if you see what I mean) if they do daft things when in power. Any mob that believes in legislating for fun - just to keep them occupied - doesn't get much credit from me, unless there are some sensible motives, not too much social and economic cost and some actual impact of laws.
Have a fun day.
Complain about this comment
yes jr that's right ... as I think I've proved on countless occasions, I don't do empty sloganeering - just not my style - more than happy to leave all that nonsense to the "Cut 'coz we Like it" Tories - and fubar ... really? ... is H still plotting? - god I hope so
Complain about this comment
~220 Fairly many thanks for your reply .I shall be enjoying the sun shine over here as per usual, praying for a little rain as it has a tendency to be rather hot than in the UK .All i can say is good luck with your unions, To me they are for the poor soles of who are unable to use the gray matter they were born with to act on their behalf so perhaps you were justified the roll you some times played And as the yanks may say have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Why is Nick in the least bit surprised by a labour lie? What else do they ever do but lie? Catch up Nick!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS