Labour apologise for the crisis, kind of

[I1L2T3]

Is this good enough from Miliband?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10103897/Ed-Miliband-Labours-spending-was-not-to-blame-for-Britains-economic-woes.html

 

I tend to agree that it was not out of control spending that caused the crisis. Spending as a % of GDP was actually at pretty normal (although gradually rising) levels before 2008.

 

Then 2008-10 saw a lot of additional spending to fund bank bailouts, out of work benefits, a shortfall in tax receipts and short-term economic stimulus. That was the period when spending spiralled out of control but it is distinct phase from Pre-2008. There are lessons to be learned from both phases.

 

What is really interesting is the apology on regulation. He is very precise with his words. It wasn't too much or too little regulation. It was the wrong type of regulation. IMO here we see Labour cosying up to the banks again, using language they hope won't upset the banks. We're not hearing about more regulation, clearly what is needed because the international element of it barely exists, but something different instead and precisely what is left unclear.

 

And if you ever needed a demonstration of how Labour are just Tories in disguise you get it in the article - Labour are suddenly very comfortable with the idea of eroding universal benefits.

 

To answer my own initial question no it's not good enough. I can't imagine voting for this crap.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Milliband is a Politician, like his 630 mates in Parliament, they have been known to be economical with the truth, and sometimes speak with a forked tongue.

 

Angel.

[Vague_Boy]

What is really interesting is the apology on regulation. He is very precise with his words. It wasn't too much or too little regulation. It was the wrong type of regulation.

 

Prudence McRuin didn't see it quite like that:

 

“no inspection without justification, no form filling without justification, and no information requirements without justification, not just a light touch but a limited touch.”

 

LINK

 

Nor did Ed Balls:

 

"a light touch approach at the global and EU level”

 

LINK

 

I eagerly await the experts on alternate history/parallel dimensions to tell us that everything would have been just fine had Crash Gordon won the last General Election.

 

Somewhere in the area of 11 dimensional quantum mechanics there probably really is a version of Britain where this happened.

 

Perhaps there is also a parallel dimension where I'm not always right.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

[Mister M]

I'm glad for the linked article.

 

Next week I hope to read Milliband say it was the poorest and weakest that caused the financial crash, and they should be made to pay it all back.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2013 at 22:03 ----------

 

Prudence McRuin didn't see it quite like that:

 

 

 

LINK

 

Nor did Ed Balls:

 

 

 

LINK

 

I eagerly await the experts on alternate history/parallel dimensions to tell us that everything would have been just fine had Crash Gordon won the last General Election.

 

Somewhere in the area of 11 dimensional quantum mechanics there probably really is a version of Britain where this happened.

 

Perhaps there is also a parallel dimension where I'm not always right.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

What, that there might be another Vague Boy in alternate universe scouring the internet for biased artcles to chuck at his imaginary opponents

[I1L2T3]

Prudence McRuin didn't see it quite like that:

 

 

 

LINK

 

Nor did Ed Balls:

 

 

 

LINK

 

I eagerly await the experts on alternate history/parallel dimensions to tell us that everything would have been just fine had Crash Gordon won the last General Election.

 

Somewhere in the area of 11 dimensional quantum mechanics there probably really is a version of Britain where this happened.

 

Perhaps there is also a parallel dimension where I'm not always right.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

If you're making the point that Miliband's assessment of the regulatory framework is badly warped then I agree.

 

I don't think his admittance of mistakes and feeble apology nearly enough. Why? Because to avoid making the same mistakes in the future you have to understand the ones made in the past. The apology shows no true understanding and they have no roadmap for the future.

 

The only thing they have are woolly statements and language designed not to upset the financial sector, without which Labour will not get anywhere near number 10. It's more cosying up, a total avoidance of discussion of Vickers and almost a repeat of the run up to 1997.

 

Forget spending I think this is up the real reason why Labour can't be trusted with the economy. They are in thrall to the financial sector and have no idea how to regulate it - 18 months out from an election campaign they should have this nailed because the financial sector is still the most potentially feral and destructive sector of the economy.

[Mecky]

I recall seeing a graph where the biggest spike in borrowing was in 2008 and was probably used to bail out the banks during the crash. I suppose some people will quite have happily let people lose all their savings and have no money to buy food, but there you go. Still, the tories borrows more in 2.5 years of government than in three terms under Labour. Even George "Grub Bank" Osborne admitted in that video thingy post on here and other websites that the deficit and borrowing was manageable not really the problem in 2008, just as well for him. But as we all know, pandering or persuading public opinion is all that matters.

 

I never liked GDP for the reasons I mentioned early. It needs scrapping.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2013 at 07:23 ----------

 

Prudence McRuin didn't see it quite like that:

 

 

 

LINK

 

Nor did Ed Balls:

 

 

 

LINK

 

I eagerly await the experts on alternate history/parallel dimensions to tell us that everything would have been just fine had Crash Gordon won the last General Election.

 

Somewhere in the area of 11 dimensional quantum mechanics there probably really is a version of Britain where this happened.

 

Perhaps there is also a parallel dimension where I'm not always right.

 

Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

Guido Fawkes blogg? That looks a very reputable website

[SevenRivers]

Labour already promising to outspend rivals if elected. Same old same old.

[Mecky]

Labour already promising to outspend rivals if elected. Same old same old.

 

But as said before, the cuts under the tories are and always have been too far and restrict growth, which is why the following government, usually Labour, have to spend heavily.

[Joseph Anton]

But as said before, the cuts under the tories are and always have been too far and restrict growth, which is why the following government, usually Labour, have to spend heavily.

 

But the economy is back in growth. The pundits are agreed growth is ahead of forecast. We are in far better shape than the Eurozone which is contracting has unemployment spiraling and debt levels that make our look trivial. On top of that Labour have confirmed they would stick to coalition spending plans for 5 years. I can see a quicky Mecky backtrack to justify all this orthe usual Mecky disappearing act.

[L00b]

I don't think his admittance of mistakes and feeble apology nearly enough. Why? Because to avoid making the same mistakes in the future you have to understand the ones made in the past. The apology shows no true understanding and they have no roadmap for the future.

(besides the points you have extensively made) in context, but more prosaically, also because, together with Ed Balls, he had been an adviser to Brown on finance and the economy for quite a while at the material time. A fact increasingly-often overlooked, and which needs a bit of dusting off every now and then, IMHO. Lest we forget and all that

 

As acts of contritions go, this one falls a fair few intergalactic miles short of the mark.