tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post9172611654556000121..comments2023-10-07T12:15:50.446+01:00Comments on The Centre Left: Looking to 2014, not 1974: the case for spending limitsRob Marchanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-82620378745329378772011-06-01T00:13:02.788+01:002011-06-01T00:13:02.788+01:00I realise that, what's impressed me is that he...I realise that, what's impressed me is that he's still speaking and writing about mutual and cooperative models of enterprise - no doubt a tribute to Michael Stephenson's work as general secretary of the Cooperative Party.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443724356434212172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-60469971866154691972011-05-31T11:00:23.127+01:002011-05-31T11:00:23.127+01:00Good idea. But it was Mike's idea, not Chuka&#...Good idea. But it was Mike's idea, not Chuka's.Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-7134362654831787632011-05-30T23:17:36.981+01:002011-05-30T23:17:36.981+01:00I thought this was impressive: http://www.progress...I thought this was impressive: http://www.progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=8205Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443724356434212172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-42921738651756667012011-05-28T18:24:12.681+01:002011-05-28T18:24:12.681+01:00Yes on the Vickers Report. Yes to Michael Stephens...Yes on the Vickers Report. Yes to Michael Stephenson, whom I know to be a great guy. Yet to be impressed by Chuka Ummuna.Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-58990897339605303712011-05-28T11:54:51.112+01:002011-05-28T11:54:51.112+01:00Sorry, must have misread that part. Or misinterpre...Sorry, must have misread that part. Or misinterpreted. I think the blame can be eroded - if we're making the case for financial reform, we're contesting the cause of current economic woes. Drawing a line under it and moving on isn't possible because the Tories will keep harking back to it.<br /><br />Radical means going to the root, that's the etymology of the word. On policy, I think Michael Stephenson and Chuka Ummuna's recent Progress Online articles have the right approach. As opposition, and also in opposition to our reputation as spendthrifts, Labour has to be very vocal on the Vickers Report when it comes to moral hazard. Put crudely for the benefit of getting the point across, the banks spent too much and had us pay the bill - we can't let it happen again.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443724356434212172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-62896348600735267472011-05-28T09:00:55.358+01:002011-05-28T09:00:55.358+01:00Well, actually that's not what I said in yeste...Well, actually that's not what I said in yesterday's piece: I said we have lost the overall-level-of-the-cuts argument and that a worsening economic situation will not vindicate us. So, in fact, I believe the opposite of what you're saying - we cannot erode the blame. What we can do is draw a line under it and move on. There is no need to "defer to the existing narrative".<br /><br />Proper regulation of banks, by the way, is one part of where we can add value (because the Tories are clearly bound to soft-pedal it). But it's only one part of the solution. So I think we agree that matching coalition spending post-2014 plus proper financial sector reform could be a winning package.<br /><br />Now we just need to define what "radical" means...;)Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-8279884871420602772011-05-28T02:45:53.782+01:002011-05-28T02:45:53.782+01:00But the "we caused" thing isn't unif...But the "we caused" thing isn't uniform. In other words, some voters think because the GFC happened under a Labour govt, the party is responsible in terms of incompetence - the association with the crisis and the deficit is here stronger. In your latest LabourList article on our poll lead, you seem to be suggesting the blame can be eroded by matching up to the Tories on cuts.<br /><br />The danger of the spending limits approach is that it could defer to the existing narrative - thus perpetuating it - at the expense of contesting the need for broader financial reform.<br /><br />The question of spending needs to be examined carefully, since in our economy the credit creation is seen as sole preserve of private banks. Institutions which, because of the need to provide financial returns to their owners, developed and traded products with risks beyond the comprehension of bank bosses - with the effect being that the state is now propping up the private banking sector.<br /><br />So, I think matching coalition spending in the years after 2014 will only be credible electorally if it's accompanied by a commitment to radical financial reform - otherwise, we're just conceding competence on public finances to the Tories.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443724356434212172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-23780310534078882152011-05-26T17:49:50.756+01:002011-05-26T17:49:50.756+01:00@James, well yes, your second para is about right,...@James, well yes, your second para is about right, except I am adding to that projected spending for the first couple of years after 2014 - that is, after all, what will count electorally. The spending plans for this parliament are a done deal anyway, apart from some small changes which the govt will negotiate if there is an outcry in a specific area (e.g. forestry, NHS).<br /><br />Re speed of deficit reduction, it will of course depend on growth, as you say. That is not to say you can't reduce it without growth in principle, but for that you'd need to look very closely at the figures.<br /><br />I suspect the Tories will end up in the end not having such harsh cuts and not cutting the debt as much as they said they would.<br /><br />It's an interesting point, how much of the debt-cutting will be down to reduced spending, how much to growth and how much to increased taxes.<br /><br />I suspect they are downplaying the growth part in their projections anyway. I don't think we will be in "no better position". I think we'll just be in "not as good a position as we could have been". Largely because of the lost opportunity for growth.<br /><br />Trouble is, the growth argument is right, but also a bit of a trap for us. It looks like we're trying to grow our way out of the trouble "we caused", as if we are denying cuts need to be made in exchange for a growth that "may never materialise". All very tricky politics.Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-43249332799809241792011-05-26T02:09:44.877+01:002011-05-26T02:09:44.877+01:00It's perhaps unfortunate that Peter's post...It's perhaps unfortunate that Peter's post got the most attention before you had the chance to write this one. It has to be said, yours and Atul's work better, perhaps because Peter's focuses a bit too much on party members at the expense of party strategy.<br /><br />Some clarity is needed - I sense the argument is this: we accept that the Tories are going to be able to implement their cuts to spending in the current parliament and instead of using the c word, focus on current priorities and those of the next parliament.<br /><br />But I suspect some have taken it to mean this: accept Tory spending plans up to (and possibly beyond 2015) as though this constitutes a deficit reduction plan (which, since growth has been lowered, it currently does not - what they have is a spending reduction plan).<br /><br />It's not that surprising that the paradox of thrift isn't readily understood given the weight of emphasis given by the political, economic, and media establishments on the question of spending cuts (to the detriment of a needed debate on economic development). <br /><br />So there's a danger that if at the same time as accepting the political reality of the Tories being able to implement their plans, we accept these are actual deficit reduction plans - we will be in no better position by 2015.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443724356434212172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-12280872650073707682011-05-25T15:29:06.336+01:002011-05-25T15:29:06.336+01:00Labour is seen in white working class areas as hav...Labour is seen in white working class areas as having sold out, more interested in the OK Yah class vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-79998358791073938452011-05-25T10:54:12.557+01:002011-05-25T10:54:12.557+01:00Ciaran, it's funny you should say that. I have...Ciaran, it's funny you should say that. I have been discounting the possibility as paranoia, but now I'm not so sure. Nick Cohen said the same a few weeks ago, and he's usually pretty astute. <br /><br />God, I hope not. We'd be out of power for another 18 years.Rob Marchanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11534810369839848312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741861999194728080.post-68946053526552186042011-05-24T16:13:30.267+01:002011-05-24T16:13:30.267+01:00You may be into a full blooded hard left uprising ...You may be into a full blooded hard left uprising by 2014. Conditions have not be a auspicious since 1984.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com