It was an unexpected election result, that many, including me, hoped we wouldn't get....to poorly paraphrase Monty Python "nobody was expecting a tory majority". Even if Labour had not melted as rapidly as the ice caps of the North Pole in Scotland, they still would have lost.
And now who knows the horrors the triumphant Tory party will unleash onto the UK. Let's say I'm not optimistic at all, for all of Cameron's talk of one nation politics, we know he only means in reality England.
Boris Johnson it seems was ready when he purchased in advance them water cannons, for he must have had predicted the likely ground swell of anger that would rise even there, when Ian Duncan Smith is released to decimate the welfare state, and we find out where the axe will fall, and where the £12 billion in cuts will come from. When those who can least afford it are hit hardest and those whom don't need it are given a handout.
True, the Conservatives in Wales had their best result for aeons, as they defeated Labour in Gower of all places, and kicked Clegg further by gaining two seats from the Lib Dems. But don't expect this motley crew of Welsh Tories to stand up for Wales when the tories impose policies that favour England at the cost of us Welsh.
Not that I'm saying anyone one of them (the eleven welsh tories) don't have Wales interests at heart - in reality, they will be told where to stand and what to say...period.
I suppose if I was digging around for good news, it would be that maybe Cameron might keep his promise to devolve more power to Wales as he devolves more power to the English regions. Though what are the odds do you think that whilst the devolution of powers will be imposed in England, here in Wales he will want a referendum held first. And the result of a referendum on further welsh assembly powers is not a certainty by any means.
Oh and Nigel Farage wasn't elected, nor UKIP's Welsh leader and son of polish hiring family, Nathan Gill.
Now, and this is important. With the Tories making gains in Wales and UKIP share of the vote rising we need to start worrying about next years Assembly Elections.
Let's think what would happened if the Tories gained power here, that would be goodbye to many many things that we the Welsh feel justly proud of. It would be goodbye free prescriptions, free school breakfast clubs, and the start of the end of the Welsh NHS as we know it, to name just three.
It would, in my humble opinion, be a disaster to most of us in Wales. This is why, Plaid Cymru must keep on building on the momentum they got from the General Election and the good standing that it gave Leanne Wood; though not maybe in share of vote, by taking progressive politics in Wales forward, by reaching out to all in Wales, by being the true one nation party of Wales, there to represent the interest of Wales first, second and last as their priority, without having to first gain permission from party headquarters over the border.
And I hope Carwyn Jones, won't do a Miliband and refuse to talk coalition, that all parties that want a progressive Wales, a successful Wales, with social justice and social principles at its heart form an alliance now or soon before we all wake up to being a region of England.
Lastly for now, I am truly concerned as to the UK's future (not in terms of the current union, I've long argued for a UK Federal Republic) but for it's future economic prosperity. For now it's highly likely there will be a referendum on continued membership of the EU, and again the result of that is far from certain.
Most serious commentators be they politicians, academics or business leaders agree it would be a disaster if the UK left the EU. They only hope is that Cameron can pull it off again as he did last week and over the Scottish Referendum, albeit with help from Labour in the later....or hold on, thinking about it, in both cases.
If Brexit happens, it could truly spell the end of the United Kingdom as a union. What many feared with a Labour/SNP coalition, because master strategist Lynton Crosby scared them to think so, they have by voting in the Tories in reality made the prospect of it happening a greater likelihood than ever before.
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Austerity isn't working?
The narrative we are expected to swallow by the Conservative led Coalition Government and those on the right, is that the UK had a massive structural deficit and that it was all the fault of the previous Labour administration, especially the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown for 'maxing out the countries credit card'. Therefore we were told that there was only one way to our salvation and that was strict austerity - things were so bad, we had to have an emergency budget. For example we were told that last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.
In order to sell the strict austerity package to you and me, we had to be convinced that it was really really bad, and that there is only one way to salvation - that the reason for cuts in our working conditions, be that working hours or wages or health and safety or job security; or cuts to welfare - is to ensure all our future prosperities, we are all in this together remember, rather than a ideological driven neoliberal approach. See: The Guardian: The march of the neoliberals.
However, the deficit myth is simply wrong, but don't take my word for it, read what Conservative economist Ramesh Patel has to say:
Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise? Exposed!
Osbornomics Via Childish Proverbs, Idioms, Soundbites, Tricks and Utter Bollocks!
Not that the previous Labour Government should escape blame totally, in the context that during his tenure as Prime Minister Gordon Brown had increased public spending by too much, based on overoptimistic forecasts of the economy. Although he cant be really blamed for not foreseeing the collapse of the world economy in 2008.
In the words of the IMF "[In 2008] [t]he financial meltdown originating in the U.S. mortgage markets reverberated around the world, and led to the deep retrenchment of the world financial markets and the largest global recession in living memory."
And then put simply; because I am in essence a simple man, the money dried up, confidence was lost, nobody trusted what the other said and economy stalled. This required a massive bailout by central banks and governments to stop the world economy falling into a deep depression.
I think it's important to remember that the financial meltdown occurred primarily because we had over leveraged private debt. And not as we are led to believe due to massive public debts....as Ramesh Patel says "Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction[..]. Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?"
In 2008 world confidence had collapsed, the world economy had in effect stalled - it needed a kick-start to get going. But with private debt over leveraged and banks not lending to one another, it was down to governments to provide the stimulus to kick-start the world economy. And I'm not just talking about the bailout of the banks, but direct support to businesses to keep workers on during the difficult period etc...
In the UK we had a conventional Keynesian approach to a recession, increased public spending and tax cuts as a means of kick starting the economy. And as such I suppose you could say it was working,.for by the end of 2009 growth had returned, albeit small at 0.4%.
To paraphrase, the Keynesian Model is - you cut the structural deficit during the boom years, and you spend your way out of a recession. However, you cant carry on increasing public spending (in real terms) over the long term, because that could lead to the economy overheating resulting in inflationary pressures reducing the competitiveness of the private sector resulting in a lower GDP and lower tax take.
I think what is often forgotten is that had Labour won in 2010 they also had plans to cut public spending and lower taxes, but that they proposed to do it over a longer period than that proposed by the Conservatives. I recall reading somewhere that the difference between the two parties was around £5 billion, which in the context of GDP of over a trillion is a small drop in the ocean.
In essence I think, we had two approaches a Keynesian approach by Labour and a neoliberal approach by the Conservatives. Neoliberals believing in small government, low taxes and self regulating markets; and that how a person spends their well earned money should be left to the individual.
And in the 'emergency budget' of George Osborne, the Chancellor, the Conservative led coalition Government set in motion strict austerity measures, with an aim of restoring confidence, retaining the UK's AAA rating and eliminating the structural deficit by the 2015/2016 financial year.
Now and again put simply - a central premise of this approach is that by cutting public spending and red tape you make more money available to the private sector who then find it easier to invest which results in a growing economy. And there is evidence from history that shows that in certain circumstances this fiscal contraction approach does indeed result in growth in the economy driven by the private sector.
However, there is a growing consensus amongst economist; I think, that this is not one of those circumstances. Professor Robert J. Shiller gives a much more knowledgeable explanation in his post: Does Austerity Promote Economic Growth?
And it's evidential that Plan A isn't working as explained by Guardian Economics Blog.
'The only plan on the table' had at it's heart a need to inspire confidence in the private sector; especially from overseas investors, that the UK was a safe bet for which to do business with, that the plan was credible not only in the short term but also the long term, and that investment for the long term was also safe in the UK.
Now ask yourself this question - do you think the recent announcement by David Cameron that there is to be an IN/OUT referendum on EU membership in 5 years time, for which he would say YES to staying in the EU only if he gets some powers back, although we ain't sure which powers he's referring to, is it more likely or less likely that overseas investors will see the UK as a safe bet?
If you want to see how bad the recession of 2008 was compared to others I refer you to the Guardian - Recessions compared: how does Britain's GDP compare to every recession since 1930?.
Not unsurprisingly following such a recession there is a period of low growth, as you ain't going to recover over night. And growth is key, if you are going to reduce your structural deficit in the long term, you have to accept that initially your structural deficit will grow, by the very simple fact of growth being lower than inflation. (the Bank of England inflation target being 2%)
What you hope to avoid is falling back into recession, because then you will have lower GDP and lower tax receipts and rather than investing in infrastructure for growth, your paying the price for a failed economic policy.
We know there is plenty of private monies available, the Bank of England alone has dumbed £357 billion into the economy, and that large multinational are sitting on trillions, but there seems a reluctance to invest. We know this because lending to SMEs contracted in the three months to November, statistics from the Bank of England show - see Bdaily.
And if the private sector isn't investing, and public confidence is still low as well as disposable income, and export markets are weak and the service sector is still de-leveraging - where will growth come from?
What we need this time is not "austerity" but "investment in growth-boosting infrastructure measures." - not my words but those of Mayor Boris Johnson.
In order to sell the strict austerity package to you and me, we had to be convinced that it was really really bad, and that there is only one way to salvation - that the reason for cuts in our working conditions, be that working hours or wages or health and safety or job security; or cuts to welfare - is to ensure all our future prosperities, we are all in this together remember, rather than a ideological driven neoliberal approach. See: The Guardian: The march of the neoliberals.
However, the deficit myth is simply wrong, but don't take my word for it, read what Conservative economist Ramesh Patel has to say:
Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise? Exposed!
Osbornomics Via Childish Proverbs, Idioms, Soundbites, Tricks and Utter Bollocks!
Not that the previous Labour Government should escape blame totally, in the context that during his tenure as Prime Minister Gordon Brown had increased public spending by too much, based on overoptimistic forecasts of the economy. Although he cant be really blamed for not foreseeing the collapse of the world economy in 2008.
In the words of the IMF "[In 2008] [t]he financial meltdown originating in the U.S. mortgage markets reverberated around the world, and led to the deep retrenchment of the world financial markets and the largest global recession in living memory."
And then put simply; because I am in essence a simple man, the money dried up, confidence was lost, nobody trusted what the other said and economy stalled. This required a massive bailout by central banks and governments to stop the world economy falling into a deep depression.
I think it's important to remember that the financial meltdown occurred primarily because we had over leveraged private debt. And not as we are led to believe due to massive public debts....as Ramesh Patel says "Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction[..]. Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?"
In 2008 world confidence had collapsed, the world economy had in effect stalled - it needed a kick-start to get going. But with private debt over leveraged and banks not lending to one another, it was down to governments to provide the stimulus to kick-start the world economy. And I'm not just talking about the bailout of the banks, but direct support to businesses to keep workers on during the difficult period etc...
In the UK we had a conventional Keynesian approach to a recession, increased public spending and tax cuts as a means of kick starting the economy. And as such I suppose you could say it was working,.for by the end of 2009 growth had returned, albeit small at 0.4%.
To paraphrase, the Keynesian Model is - you cut the structural deficit during the boom years, and you spend your way out of a recession. However, you cant carry on increasing public spending (in real terms) over the long term, because that could lead to the economy overheating resulting in inflationary pressures reducing the competitiveness of the private sector resulting in a lower GDP and lower tax take.
I think what is often forgotten is that had Labour won in 2010 they also had plans to cut public spending and lower taxes, but that they proposed to do it over a longer period than that proposed by the Conservatives. I recall reading somewhere that the difference between the two parties was around £5 billion, which in the context of GDP of over a trillion is a small drop in the ocean.
In essence I think, we had two approaches a Keynesian approach by Labour and a neoliberal approach by the Conservatives. Neoliberals believing in small government, low taxes and self regulating markets; and that how a person spends their well earned money should be left to the individual.
And in the 'emergency budget' of George Osborne, the Chancellor, the Conservative led coalition Government set in motion strict austerity measures, with an aim of restoring confidence, retaining the UK's AAA rating and eliminating the structural deficit by the 2015/2016 financial year.
Now and again put simply - a central premise of this approach is that by cutting public spending and red tape you make more money available to the private sector who then find it easier to invest which results in a growing economy. And there is evidence from history that shows that in certain circumstances this fiscal contraction approach does indeed result in growth in the economy driven by the private sector.
However, there is a growing consensus amongst economist; I think, that this is not one of those circumstances. Professor Robert J. Shiller gives a much more knowledgeable explanation in his post: Does Austerity Promote Economic Growth?
And it's evidential that Plan A isn't working as explained by Guardian Economics Blog.
'The only plan on the table' had at it's heart a need to inspire confidence in the private sector; especially from overseas investors, that the UK was a safe bet for which to do business with, that the plan was credible not only in the short term but also the long term, and that investment for the long term was also safe in the UK.
Now ask yourself this question - do you think the recent announcement by David Cameron that there is to be an IN/OUT referendum on EU membership in 5 years time, for which he would say YES to staying in the EU only if he gets some powers back, although we ain't sure which powers he's referring to, is it more likely or less likely that overseas investors will see the UK as a safe bet?
If you want to see how bad the recession of 2008 was compared to others I refer you to the Guardian - Recessions compared: how does Britain's GDP compare to every recession since 1930?.
Not unsurprisingly following such a recession there is a period of low growth, as you ain't going to recover over night. And growth is key, if you are going to reduce your structural deficit in the long term, you have to accept that initially your structural deficit will grow, by the very simple fact of growth being lower than inflation. (the Bank of England inflation target being 2%)
What you hope to avoid is falling back into recession, because then you will have lower GDP and lower tax receipts and rather than investing in infrastructure for growth, your paying the price for a failed economic policy.
We know there is plenty of private monies available, the Bank of England alone has dumbed £357 billion into the economy, and that large multinational are sitting on trillions, but there seems a reluctance to invest. We know this because lending to SMEs contracted in the three months to November, statistics from the Bank of England show - see Bdaily.
And if the private sector isn't investing, and public confidence is still low as well as disposable income, and export markets are weak and the service sector is still de-leveraging - where will growth come from?
What we need this time is not "austerity" but "investment in growth-boosting infrastructure measures." - not my words but those of Mayor Boris Johnson.
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Conservative dogma flies against facts
Manchester International Airport
The Welsh Conservatives; at the Welsh Assembly this Wednesday, will hold a debate on the current bid by the Welsh Government to purchase Cardiff International Airport. A private company would then run the airport on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, on what I take it would be a not for profit basis.
The Conservative following their long held dogma against anything in public ownership oppose the purchase. Conservative transport spokesman Byron Davies said to BBC News "I don't believe nationalisation is the way forward," [....]
"There is no current reason to believe their ownership of Cardiff airport will be anything but another financial calamity."
Although facts really don't hold up that argument, as most of the worlds best airports are in public ownership.
In 2012 in the World Airport Awards the top 5 where, with majority shareholder shown:
- Incheon International Airport (Government of South Korea)
- Hong Kong International Airport (Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
- Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (Dutch Ministry of Finance)
- Beijing Capital International Airport (Chinese Government)
- Munich Airport (Free State of Bavaria)
And the winner of the Europe Regional Award was Hamburg Airport with the City of Hamburg being the majority shareholder.
And as we have discussed before the award winning Manchester International Airport is another good example of a public/private partnership see.. The Thursday Quiz - Regional Airports.
Also as argued by Neil Clark writing for the Guardian in December 2010 'Why we should nationalise our airports', 'the failure of BAA to deal with recent snowfalls has exposed the price we pay for having our infrastructure in private ownership.'
And the private ownership of Cardiff International Airport cant be said to be a success can it? - surely if we are to encourage international business to invest in Wales we need an international airport to be proud of, something we don't have currently, and as we know public/private run airports can be successful as proved throughout the world.
Finally some airport trivia - did you know that a major shareholder in Bristol Airport with approximately 49% is Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.
And as we have discussed before the award winning Manchester International Airport is another good example of a public/private partnership see.. The Thursday Quiz - Regional Airports.
Also as argued by Neil Clark writing for the Guardian in December 2010 'Why we should nationalise our airports', 'the failure of BAA to deal with recent snowfalls has exposed the price we pay for having our infrastructure in private ownership.'
And the private ownership of Cardiff International Airport cant be said to be a success can it? - surely if we are to encourage international business to invest in Wales we need an international airport to be proud of, something we don't have currently, and as we know public/private run airports can be successful as proved throughout the world.
Finally some airport trivia - did you know that a major shareholder in Bristol Airport with approximately 49% is Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Welsh council elections and some poor manifestos.
In May, the rest of Wales shall vote for the councillor of their choice. Meanwhile, we on Ynys Môn will wait patiently until next year, before we decide whom we want. Hopefully by then, together with multi member wards, we can get rid of those disgraced Councillors whom have made the island such a laughing stock.
However, we can still take an interest in what the main parties are saying to the rest of Wales in their manifestos.
I think we can all agree that in order to encourage people to participate in democracy you need transparency and accountability. Take voting for a councillor, first of all their should be a genuine choice of candidates. Then that choice should be based on a clear understanding - what a councillor says will be their priorities, what their aims and aspirations are, what their fundamental beliefs are.
This is why a manifesto is important, it is where candidates can spell out what they stand for, be that a national or local manifesto.
If we look at the Welsh Conservative Manifesto 2012 we have things like:
We are committed to abolishing business rates for small businesses. This will allow firms to expand and hire new staff,stimulating local economies. To further boost the economy, Welsh Conservatives are committed to the introduction of enterprise zones in Wales, to offering tailored support for the unemployed and to freezing Severn Bridge tolls.
Now do remember this is a manifesto for local Council elections, and whilst the Welsh Conservatives maybe committed (Thesaurus - bound or obligated, as under a pledge to a particular cause, action, or attitude; "committed church members"; "a committed Marxist") to do many things, what it does lack is details on how it hopes to achieve them. Take the commitment to freeze Severn Bridge tolls, surely that's a matter for the UK Government, unless they wish to have responsibility devolved to the Welsh Assembly. If so why not spell it out, and even then, what has that to do with election of councillors, especially to ratepayers in North Wales?
At least their coalition partners at Westminster, the Liberal Democrats, can in their Manifesto make claims (if disputed) about actions and results of Councils i.e Wrexham and Cardiff, where they have been the ruling party.
For me Plaid Cymru's Manifesto is the most comprehensive.
As an example their manifesto says: The transport system in Wales is the main source of air pollution. Local councils have an important role to play in ensuring we have a transport system in Wales which meets our economic and social needs but also reduces our carbon emissions. Plaid Cymru-run councils will build on Plaid Cymru’s successes as part of the previous Welsh Government in ensuring that more money is spent on public transport than on road-building. In Cardiff, Plaid Cymru has more than doubled spending on cycle infrastructure, created new park and ride schemes and a bike hire scheme.
A manifesto for local council elections that actually mentions local councils - surely not?
As for Labour, the least said the better. According to BBC News: Labour is not publishing a national manifesto, saying it will not offer voters "blanket promises" - yes go figure.
See also:
Welsh Ramblings - Not fit for purpose
Insideout Swansea - Back on the stump.
However, we can still take an interest in what the main parties are saying to the rest of Wales in their manifestos.
I think we can all agree that in order to encourage people to participate in democracy you need transparency and accountability. Take voting for a councillor, first of all their should be a genuine choice of candidates. Then that choice should be based on a clear understanding - what a councillor says will be their priorities, what their aims and aspirations are, what their fundamental beliefs are.
This is why a manifesto is important, it is where candidates can spell out what they stand for, be that a national or local manifesto.
If we look at the Welsh Conservative Manifesto 2012 we have things like:
We are committed to abolishing business rates for small businesses. This will allow firms to expand and hire new staff,stimulating local economies. To further boost the economy, Welsh Conservatives are committed to the introduction of enterprise zones in Wales, to offering tailored support for the unemployed and to freezing Severn Bridge tolls.
Now do remember this is a manifesto for local Council elections, and whilst the Welsh Conservatives maybe committed (Thesaurus - bound or obligated, as under a pledge to a particular cause, action, or attitude; "committed church members"; "a committed Marxist") to do many things, what it does lack is details on how it hopes to achieve them. Take the commitment to freeze Severn Bridge tolls, surely that's a matter for the UK Government, unless they wish to have responsibility devolved to the Welsh Assembly. If so why not spell it out, and even then, what has that to do with election of councillors, especially to ratepayers in North Wales?
At least their coalition partners at Westminster, the Liberal Democrats, can in their Manifesto make claims (if disputed) about actions and results of Councils i.e Wrexham and Cardiff, where they have been the ruling party.
For me Plaid Cymru's Manifesto is the most comprehensive.
As an example their manifesto says: The transport system in Wales is the main source of air pollution. Local councils have an important role to play in ensuring we have a transport system in Wales which meets our economic and social needs but also reduces our carbon emissions. Plaid Cymru-run councils will build on Plaid Cymru’s successes as part of the previous Welsh Government in ensuring that more money is spent on public transport than on road-building. In Cardiff, Plaid Cymru has more than doubled spending on cycle infrastructure, created new park and ride schemes and a bike hire scheme.
A manifesto for local council elections that actually mentions local councils - surely not?
As for Labour, the least said the better. According to BBC News: Labour is not publishing a national manifesto, saying it will not offer voters "blanket promises" - yes go figure.
See also:
Welsh Ramblings - Not fit for purpose
Insideout Swansea - Back on the stump.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Who will be the next Conservative leader?
'Thing is it ain't going according to the script', his economic policy seem flawed, his reforms of the NHS are going pear shape, and he is likely to see his party suffer heavy defeat at the polls in May. But worse of all the squeezed middle are beginning to revolt. David Cameron made a big mistake, he told them to grow up, and they did by discovering their right to protest.
We are told the NHS reforms are the largest since the NHS was founded. But they can’t be can they? - as these current reforms only affect England, whereas when the NHS was founded it improved health service throughout Great Britain.
Some say this the beginning of the end of the NHS as we know it, and that it will eventually lead to a privatised NHS, something the Conservatives fervently deny.
In a previous post, I said the NHS reforms were a big gamble for David Cameron, and it seems I was right. Now instead of listening to the people, many of which are unhappy with the proposed reforms, he and his mate Nick Clegg are about to embark on a sales drive, where they will tell us that they are right and we are wrong.
'Trust us' they will say, 'these reforms are right and necessary'. An often repeated phrase in the face of opposition - its right and necessary, or code for we are right, you are wrong.
In terms of the economy, even senior Conservatives are talking about a period of stagnation; Ken Clarke and Oliver Letwin to name just two, before 'hopefully' the economy begins to recover.
The difference in 'cuts' between what the Conservative led Coalition Government are implementing, and what Labour proposed (over the life of the parliament)- not that great, especially as a percentage of the governments overall debt (which will not be reduced, just that its rate of increase its hoped will be slowed.)
The Conservative led Coalition Government want to eliminate the structural deficit (that’s the difference between how much our government spends and collects in taxes) one year earlier than they needed too. This is the key Conservative led Coalition Government economic policy, front loading the greatest burden of the cuts and tax increases on the early years. The important element, a growing private sector, to replace the jobs lost.
In other words another gamble, Labour’s gamble was that increased public spending would be matched by more taxes from a growing economy. This seemed to be working, until is that is the banking sector collapsed, and we realised the mistake Gordon Brown had made, over-reliance on the business and service sectors.
The Conservatives gamble that the jobs lost in the public sector would be replaced by jobs in the private sector, and a growing economy. And that is the unanswered question by both parties, where does this future growth come from?
As to my question ‘Who will be the next Conservative Leader?’ other than David Cameron, who else is there? – and that may be the Conservatives party 'big problem', a strong leader without a serious contender to act as a counter measure and bring balance to the party.
We are told the NHS reforms are the largest since the NHS was founded. But they can’t be can they? - as these current reforms only affect England, whereas when the NHS was founded it improved health service throughout Great Britain.
Some say this the beginning of the end of the NHS as we know it, and that it will eventually lead to a privatised NHS, something the Conservatives fervently deny.
In a previous post, I said the NHS reforms were a big gamble for David Cameron, and it seems I was right. Now instead of listening to the people, many of which are unhappy with the proposed reforms, he and his mate Nick Clegg are about to embark on a sales drive, where they will tell us that they are right and we are wrong.
'Trust us' they will say, 'these reforms are right and necessary'. An often repeated phrase in the face of opposition - its right and necessary, or code for we are right, you are wrong.
In terms of the economy, even senior Conservatives are talking about a period of stagnation; Ken Clarke and Oliver Letwin to name just two, before 'hopefully' the economy begins to recover.
The difference in 'cuts' between what the Conservative led Coalition Government are implementing, and what Labour proposed (over the life of the parliament)- not that great, especially as a percentage of the governments overall debt (which will not be reduced, just that its rate of increase its hoped will be slowed.)
The Conservative led Coalition Government want to eliminate the structural deficit (that’s the difference between how much our government spends and collects in taxes) one year earlier than they needed too. This is the key Conservative led Coalition Government economic policy, front loading the greatest burden of the cuts and tax increases on the early years. The important element, a growing private sector, to replace the jobs lost.
In other words another gamble, Labour’s gamble was that increased public spending would be matched by more taxes from a growing economy. This seemed to be working, until is that is the banking sector collapsed, and we realised the mistake Gordon Brown had made, over-reliance on the business and service sectors.
The Conservatives gamble that the jobs lost in the public sector would be replaced by jobs in the private sector, and a growing economy. And that is the unanswered question by both parties, where does this future growth come from?
As to my question ‘Who will be the next Conservative Leader?’ other than David Cameron, who else is there? – and that may be the Conservatives party 'big problem', a strong leader without a serious contender to act as a counter measure and bring balance to the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)