Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
Over at the New Statesman Guy Lodge has posed the question, ‘What if … Gordon Brown was leading the Eurozone crisis?’, and come up with quite a flattering answer for our former Prime Minister.
He believes that Gordon Brown would have shown more leadership than David Cameron and George Osborne in the Eurozone crisis, and crucially would have more credibility to deal with Nicolas Sarkosy and Angela Merkel.
Is he right?
What if the Lib Dems had propped up Gordon Brown in those fateful days after the last election and we now had a minority Lib-Lab Coalition?
Would the markets have stomached it? Would any of the cuts we’re making be different? And would we be better placed to help lead the Eurozone out of crisis?
Let us know what you think…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Jane Dodds selected top of the regional list for Mid and West Wales Region
My tweets
Can we treat the Prime Minister as a charity?
Who would win a general election if it was called tomorrow?
Helping tackle fuel poverty for older people across Dundee
Dempsey Arlott-John wins Name of the Day
I was appalled by the Conservatives disrupting an 'independent' scrutiny meeting to announce their highways manifesto
Alexander
Peter Martin
David Raw
Matt (Bristol)
John Marriott
29 Comments
Would he deal better with the crisis than Cameron/Osborne…Well he couldn’t do worse.
His reaction to the crisis was, perhaps, his best ( if his only) moment of real statesmanship.
A great question. But we can’t ask how he’d deal with the Eurozone crisis in isolation. We have to ask what sort of situation the UK would be in, if Brown were still PM, and who would be his Chancellor?
In the final week of the 2010 general election campaign, Brown contradicted agreed Labour policy when he ruled out increasing VAT – a policy that was a key ingredient of the outline plan that he had agreed with his Chancellor. Having committed Labour to not increasing VAT, he, effectively, ditched the Darling plan. After his PM had unilaterally u-turned on a major part of his plan, I don’t see how Darling could have stayed in post, or would have wanted to. Within a short time, Brown would have installed Balls as Chancellor.
Ed Balls would then have junked the entire Darling plan, and pursued his “plan for growth”.
The big question then is, what would have been the attitude of the international investers, whose money would be needed to fund the massive extra borrowing that this plan would require. I think they’d have steadily raised long-term interest rates, and the credit rating agencies would have downgraded the UK’s credit rating. We’d have suffered a lot worse than the US did, when it’s rating was downgraded by S&P, because sterling isn’t the international reserve currency. Though extremely expensive to the country in the future, this wouldn’t have provoked an immediate crisis.
Unfortunately, this would only be the start of a steady decline in confidence in the UK. As the Eurozone crisis continued to unfold, the UK would not be talked of as a safe haven for investment, but increasingly as another domino under threat.
We’ve recently seen that, even though Italy’s deficit is not enormous, and in normal times it would be capable of services its large debt, contagion from southern Europe and market panic has meant that Italy’s viability as an investment is in serious doubt. Market traders are not asking whether Italy’s debt is sustainable in nornal times, but whether the rest of the market might panic. So investors are not lending to Italy, because if the market does panic, the new debt would become worthless. Fear of panic is creating panic.
The UK’s situation in this alternative universe would not be as serious as Italy’s is right now. Although we have a larger fiscal deficit, we wouldn’t be tied to the Euro, so would have the option of allowing long-term inflation to rise and the pound to devalue. Markets wouldn’t worry about the UK defaulting, but they would worry about the UK, in effect, partially defaulting, by allowing much higher inflation and a further fall in sterling. So the markets would add a significant extra interest charge on new long-term loans.
In that situation, the UK would be in no position to help the Eurozone. Germany wouldn’t be complaining about the UK not helping out over the Italian crisis, indeed, they’d be relieved that we weren’t in the Euro, because, with falling market confidence in the UK, we’d be seen as the next domino in line to fall.
In the previous crisis, the UK had low debt, and, although it had a very high deficit, still had the credibility in the markets to raise new funds and participate in a global stimulus. In this crisis, with a sovereign debt crisis of our own, rather than the previous banking debt crisis, we’d be in a very weak position. And in that position, any attempt by Brown to “lead the world” out of the crisis would have provoked ridicule. The markets would also be asking, if interest rates continued to go higher, could UK afford to continue to borrow huge sums at increasing long-term interest rates?
Coupled to that would be severe political problem for Brown at home. UK economic growth would have slowed. Perhaps temporary growth might have been marginally higher, due to the extra government spending, but interest rates would have had to rise, due to lack of market confidence, and the talk of the UK being the next Italy would have undermined consumer and business confidence. And the same factors that have undermined UK growth recently, would have meant UK growth was a lot lower than expectations.
As a result, Labour’s support, after it’s surprising win in 2010, would have nose-dived. They’d have been under constant internal political pressure. When Brown appointed Balls to replace Darling, some would see that appointment as a breach of faith, in that Brown had explicitly promised the Darling would remain his Chancellor. Many of the pledges Labour had made in the 2010 election would have had to be broken. They would have the same narrative of “broken promises” that Labour is throwing at the coalition, but without the defence that “this was all their predecessor’s fault”.
Frankly, when I consider this alternative universe, Labour should count their lucky stars that they didn’t win in 2010.
@George Kendall, the thing about Ed Balls, for all the propaganda spewed out against him by right wing publications and to a lesser extent by disgruntled Blairites, is that his economic predictions about Osborne’s policies have proved correct.
A Labour government with Ed Balls as Chancellor would likely be more of a success than the current situation. Also, Labour aren’t implacably and stupidly opposed to the EU and Europe so would be taken more seriously by them.
The thought of the fate of the European economy resting on a David Cameron charm offensive towards the Germans is horrific, decades of Tory bile spewed out against Europe and tabloid bile against the Germans would leave him lacking any influence whatsoever, as is indeed the case.
g – A Balls plan might have resulted in a short-term recovery but like all Keynesian spending splurges would only have delayed the inevitable crash. What we have under Osborne is unsatisfactory but what is necessary is not politically possible: a second recession to wipe out all remaining bad investments made during the boom, from which we can have a proper long-term recovery.
Gordon Brown wouldn’t still be Prime Minister. The maths of a Lib Dem+Labour+everyone else coalition would have been so unstable that it would have fallen apart at the first controversial vote as the “margin” for any rebellion is very limited. Look at the plans Balls has now – it introduces WorkFare and has no plans to reverse any revenue spending cuts – indeed as the 5 point plan has about £8bn of additional net spending its hard to see how it could.
Workfare, the same cuts programme, backing the reforms to public sector pensions – do you think that would happen without enough Labour rebellions to bring down a 4+ party coalition?
Assuming That Gordon Brown could be propped up, pretty much the same as now, but with lower inflation. The Lib Dems would have been much stronger, gaining seats and new members rather than leeking them. . It’s possible that tuition fees could have been scrapped or reduced., Electoral reform may even have got more of a push because the Labour Party has more fellow travellers. The Tories would have sacked Cameron and disolved into it’s usual squabbles about Europe and sent ministers to bob up and down whilst making rude noises in the press. The fact is the Lib Dem leadership blew their best chance of real influence and power. A lot of Labour voters and party members wanted pretty much the same thing as Lib Dem voters and actavists. Personally, I suspect the big fear in some circles was that Labour might swallow the Lib Dems in a much closer relationship.
…………………Frankly, when I consider this alternative universe, Labour should count their lucky stars that they didn’t win in 2010………
What if Brown had acceded to Cameron’s demand for an Autumn 2007 election; and lost?
The financial meltdown would have happened on ‘Cameron’s Watch’, Osborne’s response (judging by his performance so far) would have been indecisive…Labour would have been swept into power with a massive majority in 2010….and???????
“The Lib Dems would have been much stronger, gaining seats and new members rather than leeking them.”
This is nonsense – we would have lost as much support from propping up Brown as we did from a Conservative coalition. In the aftermath of the General election I was monitoring a newly elected MPs email inbox. He had virtually the same number of emails saying “don’t do a deal with Brown/Labour” as he did saying “don’t do a deal with Cameron/Tories”.
And it wouldn’t just have needed the Lib Dems and Labour to agree on a programme for government – it would have needed the SNP and Plaid as well. How would that have remained stable when faced with any controversy?
Hywel. good point. In my defence I said assuming Gordon Brown could be propped up. I don’t think he could.. I actually think that The Lib Dems should have ruled out a Coalition with the Conservatives and let them try ruling as a minority government. Gordon brown would not be leader of labour in the resultant snap election and I think there may have been another hung parliament with the centre left gaining not losing ground. If I’m honest,, I’.m fed up with watching politicians dump on their voters. This is what II think Blair did, what I think Brown did and what I think Clegg has done. The one thing I respect about the Tories is that they put the interests of their core support first. You don’t see tory MPs trying out left the left by attacking tax evasion, and the like. I think it’s obcene to see so-called progressive politicians bullying the poor and whining that people are living too long.
A Balls plan would have quite clearly led to a collapse in confidence. Interest on government debt was pushing 4% at the election, and that was with a Darling plan and the expectation that this plan would be replaced by an even stronger Tory-led plan after the election. With lurid forecasts of our deficit still pushing 5% of GDP in 2017-18 and with no plan to ever bring us back to surplus and our debt skyrocketing past 80% of GDP in a few years those interest rates would have risen further and further driving up interest rates economy wide and wasting billions and billions on debt interest payments. We would have come crashing down with an IMF bailout and foreign enforced austerity in a few years with bigger spending cuts than Osbourne planned and less democratic control over our own choices.
And that is if the government even lasted that long. In reality a government with a hair thin majority based solely on Scottish, Welsh, NI nationalists would have lasted just long-enough to pass a budget that transferred barrow loads of cash from England to the Celtic fringe before coming crashing down in a storm-load of acrimony and another election that would have seen the Lib Dems (and probably labour) wiped out and a Tory majority Government, while the chaos caused by a complete lack of effective political leadership saw confidence collapse and interest rates skyrocket, tanking the economy even faster.
George, or we could say that under Labour’s plans the deficit would be lower than under the Tories’ revised plans (due to higher growth), or note that UK debt is of long-maturity, so refinancing amounts are low, or anything else, really as its fantasy world- your piece reads like one of those breathless Andrew Roberts’ counterfactual histories in which everything goes in one direction.
“we can’t ask how he’d deal with the Eurozone crisis in isolation. We have to ask what sort of situation the UK would be in, if Brown were still PM”
In other words, let’s try and get away from Guy Lodge’s awkward remarks about leadership, and let’s just give ourselves scope to slag off Labour, the way we have been trained to do, automaton-style.
Actually, Lodge has a point. Brown, despite all those psychological flaws, did rather better than the present lot at cooperation, consensus, and tackling a financial crisis quickly and effectively. That does not say much for the present lot! They all seem quite happy to sit back, watch chaos develop, and then blame somebody else for it.
Our own little contribution to the general unhelpful mood has been to eat our words about the Robin Hood Tax and cheerfully agree with Cameron that Britain should refuse to do anything so helpful. What would be much more productive would be to say that if the Germans and French would do helpful things like beefing up the ECB bail-out funds, Britain could do something helpful in exchange.
Incredibly, it seems that our wonderful Coalition can’t even match Gordon Brown’s personal capabilities when it comes to cooperation (and, generosity of spirit, bonhomie, human warmth, relaxed smile, etc…!)
What if the Lib Dems had propped up Gordon Brown in those fateful days after the last election and we now had a minority Lib-Lab Coalition?
That is a different question to the one Lodge asked: his counterfactual had Brown as head of the IMF.
To judge from Greece, Italy and Spain, a Brown government would still have had to make spending cuts comparable to the Cameron government. However, Cameron launched those cuts after spending a couple of years saying that they had to be made. Brown would be launching comparable cuts after spending a couple of years saying that there was a choice between Labour “investment” and Tory cuts. Probably Labours position in the polls would collapse, and the Lib Dems would be left propping up a government which was widely hated, universally considered treacherous, and which, even with Lib Dem support, lacked a majority in Parliament.
I cannot believe that would end well for anyone but the next generation of Tories.
We said we would back the party that won the most support at the 2010 General Election. Can you imagine how we would have been punished if we had gone with Labour instead? It would have been like the tuition fees debacle yet 10 times worse.
Guy Lodge’s counterfactual shows the debased nature of the worst of British journalism. The adolescent promulgating of myths surrounding things it doesn’t report followed by naive predictions based on complete fantasy as a sideline to hawk a new book just in time for Christmas. Such is the job description of a professional.
This line gets me, “Brown’s unrelenting determination to block Blair’s ambition to take Britain into the euro.” It’s hilarious – there was nothing principled about it, their dispute was about taking personal credit for events and gathering power. The Greek entry to the Euro is attributable in a significant part because Brown conceded to recalculate the rules for entry, thereby lighting a fuse for the next crisis.
Had Brown actually been concerned about the policy rather than his personal empire he would’ve both supported his colleague and enforced the rules of his own writing. As it is Lodge is plucking rose petals from under a pile of manure and is trying to tell us to enjoy the smell.
Just check his hyperlinks – it’s a worldview dominated by Guardian-vs-Daily Mail polarity.
I think the thing which scares me most about Brown as PM now is how British Police manage disorder on the streets – how many more Ian Tomlinson’s and Jean-Charles de Menezes’ there would’ve been as the coming wave of strikes speads.
Brown never lead anyone anywhere except to the edge of the abyss and then over it.
Firstly, Brown attempted to dictate the terms of any coalition, so he was the architect of his own downfall by making his continued participation in government impossible.
However, had Brown cobbled something together his personal style and total lack of charisma meant it was impossible that he could’ve kept it together and a second general election within a year would’ve been a racing certainty.
In such an event a bouyant more right-wing Cameron strengthened by attacks on a failing interim premier against a bankrupt Labour and the inevitably compromised LibDem party would’ve seen a landslide majority for the Conservatives, following which Brown’s resignation would have been an increasing certainty (based on form if nothing more).
Notwithstanding Brown’s career was built on digging the grave for his side and he achieved his ambition, if he was still there the grave would be deeper still. His former success in bullying the IMF would have been reversed as British non-membership of the Euro created greater mistrust with City confidence continuing to fall while the deficit and inflation ballooned and unemployment continued it’s steady rise. Far less that European leaders listen to Brown, he becomes the rallying figure for protests against the system he designed and subverted.
As the fresh crisis reached a peak, Britain would be even more isolated and Brown’s weakness in the face of violence on the streets resulted in the army being deployed against the people. Eventually either Brown forces himself to the Presidency of the EU, and the EU forestalls an envisaged civil war by installing a technocrat leader who is able to read a balance sheet in preparation for forced entry into the Euro as stories of Brown’s alleged sexual depravity are leaked to the tabloids.
Y’see, with Brown it’s always about him, not what he did. And the only way to placate a dictator is to give him what he wants and keep giving it until you get him surrounded.
In the less dramatic concluding scenario Brown has a heart attack from the stress of overwork and is dragged from his office by his wife, or is poisoned by the secret services, depending on which consipracy you listen to.
As far as I’m concerned the only reassessment of Brown’s premiership that is necessary is to decide whether his or Eden’s time in Downing Street was worse.
Oranjepan, you’re right. That’s why it’s so shocking that Brown’s successors have under-performed him.
“Interest on government debt was pushing 4% at the election, and that was with a Darling plan and the expectation that this plan would be replaced by an even stronger Tory-led plan after the election. ”
I’m not sure it was that certain – I think the markets were factoring in that rhetoric of strong action on the deficit was minimised because of the election but that all parties would take action. I think the manifesto projections are that the Tories planned (over 5 years) £96bn of cuts, us £82bn and Labour £81bn (ie nearly the same). And I think the coalition cuts total about £82bn.
@Robert – our position was that we would talk first with the party with the strongest mandate – we didn’t rule out an eventual deal with the second placed party.
@Matthew
“George, or we could say that under Labour’s plans the deficit would be lower than under the Tories’ revised plans (due to higher growth)”
Thank you for attacking my arguments, rather than attacking me personally.
There’s obviously room for disagreement here. But what evidence is there that the Keynsian stimulus in the USA has saved them from the same factors that have reduced our growth rate? And I fear a UK Keynsian stimulus would have even less benefit for us, than the US stimulys has for them. We’re a smaller country, so a larger proportion of our stimulus would just suck in more imports from the EU, so the benefit to growth would have been very marginal, unless the stimulus were coordinated across the world. A small increase in growth would generate far too small an amount of tax revenues to cover the significantly higher spending. I fear the effect would have been to significantly increase the structural deficit, and marginally reduce the cyclic deficit. As the structual part of the deficit is what worries everyone, that would be bad.
The opinion of those we rely on to keep lending us money to keep running a deficit is that a deficit reduction programme like Darling’s or Osborne’s was abolutely vital.
“note that UK debt is of long-maturity, so refinancing amounts are low”
This is true. So if we had a high debt, but no deficit, I could understand your point. But we have a high deficit, which means, if we hadn’t had a deficit reduction programme, we’d have to borrow an additional £156bn (11% of GDP) each year.
It wouldn’t take long for 11% a year of extra borrowing to add up to a very large extra debt, and at very high long-term interest repayments.
“reads like one of those breathless Andrew Roberts’ counterfactual histories”
My post probably sounds breathless because I was writing it in a rush. I had a train to catch. 😉
There is one difference with Roberts, though. Note that I don’t attack Darling at all. My attack is on Brown and Balls. I am not anti-Labour. But I am against the faction in Labour that, because Darling was trying to steer the country in a more prudent direction, unleashed the “forces of hell” against him.
@David Allen
In the past, you bitterly complained when I used some slight paraphrasing of your words – so I have not done so since.
You’ve attacked me for being uncharitable to Brown and Balls (as opposed to Darling) – I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but I will resolutely defend my right to say what I genuinely think, even if you hate it when I do. No one trained me to write these comments, and I resent the implication that anyone did.
However, your posts in this and previous threads have paraphrased what I say, and reinterpreted what I say into things I never intended. You also attack me, rather than my arguments. I fear there’s little point in us trying to engage any more in discussion. Any further engagement is just going to lead to further ill feeling.
David,
flattery will get you nowhere.
You can’t assess the current bunch until they’ve departed the scene, so you’re being unreasonably premature in making any comparison. I wonder, how would you reassess Major’s term?
I’ll also add that because Labour cohorts continue to blame Thatcher for their policy choices today it would be unfair to overlook the fact that the circumstances under which the coalition entered office offer plenty of scope for mitigation, so the choices they make between now and then will be crucial.
I think Cameron and Clegg do deserve credit for recognising between them that a policy of deficit spending cannot be allowed to become a permanent policy – because it assumes a permanent deficit, whereas the power of any policy tool is to change the underlying factors to drive events in a more positive direction.
So in retaining the Labour mindset government would’ve only grown increasingly powerless against the markets, increasing economic volatility and stimulating greater social unrest (ie to higher levels than current). And in enabling this fundamental change in policy outlook the coalition did more for the country at a stroke than at any time since we were first drowned in Keynesian dogma (properly used it should be a targetted policy with specific measurable economic aims – it must only be temporary).
However it’s worrying that this position was reached from opposite directions without explicit acknowledgement from either the PM or DPM, as this stores up many potential problems for the future.
Cue Balls’ break to turn it into a wedge issue and give the appearance of retrospective self-justification – clever tactics which makes for bad politics. It looks good now because things are bad, but it depends on things getting worse for Labour to succeed at the next general election.
And hence the NS article, crowing while it can, knowing the wind will blow their words away, picking up their partisan buck in the meantime.
I think you’re in charge now, and you need to take responsibility. Gordon Brown was a terrible prime minister, and his light touch regulation of the City got us in this mess. However he is history, and you’re in government. So stop blaming Labour, the EU, Unions, coalition politics, the Easter bunny, and anyone else you can think of, for the state of the economy. Your no growth economic policies are failing, you’re not even reducing the deficit. They are also immoral, making the poor pay for a bailout for the rich in the City.
It is no good blaming the Tories either, you are in government, and if you don’t have the ability to influence government policy, then there is no point voting for you. If you actually support these disastrous policies, then there is definitely no point voting for you.
George,
What I have complained about, in the past, was when you didn’t quote my words, but instead gave your readers an inaccurate re-write, which you claimed, quite wrongly, was what I had said.
What I did, above, was to quote your words verbatim, and then offer my own interpretation of what they implied. Now, your readers might or might not agree with that interpretation. However, I gave them all they needed to be able to form an independent judgement. I didn’t try to conceal anything. Do you see the difference?
I am also happy to confirm that it was not a personal attack. You did not invent the idea that all Lib Dem communicators should be trained to include an automaton attack on Labour for creating the deficit, every single time they open their mouths. Somebody else did that. You did, however, set the tone for most of the posters who followed you. That’s why I chose your post to quote from. Of course you can say what you believe, whether I like it or not. Similarly, I shall continue to say what I believe.
Labour made plenty of mistakes. However, I suspect the automaton attacks on Labour’s record will eventually prove counter-productive. Labour are gradually gaining the courage to boast about the things they didn’t get wrong, and to castigate us for blaming the past instead of sorting out the present. I expect that this will increasingly begin to resonate with the voters over the next few years. Rawnsley agrees, by the way!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/20/andrew-rawnsley-george-osborne-failing
David,
it’s not the job of LibDems to apologise for Labour.
For a fair-minded criticism you really should give more detail about ‘the things they didn’t get wrong’ – which were sweeping waste under the carpet, papering over cracks and draining all will to live.
When I look at Labour, I ask what did they actually get right?
Labour were massively unprepared for the effect of the changes they implemented. Then, particularly after 9/11, they got swept up into the flow of constantly reacting to events and ended up chasing their tails. Whatever consensus Brown can be credited with building after Northern Rock sparked the first banking crisis it happened because of his lack of leadership on many issues and bad leadership when he showed it.
Brown was deaf to his own constituents. He was silent on the big issues, from even before Iraq. He was invisible precisely when it mattered, like during the Lisbon Treaty.
And when finances were in the balance (such as with the 10p tax cut, 75p pension rises, tuition fees) he made the wrong choice; when regulations were to be designed (such as with the tripartite system for the City, immigration controls) they had systemic failure inbuilt; when regulations were enforced (such as with Euro entry qualifications based on his ‘Golden Rule’, with the media management of the culture of spin, defence of civil liberties of all sorts) he was willing if not enthusiastic about bending them beyond breaking point.
The problem with judging the current coalition government is that you have to rely on reading minds to uncover hidden motives because you can’t see the effect of the policies yet.
That’s not to blame the previous government for unpopular choices being made now, but to explain that these starting points are a constraint on the situation.
@ Hywel
“our position was that we would talk first with the party with the strongest mandate – we didn’t rule out an eventual deal with the second placed party.”
Oh come on, that is such a ridiculously contorted interpretation you know it would have been held up to ridicule by the Tories and we would have lost vast swathes of voters as a result. Propping up a totally discredited government with 29% of the vote. How democratic would that have looked exactly?
Like so many, I am not as clever as Gordon Brown. But I am sure that the man who kept us out of the Eurozone and saved the banks from collapse would have done something much more intelligent than recommend “a big bazooka” and then fail to achieve any deal with other European leaders. Oh and by the way, I am sick of hearing Britain compared to Greece. Greece has always been a poor, debt-ridden country. In the past 180 years Greece has defaulted 5 times. When did Britain last default? Stop trying to scare us with imaginary ogres
I think that if Gordon Brown were sill PM he woul eat raw baby seals, whilst holding wet t-shirt contests in his solid gold pentouse. And almost certainly Satan would be stalking British streets imposing EU regulations about square oranges.
“David,
it’s not the job of LibDems to apologise for Labour.
For a fair-minded criticism you really should give more detail about ‘the things they didn’t get wrong’ – which were sweeping waste under the carpet, papering over cracks and draining all will to live. ”
Er, why do I get this funny feeling that my response to this request might fall on rather deaf ears? Oh well, here goes anyway…
Labour more or less kept their heads in a crisis. Their temporary VAT cut didn’t have the reflationary effect they were hoping for, but it did help to prevent panic and stop the economy grinding to a halt. They recognised that the deficit was largely caused by a private sector bust which had slashed their tax receipts. They didn’t rush off to force the poor to pay off the deficit. They also didn’t have enough courage to force the rich to do it instead, and their leader’s rhetoric was dreadful, but that’s another story.
You see, I was a card-carrying party loyalist for many many years, cheering my team and booing the others, just like your typical football supporter (except that the footie people tend to be a little better at noticing when their own team is playing rubbish). Then the Cleggies came along, and I lost my “faith” in the Lib Dems. It’s liberating, don’t you see? It’s not just about Clegg and co any longer, it’s a question of getting back control of your own brain. So, now I can talk about Labour’s record in terms of shades of grey, not just black and white!
In my defence, Lib Dems until recently weren’t just positioned in a different part of the political spectrum. They were also allowed a bit more independence of thought. Not really enough, but a lot more than they are these days, and rather more than their opponents.
I’m inclined to blame George W Bush. His masterstroke was to repeat, ad nauseam, the total fabrication that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida. Eventually the great US public swallowed the lie. Spin doctors around the world marvelled at this success and learnt its lessons. Now our great Lib Dem party uses Bush tactics to demonise Labour. It’s bad for political life, because it serves as a substitute for real thinking. We need to acknowledge that Labour did some things right and some things wrong. If instead we replace complex reality with a simplistic blame-placing “analysis” of our economic condition, we shall assuredly get everything wrong.
Even before Brown was PM I was unimpressed by his financial acumen. It was fairly obvious he wasn’t able to deal with situations outside the one he thought was going to happen. His credibility was destroyed at the start of this financial crisis, so the idea he’d be in a good position to build on is pretty laughable. He was not a good chancellor, something that should be very obvious to all in hindsight. No more boom and bust? It’d be laughable if that view hadn’t made things so much worse.
I don’t think the current Labour economic plan is much good, it’s more along the lines of “We have to say something, say something!” They still fail to accept how bad things were, and indeed are.
Brown would’ve done better on the Euro crisis, but our spending would’ve continued to soar because Brown thought that Darling’s plan was too far and too fast and would’ve ditched it after the election. The Lib Dems would be in even more trouble than they are now because you don’t solve a debt crisis with more debt. Ignore the Labour lies that growth would be huge and jobs would be everywhere, we’d be heading the same way as Greece and co.
David,
“Labour did some things right and some things wrong.”
I dispute this. The things Labour is credited with getting right is where they stole LibDem policies (only to misapply them) or where they did nothing at all.
A temporary VAT cut is a standard ‘easy’ solution from Whitehall. That’s why Labour have advocated it on at least 5 different occasions in recent years – because it is no solution, it’s a quick fix!
The recapitalisation of the banks was an industry-led suggestion, something Labour had resisted calls for until the first crisis and have resisted since the current crisis started.
That is a very nebulous shade of grey.