Turn on thread page Beta

Inflation down, unemployment down... What will Labour do now? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    The Labour party haven't really done enough to take us out of the recession.
    Apart from actually taking us out of recession you mean?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Since the disappointing growth figures.
    Growth?

    Do you mean contraction?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone else not find it tiresome when all the parties do is ***** about other parties policies?
    "well Labour would have done this"
    "the Conservatives will do that"
    I want to know what YOU are going to do. Not what one of the other parties would have done, or who's fault it is that we have a certain policy in place or whatever.
    I know this is irrelevant but it's already started in this thread
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Apart from actually taking us out of recession you mean?
    You really don't like the Labour party do you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Unemployment fell by a pathetic amount and will most likely increase within 6 months. When companies stop going under and the government stops massive cutbacks then Labour will have a problem with getting support.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    You really don't like the Labour party do you?
    Not really.

    But I do like correcting people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Not really.

    But I do like correcting people.
    Lool you didn't correct me at all. It's just a thing or 2 that you have against Labour. (Not cool)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    Lool you didn't correct me at all. It's just a thing or 2 that you have against Labour. (Not cool)
    How is saying Labour got us out of recession 'against labour'?

    Surely thats a good thing they did...?

    And its correcting you as you said 'The Labour party haven't really done enough to take us out of the recession' - even though they took us out of recession. What more can they have done?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    :rolleyes:

    How is saying Labour got us out of recession 'against labour'?

    Surely thats a good thing they did...?

    And its correcting you as you said 'The Labour party haven't really done enough to take us out of the recession' - even though they took us out of recession. What more can they have done?
    Labour didn't really take us out of the recession though!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    Labour didn't really take us out of the recession though!!!
    I think you'll find they did...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8479639.stm

    Or did they get voted out before Feb 2010?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting points about fiscal discipline. The problem is we just ignore these rules. Look at all the fiscal rules for maintaining membership of the EU and the more stringent rules for joining the euro, they have all been broken by most of the members of these collectives.

    Remember the rules brown set out for ending boom and bust? Weren't they all broken also?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I think something like that would be most welcomed actually - the issue is how rigid it would become to set rules like that? Perhaps a series of rules stating that the government cannot allow a deficit to exceed 3% and that the national debt shouldn't exceed 60% without parliamentary approval.

    I don't know, but you cannot have a rigid system.
    I think it would have to be taken out of the hands of parliament.

    In fact what you could do is make the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, somebody who was not from within government. Make it just a Civil Servant, who was appointed for 5 years or whatever. He didn't have to be answerable to the electorate, didn't have to be popular. All he had to do was ensure that certain rules were followed, eg a deficit 'cap' which would be set according to the growth rate of the economy in relation to the natural rate of output growth. So you could have some flexibility for deficit spending during a downturn or in recession, but when growth was on target or above, you had to run a balanced budget or surplus.

    Notice that this isn't taking decisions on government budget spending out of the hands of the politicians, all it is doing is taking decisions on permitted borrowing levels. A government which wants to spend more will have to raise more through taxation. By taking it out of the hands of politicians you stop deficits being used for election winning reasons, its the same logic as taking control of interest rates out of the hands of politicians, which is what independence of the Bank of England is all about.

    Obviously the exact details of the policy would have to be debated and discussed but my general idea of a form of deficit capping, which was responsive to growth rates, would allow fiscal policy to be used actively to manage the economic cycle, but would prevent deficit spending during economic booms.

    What do you reckon Quady?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I think it would have to be taken out of the hands of parliament.

    In fact what you could do is make the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, somebody who was not from within government. Make it just a Civil Servant, who was appointed for 5 years or whatever. He didn't have to be answerable to the electorate, didn't have to be popular. All he had to do was ensure that certain rules were followed, eg a deficit 'cap' which would be set according to the growth rate of the economy in relation to the natural rate of output growth. So you could have some flexibility for deficit spending during a downturn or in recession, but when growth was on target or above, you had to run a balanced budget or surplus.

    Notice that this isn't taking decisions on government budget spending out of the hands of the politicians, all it is doing is taking decisions on permitted borrowing levels. A government which wants to spend more will have to raise more through taxation. By taking it out of the hands of politicians you stop deficits being used for election winning reasons, its the same logic as taking control of interest rates out of the hands of politicians, which is what independence of the Bank of England is all about.

    Obviously the exact details of the policy would have to be debated and discussed but my general idea of a form of deficit capping, which was responsive to growth rates, would allow fiscal policy to be used actively to manage the economic cycle, but would prevent deficit spending during economic booms.

    What do you reckon Quady?
    +rep
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Interesting points about fiscal discipline. The problem is we just ignore these rules. Look at all the fiscal rules for maintaining membership of the EU and the more stringent rules for joining the euro, they have all been broken by most of the members of these collectives.

    Remember the rules brown set out for ending boom and bust? Weren't they all broken also?
    I thought the stability and growth pact was a good idea but the EU had no balls to police it. You could tell things were going wrong when they set the rule that you had to have a deficit of no more than 3% in 1997, in order to qualify for the Euro, and France only got under that by buying the pension liabilities from the telecommunications industry in return for a one off payment which credited against their national accounts to bring their deficit under the threshold (and ended up costing them well more in the long run).

    Brown's golden rule made sense as well it just didn't have any strict criteria for judging the start and end of the 'economic cycle' around which you have to balance the budget. The other part of the golden rule is borrowing only for investment projects, not to finance current spending. I think if Brown's golden rules get followed properly you will have fiscal discipline.

    The other side of the coin of course is the "who pays" issue for long term investment spending. If you spend a lot of money now investing in say green energy, which only starts to pay off in decades to come, then is it fair for our generation to pay for something which the next generation will benefit from? There is a reasonable argument for the payment burden to fall more on the generation which will benefit from it. So I do understand the use of deficit spending sometimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I think it would have to be taken out of the hands of parliament.

    In fact what you could do is make the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, somebody who was not from within government. Make it just a Civil Servant, who was appointed for 5 years or whatever. He didn't have to be answerable to the electorate, didn't have to be popular. All he had to do was ensure that certain rules were followed, eg a deficit 'cap' which would be set according to the growth rate of the economy in relation to the natural rate of output growth. So you could have some flexibility for deficit spending during a downturn or in recession, but when growth was on target or above, you had to run a balanced budget or surplus.

    Notice that this isn't taking decisions on government budget spending out of the hands of the politicians, all it is doing is taking decisions on permitted borrowing levels. A government which wants to spend more will have to raise more through taxation. By taking it out of the hands of politicians you stop deficits being used for election winning reasons, its the same logic as taking control of interest rates out of the hands of politicians, which is what independence of the Bank of England is all about.

    Obviously the exact details of the policy would have to be debated and discussed but my general idea of a form of deficit capping, which was responsive to growth rates, would allow fiscal policy to be used actively to manage the economic cycle, but would prevent deficit spending during economic booms.

    What do you reckon Quady?
    This is why we need a constitution in this country.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    What do you reckon Quady?
    Turkeys voting for christmas springs to mind

    I just can't see the Govt giving such executive power away. Of course it could work, but the Treasury would be a bit of a messy place when tax take falls 10% within a year (as happened) and public spending needs winding down to keep within the 3% (or whatever) limit.

    Theres a definite framework around your idea though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I think you'll find they did...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8479639.stm

    Or did they get voted out before Feb 2010?
    I don't know what kind of world I've been living in. I honestly didn't know that we've emerged from the recession as of NOW. I would say that is a great achievement for the Labour party.

    Thanks for the link though. UP Labour !Yay!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I thought the stability and growth pact was a good idea but the EU had no balls to police it. You could tell things were going wrong when they set the rule that you had to have a deficit of no more than 3% in 1997, in order to qualify for the Euro, and France only got under that by buying the pension liabilities from the telecommunications industry in return for a one off payment which credited against their national accounts to bring their deficit under the threshold (and ended up costing them well more in the long run).

    Brown's golden rule made sense as well it just didn't have any strict criteria for judging the start and end of the 'economic cycle' around which you have to balance the budget. The other part of the golden rule is borrowing only for investment projects, not to finance current spending. I think if Brown's golden rules get followed properly you will have fiscal discipline.

    The other side of the coin of course is the "who pays" issue for long term investment spending. If you spend a lot of money now investing in say green energy, which only starts to pay off in decades to come, then is it fair for our generation to pay for something which the next generation will benefit from? There is a reasonable argument for the payment burden to fall more on the generation which will benefit from it. So I do understand the use of deficit spending sometimes.
    The problem is the EU isn't really accountable to anyone and our politicians only every 4/5 years ,so without a constitution in which I would set out economic stipulations as well as a bill of rights, then politicians can do whatever they like during there term of office.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    I don't know what kind of world I've been living in. I honestly didn't know that we've emerged from the recession as of NOW. I would say that is a great achievement for the Labour party.

    Thanks for the link though. UP Labour !Yay!
    Labour got us into the recession you might also remember?

    Messing up then stopping the mess getting worse is still overall a bad thing,..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Hakz*)
    I don't know what kind of world I've been living in. I honestly didn't know that we've emerged from the recession as of NOW. I would say that is a great achievement for the Labour party.

    Thanks for the link though. UP Labour !Yay!
    Isn't all the talk of the threat of a double dip recession though?
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.