Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Bank cheif admits labour were not the cause of ressession Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The Daily Politics once did a peice showing that most of the MP's they asked did not know the difference between the debt and the deficit let alone specific figures. Given this kind if economic illiteracy among politicians (all parties) one can only imagine the illiteracy among the electorate. All of this means that such a lie is an open goal for the Tories to hammer Labour with.
    The deficit/debt one seems to be really common (didn't Andrew Neil once catch out Ed Balls being confused with that? Quite a few years ago, when he was Brown's advisor under the Blair govt) but I sometimes wonder if MPs don't deliberately pretend to be ignorant on things like that, we often see MPs feigning stupidity when it suits them for making a political point to the 'plebs' cast in 'terms they will understand'.

    I also remember seeing Michael Crick interviewing different politicians for Newsnight when Blair was still PM (so it was about 10 years ago?) and catching them out with evidence that they simply did not understand their own areas of government. One was Brown, who he caught in a pretty basic confusion about what was included in the money supply. This was amusing given that Brown always portrayed himself as a great economic expert.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's within the right wing media and vested interest's own interest to portray Labour as ruining the country. They know a Tory government means they get tax cuts and that they can stick their money offshore and pay no tax altogether. They know under a Tory government they'll be given access to buy off the NHS and other public services and they know under a Tory government that workers will have less rights so they can sack them much easier and pay them much less.

    Is it any wonder? Nearly every major paper supports the Tories.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Nobody has ever blamed them for CAUSING the recession- they were to blame for pissing-away all our money so we had nothing left to inject durting a recession!
    I'm pretty sure they pumped in £100bn+ in 2008/09 exclusing the bank interventions which were what another £100bn?

    Since 2008 between additional deficit spending, QE and bank interventions almost a trillion has been pumped in.

    Exactly (or even roughly) how much did you want to see injected?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Nobody has ever blamed them for CAUSING the recession- they were to blame for pissing-away all our money so we had nothing left to inject durting a recession!
    Yes they did. It was like the prime reason the Tories got in. It is still used by Cameron and Osborne to justify vindictive mindless cutting of services and the role back of the state to Victorian levels.


    Whilst I concede they did piss away money like in Gordon Brown's PFI schemes that probably isn't the kind of pissing away money you are complaining about. Secondly we injected tonnes of pounds into the finance sector and the conservative were just fine with going on some wars which are not free, why were they not so concerned with saving?. Thirdly if no one in their stupid neoclassical closed idelogy echo chamber predicted it coming why should labour have had the heinsight to not spend? Neoclassical economics (which is the mainstream school of thought) doesn't even acknowldge that depressions/recessions can happen. So why would Labour have to save money for an event which would never happen? You can thank Thatcher for that one. It is her fualt we have these morons running the country. It wasn't like Osborne was warning them of the impending doom, that tit was saying labour were not deregulating enough.

    Finally, you lot aren't supposed to believe in injecting :rolleyes:
    What happens to efficient stable markets and a nice stable equilibrium?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    :lolwut:

    The Tories repeatedly call it 'Labour's recession'. If that's not blaming them for causing it, or at least very heavily and clumsily implying they caused it, I don't know what is.
    Faith in humanity restored.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    You made my heart skip a beat there before I read who you were responding to lol; my name's also Daniel.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The Daily Politics once did a peice showing that most of the MP's they asked did not know the difference between the debt and the deficit let alone specific figures. Given this kind if economic illiteracy among politicians (all parties) one can only imagine the illiteracy among the electorate. All of this means that such a lie is an open goal for the Tories to hammer Labour with.
    Why is it these ****ers are aloud to be so incompetent?

    If a physicist at NASA got mixed up between speed and acceleration (which is what this debt/deficit is analogous to) he would get the sack.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes they did. It was like the prime reason the Tories got in. It is still used by Cameron and Osborne to justify vindictive mindless cutting of services and the role back of the state to Victorian levels.
    No, they got in because of a lack of faith that Labour had the vision/leadership to get the deficit down. IMHO

    Did the Victorians have international aid, an NHS, state pension, employment/disability benefit? No, just a much more powerful army.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Why is it these ****ers are aloud to be so incompetent?

    If a physicist at NASA got mixed up between speed and acceleration (which is what this debt/deficit is analogous to) he would get the sack.
    Unless I saw the clip I don't know. But without seeing it I doubt they were being incompetent, they are politicians, if politically it is useful to confuse the two then they will do so.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)

    Did the Victorians have international aid, an NHS, state pension, employment/disability benefit? No, just a much more powerful army.
    I admit I am just going off what the BBC said here. I don't have high opinions of the beeb, so not sure why I am following it so blindly.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I admit I am just going off what the BBC said here. I don't have high opinions of the beeb, so not sure why I am following it so blindly.


    The Victorian state didn't even have to part fund the BBC...

    I thought it was '1930s levels' but I still don't think its comparing apples with apples.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30323690
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The deficit/debt one seems to be really common (didn't Andrew Neil once catch out Ed Balls being confused with that? Quite a few years ago, when he was Brown's advisor under the Blair govt) but I sometimes wonder if MPs don't deliberately pretend to be ignorant on things like that, we often see MPs feigning stupidity when it suits them for making a political point to the 'plebs' cast in 'terms they will understand'.

    I also remember seeing Michael Crick interviewing different politicians for Newsnight when Blair was still PM (so it was about 10 years ago?) and catching them out with evidence that they simply did not understand their own areas of government. One was Brown, who he caught in a pretty basic confusion about what was included in the money supply. This was amusing given that Brown always portrayed himself as a great economic expert.
    It's a real problem though. The conservatives released their first piece of election propaganda stating they cut the deficit by a third. Most people will think that means they have cut the debt by a third, rather than realizing debt had been increasing. It's almost like the population are not educated in economics (even the neoclassical alchemy) just so people remain stupid and in the dark, easier to manipulate that way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You don't need to be a good economist to be a good politician (though having an understanding is obviously good). Public policy =/= economic policy. We have experts to tell them exactly what is and isn't possible.

    I think politicians sometimes get muddled because it's all a game of everyone repeating catch phrases and eventually when the dumb electorate hear key words enough they believe it. Ed Balls lectured economics at Harvard; I wouldn't call him economically illiterate.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    You don't need to be a good economist to be a good politician (though having an understanding is obviously good). Public policy =/= economic policy. We have experts to tell them exactly what is and isn't possible.

    I think politicians sometimes get muddled because it's all a game of everyone repeating catch phrases and eventually when the dumb electorate hear key words enough they believe it. Ed Balls lectured economics at Harvard; I wouldn't call him economically illiterate.
    Although listening to him speak sometimes, it makes one wonder what exactly those lectures are like. Pretty hard to follow I suspect. :rolleyes:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's a real problem though. The conservatives released their first piece of election propaganda stating they cut the deficit by a third. Most people will think that means they have cut the debt by a third, rather than realizing debt had been increasing. It's almost like the population are not educated in economics (even the neoclassical alchemy) just so people remain stupid and in the dark, easier to manipulate that way.
    A lot of the ignorance has just been generated by the right in the media and by right wing politicians. They like to keep the public stupid. The best example is all that endless harping on that Maggie did about households balancing their books and the state needing to be frugal and have no debt, which is utter nonsense given that everything from the banks to pensions to the financial system precisely relies on the government printing debt. These simplistic reactionary nostrums are what keeps the neoliberal agenda in power and were carefully thought up by skilled propaganda experts in ad agencies and the like. Orwell by other means.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes they did. It was like the prime reason the Tories got in. It is still used by Cameron and Osborne to justify vindictive mindless cutting of services and the role back of the state to Victorian levels.


    Whilst I concede they did piss away money like in Gordon Brown's PFI schemes that probably isn't the kind of pissing away money you are complaining about. Secondly we injected tonnes of pounds into the finance sector and the conservative were just fine with going on some wars which are not free, why were they not so concerned with saving?. Thirdly if no one in their stupid neoclassical closed idelogy echo chamber predicted it coming why should labour have had the heinsight to not spend? Neoclassical economics (which is the mainstream school of thought) doesn't even acknowldge that depressions/recessions can happen. So why would Labour have to save money for an event which would never happen? You can thank Thatcher for that one. It is her fualt we have these morons running the country. It wasn't like Osborne was warning them of the impending doom, that tit was saying labour were not deregulating enough.

    Finally, you lot aren't supposed to believe in injecting :rolleyes:
    What happens to efficient stable markets and a nice stable equilibrium?
    "Injecting" after saving for a rainy day. If the economy turns, Government tax receipts decrease. Instead of having to cut police numbers, you then "inject" previously-saved money....... but Labour had none because they SPEND SPEND SPEND. All the single teenage Mums had the money in their nice fancy flats.....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    "Injecting" means saving for a rainy day. If the economy turns, Government tax receipts decrease. Instead of having to cut police numbers, you then "inject" money from the saved-up capital....... but Labour didn't have any of that because they SPEND SPEND SPEND. All the single teenage Mums had the money in their nice fancy flats.....
    Even in your example, the spending is the injecting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    :lolwut:

    The Tories repeatedly call it 'Labour's recession'. If that's not blaming them for causing it, or at least very heavily and clumsily implying they caused it, I don't know what is.
    No- the Tories do not blame Labour for the recession, they blame them for not being able to get us out of it.

    How the **** can anybody blame the Labour Government for AIG New York being fully-leveraged on CDOs????
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Even in your example, the spending is the injecting.
    I have not increased spending on the police...... thats the difference! I have said the police receive X% of Government expenditure. Recession occurs, GDP is less and therefore less money would be available to the police. If Labour had saved money the same amount of money could have been spent on the police.........
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    "Injecting" after saving for a rainy day. If the economy turns, Government tax receipts decrease. Instead of having to cut police numbers, you then "inject" previously-saved money....... but Labour had none because they SPEND SPEND SPEND. All the single teenage Mums had the money in their nice fancy flats.....
    And thats whats happened.

    As per my previous post:
    I'm pretty sure they pumped in £100bn+ in 2008/09 exclusing the bank interventions which were what another £100bn?

    Since 2008 between additional deficit spending, QE and bank interventions almost a trillion has been pumped in.

    Exactly (or even roughly) how much did you want to see injected?


    Also as an aside, you know the teenage pregnancy rate came down under Labour to the lowest on record right? Perhaps there were more single mums - I've not seen any stats on that, have you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    And thats whats happened.

    As per my previous post:
    I'm pretty sure they pumped in £100bn+ in 2008/09 exclusing the bank interventions which were what another £100bn?

    Since 2008 between additional deficit spending, QE and bank interventions almost a trillion has been pumped in.

    Exactly (or even roughly) how much did you want to see injected?


    Also as an aside, you know the teenage pregnancy rate came down under Labour to the lowest on record right? Perhaps there were more single mums - I've not seen any stats on that, have you?
    No, Labour borrowed/printed money via QE and the gilt markets........ this is not the same as saving earnt money.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 5, 2015
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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