Doesn't pretty much any party focus on economic growth? I mean who runs a campaign saying "we want to make the nation poorer!"
If your policies focus more on inflation and deficits, then in practice, you're governing against growth.
The heavy focus on deficits is only a more recent situation post '08.
Post-'08 financial institution meltdown (near-meltdownThe heavy focus on deficits is only a more recent situation post '08.
And when Labour lost to the Conservatives in 2010 (with a little help from Lib Dems), of course it's not just the respective party's views of the futures. It's every issue in the world, including who was to blame for the near-meltdown of 2008.Gordon Brown: I made a big mistake on banks
The Telegraph, Richard Blackden, 10 April 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rdon-Brown-I-made-a-big-mistake-on-banks.html
In his first clear admission of some responsibility for the financial crisis, the former prime minister claimed he had not understood how “entangled” the world’s financial institutions had become.
His comments will be seized upon by the Conservatives as proof that Labour played a part in the economic meltdown.
.
.
Please notice that what David's focusing on at the very beginning is reducing the deficit. What he's not focusing as directly on is re-growing the economy and building jobs back up.David Cameron and Nick Clegg lead coalition into power
The Guardian, Patrick Wintour, 11 May 2010.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/12/david-cameron-nick-clegg-coalition
.
.
' . . . Arriving in Downing Street at 8.40pm as prime minister, Cameron looked overawed as he admitted that his new government had "some deep and pressing problems – a huge deficit, deep social problems and a political system in need of reform". . . '
.
.
' . . . the Tories agreed to drop their plans to raise the threshold for inheritance tax, but the Lib Dems accepted that spending cuts will start this year as part of an accelerated deficit reduction plan. . . '
.
.
As a Yank, I think as The Guardian as Labour's leftwing loyal opposition. Is this generally correct?![]()
Labour's Gordon Brown was saying, You don't cut for the future, You invest for the future. And he lost to Mr. Cameron.
Please notice that what David's focusing on at the very beginning is reducing the deficit. What he's not focusing as directly on is re-growing the economy and building jobs back up.
"The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by the people who really do run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think this country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is."
The debts expanded after 5 years of austerity. It'd be better if your target was just halving the deficit, or reducing it to EU limit of 3% of GDP (well, David wanted to eliminate it in just 5 years).Given the situation for many of the European nations "re-growing the economy" without somehow tackling the deficits wasn't an easy sell. The National debts were massively expanded and none of the nations can run up the debts that the US can and does.
This is the key hinge point!As Liam Byrne memo'd 'there is no money left'.
If your policies focus more on inflation and deficits, then in practice, you're governing against growth.
Virtually every party--in the UK or elsewhere--that campaigns against deficits and inflation says that it does so because deficits and inflation are (at least in the long run) bad for economic growth. And I don't see much reason to doubt that they believe this. They may of course be wrong about it, but that's another matter.
In the long run is the operative phrase, I think. In the short run, deflation and growth are simply incompatible.
I don't think any major party advocates actual deflation, as opposed to low inflation.
The debts expanded after 5 years of austerity. It'd be better if your target was just halving the deficit, or reducing it to EU limit of 3% of GDP (well, David wanted to eliminate it in just 5 years).
David Cameron initially wanted to eliminate deficit completely. Thus, he cut spending impulsively, but it clearly failed. The 4.1% figure means that it had failed.Deficit in 2010/11 9.0% of GDP; deficit in 2015/16 4.1% of GDP - are you really advocating reducing it faster?
View attachment 334892
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...rostatmaast/aprtojune2016#annex-a-data-tables