Skewered Balls.... Ed's that is.....
27 October 2012
....by Andrew Neil. (the skewering that is, not the blog!!!)
....by Andrew Neil. (the skewering that is, not the blog!!!)
Totally, utterly and completely skewered over the structural deficit and the twisting and turning Balls turned to out and out blatant lies. No surprises there.
Let us be absolutely clear.
Gordon Brown, with Ed Balls as his adviser, started increasing public spending, changing from reducing the deficit left over from the last recession to increasing that deficit in 2001. Up until then he was committed to Ken Clarke's spending limits. This, of course, ignores Brown's reckless use of 'off balance sheet' spending from 1997 in a manner that would make Enron proud.
Even by 2005 he had moved from a recoverable position to one in which a structural deficit had built up. A structural deficit is one that cannot be closed within the growth phase of the economy without spending cuts. The slowdown started in 2007 with no attempts having been made to close it by Brown and Balls, indeed it carried on widening. This was known and was clear at the time.
Anyone who knows anything at all about economics will tell you a few home truths. Even Brown's economic guru, Keynes will tell you this.
1 - the economy always works in cycles of growth and contraction.
2 - to allow you to build a deficit in a downturn you need to close the deficit in the growth phase.
3 - that you cannot go on spending more than your income forever (that is what is meant by deficit) so at some point in the economic cycle you have to close that deficit and gain a surplus to repay the debt that will have built up while in deficit. If you do not do that in the growth phase when would you do it?
So Brown and Balls did not close that deficit in the growth phase, they did not attempt to, indeed they increased public spending year on year. This was reckless and deliberate. It was mad. Brown indeed was mad, he said like some latter day Canute, that he had banned boom and bust and clearly believed his delusion.
Balls again trots out his old scapegoats, the bankers and the City. This is again a nonsense. The City and banking problems arose because of the downturn that started in 2007, over a year before the Lehman collapse and the downturn was cyclical - it was not unexpected. Brown and Balls, thanks to their reckless spending (and other crazy policy) left the UK in an appalling position when that downturn started.
Only Brown and Balls are to blame for the dilemma the UK was in. The fact that other European countries also embarked on mad spending sprees and thanks to the Euro were in an even worse place than the UK is no excuse for their actions.
Ed Balls is a liar.
Ed Balls is incompetent.
Ed Balls is reckless.
Ed Balls is Labour's Shadow Chancellor.
Ed Balls is the guilty man.
Ed Balls was skewered by Andrew Neil, enjoy this burk twist, turn and lie - remember that.
- Please keep this on your own page,we all know how to log on to it,Thank you
- "Let us be absolutely clear."
Just about all you have Barry, is 'consistency'. In that you are just about consistent;more corkscrewing than skewering.
The most telling portion of the conversation under the link above was about the non-appearance of the 'frit' GO in any such arenas.
"Let us be absolutely clear."
You, Barry, are all for a portion of the Political spectrum that can be identified only as not being of some other portion of the same spectrum.
Another telling (near) quote from the above link...
"When you drill into the figures, you are not that far apart." [Darling:Osborne plans]
Little wonder you lay on with a trowel that which disinterested observers find indistinguishable.
Is Politics, Reddy-Blue or Bluey-Red?
"City and banking problems arose because of the downturn"
This is exactly the same as saying: It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing.
We are told, and it has appeared to me over the years that it is most often a proud boast, we live in a Parliamentary Democracy. The two sides of which stand at a little over two sword lengths apart to discuss, argue and debate. The adversarial approach, we are told, is the one most suited to arrive at a sound conclusion.
NOTHING that came out of Parliament (during the period under discussion, GB v DC) did the least harm to the Conservative front bench nor the core of the Conservative Party. At the very least it was all-grist-to-the-mill, but property price inflation, and much else that was seen as being on an ever upward trajectory, benefited MPs almost exclusively.
Nothing has changed. - You are making no sense at all there Tom.
Where is the alternative economic argument?
Where are the answers as to when the current account should be brought into balance? Where is your answer to why the Brown/Balls-up team did not do what their guru Keynes said?
I am as critical of Osborne for not doing enough to cut public spending as I am for the recklessness of Brown/Balls in the first place.
As for the 'landing' - I have also identified where government policy from 1997 created the environment in which the banks were made vulnerable. I have also identified the policy mistakes since 1997 that directly created the house price explosion and debt bubble, reducing levels of savings in favour of spend now, pay later. These are all very specific and I, among others, have been speaking about these mistakes long before it all exploded in our faces.
The fact that you cannot grasp this is a demonstration of how so many people blind themselves to the economic reality and consequences of the political dogma of high spending and high taxation. - "Skewered Balls..."
Is the title of the piece Barry, with it's needles capitalisation.
The dies was cast, that made it possible for Politicians of every hue to have their cake and eat it, way back when Thatcher celebrated the untying of the knot that had bound the financial sector to common sense and put the world's economy in the hands of 'whiz-kids', the Umpa-Lumpas (Umpa-Lumpae?) of the new economic powerhouse. This new Confectionery-Credo that was aptly, and ultimately, run by sundry Retail Tycoons.
If only there was an openness, (a list, even) of where and for what the, big-money big-spend, ubiquitous Lobbyists stand. These same puppeteers that rely upon the likes of you to muddy the waters with inter-Party twaddle.
You are but a sop to those who shall never have enough, to such a degree that even Party Loyalty must take a back seat. All is expendable in your quest to maintain your hand upon the raiment of the ever-rapacious few.
You seem to equate 'sense' with slogan. Yours being: Me-me-me!
Have mine: No-no-no! - Barry, I fully agree with you!
For many years, the Labour government, from 1997 to 2010, FAILED to close the gap in the budget deficit, and more in general, in the national debt.
In fact, they let the budget deficit continue year on year, and the national debt just piled up!
In these years of financial boom, Blair, Brown and Balls played the Blair super-capitalism card, the "New Labour" card, and allowed the super-capitalists to cash in on the money available, to ram their accounts full with dosh (shares, hedge funds, toxic papers or whatever), and bankers and chief execs just gave themselves bonuses galore, and so on and so forth.
The reason why the National Debt (or Public Debt) is so massive now, after years of consecutive budget deficit, is because the three above-mentioned had allowed the greedy to ram their pockets full, when they should have been using some of that money so that it went NOT into the pockets of the super-greedy bankers and the like (chief execs of big share companies and various speculators in general), but into the TREASURY.
Because of catastrophic Blairism - I mean that man was Britain's worse ever nightmare! - the present Government MUST realise that it is time to make good the the years of pocket-stuffing by getting a portion of that money back, which SHOULD HAVE gone into the Treasury during the period Blair was in office (with Brown and Balls).
Forget the Keynes doctrine, and let's look at the Alexandrine doctrine:
our Country needs to make sure that the super-rich pay up a part of their surplus hundreds of billions of pounds to the Treasury to reduce the Public Debt!
Makes sense! Because these are the very characters that stuffed their pockets full during the period when Blairism allowed them to at the cost of consecutive annual budget deficits.
Let us be absolutely clear (using paste and cut):
if what I have just written here did not make sense according to you, then you would be practically saying: "let 'em get away with it, after all, they cashed in on what Blair - Brown - Balls allowed them to take (whatever sum they so desired) from the economy for their own personal (and insane) gain, at the cost of massive budget deficits and a huge Public Debt."
What is your opinion on this, Tom? - I have often read that what is 'theirs' is theirs...tough!
I too think that an equalisation is in order Alexander. The trouble is that we seem doomed to have only middle-management types to elect; in awe of wealth and ever ready to blame the weakest. - So there you have it, Barry: two readers of your blog believe an equalisation to the Treasury is due.
We both follow your blog habitually, and I'm sure other readers will give their input on this idea, before your next blog post.
Going by the 2011 figures, Britain paid almost 50 billion pounds on interest on the Public Debt (the basic Debt of 1 trillion pounds), and with each year this figure is set to go up by various billions unless the Debt is reduced or completely paid off.
If not, Barry, in about 7 to 8 years time, we'll have added £500 billion to the Public Debt just through paying interest on it! As you too are an economist, surely you would agree that this would be a pathway to sheer economic disaster, to allow the super-rich to be exempt from paying back to the Treasury apart of their surplus hundreds of billions of garnered pounds (seen collectively).
Pay off the Public Debt now, and we'll have saved ourselves possibly £1 trillion in 12 years on interest. Otherwise, in 12 years time, we could have a basic Public Debt of £2 trillion+.
Now don't tell me, Barry, that he present Debt is already at £2.3 trillion when taking into account various other calculations, I know this already. I'm just talking of the basic £1 trillion Debt here.
The same Debt that in May 2010 was at £850 billion.
And Barry, as you are not a brain surgeon, please don't tell me that I am speaking to a brain surgeon! - Still no sign of anyone contrary to an equalisation to the Treasury by the super-rich to reduce the Public Debt. Look's like the majority on Barry's blog is in favour then.
- Alexander. Perhaps people just cannot be bothered to comment on your ideas simply because they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy and how it works.
Your ideas based around state theft of private assets, acting in a dictatorial and Stalinist manner, are a recipe for economic disaster. - Barry, you keep insisting that the Government must cut spending deeper and faster, but deny the Public Debt issue, which is destined - if left unattended to - to bring us into a position such as Greece is in, namely of total State bankruptcy and sheer collapse of the economy.
Nothing to do with dictatorship or Stalinism on my part, but with the fact that no-one on your blog is giving you any credence on your denial of the seriousness of Britain's Public Debt.
But I am glad you haven't compared yourself to a brain surgeon this time, as I was getting worried. - You just cannot grasp how the economy works Alexander and demonstrate that with these posts.
Read up on economics. There are two books that you need to read, Free to Choose by Milton Friedman and The Road to Serfdom by Frederich Hayek. When you do so leave your prejudices at the door and think through the points they raise. These two economists have different solutions to our problems, Hayek is 100% right in theory but not practical in real life, while Friedman allows for the vanity of politicians to make a more practical case. - Barry, the economy works and the economy doesn't work.
Decades of the present system have led to economic bankruptcy of the State, and of many other states across the Channel in Europe.
Adding to that, David Cameron is a staunch supporter of the EU, and wants Turkey to enter the EU too.
You seem to be riding too many different horses at the same time, Barry. - Alexander - I at least know something about economics.
You are again speaking rot from a position of ignorance about the subject. I have made some reading suggestions to be constructive.
The 'present system' to which you refer is the way some governments have gone on unsustainable spending sprees. Curbing their spending is the only way to resolve the matter. In Europe the problem is amplified by the Euro making many countries even more uncompetitive. - Barry, your invectives are only an attempt to scare people from sane and rational thinking: it's not that by saying "rot" 20 times in a row, or "dictatorship", sane thinking will become "rot" and "dictatorship".
We cannot undo the spending that has been done under New Labour, but we cannot go into a massive and deep spending cut scheme inflicting unheard misery on the masses while the stink-rich sit there and, by your calculations, are allowed to get just richer!
We do not have to agree to your proposals of "faster and deeper spending cuts" and "don't touch the bonuses of the super-rich and their never-ending money-grabbing".
We simply DO NOT HAVE TO agree to this!
The Government came in with a promise of "big society" and "we're all in this together".
I for one utterly refuse to accept what you are saying we must do and endure, this is OUR economy, not the private world of the "us speculators and money-grabbers" and "them fools" (us the common People). - Alexander - I am trying to introduce you to sane and rational thinking in the real world.
You refusing to accept an educated economic analysis does not change the facts of life.