tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post8886418174069810474..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: The spending review: key questions and the democratic deficitTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-53659351803268040072010-10-21T10:44:58.859+01:002010-10-21T10:44:58.859+01:00The assessment of who is responsible for the defic...The assessment of who is responsible for the deficit is ludicrous.<br /><br /><i>"the primary cause was the necessary response to the (existential) financial crisis of 2008"</i><br /><br /><b>Absolute poppycock! This is a downright lie</b> - proof positive that Labour and the Fabians, still unable to offer any practical solution to the problems they've bestowed on the nation, have gone into full-on deficit denial mode, deliberately confusing the debt with the deficit.<br /><br />1. Brown ran a deficit every year since 2002. Most of this was during a period of 'record growth' during which time the opportunity to reduce the national debt was never taken. Structural spending has exceeded income every year since, and this is nothing to do with the recession. THERE IS A VAST STRUCTURAL DEFICIT WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED BY BROWN'S FAILURE TO ABIDE BY HIS OWN 'GOLDEN RULE'.<br /><br />2. <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206" rel="nofollow">The ONS shows very clearly here</a> the recapitalisation of the banks was a one-off expense (the deficit, represented by the gradient of the curve, this year is the same whether or not you incclude the financial interventions) - to suggest that this year's deficit is due to an expense incurred two years ago is wholly disingenuous. THIS YEAR'S STRUCTURAL DEFICIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BAILING OUT THE BANKS. (Indeed the appreciation in value of the public stake in the banks and the dividends received will actually serve to REDUCE the national debt and budget deficit respectively).<br /><br />3. The banking crisis itself and the subsequent credit crunch and massive recession it caused could have been avoided by properly regulating the banks. Brown was too obsessed with the tax they paid to care how their 'profits' were earned. THE BANKING CRISIS WAS THE INEVITABLE OUTCOME OF A DECADE OF RECKLESS REGULATORY NEGLIGENCE - A SERIOUS DERELICTION OF RESPONSIBILITY - ON THE PART OF GORDON BROWN<br /><br />4. 'Investment' in jobs is a complete misnomer. YOU CANNOT INVEST IN AN OVERHEAD. PERIOD. Investments come straight back onto the balance sheet. Wages are simply lost. To term the 'creation' of jobs out of thin air by spending tax revenues on wages (often paid to economic migrants creating new load on pubic services) an 'investment' is an economic deceit. THE ONLY CLUE THAT THIS SO-CALLED 'INVESTMENT' WAS EVER MADE IS THE DEBT THAT IT CREATED. LABOUR'S 'INVESTMENT' IS A LIE.<br /><br />5. The assertion that the Tories might have taken the same actions may or may not be correct, but is entirely irrelevant. Who took the decisions? THE DISASTROUS STATE OF THE ECONOMY FOLLOWS 13 YEARS OF BROWN'S MISMANAGEMENT IN A LABOUR GOVERNMENT.13eastiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162940753429246157noreply@blogger.com