[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Machiavelli]

You must clearly have amnesia, labour left a note in the treasury draw advising there is no more money when they last left office, having trashed the economy

Rather than invoke a note as a piece of evidence, how about drawing on something of substance about comparing 13 years of New Labour versus 13 (soon to be 14) years of Tory administrations? You could try:
-- public finances, ie debt to GDP
-- growth rates
-- levels of child poverty
-- levels of inequality
-- spending on education and the NHS
Or other stuff. If you do this, you might find that others don't have amnesia.

 

[peterward]

Rather than invoke a note as a piece of evidence, how about drawing on something of substance about comparing 13 years of New Labour versus 13 (soon to be 14) years of Tory administrations? You could try:
-- public finances, ie debt to GDP
-- growth rates
-- levels of child poverty
-- levels of inequality
-- spending on education and the NHS
Or other stuff. If you do this, you might find that others don't have amnesia.

But you can't just do that without the fiscal backdrop.

Both Labour exiting in 2010 and the Tories exiting in 2024 have left the economy in a bad place saddled with debt and deficit.

And this is not a pro Tory or anti Labour observation, but it's true, that Blair inherited pretty sound public finances from Major in 97 ("the goose that laid a golden egg" was written) and Cameron/Clegg inherited a virtually bankrupt mess.

Years of the past Tory/Lib Dem - Tory tenure have been against a backdrop of austerity/ cutbacks, brexit, covid and yes they've been crap and are ideologically opposed to proper spending anyway.

But similarly much of the additional and welcome public service funding during Blair years came off of an inherited economy that was reasonable, increasing/spiralling personal debt mountain and riding the crest of an increasing equity wave, that when it inevitably crashed "no more boom and bust"! So did the economy.

Brown wasn't some svengali economist, he inherited something 100x better than Osbourne did.

Maybe it's lucky that a Labour government ideologically in favour of better public services inherited something ok and were lucky with fiscal timing (albeit an increasing personal debt mountain) to enable increases in public spending.

We all know that if Osbourne came in 1997 he wouldn't have spent on public services as much as Labour did, but conversely if Brown had come in 2010 he wouldn't have had much fiscally responsible ability too either.


The beginning of those 2 governments, the fiscal hands they were dealt and their timing/luck are not like for like.

I hope Starmer can get to a position of well funded public services and sound fiscal policy (just increased taxation is a double edged sword). If he does he can be there for over a decade.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Even GB News is acknowledging the gap in the polls.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But you can't just do that without the fiscal backdrop.

Both Labour exiting in 2010 and the Tories exiting in 2024 have left the economy in a bad place saddled with debt and deficit.

And this is not a pro Tory or anti Labour observation, but it's true, that Blair inherited pretty sound public finances from Major in 97 ("the goose that laid a golden egg" was written) and Cameron/Clegg inherited a virtually bankrupt mess.

Years of the past Tory/Lib Dem - Tory tenure have been against a backdrop of austerity/ cutbacks, brexit, covid and yes they've been crap and are ideologically opposed to proper spending anyway.

But similarly much of the additional and welcome public service funding during Blair years came off of an inherited economy that was reasonable, increasing/spiralling personal debt mountain and riding the crest of an increasing equity wave, that when it inevitably crashed "no more boom and bust"! So did the economy.

Brown wasn't some svengali economist, he inherited something 100x better than Osbourne did.

Maybe it's lucky that a Labour government ideologically in favour of better public services inherited something ok and were lucky with fiscal timing (albeit an increasing personal debt mountain) to enable increases in public spending.

We all know that if Osbourne came in 1997 he wouldn't have spent on public services as much as Labour did, but conversely if Brown had come in 2010 he wouldn't have had much fiscally responsible ability too either.


The beginning of those 2 governments, the fiscal hands they were dealt and their timing/luck are not like for like.

I hope Starmer can get to a position of well funded public services and sound fiscal policy (just increased taxation is a double edged sword). If he does he can be there for over a decade.

The Lehman brothers caused the financial crisis in 2008, and Gordon Brown along with Mervyn King, took Lloyds, TSB and TBS into public ownership.

Before the markets opened on Monday, it was announced that the Government was taking stakes in HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS in return for a £37 billion injection of capital while Barclays would be recapitalising from private sources. The state was now the majority shareholder of RBS and would own 40% of the new bank created by merging HBOS and Lloyds. Britain's banks opened their doors that morning. The cash machines still worked. As far as most people knew, it was business as usual.
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis: "Gordon was prepared to say: 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead and then allowed Alistair to do it."

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

The Prime Minister's leadership qualities were to the fore on the weekend in October 2008 when financial calamity was so close

www.theguardian.com

 

[Is it PotG?]

The Lehman brothers caused the financial crisis in 2008, and Gordon Brown along with Mervyn King, took Lloyds, TSB and TBS into public ownership.

Before the markets opened on Monday, it was announced that the Government was taking stakes in HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS in return for a £37 billion injection of capital while Barclays would be recapitalising from private sources. The state was now the majority shareholder of RBS and would own 40% of the new bank created by merging HBOS and Lloyds. Britain's banks opened their doors that morning. The cash machines still worked. As far as most people knew, it was business as usual.
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis: "Gordon was prepared to say: 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead and then allowed Alistair to do it."

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

The Prime Minister's leadership qualities were to the fore on the weekend in October 2008 when financial calamity was so close

www.theguardian.com

 

[peterward]

The Lehman brothers caused the financial crisis in 2008, and Gordon Brown along with Mervyn King, took Lloyds, TSB and TBS into public ownership.

Before the markets opened on Monday, it was announced that the Government was taking stakes in HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS in return for a £37 billion injection of capital while Barclays would be recapitalising from private sources. The state was now the majority shareholder of RBS and would own 40% of the new bank created by merging HBOS and Lloyds. Britain's banks opened their doors that morning. The cash machines still worked. As far as most people knew, it was business as usual.
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis: "Gordon was prepared to say: 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead and then allowed Alistair to do it."

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

The Prime Minister's leadership qualities were to the fore on the weekend in October 2008 when financial calamity was so close

www.theguardian.com

Without wanting to derail the thread about Starmer, a none tribal Labour supporter without red tinted glasses, would see things a bit more objectively.

Yes the Lehman brothers / sub prime mortgage market was the catalyst for the global crunch, and Brown as with most Politicians isn't all good or all bad, some of those measures with UK banks were timely and fair play to him, well done for that. He alone is also the reason we still have the pound and fiscal independence to set our own interest rates from the ECB which has been crucial on a few occassions since Blair tried to bounce us into the Euro. Well done GB.

But those successes don't make him a good chancellor, he famously not only sold off part of the UK gold reserves but made the amateur mistake of announcing to the market exactly when he would sell it, even the Guardian had an article estimating that bungled transaction cost £4.7B

And in the years we were riding an increasing personal debt wave (and not Brown genius golden rules as he loved to claim), he did nothing to fix the roof while the sun shines or prepare for any type of burst bubbles or downturns, thus we fell hard and fast. Our perceived success built on debt. "No more boom and bust" required active measures of preparation during the debt based artificial growth period, there was none, it was all hot air.

fwiw I actually quite like the man, was excellent in heading of the SNP in the indyref

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Without wanting to derail the thread about Starmer, a none tribal Labour supporter without red tinted glasses, would see things a bit more objectively.

Yes the Lehman brothers / sub prime mortgage market was the catalyst for the global crunch, and Brown as with most Politicians isn't all good or all bad, some of those measures with UK banks were timely and fair play to him, well done for that. He alone is also the reason we still have the pound and fiscal independence to set our own interest rates from the ECB which has been crucial on a few occassions since Blair tried to bounce us into the Euro. Well done GB.

But those successes don't make him a good chancellor, he famously not only sold off part of the UK gold reserves but made the amateur mistake of announcing to the market exactly when he would sell if, even the Guardian had an article estimating that bungled transaction cost £4.7B

And in the years we were riding an increasing personal debt wave (and not Brown genius golden rules as he loved to claim), he did nothing to fix the roof while the sun shines or prepare for any type of burst bubbles or downturns, thus we fell hard and fast. Our perceived success built on debt. "No more boom and bust" required active measures of preparation during the debt based artificial growth period, there was none, it was all hot air.

I am not a Labour supporter, if you think that is the reason I posted that. I was referring to one incident where the G7 listened to what he had to say, and Darling acted on it.

 

[peterward]

Even GB News is acknowledging the gap in the polls.

Reform and Lib Dems level is an interesting stat.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Lehman brothers caused the financial crisis in 2008, and Gordon Brown along with Mervyn King, took Lloyds, TSB and TBS into public ownership.

Before the markets opened on Monday, it was announced that the Government was taking stakes in HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS in return for a £37 billion injection of capital while Barclays would be recapitalising from private sources. The state was now the majority shareholder of RBS and would own 40% of the new bank created by merging HBOS and Lloyds. Britain's banks opened their doors that morning. The cash machines still worked. As far as most people knew, it was business as usual.
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis: "Gordon was prepared to say: 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead and then allowed Alistair to do it."

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

The Prime Minister's leadership qualities were to the fore on the weekend in October 2008 when financial calamity was so close

www.theguardian.com

dont know why anyone wants to praise Brown, it was Darling and the Treasury that put together the bail out plan (which the article covers, despite the headline). Brown just signed off. what Brown had done as Chancellor, was leave the country with balloning spending plans from his over optimistic budgets, "end of boom and bust" hubris, which Darling was already having to cut back as revenue nose dived. we could have been in surplus going into the crisis.

history over, fortunatly Labour have an actual economist lined up as Chancellor, so looking a lot better for sensible management of things as.

 

[AK74]

Labour made some poor decisions in relation to the financial services sector and the wider economy, including, but not limited to, the following:

- encouraging and enabling 'light touch' regulation
- knighting Fred Goodwin
- selling 56% of the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of a two-decade bear market

The note proclaiming "there's no money left" was crass, and the individual who wrote it has subsequently expressed regret. For balance, I don't recall Truss or Kwarteng demonstrating a shred of humility after last year's debacle.

 

[ROSM]

Labour made some poor decisions in relation to the financial services sector and the wider economy, including, but not limited to, the following:

- encouraging and enabling 'light touch' regulation
- knighting Fred Goodwin
- selling 56% of the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of a two-decade bear market

The note proclaiming "there's no money left" was crass, and the individual who wrote it has subsequently expressed regret. For balance, I don't recall Truss or Kwarteng demonstrating a shred of humility after last year's debacle.

It is also worth stating that pre 2008, the conservatives were critical of labour for putting too much regulation in place on the city of london

 

[beorhthelm]

Labour made some poor decisions in relation to the financial services sector and the wider economy, including, but not limited to, the following:

- encouraging and enabling 'light touch' regulation
- knighting Fred Goodwin
- selling 56% of the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of a two-decade bear market

The note proclaiming "there's no money left" was crass, and the individual who wrote it has subsequently expressed regret. For balance, I don't recall Truss or Kwarteng demonstrating a shred of humility after last year's debacle.

to be fair Labour's regulation of finance sector were not directly related to the crisis. "light touch" didn't cause the problem, government nor even finance sector for most part simply didnt know about the CDO shitfest building up. it was rife across Europe, one reason RBS was able to buy ABN Amro had got into difficulty, and they brought the bad debt with them. on other hand, Brown did raid pensions for 5-6 billion every year, leaving many in deficit and having to close to new members, far larger impact than the one off gold faux pas.

 

[Machiavelli]

But you can't just do that without the fiscal backdrop.

Both Labour exiting in 2010 and the Tories exiting in 2024 have left the economy in a bad place saddled with debt and deficit.

And this is not a pro Tory or anti Labour observation, but it's true, that Blair inherited pretty sound public finances from Major in 97 ("the goose that laid a golden egg" was written) and Cameron/Clegg inherited a virtually bankrupt mess.

Years of the past Tory/Lib Dem - Tory tenure have been against a backdrop of austerity/ cutbacks, brexit, covid and yes they've been crap and are ideologically opposed to proper spending anyway.

But similarly much of the additional and welcome public service funding during Blair years came off of an inherited economy that was reasonable, increasing/spiralling personal debt mountain and riding the crest of an increasing equity wave, that when it inevitably crashed "no more boom and bust"! So did the economy.

Brown wasn't some svengali economist, he inherited something 100x better than Osbourne did.

Maybe it's lucky that a Labour government ideologically in favour of better public services inherited something ok and were lucky with fiscal timing (albeit an increasing personal debt mountain) to enable increases in public spending.

We all know that if Osbourne came in 1997 he wouldn't have spent on public services as much as Labour did, but conversely if Brown had come in 2010 he wouldn't have had much fiscally responsible ability too either.


The beginning of those 2 governments, the fiscal hands they were dealt and their timing/luck are not like for like.

I hope Starmer can get to a position of well funded public services and sound fiscal policy (just increased taxation is a double edged sword). If he does he can be there for over a decade.

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of this, and I'm glad this thread has taken an astute turn, and you've more than helped with this and other posts.
As others have said, Brown was hubristic and got his comeuppance, but responded to the GFC well in my view. This is the exact opposite of the widespread view which is that he did that badly. It was what came before, ie when he was Chancellor, and he was widely popular that was problematic. Too much indulgence of finance, which was never going to turn out well. Not enough attention to the regions (and we had to wait until 2016 to see how that played out), and too much PFI (note that Reeves and Starmer aren't advocating more of that).
All I'll say is:
1, Osborne and the Tories were wanting lighter touch regulation prior to the GFC
2, Osborne was planning tax cuts including scrapping inheritance tax when Brown became PM, so it wasn't as if they were railing in the public finances
3, austerity was Osborne's big thing. He claimed that he'd have eliminated the deficit by 2015. Not only did he not do that, debt has got considerably worse, and austerity (and, subsequently, CV19) is the primary culprit for that.
Overall, and factoring in conditions that you rightly raise, New Labour did a lot better with the economy than the past 13 years of Conservative governments have.

 

[BLOCK F]

Are you in a marginal constituency ?

I've never lived anywhere where the incumbent party has lost their seat or even come close to it.

Many of us can argue the toss who will vote for, but it won't make a damned bit of difference to the result.

Hi Clapham,
No I am not. I live in the Chichester constituency represented by Gillian Keegan.
However, given the unpopularity of the present Government, who knows what may happen come the next election, although I reckon it will probably remain blue.

 

[dazzer6666]

The Lehman brothers caused the financial crisis in 2008, and Gordon Brown along with Mervyn King, took Lloyds, TSB and TBS into public ownership.

Before the markets opened on Monday, it was announced that the Government was taking stakes in HBOS, Lloyds TSB and RBS in return for a £37 billion injection of capital while Barclays would be recapitalising from private sources. The state was now the majority shareholder of RBS and would own 40% of the new bank created by merging HBOS and Lloyds. Britain's banks opened their doors that morning. The cash machines still worked. As far as most people knew, it was business as usual.
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis: "Gordon was prepared to say: 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead and then allowed Alistair to do it."

The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

The Prime Minister's leadership qualities were to the fore on the weekend in October 2008 when financial calamity was so close

www.theguardian.com

Lehman didn’t cause the financial crisis…….they were one of a large number of contributory institutions including government and regulators. They were particularly illiquid (having gone particularly large in the MBS market) and lacked sufficient collateral to borrow enough from the Fed or to renew their repos to avert collapse when property prices plummeted and repayments faltered (and a lot of the lending was sub-prime in the first place) leading to defaults - but there were numerous other institutions very close to the same position (hence the bailouts - or ‘investment’ in banks like Lloyds by governments). Absolutely crap risk management on a colossal scale. A scary but fascinating time…..I was one of the first ‘on the ground’ at Lehman in the US after Barclays took over what was left - it was carnage.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

dont know why anyone wants to praise Brown, it was Darling and the Treasury that put together the bail out plan (which the article covers, despite the headline). Brown just signed off. what Brown had done as Chancellor, was leave the country with balloning spending plans from his over optimistic budgets, "end of boom and bust" hubris, which Darling was already having to cut back as revenue nose dived. we could have been in surplus going into the crisis.

history over, fortunatly Labour have an actual economist lined up as Chancellor, so looking a lot better for sensible management of things as.

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of this, and I'm glad this thread has taken an astute turn, and you've more than helped with this and other posts.
As others have said, Brown was hubristic and got his comeuppance, but responded to the GFC well in my view. This is the exact opposite of the widespread view which is that he did that badly. It was what came before, ie when he was Chancellor, and he was widely popular that was problematic. Too much indulgence of finance, which was never going to turn out well. Not enough attention to the regions (and we had to wait until 2016 to see how that played out), and too much PFI (note that Reeves and Starmer aren't advocating more of that).
All I'll say is:
1, Osborne and the Tories were wanting lighter touch regulation prior to the GFC
2, Osborne was planning tax cuts including scrapping inheritance tax when Brown became PM, so it wasn't as if they were railing in the public finances
3, austerity was Osborne's big thing. He claimed that he'd have eliminated the deficit by 2015. Not only did he not do that, debt has got considerably worse, and austerity (and, subsequently, CV19) is the primary culprit for that.
Overall, and factoring in conditions that you rightly raise, New Labour did a lot better with the economy than the past 13 years of Conservative governments have.

Correctio item 3. Austerity, Brexit and CV19 have tripled the national debt.

Multiple Crown estates were sold off during austerity but nobody knows where the money has gone. For instance the new prison camp in Hastings was sold off for £6million and the government has just bought it back for £15million. Who made the profit?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Actually, another X I've just found seems to have the answer.

 

[BLOCK F]

This is perhaps why @BLOCK F thinks he dislikes labour.

NOBODY on this thread has proposed banning private schools! So you are arguing against a made up argument.

I am a labour party member. I am all in favour of private schools.

But they are not charities (even if the tories have allowed them charitable status) and they should therefore pay tax.

Not really, Harry, it is the chippiness of some on here that grates. Although I was educated at a private school, I really don’t have a strong feeling about them. I always said that one of the best days of my life was the day I left school and I still maintain that view.
I don’t particularly dislike Labour, but I cannot ally myself to them, unlike some of the Labour supporters on here who really hate the Tories. As I said in my post, I do hope Labour make a success of their time in office for the good of the country, and that the Tories get a grip of themselves in Opposition and come back to their collective senses. I am always in favour of a strong Opposition regardless of which party is in power.
P.S.My sister, also privately educated, is a bit of a Lefty over many things and I am sure she wouldn’t give a monkeys if private schools disappeared. She spent her whole career teaching in the state sector and lives in Brighton. She’d probably fit in quite well on NSC.

 

[BenGarfield]

dont know why anyone wants to praise Brown, it was Darling and the Treasury that put together the bail out plan (which the article covers, despite the headline). Brown just signed off. what Brown had done as Chancellor, was leave the country with balloning spending plans from his over optimistic budgets, "end of boom and bust" hubris, which Darling was already having to cut back as revenue nose dived. we could have been in surplus going into the crisis.

history over, fortunatly Labour have an actual economist lined up as Chancellor, so looking a lot better for sensible management of things as.

Unfortunately, though, shes not a "sensible" economist.

 

[peterward]

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of this, and I'm glad this thread has taken an astute turn, and you've more than helped with this and other posts.
As others have said, Brown was hubristic and got his comeuppance, but responded to the GFC well in my view. This is the exact opposite of the widespread view which is that he did that badly. It was what came before, ie when he was Chancellor, and he was widely popular that was problematic. Too much indulgence of finance, which was never going to turn out well. Not enough attention to the regions (and we had to wait until 2016 to see how that played out), and too much PFI (note that Reeves and Starmer aren't advocating more of that).
All I'll say is:
1, Osborne and the Tories were wanting lighter touch regulation prior to the GFC
2, Osborne was planning tax cuts including scrapping inheritance tax when Brown became PM, so it wasn't as if they were railing in the public finances
3, austerity was Osborne's big thing. He claimed that he'd have eliminated the deficit by 2015. Not only did he not do that, debt has got considerably worse, and austerity (and, subsequently, CV19) is the primary culprit for that.
Overall, and factoring in conditions that you rightly raise, New Labour did a lot better with the economy than the past 13 years of Conservative governments have.

I'd agree entirely about Osbourne.

I guess he'd have preferred to inherit a better economy, but cuts to public services were always pencilled in, the economic background just made his PR sales job easier.

Inheritance tax is one of the things that grates me and I will always applaud the cutting or abolition of this one specific tax.

The left wing media brand it as "tax cut for millionaires" feeding their class warfare narrative, but really many normal families have paid a lifetime of taxes, and paid their mortgages from net incomes, theyve also paid banks millions in mortgage interest where said banks are also taxed on those profits.

The ability of a parent to pass their lifetime of work and net pay investment in paying for their homes to their kids etc, should be allowed to stay within a family and not be retaxed again imho.

Maybe tax second properties higher, but I'd support any politician letting parents leave more of their family home within their family.