Remember 2010?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Remember the Tories telling us that Govt borrowing was going to be the ruin of the country?

Remember every news program banging on and on and on about the deficit and how dangerous it was?

The Treasury just announced that last month, it borrowed more to balance the books than in any February in history. That's following a year when Govt borrowing has been more than twice as big as it was in 08/09 under Labour.

Outrage in the news?
Opposition screaming that it is the end of the world?

Nope.

See, in both cases the Govt has done the right thing. Classic economics to support jobs and businesses through the bad times. But in only one of those two occasions did we have an utterly mendacious Opposition who played the economics to their advantage by lying to the public, helped out by the media repeating their lies.

[drfchound]

Mendacious seems to be your word of the month BST.
It has popped up in a few of your recent posts.

[BillyStubbsTears]

For someone who claims not to have enough time or interest to read up about subjects, you seem to put an inordinate amount of time into analysing me Hound. I'm sure there's some point to it. 

[belton rover]

Mendacious is as mendacious does.

[drfchound]

For someone who claims not to have enough time or interest to read up about subjects, you seem to put an inordinate amount of time into analysing me Hound. I'm sure there's some point to it.

No bst, it just stands out a mile that you are using a new word on a regular basis.

[Nudga]

Exponentially mendacious.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Funny, that Hound.

The Search function in here says I've used it twice this week and before that only once in the past 6 months.

Not that it matters of course. The word has been entirely appropriate each time.

[Campsall rover]

Remember the Tories telling us that Govt borrowing was going to be the ruin of the country?

Remember every news program banging on and on and on about the deficit and how dangerous it was?

The Treasury just announced that last month, it borrowed more to balance the books than in any February in history. That's following a year when Govt borrowing has been more than twice as big as it was in 08/09 under Labour.

Outrage in the news?
Opposition screaming that it is the end of the world?

Nope.

See, in both cases the Govt has done the right thing. Classic economics to support jobs and businesses through the bad times. But in only one of those two occasions did we have an utterly mendacious Opposition who played the economics to their advantage by lying to the public, helped out by the media repeating their lies.

Do you think this government would have borrowed this amount of money if they hadn’t needed to.
The government had no choice. Unemployment would have been probably over 20%
Tens of Thousands of business’s would have folded.

Borrowing billions was the only option the government had.
It’s not good economics to borrow around 100% of GDP which I think they have had to do.

We are going to be paying for this borrowing for decades i suspect. Yes interest rates are extremely low and the country may be able to pay the bill at present but what happens when rates go up. How do we service this massive debt then.

[belton rover]

I agree with that, Campsall. Unfortunately, the virus is being used by some, quite shamefully, as the ultimate weapon to use against this government as and when it suits. When it doesn’t suit, the virus makes not one jot of difference.

[drfchound]

Belton, I feel sure that one particular poster on here last year said that the government was doing the right thing with borrowing and that we would pay back over the coming years, much the same as had happened after WW2.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Campsall.

Do you think the Labour Govt in 2008-10 would have borrowed as much money as it did if the world economy hadn't fallen into the worst hole since the Great Depression?

That is the point. I'm not criticising current Govt debt. It is inevitable in these circumstances and absolutely correct for the Govt to borrow to support the economy. The point is, that argument equally applied in 2008-10, but people on the Right vitriolicly criticised the Govt for borrowing.

I'm criticising the double standards, not the debt.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Odd but depressingly predictable that certain people in here decide how they are going to respond without actually reading the post they are responding to.

[belton rover]

Billy.
Governments spend money. Shadow governments complain and moan about it. That’s how it works.
What is happening now is incomparable to 2010 or any other period since the war. If Labour are not moaning about it, then credit to them, on this occasion, for not using the current situation for political point scoring. It’s a shame some of their party members can’t do the same.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.
If you read my post and understood what I said, you'll see that I did not (in fact I never have) criticise the Govt for its borrowing and deficit spending to underpin the economy.

It is the textbook economic response when an unexpected shock knocks the floor out of the economy.

What happened in 2008-10 was in principle, in terms of macroeconomic effect, identical to the current economic crisis. An unforseen shock that knocked the legs out from under the economy.

Labour's response then was textbook in principle, as is this Govt's this time. The difference is, as I said clearly in my OP, the response of the Opposition and the media in the two cases.

In particular, argument on the Right in 2010, amplified and repeated by the media was that running the highest deficits in peacetime was in and of itself a bad thing, regardless of context. But no-one is now commenting at all about deficits twice as big. So presumably the argument has now been accepted on the Right that deficits are inevitable and needed in crises, and that they were fundamentally wrong in their criticisms then. (On that, there is absolutely no argument in economic circles.)

If you have any sensible comments on that, feel free to contribute. But give the personal attacks a miss if you don't mind. They are unpleasant and add nothing substantive.

[drfchound]

Odd but depressingly predictable that certain people in here decide how they are going to respond without actually reading the post they are responding to.

I reckon you are referring to me BST with the above post.
However I was responding to Belton, not to your post.
If you care to read my post again you might see that it was supporting what you had written in your OP.

However I will say that what Belton wrote is depressingly true in lots of cases on this forum.

[belton rover]

People in glass houses, Billy.

And writing more words doesn’t change anything about what you originally said, or my response. It just makes you look foolish.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.
Here's what I don't understand about you.

Your response actually substantively agrees with the point I make. You say Oppositions criticise Govt spending but accept that Labour isn't doing this time.

That was precisely my point. That Cameron shamelessly bullshitted about "maxing out the nation's credit card" in response to the worst economic shock since the Great Depression, while there has been no criticism whatsoever of Govt deficits from Labour this time.

We agree on the issue of substantive fact. But because you are obsessed with the idea that I seek party political advantage at every turn, you complain about the fact that I have made an observation you agree with.

It's a truly strange way to debate anything.

Hound. You may have been replying to Belton but you were clearly referring to what I have said on multiple occasions. What I don't understand is why you felt the need to say that, if you'd actually read what I posted.

[belton rover]

And Billy, please point out where I have made an unpleasant and personal attack on you? It’s quite an accusation to make, especially when I genuinely can’t see why any of my comments on this could be even mistaken for unpleasant and personal attacks.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.
Your first two responses were both, however dressed up, clearly attacks on me for raising the issue (behaving "shamefully" as you put it).

As I say, you actually agree with the substantive point, but decide to play the man instead.

[belton rover]

Billy. I’m not trying to disagree with you about Labour’s respectful acceptance of the government’s spending during the crisis. Labour aren’t saying ‘we are not going to moan about your spending even though you moaned about our spending’ They appear to realise that this current crisis is incomparable to 2010 or any other time since the war.
You, however, don’t think that.

It seems Labour disagrees with you, too.

[normal rules]

To respond to the OP, you have to look a few years before 2010 to commentate properly on the Labour govt approach to debt management.
At the start of 2007, there were few economists expressing concern at government debt running at 36% of GDP. By post-war standards, UK government debt was very low and the government appeared to be meeting its own reasonable fiscal targets.

Given the period of strong economic growth, it is unsurprising that Labour wished to increase spending on health care and education. If the financial crisis hadn’t materialised, we may have looked back on the great moderation with kinder eyes.
However, a critic would point out that we did have a financial crisis and running a budget deficit during an unsustainable economic boom was irresponsible. In retrospect, Labour would have been better reducing the public sector debt further. This would have given the government even more room for manoeuvre during the crisis of 2008-12.

And as far as lying goes, isn’t that part of the job spec in govt? We cannot single out one moment in history when politicians were mendacious (or not) with each other.

[belton rover]

Belton.
Your first two responses were both, however dressed up, clearly attacks on me for raising the issue (behaving "shamefully" as you put it).

As I say, you actually agree with the substantive point, but decide to play the man instead.

I’ve done no such thing. If you think ‘used by some’ is a clear attack on you, then I politely suggest you try not to read the poster instead of the words. Is that the same as playing the man? I think it is.

However, if the cap fits. Only you know the size of your head.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh I do apologise Belton. When you repeated an attack you've made in me several times before in response to a thread I'd started, I automatically assumed it was aimed at me. If you're saying that I was wrong to draw that conclusion, and that you accept my OP in the spirit in which it was intended, I'm happy to admit my mistake. Maybe you could assist me in future by being a bit clearer who your criticisms are aimed at?

[belton rover]

Some people: people (plural) who fit into the category of which the writer is referring to.

Remember this Billy, because I can’t guarantee that if I ever write about ‘some people’ again, that I’ll mention them all by name.

But here’s a thing. When I mean just you, I’ll write ‘Billy’, so you’ll know. You know, like I always do.

Apology accepted, BTW.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Lovely Belton. Happy that you accept that I was posting on the general principle of honesty in politics, and not using the current crisis shamefully to score political points.

While we are on that subject, you did previously admonish me, directly, by name, for "using (Johnson's) concern and sorrow at the loss of life on his watch for political point scoring" when he looked at the camera and lied about the Govt having "truly done everything it could...to minimise loss of life". You said it was a "new low" for me.

I assume you think that the ex-Chief Scientific Adviser to the Govt is equally guilty of hitting a new low by using Johnson's sorrow to score points, because he seems to have the same take as I did.
https://twitter.com/Sir_David_King/status/1372983521531326469

[belton rover]

I don’t know. Did he say it the same time as you? Did I say ‘some people’?
If yes to both, then yes.

Have you managed to clutch those straws yet? Apologies if you find that to be another unpleasant attack.

[BillyStubbsTears]

To respond to the OP, you have to look a few years before 2010 to commentate properly on the Labour govt approach to debt management.
At the start of 2007, there were few economists expressing concern at government debt running at 36% of GDP. By post-war standards, UK government debt was very low and the government appeared to be meeting its own reasonable fiscal targets.

Given the period of strong economic growth, it is unsurprising that Labour wished to increase spending on health care and education. If the financial crisis hadn’t materialised, we may have looked back on the great moderation with kinder eyes.
However, a critic would point out that we did have a financial crisis and running a budget deficit during an unsustainable economic boom was irresponsible. In retrospect, Labour would have been better reducing the public sector debt further. This would have given the government even more room for manoeuvre during the crisis of 2008-12.

And as far as lying goes, isn’t that part of the job spec in govt? We cannot single out one moment in history when politicians were mendacious (or not) with each other.

NR. There are genuine discussions that can be had on Labour's fiscal policy before 2008. My own take is that running small deficits to fund public services was a necessary counterbalance to the drastic cuts in public spending that had taken place over the previous two decades. Other people can honestly disagree with that and there are genuine differences of opinion among economists.

But those deficits pale into (almost) insignificance at the side of the hit to the national finances that we had in the (global) Great Recession. Even if debt to GDP had been kept to, say, 30% or even 25% of GDP by 2008 (and that could have only been achieved by accepting the dreadful state of schools, hospitals and railways that we had by the late 90s as facts of life) we would still have required (then) record peacetime deficits to survive the biggest economic shock in 80 years.

The point of my OP was that Cameron unquestionably knew that. He had secured a first class degree in Politics Philosophy & Economics at Oxford, where his tutor, the renown Professor Vernon Bogdanor called him one of the most brilliant students he had ever taught. But that didn't stop him playing the deficit for political ends, and playing the public for ignorant fools by his "maxing out the country's credit card" rubbish. The point is that Governments not only CAN but in practice MUST borrow heavily when big economic shocks occur. A particular politician may or may not choose to deliberately mislead the public on that issue for political gain. That's fair enough. But we have a responsibility to note those who do and those who don't.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton

Let me spell it out.

I criticised Johnson telling the public in saying the Govt had "truly done all it could to minimise loss of life." There is no possible way to justify his statement. There was plenty more he could have done and chose not to. You may or may not agree with him for doing that. You may say that he had to balance other issues. But to say what he said, in particular on the day that we passed 100,000 deaths was an insult to the country.

He was misleading the country when he said that, and to point that out on the day, two months later or twenty years later doesn't alter the fact that it was a lie. I called that out at the time and you berated me for doing so. The ex-CSA has called him out on it today and you come up with a frankly pathetic response. If you think I was wrong to criticise Johnson for what he said, at least have the courage of your convictions and say that you think the ex-CSA is wrong.

[belton rover]

I didn’t bring the ex whatever he is into this Billy. I thought what you did was shameful. I wasn’t talking about anyone else because no one else said it at the time. Not that I saw.
I suppose if he said exactly what you said, in the same context, then yes I think he’s wrong too.

I don’t really get where you are wanting to go with this.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm making the point that I formed an honest judgement that Johnson was insulting the country in what he said. I wasn't making a political point, I was giving my opinion as a human being. You chose to express your opinion on my take, although you never addressed the substantive point I was making, which was that Johnson lied when he said what he said.

Where I am going with this is pointing out that my opinion on Johnson's comments are shared by the man who used to have the responsibility of independently informing the Govt of scientific policy issues. I'm simply wanting to clarify if you  think that he is wrong to believe that Johnson was insulting the families of the bereaved. It'll be a useful reference next time you complain of criticisms of the Govt.

You don't need to "suppose" anything about what the ex-CSA said by the way. Read the text. A colleague of his on Independent SAGE said that the precise phrase I took offence at was "an insult to the bereaved" and went on to list numerous examples of where Johnson's Govt had clearly not "truly done all they could". Which was precisely my complaint. The ex-CSA re-tweeted that saying it "hit the nail on the head". No ambiguity. No need to dissemble. You either agree with him and with me, or you don't.