http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ficit.html


Wrong, The deficit was a consequence of the collapse of the economy. Labour lost the election partly because of the expenses scandal, but the lack of direction was a problem. Gordon was too busy "saving the world". Labour overspent in many areas, and really should have been in surplus in the years preceding 2007, which would have given the government much more leeway.

I think it was more simple than that - people just didn't like GB.

If they'd got that younger whipper snapper bloke who Clinton fancies in to do the job they might have won with the same policies I reckon. They'd have certainly stood a better chance.

Gordon could have won the election if he went to the polls in 2008. He did become a liability. Though who credible could have followed him. They left the leadership issue too long and David Milliband is way too slimey for many. Ed I quite like but I doubt that he has much chance.

I can think of a laundry list of reasons they lost the election, the deficit was just a part of it.

I think they lost power because an awful lot of people think they caused the deficit. From one end with people who thought their policies led to the situation that allowed it and at the other end by people who thought they should allow proper market principles to apply and let the banks that overstretched themselves die on their arse. In the end giving the banks a large chunk of the country's GDP to bail themselves out with pleased almost nobody, apart from The City.

Jon

They did. All those years of borrowing, even when the economy was very strong.

I think the Labour Party lost the election on purpose. If Brown was a liability, he was nothing compared to the election team who seemed to be keen to present the party is as bad a light as possible. Brown made an excellent patsy.

Remember the Labour Party Manifest launch in an unfinished hospital? Who decided on that screen for the background?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 615608.stm
There was also the controversy surrounding using NHS property for party political means - something which had be explained in as much detail as the manifesto.

We certainly can’t forget the “bigot” scandal - Brown’s team didn’t have their own radio mikes (Blair did, and his team switched them off). They borrowed Sky’s kit.

There were a lot of rather odd decisions made which went beyond Brown’s influence. I am firmly of the mind that Labour took a dive on this election. They knew the next 5 years were going to be tough, and clearly preferred letting another lot take the blame for the belt tightening. They lost it on purpose.

The vast majority of the deficit is a consequence of the collapse of tax revenues, and some increase in unemployment benefits. Without the collapse the deficit would be minimal. So really the problem is because of the banks. Though the government failed to regulate the banks in such a way so that they did not take such stupid risks. Or implode at the slightest problem. Though I can not see this government doing anything that will make the banks safer. The banks are still too big to fail, they have been flooded with liquidity, yet there are no borrowers in a good enough position to be worth lending to. For now it is a matter of trying to get things back to the old normal. High debts and high property prices, and hoping it all goes well. Commentators may mention a japanese style recession where the economy slides along with no growth for years, all while peoples house prices fall year on year. Long tern interest rate policy is damaging the economy because there are no incentives to save and the banks have been allowed to increase their margins which they will be reluctant to give up once the recession is over.

+1, a lot of people were sick of being nannied too.

It's amazing Labour held power as long as they did - for one thing, I've often wondered what the UK economy would be like without the war spending (not to mention Trident), but then the MOD shopping team is a disgrace anyway, so...

The MOD buying has been appalling. That is an admin problem not a policy problem. The civil servants need to be shaken up.

It was certainly a policy problem then to my mind - if nothing else, the soldiers we'd spent a small fortune training were sent into enemy hell-holes with inadequate and/or inappropriate equipment and vehicles. The government knew it and denied/ignored it until the Tories and the press effectively forced them to act

Yes but the actual buying is down to civil servants. If they have a problem they should bring it to the attention of the minister. Then it becomes a policy of do we provide enough funds so that procurement can actually do their job properly. The decision to not buy kit before the war meant that they had committed themselves to pay higher prices after they said we are off to war. They should have had stocks of equipment for all sorts of occasions, so at least the troops can get accustomed to the kit and determine if it is actually worth buying.

Yeah, but it was obvious the government was holding out while our soldiers were dying every other day. Whether it was stated or not, that became policy, irrespective of what was in the kitty and the cupboard.

Yes and I think that under such circumstances the politicians should be held accountable for the human losses that we suffer. It was not as if we were in a major nation threatening war like WWII so there is no reason to scrimp on equipment. If there is no funding available then they need to reassess whether they can actually get involved in a war.