baldysblog.co.uk

Irwin Stelzer the American Economist is still a “devoted follower” of Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer although not one suspects from his tone, as Prime Minister.

I would also question his judgement over his assertion in today’s Daily Telegraph that David Miliband is a viable alternative Leader of the Labour Party because I don’t think he is or ever likely to be so. A writer I have little time for is Simon Heffer but I understand that he once likened Miliband to Michael Portillo which is a very accurate comparison indeed.

However Stelzer’s article did prompt me to think about “morality in politics”.

Most of the below started as a mailed in comment to the DT so, I will use it as the starting rather than the end point to expand a couple of thoughts:

Part One from DT Comment

“His autumn fight-back will include one last throw of the dice in an effort to revive the credit and housing markets by having the Government intervene in the housing market – and might just succeed in keeping the inflation chickens from coming home to roost until after a general election.”

I am no great fan of this author who has spent far too much time snuggling up to Labour to retain any objectivity however, and perhaps by accident, the above quote sums up exactly what is wrong with Brown and Labour.

The objective is simply their personal and the Labour Party’s survival and the UK and its citizens can go hang themselves for all they care. Politicians of all kinds should adopt the simple rule of “hands off” and don’t interfere or meddle with things outside of their control. This shower of s**t should have learned the lesson from Northern Rock where all they have done is saddle the current and future taxpayer with a very large debt.”

Further Thoughts on the Above…

Hope springs eternal in the human breast so however hopeless any situation is, whether by prayer of human sacrifice, we always ‘hope’ that calamity will be avoided. But in the case of Gordon Brown and all Labour MPs what is the feared “calamity” in question ?

New Labour

New Labour came about because “Old Labour” was unelectable due to both the economic circumstances and the aspirations of the majority of the electorate having moved on from the 1970′s when they were last in power. So the current Labour Party is less a Socialist one than a Centre/Left Democratic one and as I have always joked because of Blair and Brown, more Laurel & Hardy than Keir Hardy.

The point that I’m trying to point out here is that they have no overriding concept or idea to hold them together in some “evangelical crusade” as say the Jarrow Marchers did in their day. They may sing the Red Flag at Party Conferences but with most Labour MPs coming from quite privileged backgrounds of private education and the professional classes, this is no longer a “working class” movement, “Champagne Socialists” perhaps but workers not at all.

So What Calamity ?

If they were all true dyed in the wool Communists and Socialists, one could understand them wishing to hold on to power to sustain the “revolution” and so forth but there is nothing of that sort to bind them together, there is no “unfinished work” to be done. Having made a complete Horlicks of the UK Economy and with the social division between the “Have and Have Not” in society widened considerably since 1997 plus considerable evidence of the probability of there being a “broken society”, what case have they for staying on, they have had their chance and failed ?

True the Labour Party is likely to be decimated and possibly have fewer MPs than the LibDems but that would be the same whenever the election is called. Indeed if there is worse economic news to come and inflation really takes off, there is an argument that says it would be better for Labour to cut and run now and let the Tories cop the flack whilst they regroup and rebuild.

Behind it all though and because of the very low public esteem Parliament has fallen into, there is the suspicion that they are just clinging on to their jobs to maximise their salaries, allowances, expenses and future pension benefits.

Part Two from DT Comment

“There may be very rare occasions when governments might consider a minor ‘intervention’ concerning “market forces” but mainly they should concentrate on ameliorating consequences via tax and benefit changes, where appropriate and let the market settle itself as it always will. Of course it is painful, there are serious consequences, people will lose their jobs and even their homes but it is beyond the scope of Governments even in the former Soviet Union to do anything useful.

If it is we, if it is “these generation(s) of adults” who have over borrowed and over spent just as this Government has, then let the pain be felt here and now. It is morally wrong to pass huge debts on to future generations who had no say in the creation of those liabilities and equally repugnant that this Labour Government through its profligacy, should cripple a future Government of whatever political hue with further liabilities conjured up for their short term benefit rather than the Nation’s well-being.”

Further Thoughts on the Above…

As it is not my area of expertise, I will not attempt a detailed analysis of this Governments track record whilst in Office, suffice it to say as we all now know, Brown “talked a good talk” about himself and his fiscal measures but the reality is today’s position which is not good. I would accept that the “external pressure” on commodity prices and so on, are outside the control of any government but… It is also true that Brown made absolutely no provision or reserve as any prudent Chancellor most surely would have done so we have “The Chancellor’s Magic Suit of Clothes”.

Today the Country is mired in debt through Government borrowings which are the direct result of not “Commodity prices” but previous Government profligacy plus the antagonism between Blair and Brown. At a time when they should be stimulating the economy with tax cuts, there is absolutely no “wriggle room” left for the Treasury.

Is there a Moral Imperative in Public Life ?

Whichever political party delivered this ‘story’, it would be a disgrace and a party no honourable man or woman would wish to belong to. Perhaps because of living in a celebrity/media frenzied society, we have allowed ourselves to accept a far lower standard of behaviour from our elected representatives than we should. What people do in private is frankly their own business but, if and when that impinges upon their performance in Office as it did with Blair and Brown, it becomes ours.

Against such a historical and economic background, how can a Brown Government introduce “measures” to help people and the UK economy ? We all now know that reversing the 10p Tax Band fiasco for some, but not all, resulted in an increase in Government borrowings of £2.8 Billion.

The key point here surely must be whether in order to save the skin of an incompetent Government and the Labour Party which has only 19 months left before it is destroyed anyway, is it morally right for them to increase borrowings and impose them on future generations of taxpayers who today are still at school ?

An Immediate General Election

If there were an Autumn General Election that returned a Conservative Government, could they change the current economic situation ?

The answer of course is NO however, because they wouldn’t be defending past mistakes as Labour have to and providing they kept a very open and ongoing dialogue with the electorate, they could introduce the measures and changes required plus give the feeling of a fresh start and possibly, a better tomorrow.

Labour is finished not just a lame duck, it is dead in the water. Give it 10-12 years, look at this article again and pretty much something similar could be written about the Conservative Government then… quite a thought.