But "financially speaking it turned out fine". This is a wind up, right? Labour inherited a UK economy in the best shape it had been in for a very long time - probably since before the 1WW. They left an economy in the worst shape it has been in peace time ever,
One of the reasons labour came to power was because people were tired of the conservatives policies and wanted public spending to increase. Brown took a fiscal position on the optimistic side, but he was not alone in this, the conservatives agreed with him. They would probably have altered the emphasis had they been elected 5 years ago, but it would have been pretty much 'steady as she goes'. Perhaps modest reduction in state spending, but in reality I would expect a halt to increases, not any reduction.
True there have been problems elsewhere, but most countries have done far, far better.
You know as well as I do that the world financial collapse started in the US where US banks made ridiculously bad loans and then sold them to every other bank in the world. This had not the tiniest thing to do with the labour government. This affected the UK especially badly because we have a very large financial sector, which was now broke. So not only did trade generally collapse, but the financial institutions needed bailing out in a big way and stopped contributing taxes. Are you suggesting the conservatives would have disinvested the UK from finance had they been in power? i dont think so. Nor would they have made any changes to bank regulation. No one in the world saw a reason to do that at the time. In the UK we additionally have a house price time bomb with an additional hair trigger fuse. Everyone is scared to death of nudging it and setting it off now, though it remains ticking for the future.
I also think there would have been changes to the ways banks were regulated
Why? What? You really reckon the conservatives would have been harsher to the city than labour? For no reason?
Much of the story around the ratings agencies and the election result is in the public domain if you hunt for it. All three postponed rating the UK until after the election result, and as it happened hung on until the coalition talks yielded a result.
Yes of course they hung on while talks were in progress. A conservative minority government would have been a nightmare. A labour majority, or indeed a con majority, or frankly any stable combination would have been enough to keep them happy. That and a bit oof mood music, and whoever won would have been doing exactly as the alliance is doing, going full reverse on their manifesto as fast as they could. The alliance at least has the fig leaf that between them they can ditch each others least helpfull policies. Even the spats from back benchers are probably good PR in this regard, because the parties can thereby demonstrate they are still true to their roots. Isnt coalition useful?
All three had indicated that a hung parliament would cause a down grade. We pulled off a good result by a miracle.
No, we didnt. If you want to put it like that, I would say we pulled it off by the good sense of the british public, despite the electoral system. The only three real possibilitie were lab win, con win, lib coalition with largest. We got one of the obvious choices. To be honsest, at this point I think we got the best possible outcome, but the others would have sufficed to keep the country going. So far I have been quite impressed with the con people, who of course we had no measure of before. Long way to go yet, though. The alliance is relying heavily on economic recovery to balance its books, which is exactly the crime you accuse Brown of.
I know after the event the world and his wife reckon a Lib-Con coalition was on the cards but this isn't my reading of events before the coalition was formed - and in my view the coalition is something of a miracle.
I think a left-right coalition makes more sense in a time of crisis than a left-left one. (though the libs are quite a mixed bag and not necesssarily categorisable like this). Ive posted it before, portillo broached this possibility on the TV maybe 1 month before the election, and he was talking about what the cons ought to do when they didnt have a majority 1 year ago. Given his pro allience statements immediately after the result, I think he was then going as far as he dared to give the idea some street cred. I did not find it astonishing that cons and libs should start to negotiate. The cons and libs both represent a certain traditional approach to british government, the tory squires, but also the slightly eccentric independntly minded people who end up as liberals.
What would they have done if Labour had won a working majority? Downgraded. Clegg and his team had the sense to see what the reality was, and the decency to do the right thing for Britain.
Brown would have continued business as usual, just as for the last 2 years managing the crisis. Sudden change of tone saying it was now time to tackle the deficit. Although labour might win outright if there was an election tomorrow, at the time I didnt think it likely they would get a working majority, nor the conservatives. Which is precisely why the markets were in a flap.
I think its wrong to say Clegg's position was surprising. He gave clear signals he would negotiate with whoever came first, and since everyone expected him to negotiate with labour, this was a very big hint he considered the conservatives a real possible partner. The surprising thing was Camerons willingness to form a coalition. From what the libs said, the conservatives were very serious to make this work and willing to make deep compromises. Brown would have done so, but it seems clear parts of the labour party were not willing to negotiate with the libs given the result we got. With good will it just might have been pulled off, but the will was not there. Probably even if lab and con had been in reversed positions, the libs would have had difficulties negotiating with labour. Brown would have agreed, but labour already had an imminent leadership crisis and this would still have been simmering. So we might then have ended up with a rainbow con-lib-others government. The current arrangement is preferable for better ability to make tough decisions than such a disparate coalition, and more stable with a modest majority.
I'm impressed - they have performed better than I would have expected.
If the libs hadnt been willing to negotiate a coalition they should have been shot. It will be difficult to have a good result from this at the next election, but to refuse to take part in government in such a situation would have been practically a denial of their position as a political party. The conservatives could easily have refused to deal on principle, and again Cameron has been brave. But a lot less brave than Clegg. Cameron had some bad options facing him personally if he failed as leader to create a stable government. The libs bring him many pluses which strengthen his position as conservative leader. Both parties have issues with wing men with their own ideas, and they need to keep the agreement on track so neither side can complain of being railroaded. Camerons biggest problem may be to resist pressure to squash the libs, though I think he has worked hard to set this up as a proper partnership, as a majority but not controlling shareholder.
This budget contains lots and lots of pain.
Does it do more than roll back to the position as of the previous election?
