Boom and Bust - the definitive explanation

At the Press Gallery Lunch earlier The Guardian’s Michael White and Ed Balls had a conversation about the claim that Labour had abolished Boom and Bust, and it led to the most, shall we say, meticulous explanation of it that I have heard. It follows here…

Michael White: Whenever Gordon Brown said, as he so often did, ‘no more boom and bust’, some of us GCSE economists flinched because we knew that couldn’t possibly be true. We thought it couldn’t be right. What did you think?

Ed Balls: I think, economist or not, the power of retrospection is a great power.

MW: No. That’s the chairman’s cheap joke, come on, what did you think at the time?

EB: Since 2008 there have been many people who have written columns that said in retrospect that phrase about ‘boom and bust’ shouldn’t have been used. But I certainly used the boom and bust phrase as did other politicians in the previous 15 years. Go back to the first time it was used, was in the Labour party economic policy submission to Labour party conference of 1993. I wrote the words, and it was basically pointing out how Conservative politicians of the previous ten years, particularly Nigel Lawson, in their attempt to play politics with interest rates and the currency had ended up with self-inflicted boom and bust ups and downs, and the solution to that boom and bust political interference was an independent central bank, which was our argument. It was never an argument which was, ‘we could abolish the economic cycle’. It was an argument that we could through bank independence prevent the self inflicted political mistakes of the political era.
Did, as the years go on and Gordon Brown made more and more budget speeches, did he sometimes give the impression that stability might have been cemented into the British economic reality and psyche….perhaps. And perhaps in retrospect that was a rhetorical error.

It is only a “rhetorical error” rather than an “error”, Balls explained, because the fact that Labour used the phrase was not a reflection of an irresponsible fiscal policy executed by the party, as claimed by the Tories. The country’s economic situation going into 2008 was sound, said Balls.

So summed up, the boom and bust thing was just a phrase that Gordon Brown got a bit carried away with. I’ll say he did.

Shameless MP

I know this came out last night, but I couldn’t let it pass.

I can’t quite believe how shameless Labour party members have been in exploiting Gillian Duffy, an old woman, for political gain – and not even that great a gain, a mere passing headline.

First Gordon Brown calls her a bigot and then goes asking her to forgive him and save his political career.

Now Labour MP Simon Danczuk uses her as a rotten tomato to chuck at Nick Clegg.

Danczuk should be ashamed of himself – accordingly he is promoted to Lobbydog’s growl victim for a week.

It can't be, it is....

“Please don’t be Gordon, please don’t be Gordon, please don’t be Gordon,” said the collective look on the faces of Labour MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions today.

Nick Clegg was about to reveal who the first person to call Andy Coulson was, after the then News of the World editor resigned over the phone-hacking scandal back in 2006.

While they’d hoped it was not Gordon who’d called Coulson to commiserate, comfort him and tell that he would one day have a “worthwhile” job – the irony – they knew deep down that it was him.

As one red MP later commented: “That’s so Gordon.”

It was the best moment in terms of theatre at PMQs, but obviously the more significant thing is that Speaker John Bercow said he would grant an emergency debate on the phone hacking scandal tomorrow.

Pressure mounts on Coulson. I’ll be there of course.

Who are you and what have you done with Mandy?

Has Peter Mandelson’s book actually been written by Peter Mandelson? From the stuff put in The Times so far this week I’m not so sure

It seems to be lacking a certain cutting edge and wit, an arrogance perhaps – whatever that thing is that makes Mandy able to be smarmy and endearing at the same time.

And if it’s not smarmy and it has no wit then what does it have – there are no revelations in telling us again that Gordon Brown is a bit of an oddball, which seems to have been the thrust so far.

Today’s offering, that Brown hated Blair and wanted him to leave Number 10, left an air of irrelevance around the whole memoir.

Surely there must be some more up to date morsels in there which The Times can share – perhaps about how the Milibands pull each other’s hair when they argue or how Ed Balls sleeps with his eyes open or something.

On Labour's Lot...

Some words given to LD from Tristram Hunt, television historian, and the new Labour MP for Stoke Central.

"Now the party will move down a generation. The Blair and Brown era is over and we can move on from some of the internal party struggles surrounding that.

"A lot of the energy that was spent on it over the years was not used effectively.

"The other lesson we learn from this is to have a full and open leadership contest.

"The nature of Gordon’s election didn’t help him I don’t think. Let’s have a debate about the last 13 years and see where the party goes from here."

Cameron reaches out, but not at full stretch...

Cameron’s speech made the right noises of wanting to work with the Lib Dems.

But his offer of joint working did not involve much compromise, i.e. new steps.

Cameron outlined things where the Lib Dems and Tories already agree.

But then on the crucial issue of voter reform only offered to set up a “joint committee of inquiry”.

To Clegg and to the Lib Dems I’ve a feeling that means little real action. Ball back in Clegg’s court.

Clegg is playing is hand...

It’s interesting that despite his party coming third in seats and vote share, despite him actually ending up with fewer seats and losing key front bench colleagues – Nick Clegg has managed to look statesman like today.

Clegg previously said that the party with the biggest vote share would have a moral right to move things forward in a hung Parliament situation.

He has been given immediate kudos on TV and on the web for ‘sticking to his word’ and suggesting it is now for the Tories to try and “govern in the national interest”.

What’s even more interesting is the way the Tories have responded so quickly, with Cameron almost immediately scheduling a statement to show how he’ll meet that challenge.

Despite the policy differences between the two parties, which are stark, it does show how the two leaders operate similarly.

At least it shows how much closer Cameron is to Clegg’s wavelength than Brown.

Labour has put out all sorts of people this morning to appeal to the Lib Dems – Harriet Harman was positively smooching the third party’s political behind on TV just now.

But they don’t seem to have made any headway and anyway, none of those people has been Gordon Brown; putting aside that rather stiff statement earlier.

The PM said: “It is my duty as Prime Minister to take all steps to ensure Britain has a strong, stable and principled government. This is, of course, chiefly a task for politicians and – in time – for Parliament.

“But to facilitate this process and consistent with the conventions set out in the draft Cabinet Manual, I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to arrange for the civil service to provide support on request to parties engaged in discussions on the formation of government.”

Not exactly vibrant stuff, particularly when time is of the essence.

So could a Lib/Con arrangement of some sort actually be quite dynamic? It’s moving so quickly that by the time you’ve read this we may well have an answer.

What will the gaffe mean ?

I just saw Mandy on Sky trying to undo the damage of what has come to be known as ‘bigot-gate’ (see the blog post below).

He was saying the most upsetting thing for Brown was that he had hurt the feelings of another person.

Really? Even more upsetting than the possibility his gaffe has derailed his election campaign? Hmm.

But putting that aside – along with the spin contest that is seeing parties bid to take control of the story – there could be some nasty consequences to this.

Immigration is a huge issue in certain areas of the country which were once Labour strongholds – places I’ve travelled through during this campaign.

In those places – like Stoke, Amber Valley in Derbyshire and Ashfield in Notts – lots of people feel totally detached from the party that once represented them.

Thousands will hold similar fears about immigration as those expressed by Gillian Duffy – some of those have already deserted Labour for the BNP or other parties that talk tough on the issue.

Brown’s comments will work to convince those who hold those fears but have remained loyal to Labour, that the PM does not think immigration is a big problem and that he sees as racist those people who raise it.

All the talk of a "Australian points-based immigration system" will be forgotten. Instead people will remember that Gordon Brown thinks people who are worried about immigration are bigoted.

Yes it was a private conversation. But I never understood how that was a defence – voters understand that people say what they really think in private.

I’ll be tweeting from a hustings in Ashfield tonight and I’ve no doubt this is going to feature.

The gaffe that could finish Brown...

Politics or cake?

I’ll keep this quick because you’ve no doubt been pumped full of analysis by now.

After the debate last night I was presented with the choice of either writing a blog post or having a glass of wine and home-made blueberry muffin and so found myself politically apathetic all of a sudden.

However, watching the leaders knock chunks off each other was immensely more fun than the first debate.

Cameron did much better, enough to get him back in the lead, but only just. He didn’t shine. Meanwhile Clegg held out well, sometimes against a pretty intense joint-offensive from the other two.

Without a doubt for me the most improved performance was from Brown.

He managed to capture some of the gravitas that has often eluded him so far – he appeared substantial and was aggressive. I thought his closing statement was arguably the strongest.

As for who won overall, I would honestly call it a score draw. It sets it up beautifully for the last round which is on BBC and so might attract a bigger audience too.

Let’s see if that Clegg effect lasts another week.

This image may disturb you...

Those Tories are getting more and more creative on photo-shop. This is the image from their new poster.

The caption, which I've chopped off, suggests Brown can’t answer the question about his dodgy leaflets which make false claims about other parties’ policies.

"Yeah but, no but" is obviously the quoted phrase. It's certainly striking, if not a little disconcerting.

It was apparently produced in response to a Labour poster, which I admit I haven't seen.

But if Labour hasn't already, they should broaden this theme out I say and come back with a poster depicting Clegg and Cameron as Lou and Andy.

Lou Cameron: "Now Nick, why don't you have a lovely chair at the end of Commons Chamber near the door."

Andy Clegg (pointing at the despatch box): "I wont tha' one!"




I leave Labour bloggers to do the photo-shopping...

Gordon's jaw, floating like a jellyfish

Stary eyes...

So much thought must have gone into tonight’s TV debate that it has the potential to be a feast of botched strategy.

I read somewhere that Cameron had been told to look into the camera more. It’s funny how people always said Clegg was too much like Cameron, and now it might be the other way round.

I know everyone raved about what a great effect Clegg’s staring had last time. But I have to say it made me feel a bit uncomfortable.

As Matt Chorley put it, “I was afraid he’d still be there when I turned the TV off.”

If they all start to stare into the camera it’s going to feel like they are trying to hypnotise us.

Cameron will be aching to shine, but will not be able to use his main weapon – cutting wit. He has to attack without being too aggressive, and be better at getting his message across.

Brown will be doing his best not to lose again. But what on earth can he actually do about Clegg?

If he just agrees with the Lib Dem all the time it’s a nationally televised admission that he thinks Labour can’t win the election.

If he and Cameron both start attacking too much, not forgetting the faeces the nationals chucked at Clegg today, it’ll make the Lib Dem look like a victim, winning him sympathy.

Predictions are a risky business in this election, but I’m going to say that I reckon Clegg will enjoy another bounce from tonight – though not nearly as big as the last one.


I say that because his task is once again easier than the others’. Cameron really has to pull it out the bag for it not to happen.

Round One Analysis

That was so intense it was exhausting.

I thought I might be the only one who felt that way, but my fears were allayed when ITV’s Tom Bradby popped up afterwards looking like he’d just swallowed some anti-depressants.

Everyone thought Clegg was in a strong position before hand – but I’ve got to say I didn’t think he’d win by as much as he did.

In the end it was 43% Clegg, 26% Cameron and 20% Brown.

One thing that perpetuated it was Brown’s well thought out strategy of directing heavy fire at Cameron, while allying himself with Clegg.

I lost count of the number of times Brown said he agreed with the Lib Dem leader.

Meanwhile Cameron must have taken a conscious decision not to go on the offensive like he does in the Commons.

His advisors know that when he appears snide voters don’t like it, so he avoided those cutting, articulate attacks which his backbenchers cheer.

The thing is, it meant Clegg gained the support of Brown, which made him look more “right”, while avoiding heavy attacks.

In fairness he also performed well, making original and clear points – on class sizes in the education section of the debate for example.

He was also the first to get into his stride breaking free of the rigid opening speech section almost immediately.

Because of relative expectations some people are calling the score line a win for Clegg, a draw for Brown and a loss for Cameron.

But keep some things in mind – firstly that while this was exciting and captivating, we are not even half way through the debates yet.

Secondly is that while Nick Clegg has a big lead, he also has a huge obstacle to get over in being the third party.

People know that voting on TV has no consequences. That is not the case at the ballot box.

When it comes to the real thing many will still be of the mindset that they should vote for Labour or the Tories if it is a close race.

Thirdly, the crucial question here is the one on the economy, on which Cameron equalled Clegg on 36% to Brown’s 28%.

On immigration Cameron won outright.

I think Clegg will continue to do well. If Brown is serious about winning the election he has to come at least second in these debates.

Cameron has to decide whether it is too big a risk to cut lose his inhibitions and go on the offensive – it could make or break him.

Press conference shenanigans...

Labour launched another aggressive attack on the Tories’ tax plans at a press conference this morning.

The thing is, I couldn’t quite tell how things were different from the last ‘aggressive attack press conference’ they had a week or so ago.

Actually, I take that back. There were two differences – this time Gordon was there instead of Liam Byrne and Darling’s hair was purple. Really, it was purple.

I believe it was because there was lots of purple lighting, and Darling’s hair simply reflected it – sort of in the same way that a piece of tofu takes on the taste of whatever you mix it with.

Anyhow, the gist of what they were saying was that the Tories’ sums didn’t add up concerning the proposed NI cut – yet we weren’t left any clearer on where Labour’s cuts are going to come either.

The party to come up with the most convincing sounding answer to questions on their figures will take the election I suppose.

Cameron meanwhile changed the tone and announced his National Citizens Service. It all goes with his move away from the Broken Britain agenda and back towards ‘blue sky thinking’.

He even gave the green light for kids to get more trollied than they already are on their 18th birthdays – very progressive of him.

“In our society the closest thing to a rite of passage is getting drunk on your eighteenth birthday.

“Of course we have all done that – but I think we can do a lot more.”

Vodka jelly is the way, I say.

Lobbydog at the speeches on day one...

The Lib Dem leader’s opening address of his General Election campaign was decidedly lower key than that of his rivals’.

It was in a dusky room at Lib Dem HQ with an awkwardly set up camera shot that made it look as though Clegg’s body was pointing in one direction while his face went in another.

Party officials had at least taken the effort to push as many young women into the shot as possible.

Voters would face a choice between the old politics (everything but the Lib Dems) and the new (the Lib Dems), he said.

Meanwhile over at the South Bank two dozen hacks and TV reporters were stood pointing their cameras at a black box, which Cameron was expected to spring out of at any moment.

But that was not before a throng of 150 thrusting Tory types were ushered in to encircle it. There was young, old, black, white, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Jedi etc.

Then Dave bounced down some steps and on to the box to reveal the central plank of the Tory campaign – not wanting Gordon Brown for another five years.

It’s undoubtedly their most powerful tactic, but not one that will achieve the party’s ultimate goal of informing voters what the Conservatives stand for.

Dave did say he was fighting the election for what he called the “great ignored” people of Britain – one observer responded “why can’t the Lib Dems fight it for themselves?”

Meanwhile over at Downing Street the PM was struggling with a PA system that meant the first part of his speech sounded like it was delivered down a drain-pipe.

He chose to be surrounded by the cabinet – a serious party of Government was the message perhaps – who flanked him as if they were having a school photo taken, pushing up a smile.

Gordon told reporters he had not forgotten where he had come from, but spent less time saying where he was going.

No gaffes yet, but give it time. We have four weeks of electioneering to go.

leadership issues...

Lobbydog has been chatting with all sorts of MPs today about their party leaders – gripes abound.

Both Labour and Tory members felt their own leaders were making big mistakes.

From the opposition there was irritation that Cameron had failed to capitalise on the polls lead he enjoyed a few months back.

But there was also growing concern at his style of leadership – not even letting most of the shadow cabinet know what was going on let alone involving the parliamentary party.

That might have been ok for Blair in 97, they said, when there was a Government with a large majority.

Cameron, they pointed out, should remember who he will rely on if he has a majority of less than 30.

As for Labour I spoke to two people today who said the Government needed to outflank the Tories on spending cuts.

Trident should be cut, for example. Winter fuel allowance might be rolled into pension benefits – meaning the most needy would still get the same amount of money, but that savings could be made on admin and pulling it back from those who didn’t rely on it.

With a few steps the Government could look tougher on spending without hitting the core Labour vote too hard, they claimed.

But Brown seemed to be incapable of taking certain steps and the current line, claiming that spending would simply continue, they said, was making them look dishonest.

Denham's double-speak...

A nifty piece of double-speak came out of Community Secretary John Denham's briefing just now.

He was rolled out to shoot-down stories flying around about council spending cuts. They were “confused”, Denham told us as we waited to be enlightened.

Public services would not be cut – they would be protected, even improved. But they would probably not get any more funding.

There would be less money around past 2010/11, but at the same time the "innovative" way services were managed would mean they were improved.


Two councils, for example, could share a chief executive (i.e. sack one), share backroom operations (i.e. sack lots of people) use the internet more instead of people (bet no-one’s thought of that yet) and streamline etc...

In other words – services would be protected through spending cuts. ‘Peace through war,’ said a little voice in the back of my head.

Denham then provided us with ten ways that councils could make savings. The irony of putting numbers 8 and 9 in sequence seemed to go unnoticed.

8 - Make managers leaders of innovation to improve services. (Translation: Encourage managers to think up ways to save money)

9 - Streamline management. (Translation: sack managers)

Could he at least tell us how much spending would have to be tightened next year. Nope – sending plans were worked out in blocks and they hadn’t done the figures yet.

In fact, he suggested, we won’t know what we’re spending next year until they work out what we might have to spend in 2014 too.

Hmm. Story successfully shot down then.

The Tories have their own problems in deciding how tough to sound about spending cuts, but the Denham episode encapsulated the difficulty of Labour’s current line.

You can’t claim you will protect services and attack the other party for wanting cuts soon, while suggesting you too will make spending cuts but refusing to say when.

Brown's Shortlist interview...

Not so sure today's interview in Shortlist magazine will make the waves last week's did.

It was recess when David Cameron's interview was printed so hacks were scrabbling about for something to write.

Lily Allen's inappropriate lyrics and Dave’s love of darts were spread all over the nationals the following day.

To be honest, even if we were still in recess, I'm not sure the follow up interview with the PM today would be reported further.

In one slightly interesting part, however, discussing Fabio Cappello's decision over John Terry the PM says he faces similar challenges.

"I think maybe Fabio Cappello would sympathise with me. Bill Shankly when he was manager of Liverpool said 'I don't drop people, I just make changes'. There is something in that. You've got to make decisions that are best for the team."

So there you go Alistair Darling – he wasn't dropping you, he just thought he was getting rid of you for the good of the country.

Infamy, infamy...

The moment Gordon Brown grabbed an aide by the lapels and screamed “they’re all out to get me” must’ve been dead scary for the poor chap getting the hairdryer treatment.

But I can’t help but be reminded of the classic Kenneth Williams line in Carry on Cleo –
“Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me!”

But of all the bumph in today’s Observer my favourite part without a doubt was how Brown used to prepare for PMQs.

Apparently his team ran through how things might go, with Ed Miliband normally playing David Cameron.

I imagine…

GB: Right let’s play this through. I’ll be me. Harriet, you be Alistair. Alistair, you be Ed. Ed, you be Harriet, and other Ed, you be Cameron.

EM: What? Why do I have to be Cameron again? I always end up as Cameron. I can’t get the voice right and it means I always have to lose. Can’t I be you for once?

GB: Eh? Of course you can’t be me. I’m me.

EM: But Harriet’s Harriet, and she’s still Alistair. In fact what about Harriet – I could be a good Harriet, I’ll even put on some mascara.

GB: No, your voice is too soft and besides, Ed’s already got his Harriet wig on. Look, you’re Cameron and that’s just the way it is.

Right here we go [clears throat] – they want to cut, we want to invest, they were wrong on the recession and they’re wrong on the recovery.

EM: [in Cameron mode] Well, I have a leaked document here which shows the Department of Energy and Climate Change is having to make a 10% cut in its budget – this proves this Government is….

GB: Stop! Ed, what are you doing?

EM: Debating, it’s PMQs.

GB: But what’s all this about a leaked document, There are no leaked documents.

EM: There could be.

GB: Oh really. Who leaked them then?

EM: Maybe I did. I mean, maybe Ed Miliband did.

GB: I see, and what documents were these exactly?

EM: You’ll have to ask Ed Miliband.

GB: [grabs Miliband by the lapels]

Mrs Lobbydog is calling me for dinner, but just before I sign out let me remind you of this other line from Carry on Cleo, which feels pertinent having read about Jack Straw in the Observer piece.

It is spoken by Caesar as his bodyguards try to assassinate him: “I don't want to die! I may not be a very good live emperor but I'd be a worse one dead!”

See you in the morning.