Who gives a fuck what Tony Blair thinks?

@ Natalie, 1002: Hmm, why should the author 'calm down'? And why is the article 'embarrassing'? For someone expressing such authorial condescension, your comment lacks any sort of clarity.

@ Charliechops1: The problem, Charlie, is that (a) VAT is a very regressive form of taxation, as it directly impacts the lowest-income brackets the hardest. And (b) that the whole point, in the midst of the actual downturn, cutting spending is the last thing the UK should have been doing.

Tony Blair seems to be pulling the ol' Chicago School of Economics switcharoo, doubly so. Firstly, he implicitly buys the argument that there is no such thing as a DEMAND-side recession, only supply-side ones. Consequently, rapid deficit-cutting and 'reform' (the supply side, fuck the worker sort) are his quick-fix du jour. Only thing is, most economists and economic policymakers worldwide actually got this one right and realised we were facing a near-total meltdown on the demand side--and so demand-side solutions were in order. That is what Martin Wolf over at the FT indirectly pointed out today: without demand-side stimulus (monetary, as per arch-monetarist Milton Friedman, and fiscal) the US economy (as an example) would have contracted nearly 12% (3 times what it did) with attendant unemployment at an eye-watering 16.5%. Blair is obviously dating himself here: like apparently everyone from the boomer generation, he's obsessed with what was a one-off supply-side shock in the 1970s (the oil schocks), which produced lots of inflation and stangant economic growth, but which has nothing to do with our present crisis--which is similar to the Great Depression in the 1930s. Old habits die hard, and Tony--and the monetarist instinct in New Labour and the Tories today--reflects that.

Secondly, he neglects that investor confidence practically demanded--and demands--a vigorous response. Bond yields in the major developed economies have fallen to historic levels--what this means is that, far from putting a break to further public spending as a means to pull out of this mess, governments across the world are being given the green light through ridiculously inexpensive borrowing terms from the market to borrow and spend. Why is that? Because investors aren't investing privately, and short of that investment the economy won't produce sufficient aggregate demand for economic growth. Investment ISN'T being crowded out, Tony; and thanks to excellent borrowing terms, taxes in future will hardly be affected by historically-low future interest liabilities.

Oh the facts, so easy to ignore, so difficult to refute.

"It becomes clearer that any good done by the last Labour administration had very little to do with this man."

Too true Clem-the-Gem. Blair was the Tory leader that they wished they'd had ... hence heir(s)-to-Blair Cameron (and Clegg)... All highly ambitious, narcissists without any political principles and a ruthless determination to be at the top.

yep george is up there with mehdi

And tony should be a crack addict by now

Blair would have loved to do what Cameron is planning now - but he had the unions and his party in the way.

As my favourite rappers says 'Game recognize Game!'

David Cameron will be the best Prime Minister in British history and I think Tony Blair knows it!

This is classic overkill reporting! Take a line or two and it can mean anything you want; read it in context and it can take on a whole new meaning. I'll reserve my judgment until I've read the book, others should do likewise.

Tony Blair has written a book about how he saw the leadership from his perspective, that's an entirely valid right to express his thoughts. Those that take the time and trouble to read the book may or may not end up changing their views
on Tony Blair, but taking extracts from it is meaningless unless an attempt is made to understand the whole story.

Tony Blair has often been described as Margaret Thatcher with a smile instead of a handbag. David Cameron is often described as a young Thatcherite. Now Tony Blair is endorsing the Tory-esque style spending cuts

Plenty of common ground I see.

In future, calm down before you write an article. You're clearly very bitter about this, and it's very obvious you've written this in anger. I don't agree with what Blair has said, in fact I find it ridiculous, but this article is embarrassing.

Difficult to calm down when a former leader of the Labour party does something like this to his old comrades.
It becomes clearer that any good done by the last Labour administration had very little to do with this man.
This was a journey from comfort to comfortable smugness.
Cannot imagine any former leader being more destructive, except one, and we don't mention him that often.

Hold on. This is an unfair interpretation.It is clear that if Labour had raised VAT AND National Insurance it would have been possible to reduce the deficit a little faster AND to cut public expenditure less deeply and more slowly than the Coalition.In the General Election Labour, under the blessed Gordon, was not able to address the central issue of the election, cutting the defict and sustaining economic growth. How is it to be answered now?