>What you're saying is tantamount to claiming that, because labour were in power when it rained, that labour made it rain.

It happened on Gordon's "watch" (to quote Mr Blair), he can't just wash his hands of the event. He has now admitted his mistakes ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8618974.stm )

>Would you like to address the above point? Specificaly, what would any other party have done differently re the recession, and why would it have helped?

Who knows ? That's now history. Perhaps it still would have happened under the tories, perhaps it would have been worse, perhaps not. We'll never know.

The way I see it is this:

Good things whilst Labour have been in govt (and this is by no means an exhaustive list):

– 100s of new/rebuilt schools. Just drive around anywhere and you'll see them.
– Hospitals, ditto above.
– Minimum Wage, no more people being exploited on slave-like wages of £2/hour
– Child tax credits – No more single mothers trying to bring up a family on £50/week dole money like in the 80s.

Bad things whilst they've been in power (again, not exhaustive):

– Iraq
– Property Boom
– Banking crisis and resultant recession
– Erosion of civil liberties
– MPs Expenses scandal
– Failure to reform the electoral system

If you look at these lists you can say with some confidence that all bad things would have have happened just the same under a tory govt or perhaps would have been worse, and all the good things would never have happened as the tories opposed them at every point.

I have put forward my case in what I believe is a reasoned manner using independent statistics.

I don't know how they do this and I don't have the time to find out.

ha ha ha

TJ – here is the BBC report on the Official Statistics you can find these on the ONS website but this is a good summary. Here is the ONS handbook on how they measure productivity etc. Perhaps you better get in touch with them and explain the flaws in their methodology.

dazh – iraq, erosion of civil liberties

Same under a tory gov ?

You sure about that ? Tories want to scrap ID cards.

Blair peddled the 45 minute lie to the house of commons and the tories supported him. Without that dossier would the same thing have happened ?

The Office of National Statistics is supposed to be independent, you can hardly say it is Tory influenced when they have been out of power for 13 years.

Yes, I am happy to recognise some people might be better than me at certain things

The point is that you have put an interpretation on some statistics that you are happy to admit you don't understand ?!

Statistics don't usually prove anything – they are generally open to interpretation.

I was trying to point out that your interpretation of the statistics was poor because you are not comparing like with like.

To make an analogy, you could look at the top speed of a Ferrari and the top speed of a Smart Car and come to the conclusion that the Ferrari is the "better" car. Or you could look at the mpg and conclude that the Smart Car is the "better" car. Or you could consider both things together in light of your driving habits and budget and then come to a conclusion.

You have used one small point of measurement to come to a general conclusion about the NHS.

ID cards is not the same thing as erosion of civil liberties AT ALL.

ID cards do nothing. Being detained without charge – that is something. The two are unrelated. Would the tories have done the 28 day thing given that that's what police etc were insisting upon? Probably. Did they oppose it in the commons? Maybe they did, but really they say anything they like to score points, so it's a bit empty really.

Mefty – I don't doubt productivity is down – and I have given you two reasons why improving the health care reduces productivity. Alluded to on the BBC link.

"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

>ID cards is not the same thing as erosion of civil liberties AT ALL.

Really ? Can I have some of what you're smoking. 😆

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/31-id-cards/index.shtml

What I meant was that ID cards are fairly benign, and detaining without charge is pretty serious – and the two are not linked.

Oh and that link is well dodgy. Let me just laugh at this being someone working on software to do with this stuff:

Plans are still in place for anyone renewing or getting a passport (and possibly driving licence or other documents including Criminal Record Bureau check). This is envisaged starting in 2009-10 but this may well change.

Hahaha!

Very biased website that.

And it all seems based on the blanket assumption that having the government know who you are is some terrible dark thing. I just don't get it.

I never drew any conclusions about the NHS as I didn't look for the figures, I drew a conclusion about the public sector in general as that is what the figures measure. Technological advances should lead to productivity gains yet the UK public sector has not achieved any productivity gains in the last decade, that leads me to believe that money has been wasted. The productivity gains in the private sector are indicative of what could have been achieved. That is comparing like with like.

iraq, erosion of civil liberties

Same under a tory gov ?

Absolutely. At no point in the run-up to Iraq did the tories voice any opposition to it. They were fully behind it, and any claims that they would've opposed it if they'd known all the facts – which they almost certainly did anyway – are simply political opportunism of the worst kind.

On civil liberties, until Cameron popped up, the tories were fully behind all the draconian measure proposed by Blair and didn't voice any opposition to it. Again, their apparent recent conversion to libertarianism is just political opportunism.

It amazes me what short memories people have.

Its not comparing like with like in any way at all! Did you read the BBC link you provided?

The ONS admits that is a very complex task. Senior statistician Aileen Simpkins describes the figures as "experimental".

In the private sector, most outputs are measurable in money terms, but in the public sector most outputs are difficult to capture in that way.

Even so, these figures cannot measure everything.

For example, an anti-bullying initiative might be a key factor in determining what children and parents think about a school, but unless it is actually producing better exam results, the school's output is not increased as far as the statisticians are concerned.

So it can look as if an organisation has become less efficient if it is devoting resources to things that are not being measured.

Another problem with the figures is that only health and education outputs are adjusted for quality.

How do you count the reduction in children being killed? The reduction in waiting lists? The increased number of frail elderly being cared for at home ( very expensive this)

until Cameron popped up, the tories were fully behind all the draconian measure proposed by Blair and didn't voice any opposition to it.

That's because Dave just automatically slags off anything the Govt says, to try and score points. Which is pathetic and extremely counter productive no matter which side you are on.

I did admit that the comparison was not perfect. However, these statistics are the best indicator that we have got and the trend is clear. They are more reliable than anecdotal evidence from either side

They were fully behind it, and any claims that they would've opposed it if they'd known all the facts – which they almost certainly did anyway – are simply political opportunism of the worst kind.

Plus one for that comment, because.

a) If they didn't know the facts, they have then supported going to war without knowing the facts, which is automatically wrong.
b) If they did know the facts they are automatically lying.

Either way round arse is exposed. There is no other viable position on this.

Mefty – you still don't get it – no one is disputing that productivity is down – however its a corollary of improving services.

so, getting back on topic…
why was Cameron wearing a purple tie?

TJ – not if you measure the quality of the service in your productivity measure it isn't, which the figures do for the nhs and education.

Wrong again mefty – some of these improvements cannot be measured at all.

Even so, these figures cannot measure everything.

For example, an anti-bullying initiative might be a key factor in determining what children and parents think about a school, but unless it is actually producing better exam results, the school's output is not increased as far as the statisticians are concerned.

So it can look as if an organisation has become less efficient if it is devoting resources to things that are not being measured.

From your BBC link.

so, getting back on topic…
why was Cameron wearing a purple tie?

My daughters reckoned he's had his hair ruffled up since the last debate to try & look a bit more 'street'

Did he mention his unfortunate son again?

Cameron is balding fast – hence the fancy hairdo to disguise the fact he is a slaphead in waiting.

Did he mention his unfortunate son again?

He did indeed, whilst making a point about carers needing help. Pretty sickening really. Like saying, "by the way, you haven't forgotten that I had a severely disabled son who died have you?". Gordon Brown has also had his fair share of family tragedy but I've never heard him mention it once in this campaign.

What can't be measured will cut both ways, but for the major areas of expenditure a measure was included and the trend is clear. If government expenditure automatically led to improving service, why does the present government think there are so many efficiency gains to be found in the public sector?

Being detained without charge – that is something

And of course the Tories wouldnt do that would they. Would they?

Well in 1971 they introduced internment in Ireland which effectively locked up almost 2000 people, all without charge.

Convenient recollection anyone?

The more I read this thread the more I feel Clegg has a point, adversarial, first past the post politics just doesn't work.

We need a hung parlament AFAIC.

If government expenditure automatically led to improving service

Did anyone say that? Don't be silly.

Just because there is waste in public service, doesn't mean that all public expenditure is bad or inefficient.

There's a lot of waste in private companies too, just to let you know.

I think it is a reasonable conclusion from TJ's view that improved service is the corollary for reduced productivity.

Just because there is waste in public service, doesn't mean that all public expenditure is bad or inefficient.

I don't disagree but I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government. No doubt there is waste in the private sector but eventually the inefficient will lose to the more efficient. There is no equivalent balancing mechanism in the public sector, so we have to choose a government who will manage it in the best way. I don't believe the present one will.

I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government

Of course it is in theory, but in practice it's monumentally difficult to do. And I see no indication that the Tories or Lib Dem will be able to do anything better than what Labour could do.

It's virtually impossible, but politicians will try and cut stuff anyway and inevitably cause problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't disagree but I believe it is possible to spend better than the present government. No doubt there is waste in the private sector but eventually the inefficient will lose to the more efficient.

Jesus H Christ! It's all so simple in your world isn't it mefty?

Yes, inefficient companies do eventually lose to the more efficient. Are we counting Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rock and RBS? Or just more traditional companies like Rover, Woolworths and Portsmouth Football Club (to name three that spring to mind, although tens of firms go bust each day) – but you talk as if none of this has any effect on the people that work there. That it's all fine and for the greater good because it's in the private sector?

You think that is how vital public services should be run?