First and foremost i will hold up my hand and admit to being right of centre and not remotely embarrassed about it.
Am i right in thinking that in general when Labour have looked after the purse strings, the country has ended up penniless and then the Tories have had to come over all austere and sort things out?
Without turning this into a political debate (i know, impossible), is this close to the truth?
Pretty much, yeah
To quote Obi Wan, it depends on your point of view.
As someone who avoids getting into political debates, as a simplification, it does seem about right.
(ps, I assume this is a troll to try and reel TJ in)
Alternatively post 70s Tory = massive redistribution of wealth to the top 5% from all and destruction of public services. Tax rises for the worst off and tax cuts for the richest. or is that as facile as the OP?
Anyone compared Kondratiev waves and government deficits?
Am i right in thinking that in general when Labour have looked after the purse strings, the country has ended up penniless and then the Tories have had to come over all austere and sort things out?Without turning this into a political debate (i know, impossible), is this close to the truth?
Yep.
If you want to see the wealth of the nation defined by an excel spreadsheet, you may be right. If however, the health and wealth of the nation is measured by the living standards, equality and general well being of the whole population rather than a select few then I very much doubt it.
It's just a smidge more complicated than that.
In reality, there's little different nowadays. Labour of today for instance is very different indeed from Labour of the 70s.
Country is skint now because we spent money whilst we were making tons of it, and didn't save for a rainy day. Would the Tories have done? Who knows. The problem is, govts are under pressure to give people good times (ie low taxes and higher public spending) so they always gamble a bit.
The reasons that the country was making loads of money in the run up to 2008 were global, not really much to do with any Govt.
What gets me about all this (this time around) is that I'm convinced that the situation would have been identical if the tories had been in for the last 5 or 6 years and all this "we inherited a broken country & it's their fault" is so much bluster.
What broke the figures was the money spent propping up the banks and the quantitive easing measures followed by a reduction in govenment income as a result of company profits falling as the downturn started and any party in power would have had to do the same thing. In my opinion it had very little to do with government overspend on the day to day matters (education, health, defence, local government) - local government spending has been going down in real terms for years.
Country is skint now because we spent money whilst we were making tons of it, and didn't save for a rainy day. Would the Tories have done? Who knows.
Tories wouldn't have spent loads during the boom years. It's not in their ideology. They'd have cut taxes, cut services and let us spend all the extra cash ourselves.
Would the country be in less debt or a better place after the proverbial hit the econommic fan... probably not...
Of course Cameron was repeatedly complaining about the unreasonable restrictions to the City right up until the point the banks went bust, and then apparently there wasn't enough regulation.
I can remember all you Marxist historians telling each other to buy as much property as possible because it was impossible to lose money. Does "borrow as much as possible" strike a chord with any of you lot?
Excellent shout Wozza, breakfast on this.
OP, you're kinda there. in simplistic terms, which is where it should stay, otherwise this will get dragged down into another flame-off...
When Nu-Labour got in with Tony and Gordon, they inherited a surplus. Which while not a good thing in itself, is better than inheriting a deficit, imo.
I recall that by the end of their time in the mid 90s, the Cons were as deaf and as arrogant to the wants of the people, as Labour was last year when they lost the GE. This seems to indicate that when a party is in power for too long, it all turns to poo.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutley", etc, etc. And neither the COns nor the Labs are immune to this.
Labour have now spent too much, hence the massive, record, deficit we have now.
As you have correctly observed, Labour are hopelessly addicted to borrowing and spending. Its woven into their philosophical DNA.
The cons may be no better, swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.
Most of the "isms" have appeared to have failed. Capitalism seems to be the last man standing and while being far from perfect, is all we appear to have at this time.
So yes, Labour always spend too much, telling the people that big brother the State will wipe their backsides for them.
And the Cons probably cut too far, eventually, although current cuts are necessary. I fear though that in 8 years time, etc, if the Cons are still in number 10, then cutting will probably start to go too far, and by that time, they'll be as deaf and as arrogant...etc, etc.
Convert - 'propping up the banks' was a small splash in the ocean compared with the ongoing deficit.
And the reason the Tories were able to hand over a surplus is black, sticky and was under the North Sea. This windfall could have been spent improving the industrial infrastructure of this country, instead it was largely squandered. Not that the Labour lot would have necessarily been any more sensible.
Tories managed three recessions in 10 years from early 80s to early 90s. Labour did one in 10 years but it was a big one - probably similar to Thatcher's first one. Difference is in the early 80s you could count on starting a war getting you re-elected.
I'm still blaming lack of real regulation in the banking sector - oh and the general population being greedy, spending money they didn't have.
Druidh - (note the h) propping the banks was a small part of what they cost us, but it was two thirds of the deficit for that year
When Nu-Labour got in with Tony and Gordon, they inherited a surplus
No they didn't. The country was in debt and given that the tories had been in power since 1979, they really can't claim any sort of moral high ground. It is true to say that the debt was coming down at the time.
I don't think it was the actions of left wing political activism that has brought the country to its knees.
They might have tried it at various times BUT they are miserable failures when compared to the recent efforts of the banking (spelt with a b) bastions of capitalist conservatism. They have created this spectacular carnage which we are all now having to pay for. We need Thatcher back to set the police on them and sort them out.
Don't think her heart would be in it though, do you?
Tories wouldn't have spent loads during the boom years. It's not in their ideology. They'd have cut taxes, cut services and let us spend all the extra cash ourselves.
Would the country be in less debt or a better place after the proverbial hit the econommic fan... probably not...
Agree, the bottom line is that the average politician is no less shallow/dumb/minimum-attention-span/power-hungary than the average citizen...
Global boom followed by global recession - at least we had the good times 
a gross over simplification that wont really stand up to serious analysis over the long term. Last two labour ones have ended after the biggest economic crash[ as it was worldwide and started in the USA I asuume you are not actually blaming the labour for this] when they did do quantitive easing [ spending money they did not have amongst other things] to end the recession. The one before was after the huge oil price hike rise which cause hyper inflation ]4x increase in oil proce again not their fault and hard to see what the Tories would /could have done differently. if you want to blame labour for that then you are letting your politics skew your view.
Certtainly the tories whish us all to think they are the government of competent spending however tax as a percentage of GDP rose under Thatcher and she had to sell the public industries just to pay out benefits to the millions on the dole.
Time will tell whether this goverenment has done similiar.
In reality - where is Stoner when you need him? - no govt particularily controls the economy now it is all globalised. They like to take the credit when it goes well. Osborne [ as did brown] will blame other factors if the cuts do not lead to jobs and say it was all down to him if it works. This does not help
It is largely just spin from both sides. The only real fact is that labour spend more on the public sector and the Tories prefer a smaller state - though almost every government increases the tax burden iirc.
Never realised it was so easy to out all the righties
Not Trolling, no beef with TJ or anybody else and yes i over simplify most things.
I find if you simplify things it gives less room for those in power (or those with all the Big words) to baffle you with BS...
Probably yes to OP.
As for the general population, they have never had it so good so a bit of a reboot of the entire economy and severe cut should do good. You know wake them up and show them what it means by actually working like a slave and for once beg for food.
I think Captain Crash has it right - both parties are as bad as each other, neither way is the "one true way" and the constant left-right wing blinded tit for tat on here is really getting far too predictable and boring.
IMHO
I also accept that a balance has to be struck between welfare and capaitalsm. At the moment it is rather misplaced/misguided.
druidh - not sure it was just a "splash in the ocean"!
£76bn on shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group
£40bn on loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley
£200bn spent on Quantive easing
Put in context we spent circa £118bn on the entire NHS in 2010.
Placed against a national government debt of £901 (est) at the end of 2010 they seem more than a drop in the ocean to me! Although we should make a return on the money spent on RBS & Lloyds in the long run.
As shown so well in Steve's graph above the UK government has alwaysbeen in debt, all that changes is the size of the debt in comparison to the GDP. The money spent on the above list went a long way to the change in fortunes govenment fortune. Should they have predicited and stashed some aside - hindsight is wonderful thing!
being right of centre and not remotely embarrassed about it.
you should be
There is no way you can balance welfare & capitalism. Impossible task as you will always get some that keep demanding hand outs or asking to be fed for generations. Then those who work will feel like being taken for a ride but then you get those who never wanted to work claiming their human rights breach ...
the constant left-right wing blinded **** for tat
But it's not really left-right, it's big government versus small government which people now see as synonymous with left-right even though they're different things. It seems to me that it's big government that tends to cause economic problems, not necessarily left-wing (or right wing) policies. In reality all 3 main parties are in the centre in the grand scheme of things.
But it's not really left-right, it's big government versus small government which people now see as synonymous with left-right even though they're different things. It seems to me that it's big government that tends to cause economic problems, not necessarily left-wing (or right wing) policies. In reality all 3 main parties are in the centre in the grand scheme of things.
OK, so if we look at the period in which our former govt discarded prudence, having claimed to have ended boom and bust...
Interestingly, the common claim by our former tandem riding helmetless contributor that Thatchers destruction of the society led to massive increases in government spending on unemployment benefits and benefits, is belied here, we can see what happened to social security spending during the boom years of the last government.
BTW, not wanting to get fully drawn into an argument like this again, its worth just noting that in respect of Z11's chart, the Labour government adhered to Tory spending plans for 97-99 before setting out their own stall.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
