[Closed] Are the Tories OK after all?

ideological hatred for the public sector

which is somehow so very different from the left's "ideological hatred for the private sector"....?

Is it an "ideological hatred" when you dont agree with it TJ, but a "manifesto pledge" when you do?

combined liberal/ labour vote is greater than the conservative vote

Aligning the labour and liberal vote is as spurious as aligning the conservative and labour vote.

Liberalism is as anathema to the left as progressive taxation is to the right.

which is somehow so very different from the left's "ideological hatred for the private sector"....?

Is it an "ideological hatred" when you dont agree with it TJ, but a "manifesto pledge" when you do?

Could you give me examples of successful private sector companies being nationalised?

Aligning the labour and liberal vote is as spurious as aligning the conservative and labour vote.

No it isn't, as the expressed views of many in the Lib Dems indicates. You also seem to forget who formed the SDP.

i donated £15 to the east african fund through DEC and didnt go to the pub last night

best use of 3mins of prime time tv, wont change my political/voting habits - in much the same way that no other PPB ever has

nationalisation is not the only tool that the left would use to suppress private enterprise now is it?

Taxation (NI, VAT leakage, Corporate, Transaction, Stamp Duty etc)
Restrictive employment legislation
Trade tariffs
Duty
Anti-dumping legislation
Registration and certification legislation
etc etc

I continue to be astounded by how much some people are taken in by the tory party.

Are yo really that naive? Have a look at the links between the tories and the American healthcare companies and then look at the proposals for the NHS. These are designed to allow the companies to cherry pick the bits of the NHS thjey can make profit from. The tories NHS reforms are designed to make profits for private companies.

As for the austerity cuts - anyone with half a brain knows this will and now clearly is making things worse. Its clearly obvious in the numbers. As its so obvious it is and will continue to make things worse the only possible explanation is that the tories want to destroy the public sector from Idewological hatred

remember Germany and france have bigger public sectors and higher taxation than the UK

Stoner - whats that fatuous comment all about? I am no supporter of the labour party. I do care about the truth and about the state of our country.

Taxation is a tool to supresse private enterprise as is employment legislation

Stupoid even for you Stoner.

No it isn't, as the expressed views of many in the Lib Dems indicates

exceptions do not prove the rule. There's as many liberals who are repelled by Labour as by Conservative. That's the idiocy of aligning them with right and left as they are neither, their ground is centrist but not common to both the other parties.

Taxation is a tool to supresse private enterprise as is employment legislation

Stupoid even for you Stoner.

[u]Relative scales[/u] of taxation and employment legislation TJ, not absolute existence or not.

Stupid even for you.

Stoner - whats that fatuous comment all about? I am no supporter of the labour party.

I beg your pardon then. How about: "ideological hatred" of the English instead?

nationalisation is not the only tool that the left would use to suppress private enterprise now is it?

Taxation (NI, VAT leakage, Corporate, Transaction, Stamp Duty etc)
Restrictive employment legislation
Trade tariffs
Duty
Anti-dumping legislation
Registration and certification legislation
etc etc

Ah, so protecting workers' rights is suppressing private enterprise is it? Isn't it interesting how countries with left of centre governments, high levels of taxation, and high levels of employee protection manage to remain competitive?

"exceptions do not prove the rule. There's as many liberals who are repelled by Labour as by Conservative. That's the idiocy of aligning them with right and left as they are neither, their ground is centrist but not common to both the other parties."

A centrist party was founded by labour MPs, and is now part of the Lib Dems.

Next!

Marks and Spencers!

Like Germany ransos?

There was a case a couple of years ago when a multinational wanted to shut one of its European plants. it shut the UK one - why? because it was cheaper. To shut the German one would have meant they would have had to pay redundancy and compensation on a much larger scale.

So Germany kept the jobs, the UK lost them precisely because they had decent employment protection

would that be the same Germany with "Private sector growth at 26-month low in Sept"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9859663

EDIT: anyway, stuff to do. Catch up with you boys later.

"Like Germany ransos?"

Yes, and the Scandinavian countries. I don't understand why it's considered to be axiomatic that relatively high levels of tax and employee rights reduce competitiveness: those countries prove the opposite.

Ransos - because teh far right economically folk such as stoner want to believe it as it supports their prejudices.

"would that be the same Germany with "Private sector growth at 26-month low in Sept"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9859663

EDIT: anyway, stuff to do. Catch up with you boys later. "

Is that the best you can do? How well is the UK doing, with its low tax, low-rights regime? How would you like to compare the relative performance of the UK, Germany & Scandinavia over the last 30 years? What do you think that would show?

Are we allowed to mention the 'Arc of Prosperity'?

With their low tax, light-touch regulatory regimes. How are they all doing?

How would you like to compare the relative performance of the UK, Germany & Scandinavia over the last 30 years?

Not too shabby as it happens:

best I can do at short notice (havent time to work up the source data at the moment)

[img] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XzXm_tBkg_w/To13SMhgRCI/AAAAAAAAAvw/52nF9DRduIU/s640/TradingEconomics.com%252520-%252520Indicators%252520for%252520232%252520Countries.%252520-%252520Google%252520Chrome%25252006102011%252520103833.jp g" target="_blank">https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XzXm_tBkg_w/To13SMhgRCI/AAAAAAAAAvw/52nF9DRduIU/s640/TradingEconomics.com%252520-%252520Indicators%252520for%252520232%252520Countries.%252520-%252520Google%252520Chrome%25252006102011%252520103833.jp g"/> [/img]

Not too shabby as it happens:

best I can do at short notice (havent time to work up the source data at the moment)

Your graph shows that Germany outperformed or matched the UK. So they absorbed a communist basket case, have higher tax and higher employee protection, yet are as good as the UK in GDP.

Thanks for proving my point. Shall we do Scandinavia next?

I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular - far better to get on your bike and go for a ride. Healthier and far more interesting.

So calm down everyone - go for a ride before winter arrives!

Your graph shows that Germany outperformed or matched the UK

eeerrrrrrr...

German GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $11,859 to 2009: $25,450 = 14.6% real growth

[s]German[/s] UK* GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $13,053 to 2009: $28,955 = 21.8% real growth

I can lend you some glasses if you like 😉

* thanks emz

I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular

yeah, but the predictability is comforting.
You'll be back.

You should carry on IMHO you bring a fair amount to the table, even though you are almost always wrong 😀

soobalias - Member

i donated £15 to the east african fund through DEC and didnt go to the pub last night

best use of 3mins of prime time tv, wont change my political/voting habits - in much the same way that no other PPB ever has

Some good achieved, so maybe the dubious motivation of Dave et al doesn't matter?

...{and the state of German banking] ...oops, almost got drawn back in! Where's my bike gone!

Thank you JY - very drole!! 😉

I made a pact yesterday - stop having econ/political debates on STW as positions too entrenched and arguments become circular

On this forum, arguments aren't circular, they're cyclical.

edit your post stoner.

circular, they're cyclical.

if theyre both does that make them sinusoidal?

So Germany started from a higher base, and you think this is a bad thing? Interesting. So, as I said: communist basket case integrated, high tax, high rights, and they're the largest economy in Europe.

Sadly for you, glasses won't cure your myopia. 😉

To go back to an erlier point.

Of course the tory policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the tory party.

For example

Hedge fund boss John Nash is one of the major Conservative donors with close ties to the healthcare industry.

He and wife Caroline gave £203,500 to the party over the past five years. The cash included £21,000 which was given directly to Health Secretary Andrew Lansley to bankroll his office before the Conservatives took power. At the time the Lib Dems slammed the payments as a “staggering conflict of interest”.

The City tycoon was chairman of Care UK, which makes most of its money from the NHS, when most of the donations were made. Mr Nash continued to work as a consultant to the firm, which provides walk-in centres, GP surgeries and other specialist services, after selling his majority stake to a private equity firm last year.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/01/19/nhs-reform-leaves-tory-backers-with-links-to-private-healthcare-firms-set-for-bonanza-115875-22859373/

Or teh telegraph if you prefer

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, is being bankrolled by the head of one of the biggest private health providers to the NHS, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Or the sunday times

The Shadow Health Minister, Lord McColl, is a paid consultant to a new private healthcare company that provides a fee-paying rival to the National Health Service’s family doctor service.

Endeavour Health, which was set up by two hedge fund advisers, claims to be Britain’s first comprehensive GP network, offering access to the best doctors and the opportunity to beat NHS queues and have appointments at any time they want.

Lord McColl’s involvement with a private healthcare provider highlights the strains within the Conservative Party, which is trying to present itself as a champion of the NHS while also maintaining its traditional links with the industry. David Cameron has been forced to reiterate his commitment to a free health service after the prominent Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan described the NHS as a “60-year mistake” that he “wouldn’t wish on anyone”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6989408/Andrew-Lansley-bankrolled-by-private-healthcare-provider.html

German GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $11,859 to 2009: $25,450 = 14.6% real growth

German GDP per capita USD 2000prices 1970: $13,053 to 2009: $28,955 = 21.8% real growth

I can lend you some glasses if you like

Hows that growth worked out?
Th e proportional increase is nearly identical
If you just divide the first number by the second you get 2.16 and 2.22 respectively which seems pretty comparable/near identical over 40 years. They did absorb East Germany in that time. It seems safe to assume that West germany would have grown considerably more iwth out its Eastern tax/subsidy tbh.

sorry my typo appears to have confused ransos & JY 😉

Growth = (GDP2 - GDP1)/GDP1

UK started from a higher base, but finished at a proportionally higher GDP.

ergo, UK has outperformed Germany over the last 40 years.

As for the East germany thing, maybe Germany couldnt have grown without the cheaper Easter German labour? Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

*retires to a safe distance*

As for the East germany thing, maybe Germany couldnt have grown without the cheaper Easter German labour? Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

No you didn't...

*retires to a safe distance*

Bolivia?

TJ - you missed out Djangoly as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/02/justice-minister-failed-to-declare-interest

The simple fact is that, as of 2010 Germany has a higher GDP per capita than the UK. It also has higher taxes and higher levels of employee protection. If you believe that East Germany wasn't a huge drain on resources then you need your head read.

Stoner: your case is dismissed:

Country GDP per Capita (PPP)$
Norway 51959
Sweden 38204
Denmark 36444
Germany 36081
UK 35059
Finland 34918

IMF data.

Maybe UK might have grown faster if it werent being held back by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?

*sighs*

Scotland is in surplus, scotland sends money south

http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-lansleys-nhs-plans-still-in-good-health

http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/content/view/54/1/

UK has outperformed Germany over the last 40 years.

To go back to an earlier point.

Of course [s]the tory[/s] Labour policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the [s]tory[/s] Labour party.

For example

Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole

as we saw with Bob Crow, just this week

And given the poor state the nations finances were in when this new lot came into power I am not surprised they keep referring to the mess they found and pinning the blame on the last government because that's who was to blame. Gordon Brown will forever be one of, if not the, worst chancellor we ever had. I don't see George Osborne as ever ranking as one of the best but so far he is still better than Gordon.

The tories pledged to match Labour's spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!

There's only one thing for it.
A new party. A party for the people. A party run by people who have lived in the real world, with real world ideas.

Anyone got Kilroy Silk's number?

I wouldnt want to join a party that would have TJ [i]and[/i] me as members. It'd be too contradictory.

The tories pledged to match Labour's spending plans before the crash, and were demanding even lighter regulation!

Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.

And returning to a previous point, while there may be individual links between various party members and private individuals (on all sides of the house)I think it shows a lack of reasoning if anyone seriously believes that all the Tories want to do is line their own pockets. And their mates pockets. And that that is all they want to do.

Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole

Only difference is, everyone can join a union, not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite.

If you use your statistic of choice yet the proportional increase is identical
I am not sure you have proved your point
I find it a disgraceful slur for you to suggest I am confused about economics
Lies damn lies and statistics then???

If you're reduced to selectively quoting me then you really have nothing in your locker. The simple fact is that Germany (and all of the Scandinavian countries except Finland) have a higher GDP per capita than the UK. So much for the laissez faire arguments...

Only difference is, everyone can join a union,....

Errr... there is no union that represents my interests. I could however join a party, as can anyone else be it Tory, Labour, Lib Dem. I find your argument lacking.

Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.

What do you think they should have done instead? I ask because as the tories were clamouring for even lighter regulation, it's highly likely that the same crisis would have occurred had they been in power. So, given that, what should Labour have done differently in its response?

Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole

Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on - they're not.

Is that why Labour are backing the public-sector unions over the strike proposals? Oh, hang on - they're not.

Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. ...or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable?

Errr... there is no union that represents my interests

he says, typing on his (union won)lunch break. I find your argument lacking.

*awaits excuse of not really being on lunchbreak*

"Maybe thats because the negotiations are ongoing and it would be irresponsible to strike. ...or even that the unions demands are unreasonable and unsustainable? "

Except that:

1) no evidence has been produced to show that the unions' demands are unsustainable.
2) The current arrangements were negotiated in 2008, on the basis of an actuarial study. No study has been produced since.
3)The word "unaffordable" does not appear in the Hutton report.
4) The government has negotiated in bad faith, by making its demands prior to any negotiations.

In any case, none of this is relevant. If Labour really was beholden to the unions, it would support the strike. It isn't and it doesn't.

not everyone can become a member of the aristocracy/public school educated elite

ladies and gentlemen I present Lord Prescot 😉 or is he the exception that proves the rule?

and where does Diane Abbot send her son for his education?

the public school thing amuses me, the person who get the "blame" is the person getting the education, the person who makes the decision is the parent (and no I didn't get a public school education) the kid has little or no choice

Of course the tory policies are designed to enrich their backers - that is the whole reason for the tory party.

I'm pretty confident that's the entire reason for any party. I mean what would be the point of having a party that wasn't for the direct or indirect benefit of the people who support said party?

I'm pretty confident that's the entire reason for any party. I mean what would be the point of having a party that wasn't for the direct or indirect benefit of the people who support said party?

The Labour party isn't supporting the unions at the moment. I guess that's why some of us are wondering what they're for.

Any party has to consider the needs of society as a whole if it is to be electable. So while the Tories might have a positive bias towards business and Labour towards the Unions this cannot be exclusively so otherwise they would be unelectable.

The Government of the day has an ethical duty to lead in a way which benefits the whole country and nit just their party members.

Presumably that was before they realised that there wasn't actually any money left to spend by the previous "prudent" government. A somewhat helpful nmessage left by the then outgoing chancellor.

If you use your statistic of choice yet the proportional increase is identical
I am not sure you have proved your point
I find it a disgraceful slur for you to suggest I am confused about economics
Lies damn lies and statistics then???

If you're reduced to selectively quoting me then you really have nothing in your locker. The simple fact is that Germany (and all of the Scandinavian countries except Finland) have a higher GDP per capita than the UK. So much for the laissez faire arguments...

Apart from that fair comment 😉

No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.

Even more shocking is the vast quantities of public money being squandered on vanity schemes right up to the last minute.

Really, ransos, we must sort you out some new glasses.

You're supposed to be picking a fight with me, not junky. He's about as soft and doughy of thought as you are 😉

a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.

He did get rid of boom and bust though if you remember....

"With Bank of England independence, tough decisions on inflation, new fiscal rules, and hard public spending controls, we today in our country have economic stability not boom and bust,"

No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.

An examination the budget under the previous conservative government is instructive: for 16 out of 18 years, it was in deficit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

1. I am replying to stoner not you
2. I agree with you
3. I am not quoting you at all

Apart from that fair comment

Ahem! 😳

no that was before that big crash thing in banking which , given tyour excellent reasoning so far, you blame on labour

Not quite sure where you are getting my apparent reasoning from on that one JY. I don't recall pinning the banking / sub prime issue on GB. And I don't. But his general fiscal managemnt of the UK economy was spectacularly bad. Although, as ATP says, he did get rid of boom and bust, so maybe he did do something useful. 😯

Ransos, once again you've fed us s snapshot of data without any context or meaning. What you can see is the deficut being stabilised after the last recession and the budget brought back into control.

Labour took over after the hard work had been done and brought it back into surplus. 10 years later GB succesfully plumeted the state finances off the scale!

Thats a great acheivement to turn round an economy so spectaculary for the worse.

Sorry Ransos, just to clarify

so you now claiming that the global recessions (IMF Definition) of 1981-83 and 1991-93 were the fault of the (Evil Tory) Governments, but the global recessions of the Naughtie's were not connected to the (Labour) government of the day?

Z11 - That's the way it works on LeftyTrackWorld ™

Interesting article in today's Grauniad, which Is pretty difficult to argue with

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/05/david-cameron-conservative-party-city-of-london?INTCMP=SRCH ]The Conservative party is effectively the political wing of the City of London. No wonder it can't lead Britain out of this crisis[/url]

so you now claiming that the global recessions (IMF Definition) of 1982-83 and 1991-93 were the fault of the (Evil Tory) Governments, but the global recessions of the Naughtie's were not connected to the (Labour) government of the day?

I've no idea how you managed to infer that. Let me make it simple: you contend that Brown should have paid down the debt when the economy was booming. I've shown you that the previous conservative government did not do this either. Or are you claiming that there were no boom periods between 1979 and 1997?

In essence, I saying that it's a pox on both their houses. Capiche?

Labour took over after the hard work had been done and brought it back into surplus. 10 years later GB succesfully plumeted the state finances off the scale!

Regardless of the many failings one might attribute to Brown, precipitating a global financial crisis isn't one of them.

Sorry Ransos - you seem to be getting yourself confused between Deficit, and Debt, mixing the terms constantly

National Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1, at a time when you're crowing that we were running a deficit...

He's about as soft and doughy of thought as you are

No one is saying that GB caused the economic meltdown but the fact that even during the boom years debt was acumulating at an unsustainable rate rather than a prudent chancellor who would have eliminated debt and built up a surplus for a rainy day.

But his general fiscal managemnt of the UK economy was spectacularly bad

No offence but both these statements show why there is little point debating this. There are facts and their are opinions so lets not confuse them

It is almost unheard of for any UK govt to not be at a deficit but labour were in surplus for more years in their last terms than all the other Tory givts that century [ iirc feel free to check this] Irrespective of the party in power deficit cannot be used as a political tool with which to beat labour with as MOST govts run at a debt - this is the norm whethe rit should be is another debate

See the point abopve obviously the labour govt had the most surpluses of any govt yet it was still spectacularily bad. I think that is statement of politics not economics
Yes we have political views but lets not try and rewriete history to fit in with out views.

National Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1

Sorry Binners but that is more Guardinista bull!

There is an argument to be made about growth in the economy but that isn't easy. It is important that we mainatin a deficit cutting approach to ensure that we can continue to borrow at very low rates as this will ensure that we spend more of our money on investments and public services rather than servicing debt.

There are automatic stabilisers in the chancellors plan which have ensured that growth is not stiffled. It is however a very difficult balancing act and pushing for growth needs to be hand in hand with reducing the deficit. Our major trading partners are not growing so where is this growth going to come from anyway? With high levels of personel debt its unlikely to come internally?

I personally think we need to invest in infrastructure more which creates jobs and prosperity, but then I'm an engineer!

What we need is more gay people spending money, as they dont have kids as much as straight couples, theres less need for schools, they tend to look after themselves when older, so less need for old aged peoples homes, they dont usually have social problems, so no need for social services,theyre not usually agressive, so less need for prisons for thugs,theyll usually always help you out,theyre articulate, clever, and well read.

(well the ones ive worked for anyway)

All the things we need to pull us out the current con-dem-mess.

Only difference is that the backers of the Labour party are the Unions, their primary interest is the benefit of their members, not the benefit of the nation as a whole

hahahahahaha

See the point abopve obviously the labour govt had the most surpluses of any govt yet it was still spectacularily bad. I think that is statement of politics not economics
Yes we have political views but lets not try and rewriete history to fit in with out views.

Thats an overly simplistic way of protraying the contrys finances as it completely ignores the context. Of course it was easy for the Labour party to build a surplus as the economy was on a good footing when they inherited it.

I really belive that was a missed golden opportunity. Had they invested wisely they could have improved public services at a sustainable rate and built a competitive and properous economy, rather than one bloated on a massive public sector delivering little value for money.

Sorry Ransos - you seem to be getting yourself confused between Deficit, and Debt, mixing the terms constantly

National Debt fell under Thatcher to the lowest point since WW1

That's entirely misleading. Debt as a % of GDP fell right at the end of Thatcher's period, but was generally higher under the tories than it was under labour. It was lower in 2008 than it was in 1997.

See here:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1979_2011&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=G0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

So, you've failed to show that the tories did better than labour either with budget deficits, or with net debt. Next!

Thats an overly simplistic way of protraying the contrys finances as it completely ignores the context. Of course it was easy for the Labour party to build a surplus as the economy was on a good footing when they inherited it.

Your view is just you saying you are right wing and like the tories and then you try and make the facts fit this view
I am out this is pointless we klnow what everyone political view is now and I cannot be bothered with the attempt to "spin" facts

Lot of hate on here. Thought it was just Yanks that yelled at each other and refused to see any positive in the other guy's point of view.

I think this is a pretty good government actually, doing their best with a bum hand of cards. I hope we have another Tory/LibDem government after this one, lots of good ideas and the hang'em and flog'em brigade get told to be quiet.

lots of good ideas

for example.... ?