[Closed] Following on from the are you leaning towards Leftism. Labour = country is skint

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?

This thread isn't what I thought it was about

[img] [/img]

[url=

Turn it up to 11

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 [i]too long[/i], 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.

[img] [/img]

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?

[i]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...

[/i]

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.

[img] http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php [/img]

OK, so if we look at the period in which our former govt discarded prudence, having claimed to have ended boom and bust...

[img] [/img]

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 [b]boom[/b] years of the last government.

[img] [/img]

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.

Z11, can you normalise those graphs for inflation?

grips, the upper one is. I imagine (hope!) the bottom one is nominal.

The basic deal is that when the tories are in they cut public services for all they are worth, they always do and they are doing it again now. Simple examples that bear comparision with now would be the vicious armed forces cuts in the first years of Thatchers government that left the country without credible air and sea cover....(ringing any bells?). Anyone with a brain will remember the huge issue prior to the 97 election, that being hospital waiting lists. Anyone hearing much on that front now? No, well get ready because you will be soon. So what happens?

Well having had the snot cut out of public services throughout a Tory governmment, the following Labour one will try to rectify the situation. Much as they have with the NHS over the term of the last Labour government.

The big problem is that neither approach is without its shortcomings, the Tory one being that they tend to give money away to their mates instead of doing anything more sensible with it, and the labour one being that they tend to over regulate. The big hope at the last election was that between a hung parliament and the MP's expenses scandal we might at long last see a lasting change in the Whitehall farce. However the optimists amoongst us didn't bank on the complete lack of spine currently being exhibited by Clegg and his accolytes. So it opportunity missed, and yet another complete cluster fudge for the man in the street.

For the record, the misdemeanours of the banks is the reason for the cash crisis. That is directly traceable back to the behaviour of Thatchers government in deregulating the banking system. It is not disputable. Prior to that to obtain a bank loan you had to have an interview with the bank manager to prove that you had good reason to borrow and the wherewithal to pay it back, for example to borrow money to buy a car they would be looking for you to have a 1/3rd deposit AND prove that you need it and could pay for it. To get a mortgage you would be very lucky to borrow more than twice the main wage earners basic salary. Credit cards were unheard of. Don't kid yourself about it, once Pandoras box was open Brown and Blair could not realistically have done anything about it without creating an earlier crisis. Thatcher and Lawson created the house of cards, both them and their mates have been feeding from the trough ever since, and it seems like they will continue to do so ever since this weeks abject failure to deal with properly with the banks occurred.

If you don't believe me check it out, then get your Tory boy heads together and justify the FC sell off. Its politcal dogma, based on self interest, no more, no less.

Oh yes, I see that top one.. and I also see it's not got a zero origin to make it look worse.. GRR bloody politics 🙁

and I also see it's not got a zero origin to make it look worse.. GRR bloody politics

I know what you mean - that graph makes a 25% increase in expenditure look a lot more.

And in the 2nd graph.....

we can see what happened to social security spending during the boom years of the last government.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_20th_century_chart.html

This graph shows the % of GDP that was govt spending. You can alter criteria but cannot show pic. It starts at 0 as well
I think with the reduction in % of those in employment coupled with the increase in pensions and in an increasing aging population- does the aging population account for the increased benefits spending? - probably skews the figures though.
Would seem labour spend a few % points more than The Tories - It would seem unlikely this is enough to destabalise the economy.
Lets not forget Black Wednesday and the Tories spectacular crash from the ERM and how much that cost us whilst we are thinking they are ace at economics.

i would suspect - using the data from [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963 ]here- it is the guardian mind[/url] would suggest new labour spent a lower % of GDP than thatcher though their peak was higher. Buying the banks he said being econimical with the truth
As I said Tories like to think they are best but not sure there is much to choose between them it is just down to your big givt V small govt and low taxes. The "facts" are not that conclusive either way. that is each "side" can throw stats about to support their view - this pretty much sums up my opinion of economics

Kind of tangential but I heard an interesting piece on the radio regarding the lag between spending and seeing social benefits. Ie labour govt spends money on Sure Start centres. Tories axe them when next in govt 'cos they can't see results. Results come through after a few years and Tories get to say how well giving people no support has worked out. Really the inverse of financial boom and bust is societal boom and bust

Whilst I do agree with some of the Tory focus on the economy and their ideas of wealth creation, deregulation etc; what I fear is going to happen is that although international confidence in the our ability to repay our debt will increase (meaning no greece/ireland scenario here),the deficit gets only slightly reduced at the cost of there being almost no one in a job in this country and another generation of jobless is spawned.
When you go to Europe you don't run into the vast numbers of people who simply don't give a **** about the community they live in. This is Thatcher's legacy I'm afraid and is the inevitable consequence of saying it's money that matters, not people.
How do countries like France still have a manufacturing base? Simple: They think it's better to subsidize manufacturing than to pay people to sit and do nothing!

When you go to Europe you don't run into the vast numbers of people who simply don't give a **** about the community they live in

You don't run into them, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

I think that at the moment if your left or right biased in your political leanings it doesn't really matter a jot unless your a politician. They are all laughing at us from there big clubhouse in London. No party will implement big change and plan for the future say in 10 or 20yrs time because it wont benefit them at the present. All our political parties are so short sighted and only seem bothered in the here and now. I'm off for a Fursty Ferret.

We're 2 places lower than we used to be...

[img] [/img]

Careful now, this is in danger of becoming a reasoned fact-based debate with lots of mature commentary and general consensus.
Not the STW way, people!
🙂

Cant imagine why... 😉

Shhh... they might appear.

chickenman - Member
Whilst I do agree with some of the Tory focus on the economy and their ideas of wealth creation, deregulation etc

A bit more regulation of those wealth creating banks might have helped to not trash the economy. That said neither hue of party has regulated them properly.

Incidentally, I work in electricity where the heavily regulated distribution area has reduced prices, invested more and increased service levels, while the de-regulated supply area (the ones you buy your electricity from) appear to be acting as a cartel.

realises he is out numbered runs away
Actually i will bite but tomorrow I am busy now. Been a while since stoner kicked my arse on an economics thread 😉 and 😳

When you go to Europe you don't run into the vast numbers of people who simply don't give a **** about the community they ive in.

Obviously never been to the suburbs of Paris, or the wrong end of central Athens then! Very few places in the UK with a similar level of scariness, even when they're not currently having a riot.

Isn't this a bit like arguing which is the better of syphillis or gonorrhea?

I just did that political compass assessment - turns out I'm closest to Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the Green Party! I wish the last government had controlled spending better and I'm broadly supportive of the coalition. I hate excess governance and traditional "we want to tell you how you should live your life" socialist behaviour but conversely I don't trust big business to work for the good of humanity as it's too obsessed with short-term shareholder goals. Note that one of the most successful financiers Warren Buffet is successful because he goes against the grain and works for the benefit of the company and its employees - and in the longterm the shareholders win too!

I don't believe such brief political terms or the democratic process reward brave selfless behaviour from politicians but I can't think of a better solution.

I hope that rising oil prices and overseas labour costs drive some growth in UK manufacturing so we have a more balanced economy and school kids can look forward to a wider variety of careers and hopefully more apprenticeships for those that want to develop a trade but aren't academically inclined or are sick of theoretical education.

chiefgrooveguru

Yeah I've just shockingly had the same experience. I have to say I've come to the conclusion that the politicians are no better than big business, in fact big buisness is more honest as it doesn't pretend to be trying to improve our lives and be working for us.

When you go to Europe you don't run into the vast numbers of people who simply don't give a **** about the community they live in

I pity the politicians. The truth is that most people in this country vote with their wallet - "who promises to give me / let me keep more money"? *

So a new lot get in and whatever their ideals, they're given 5 years to put everything right, to overcome decades of mismanagement. If they can't turn the whole ship around in that time, they're out on their collectives arses and the next lot are brought in to start the whole thing all over again.

If the Tories can be accused of lining the pockets of themselves and their mates, at least there's a certain honesty about it. The Labour party can never fulfil their expectations. As soon as they "improve" the lot of their core voters, they switch to being Tory. Hence, they can only stay in power by ensuring the UK is continually under-achieving. Tony Blair swung it by looking and sounding like a Tory and letting his subordinates fly the red flag in the areas where they'd vote for a monkey if it wore a red rosette.

* The exceptions?

1/ Greens. Some voters actually care more about the environment than the state of their personal finances. Of course, of course it's easier to be so caring if you are already reasonably well off.

2/ Nationalists. Those who have a patriotism which surpasses their individual desire for more wealth. Of course the parties offering this tend to be "middle ground" as they are, essentially, two parties fighting together until they achieve independence.

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?

If only it was so black and white. The previous labour Government followed tory economic policies...the same sort of policies the Tories continued to condone until the last economic crash and probably still condone in private today.

What labour did do is rack up debt in relation to public services, by promising the electorate improved services. The electorate wanted it, but didn't want to pay for it in tax increases. Large debts were racked up throughout the world in many different countries with many different flavours of Government in power.

You could look at the presidency of George W. Bush, certainly a right leaning gentlemen, but racked up the debt and ultimately it was the US where the financial trouble really started.

I bet the Chinese were shouting "we've got them by the b*lls!" when they bought a load of US debt.

The truth is that most people in this country vote with their wallet

Regardless of politicians or bankers, the responsibility comes down to joe public. We get the politicians we deserve, and we've got the World i'm sure many right thinking people would not be too proud to pass on to our Children.

Regardless of politicians or bankers, the responsibility comes down to joe public. We get the politicians we deserve, and we've got the World i'm sure many right thinking people would not be too proud to pass on to our Children.

The problem with democracy is that you have to persuade half wits to vote for you. 😉

just to check - reducing the defecit has nothing to do with reducing national debt. All these cuts at the moment are about the defecit.

National defecit is the difference between govt spending and govt income (taxes).
National debt is how much the government owes.

mudshark - Member

We're 2 places lower than we used to be...

good! - we're surrounded by rich people who can afford to buy things we produce.

bassspine - well obviously there is a link...

If you run a substantial deficit you will obviously be increasing your national debt.

Interesting and related article on the radio this morning discussing the American deficit and how at its current rate of increase will be 110% of GDP in a decade. It also eluded to the relative deficits (taking into account size of economy) in this country being very similar. Given all political parties in the US are to the right of even the tories here that rather debunks the stereotype of left right fiscal policy.

good! - we're surrounded by rich people who can afford to buy things we [b]produce[/b].

Erm....

convert, the distinction between deficit and debt is important when you're highlighting the structural deficit. This is that part of the deficit that doesn't get cancelled out by revenues from increases in GDP and is fundamentally the part of national expenditure that the current government are focussing on reducing.

As you imply you'd expect a surplus to erode a debt, a deficit to increase it. However, with a substantial structural element of the costs of running the country it's very hard (almost impossible) to get into surplus again so you rely upon favourable interest rates and inflation to fund the short fall over the longer term.

How lovely. Yet another thread about how the country is 'skint', full of [s]arguing[/s] discussion between people who generally aren't actually 'skint'....

As opposed to another discussion about Cuts, when government spending has risen?

How lovely. Yet another thread about how the country is 'skint', full of [s]arguing[/s] discussion between people who generally aren't actually 'skint'....

......and your point is?

Elfinsafety - Member

"good! - we're surrounded by rich people who can afford to buy things we produce"

Erm....

what's your point?

are you trying to suggest that we don't make things anymore? - cos you'd be dead wrong.

we're great at making expensive bits of specialist kit, if more people around the world can afford them then that's a good thing, isn't it? - i'll give you a clue: it is.