[Closed] On balance, would we be better off if the current Labour party were in power?

19.6

Political parties in the UK govern like England play football.

(after years of being told how vital Europe was to UK exports)which is watching Europe teeter on the brink of financial armageddon.

and after years of rabid anti europe sentiment amongst a large proportion of the political classes who seem to have missed that it might help to talk to your trading partners, when you are as reliant as we are, they can screw you by their actions quite easily.

We live on a little island off the west coast of europe, we don't rule the waves, we don't have a vast empire, our future is not in out hands alone.

Call me Dave is talking to them. Well... sort of. He's actually lecturing them in the most profoundly partonising and condescending manner imaginable. Like he's talking to a 3 year old with educational difficulties

Its sure to win plenty of friends

Well he does have the moral high ground, just look at how he and his inbred eton classmates have turned this country around ...........

A layman's example of what?

Can we have a different political system please.

Just pick a fresh bunch of MP's off the electoral roll every three years and give them a free vote in parliament. Then nobody needs to win any popularity contests by lying about their supposed ideology, and with no short term gains to be made in the corridors of power, we can get on with fixing the issues long term.

Let me get this of my chest first...For starters, I didn't vote conservative in 2010. Nor would I vote conservative. I don't like the direction this government is taking the country, nor do I agree with most of their policies. I'd be quite happy to see them kicked out of office tomorrow.

However...

The last Labour government were an abomination. For starters, they lied. A lot. Even Alastair Campbell admits that Blair ignored key intelligence prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair's approach to the NI peace process was to lie through his teeth, promising everything under the sun just so long as both sides stayed at the table. 100,000 Iraqis are dead as a direct result of the invasion of 2003 which was sold to us on the basis of shonky evidence. At the very least someone should be on trial at The Hague for this.

In addition to the lying was the financial mis-management. We all know about the IT projects which cost the country enough to pay for a couple of Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The truth is much worse, I have friends who were in managerial positions overseeing some of the implementation of HMRC and NHS computer systems. Contractors were allowed to name their own prices for last minute changes to the system which were added at the behest of whichever minister was overseeing the project at the time, causing endless delays. A good proportion of those contractors weren't even UK based. Political interference was rife, to the detriment of everything especially the cost to the nation.

Thirdly we have the economy. The claims of a massive boom in the 1990s are somewhat overblown, much can be put down to the relaxation of lending rules which pushed the value of collateral up. If you had a mortgage it was great, the value of your home doubled and you could afford to put an E Class Merc on your drive. Benefits were handed out to the middle classes - within the top 1% richest people on the planet, instead of tackling the costs of living in this country. Social Mobility ground to a halt and debts both personal and national spiralled.

I could go on about ID Cards, the failure to renationalise the railways, the endless privatisation and tuition fees, all of which were deeply unpopular here and a baffling direction for a supposed left wing government.

The fact that the current Labour opposition puts it all down to misunderstanding immigration speaks volumes. The party that gave us the Welfare State, the NHS and who nationalised the railways needs to sort it's ideological crisis out before I'd ever consider voting for them again.

oliver,
like a kind of jury service system with eligble people selected at random from the population?

In addition to the lying was the financial mis-management. We all know about the IT projects which cost the country enough to pay for a couple of Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The truth is much worse, I have friends who were in managerial positions overseeing some of the implementation of HMRC and NHS computer systems. Contractors were allowed to name their own prices for last minute changes to the system which were added at the behest of whichever minister was overseeing the project at the time, causing endless delays. A good proportion of those contractors weren't even UK based. Political interference was rife, to the detriment of everything especially the cost to the nation.

my mate was hired as troubleshooter on big IT projects for the DWP, from what hes said nothing has changed, other than IDS is now the one dictating the impossible deadlines and signing off on the not worth the paper contracts

The last election was one to lose and in the long term the Tories will be thankful they are in a coalition – expect that card to played at length in the next general election.

The lib dems gaining some power at the worst possible time will set them back - maybe beyond repair.

The torries/LDs have done nothing radical since coming to power and Labour would in reality have done almost exactly the same. The political posturing is just scratching the surface stuff. No gov would spooke the markets in the current climate and that means play very steady / safe. If Labour had won we would be in 99% the same position. Our hands are tied by the burden of debt and with no money to spend the current gov (whoever it is) we be remembered for some pretty grim times.

binners - Member
Call me Dave is talking to them. Well... sort of. He's actually lecturing them in the most profoundly partonising and condescending manner imaginable. Like he's talking to a 3 year old with educational difficulties

Its sure to win plenty of friends

CMD is talking to 'middle class' right wingers everywhere He's actually trying to save his job as they have lost faith in him after the coulson/brooks NI stink, euro referndumb, economy down the pan, immigration cok ups, tax breaks/scams for the rich/donors etc. Like hes talking to a bunch of reactionary bigots who believe what they read in the press.

It will probably win him plenty of friends

like a kind of jury service system with eligble people selected at random from the population?

If it's good enough for one end of the legal system, it should be just as good for the other.

its what the Greeks did originally drew your name from a hat...probably cannot be any worse than what we have now

its what the Greeks did originally drew your name from a hat...probably cannot be any worse than what we have now

They also had a process whereby politicians were judged at the end of their term, to ensure their actions were not in their own interests rather than the greater good.

Of course we would be better off. We would not have the stupid austerity lpolicy that has caused the economy to tip back int orecession - so morepeople would be in work, we would have growth not recesssion and we would be paying of the debt as a result to increasing it at the rate the tories are.

Under the tories once again the economy is worse, government income is lower, taxation has to go up, spending on benefits is up.

They are a bunch of incompetent buffoons. the only competence they show is in persuading people that he international recession with roots in the US ad banking system in the US and handled well by labour is actually labours fault. Completely ridiculous to anyone with an open mind.

Oh my lord TJ, wake up and smell the coffee. The labour plans for the economy were near identical to the Tories, we would be in the same mess just a different leader.

I'd have more faith in Mickey Mouse than the current government. 😆

TJ

I'm nowhere near being a Tory Voter, but c'mon, labour had no greater ideas of how to get us out of this mess. It was Brown's government that first introduced quantitive easing, and I seem to remember reading talk of 'double dip' recession back then

No - we would be in essentially the same position as we are in now. The difference between spending plans and most major policies of the Tories and the Labour is mere statistical noise. The recession has not been caused by austerity - just look at the data. Blimey is takes a disgraced LibDeb MP (Laws) to sound like a Tory these days.

The Labour Party are committed to very similar policies (eg, read Rachel Reeves on QE), would be constrained by the same long term and immediate recessionary issues (ie simultaneous deleveraging of countries, banks and households), face the same challenges of the Euro Zone crisis constraining growth, and be constrained by the same financial market dynamics. Like the Tories, they would have a front bench of career politicians with little real world experience - and guess what the Oxford PPE/private school connections - funny that:

Milliband Oxford PPE/LSE
Harman - St Pauls, York (academic lightweight obviously :wink:)
Balls - Nott HS, Oxford PPE/Harvard
Cooper - Oxford PPE/LSE
Reeves - Oxford PPE/LSE/Bank of England

Need I say any more? And people wonder why there isn't a strong central debate around economic policy. No one is challenging the accepted wisdom of the mainstream of economics or politics or institutions like BoE/IMF/Bundesbank. Why, because they were all cut from the same cloth!

Dont forget, politicians react and legislate to solve yesterday's problems be they Tory, LibDem, ConDem,Labour, UKIP, Uncle Tom Cobbly and All. Completely obvious to anyone with an open mind!

p.s. the odd thing is that people like Balls and Reeves write very well and with immense common sense. Then they remember that they are politicians and revert to type!

I have to beg to differ with TJ on this one.

I don't know how anyone can in all conscience vote Labour after the Iraq debacle.

If labour had won then the streets would have been paved with gold. Everyone would have a job and people would be much nicer to each other.

Oh hang on......

They would be doing most of the same cuts just in slightly different ways.

Labour was mostly holding off doing anything till after the election.

It would make no major difference. Maybe slight growth driven by government spending. Whether that spending would be in the right areas to eventually produce sustainable growth is anyone's guess.

Ultimately this whole crisis has its roots in the 1980s with the deregulation of financial services, privatisation of much of our public sector, and focus on the service industries over maintaining a diversity in our economy. The boom it produced looked good throughout the 1990s so Labour carried on with most of it, but it's only now that we realise the real problems that it has left us with.

PJM1974 - Member

I have to beg to differ with TJ on this one.

I don't know how anyone can in all conscience vote Labour after the Iraq debacle.

I have struggled myself for sure and voted tactically mainly

However on the question of who would be running the economy better? Labour all the way

quantitative easing or printing money was what stopped us sliding into a deeper recession. Could have been spent better however and still should.

cutting leading to increased unemployment leads to decreased tax take and increased benefits bill hence the double dip and the at best stagnant economy.

The crash was not labours fault in main, their response to it was widely copied / used around the world and still is. However the right wing have successfully sold the "its all all labours fault" line.

However on the question of who would be running the economy better? Labour all the way

Crystal balls TJ?

Open eyes and history. Osbourne is a crap chancellor - everything he touches turns to shit

TJ, I dont want to argue, but have a look at the unemployment figures, between 2008/9 unemployment rose from 1.6million to 2.5million, yes its risen since 2010 when the tories came to power but only by about 5% so the increase in unemployment is hardly a result of tory cuts.
yes the crash was not Labours fault, however, they were quite wasteful of the cash and so we have less room to manouvre at the moment to keep creating money.
however regardless of political party the whole country needs to stop looking at housing as an investment, until then we will price ourselves out of our own country.

Interesting discussion, I tend to the view that at street level we'd probably be better off had Labour stayed in office, it was as if the wheels came off everything when VAT increased, that combined with the general press frenzy about 'Austerity' which became a self fulfilling prophecy in the private sector. Expecting us in the Private sector to drive jobs and growth with increased taxation at point of purchase and banks being constrained by both the economy and ever harsher lending constraints placed upon them by Basle agreements was not just naive but stupid.

As to employment, having just written a cheque for £3000 to an employee a partner sacked without following the absolutely exact procedure for stealing money from a till, caught red handed, does not exactly fill one with the desire to employ folk at all, better to hunker down and do what you can with your own resources, stay small and if possible stay off the tax grid.

For so so many reasons the system is totally screwed, we don't have democracy here at all as someone else mentioned, the markets are driving us, markets that themselves are controlled by nobody, a collection of algorithms written by redundant NASA scientists designed to generate profit from nothing other than the movement of funds driven by perception.

Certainly beyond the comprehension of our politicians whatever the flavour.

Sorry about to have a bad day, needed a rant.

I have to beg to differ with TJ on this one.

I don't know how anyone can in all conscience vote Labour after the Iraq debacle.

I sort of agree but do you think the Tories would have done anything differently re Iraq?

The Conservatives supported the Iraq war, I think the problem most people have with Labour is over the so called "dodgy dossier" that justified the war. However, even without that we'd almost certainly have ended up in Iraq sooner or later, whoever was in power.

Grum - highly unlikely. As in many things the consensus is often more marked than the differences. So who said (and when):

“We have reached the limits of the public’s willingness simply to fund an unreformed welfare system through ever higher taxes and spending.”

Which party's measures are these:

"...reducing the size of the state further (perhaps to 35pc of GDP), simplifying tax and reducing it, creating lower marginal tax rates and increasing the personal tax allowance. Other suggestions include allowing for-profit providers to deliver state-funded education, introducing more competition in energy markets and in general shifting decision-making away from government to personal choice and greater freedom."

Answers: Tony Blair 1997, Liberal Democrats 2012

Interesting take on all of this from the Lib Dems (so acknowledge bias up-front) in an article called The 5 myths about the UK economy:

[i]It is true, though, that Labour’s publicly declared plans for the deficit at the 2010 general election were more modest in scope than those adopted by the Coalition. It is quite another question whether they would have stuck to them: after all, it was Labour’s Alistair Darling who warned of ‘cuts deeper than Thatcher’, and Liam Byrne who admitted there was no money left. But let us assume Labour would have done what they said they would: what then would have been the result for the British economy?

This is a counter-factual question which has been assessed by the Ernst&Young ITEM team using a model identical to the Treasury’s to work out the macroeconomic impact of sticking to Labour’s fiscal plans between 2010 and 2012. The results? Well, under the most likely scenario of Labour’s looser fiscal policy, economic growth would have been fractionally lower (2.0%) than under the Coalition (2.1%) in 2010, identical in 2011 (0.7%) and slightly higher in 2012 (0.7% cf 0.4%). Overall, the marginally higher growth of Labour’s looser fiscal policy would have resulted in 70,000 fewer unemployed. However, that reduction would have been obtained with an increase in debt across the three years of £26 billion — the equivalent of £370,000 per job — to be repaid by the nation later.

In any case, Labour’s ‘too far, too fast’ mantra is built on sand. The reality is the Coalition has so slowed down its original deficit reduction programme that it is now less stringent than Alistair Darling’s. Yes, that’s right — the Coalition’s fiscal plans under David Cameron are looser than Labour’s fiscal plans were under Gordon Brown.

[b]The closer reality is that neither the Coalition nor Labour is at all sure how to respond to the current economic slowdown. [/b]The growth of the Blair/Brown years was driven by a massive expansion of personal and government debt, as Tim Morgan has noted here in his pamphlet The Quest for Change and Renewal:

Between 2000 and 2009, the big drivers of the economy were private borrowing and public spending. Reflecting this, the CREF (construction, real estate and finance) sectors expanded rapidly on the back of private borrowing while big increases in real public spending drove up output from HEPA (health, education and public administration) … the rapid growth between 2000 and 2009 in both CREF (+42%) and HEPA (+28%) masked a languishing in the rest of the economy (–5%), with real output from manufacturing plunging by 26%.

These differential rates of growth left a huge proportion of the economy incapable of growth. In 2009, the public spending driven HEPA sector accounted for 19% of all economic output, whilst borrowing-dependent CREF activities represented a further 40%. Add in a retail sector beleaguered by the squeeze on real disposable incomes and almost 70% of the economy is incapable of growth. [b]Thus seen, Britain’s growth prospects are grim, because a huge proportion of the economy is skewed towards, and dependent upon, the dead-and-buried drivers of private borrowing and public spending. [/b]And growth is critical to the Coalition’s fiscal plan, because that plan cannot work unless revenues increase in response to a brisk expansion in output.

[b]The usual attempts at an economic fix have failed, as consumers, companies and government de-leverage after a decade or more of maxing out their debt. [/b]The Government (both Coalition and then Labour) has tried to boost private spending by keeping interest rates at close to zero, while the Government (both Coalition and then Labour) has injected huge sums of public money into the economy — some £825bn through a combination of deficit spending and quantitative easing. So far none of this has worked, though it may of course have prevented the situation from becoming even worse.

Conclusion
The first step toward a diagnosis is to acknowledge the extent of the problem. Yet that isn’t currently happening in our debates on the economy. [b]Political debate instead turns on the minute differences which separate the Coalition’s and Labour’s remarkably similar economic approach.

It suits the political parties, and it suits the media. But as a result myths are taking hold — that the Coalition is embarking on ‘slash and burn’ austerity, or that the national debt is being wiped clear — which distort the reality of the situation. And this only makes it harder to begin grappling with our problems.[/b][/i]

So at least some sense from the Lib Dems. Now if they could only keep Vince Cable quiet?!?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

If anyone actually believes that Labour would be doing anything radically different you are incredibly niave.

Look at the politicians we have and find the differences? look at the recent actions of the parties and find the differences.

Then look at the shambles that decades of career politicians have created and weep.

I sort of agree but do you think the Tories would have done anything differently re Iraq?

I don't think they'd have done anything different. But then I've never voted Tory, nor have I any plan to do so.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18587254 ]UK public borrowing jumps in May[/url]

THM I went to the lib dem article and here is myth 1 - my bold

Myth 1: [b]UK public spending is reducing[/b]

So keen has been the Coalition and Labour (for their own different reasons) to talk up the extent of the Government’s spending cuts that the reality has been forgotten. Public spending is going up year-on-year under the Coalition, rising from £690bn in 2010-11 to £744bn (+8%) by 2014-15. [b]If we allow for inflation, there will be a modest reduction: from £690bn to £668bn (-3%) by 2014-15. [/b]

Its hard to argue there have been no cuts given the vast swathes of redundancies within the public sector and the number employed may be a better measure of cuts than actual budgets.

In truth we'd be a whole heap better off with consensus politics rather than the pendulum swing back and forth between two opposing doctrines. A term of 5 years is simply not sufficient to do anything of real note which will give long term benefits.

Until we get that we are doomed to a situaion where one shower gets in and tries to undo what the previous shower did, then the other gets in and only to reverse it all again.

A massive shame that the last election and the events prior to it did not manage to shoulder charge the established status quo off the ball and give us all an opportunity to rewrite the rule book and have a go at scoring.

I live in hope of a middle of the road politico developing gonads and actually grasping the will of the vast majority of British people who are surprisingly moderate and turning that will into some common sense policies.

JY - it is hard to argue indeed as it means focusing on facts not media-led rhetoric. Look at the facts in front of us, including those that you have emphasised in bold. There will be a modest reduction in real terms by 2014-15 (although I thought this was actually starting in 2013 but hey ho!). Of course, there have been cuts in some areas (my family has been affected directly) but that does not mean that one can conclude that the current recession has been caused (or even exacerbated) by either austerity or large scale [b]cuts in government spending.[/b] It makes for convenient headlines and silly debates on here/elsewhere but does little to solve the problems faced in the UK, Europe and elsewhere. Hence the LibDem conclusions that I chose to highlight.

The UK and other governments are making plenty of policy mistakes but that doesn't give us the excuse to accuse them of things they haven't done, as pleasing as that may be for lazy analysis/headline writers.

To repeat:

It suits the political parties, and it suits the media. But as a result myths are taking hold — that the Coalition is embarking on ‘slash and burn’ austerity, or that the national debt is being wiped clear — which distort the reality of the situation. And this only makes it harder to begin grappling with our problems.

Its also worth pointing out that the line "If we allow for inflation, there will be a modest reduction" is very much dependent upon predicted inflation levels, actual rates of inflation may well differ, leading to a potential situation where there have been no real terms cuts at all...

JY - it is hard to argue indeed as it means focusing on facts not media-led rhetoric. Look at the facts in front of us, including those that you have emphasised in bold. There will be a modest reduction in real terms by 2014-15 (although I thought this was actually starting in 2013 but hey ho!). Of course, there have been cuts in some areas (my family has been affected directly) but that does not mean that one can conclude that the current recession has been caused (or even exacerbated) by either austerity or large scale cuts in government spending.

Lots of government departments/agencies etc have anticipated the cuts that have been announced but haven't come in yet though, and are already laying off staff, cutting back on outsourcing contracts, reducing budgets, not replacing people that leave/retire etc - so that it's not all happening in one sudden jolt.

Are you really trying to suggest there is no possible impact on the economy from any of this, especially in areas where the public sector (and businesses with large public sector contracts) is a big share of overall employment?

No, of course not. Merely pointing out that this is not the principle reason for the problems we are in. One should not confuse micro cuts with macro ones across total government spending. However, there is no doubt that anticipation/expectation of this has an effect in advance.

The Tories try to pretend that they are cutting the deficit and the Labour Party pretend that the government have cut too far, too fast (sound familiar). Both are being economical with the truth (if you will pardon the pun).

But lets put the current fiscal policy into perspective (despite it being looser than that proposed by labour) and focus on the far more difficult challenges of triple deleveraging and the crisis in Europe (our major trading partner). Massive monetary easing proposed by C/LD & Labour have very limited impact in that context and yet that is the major thrust of all party consensus policies. Hence the title of this thread!

so the myth of cuts is in fact true then despite what they headline said in the report you expect me to read....not impressed and not reading further - i did skim though [ the article not your post ..I hang on your every word 😀 ]

There will be a modest reduction in real terms by 2014-15 (although I thought this was actually starting in 2013 but hey ho!). Of course, there have been cuts in some areas

I would be delighted if you explain the employment rates within the public sector to further show the extent of "modest cutts" what is 1/4 million? More? etc

leading to a potential situation where there have been no real terms cuts at all

Its also worth pointing out that the line "If we allow for inflation, there will be a modest reduction" is very much dependent upon predicted inflation levels, actual rates of inflation may well differ, leading to a potential situation where there have been no real terms cuts at all...

So if government spending is not going down, despite reducing funding to the NHS, increasing tuition fees, cutting benefits and making thousands redundant, then what was the point of all that, and where is the money going?

C'mon JY - there is no confusion between reduction in spending in some areas (that always happens) with increases in the total. You were an economist (with a good grade if I recall correctly at A level) so you can understand that. If you dont want to read the article to see what it says, then that's your choice/loss 😉

Rising UN is not proof of cuts in government spending. The real issue is the fact that the government overestimated (vastly) the ability of the private sector to absorb public sector job losses. But that is a different story altogether - albeit an on-going one.

Read the article on the drivers of UK growth 2000-09 and them take Labour's comments on a balanced economy with the correct level of scepticism. What exactly happened to the balance of the UK economy under their watch. And to manufacturing......?

So if government spending is not going down, despite reducing funding to the NHS, increasing tuition fees, cutting benefits and making thousands redundant, then what was the point of all that, and where is the money going?

no point and to the increasing number of un and underemployed?