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

Home Forum Chat Forum Following on from the are you leaning towards Leftism. Labour = country is skint

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 70 total)
  • Following on from the are you leaning towards Leftism. Labour = country is skint
  • Mugboo
    Member

    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?

    PeterPoddy
    Member

    Pretty much, yeah

    clubber
    Member

    To quote Obi Wan, it depends on your point of view.

    Premier Icon Onzadog
    Subscriber

    As someone who avoids getting into political debates, as a simplification, it does seem about right.

    clubber
    Member

    (ps, I assume this is a troll to try and reel TJ in)

    aP
    Member

    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?

    CaptJon
    Member

    Anyone compared Kondratiev waves and government deficits?

    Mr Woppit
    Member

    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.

    trailmonkey
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    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.

    5thElefant
    Member

    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.

    Probably the same thing. What would labour be doing now? Almost certainly the same thing.

    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…

    aP
    Member

    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?

    Wozza
    Member

    This thread isn’t what I thought it was about

    Clicky Turn it up to 11

    trailmonkey
    Member

    Excellent shout Wozza, breakfast on this.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmRofW4rFgI[/video]

    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.

    druidh
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon igm
    Subscriber

    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

    gonefishin
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon billyboy
    Subscriber

    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?

    b r
    Member

    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 😉

    Junkyard
    Member

    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 😉

    Mugboo
    Member

    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…

    chewkw
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    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

    Mugboo
    Member

    I also accept that a balance has to be struck between welfare and capaitalsm. At the moment it is rather misplaced/misguided.

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    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!

    Papa_Lazarou
    Member

    being right of centre and not remotely embarrassed about it.

    you should be

    chewkw
    Member

    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 …

    Premier Icon Rio
    Subscriber

    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.

    5thElefant
    Member

    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.

    Yep. I consider myself right wing because I want small government. But, according to the Political Compass I’m way to the left of Labour and actually a bleeding heart lefty liberal:

    Zulu-Eleven
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Z11, can you normalise those graphs for inflation?

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

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

    G
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    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 🙁

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    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.

    Bollox! What I see there is a linear increase going right back to the 70s with very little fluctuation from the unerlying trend in spending patterns irrespective of political policy.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 70 total)

The topic ‘Following on from the are you leaning towards Leftism. Labour = country is skint’ is closed to new replies.