Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I like this from Another Angry Voice: George Osborne's tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer has been a remarkable display of incompetence. Anyone who tries to deny this is clearly extremely confused about economics, or they're blatantly lying to you. The easiest way to prove that Osbornomics has failed in its own terms is to look at the economic projections George Osborne made when he first took office in 2010. He bragged about how he was going to completely eradicate the budget deficit by 2015, and how he was going to protect the UK's AAA credit ratings. He has blatantly failed to achieve either of these things. It has long since been accepted that there is absolutely no chance that the budget deficit will be eradicated by 2015, and in 2013 the UK suffered the embarrassment of being stripped of it's AAA ratings by the credit rating agencies for the first time since the 1970s. The extraordinary scale of Osborne's borrowing is so bad that by the end of the 2010-15 parliament he will have borrowed £207 billion more than he claimed that he would. Under his stewardship public debt will have risen by 50% in just five years, meaning he will have increased the national debt by more than every single Labour government in history combined! Not only has George Osborne completely failed to eradicate the budget deficit as he claimed he would, and borrowed hundreds of billions more than he claimed he would, the economy is way smaller than he claimed it was going to be back in 2010. Osborne's 2010 projections claimed that by the end of the 2010-15 parliament the nominal GDP of the UK economy would be £1,916 billion, however this has now been revised downwards to £1,788 billion. It turns out that George Osborne has borrowed £207 billion more than he said he would in order to make the economy £128 billion smaller than he claimed it was going to be! If anyone in the real world would have missed their business projections by such appallingly vast margins, there is absolutely no way they would still be in a job. However with George Osborne the situation is even more ludicrous than the fact that he's still in his job despite his ridiculous track record of failure, because the public actually believe the right-wing propaganda about how much of a success he's been and rate the Tories as by far the most economically trustworthy party! That Osbornomics has been such an appalling failure in its own terms, yet the public laud the Tories for their economic competence raises the interesting question of how it is possible for the public to be so completely wrong. Economic fairy stories The first thing to note is that a huge percentage of the public have no training in the economic basics, meaning that they are susceptible to the most ludicrous economic fairy stories. One such example of a ludicrous economic fairy story is the endlessly repeated "recovery" narrative. The fact that the UK economy has only just recovered to pre-crisis levels in 2014 means that the entire UK economy has suffered an average economic growth rate of 0% for seven long years. The Tories and the right-wing press would have us believe that we're experiencing a remarkable economic recovery, but in reality we've just endured the slowest economic recovery since the aftermath of the 1720 South Sea Bubble! Not only has the economy effectively flatlined for seven years, the majority of people have become poorer due to wage repression, cuts in in-work benefits, hidden inflation and the ideological assault on public services. The economy is the same size as it was before the economic crisis, but the majority of people are much worse off now because of the massive transference of wealth from the majority to the wealthy minority that has been going on under George Osborne's watch. Another example of how people can be bufuddled by economic fairy stories is the way that so many people believe the economically naive idea that the only way to reduce the debt is to reduce government spending. In reality it is possible to dramatically cut spending and massively increase the debt (as George Osborne has spent the last four years demonstrating) and it is also possible to reduce the debt by increasing spending (as was proven by the post-war Labour government, which spent huge amounts on founding the NHS, building hundreds of thousands of council houses and rebuilding Britian's shattered infrastructure, and managed to reduce the national debt by 40% of GDP in the process). The paradox of thrift has been known about since antiquity, yet still people prefer to think in really simplistic terms, rather than accept the complex reality that cutting spending on economically beneficial things can increase the debt, and increasing spending on economically beneficial things can reduce the debt. It seems counter-intuitive, but cutting spending can increase the debt and increasing spending can reduce the debt. Most people simply won't accept this fact because they know absolutely nothing about basic macroeconomic ideas like fiscal multiplication and the marginal propensity to consume. Another economic fairy story that is adored by the public is the idea that Labour blasts loads of money, and the Tories pay off the debts. George Osborne himself used this one back in 2007 when he said "As has been the case so many times before, it's the next Conservative government that will have to clean up the mess left by a profligate and irresponsible Labour Party". Millions of people believe that this is what has been going on, despite the fact that George Osborne has created more debt in just four years than every Labour government in history combined! The mainstream media The mainstream media has a lot to answer for giving George Osborne such an easy ride on his appalling track record of failure. The right-wing press are notoriously biased towards the Tory party, meaning that he always gets an easy ride from them, no matter how often he has to revise his growth figures downwards and his borrowing figures upwards. However even traditionally left-wing publications like the Guardian are guilty of giving George Osborne a ridiculously easy ride too. In this article entitled "George Osborne likely to miss deficit reduction target as UK borrowing rises" the Guardian discusses the fact that Obsorne looks set to miss his March 2014 projections by £10 billion, meaning that borrowing in 2014-15 will be £105 billion rather than the projected £95 billion. The fact that in 2010 George Osborne and the OBR projected that the budget deficit would be completely eliminated by 2015 wasn't even mentioned in the article. Judging George Osborne by his most recent set of economic projections, rather than the promises he made when he became Chancellor in 2010 makes it look like he's going to be just 10% out on his calculations (borrowing £10 billion more than he claimed he would in March 2014), rather than 100% out (borrowing £105 billion more than he said he claimed he would in November 2010) . The habit of judging Osborne against his most recent set of economic predictions instead of what he promised when he came to power has allowed him to consistently revise his economic growth projections downwards and downwards and his borrowing projections upwards and upwards without anyone pointing out how spectacularly inaccurate his original projections have proven to be. The Labour party One of the main reasons that George Osborne gets away with such incompetence is the fact that the Labour party has completely given up trying to present anything resembling an alternative. From one day to the next the only thing the public hear from Ed Balls and the Labour party is that they plan to imitate George Osborne's economic policies. Instead of pointing out that George Osborne has borrowed £207 billion more than he claimed he would in order to make the UK economy £128 billion smaller than he claimed it would be, Ed Balls has provided George Osborne with a veneer of false credibility by promising to stick to George Osborne's spending plans should Labour win in 2015! Instead of repeatedly slamming George Osborne's pet quango the Office for Budget Responsibility for the fact their economic projections have proven to be so incredibly inaccurate over and over again, Ed Ball's has provided them with a veneer of false credibility by pledging to allow them to scrutinise his spending plans! Instead of repeatedly attacking George Osborne's appalling track record of failure, the Labour party keep imitating George Osborne and providing him a veneer of legitimacy that he really doesn't deserve. The public won't trust Labour on the economy because they appear to be imitating George Osborne with their aganda of austerity-lite. I mean why would anyone choose to believe in a watered-down imitation, rather than the thing that is being imitated? The incredible stupidity of the Labour economic stance is one of the main reasons that the Labour party is lagging so far behind the Tories on economic credibility. Conclusion If we look at the unimaginably vast differences between what George Osborne promised his austerity agenda would achieve in 2010 and what has actually happened in reality, it is impossible to conclude that Osbornomics has been anything but a catastrophic failure. In other articles I have explained why Osbornomics has failed, but in this one I've concentrated on how the public have come to believe that George Osborne and the Tories are economically trustworthy, despite the absolute mountain of evidence of their catastrophic economic mismanagement. In my view there are many reasons including the widespread economic illiteracy of general the public (due to the appalling lack of economic literacy training in state schools), the incredibly biased reporting of the mainstream media and the absolutely ridiculous "austerity -lite" stance of the Labour party. Sorry about the delayed response to this one. Been away for a few days. Some leftist opinions are indeed "the rantings of half-baked hate mongers", as Webbo describes this.....but this isn't one of them. It's actually an excellent critique of aspects of Osborne's record on economic policy (and of the poor response to it). I'll never convert you into a lefty any more than you'll make me a Tory, Webbo, but try reading the substantive points of Shade's post (as opposed to the rhetoric) with an open mind. At the very least, it'll help you improve your arguments for Tory economic policy. Sorry if that sounds patronising! Claiming that the Tories have a good economic record because the last 2 years have brought some growth and a fall in unemployment is the equivalent of claiming that LCFC are the best team in the Premier League as we've won our last 4 games. - It's a fact that, after the 2008 global financial crash, growth started to rise slowly in the last few quarters of the Labour govt - It's a fact that, under Osborne, we then had 2-3 years of stagnation with occasional dips and rises ("flatlining" to use Balls' term) [see the ONS growth figures in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy ; the article also has interesting data on growth & "GDP per person" (productivity) for all post-1955 governments, Labour and Tory alike - e.g. GDP £282bn (1997); £372bn (2010); £382bn (2013), or GDP per person (productivity: £4591 (1997); £5729 (2010); £5698 (2012)] - The "paradox of thrift" mentioned in the post (the need for public spending, not cuts, during hard times) is widely accepted by economists, and not just Keynesians - In 2010, the Tories ridiculed Labour for aiming to halve the deficit by 2015; now the Tories are crowing about Osborne's brilliance in nearly halving it - Criticism of papers like The Guardian for only looking at short-term results, not results over 5 years, are entirely justified - Criticism of Labour for allowing Tory economic arguments to dominate has been entirely justified (until recently) - Even the "successes" that Osborne has achieved in the last 2 years (e.g. restored growth, rising employment) are of questionable validity, as they've mainly been achieved through mass immigration (300,000 per year, compared to a target of under 100,000; even higher than when Labour misjudged likely immigration levels from Eastern Europe 10 years ago), not improvements in GDP per person / productivity. After 6 years of falling real incomes, incomes have started to rise again over the last 6 months or so, but only on the back of 0% inflation induced by falling oil prices....without improvements in productivity, that looks an extremely vulnerable position to be in.
MooseBreath Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 You're not still seriously banging the whole "cuts will damage growth" argument are you, Alf? After we've been among the fastest growing developed nations for years while ssubstantially reducing the deficit. I mean there's spin, which is fine, necessary in fact for anyone supporting labour on the economy, but then there's just wilfully ignoring the facts and the facts are, that despite you, miliband and other lefties predicting that cuts would certainly result in economic doom, the reality couldn't be much more different.
Jon the Hat Posted 27 April 2015 Author Posted 27 April 2015 No one is saying George has done a perfect job, but the premise of his approach - that we needed cuts to show the government was in control, and to reduce the deficit to protect our credit rating (with mixed success) - has been proven. All of Labour predictions were wrong on the economy. All of them. Literally.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 The economy only began to get stronger again after Osborne reduced the severity of cuts following his 2012 budget shambles. Cutting hard prior to that stifled the economy by holding back consumer and business confidence. Osborne is a great political strategist and he knew if he didn't do something 2013, the Tories would have been hopelessly far away in this election so he backed off austerity a bit to give some good news before the election. I think he's done a decent enough job and would certainly do a good job if given another 5 years. I worry about the level of surplus he is promising by the end of the next parliament, seems almost as daft as saying Darling was wrong for saying the deficit should be halved by 2015 and then delivering exactly that
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 You're not still seriously banging the whole "cuts will damage growth" argument are you, Alf? After we've been among the fastest growing developed nations for years while ssubstantially reducing the deficit. I mean there's spin, which is fine, necessary in fact for anyone supporting labour on the economy, but then there's just wilfully ignoring the facts and the facts are, that despite you, miliband and other lefties predicting that cuts would certainly result in economic doom, the reality couldn't be much more different. Cuts did damage growth 2010-2013, Moose. Can't bang on about it just now or there'll be an excessive growth in my workload....but I've posted graphs before showing how all major economies slumped after the 2008 crash, but that economies like Germany and USA (which took a more Keynesian approach, stimulating growth rather than cutting) did better than the UK over that period. In the last 2 years, UK growth has outperformed growth in those countries (having underperformed it 2010-2013)....but on what basis, when productivity (GDP per capita) has remained low and real incomes have only recently started to recover on the back of a slump in oil prices? 3 years of economic under-performance, social misery and division followed by 2 years of "success" (in terms of growth & unemployment) on the back of low productivity, mass immigration and low oil prices doesn't seem much cause for crowing - or much of a basis for economic success in the future. Or will we just continue cutting public spending to the bone, accepting stagnant productivity, increasing lowly-paid, insecure employment, accepting 300,000 immigrants per year, all generating social misery and tension? I'd prefer us to remain a developed economy and to become a harmonious, inclusive society, rather than accepting miserable insecurity for many and fomenting social discord. I repeat: - 1997: GDP £282bn; Productivity: £4591 - 2010 GDP £372bn; Productivity £5729 - 2013: GDP £382bn; Productivity £5698 So, - Under Blair/Brown (1997-2010, despite a massive global recession), GDP rose by £90bn and productivity rose by £1138 - Under the "successful" Osborne (2010-13), GDP rose by £10bn and productivity fell by £31 The 2015 GDP figure will be higher, admittedly, but still nothing brilliant - and productivity is still absolutely shite......an economy based on insecure employment, low real pay, low oil prices and mass immigration. As I said - and Shade's post said - you can't just take a couple of stats for the last couple of years and use them to declare Osborne a genius. Otherwise, you could proclaim LCFC Premier League champions because of our April results.
MooseBreath Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Probably a little bit unfair to compare a couple of years of Osborne, during a period of continuing global economic turmoil, against thirteen years of labour, most of which was throughout a sustained period of global calm and economic growth. And then to stop your analysis at the point just before we started to see the benefits of the tories' planning. A bit disingenuous that, Alf. I don't think you can really judge a new government for the first 18 months or so. It takes that time for changes to work themselves through the system. If we get a labour government in a couple of weeks, I don't expect immediate economic doom, but certainly within three years I'd expect to see things going wrong.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Probably a little bit unfair to compare a couple of years of Osborne, during a period of continuing global economic turmoil, against thirteen years of labour, most of which was throughout a sustained period of global calm and economic growth. And then to stop your analysis at the point just before we started to see the benefits of the tories' planning. A bit disingenuous that, Alf. I don't think you can really judge a new government for the first 18 months or so. It takes that time for changes to work themselves through the system. If we get a labour government in a couple of weeks, I don't expect immediate economic doom, but certainly within three years I'd expect to see things going wrong. I compared all 5 years of Osborne to all 13 years of Labour, including 2007-2010, which was the peak of the global financial crisis. I just couldn't easily find data for 2013-15, but referred to the fact that growth has improved since then (albeit growth of questionable sustainability or merit) and that productivity has continued to stagnate. Feel free to quote the 2013-15 figures. I could have disingenuously concentrated on 1997-2007 data, which would have shown Labour in an even more favourable light, before they had to deal with the impact of the global financial crash. I also pointed out that during the "continuing global economic turmoil" that you refer to (2010-13), countries like Germany and USA out-performed the UK on growth....yet you disingenuously concentrate on 2013-15 as a basis for claiming that "we've been among the fastest growing developed nations for years". You disingenuously fail to respond to the fact that growth started to rise again in 2010 (Labour's last months), but was then effectively wiped out for 3 years by Osborne's austerity politics and ideological desire to shrink the state. You disingenuously give Labour no credit for its 1997-2007 economic record, attributing this to "a sustained period of global calm", yet will be quite happy, I'm sure, to blame Labour for leaving the economy in a mess in 2010....nothing to do with a sustained period of global turmoil, of course. That only affected Osborne after 2010, not Brown 2007-2010.
Guest MattP Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I repeat: - 1997: GDP £282bn; Productivity: £4591 - 2010 GDP £372bn; Productivity £5729 - 2013: GDP £382bn; Productivity £5698 So, - Under Blair/Brown (1997-2010, despite a massive global recession), GDP rose by £90bn and productivity rose by £1138 - Under the "successful" Osborne (2010-13), GDP rose by £10bn and productivity fell by £31 The 2015 GDP figure will be higher, admittedly, but still nothing brilliant - and productivity is still absolutely shite......an economy based on insecure employment, low real pay, low oil prices and mass immigration. I think it's very harsh to compare the two scenarios, one was in a period of huge global growth and the other was on the back of a huge global financial crash. It would be like comparing the job Sven did to Craig Levein saying it was similar whilst ignoring the difference in financial clout they had. Another poll out in Scotland today showing the SNP on 54% :blink: That would give them all but three seats with the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems sharing one each. Think a few people in the latter parties there might be soon be regretting the panda's in Edinburgh Zoo jokes. Everyone is finished North of the border now apart from the SNP. Incredible, it took 40 years for the Tories to die up there, it's taken just 6 months for the same to happen to Labour under support for a referendum that they effectively won.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I think it's very harsh to compare the two scenarios, one was in a period of huge global growth and the other was on the back of a huge global financial crash. It would be like comparing the job Sven did to Craig Levein saying it was similar whilst ignoring the difference in financial clout they had. Another poll out in Scotland today showing the SNP on 54% :blink: That would give them all but three seats with the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems sharing one each. Think a few people in the latter parties there might be soon be regretting the panda's in Edinburgh Zoo jokes. Everyone is finished North of the border now apart from the SNP. Incredible, it took 40 years for the Tories to die up there, it's taken just 6 months for the same to happen to Labour under support for a referendum that they effectively won. The thing that gets me, though, is that Rightists give Labour no credit for stuff that went right during the global good years (and yes, some stuff went wrong, too), yet they blame Labour for stuff that went wrong during the global bad years.....and then don't blame from the Tories for stuff that goes wrong when the global bad years continue! The right-wing argument is: 1997-2007 prosperity was all down to global growth, not Labour policies; 2007-2010 slump was all down to Labour profligacy, not a global crisis; 2010-13 crisis was all down to a global crisis, not Tory policy! Having yer cake and eating it, lads! If the SNP do get near 50% of the vote and 95% of the Scottish seats, it'll be bad news as (unlike many Tories, it seems) I don't want to see the UK break up - it'll also be a shocking indictment of our first-past-the-post electoral system. It seems that 55% support the union, but the 45% minority is set to wipe the floor with them because they're split between 3 parties, whereas the nationalists are in a single party. I was listening to Any Questions on the radio at my Dad's at the weekend and it was from Scotland. When there was any talk of another referendum, there was vocal audience opposition. I really think that Miliband should publicly rule out having another referendum in the next 5 years. The SNP aren't ruling one out, just saying "this election isn't a mandate for a referendum" - they're keeping their powder dry for the right moment (2016 Scottish elections? 2017 EU referendum?) and Labour - and the other pro-union parties - should flush the fvckers out! One thing that isn't getting mentioned much yet is tactical voting. I can see this really affecting voting intentions next week. If the polls are suggesting that the Tories will be the biggest party, will some SNP switchers move back to Labour? Likewise, will Labour voters in the SW hold their noses again and vote tactically for the Lib Dems to keep the Tories out? On the other side, will Tory-UKIP defectors switch back to the Tories if they foresee a Lab govt with SNP support? That's what the Tories mainly seem to be banking on at the moment. Disappointed with the Green campaign so far, particularly the failure to raise climate change and the environment, and the need to change growth/materialism-oriented economics. I know that they have to get messages across apart from climate change, but their main issue doesn't seem to be cutting through at all for me. They're just coming across as a traditional party to the left of Labour on tax-and-spend.
MooseBreath Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I don't give labour any credit for achieving average growth figures using borrowed money that would ultimately contribute substantially to the very precarious position we found ourselves in from 2008 - 2013. The fact that they avoided ruining the economy for a few years before inevitably almost destroying it is hardly something to shout about.
Stadt Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I'm asking as I'm unaware but why did Labour borrow so much?
Benji Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I'm asking as I'm unaware but why did Labour borrow so much? Give a credit card to a 16 year old, tell them they don't need to worry about paying it back and you're on the same lines.
Stadt Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Give a credit card to a 16 year old, tell them they don't need to worry about paying it back and you're on the same lines.who told them they didn't have to pay it back? (I've taken the analogy too seriously, haven't I?)
ADK Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 If you want a serious answer you would need to do some reading and decide for yourself. If you ask a Tory then they will tell you that Labour voters are thick and will vote in an irresponsible government that bribes them with borrowed money, or they are all dole scum who will vote for a party that hands out generous benefits. A Labour voter might tell you that public services were so run down from a long serving Tory government that heavy borrowing was necessary, while pointing out the huge deficit that appeared in 2010 was the result of a global recession and not the result of government policy.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I'm asking as I'm unaware but why did Labour borrow so much? Everyone is politically biased (including me), so you'll get politically biased answers to this. Doing my best to be neutral.... - 2008-2010 was when Labour borrowed massively. It did so to bail out banks facing bankruptcy due to the global financial crash, rather than see them go bust, which in turn would have ruined enormous numbers of individuals and companies, and could have left millions unemployed and penniless on an unprecedented scale. The same thing happened, to varying degrees in most Western countries. The Tories are continuing to borrow massively now for similar reasons (to keep the economy afloat), but are slowly reducing the borrowing....whether this is economically necessary or socially beneficial is a matter of political opinion. - 1997-2007: Having inherited an improving situation, Labour started off by being very frugal and actually ran a budget surplus for 3 years (almost unheard of in modern times); it then loosened the purse strings somewhat to increase public spending on tax credits, school buildings, hospitals etc, which were in a poor state of repair. Before the 2008 crash, Labour was borrowing more than the 1980s Thatcher government, but less than the 1990s Tory government under John Major. In recent decades, under Tory and Labour alike, the UK has borrowed moderately almost every single year, for structural and political reasons (under-investment, loss of empire, the disadvantage of being one of the earliest developed capitalist countries, under-educated voters thinking we can have low tax AND good public services). It's arguable that this has done some slight economic damage, but not much. The borrowing from 2008 was different from anything else in the modern era - the biggest global financial crash since at least the 1930s. The Tories probably would not have borrowed the small amounts that Labour did 2001-2007 (but then we'd arguably have much worse schools & hospitals and more people in poverty), but they almost certainly would have borrowed the massive amounts that Labour did from 2008, rather than see banks go bust, the economy destroyed and millions of people ruined. Here's a slightly outdated, but excellent graph showing borrowing under all governments since 1980: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 No one is saying George has done a perfect job, but the premise of his approach - that we needed cuts to show the government was in control, and to reduce the deficit to protect our credit rating (with mixed success) - has been proven. All of Labour predictions were wrong on the economy. All of them. Literally. Exactly, the truth.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I'm asking as I'm unaware but why did Labour borrow so much? I've already asked that question. If they get back in, it will be the same again. With the SNP calling the tune, the next government, assuming Labour win, will be a "God Almighty", horrific disaster.
Stadt Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Everyone is politically biased (including me), so you'll get politically biased answers to this. Doing my best to be neutral.... - 2008-2010 was when Labour borrowed massively. It did so to bail out banks facing bankruptcy due to the global financial crash, rather than see them go bust, which in turn would have ruined enormous numbers of individuals and companies, and could have left millions unemployed and penniless on an unprecedented scale. The same thing happened, to varying degrees in most Western countries. The Tories are continuing to borrow massively now for similar reasons (to keep the economy afloat), but are slowly reducing the borrowing....whether this is economically necessary or socially beneficial is a matter of political opinion. - 1997-2007: Having inherited an improving situation, Labour started off by being very frugal and actually ran a budget surplus for 3 years (almost unheard of in modern times); it then loosened the purse strings somewhat to increase public spending on tax credits, school buildings, hospitals etc, which were in a poor state of repair. Before the 2008 crash, Labour was borrowing more than the 1980s Thatcher government, but less than the 1990s Tory government under John Major. In recent decades, under Tory and Labour alike, the UK has borrowed moderately almost every single year, for structural and political reasons (under-investment, loss of empire, the disadvantage of being one of the earliest developed capitalist countries, under-educated voters thinking we can have low tax AND good public services). It's arguable that this has done some slight economic damage, but not much. The borrowing from 2008 was different from anything else in the modern era - the biggest global financial crash since at least the 1930s. The Tories probably would not have borrowed the small amounts that Labour did 2001-2007 (but then we'd arguably have much worse schools & hospitals and more people in poverty), but they almost certainly would have borrowed the massive amounts that Labour did from 2008, rather than see banks go bust, the economy destroyed and millions of people ruined. Here's a slightly outdated, but excellent graph showing borrowing under all governments since 1980: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture Thanks Alf, a very good discursive post
Webbo Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Thanks Alf, a very good discursive post What Alf has forgotten to mention is is that the schools and hospitals (sometimes replacing perfectly good buildings) that Labour built were built under the Private Finance Initiative which doesn't show under borrowing figures, a more expensive way of constructing these buildings. The borrowed money went mainly on expanding and increasing wages in the public sector, leading to increased funds for the public sector unions which fund the Labour party.
Benji Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 What Alf has forgotten to mention is is that the schools and hospitals (sometimes replacing perfectly good buildings) that Labour built were built under the Private Finance Initiative which doesn't show under borrowing figures, a more expensive way of constructing these buildings. The borrowed money went mainly on expanding and increasing wages in the public sector, leading to increased funds for the public sector unions which fund the Labour party. Professional fees on PFI contracts were astonishing - enough to build a second hospital or school.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 What Alf has forgotten to mention is is that the schools and hospitals (sometimes replacing perfectly good buildings) that Labour built were built under the Private Finance Initiative which doesn't show under borrowing figures, a more expensive way of constructing these buildings. The borrowed money went mainly on expanding and increasing wages in the public sector, leading to increased funds for the public sector unions which fund the Labour party. I had included a line about Labour's use of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), but deleted it as the post was too long already. I disagree with some of your rhetoric (if you expand public services, you need to pay more people to deliver them). However, I do agree with your criticism of PFI being a more expensive way of funding public investment and have criticised this Labour policy in the past (though this policy has been continued by the Tories). Labour should have selectively increased taxes to fund this investment. Instead, they took the view that voters wouldn't stand for that, as the public insist on low taxes and high quality public services / investment, a logical impossibility. The same problem of deceit over tax and spending plans is continuing at this election. Labour is pretending to be as austere / "fiscally responsible" as the Tories by talking about cuts in "current spending". However, they intend to spend significant sums on public investment but do not include this in "current spending". That spending is a good idea, but it's a shame they feel the need to conceal it, believing the electorate just want to hear about "cutting the deficit". If anything, the deceit on the Tory side is even greater, though. The Tories plan for massive spending cuts to balance the budget by 2019, but most of the cuts are unidentified: £13bn of unidentified spending cuts across unidentified departments, plus £12bn of welfare spending cuts, of which only £2bn has been identified. Meanwhile, they've announced that they're going to spend an extra £8bn on the NHS, again without saying how they're going to fund this! The Tory party, more pork pies than Melton Mowbray!
ADK Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 They all lie. The public want to be told nice things. The only way to get real change is to change the system.
Webbo Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 They all lie. The public want to be told nice things. The only way to get real change is to change the system. If you change the system the public won't want to be told nice things?
Voll Blau Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 They all lie. The public want to be told nice things. The only way to get real change is to change the system. And how do you propose we go about changing the system?
Webbo Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 I had included a line about Labour's use of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), but deleted it as the post was too long already. I disagree with some of your rhetoric (if you expand public services, you need to pay more people to deliver them). However, I do agree with your criticism of PFI being a more expensive way of funding public investment and have criticised this Labour policy in the past (though this policy has been continued by the Tories). Labour should have selectively increased taxes to fund this investment. Instead, they took the view that voters wouldn't stand for that, as the public insist on low taxes and high quality public services / investment, a logical impossibility. The same problem of deceit over tax and spending plans is continuing at this election. Labour is pretending to be as austere / "fiscally responsible" as the Tories by talking about cuts in "current spending". However, they intend to spend significant sums on public investment but do not include this in "current spending". That spending is a good idea, but it's a shame they feel the need to conceal it, believing the electorate just want to hear about "cutting the deficit". If anything, the deceit on the Tory side is even greater, though. The Tories plan for massive spending cuts to balance the budget by 2019, but most of the cuts are unidentified: £13bn of unidentified spending cuts across unidentified departments, plus £12bn of welfare spending cuts, of which only £2bn has been identified. Meanwhile, they've announced that they're going to spend an extra £8bn on the NHS, again without saying how they're going to fund this! The Tory party, more pork pies than Melton Mowbray! They've said there'll be £12 billion cuts in welfare. They don't have be specific to know that if you're on benefits you're going to be worse off.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.