The Government has got the wrong idea!

[Tony]

You're only including the spending on the balance sheet, not all the stuff that is off it (like PFI, bailouts, pensions) but for which there is an ongoing liability for. Come on Wildcat old chum, these are the basics.

 

BTW, don't blame previous governments, that argument is a busted flush.

[Wildcat]

OK, well lets all blame the Tories for what happened over 13 years ago! New Labour have had 13 years to improve the situation,borrowed a fortune spent more than a fortune, and the only person to come up smelling of roses is Tony Blair with his multi-million fortune,having escaped through the back door leaving all the troubles behind, a shining example of what one could achieve in New Labour with just a grin!

Instead of incessant sniping and points scoring all the time,why don,t you and others suggest ideas for the way forward from this crisis.............for as Churchill once said "any fool can see what's wrong but can you see what needs to be done to put it right".

 

Solutions: A Tobin type tax on bank transactions. Increased redistributive taxation targeted to take from the people that have gained the most out of the last 13 years. Considered and sensible reductions in public spending by cutting the programmes no longer needed to prop up the economy as it comes out of recession. No cuts in education, health or programmes needed for the future health of the nation. No workfare schemes that victimise the poorest in society, instead encourage people out of unemployment by raising the minimum wage to provide the incentive to work. No targeting of those on incapacity benefit, because they have already been targeted enough and the last thing employers need is job applicants increased with people that probably can't consistently do a full days work.

 

And for perspective remember that the situation we are in is not unprecedented and is not a situation that requires us all to suffer pain.

 

As I said yesterday the public debt remains less as a proportion of gdp than it has been for the vast majority of the last decade.

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

 

Oh and scrap Trident.

[Wildcat]

You're only including the spending on the balance sheet, not all the stuff that is off it (like PFI, bailouts, pensions) but for which there is an ongoing liability for. Come on Wildcat old chum, these are the basics.

 

BTW, don't blame previous governments, that argument is a busted flush.

 

In 2006 PFI costs were included in National debt figures produced.

 

The bailouts should result in profit.

 

And whilst public sector pensions are a long term liability, it is quite right they aren't included because they aren't being paid for until people retire. The level of public sector pensions debt is insignificant in the scheme of things anyway and why should we begrudge public sector workers a decent pension? The average civil service pension is £5000 pa. without it the money would be being paid in benefits anyway.

 

BTW it is not a busted flush to talk about the economic realities of the policies of the respective parties and to inform that with a look at history. It is sticking your head in the sand to try to declare that off topic or irrelevant.

[Lorri]

Don't know if this has already been posted, but have you all had your say on here?

 

http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/

[mossdog]

Solutions: A Tobin type tax on bank transactions. Increased redistributive taxation targeted to take from the people that have gained the most out of the last 13 years. Considered and sensible reductions in public spending by cutting the programmes no longer needed to prop up the economy as it comes out of recession. No cuts in education, health or programmes needed for the future health of the nation. No workfare schemes that victimise the poorest in society, instead encourage people out of unemployment by raising the minimum wage to provide the incentive to work. No targeting of those on incapacity benefit, because they have already been targeted enough and the last thing employers need is job applicants increased with people that probably can't consistently do a full days work.

 

And for perspective remember that the situation we are in is not unprecedented and is not a situation that requires us all to suffer pain.

 

As I said yesterday the public debt remains less as a proportion of gdp than it has been for the vast majority of the last decade.

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

 

Oh and scrap Trident.

I would agree with some of your points,however if you suggest no cuts in education,health and welfare programmes,surely all these need a massive shakeout and severe wage cuts in lots of cases,as the major problem must be an inflated wage bill for these services.It seems ridiculous that we are paying well over six figure sums to thousands of employees followed by huge pensions in these sectors,we simply can no longer afford it.......................oh! and the incapacity benefit system needs overhauling most of all!!! most people in the country know someone who is benefiting unfairly under this scheme,........lots locally in Sheffield6.

[mossdog]

Don't know if this has already been posted, but have you all had your say on here?

 

http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/

I think Tony has!

[I1L2T3]

OK, well lets all blame the Tories for what happened over 13 years ago! New Labour have had 13 years to improve the situation,borrowed a fortune spent more than a fortune

 

Totally agree Labour missed a vital opportunity to reverse some of the Tory deregulation. But the spending? Are you sure you understand how/why money was borrowed and spent?

 

Potted history for you:

1) Defecit had run to almost £40bn by end of 2007. Eye watering in itself but explainable because of much poorer than expected tax receipts, not necessarily because of overspending. As Wildcat points out Labour was surprisingly active in making cuts and seeking efficiencies during the last parliament.

2) There were plans to deal with the defecit but in 2008 other events took over.

3) The banking crisis led directly to a recession. It was the trigger. There is no arguent about that.

4) The economy contracted . Tax receipts decreased further. The defecit increased.

5) The banks were bailed out. More borrowing. Bigger defecit. Should we have done it? Yes, on balance it was right.

6) Labour applied fiscal stimulus. Perfectly reasonable. It was the technique used by many other countries too. But more borrowing. Bigger defecit again.

 

It is highly disingenious to suggest that the record defecit was completely due to profligate spending by Labour. That is not the case. That doesn't absolve Labour from blame. In my mind there are two things they clearly should have done better:

 

1) Better forecasting would have prevented the defecit growing so large by the end of 2007

2) Effective regulation of the financial sector could have prevented the banking crisis. While we know that Labour had a vested interest in avoiding that it's fair to say that had the Tories been in power and had removed some of the few constraints there were on banks we would by now have experienced an Icelandic style complete financial meltdown.

 

As a final note. The Tory mantra is they will always pledge to spend less than the other parties. But read their manifestos carefully and you will see that the spending levels were not always much below those of Labour. Just less. To suggest that the Tories would have spent significantly less in the last 13 years again misses the mark. There is no evidence that would have happened.

[mossdog]

Totally agree Labour missed a vital opportunity to reverse some of the Tory deregulation. But the spending? Are you sure you understand how/why money was borrowed and spent?

 

Potted history for you:

1) Defecit had run to almost £40bn by end of 2007. Eye watering in itself but explainable because of much poorer than expected tax receipts, not necessarily because of overspending. As Wildcat points out Labour was surprisingly active in making cuts and seeking efficiencies during the last parliament.

2) There were plans to deal with the defecit but in 2008 other events took over.

3) The banking crisis led directly to a recession. It was the trigger. There is no arguent about that.

4) The economy contracted . Tax receipts decreased further. The defecit increased.

5) The banks were bailed out. More borrowing. Bigger defecit. Should we have done it? Yes, on balance it was right.

6) Labour applied fiscal stimulus. Perfectly reasonable. It was the technique used by many other countries too. But more borrowing. Bigger defecit again.

 

It is highly disingenious to suggest that the record defecit was completely due to profligate spending by Labour. That is not the case. That doesn't absolve Labour from blame. In my mind there are two things they clearly should have done better:

 

1) Better forecasting would have prevented the defecit growing so large by the end of 2007

2) Effective regulation of the financial sector could have prevented the banking crisis. While we know that Labour had a vested interest in avoiding that it's fair to say that had the Tories been in power and had removed some of the few constraints there were on banks we would by now have experienced an Icelandic style complete financial meltdown.

 

As a final note. The Tory mantra is they will always pledge to spend less than the other parties. But read their manifestos carefully and you will see that the spending levels were not always much below those of Labour. Just less. To suggest that the Tories would have spent significantly less in the last 13 years again misses the mark. There is no evidence that would have happened.

I am not advocating government spending cuts so much as value for money on how the money is spent! that is the big Greek problem and to a degree ours and other countries too.That's where we probably differ.The Tories have seen the dead wood and always prune to try to get back to a realistic base where we can pay our way in the world instead of borrowing to try and stay afloat.Unfortunately that means job losses in lots of cases.But things can't go on with Labours bury your head in the sand politics.New job creation can only come when foreign investors see Britain as a good place to do business where the workforce will work and manufacture at a competitive wage in the world economy.We are a long way from that scenario presently.We have largely lost our manufacturing base!Public sector and educational expansion will not address our problems.We have developed a sickness for importing things and buying them with cheap finance.We once made it all and grew it all.We have let the non manufacturing public sector balloon above the private sector in lots of towns,and created a society where it is more financially viable to stop at home instead of finding work in many cases.I look to the new government to yes!.........make cuts if vitally necessary,but above all,demand value for money in all sectors from the top to the bottom.Above all we need real regulation in the private sector to stop the public being ripped off ,from the financial industry spivs down to your local cowboy tradesman!

[redrobbo]

There is a new version of Godwin's Law in action here - invoke thatcher for anything and everything that somebody else did wrong. 13 years in charge fellas, and it's 20 years since Thatcher was anywhere near power. Forget it, the excuse is pathetic.

 

You're only including the spending on the balance sheet, not all the stuff that is off it (like PFI, bailouts, pensions) but for which there is an ongoing liability for. Come on Wildcat old chum, these are the basics.

 

BTW, don't blame previous governments, that argument is a busted flush.

 

I've already posted about Thatcher's legacy.

 

When Labour came to power in 1997, they did so by following the former Tory government's spending proposals for the following two years - despite heavy criticism from within the wider Labour movement.

 

Labour's model, which you keep alluding to, was one of prudence (once a familiar word used by Gordon Brown). The model stipulated that over the duration of an economic cycle, the government would only borrow to invest in hospitals, roads, and similar. PFIs were first instituted under John Major's government. It was a neat way, as you have recognised, of not showing public expenditure on the balance sheets, and Labour followed this route.

 

The model also advocated sustainable investment - a rule which required that borrowing should not exceed 40% of Britain's GDP.

 

The world-wide downturn in the economy, which originated with the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the USA, blew prudence out of the water when the government - despite stiff opposition from Cameron & Osborne - rightly bailed out the banks.

 

The UK government will in time get our money back from bailing out Northern Rock, RBS, et al. Unless of course Osborne does what he said he would do and flogs them off to the public at knock-down prices - in which we will all be losers.