What if Labour had not won?

[El Cid]

Labour won the 2005 election, what would have been different had the Conservatives won?

 

The Conservatives started off the books borrowing such as PFI and thought that the banks needed more freedom than Gordon Brown gave them.

Does off the books borrowing matter, I understand it is now on the books?

What were the Conservative promises in 2005?

[I1L2T3]

Would they have took us out of Iraq? Nope.

 

Would they have gone into Afghanistan. Yep.

 

Would there still have been a global financial crisis starting 2007-8? Yep

 

Would it have hit us as hard? Most likely. They may have borrowed marginally less 2005 through 2008 but any advantages gained by that would have been undone by Osborne's desire to take us down the same path as Ireland. Arguably things could have been worse because ideological objections may have prevented the necessary (at the time) step of nationalising some banks.

 

Would they have laid the same foundations for NHS privatisation as Labour? Yep

 

Would/could they have controlled immigration better? Probable as they were skeptical about opening up to Poland etc... but they could have only kicked that can down the road for a few years

 

We'd be in roughly the same place as for the last two decades the parties have been broadly similar.

 

Basically the Labour vs Tory argument is a false and engineered one and has been for a long time. Just a pantomine that tricks just enough people into an illusion of having choice when they don't.

[Vague_Boy]

....what would have been different had the Conservatives won?

 

Everyone on here would be saying that everything was fine with the economy under Labour and that the Evil Tories then messed it up.

 

Not winning in 2005 was probably the best general election result the Conservatives ever had.

[crookedspire]

A what if history question, so in this time line Labour loses to the Tories in a majority vote. At this time things economy look good so the Tories decided its time to give the bankers more freedom and banking reform follows. At the same time the Tories push ahead with welfare reform and moves to a more privatized NHS. Then the global banking crisis happens the party is divided on how to deal with this crisis . Some want to nationalise the banks others not so making a slow response to the crisis. By May 2010 the effects of the crisis are been felt the Tories lose the general election and a LibLab coalition is formed and everyone blames the right for the economic mess notable the press.

[El Cid]

Just reading the Conservative manifesto, and it is really poor, no wonder Labour won.

 

First, we will give taxpayers value for money. We will spend the same as Labour would on the NHS, schools, transport and international development, and more than Labour on police, defence and pensions. But we will save £12 billion a year by 2007-8 by cutting back other expenditure.

 

Over one million children play truant each year. Head teachers have been denied the final say on expulsions, and good schools will be further

punished by being forced to admit a quota of disruptive pupils.

 

We support improvements to school dinners, and will go

further by banning junk food in schools

 

More and better aid to tackle global poverty

Edited August 18, 2015 by El Cid

[Stoatwobbler]

Everyone on here would be saying that everything was fine with the economy under Labour and that the Evil Tories then messed it up.

 

Not winning in 2005 was probably the best general election result the Conservatives ever had.

 

Labour came into the 2005 general election defending a 165 seat majority. In spite of Iraq and a few other things, the Tories had no chance of taking enough seats to be in with a chance of forming the next government in 2005.

 

I'm actually coming round to the opinion that Labour's 2nd landslide victory in 2001 was the point when the rot set in for Labour as it allowed them to become complacent and to take people for granted.

[unbeliever]

Labour won the 2005 election, what would have been different had the Conservatives won?

 

The Conservatives started off the books borrowing such as PFI and thought that the banks needed more freedom than Gordon Brown gave them.

Does off the books borrowing matter, I understand it is now on the books?

What were the Conservative promises in 2005?

 

The Labour PFI was far worse in terms of value for money than its Conservative predecessors.

The establishment of the FSA and the financial crises that resulted from it was a Labour creation and nobody in their right mind would have done it. Don't confuse volume of bank regulation with content.

Everybody borrows during a recession. The Conservatives do not have a history of heavy borrowing during a boom.

 

The only comparable error (albeit on a smaller scale) I can think of by the Conservatives was the ERM, and that had all party support (the only opposition coming from within the Conservative party).

 

This idea that the management of the country is somehow out of the hands of the people is nonsense. I know it can be reassuring. One likes to look back and figure out how things that went wrong could not be avoided so that one doesn't have to kick oneself. Problem is it's just not true.

Labour messed up big time. That's not just with hindsight. The problems were known, anticipated and openly and loudly predicted. The Labour government ignored warnings not just from inside the UK, but from international bodies specifically created to advise on such things, which are respected throughout the world.

 

We'd have been through pretty much the same boom (during which debt would have been paid down) and a greatly reduced recession (like the rest of the world, during which there would have been some borrowing). The debt to GDP ratio would be about 50% instead of 100%. Everybody in work would have been much better off.

In summary, the UK would have been about £1trillion better off. Which is a whacking great 6 months of GDP, or about £16.5k per person.

Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

 

We'd have been through pretty much the same boom (during which debt would have been paid down) and a greatly reduced recession (like the rest of the world, during which there would have been some borrowing). The debt to GDP ratio would be about 50% instead of 100%. Everybody in work would have been much better off.

 

If the debt had been paid down, then wouldnt this have caused, at the very least, lower growth.

Spending £12 billion a year less would have a massive effect, if they managed to do it, whilst spending the same as Labour up to 2007-8

[unbeliever]

If the debt had been paid down, then wouldnt this have caused, at the very least, lower growth.

Spending £12 billion a year less would have a massive effect, if they managed to do it, whilst spending the same as Labour up to 2007-8

 

Borrowing and spending create the illusion of growth. It's not real and you have to pay it back with interest later.

There are plenty of better ways to achieve growth than the fake growth from public spending.

[Harrystottle]

We'd be in roughly the same place as for the last two decades the parties have been broadly similar.

 

Basically the Labour vs Tory argument is a false and engineered one and has been for a long time. Just a pantomine that tricks just enough people into an illusion of having choice when they don't.

 

Exactly, which is why so many people inside and outside the Labour party are panicking about Corbyn, because he would give the electorate a choice.

 

And all the TINA's in mainstream politics don't want that.