What if Labour had not won?

[Stoatwobbler]

i don't think the wider electorate are taken in by this attempt at smoke and mirrors. there have been 12 opinion polls since the election with the tories averaging 9.2% lead over labour.

 

Given that Labour is in open civil war at the moment, that's hardly a surprise.

 

We can argue about whether they should move left or right til the cows come home, but the bottom line is that if political parties are too busy infighting, they won't be winning elections. See the Conservatives and their arguments over the Euro in the 90's for a prime example of this.

[Vague_Boy]

Blair seems to be given a free ride by some based on his electoral record and the fact that he left office before the financial crisis hit, thus landing Brown with all the blame.

 

Well Brown was only Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007, so he can hardly be held accountable for how the economy was run can he?

 

 

the alternatives are tax the super rich more.

 

And watch them wave bye bye as they leave. I guess you're not old enough to remember the "brain drain" of the late 1970s? When income tax levels topped out at 83% (98% when an "investment surcharge" was applied).

 

At those levels you're not working for yourself, you're working for the government.

 

Most lefties seem to have little understanding of human nature.

[El Cid]

ukpublicspending.co.uk

Your document would surely contain plans, not what actually happened.

 

Although I imagine your data is correct, the web site owner is Christopher Chantrill a conservative living in the USA.

Anyone can get the wrong data, by accident or deliberately.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 18:16 ----------

 

Most lefties seem to have little understanding of human nature.

 

Who do you refer to, members of the Green party or SNP ?

[unbeliever]

Although I imagine your data is correct, the web site owner is Christopher Chantrill a conservative living in the USA.

Anyone can get the wrong data, by accident or deliberately.

 

Your figures of 2010 plans show public spending rising. So that fact is not in dispute.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330717/PESA_2014_-_print.pdf (page 18).

 

The figures are quite similar. It depends on what you count in the totals.

[El Cid]

The figures are quite similar. It depends on what you count in the totals.

 

Quite similar means that they are not the same; you were trying to say that spending increased by 13%, which was higher than inflation.

Unless you can come up with the correct data, I suggest that you are withdraw that claim.

[unbeliever]

Quite similar means that they are not the same; you were trying to say that spending increased by 13%, which was higher than inflation.

Unless you can come up with the correct data, I suggest that you are withdraw that claim.

 

The figures in the government report are for financial years. That's why each year is 2 years with a slash in between.

They're quite consistent, but they cover different periods.

 

Total compounded inflation over the alternative period we're now discussing was 9%.

2009/10: £669.7bn, 2014/15: £732bn; which is a cash increase of 9.4%

 

One can quibble a little over the detail, but spending totals over the last parliament were roughly flat or rising very slightly. If you cherry-pick you can probably get them going down very slightly. But still its hardly consistent with the idea of widespread cuts.

 

You're arguing with me over fine detail. All I'm trying to do is dispel the myth of aggressive cuts.

Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

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.

 

Meanwhile....in the real world we had Michael Howard as prospective PM with a manifesto that was essentially pledging to spend more than Labour with an estimated £15bn of additional unfunded spending. We had George Osborne lining up to be chancellor with a wish for us to mimic Ireland (which crashed hard and fast in the crisis) against a backdrop of a Tory party calling for less regulation in the city.

 

The BofE as a regulator had itself had some major regulatory failings which was why Labour changed the system although I would agree that it was very ill-judged to make the regulatory changes they did.

 

There's no real evidence that the Tories would have heeded warnings either. The only real voice of reason in the commons in those days was Vince Cable.

 

PFI was/is stupid but not a major contributor on a macroeconomic scale to our current problems although individual sectors are starting to struggle of course.

 

I don't know where you got this figure of a trillion quid from. We would be in roughly the same situation now give or take 1 or 2% of GDP.

[TJC1]

Well Brown was only Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007, so he can hardly be held accountable for how the economy was run can he?

 

 

 

 

And watch them wave bye bye as they leave. I guess you're not old enough to remember the "brain drain" of the late 1970s? When income tax levels topped out at 83% (98% when an "investment surcharge" was applied).

 

At those levels you're not working for yourself, you're working for the government.

 

Most lefties seem to have little understanding of human nature.

 

I aint no leftie.

[RonJeremy]

I aint no leftie.

 

No you're "a neutral" :hihi:

[TJC1]

No you're "a neutral" :hihi:

 

Voted blue last election.

never voted labour. Sorry to dissipoint.