The next Tory recession?

[drummonds]

Here are the facts about public sector employment:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860

 

a decade????????????you probably missed that labour were in power for 13 years.

 

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/01/06/public-sector-spending-is-ed-miliband-right-to-state-labour-was-not-to-blame-for-deficit/

 

we revealed that more than 38,000 government workers are paid over £100,000, and that 9,187 earn more than the Prime Minister (£142,500). We also found that the scale and scope of public sector pay had risen remarkably since 1997, when Labour took over government. Then it employed 5.2 million people. Over the following 13 years this number jumped to 6.1 million.

 

Correspondingly, the government’s wage bill rose. Between 2005 and 2010 it increased 29% to hit £157.7bn. At the top the figures were more dramatic. The pay for the highest three per cent of public sector jobs rose by 64% in a decade.

 

In our investigation into local government finances, we showed that between the financial years of 1998/99 and 2008/09 town hall spending also rose sharply, from £89bn to £164bn per year. This represents a 53% increase in real terms over the decade.

 

We also showed that this rise in spending failed to deliver significant improvement, with two thirds of English councils showing no advance in their government ratings for the period between 2005 and 2008. In fact by 2008 more than one in ten were performing worse than when previously surveyed, despite the huge injection of finances.

 

It is clear, just from these two case studies, that Labour’s policy was predicated on a belief that Britain could afford significant injections of cash into our public services. That the ‘end of boom and bust’ meant investment in local government and securing market wages for senior public servants was both possible and politically desirable.

 

Of course, when the markets faltered and tax revenues took a sharp downturn, the cost of this larger public service was thrown sharply into focus. So for Mr Milliband to claim that Labour had nothing to do with the deficit is plainly wrong. The public sector grew under Labour in a time of boom. When the bust did come the true cost of this growth was sharply realised.

 

that's why the public don't trust labour with the economy.

[I1L2T3]

a decade????????????you probably missed that labour were in power for 13 years.

 

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/01/06/public-sector-spending-is-ed-miliband-right-to-state-labour-was-not-to-blame-for-deficit/

 

we revealed that more than 38,000 government workers are paid over £100,000, and that 9,187 earn more than the Prime Minister (£142,500). We also found that the scale and scope of public sector pay had risen remarkably since 1997, when Labour took over government. Then it employed 5.2 million people. Over the following 13 years this number jumped to 6.1 million.

 

Correspondingly, the government’s wage bill rose. Between 2005 and 2010 it increased 29% to hit £157.7bn. At the top the figures were more dramatic. The pay for the highest three per cent of public sector jobs rose by 64% in a decade.

 

In our investigation into local government finances, we showed that between the financial years of 1998/99 and 2008/09 town hall spending also rose sharply, from £89bn to £164bn per year. This represents a 53% increase in real terms over the decade.

 

We also showed that this rise in spending failed to deliver significant improvement, with two thirds of English councils showing no advance in their government ratings for the period between 2005 and 2008. In fact by 2008 more than one in ten were performing worse than when previously surveyed, despite the huge injection of finances.

 

It is clear, just from these two case studies, that Labour’s policy was predicated on a belief that Britain could afford significant injections of cash into our public services. That the ‘end of boom and bust’ meant investment in local government and securing market wages for senior public servants was both possible and politically desirable.

 

Of course, when the markets faltered and tax revenues took a sharp downturn, the cost of this larger public service was thrown sharply into focus. So for Mr Milliband to claim that Labour had nothing to do with the deficit is plainly wrong. The public sector grew under Labour in a time of boom. When the bust did come the true cost of this growth was sharply realised.

 

that's why the public don't trust labour with the economy.

 

I'm not claiming they didn't spend too much - see previous posts. I'm questioning whether it caused the crisis and the mess we are in now - it caused neither.

 

Looking at things rationally the level of spending before the crisis hit cannot explain the trouble we are in now. A contributing factor perhaps but not the whole story.

[Anna B]

People seem to forget that there was a very expensive war to pay for during Labour's time in government. A war that was also supported by the Conservative party.

 

Wars don't come cheap. They add an enormous amount to government spending.

[unbeliever]

People seem to forget that there was a very expensive war to pay for during Labour's time in government. A war that was also supported by the Conservative party.

 

Wars don't come cheap. They add an enormous amount to government spending.

 

No they don't.

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war together cost a little over £40 billion over 10 years. That's £4billion/year. That's well under 1% of the annual UK budget.

[drummonds]

People seem to forget that there was a very expensive war to pay for during Labour's time in government. A war that was also supported by the Conservative party.

 

Wars don't come cheap. They add an enormous amount to government spending.

 

i never cease to be amazed that the socialistas keep flogging this dead horse.

 

tony b LIAR turned up at the house of commons and presented the infamous dodgy dossier to con the commons into his war. the country knows this. even the labour leadership candidates admit this. this was a war at the instigation of a labour prime minister who lied through his teeth to get the uk involved.

 

the war was a labour party war, caused by the lies of a labour prime minister. it happened on labour's watch and it is another reason why people don't trust labour.

 

there is a book about blair the warmonger and his 5 wars. why not read it and learn.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Blairs-Wars-John-Kampfner/dp/0743248309

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/28/politicalbooks.politics

Edited August 31, 2015 by drummonds

[unbeliever]

i never cease to be amazed that the socialistas keep flogging this dead horse.

 

tony b LIAR turned up at the house of commons and presented the infamous dodgy dossier to con the commons into his war. the country knows this. even the labour leadership candidates admit this. this was a war at the instigation of a labour prime minister who lied through his teeth to get the uk involved.

 

That's a very good point also.

But still if we'd have avoided the Iraq war, we'd have saved about £5billion. That's a drop in the ocean compared with the deficit and debt that Brown saddled us with.

 

It's not just the Conservatives who are absolved by Blair's lies. It's also all but the inner circle of Labour leadership at the time. I seriously doubt that back-bench Labour MPs were any more aware of true deceit which was being perpetrated against the UK people and their parliament than the Conservative benches were.

 

I say this as somebody who thinks that Hussain needed removing by force anyway. I would probably have supported the UK's participation in that war without Blair's lies. But that doesn't make it okay. You don't lie to parliament and certainly not over something so desperately important as whether that country should go to war. It was unforgivable.

Edited August 31, 2015 by unbeliever

[Eric Arthur]

The original 1991 Gulf War didn't do the Conservatives any harm when they presented facts as facts.

[unbeliever]

The original 1991 Gulf War didn't do the Conservatives any harm when they presented facts as facts.

 

Quite right.

In general the UK people understood that the far more costly Afghanistan war was necessary and justified.

 

Blair showed his colours here as somebody who'll essentially say anything to get done what he thinks is the best thing to do. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. What's shocking is that there were enough people around him willing to cooperate both politicians and officials who were close enough to see what was really going on.

[El Cid]

 

we revealed that more than 38,000 government workers are paid over £100,000, and that 9,187 earn more than the Prime Minister (£142,500). We also found that the scale and scope of public sector pay had risen remarkably since 1997, when Labour took over government. Then it employed 5.2 million people. Over the following 13 years this number jumped to 6.1 million.

 

 

The Conservative have held public sector pay down so much, that it is now below what the private sector pays for similar sized companies. So who ever gets into power next, will need to increase it in order to catch up, again.

Its just a seesaw, between Conservative and Labour.

 

The teams at the bottom of the premier league pay their players more than the prime minister.

[Eric Arthur]

Where are you getting your information because my info is that only applies in very certain circumstances relating to the size of organisation not the job being done. It also ignores pensions.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152840/Public-vs-private-sector-pay-gap-is-5000-or-a-fifth-of-earnings.html

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/public-and-private-sector-earnings/november-2014/public-private-pay-2014.html