Message To The Conservatives.

[1789a]

Why have the Labour supporting media not reported this?

 

Could you list the Labour supporting media for me?

[Berberis]

Could you list the Labour supporting media for me?

 

Mirror Group and The Guardian both supported Labour at the last election.

 

Local (large circulation) newspapers such as the Liverpool Echo and Manchester Evening Standard plus the Daily Record in Scotland are also Labour supporting media outlets.

[sgtkate]

I am not a Tory supporter (as such) but find it odd that, as respected an economist as Murphy may be, he confined his analysis solely to the numbers, without any context, be it economical or fiscal. Such as the postwar debt-fuelled rebuilding and aid repayments, IMF crisis loans, post-crisis tax revenue at the bottom of the cliff <etc.>

 

Statistically the Cons borrow more than Labour?

 

Historically they come to power when the country's economy is thrashed (whether through Labour's mismanagement or not, it's irrelevant) and in most need of heavy borrowing to keep the lights on.

 

Labour then come to power when people have had enough of the Tory tight belt, and find a balanced budget and a substantially recovered economy that are 'making babies' for the country.

 

Cue next crisis, rinse-repeat.

 

If you look at the report he does actually take that into context, at least for the last crash. I'm sorry but more than just him have shown the exact same thing and what you are saying just does not play out in the figures.

[L00b]

If you look at the report he does actually take that into context, at least for the last crash. I'm sorry but more than just him have shown the exact same thing and what you are saying just does not play out in the figures.

Have a read. Source for Gvt tenure in the below is here.

 

Salient extracts:

At the beginning of the 20th century the national debt stood at around 30 percent of GDP.[4] However, during World War I the British Government was forced to borrow heavily in order to finance the war effort. The national debt increased from £650m in 1914 to £7.4 billion in 1919.

(Liberal Gvt 1910-1918 )

By the mid-1920s, interest on government debt was absorbing 44% of all government expenditure, comfortably exceeding spending on defence until 1937 when, as war clouds drew near, re-armament began to get underway in earnest

(Cons Gvt 1922-1929)

During World War II the Government was again forced to borrow heavily in order to finance war with the Axis powers. By the end of the conflict Britain's debt exceeded 200 percent of GDP, as it had done after the end of the Napoleonic Wars.[4] As during World War I, the US again provided the major source of funds, this time via low-interest loans and also through the Lend Lease Act. Even at the end of the war Britain needed American financial assistance, and in 1945 Britain took a loan for $586 million (about £145 million at 1945 exchange rates), and in addition a further $3.7 billion line of credit (about £930m at 1945 exchange rates). The debt was to be paid off in 50 annual repayments commencing in 1950. Some of these loans were only paid off in the early 21st century. On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) and thereby discharged the last of its war loans from the US.

(Cons Gvt 1935-1945, Labour 1945-1951)

After the war the debt gradually fell as a proportion of GDP, but in 1976 the British Government led by James Callaghan faced a Sterling crisis during which the value of the pound tumbled and the government found it difficult to raise sufficient funds to maintain its spending commitments. The Prime Minister was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund for a £2.3 billion rescue package; the largest-ever call on IMF resources up to that point.

(Labour Gvt start year: 1974)

In the late 1990s and early 2000s the national debt dropped in relative terms, falling to 29% of GDP by 2002. After that it began to increase, despite sustained economic growth, increasing to 37% of GDP in 2007. This was due to extra government borrowing, largely caused by increased spending on health, education, and social security benefits.

(Labour Gvt start year: 1997)

 

Context sure is a b*tch, innit?

[sgtkate]

Have a read. Source for Gvt tenure in the below is here.

 

Salient extracts:

(Liberal Gvt 1910-1918 )

(Cons Gvt 1922-1929)

(Cons Gvt 1935-1945, Labour 1945-1951)

(Labour Gvt start year: 1974)

(Labour Gvt start year: 1997)

 

Context sure is a b*tch, innit?

 

Not really. It's just a squirm point for the Tories to say 'well we may have borrowed more, but it's all their fault! It's them not us, they messed it up, I mean they even DARED borrow to fight the Nazis'. Typical schoolground argument, he hit me first.

[Berberis]

Not really. It's just a squirm point for the Tories to say 'well we may have borrowed more, but it's all their fault! It's them not us, they messed it up, I mean they even DARED borrow to fight the Nazis'. Typical schoolground argument, he hit me first.

 

"We inherited 'that' from the Tory government" was the mantra of Labour for about 8 years while they were in power and Labour didn't take on a country is such a bad state.

[ricgem2002]

"We inherited 'that' from the Tory government" was the mantra of Labour for about 8 years while they were in power and Labour didn't take on a country is such a bad state.

we keep hearing this from the tories about labour thou

[L00b]

Not really. It's just a squirm point for the Tories to say 'well we may have borrowed more, but it's all their fault! It's them not us, they messed it up, I mean they even DARED borrow to fight the Nazis'. Typical schoolground argument, he hit me first.

But then, that is precisely how and why the Cons have a record of borrowing more statistically.

 

By your logic, would the Cons 'find grace' in your eyes if they had not borrowed from the US to fight Nazis?

 

The problem with your (and Murphy's) selective dataset is that Gvt borrowing terms spans decades during which Governments of either side come and go and deal with what past commitments they find (like successive Cons and Labour Gvt dealt with the repayments of the Lend Lease until 2006), as well as the context of the current legislature that dictates whether new commitments are required (such as continuing Labour's country propping debt-fuelled policies post-2010, which they did) or not

 

Murphy and you are basically positing this imaginary situation wherein all past debt stops and is reset on the day of a GE, and whichever Gvt gets elected becomes responsible for the whole amount owed as it stands since the year dot. Talk about political revisionism

Edited March 22, 2016 by L00b

[1789a]

"We inherited 'that' from the Tory government" was the mantra of Labour for about 8 years while they were in power and Labour didn't take on a country is such a bad state.

 

The tories have no moral high ground on that issue then- it's lowest common denominator-playground tactics. They have of course recently blamed the last government, the coalition, which they seem to have forgotten their part in- rewriting history already.

 

 

And- Could you list the Labour supporting media for me?

[sgtkate]

But then, that is precisely how and why the Cons have a record of borrowing more statistically.

 

By your logic, would the Cons 'find grace' in your eyes if they had not borrowed from the US to fight Nazis?

 

The problem with your (and Murphy's) selective dataset is that Gvt borrowing terms spans decades during which Governments of either side come and go and deal with what past commitments they find (like successive Cons and Labour Gvt dealt with the repayments of the Lend Lease until 2006), as well as the context of the current legislature that dictates whether new commitments are required (such as continuing Labour's country propping debt-fuelled policies post-2010, which they did) or not

 

Murphy and you are basically positing this imaginary situation wherein all past debt stops and is reset on the day of a GE, and whichever Gvt gets elected becomes responsible for the whole amount owed as it stands since the year dot. Talk about political revisionism

 

Not in the slightest. It's just pathetic of both sides to try to use how amazing they are at looking after the economy as a vote winner. It's lie from both sides and they really should stop.