General Election 2015

[seagullsovergrimsby]

1965 Wilson government was hampered by a big trade deficit when it came to office (Reginald Maudling's note to his successor said "There's no money left, cock"), Wilson then exacerbated this by trying to prop up the pound (as Macdonald did with the Gold Standard).

Reg Maudling's note left for Jim Callaghan ended with ".... Sorry to leave it in such a mess". When Liam Byrne left a somewhat similar note at the Treasury for his successor in 2010 there was howls of uproar from the Conservatives which their supporters still make reference to but conveniently forgetting what occurred in 1964.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's not really a fact though.

1924 Labour government lost partly because of communist fears (Campbell case and Zinoviev letter) and partly because the Liberal vote collapsed (Labour vote actually went up)
1929 Labour government collapsed as a result of the depression triggered by collapse of US stock market and exacerbated by determination to stick to the gold standard. In fact, the economy only recovered in the mid-30s when the country started spending money to re-arm itself
1950 Labour government did spend heavily but the Conservatives did little to turn the clock back- it kept the NHS and the nationalised industries
1965 Wilson government was hampered by a big trade deficit when it came to office (Reginald Maudling's note to his successor said "There's no money left, cock"), Wilson then exacerbated this by trying to prop up the pound (as Macdonald did with the Gold Standard). He did keep public spending under control but Wilson did raise taxes significantly. He was eventually hammered by an unusually large trade deficit - these things really mattered in the 60s.
1975 The Callaghan government didn't overspend: its problem was a determination to keep firm control on public spending and limit wage rises. This in turn led to a wave of public sector strikes, coupled with a degree of militancy in the private sector. Throw in and big increase in unemployment and the stage was set for a Thatcher win. One of her first acts was to implement the proposals of the Clegg commission and increase public sector pay. In fact, public spending went up 13% during Thatcher's years in office.

So, out of six Labour governments, only one could really be accused of over-spending that needed correction by the incoming government. You could certainly say the Attlee government did, but the Churchill government didn't correct it and you could say Wilson taxed too much but your "fact" that ALL Labour governments overspend doesn't really have much substance

Nothing like facts getting in the way of ASSERTION

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Racist

Well done [MENTION=12486]Husty[/MENTION] - I'm sure Herr will understand it was a JOKE

 

[yxee]

Each time Labour are elected they spend more, not because they are trying to buy popularity, but because schools, hospitals, services have all been underfunded for a period of time.

If the budget deficit is -£75bn a year, then you can't really say anything is underfunded.

It is over-funded to the extend that we, as taxpayers, need £75bn of subsidy to pay for all the services that we use.

That's not sustainable, and the Labour opposition don't seem to have any concern for that.

 

[Stato]

If the budget deficit is -£75bn a year, then you can't really say anything is underfunded.

It is over-funded to the extend that we, as taxpayers, need £75bn of subsidy to pay for all the services that we use.

That's not sustainable, and the Labour opposition don't seem to have any concern for that.

Four statements made. All of them misleading, wrong or untrue.

As servicing the debt is only 7% of the annual spend, anything in the other 93% could be under or over funded.

A subsidy would not be needed if taxation revenues were increased, or savings made from spending: scrapping Trident and HS2 would have the immediate effect of putting at least £60 Billion in the plus column.

The level of debt is sustainable. The national debt has been a higher percentage of GDP than its current rate for more than half of the last 100 years and interest payments are not close to the 12% which economists believe would be unsustainable: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

The final statement is patently untrue politicking. Labour have stated clearly that they are committed to reducing the debt, just as they did at the last election.

The current Labour Party has been useless in opposition, letting the current government get away with things like giving away school buildings to private ownership on 100 year leases with barely a squeak. They are also likely to be ineffectual in government. However, they are the only alternative to the threat posed by Cameron and Osborne's ideological crusade to dismantle the Welfare State. Osborne wants to reduce public spending to pre war levels. In the 1945 election, a Labour landslide showed the country utterly rejecting these spending levels, even when they were being presented by Churchill, who then enjoyed massive personal popularity garnered from winning the war. This would suggest to me that there was something inherently lacking in what could be provided by a small public sector and the generosity of private wealth.

I cannot understand why anybody would ever consider a return to pre-Welfare State Britain, unless of course they have lived their whole life in a world of privilege and inherited wealth, without ever having imagined needing the support it can provide. Oh...

 

[jimbob5]

The Coalition have got things wrong but the perception of the voter is that things aren't as bad as they could be [rightly or wrongly]. The Lib Dems deserve credit but won't get any. In fact quite the reverse. Labour will benefit from the Lib Dems decline but only marginally as they will from UKIP voters. It's a straight fight between Labour and Conservatives so there are 2 main questions. 1. Who gets the most votes of those two. 2. If the margin is not big enough for a majority who will hold the balance to be part of a coalition, Libs or SNP. UKIP etc won't have enough seats to be part of a coalition. My gut feeling is that the current coalition will continue but with the Libs less influential. A lot of Labour MPs will resign themselves to the fact they need to re-group and get a better leader for the 2020 Election.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I find it remarkable you make this statement ....

The final statement is patently untrue politicking.

..... and then go on and post this !

The final statement is patently untrue politicking. Labour have stated clearly that they are committed to reducing the debt, just as they did at the last election.

The current Labour Party has been useless in opposition, letting the current government get away with things like giving away school buildings to private ownership on 100 year leases with barely a squeak. They are also likely to be ineffectual in government. However, they are the only alternative to the threat posed by Cameron and Osborne's ideological crusade to dismantle the Welfare State. Osborne wants to reduce public spending to pre war levels. In the 1945 election, a Labour landslide showed the country utterly rejecting these spending levels, even when they were being presented by Churchill, who then enjoyed massive personal popularity garnered from winning the war. This would suggest to me that there was something inherently lacking in what could be provided by a small public sector and the generosity of private wealth.

I cannot understand why anybody would ever consider a return to pre-Welfare State Britain, unless of course they have lived their whole life in a world of privilege and inherited wealth, without ever having imagined needing the support it can provide. Oh...

 

[yxee]

Four statements made. All of them misleading, wrong or untrue.

As servicing the debt is only 7% of the annual spend, anything in the other 93% could be under or over funded.

A subsidy would not be needed if taxation revenues were increased, or savings made from spending: scrapping Trident and HS2 would have the immediate effect of putting at least £60 Billion in the plus column.

The level of debt is sustainable. The national debt has been a higher percentage of GDP than its current rate for more than half of the last 100 years and interest payments are not close to the 12% which economists believe would be unsustainable: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

The final statement is patently untrue politicking. Labour have stated clearly that they are committed to reducing the debt, just as they did at the last election.

The current Labour Party has been useless in opposition, letting the current government get away with things like giving away school buildings to private ownership on 100 year leases with barely a squeak. They are also likely to be ineffectual in government. However, they are the only alternative to the threat posed by Cameron and Osborne's ideological crusade to dismantle the Welfare State. Osborne wants to reduce public spending to pre war levels. In the 1945 election, a Labour landslide showed the country utterly rejecting these spending levels, even when they were being presented by Churchill, who then enjoyed massive personal popularity garnered from winning the war. This would suggest to me that there was something inherently lacking in what could be provided by a small public sector and the generosity of private wealth.

I cannot understand why anybody would ever consider a return to pre-Welfare State Britain, unless of course they have lived their whole life in a world of privilege and inherited wealth, without ever having imagined needing the support it can provide. Oh...

You misunderstand me. I never said the level of debt was unsustainable. I said the budget deficit was unsustainable. A man with £100 of debt can happily pay £2/year interest and never go bankrupt. A man with £100 of debt and who continues to borrow £10 a year on top of that will go bankrupt. I'm talking about the latter, the budget deficit, not the current amount of national debt.

It is this budget deficit that Labour are not concerned with. Their election message in 2010 was "spend and tax our way out of the recession". Thank god they didn't win that one. And now, five years on, the only thing they offer concerned voters is the vaguest of words: "we are committed ..." is politician-speak for "we know voters care about it but don't want to make any concrete promises because we'll lose votes".

Please don't confuse an objective argument about national debt with your personal philosophy of why money should be taken from person A and given to person B. That is subjective, what is not subjective is that a budget deficit of £75bn a year simply cannot continue.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well done [MENTION=12486]Husty[/MENTION] - I'm sure Herr will understand it was a JOKE

Don't worry Westdene, I took it as a joke.

 

[Simster]

It's not really a fact though.

1924 Labour government lost partly because of communist fears (Campbell case and Zinoviev letter) and partly because the Liberal vote collapsed (Labour vote actually went up)
1929 Labour government collapsed as a result of the depression triggered by collapse of US stock market and exacerbated by determination to stick to the gold standard. In fact, the economy only recovered in the mid-30s when the country started spending money to re-arm itself
1950 Labour government did spend heavily but the Conservatives did little to turn the clock back- it kept the NHS and the nationalised industries
1965 Wilson government was hampered by a big trade deficit when it came to office (Reginald Maudling's note to his successor said "There's no money left, cock"), Wilson then exacerbated this by trying to prop up the pound (as Macdonald did with the Gold Standard). He did keep public spending under control but Wilson did raise taxes significantly. He was eventually hammered by an unusually large trade deficit - these things really mattered in the 60s.
1975 The Callaghan government didn't overspend: its problem was a determination to keep firm control on public spending and limit wage rises. This in turn led to a wave of public sector strikes, coupled with a degree of militancy in the private sector. Throw in and big increase in unemployment and the stage was set for a Thatcher win. One of her first acts was to implement the proposals of the Clegg commission and increase public sector pay. In fact, public spending went up 13% during Thatcher's years in office.

So, out of six Labour governments, only one could really be accused of over-spending that needed correction by the incoming government. You could certainly say the Attlee government did, but the Churchill government didn't correct it and you could say Wilson taxed too much but your "fact" that ALL Labour governments overspend doesn't really have much substance

This. Anyone who suggests Labour governments ALWAYS overspend is talking out of their arse. In fact, it's highly debatable as to whether even the last government did so. There were far better reasons for binning the last Labour government than peddling this absolute crock of shit.

 

[Peter Grummit]

If the budget deficit is -£75bn a year, then you can't really say anything is underfunded.

It is over-funded to the extend that we, as taxpayers, need £75bn of subsidy to pay for all the services that we use.

That's not sustainable, and the Labour opposition don't seem to have any concern for that.

What the crisis in the NHS and LA social care sectors aptly demonstrates is that there is a structural need for more resources. There is a political consensus that this is so. There is also a mainstream consensus that raising taxes to address this (and, yes, address the deficit too) is not an option. I say mainstream because only the Greens offer this option.

The mainstream parties are running scared of this option. But, is not the test of political leadership the need, at times, to propose what the country needs rather than wants?

PG

 

[Titanic]

Latest YouGov poll (14 - 15 Jan):

CON: 32% (-)
LAB: 32% (-2)
UKIP: 16% (+1)
GRN: 8% (+1)
LDEM: 6% (-)

 

[beorhthelm]

The open letter from the Sussex A&E doctor raises the point that 'protecting frontline services' is more double speak. If you underfund social care, the health service has to fulfill the need.

if this is the case and the cause of problems, then how is Labour's suggested policy of throwing a couple of £billion at the NHS going to do to resolve it? are we going to see an additional spend allocated to address another issue, once that comes into focus?

 

[beorhthelm]

Four statements made. All of them misleading, wrong or untrue.
...

A subsidy would not be needed if taxation revenues were increased, or savings made from spending: scrapping Trident and HS2 would have the immediate effect of putting at least £60 Billion in the plus column.

...Osborne wants to reduce public spending to pre war levels.

i dont have the time to pick through the rest, but these two are grossly misleading/wrong/untrue (pick). scrapping Trident and HS2 might put an amount in the plus column for deficit, but its a few £billion, not £60bn. thats the sort of spending over the 10-20 year lifetime of the projects. Osborne does want to shrink the state (stated policy), but there is no plan or projection to reduce spending to prewar levels. look at the ukspending site you've highlighted, work out the spending as GDP in the 1930's and current/projected to see its vastly different (28% vs 34-35% iirc)

 

[Stato]

It is this budget deficit that Labour are not concerned with.

Whereas this government are right on top of it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ady-huge-budget-deficit-is-still-growing.html

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i dont have the time to pick through the rest, but these two are grossly misleading/wrong/untrue (pick). scrapping Trident and HS2 might put an amount in the plus column for deficit, but its a few £billion, not £60bn. thats the sort of spending over the 10-20 year lifetime of the projects. Osborne does want to shrink the state (stated policy), but there is no plan or projection to reduce spending to prewar levels. look at the ukspending site you've highlighted, work out the spending as GDP in the 1930's and current/projected to see its vastly different (28% vs 34-35% iirc)

True, Clegg said it was a roll back to Dickensian London.

 

[Stato]

i dont have the time to pick through the rest, but these two are grossly misleading/wrong/untrue (pick). scrapping Trident and HS2 might put an amount in the plus column for deficit, but its a few £billion, not £60bn. thats the sort of spending over the 10-20 year lifetime of the projects. Osborne does want to shrink the state (stated policy), but there is no plan or projection to reduce spending to prewar levels. look at the ukspending site you've highlighted, work out the spending as GDP in the 1930's and current/projected to see its vastly different (28% vs 34-35% iirc)

Cost of Trident as admitted by the government is £20 billion. Others say this is a massive underestimate. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18/trident-replacement-hidden-cost-revealed
Cost of HS2 as admitted by the government is £43 billion. Others, including powerful figures in the Conservative party say this is a massive underestimate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-cost-over-70billion-says-Boris-Johnson.html

The figures are of course, total costs, so would not acheive this saving on an annual basis.

 

[Stato]

I find it remarkable you make this statement ....



..... and then go on and post this !

That was a bit of a cheek wasn't it. Even as i was writing it, I knew someone on here would notice. Partiality in politics, like in football, makes liars of us all.

 

[Greyrun]

True, Clegg said it was a roll back to Dickensian London.

Wrong its back to early eighties levels.

 

[Stato]

Wrong its back to early eighties levels.

and Dickens was dead by 1870.