Question. If labour were still in charge would we be in a worse state Greece & Italy

[Insel affe]

Just been thinking about the strikes and the doom & gloom everywhere which has been going on for ever, with no signs of any good news anywhere or anytime soon. Personally I think the current goverment are doing the best they can and if we had stuck with labour and there proposed ideas that we need to spend our way out of a world wide recession would be folly and we would be on the same slippery slope as greece, Italy and several other nations. Am I right or wrong discuss please

 

[ROSM]

Just been thinking about the strikes and the doom & gloom everywhere which has been going on for ever, with no signs of any good news anywhere or anytime soon. Personally I think the current goverment are doing the best they can and if we had stuck with labour and there proposed ideas that we need to spend our way out of a world wide recession would be folly and we would be on the same slippery slope as greece, Italy and several other nations. Am I right or wrong discuss please

I disagree. The plan that Darling was following was a balance between cuts and encouraging growth which were bearing fruit. The osborne approach, whilst popular with the analysts because it talks macho about cuts actually delivers less than 10% more savings whilst causing concern and uncertainty which wrecks confidence. This increases spending on welfare and reduces tax income thus negating the additional cuts

 

[Triggaaar]

Not as bad as Greece or Italy, but it would be pretty bad. We'd have lost our AAA rating for a start, so we'd be throwing more money away in interest payments, and that's before Labour's wasteful spending.

 

[Direct Dave]

The country would be in no different shape if still under Labour, the money you think the current government is saving by all the cuts, will just be spent elsewhere, helping out the high earners, banks, ministers and other stuck up Tory cronies who are a little worried about their winter ski trip budget for the next 10 years!

 

[Buzzer]

If Labour had won the election Balls would be Chancellor and IMO Darling was the only one out of that shower competent enough and honest enough to deal with the problem. Balls and Brown are a disastrous pairing and as dishonest as you can possibly get without being Blair and Campbell. Can I opt for a Tory Government (in a majority) but Darling defecting and being re-appointed Chancellor?

Great quote on Twitter about Osborne: Remember your dad fixing the remote by rotating the batteries? The Govt's economic plans feel like that. Only without such long term vision.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

We would be financially megaf****d

How they can even begin to complain about the Tories is beyond me.

As for Ed Muribund's statement today that Cameron spends more on his skiing holiday than a nurse or social worker earns in a week is beyond me. A week's family ski-ing must be a good £3k.
No wonder we are complaining if nurses are earning £156k a year!

Labour dud!
Labour fud!



TNBA

TTF

 

[Insel affe]

As for Ed Muribund's statement today that Cameron spends more on his skiing holiday than a nurse or social worker earns in a week is beyond me. A week's family ski-ing must be a good £3k.
No wonder we are complaining if nurses are earning £156k a year!

I did hear that and think what the feck is he on about, He just comes across as a gormless private school prat, who has nothing in common with the common person. Labour does not mean working/middle class anymore to me.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Not as bad as Greece or Italy, but it would be pretty bad. We'd have lost our AAA rating for a start, so we'd be throwing more money away in interest payments, and that's before Labour's wasteful spending.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

There would have still been pretty big cuts under Labour (it's easy when in opposition to say otherwise) maybe less cuts, with much higher taxes instead, and this Public Sector Pension situation would be the same, as it was the Labour Party who asked Hutton to look into them in the first place.

 

[Woodchip]

Great quote on Twitter about Osborne: Remember your dad fixing the remote by rotating the batteries? The Govt's economic plans feel like that. Only without such long term vision.

I've still never worked out quite that has such a high success rate. It should be destined to failure (like the Labour parties "spend to save" theory) but is surprisingly successful (unlike Labour)

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Its got nothing to to with politics as both parties would have got us in the exact same mess.

What it has got to do with is whether Labours plan to borrow our way out of trouble was better than the tories way to spending cut our way out - You sort of got your answer yesterday when Osbourne said they were going to have to borrow loads more money than planned! Thats a big U turn and probably too late now - lots of job losses next year and the money they will be borrowing will be to pay benefits.

If we had not slashed the budgets and kept Vat at 15% our growth would have been higher and that growth should have meant we could have paid back our loan.

Whats scary is that if you look at Osbournes graph on growth it looks like he completely made up the last year - it dips and dips and then it zooms up to what he said it would reach like last year! Like thats going to happen.

What you have to remember is that NONE of these clowns have a clue what to do - they are no better at running the budget of the country as most people are at running the shopping budget!

Look at the price of crude again its getting close to what it was in Apr this year - If it hits £130 a barrel watch out and if the Euro goes.............

 

[jackanada]

Question is too biased in its phrasing to be of value but roll on the bunfight. Anyhow here is the political cycle.

Labour spends money rebuilding public services including substantial investment in crumbling infrastucture. Debt rises, possibly taxes, people forget they are paying for stuff they actually need and they lose an election.
Torys cut public spending below a maintainable level and things gradually (or sometimes quickly) turn to shit. Debt usually goes down, taxes for richest do too. Eventually country is so f***ed people remember we need to spend money on stuff and they lose an election.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

True statements.

You cannot put the poor into prosperity by taking the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one receives for not working,another person has to work for without receiving.

The Government cannot give to anybody anything it has'nt taken from someone else.

And from Maggie, Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money!

 

[Buzzer]

Labour spends money rebuilding public services including substantial investment in crumbling infrastucture.

That's not strictly true though is it? The majority of the money that Labour threw at the public sector has not gone on capital programmes but mainly on wages for existing staff and creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs. A large part of the capital rebuilding has been done with PPI sleight of hand and will end up costing us lots and lots more than if the Government had built the hospitals in the first place.

 

[looney]

Bye bye EU.

 

[Mr Burns]

These arguments of Rich and Poor always reminds me of the greatest ones put down. Funny thing is under the last Labour government, the gap grow even wider, but you still get stupid quotes about the rich f***ing the poor. The top 0.5% maybe, but the problem is now the "poor" think anyone who earns more than 25k a year is rich!

And no I dont think we would have been in a worse state than Greece. A worse state than we are now, yes, but no where near Greece, and to use that as a option in the poll suggests that you dont understand what has caused the Greek criisis

 

[beorhthelm]

not as bad as Greece and differently to Italy, but we'd be very f***ed.

If we had not slashed the budgets and kept Vat at 15% our growth would have been higher and that growth should have meant we could have paid back our loan.

If... [ insert anything ]. our growth isnt good enough, Osbourne bet on a recovery from industry which has faltered. but actually had the second highest GDP in Europe in Q2, on a par with Germany Q3 and above France and everyone else. it was a close run thing, but in the end, you cant grow your economy if your markets are all depressed.

low VAT really isnt going to help growth when you importing the goods to sell slightly cheaper, which are being price cut anyway. its a deckchair on the proverbial titanic, i dont know why Labour put such emphasis on it. ive not read an economist who backs it as the answer. meanwhile we know from whats happening in europe that the borrowing option wouldnt/isnt available and they are being told how and where they must cut their budgets. we have at least given ourself some breathing space, though thats as much to do with simply not being in the euro than Osbourne's policies.

 

[clapham_gull]

No idea and I don't think anyone has to be honest.

I will add this. I've read extensively about "New Labour" whilst they were in power and after - from the people who were there.

Just read Mandelson's little epic just started Chris Mullens diaries. Prior to that - I've lost count.

( I'd steer well clear from anything by Brown or Blair to be honest I prefer the view from the sidelines )

Irrespective of any authors view point, one thing is clear. Labour were effectively split down the middle the minute they came into power and it affected for better and worse everything they did.

Extraordinary back stabbing mostly coming from Brown it has to be said. He doesn't come out of any the books particularly well, never getting over Blair beating him to PM.

However, one thing he did leave us with. He stopped us entering the Euro. The general consensus being that us pulling out of the ERM completely freaked him out. Especially since he supported the move in the first place.

Alongside Mandelson - I've been reading the Alan Partridge biography. The similarities are remarkable.

 

[paddy]

Its got nothing to to with politics as both parties would have got us in the exact same mess.

What it has got to do with is whether Labours plan to borrow our way out of trouble was better than the tories way to spending cut our way out - You sort of got your answer yesterday when Osbourne said they were going to have to borrow loads more money than planned! Thats a big U turn and probably too late now - lots of job losses next year and the money they will be borrowing will be to pay benefits.

If we had not slashed the budgets and kept Vat at 15% our growth would have been higher and that growth should have meant we could have paid back our loan.

Whats scary is that if you look at Osbournes graph on growth it looks like he completely made up the last year - it dips and dips and then it zooms up to what he said it would reach like last year! Like thats going to happen.

What you have to remember is that NONE of these clowns have a clue what to do - they are no better at running the budget of the country as most people are at running the shopping budget!

Look at the price of crude again its getting close to what it was in Apr this year - If it hits £130 a barrel watch out and if the Euro goes.............

Goodness me, I don't know where to begin with this one.

Firstly, we are not paying off a loan. We are trying to stop taking out more loans. We have a budget deficit - for every five pounds the government spends, one is borrowed. The budget deficit is structural. A structural deficit is one which exists irrespective of how well the economy is performing. The only way one can get out of a structural deficit is by removing the deficit and the only way to remove that deficit is through spending cuts/tax increases. Of course, it is open to debate how much of our current deficit is structural or cyclical but what is clear is that a large proportion is structural and thus can only be removed (i.e. not borrowed out of)

Secondly, it is not Osbourne's graph on growth - the graph is produced by the OBR (an independent body).

Thirdly, the price of crude oil is indeed an indicator of global economic performance, but it is precisely the reverse of what you suggest. The price of crude oil increases where there is increased demand. Increased demand can be attributed to increased economic performance. Thus, as with gold, the real time to worry is when the price of gold and oil collapse (with gold because it shows people are having to sell assets to cover losses on the markets; with oil because the economy is slowing and there is less demand for it).

 

[jackanada]

That's not strictly true though is it? The majority of the money that Labour threw at the public sector has not gone on capital programmes but mainly on wages for existing staff and creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs. A large part of the capital rebuilding has been done with PPI sleight of hand and will end up costing us lots and lots more than if the Government had built the hospitals in the first place.

I only said 'including'. Jobs don't seem very wasteful to me. PFI is god awful though and just shows even the supposed left can't help feeding The City.

 

[jackanada]

Secondly, it is not Osbourne's graph on growth - the graph is produced by the OBR (an independent body).

Is that the OBR set up by George Osbourne after the general election, part run by the lovely Geoffrey Dicks previously chief economist of RBS?