Is the recession really Brown's fault?

Old_Slaphead

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

However, I do know that this government has rebuilt schools that desperately needed rebuilding. Some of them were slums after the Tories had been in power for so long. They have also refurbished schools. They have paid school staff well and provided them with equpiment & books they need to do their job. They have reduced class sizes particularly in Key Stage 1.

However much the Gov't have oversplurged on 'off balance sheet' PFI (£300 billion - to be repaid over next 30 years) to improve schools infrastructure - they've done nothing to improve overall educational standards......nb school infrastructure was also abysmal when last Labour Gov't left office.

And don't give me that - 'you've not been anywhere near a school in the last 20 years' rubbish because my information re. education standards comes from real teachers !

cogito

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I've no idea about all that gold stuff.

However, I do know that this government has rebuilt schools that desperately needed rebuilding. Some of them were slums after the Tories had been in power for so long. They have also refurbished schools. They have paid school staff well and provided them with equpiment & books they need to do their job. They have reduced class sizes particularly in Key Stage 1.

The Tories would have done none of this.

Whilst I know less about what has gone on in the NHS, they have also spent massive amounts in this area.

I believe that this government has tried to spend money helping people. As I've said before the Tories would have just P!!ss!d it all away on tax cuts for the rich, schools would still be in a dreadful state and they would not have left a particularly great legacy.

New schools have been built and it needed doing but the money all came from off the balance sheet PFI schemes. This is the sort of financial manouevering which has enabled Broon to conceal the true state of the country's debt - a fact which some posters on here choose to ignore whenever they claim that our debts aren't all that bad.

And I'm still waiting for proof that all the money spent on the NHS has actually resulted in genuine and sustainable improvements in the service. In my experience, it seems to have made little difference.

Any fool can spend money. The real question is whether it has been spent well.

JayScottGreenspan

Radiantsoul wrote: »

I am not sure it would have made much difference. Conceivable he could have raised tax rates(or cut spending) by 1% of GDP from 2002-2007. But it would have made a minor difference to the current situation, probably reducing total government debt by 6-7%. I suppose it would have given more remove to manoever in terms of a fiscal stimulus now, but not a great deal.

I am not sure that if Brown had sought to raise interest rates, reduce credit and increase taxes in order to slow economic growth he would have been highly regarded and would have lost the election in 2005 to a Conservative government that would have promised lower taxes and less regulation.

The main mistake was allowing the credit bubble to form. If he'd regulated lending the country would be better off, and not by a small margin.

Gordon Brown, 1997 Budget speech:
“I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery”.

Gordon Brown, 1998 Budget speech:
“Booms channel too many resources into speculative activities and not enough into others, hampering economic progress. The fleeting gains that such episodes bring are invariably far outweighed by the pain of the downturn that must follow.”

Generali

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

We've been through that debate many times and you know that's not true.

Firstly, the UK deficit was less than most countries.

Secondly, how big your deficit is or isn't really isn't going to matter because the sums involved are so massive that a couple of billion either way really isn't going to make any difference. Lots of countries with surpluses will suffer just because they are overdependent on export markets.

I think the labour party did "fix the roof while the sun shined" and I certainly believe that the Tories wouldn't have bothered.

Debt was repaid by the Conservative Government in 1988 and 1989. Check the Blue Book. Debt was incurred by the Labour Government in every year from 2001-2008.

The size of the UK debt depends on how you measure it. For example, Civil Service pensions, bank deposits for RBS and the state pension are all real liabilities but not reflected in debt levels. The same was true under the Tories but AIUI, unfunded liabilities have increased hugely under this Government due to the expansion of the state and PFI.

If you honestly believe that the UK is in a better fiscal position than in 1997 then you don't understand the problem.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Well when actually in power they paid down debt in good times and increased it in the bad. The Labour Government increased the debt in the good times and left the UK in the brown stuff.

Hardly a great legacy and one that seems set to haunt the UK.

!!!!!! we have gone over this repeatedly. Debt was lower in 2007 than in 1997 - yes it increased from 2003 but ended lower. In suggesting that Labour increased debt you are either being deliberately dense or are deliberately lying. Which is it?

You cannot keep stating that black is white and have any credibility. We can debate the pros and con's of Brown's borrowing binge in the second term all you like, but to suggest that this increased UK debt vs when Labour took office is plain wrong. Deal with it and move on.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

Tories would have made mincemeat of interferring Brown, refer Redwood quote :rotfl:

So what? at least he would have had a clear conscience. THere was no doubt by 2005 that the housing market was overheated and needed a correction. He chose not to as he was robbing home buyers of increasingly large stamp duty bills.

I think the labour party did "fix the roof while the sun shined" and I certainly believe that the Tories wouldn't have bothered.

Want to comment on consumer debt then? How about their 40% GDP promise which didnt include PFI figures?

On schools:

I went to a private school, I consider myself lucky to have done so. Tell me then, how does having a building that cost a fortune to build, using modern architects to create 'novel' designs increase the learning ability of the pupils? Same with 5000 pound interactive whiteboards and all the other cash labour shat up the wall on PFI. The private school I went to had defunct heating, had leaks in the roof and wallpaper peeling off the wall. Want to know what the big difference was? Discipline. The kids wanted to be there. THey were competitive. We didnt know our rights and threaten teachers with them. We in fact respected our teachers. All this contributed to a positive environment for kids to learn in. It had very little to do with top notch facilities and had NOTHING to do with how much money had been wasted.

Tell me one area above in which Labour have improved the lot of school kids. You cant. Instead, they have spoilt kids 'young adults' (what crap is that!!!?!) into thinking they can have the world without working for it. Vis a Vis 50% graduate employment levels. Yes, 50% are graduate level educated. But what in? Speaking Klingon and media studies! What a joke and a wase of taxpayer cash and of potential development of children!!!

!!!!!! we have gone over this repeatedly. Debt was lower in 2007 than in 1997 - yes it increased from 2003 but ended lower. In suggesting that Labour increased debt you are either being deliberately dense or are deliberately lying. Which is it?

Only when stripped of PFI and ignoring future liabilities it was. Which was a !!!!!!!ised fudged government measure if there ever was one. Want to give us a good reason that future promised expenditure shouldn't go on the balance sheets as a liability? You are also ignoring the fact that gdp growth without consumer debt would have been negative from 2002 onwards.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

!!!!!! we have gone over this repeatedly. Debt was lower in 2007 than in 1997 - yes it increased from 2003 but ended lower. In suggesting that Labour increased debt you are either being deliberately dense or are deliberately lying. Which is it?

You cannot keep stating that black is white and have any credibility. We can debate the pros and con's of Brown's borrowing binge in the second term all you like, but to suggest that this increased UK debt vs when Labour took office is plain wrong. Deal with it and move on.

No it wasn't. Debt as a proportion of GDP was lower. Notional debt is higher.

I don't know why you struggle with the distinction as it seems pretty simple to me.

setmefree2

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

had he not carried out a raid on peoples pensions making them worth even less after the stock market crash and providing a disincentive for people to invest for their old age

I'm not sure all the problems with pensions can be laid at the feet of GB. There are a number of analysts who are now questioning whether investing in equities can ever provide a good income in old age - even if you contribute for 30 years.

A huge research project carried out by the London Business School found that since 1900 that the stockmarket would only have averaged a return of 6% (US) 5% (UK) ONLY if all dividends were reinvested. Measured just by gains in their prices equities averaged only 1.7% per year. - on this basis they would have been beaten by bonds.

I'm no expert in this field but I have a feeling this could be the next endowment fiasco. I think the general public sense that something does not add up with pensions and they are being sold a B*m steer.

Rochdale_Pioneers

mbga9pgf wrote: »

How about their 40% GDP promise which didnt include PFI figures?

Go look at the Eurostat figures which includes PFI and other off-books liabilities. Above 40% yes, but they clearly show that the UK debt fell between 1997 when Labour took office and 2007 when the sample stops. Any attempt to manipulate the figures showing that Labour increased debt in the 10 years they had growth is an outright lie.

And yes our debt is shooting up now. In 1990-1993 it increased from the low 30s to the low 50s% - and that recession had no bank bailouts or fiscal stimuli.

And how does our debt compare to most of our neighbours? Lower! A lot lower! So when Cameron says we are the most indebted government, can afford to borrow no more and need the IMF that is also an outright lie.

Is debt a good thing? Of course not. Can the UK sustain higher levels of public debt? Of course - how do Greece and Italy manage?

tomstickland

Anyone for some guilt free PFI debt?
What about personal debt where the UK are at the no1 spot?
Didn't Gordon Brown say that we were "well placed to weather the downturn" a few months ago? Why is Ed Balls "talking the economy down" now?