Do you think we could have avoided recession if the Tories were in power?

LauraW10

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Seconded. He would certainly have regulated the banks more, and nipped a lot of it in the bud.

Seems like an intelligent bloke, and more interested in what's best for the country than what's best for him. A very rare thing, that.

No he wouldn't. As Merv said yesterday "whilst the music was playing, everybody had to dance"

sandiep

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

:rotfl:


It FAILED!

A lot of retailers didnt even pass the cut on & that would of led to people being more inclined to keep money in their pockets rather than give it to rip off retailers..


:rotfl:

But maybe even then it worked, because it gave the retailers (who aren't satan, just businesses employing people and trying to survive) an extra cushion which has maybe stopped them going bust and making everyone redundant.

bendix

LauraW10 wrote: »

So true:T We're not coming out of this recession until America does - full stop. End of story.

Having said that, I am persuaded by the argument that the DOMESTIC impact of this global recession would have been slightly better under the Tories than under Labour, but only marginally. I would hope that while they were unlikely to curb the excesses of the credit boom, they would at least have had tighter control over the public purse and - ironically given history - would have been less inclined to play the role of Bush's puppy in the rush to Iraq and been more 'their own men.'

The tories were indeed lucky Brown didnt go to the polls in 2007. Very lucky. By the time the next election happens, the tories will sweep to power and, as the world rights itself again, will get the (undeserved) kudos for that.

Which just goes to show - in a modern global economy, electoral fortunes are 95% luck, 10% good management. The surplus 5% there is homage to Labour's inability to do basic accounting.

bendix

sandiep wrote: »

But maybe even then it worked, because it gave the retailers (who aren't satan, just businesses employing people and trying to survive) an extra cushion which has maybe stopped them going bust and making everyone redundant.

Right . . so the logic is that the VAT reduction worked because without it the current situation might be more worse than it actually is, yet . . umm .. we'll never know.

As a philosophical premise, that takes some sorting through. Where is the burden of proof?

Teacher2301

Just think about the last recession - that was under the tories but and history has yet to make a judgement on this, will Gordon be rewarded with another term of office like Maggie was?

Somehow, I think the media will be even more crucial to any party's victory in the next general election and I'm afraid to say, personality will count (shame because all three parties have some good policies) and the idea of making electroal pledges needs to be legalised - you promised x, y and z - so deliver - if not - there is the door!

LauraW10

bendix wrote: »

Having said that, I am persuaded by the argument that the DOMESTIC impact of this global recession would have been slightly better under the Tories than under Labour, but only marginally. I would hope that while they were unlikely to curb the excesses of the credit boom, they would at least have had tighter control over the public purse and - ironically given history - would have been less inclined to play the role of Bush's puppy in the rush to Iraq and been more 'their own men.'.

We'll never know but I don't believe for one minute that the Tories would have planned for the unthinkable (the credit crunch). The windfall from the banks would have just gone on tax cuts which would have just be spent by people on more imports - particulary of the Chinese variety and yet more cars and TVs. At least the Labour party spent on new schools, hospitals and jobs.

And the Tories would have gone into Iraq - for goodness sake they even managed to get into a war over the Falkland Islands.

Let's not forget either that the Tories spent what little money we had in the 80's buying bombs...."Jobs not Bombs" was how the 80's slogan went. The Tories had massive unemployment but they still kept buying those nuclear bombs.

handful

bendix wrote: »

The tories were indeed lucky Brown didnt go to the polls in 2007. Very lucky. By the time the next election happens, the tories will sweep to power and, as the world rights itself again, will get the (undeserved) kudos for that.

This is probably true but if it is then it is also true that Blair/Brown have taken the (undeserved) kudos for the boom years they enjoyed. I can't believe they are STILL blaming the Tories for everything even now. Only yesterday the defence minister (can't remember his name) was saying that the state of military quarters was because of a 'legacy of no investment'!! How long would they need to be in power for them to actually accept some responsibility for something?

Teacher2301

handful wrote: »

Only yesterday the defence minister (can't remember his name) was saying that the state of military quarters was because of a 'legacy of no investment'!! How long would they need to be in power for them to actually accept some responsibility for something?

yep - you look at the last 10 successive budgets and the amount cut from each years defence budget (which I believe has been shunted to the social security budget for immigrants etc). We'll look after any immigrant but will we look after our own and those who defend us- that's socialism for you...

sandiep

bendix wrote: »

Right . . so the logic is that the VAT reduction worked because without it the current situation might be more worse than it actually is, yet . . umm .. we'll never know.

As a philosophical premise, that takes some sorting through. Where is the burden of proof?

Businesses going bust at present at going bust primarily because they've reached the point where the bank will no longer support or renew facilities. The main reason woolies went bust when it did was because they couldn't renew long term debt facilities with the bank. If the debt renewal wasn't due for a year later, then maybe they'd have hung in there for a few months longer.

There are PROFITABLE businesses going bust because their bank now has a standard policy that their "industry" is subject to certain specific lending criteria, ie no longer supported.

I know a large & profitable franchise chain of hairdressers, and each individual franchise owner was called in and had their overdraft cut by 25% immediately, and a further 25% in 3 months. And they were told that this is standard to ALL of the banks corporate hairdressing clients.

So, if the gvt cut vat by 2.5%, and the hairdresser doesn't drop their prices, then that 2.5% may just be the thing that lets them repay enough of their overdraft to keep going.

(Remember that industries such as hairdressing - they have no purchases, and basically VAT is a tax on profits)

Saving a couple of quid on a haircut isn't going to make people rush out and spend a fortune on wild and wonderful haircuts. Rightly stated, its not making a big difference on the individual transaction to the individual consumer.

But if the hairdresser gets that extra 2.5% cushion, on every haircut, every day for just over a year, then it will make a difference to them.

Wookster

LauraW10 wrote: »

The man has no balls. - he's happy carping from the sidelines. Furthermore it's easy to say anything when you don't want power and you belong to a party that doesn't want to be in power either.

This just shows your complete ignorance of the situation we are now in. I don't think you understand the cause of the problem we are in now or the route out.