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

nickmason

amcluesent wrote: »

>And that's just fuelled further by the talk of scorched-earth policies<

There's ample evidence that Clown always set-out to pauperise the English middle-class and engineer a huge transfer of assets, via the State, to the idle and f.eckless in Wales, Scotland, the NE and NW.

Despite knowing this only too well (Dorset being the worst suffering county in terms of the redistribution of funds) I don't think that constitutes scorched earth - it's a policy that has genuinely good intentions (even if it's flawed). Scorched earth is where the primary purpose is to destroy the "inheritance", and so milk the lag in electoral cycles by showing the new gov to be rubbish.

Rochdale_Pioneers

An interesting thread. He's a scenario for you - the Tories had been in power for most of the last decade.

1. They deregulated the city even further than Brown did, actioning all those speeches they made and making all their banking friends happy (the ones who fund the party).
2. They spent less than Brown did. A point to make is that Clarke had no intention of sticking to his own post-97 spending plans, so the massive pay-down of debt pre-2003 may not have happened on the same scale in a Tory government scenario. This is then balanced off by less public spending.
3. Unemployment is higher (lower public spending), interest rates are politically manipulated, inflation is higher.

So, we enter the recession with an even bigger liability due to the banks being allowed to go even further than they have in the real world. We have lower debt - but not much lower due to higher benefits costs, lower tax takes via tax cuts.

We then see the Tories uniquely not throwing cash on the fire and the UK crashes faster than anyone else.

In what way would that have us better off?

nickmason

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

An interesting thread. He's a scenario for you - the Tories had been in power for most of the last decade.

1. They deregulated the city even further than Brown did, actioning all those speeches they made

not sure what greater deregulation you're talking about, in reality. I suspect the nuanced differences in regulation would have made zero difference - after all, it's a global problem innit?

and making all their banking friends happy (the ones who fund the party).

This attack keeps on surfacing. First, we've done this a million times - at least it seems so - but the Tories don't have the monopoly on having wealthy banking friends. I know it fits well with the story, but they really really don't. Bankers are arch-pragmatists, and sucked up to Brown/Blair through most of the last 15 years with comments of confidence and stacks of cash. The flattery and bribery worked of course - the "friends" got precisely what they wanted. I was for some time amazed by how many rich bankers/lawyers etc were friends, and deep-funders, of Labour.

2. They spent less than Brown did.

Almost certainly

A point to make is that Clarke had no intention of sticking to his own post-97 spending plans,

source?

so the massive pay-down of debt pre-2003 may not have happened on the same scale in a Tory government scenario.

Don't follow the logic here - reduced spending surely likely to allow greater pay-down of debt? Everything I know of right-wing economics vs left-wing economics suggests that paying-down of debt is more likely to happen under Tory than Labour gov.

This is then balanced off by less public spending.

Agree on less public spending - but surely that is balanced off not by smaller pay-down of debt but by larger pay-down of debt. Or have I got my terms completely confused and is "pay-down" actually increasing?

3. Unemployment is higher (lower public spending),

matter of ideology or preferred economic axioms, but I don't agree with the conclusion there. reducing public spending obviously cuts public sector jobs, but can offset those job losses by providing more private sector spending and so economy. Not to mention some cosy multipliers and benefits of growth.

interest rates are politically manipulated, inflation is higher.

Think this happened anyhow through inflation measures. See my previous post.

So, we enter the recession with an even bigger liability due to the banks being allowed to go even further than they have in the real world.

As I say, not sure that this would have been the case. The whole edifice fell over because it was unstable, not because it got "caught out" by the regulation. There's a reasonable argument that reduced regulation would make the (in)stability more natural and transparent, and so actually bring about a market correction earlier*.

We have lower debt - but not much lower due to higher benefits costs,

Not necessarily.

lower tax takes via tax cuts.

True - although increased economic efficiency might well reduce the loss.

We then see the Tories uniquely not throwing cash on the fire and the UK crashes faster than anyone else.

And so where did that excellent non-sequitur come from?:eek:


* Nick's pet theory - all this interference "for the sake of the people" (whether economic, legal or political) actually concentrates power with the insiders to the exclusion of the many. It suppresses the power of the market (the invisible hand - in any of those spheres) to respond to imbalances, and allows the insiders to milk the system. At huge democratic cost.

LauraW10

Wookster wrote: »

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.

I'm completely ignorant 'cos I don't agree with the sheeple on HPC that Vince Cable is a God?

Anyone who is a great person would want to be a leader and would want to lead a party who wanted power. The liberals can say what they please 'cos they just want to play at politics they don't actually want to get their hands dirty.

nickmason

LauraW10 wrote: »

I'm completely ignorant 'cos I don't agree with the sheeple on HPC that Vince cable is a God?

Anyone who is a great person would want to be a leader and would want to lead a party who wanted power. The liberals can say what they please 'cos they just want to play at politics they don't actually want to get their hands dirty.

Hear, hear.

I love agreeing with members of the labour party as to how bad the LDs are. It's almost as much fun as agreeing with the shameless members of the LD party as to how bad they are.

And I feel bad about the "right to have nuclear weapons" comment.

LauraW10

Wookster wrote: »

For two reasons:

1. The UK doesn't produce much stuff that other people want (hence the enormous trade deficit)
2. The pound is perceived to be one of the more risky currencies

More rubbish. Why don't you find another country to live in if you think the UK is so crap? You obviously feel little love for Britain and I personally find it offensive and wonder why you stay here?

If our economy is so awful how come we have the 5th biggest economy in the world by GDP despite the fact that we are a very very small Island?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Cleaver

LauraW10 wrote: »

More rubbish. Why don't you find another country to live in if you think the UK is so crap? You obviously feel little love for Britain and I personally find it offensive and wonder why you stay here?

Emigrating on the basis that manufactoring is down and the pound is a bit shaky would be a bit extreme woudln't it?

I don't really like roast dinners and don't have much time for monicals, but I'm not upping sticks and sodding off to Dubai.

A._Badger

LauraW10 wrote: »

More rubbish. Why don't you find another country to live in if you think the UK is so crap? You obviously feel little love for Britain and I personally find it offensive and wonder why you stay here?

If our economy is so awful how come we have the 5th biggest economy in the world by GDP despite the fact that we are a very small Island?

It's hardly 'loving Britain' to refuse to face the facts.

How would we ever improve things if we didn't acknowledge problems?

LauraW10

A._Badger wrote: »

It's hardly 'loving Britain' to refuse to face the facts.

How would we ever improve things if we didn't acknowledge problems?

Excuse me? What's factual about

1. The UK doesn't produce much stuff that other people want (hence the enormous trade deficit) So how come we have the 5th biggest economy in the world or is Wookster just ignorant about what the UK produce?
2. The pound is perceived to be one of the more risky currencies. Compared to what? - the Zimababwean dollar, the rouble, the zloty, the krona?

It's one thing to identify problems, quite another to run dowm Britain just for the sake of it:rolleyes:

A._Badger

"]Excuse me? What's factual about

1. The UK doesn't produce much stuff that other people want (hence the enormous trade deficit) So how come we have the 5th biggest economy in the world or is Wookster just ignorant about what the UK produce?"


I'm afraid he's quite right. The UK was (is) heavily reliant on the service sector - banking for example. We have been running a massive trade deficit for years and its going to get worse. Wookster isn't being ignorant. He's just sticking to the facts.

"2. The pound is perceived to be one of the more risky currencies. Compared to what? - the Zimababwean dollar, the rouble, the zloty, the krona?"

The ones that matter - like the US Dollar and the Euro. Hence the drop in value against them.

"It's one thing to identify problems, quite another to run dowm Britain just for the sake of it:rolleyes:"

And it's yet another to believe what you wish to believe, despite the evidence.