Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

I was going to give a detailed response but I really can't be bothered.

If you honestly believe that the Labour party are capable of running the UK in a responsible and beneficial manner then feel free to vote for them. The fact that every single Labour administration has ended in chaos is clearly neither here nor there.

Depends entirely on ones reading of "chaos" - personally I consider it a far worse "chaos" when the necessary public services are so far down the tubes that they are almost beyond salvage and the short-term, head-in-the-sand neglect has caused re-build costs that could have been avoided had the "stitch-in-time" policy been keenly adhered to. One could argue that every time Labour get back in they have to over-spend repairing the damage done by the parsimonious and short-sighted policies of the Tories.

I can guarantee you that the overall feeling in the economic community in not only the UK, but also much of the rest of the World is that the recession in this Country would have been far deeper, far longer, and far more destructive under the Tories than it has been in this instance and that we should all consider ourselves lucky.

I personally feel that they are more able to run the Country in a way that is in the best interests of a majority of people and that actually even the very small minority with great wealth will see the benefit of a Country in which services, roads, education, health and policing is well run and well funded!

If the Country is to be run for the benefit of a minority then perhaps they could at least be honest about it all the way down the line:D

Rochdale_Pioneers

There seems to be two utterly bonkers arguments put out by the right.

1. Labour spent money in boom years. Yes they did. Having been given three General Election mandates to fix the decaying infrastructure they did exactly that. But lets not get carried away with the level of spending. Brown's spending years post 2001 added 9% onto debt. If we had not spent that money and consequently could reduce our debt today by 9% would we be in the clear? The argument seems to be that in not trying to completely remove our debt that he did something criminal. Anyone know how many years in our history UK debt has been lower than it was in 2001?

2. That poor Labour regulation is responsible for the scale of the crash. Doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Our banks with light touch regulation nearly collapsed. If its about regulation, how do you explain banks in Spain and Germany doing the same when they have very heavy regulation? And was not the argument put forward by the Conservatives that Labour were imposing too much regulation not too little? We all remember speeches by Cameron decrying Brown "the great regulator" strangling entrepreneurial spirit. Lets imagine that the Tories had won in 2005. Anyone seriously think that the Howard government would have increased City regulation? Would not have been telling the city that they were doing a good job?

So on both counts the Tory critique is a paper-thin fantasy. Its only because Brown is incapable of communicating that they have managed to implant such nonsense in the heads of certain people. The clear fact is that the Tories were dead wrong on the crash - about its cause, what to do about it, and now its effects. Serious economists in the city are reported to be deeply concerned about Osborne's utter lack of understanding of economics, and its no wonder why.

Thrugelmir

moggylover wrote: »

I can guarantee you that the overall feeling in the economic community in not only the UK, but also much of the rest of the World is that the recession in this Country would have been far deeper, far longer, and far more destructive under the Tories than it has been in this instance and that we should all consider ourselves lucky.

Some of us are too aware to listen to spin.

moggylover

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Some of us are too aware to listen to spin.

Whilst some are far too complacent and comfortable to open their eyes to the truth;)

Thrugelmir

moggylover wrote: »

Whilst some are far too complacent and comfortable to open their eyes to the truth;)

As the Tories weren't in power for 12 years how can any comment be made on the their performance in handling the recession? The Labour party were in power so they are accountable whatever the outcome.

So, yes I agree with you. People will see the results with their own eyes ( and pockets).

Rochdale_Pioneers

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As the Tories weren't in power for 12 years how can any comment be made on the their performance in handling the recession? The Labour party were in power so they are accountable whatever the outcome.

True. But as an election is a choice of rather than referendum on government you have to weigh up what the alternative choice would have done and what they will go on to do if elected.

People have been hacked off with the government and have expressed their views accordingly to pollsters. The polls are narrowing because now they are starting to consider what they will actually do and what the consequences of each choice are. Whether Labour made mistakes or not isn't the question - its would the Tories have made the same/worse mistakes and what therefore are the implications if they form the government?

Optimist

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As the Tories weren't in power for 12 years how can any comment be made on the their performance in handling the recession? The Labour party were in power so they are accountable whatever the outcome.

So, yes I agree with you. People will see the results with their own eyes ( and pockets).

Did you not know it was all that nasty Mrs Thatchers fault. Fancy trying to get people to take responsibility for their own actions.

That nice Mr Brown and Mr Blair have mended society its now a veritable utopia.

The boom times were all Mr Browns doing and the bust was somebody else's fault entirely !

moggylover

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As the Tories weren't in power for 12 years how can any comment be made on the their performance in handling the recession? The Labour party were in power so they are accountable whatever the outcome.

So, yes I agree with you. People will see the results with their own eyes ( and pockets).

The Tories WERE however, in power for the preceeding 14 years and (whilst they did do the bean-counting to the satisfaction of those who do not appear to care very much what state the Country itself is in as long as they are all-right Jack) they ran most of the services it needs to provide straight down the drain: this despite the fact that they sold off most of the Nationalised Industries rather more cheaply than they should have done and were in possession of a rather nice windfall in the shape of North Sea Oil.

Perhaps it would only be fair to judge Labour if they had another ten years to address the debts incurred in repairing what the Tories had allowed to decay. After all, when I bought my house it was derelict due to years of neglect and it cost more in the first three years I had it than it was overall worth at that time. Now 20 years on, however, it would far more than repay my investment;).

Politics is far too often looked at for a "quick-fix" and not a longer and larger investment/improvement. Sometimes we need to take off our blinkers and see a very much wider panorama than that which the "accountant" type "economists" put out.

Our pockets sometimes need to be dug deeply into today to get something worthwhile for the future:D

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

The Tories WERE however, in power for the preceeding 14 years and (whilst they did do the bean-counting to the satisfaction of those who do not appear to care very much what state the Country itself is in as long as they are all-right Jack) they ran most of the services it needs to provide straight down the drain: this despite the fact that they sold off most of the Nationalised Industries rather more cheaply than they should have done and were in possession of a rather nice windfall in the shape of North Sea Oil.

Perhaps it would only be fair to judge Labour if they had another ten years to address the debts incurred in repairing what the Tories had allowed to decay. After all, when I bought my house it was derelict due to years of neglect and it cost more in the first three years I had it than it was overall worth at that time. Now 20 years on, however, it would far more than repay my investment;).

Politics is far too often looked at for a "quick-fix" and not a longer and larger investment/improvement. Sometimes we need to take off our blinkers and see a very much wider panorama than that which the "accountant" type "economists" put out.

Our pockets sometimes need to be dug deeply into today to get something worthwhile for the future:D

Well Labour are planning to spend more than half the income the country generates (GDP) next year so I'm not sure exactly how deep you expect them to dig.

What proportion of the nation's output do you think it's reasonable for the Government to spend, out of interest?

Mr_Mumble

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

But lets not get carried away with the level of spending. Brown's spending years post 2001 added 9% onto debt.

Year £bn of debt
2001 323.0
2002 348.1
2003 380.1
2004 424.0
2005 465.1
2006 500.8
2007 534.1

That doesn't look like 9% to me, presumably you're using % of GDP which is akin to me asking my bank for a mortgage based on the value of every property in the cul-de-sac.

If we had not spent that money and consequently could reduce our debt today by 9% would we be in the clear?

For the ten squillionth time Rochdale it is not debt that is the problem (at present) but the deficit.

The argument seems to be that in not trying to completely remove our debt that he did something criminal. Anyone know how many years in our history UK debt has been lower than it was in 2001?

2001 was when New Labour came off the Tory spending plans and the period '97 to 2000 was a time of fiscal responsibility. The last such time the government ran a surplus was 88-89 because the astute Thatcher government realised they needed to save money for the upcoming recession, since Gordon Brown ended "boom and bust" New Labour kept ramping up spending:

Year £bn surplus/deficit
2001 +8482
2002 -19082
2003 -34275
2004 -36762
2005 -41242
2006 -30758
2007 -33552
2008 -64158

If New Labour had just maintained fiscal fortitude in 2002 it would have made up for the gap between 2007 and 2008.