So-called Austerity

Fella

Lets have the facts. Here is UK public spending for the last 14 years i.e. all 13 years Labour were in power & the first year of the coalition:

Column 1 is the year
Column 2 is the amount in £billions
Column 3 is the % of GDP that represented

1997-98 £322.0 38.2
1998-99 £330.9 37.2
1999-00 £342.9 36.3
2000-01 £341.5 34.5
2001-02 £389.2 37.7
2002-03 £420.9 38.5
2003-04 £455.2 39.3
2004-05 £492.5 40.5
2005-06 £523.7 41.2
2006-07 £550.2 40.9
2007-08 £583.7 41.0
2008-09 £630.8 44.5
2009-10 £671.3 47.7
2010-11 £690.6 46.7
2011-12 £690.9 45.2 **


The actual amount spent in 2011-2012 by the coalition was more than in any of the 13 years Labour were in power.

The % of GDP the amount spent in 2011-2012 represented was much more than in 11 of Labours 13 years.

As even a child can plainly see, we have no austerity in this country.

Anyone who criticizes the coalition for "austerity" either has no idea of the real facts, is an utter hypocrite, or (most likely) is just a VI who believes that if they bang on about austerity enough the public will believe it.

michaels

Umm...?
Inflation
Cyclical adjustment

coastline

heres the bit before that...;)

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Public Net Debt&year=1980_1997&sname=&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=98.20_113.80_125.20_132.50_143.80_157.20_162.70_167.80_167.40_153.90_152.20_151.30_166.10_202.60_249.80_290.00_322.10_348.00&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a[/IMG]

Fella

michaels wrote: »

Umm...?
Inflation
Cyclical adjustment

Don't really get what you mean? By any measure (actual or % of GDP) spending is much higher than during almost all of Labours time in power. Simple fact.

Fella

coastline wrote: »

heres the bit before that...;)

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Public Net Debt&year=1980_1997&sname=&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=98.20_113.80_125.20_132.50_143.80_157.20_162.70_167.80_167.40_153.90_152.20_151.30_166.10_202.60_249.80_290.00_322.10_348.00&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a[/IMG]

What's that got to do with anything?

I'm demonstrating that we have NOT had large spending cuts since the coalition came in.

Your graph of 1980-1996 has no relevance to this.

coastline

Fella wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything?

I'm demonstrating that we have NOT had large spending cuts since the coalition came in.

Your graph of 1980-1996 has no relevance to this.

Just as I've posted in the Boris thread...we ain't going to cut the national debt...just try to balance the budget..
Every government has doubled the national debt in recent decades...so no payback is on the cards.
The spending cuts are only there because the economy has stalled..if it were growing fast the taxes would be rolling in..

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

Anyone who criticizes the coalition for "austerity" either has no idea of the real facts, is an utter hypocrite, or (most likely) is just a VI who believes that if they bang on about austerity enough the public will believe it.

So when George O speaks of austerity he is a hypocrite? As unaccustomed as I am to defending GO, I do not think he is a hypocrite. He is ensuring that some people experience a more pleasant economic reality and others experience experience a worse one, because his party believes this should happen.

You may disagree but some people are suffering under these policies. If you are a millionaire, a banker an employer of cheap labour, someone with no mortgage and a good income or independent wealth, austerity is for others. Hypocrisy is denying that those on benefits, those working in low paid jobs, or on low fixed incomes, etc are imagining that austerity is happening.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

So when George O speaks of austerity he is a hypocrite? As unaccustomed as I am to defending GO, I do not think he is a hypocrite. He is ensuring that some people experience a more pleasant economic reality and others experience experience a worse one, because his party believes this should happen.

You may disagree but some people are suffering under these policies. If you are a millionaire, a banker an employer of cheap labour, someone with no mortgage and a good income or independent wealth, austerity is for others. Hypocrisy is denying that those on benefits, those working in low paid jobs, or on low fixed incomes, etc are imagining that austerity is happening.

They should have worked harder at school.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

So when George O speaks of austerity he is a hypocrite?

In my view it's a combination of two things with Osborne. Partly that he's hoping the ratings agencies will hear all the talk of austerity & not pay attention enough to realise that in fact the UK is spending like crazy & actually not a good credit risk. And partily he lacks the courage of his own convictions. He and the rest of the Tories are absolutely terrified of being portrayed as the NHS-bashing nasty party & worry far more about public perception than about actually changing much.

BobQ wrote: »

You may disagree but some people are suffering under these policies.

When you say "these policies" do you mean the policy of spending more than Labour did throughout almost all of their 13 years in power? Serious question?

I don't dispute people are suffering but it's NOT caused by big spending cuts because there haven't been big spending cuts. If they're suffering under the current rate of spending then they were suffering MORE under Labour who nearly always spent less.

Fella

coastline wrote: »

The spending cuts are only there because the economy has stalled..if it were growing fast the taxes would be rolling in..

Once again, what spending cuts?

coastline

Fella wrote: »

Once again, what spending cuts?

well theres plenty but its a long list...theres 5,000 to go in a few months time.. I suppose you could tell them all it ain't happening and its all a dream...
just to add GDP has fallen...so your figures in your OP are bound to show 45% plus..;)