Labour Ahead In Economy Poll -By 2% You Gov

PaulF81

StevieJ wrote: »

Don't think so, I haven't got the figures to hand but it wouldn't surprise me if the current govt hadn't already added more to the debt pile than Labour did in 13 years, the worry is there is still two years to go

Tell you what then, we stop all the extra stuff put on the deficit by Labour, overnight, which was paid for in extra stamp duty from a housing market in complete overdrive and tax on city finance, despite creating problems which nearly destroyed the global economy.

We halve the NHS budget, we get rid of working tax credits, we cut state pensions by 25%. We would pretty rapidly resolve the issues that have been created by the Labour government, who completely mismanaged the economy, wasted the good years, and now have the cheek to blame the Tories despite leaving the cupboard bare.

MacMickster

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Interesting, this was Cons one big campaigning message - looking like voters are judging Cons Osborne by his own exam, failing the AAA test he set himself? Or maybe its something else? What say you panellists?

It seems to me that given a choice between dumb and dumber, a representative sample of the electorate would choose dumber today.

I hope that someone can offer a better choice come the election.

chewmylegoff

StevieJ wrote: »

Just the same as whichever party had won in 2005 would have been hit by the GFC maelstrom

That is of course true, however the deficit was largely a result of two main factors, the collapse of tax receipts as a result of the global economic conditions which were the main cause of the uk recession and the fact that public spending had increased out of line with inflation. I doubt a Tory administration between 1997 and 2010 would have increased public spending in the same way as labour and therefore it is likely that the situation may not have been quite as serious. Obviously a Tory administration between 2007 and 2010 would still have been a bag of !!!!!!, just as Labour would have been similarly awful in the current circumstances.

PaulF81

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That is of course true, however the deficit was largely a result of two main factors, the collapse of tax receipts as a result of the global economic conditions which were the main cause of the uk recession and the fact that public spending had increased out of line with inflation. I doubt a Tory administration between 1997 and 2010 would have increased public spending in the same way as labour and therefore it is likely that the situation may not have been quite as serious. Obviously a Tory administration between 2007 and 2010 would still have been a bag of !!!!!!, just as Labour would have been similarly awful in the current circumstances.

I bet if the tories had been in from 1997 onwards, we would have a lower life expectancy (less immigration), but much lower NHS and state pensions bill. The population would have been significantly smaller and I bet education standards would have been much much higher.

Not to mention, I bet we would have had fewer wars (unless they had been in the states interest, instead of some flit about spreading democracy and wasting time 'doing good'). House prices wouldnt have gotten so out of control.

Downsides for me personally, I dont like the party's links with the religious lot and some of their views on the likes of lifestyle choice etc.

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Tell you what then, we stop all the extra stuff put on the deficit by Labour, overnight, which was paid for in extra stamp duty from a housing market in complete overdrive and tax on city finance, despite creating problems which nearly destroyed the global economy.

.

What does all that that mean?

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That is of course true, however the deficit was largely a result of two main factors, the collapse of tax receipts as a result of the global economic conditions which were the main cause of the uk recession and the fact that public spending had increased out of line with inflation. I doubt a Tory administration between 1997 and 2010 would have increased public spending in the same way as labour and therefore it is likely that the situation may not have been quite as serious. Obviously a Tory administration between 2007 and 2010 would still have been a bag of !!!!!!, just as Labour would have been similarly awful in the current circumstances.

I thought public spending was lower as a % of GDP IN 2006 than it was in 1997? in any case the extra financial strains created by the GFC dwarfs any difference in spending that may have been the result of Labour or Tory govt in normal times.

PaulF81

StevieJ wrote: »

What does all that that mean?

It means they were funding their tax haul off of the completely unstable pack of cards they created.

PaulF81

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought public spending was lower as a % of GDP IN 2006 than it was in 1997? in any case the extra financial strains created by the GFC dwarfs any difference in spending that may have been the result of Labour or Tory govt in normal times.

The GDP had been completely distorted through the unsustainable programmes and policy choices they had made. Like the expansion of personal unsecured debt. Like creating the tripartite system that left all parties unsure as to who was ultimately responsible. Like setting the conditions to create a housing market that was growing at unsustainable levels, then failed to put rates up or limits to mortgage lending. Like pumping stalinist levels of public investment in areas for next to no return.

Great way of running a country? Think not.

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

The GDP had been completely distorted through the unsustainable programmes and policy choices they had made. Like the expansion of personal unsecured debt. Like creating the tripartite system that left all parties unsure as to who was ultimately responsible. Like setting the conditions to create a housing market that was growing at unsustainable levels, then failed to put rates up or limits to mortgage lending. Like pumping stalinist levels of public investment in areas for next to no return.

Great way of running a country? Think not.

You are Joe King

It may be worth reflecting on the Tory position before the GFC struck, they seem to be celebrating the cheap credit and the existence of exotic instruments like CDO's not to mention a desire for less regulation in the mortgage market

The last ten years in particular have been good years for the world economy as a whole. They have been characterised by two massively favourable trends. The first is an era of easy money. The main central banks worldwide have opted for low interest rates, the ready creation of credit, and tolerance of innovatory means of financing public and private sector activity through big increases in debt. It has been the era of public/private partnerships, specialised credit-based funds and funds of funds,collateralized debt obligations, collateralized loan obligations, credit default swaps, special purposevehicles and many other similar ways of raising borrowing throughout the financial system

.
http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/FreeingBritaintoCompete.pdf

A vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

I bet if the tories had been in from 1997 onwards, we would have a lower life expectancy (less immigration), but much lower NHS and state pensions bill. The population would have been significantly smaller and I bet education standards would have been much much higher.

Not to mention, I bet we would have had fewer wars (unless they had been in the states interest, instead of some flit about spreading democracy and wasting time 'doing good'). House prices wouldnt have gotten so out of control.

Downsides for me personally, I dont like the party's links with the religious lot and some of their views on the likes of lifestyle choice etc.

I agree we would have had the same rubbish NHS hospitals for the average person who would not be expected to live as long as people like us as the waiting lists continued to grow. Nice private hospitals for the well paid -as it should be - and as you say educational standards would be much higher, at least for those who could pay for private education or live in nice areas. The delapidated leaking schools in the inner cities would be there as the safety net in the inner cities. But this would have saved so much money for reducing taxes. I suppose you are right that house prices would have been kept under control, the Tories would have regulated the banks reckless lending, I recall their opposition to the de-regulation of financial institutions that Labour practiced. They said at the time it would all end in failure.

Of course we would (as you say) have had fewer wars. I (like you) remember the opposition of the Tories to all of Blair's wars. I admired the various leaders of the Tories who argued against supporting the UN in Kosovo. I recall the Tory leaders who condemned going to Iraq and Ahghanistan at the time.