The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Durham Toffee]

There's a Cafod leaflet that shows that 1% of the world's population has something like 97% of the world's money...

Insane.

 

[Durham Toffee]

Haha. I just think it's strange that a powerful government is attractive, just so long as they're doing things you agree with. I'm not sure I can agree with that, and it surely doesn't give you any grounds to then complain when that same powerful state does things you don't agree with.

Totalitarianism never really works out that well either. No matter how much I would like it to...

 

[Eggs]

....Ed Balls finally coming out and talking about the global recession being the main cause of the British economic depression. Really don't know why they haven't been banging on about that for the last 5 years rather than limply accepting everything thrown at them on that front.

 

[The Esk]

....Ed Balls finally coming out and talking about the global recession being the main cause of the British economic depression. Really don't know why they haven't been banging on about that for the last 5 years rather than limply accepting everything thrown at them on that front.

I agree totally mate.

Not only was it a global problem primarily initiated by sub-prime lending in the US, but Gordon Brown will, when the history books are written, be seen as a principal architect of the solution post the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

....Ed Balls finally coming out and talking about the global recession being the main cause of the British economic depression. Really don't know why they haven't been banging on about that for the last 5 years rather than limply accepting everything thrown at them on that front.

Of course. The world fell into the trap of borrowing too much/saving too little. Whilst the government didn't cause the crash, they too fell into that same trap, which I suspect is the main criticism against the Blair/Brown years. They had a very favourable global economy, and didn't really stash enough away for a rainy day, instead succumbing to the hubris that they'd done away with rain.

 

[The Esk]

Of course. The world fell into the trap of borrowing too much/saving too little. Whilst the government didn't cause the crash, they too fell into that same trap, which I suspect is the main criticism against the Blair/Brown years. They had a very favourable global economy, and didn't really stash enough away for a rainy day, instead succumbing to the hubris that they'd done away with rain.

Bruce it is a fallacy that Labour spent too much prior to the crash. The figures do not show this.

At a time of record investment in the NHS and education (predominantly catching up on the lack of spending under Thatcher/Major) public sector debt as a % of GDP fell from 40.4% in 1997/8 to 36.4% in 2007/8.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce it is a fallacy that Labour spent too much prior to the crash. The figures do not show this.

At a time of record investment in the NHS and education (predominantly catching up on the lack of spending under Thatcher/Major) public sector debt as a % of GDP fell from 40.4% in 1997/8 to 36.4% in 2007/8.

That chart shows the budget deficit/surplus by year. So in all that time of relative economic prosperity, they only actually had a surplus and paid down the debt in the early years when Brown garnered his nickname of Prudence. Had they operated on that level of spending throughout, or at least balancing the books, then surely the state would be in a better fiscal position now?

 

[The Esk]

Had they operated on that level of spending throughout, or at least balancing the books, then surely the state would be in a better fiscal position now?

Well I guess it depends upon what the additional spending was on?

If it was for example investment in the universities, or increased spending in the health service to further increase life expectancy, or reduce days off work through illness then who knows?

Opponents of the Labour Party generally like to give the impression that they were totally wreckless with their spending which I do not think stands under scrutiny.

The projections in 2007/8 were for a 6% increase in tax revenues year on year through to 2010. This of course was blown out of the water when tax revenues fell by 20% in the period leaving by 2010 a shortfall of nearly £120 bn of tax collected as against tax expected.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

A new survey suggests that MPs are much more likely to use gut instinct when policy making than deploy a randomised control trial to test out their thinking in real life. Kinda sad.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/what-do-mps-think-of-rcts.html

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well I guess it depends upon what the additional spending was on?

If it was for example investment in the universities, or increased spending in the health service to further increase life expectancy, or reduce days off work through illness then who knows?

Opponents of the Labour Party generally like to give the impression that they were totally wreckless with their spending which I do not think stands under scrutiny.

The projections in 2007/8 were for a 6% increase in tax revenues year on year through to 2010. This of course was blown out of the water when tax revenues fell by 20% in the period leaving by 2010 a shortfall of nearly £120 bn of tax collected as against tax expected.

For sure, I don't think it's just Labour in this. As the chart shows, governments of whatever colour very rarely balance their books, much less run a surplus. The idea of spending only what you raise seems a foreign concept to governments.

After all, it's one thing borrowing to invest, but that's done on the condition that you'll eventually run the surpluses to pay it back. That never seems to happen. I mean debt repayments are what, £70bn or so a year? You could do a whole lot of good things with that kind of wonga.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

Bruce it is a fallacy that Labour spent too much prior to the crash. The figures do not show this.

At a time of record investment in the NHS and education (predominantly catching up on the lack of spending under Thatcher/Major) public sector debt as a % of GDP fell from 40.4% in 1997/8 to 36.4% in 2007/8.

@the esk ,Can you explain to me why the Tories are seen as being good for the economy when the national debt has doubled under them this term, and why are Labour not hammering this home to the public?

I don't understand it, am I missing something?

 

[Blue 1]

@the esk ,Can you explain to me why the Tories are seen as being good for the economy when the national debt has doubled under them this term, and why are Labour not hammering this home to the public?

I don't understand it, am I missing something?

I also struggle with this narrative. There were two major recessions which caused utter carnage under the Tories last time they were in, at least one of which can be attributed directly to their economic policy at the time. They've been allowed to get away with peddling this nonsense for too long.

Labour also needed to spend initially in certain places to sort out the mess the Tories had left. For example, I remember school lessons in a freezing portakabin, three of us sharing a 20+ year old dog-eared textbook. It's not like that anymore. My dad lives in North Shields and my mother in the South West, and the transformation of the places they live from 1997 was really visible. They'd been left to rot during the Thatcher/Major years and are now really nice.

 

[The Esk]

. I mean debt repayments are what, £70bn or so a year? You could do a whole lot of good things with that kind of wonga.

Sure, but the flip side is that the real cost of borrowing is at the lowest levels imaginable so there is little incentive for Governments to address the issue.

The Tories for all their rhetoric on reducing debt and for all their austerity measures (which seem to be politically led rather than economically necessary) also know that borrowing at these extra-ordinarily low interest rates represent good value longer term. If the interest rate cycle was to return to some form of normality then we could see the cost of future borrowings increase 2 or 3 times.

The fact is that there is little real difference in either party's total spending plans. The difference is where future Government spending priorities lie.

That's the principle reason for voting Labour in my opinion, their spending priorities are more beneficial to those in need, which for me is the most important aspect of any Government's policy.

 

[daylightrobber]

That's the principle reason for voting Labour in my opinion, their spending priorities are more beneficial to those in need, which for me is the most important aspect of any Government's policy.

“The True Measure of Any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members” – Ghandi

"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first" - Thatcher

Says it all really.

 

[The Esk]

@the esk ,Can you explain to me why the Tories are seen as being good for the economy when the national debt has doubled under them this term, and why are Labour not hammering this home to the public?

I don't understand it, am I missing something?

It's a very good question mate.

Ed Balls has changed strategy significantly through the course of this Parliament. Back in 2010 he made a widely reported speech to Bloomberg savagely attacking the idea that you could achieve economic growth whilst pursuing "austerity". Since that point he has given ground time and time again until really he's not that different (other than the major difference of spending priorities which as I said above is critical) from the Tory line.

I think the only answer to your point is that Labour believe that National Debt levels are actually not that important to voters. (ICM for the Guardian in October showed only 7% of voters thought that national debt levels are important). The most important areas are NHS, jobs, wages and cost of living, education and immigration. Hence the focus being on these issues where apart from immigration Labour find it easier, than the economy where undeservedly Conservatives get a free run, hence it being almost the sole focus of their campaign