General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[radamfi]

Again, too much theory and not enough reality I'm afraid.

What kind of an argument is that! Actually, I'm not actually advocating the running of a high deficit. That's for right-wing countries like the UK and US. These countries pretend to be for low spending and small government, when in fact they are among the biggest borrowers in the world. And because of their obsession with tax cutting, they don't generate enough tax revenue to pay off their debt. The truly fiscally conservative countries might tax rather highly, but they spend within their means.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What kind of an argument is that! Actually, I'm not actually advocating the running of a high deficit. That's for right-wing countries like the UK and US. These countries pretend to be for low spending and small government, when in fact they are among the biggest borrowers in the world. And because of their obsession with tax cutting, they don't generate enough tax revenue to pay off their debt. The truly fiscally conservative countries might tax rather highly, but they spend within their means.

I wonder what the size of the borrowing debt is that USA has from China and the annual cost of servicing it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Student economics. The real world is somewhat different.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Again, too much theory and not enough reality I'm afraid. And in any event, you miss the substantive point I make, as illustrated by the selective quotation. Both of you need to go back to 1970 and start again.

Student economics? I mean, if you're not actually going to provide any rebuttal all I'm going to do is laugh right back If you genuinely think that a rich country should never get into debt then you've lost all credibility with anyone who knows even a small amount of economics - as I've said, the country is not a household, and high spending generates high consumption which generates higher tax revenues. The fact that you dismiss it with a laugh just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's quite a simple theory when you think about it, and one that's been enacted to some success - see the Great Depression (something that put our recession to shame), as well as by the US and various other countries over the last few years. That debt does need to be paid off, yes, but you do it when your economy is strong and can actually cope with it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder what the size of the borrowing debt is that USA has from China and the annual cost of servicing it.

Considering China only owns around 7% of US debt, recently just behind Japan and well behind their own federal reserve, not all that much. The narrative about the US owing everything to China has stemmed from xenophobic Republicans, and has unfortunately spread over into the mainstream narrative.

It's especially silly when the US owns large amounts of Chinese debt, too.

 

[muddythefish]

Student economics? I mean, if you're not actually going to provide any rebuttal all I'm going to do is laugh right back If you genuinely think that a rich country should never get into debt then you've lost all credibility with anyone who knows even a small amount of economics - as I've said, the country is not a household, and high spending generates high consumption which generates higher tax revenues. The fact that you dismiss it with a laugh just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Agree with you entirely but Gideon Osborne is at the Mansion House tonight enshrining in law that we should always run a "budget surplus" in normal times (whatever they are).

Even the FT says it is a gimmick.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a60be2ee-0f5e-11e5-b968-00144feabdc0.html

 

[Aldaniti]

Student economics? I mean, if you're not actually going to provide any rebuttal all I'm going to do is laugh right back If you genuinely think that a rich country should never get into debt then you've lost all credibility with anyone who knows even a small amount of economics - as I've said, the country is not a household, and high spending generates high consumption which generates higher tax revenues. The fact that you dismiss it with a laugh just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.[/size]

Feel free to think what you like, its a free country. I've got a stage in life where I really couldn't be bothered about credibility on an internet forum. I've made my point, some will agree, some will not, that's life.

 

[Dave1987]

One thing that gets me is that Labour opposed EVERY single cut the previous coalition govt made and will no doubt oppose every cut the current government makes. Yet they want to be taken seriously on the economy and don't want to be seen as the party that spends spends spends, borrows borrows and borrows some more. No wonder they are in a bit of a crisis at the moment.

 

[muddythefish]

One thing that gets me is that Labour opposed EVERY single cut the previous coalition govt made and will no doubt oppose every cut the current government makes. Yet they want to be taken seriously on the economy and don't want to be seen as the party that spends spends spends, borrows borrows and borrows some more. No wonder they are in a bit of a crisis at the moment.

...because they didn't. It's all lies

 

[TheKnightWho]

Feel free to think what you like, its a free country. I've got a stage in life where I really couldn't be bothered about credibility on an internet forum. I've made my point, some will agree, some will not, that's life.

Then don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you start spouting off about stuff you clearly know nothing about
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agree with you entirely but Gideon Osborne is at the Mansion House tonight enshrining in law that we should always run a "budget surplus" in normal times (whatever they are).

Even the FT says it is a gimmick.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a60be2ee-0f5e-11e5-b968-00144feabdc0.html

In all honesty we should be, as deficits should be for when things go wrong. Signing it into law is unwise, though. Besides, it feels very weird when he still goes on about the recovery, which should emphatically show that now is not normal times.

The thing about Gideon is that he's got a balancing act - on the one hand he knows austerity in recovery is a bad thing, and it was quietly dropped in around early 2013 (when it was clearly not working) apart from in high-profile but actually very minor things such as unemployment benefits. On the other, he has to continue the party line of "financial responsibility" etc. as that's a major Tory talking-point, and exactly why cuts continue in places that don't really matter to the budget but are very emotive to the right-wing votebase.


It's all horribly cynical, but it certainly works.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Then don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you start spouting off about stuff you clearly know nothing about

I've been a member of the Labour Party all my working life but do you agree than when times were good the Labour Government should have done more to reduce our national debt?

 

[muddythefish]

I've been a member of the Labour Party all my working life but do you agree than when times were good the Labour Government should have done more to reduce our national debt?

Gordon Brown repaid the last of our second world war debt to the US in 2006.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Gordon Brown repaid the last of our second world war debt to the US in 2006.

Indeed he did but we should have done more to clear the rest of our debt.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I've been a member of the Labour Party all my working life but do you agree than when times were good the Labour Government should have done more to reduce our national debt?

I do, yes. Brown declaring an end to boom and bust (i.e. exactly what we've been talking about - spending in the downturns and paying back in the good times) was extremely silly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Indeed he did but we should have done more to clear the rest of our debt.

As a fellow current Labour member (although not for all my life - I was a floating voter in 2010), I'll bite on that one.

Firstly, remember that the important figure is debt as a % of GDP. (Because if you're earning £100K/year then a debt of £10K is much less significant than if you're earning just £10K/year).

You might be surprised to learn that until the 2008 recession struck, Gordon Brown had by that measure reduced the debt - from 42% in 1997 to 39% in 2008. Figures here. Obviously, the cost of preventing the recession from becoming a depression blew that out of the water, so in 2010 it was 64%. Under George Osborne, that has risen further to 75%.

Should Gordon Brown have done more to reduce it further? I don't think any of us here has enough expertise in economics to give a definite answer that question. My own view based on what economics I did learn is that, in an ideal world, it would have been desirable for him to do so, but that it was hardly the most important issue in the world. As far as I'm aware, debt levels until 2008 were not historically unusual, and I'm not aware of any significant mainstream economic thought that at the time (ie. not with the benefit of hindsight) said those levels were bad for the economy, so the fact that he didn't prioritise it at the time doesn't really by itself say anything bad about him or about the Labour Government.

The Conservatives, helped by much of the media, have elevated the issue of the debt in public consciousness to a much higher importance than is justified by its real importance in the economy - and I assume that for the Conservatives, this is in part motivated by the convenience for their ideology, since they are clearly committed to small Government for reasons that are purely ideological (ie. not based on practicalities or on any rational assessment of what actually works). The convenience for that ideology of seeking to convince people that there are economic reasons for spending less should be obvious.

In reality, issues of investing in our ability to produce goods, in infrastructure, etc., and of ensuring we have a diverse healthy economy and society go way, way, beyond how high Government debt is. The danger is that, by making out as the Conservatives do, that clearing our debt is the most important thing, we could end up sacrificing other things that are actually far more important in sustaining healthy economic growth, and thereby doing more harm than good. But, as I say, if it was possible to reduce the debt without affecting other things, then ideally, yes, it would have been better to do so.

But as I say, that's my best assessment based on not being an expert in economics. If someone came along who genuinely is a professional with expert knowledge, then I'd probably defer to their opinion

 

[WelshBluebird]

As far as I'm aware, debt levels until 2008 were not historically unusual, and I'm not aware of any significant mainstream economic thought that at the time (ie. not with the benefit of hindsight) said those levels were bad for the economy, so the fact that he didn't prioritise it at the time doesn't really by itself say anything bad about him or about the Labour Government.

Indeed, it is a point that Tories seem to have forgotten that their party supported Labours spending and in 2007 promised to match it for the next 3 years. Of course, we all know what then happened in 2008.

 

[Dave1987]

One of Robert Pestons blogs was very interesting. The Labour Party and the left in general have been at pains to constantly bash the banks recently saying it was all the fault of the banks that the country is in the state it is in. Yet Mr Brown was more than happy to accept the huge amounts of tax revenues from the banks before 2008. Instead of spending all the tax revenues Mr Brown should of been making a concerted effort to get us into a budget surplus. Had he done that we would not have had such a massive budget deficit post 2008 and would not have had to make such big cuts in public spending. Labour will happily bash the banks now but they were more than happy to take the tax revenues off them previously.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, it is a point that Tories seem to have forgotten that their party supported Labours spending and in 2007 promised to match it for the next 3 years. Of course, we all know what then happened in 2008.

The Tories were happy with bank regulation pre 2008, but Labour will only ever admit to not regulating the banks enough yet they were perfectly happy with the tax revenues they were getting from the banks and not to spending too much which they did. And the majority of the British people have never forgiven them.

 

[muddythefish]

As a fellow current Labour member (although not for all my life - I was a floating voter in 2010), I'll bite on that one.

Firstly, remember that the important figure is debt as a % of GDP. (Because if you're earning £100K/year then a debt of £10K is much less significant than if you're earning just £10K/year).

You might be surprised to learn that until the 2008 recession struck, Gordon Brown had by that measure reduced the debt - from 42% in 1997 to 39% in 2008. Figures here. Obviously, the cost of preventing the recession from becoming a depression blew that out of the water, so in 2010 it was 64%. Under George Osborne, that has risen further to 75%.

Should Gordon Brown have done more to reduce it further? I don't think any of us here has enough expertise in economics to give a definite answer that question. My own view based on what economics I did learn is that, in an ideal world, it would have been desirable for him to do so, but that it was hardly the most important issue in the world. As far as I'm aware, debt levels until 2008 were not historically unusual, and I'm not aware of any significant mainstream economic thought that at the time (ie. not with the benefit of hindsight) said those levels were bad for the economy, so the fact that he didn't prioritise it at the time doesn't really by itself say anything bad about him or about the Labour Government.

The Conservatives, helped by much of the media, have elevated the issue of the debt in public consciousness to a much higher importance than is justified by its real importance in the economy - and I assume that for the Conservatives, this is in part motivated by the convenience for their ideology, since they are clearly committed to small Government for reasons that are purely ideological (ie. not based on practicalities or on any rational assessment of what actually works). The convenience for that ideology of seeking to convince people that there are economic reasons for spending less should be obvious.

In reality, issues of investing in our ability to produce goods, in infrastructure, etc., and of ensuring we have a diverse healthy economy and society go way, way, beyond how high Government debt is. The danger is that, by making out as the Conservatives do, that clearing our debt is the most important thing, we could end up sacrificing other things that are actually far more important in sustaining healthy economic growth, and thereby doing more harm than good. But, as I say, if it was possible to reduce the debt without affecting other things, then ideally, yes, it would have been better to do so.

But as I say, that's my best assessment based on not being an expert in economics. If someone came along who genuinely is a professional with expert knowledge, then I'd probably defer to their opinion

Very good post, which chimes with all the research I have done on the subject.

The question is, why Labour have not refuted this "overspending" narrative over the past 5 years and allowed this lie (which it is) to be seen as fact, and one that has become accepted in the public consciousness.

I lost count of the number of times over the past 5 years when a Coalition minister would appear on TV and blame Labour for its economic record when Labour in fact had a good story to tell, particularly its handling of the financial crisis and the subsequent economic recovery to 2010.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One of Robert Pestons blogs was very interesting. The Labour Party and the left in general have been at pains to constantly bash the banks recently saying it was all the fault of the banks that the country is in the state it is in. Yet Mr Brown was more than happy to accept the huge amounts of tax revenues from the banks before 2008. Instead of spending all the tax revenues Mr Brown should of been making a concerted effort to get us into a budget surplus. Had he done that we would not have had such a massive budget deficit post 2008 and would not have had to make such big cuts in public spending. Labour will happily bash the banks now but they were more than happy to take the tax revenues off them previously.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The Tories were happy with bank regulation pre 2008, but Labour will only ever admit to not regulating the banks enough yet they were perfectly happy with the tax revenues they were getting from the banks and not to spending too much which they did. And the majority of the British people have never forgiven them.

Did Peston mention that in the run-up to 2008 the Conservatives in opposition were constantly berating Labour for over-regulating the City ?

Your last sentence proves the point of my previous post.

 

[Dave1987]

Did Peston mention that in the run-up to 2008 the Conservatives in opposition were constantly berating Labour for over-regulating the City ?

Your last sentence proves the point of my previous post.

Yes the Tories wanted less bank regulation, but I don't think the Tories have ever denied this either. Labour on the other hand were perfectly happy to big up the city and get all the tax revenues in from them, to then blame them solely for the massive crash in the countries finances. If Labour hadn't been so busy ploughing money into various schemes and had actually been more responsible in government the crash would arguably have been far less drastic for the UK finances than it was. Labour have been at pains to bash the banks at every point they can since but they were more than happy to take the tax off the banks before the crash. And to then state that there needs to be cuts but oppose every cut that the government makes just shows Labour can't be trusted to make the hard decisions and will always opt for the popular vote winning policies. The whole Non-dom thing shows this. Banning non-dom status would have meant less money to the treasury.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One of Robert Pestons blogs was very interesting. The Labour Party and the left in general have been at pains to constantly bash the banks recently saying it was all the fault of the banks that the country is in the state it is in. Yet Mr Brown was more than happy to accept the huge amounts of tax revenues from the banks before 2008. Instead of spending all the tax revenues Mr Brown should of been making a concerted effort to get us into a budget surplus. Had he done that we would not have had such a massive budget deficit post 2008 and would not have had to make such big cuts in public spending. Labour will happily bash the banks now but they were more than happy to take the tax revenues off them previously.

Can you provide a link to the blog? Without having seen the blog, it's impossible to verify it, but it would seem very unlike Robert Peston to give such an obviously partisan account of the situation - so I'm somewhat sceptical that he did state the things you are claiming he said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Very good post, which chimes with all the research I have done on the subject.

Thank you

The question is, why Labour have not refuted this "overspending" narrative over the past 5 years and allowed this lie (which it is) to be seen as fact, and one that has become accepted in the public consciousness.

It's a question that has caused a lot of debate within the Labour Party. This article appears to offer a lot of insight.

Putting everything together, including that article, it looks to me like it was largely a combination of two things:

1. For 4 months after the 2010 election, Labour was engaged in its leadership contest, which meant no one from Labour was particularly challenging the narrative (I'm inclined to agree with you that it was basically a lie) that the Conservatives and LibDems were creating about the economy.
2. After that, Ed Miliband felt he wanted to move on and look at the future, which implied not worrying too much about the past, and for that reason he didn't want to devote much time to defending Labour's record. Obviously, that was tactically a disastrous mistake (easy to say with hindsight, but I myself remember that a year ago, long before the 2015 election, many people in my local Labour party were expressing concern about it).

A particular quote from the article I linked to is of interest:

In a stream of memos, beginning early in Miliband’s leadership, Tony Blair’s former communications director Alastair Campbell urged Miliband to confront what he described as the Tory lie on the deficit, arguing that it would be fatal if Labour allowed the charge to stick. He explains: “When Miliband was elected leader, he felt uncomfortable defending the Blair-Brown record. He wanted to disassociate himself from the past and talk about the future.

 

[muddythefish]

Yes the Tories wanted less bank regulation, but I don't think the Tories have ever denied this either. Labour on the other hand were perfectly happy to big up the city and get all the tax revenues in from them, to then blame them solely for the massive crash in the countries finances. If Labour hadn't been so busy ploughing money into various schemes and had actually been more responsible in government the crash would arguably have been far less drastic for the UK finances than it was. Labour have been at pains to bash the banks at every point they can since but they were more than happy to take the tax off the banks before the crash. And to then state that there needs to be cuts but oppose every cut that the government makes just shows Labour can't be trusted to make the hard decisions and will always opt for the popular vote winning policies. The whole Non-dom thing shows this. Banning non-dom status would have meant less money to the treasury.

All with the benefit of hindsight - did you see the crash coming ?

Labour were right to blame the banks - they are directly responsible for the current dire state of the public finances. That of course plus Osborne's austerity drive which has set back growth and GDP by billions of pounds since he has been in office.

Labour were also right about non-doms. I'm and many people are not happy that our capital city is being used by a tax haven and for money laundering by some of the most undesirable people on the planet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a question that has caused a lot of debate within the Labour Party. This article appears to offer a lot of insight.

:

Thanks for that link - hadn't seen it before.

Labour have made so many strategic mistakes - not defending its record, not fighting austerity, standing on the same platform as the Tories in the Scottish referendum, opposing the Euro poll (which in itself would have brought many Ukip voters back into the fold). The list is endless.

 

[Mojo]

What exactly was all this cash spent on pre-2008? Sure, there were a handful of new schools and hospitals, but weren't these all funded under PFI? There was hardly any investment in railways, aside from the West Coast Route Modernisation and a few other small projects, and most of what there was was put on the "Network Rail Credit Card." We had Crossrail announced in 2007, but it wasn't until the October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review where the full funding envelope was agreed.

 

[Dave1987]

On the Non-dom issue. So we are really going to turn around to a wealthy business person and say if you come to this country to set up a business we will tax you on every penny you make throughout the world!?! That's madness. Just like the whole bank levy at the moment. One of the reasons HSBC is considering moving out of the UK is that the bank levy taxes the banks on their earnings throughout the world, not just on what they make in the UK.

And as I said in my previous posts, previous Labour Govts were very happy to cosy up to the banks when they were bringing in serious amounts of tax revenues to then bash them like crazy when the crash happened. Labour was at the helm when the crash happened and they were the party that created a deficit of £175bn in the public finances. They then opposed every cut that the previous coalition govt made. Had Mr Brown continued as PM in 2010 I'm sure that the UK would have been bankrupt by now.

Here is Pestons blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

 

[muddythefish]

On the Non-dom issue. So we are really going to turn around to a wealthy business person and say if you come to this country to set up a business we will tax you on every penny you make throughout the world!?! That's madness. Just like the whole bank levy at the moment. One of the reasons HSBC is considering moving out of the UK is that the bank levy taxes the banks on their earnings throughout the world, not just on what they make in the UK.

And as I said in my previous posts, previous Labour Govts were very happy to cosy up to the banks when they were bringing in serious amounts of tax revenues to then bash them like crazy when the crash happened. Labour was at the helm when the crash happened and they were the party that created a deficit of £175bn in the public finances. They then opposed every cut that the previous coalition govt made. Had Mr Brown continued as PM in 2010 I'm sure that the UK would have been bankrupt by now.

Here is Pestons blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

How did Labour "bash the banks" exactly ? Most clampdowns on the banks have been put in place by the Coalition since 2010.

Have you actually done any resarch into how the public deficit came about ? Don't you think it might be because rescuing RBS alone cost about £50bn ?

Labour opposed austerity cuts because they were making the poor pay for the excesses of the rich.

Your statement about Gordon Brown is plain nonsense.

 

[Dave1987]

How did Labour "bash the banks" exactly ? Most clampdowns on the banks have been put in place by the Coalition since 2010.

Have you actually done any resarch into how the public deficit came about ? Don't you think it might be because rescuing RBS alone cost about £50bn ?

Labour opposed austerity cuts because they were making the poor pay for the excesses of the rich.

Your statement about Gordon Brown is plain nonsense.

For a start since the Labour were booted out of power in 2010, thousands who were languishing on benefits have gone out and got a job. So clearly they could have gone out and got a job under the previous Labour Govt but they made it so easy to claim off the state that people who could have worked simply didn't bother. All the previous Coalition Govt did was trim the colossal welfare bill left by the Govt. Labour was seemingly happy for the state to hand out money to people without actually checking whether the claimant could work, the coalition changed that.

The last Labour Govt sold of the countries gold while gold prices were at their lowest, bought the shares in RBS to bail it out at £5 a share which is plain ridiculous for a bank that was going bust. Continually raised the duty on beer until pubs were shutting down at the rate of two a week. Raised the duty on fuel continually until people could barely afford to get to work.

Need I go on??

 

[GatwickDepress]

For a start since the Labour were booted out of power in 2010, thousands who were languishing on benefits have gone out and got a job. So clearly they could have gone out and got a job under the previous Labour Govt but they made it so easy to claim off the state that people who could have worked simply didn't bother. All the previous Coalition Govt did was trim the colossal welfare bill left by the Govt. Labour was seemingly happy for the state to hand out money to people without actually checking whether the claimant could work, the coalition changed that.

Yeah, no.

 

[pemma]

Labour was seemingly happy for the state to hand out money to people without actually checking whether the claimant could work, the coalition changed that.

Well the Conservatives wanted to take credit for tougher eligibility checks for disability benefit. However, when news emerged a number of vulnerable people had wrongly been told they'll lose disability benefits, the Conservatives said the contract for those checks had been awarded to ATOS by the last Labour government before they got in and they wouldn't have awarded it on the same terms. :roll:

Similarly the Conservatives wanted to take credit for Universal Credit by simply revising plans already put in place by Labour.

Local Conservative clubs quite often have sports teams which call themselves the name of the local club followed by Cons e.g. Wilmslow Cons. Sometimes it seems very appropriate that Conservative groups should call themselves Cons instead of Conservatives.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There was hardly any investment in railways, aside from the West Coast Route Modernisation

Which costed £2 billion. There was also the multi-billion pound section 2 of HS1 and the £800m rebuilding of St Pancras station.

I just did a search to try and find costings for HS1 and came across this article

Taxpayers have been saddled with a £4.8bn debt from the Channel Tunnel high-speed rail line (HS1) so far, a report by a committee of MPs has said.

The Public Accounts Committee blamed over-optimistic forecasts about the number of passengers using the service.

It predicted that the final bill for the London to Folkestone line would rise to £10.2bn by 2070.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said passenger forecasting had improved significantly since work 20 years ago.

International passenger numbers on HS1 are a third of the original 1995 forecast and two-thirds of the DfT's 1998 forecast, it stated.

Committee chairwoman, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said: "There was real over-optimism on the number of passengers they thought they were going to get."In fact, it's a third of the figure they originally thought because they didn't think about what the cheap airlines would do in competing, they didn't think about what the ferry boat industry would do, and they just got it wrong."

The report stated: "Over-optimistic and unrealised forecasts for passenger demand on HS1 left the taxpayer saddled with £4.8 billion of debt."

It also said the delivery of regeneration benefits from HS1 had suffered from a "lack of effective leadership".
The DfT gave insufficient attention to evaluating its major projects, the report added.

Ms Hodge pointed out that an earlier report into the East Coast main line had raised similar concerns about over-optimistic planning.

And the report warned the same could happen with the far more expensive HS2 line from London to Birmingham.

Mrs Hodge acknowledged HS1 provided an efficient service but warned the "costly mistakes" of the project must not be repeated with HS2.

She said the DfT told her committee it had not considered the benefits and costs of alternatives to HS2 such as investment in more local train routes.
"The department must revisit its assumptions on HS2 and develop a full understanding of the benefits and costs of high-speed travel compared to the alternatives," she said.

The first section of the HS1 line was completed in 2003 and the full line opened in 2007 for 186mph Eurostar trains between London, Paris and Brussels.

It was originally run by London & Continental Railways (LCR) and was sold to a consortium for just under £2.05bn in 2010.

A DfT spokesman said HS1 was a successful part of the transport infrastructure carrying millions of passengers a year to the south-east of England and the continent.

He said it was delivered on time and on budget with the sale of it generating more than £2bn for the taxpayer.

"Our passenger forecast modelling has improved significantly since the original work for HS1 over 20 years ago, with better understanding of what drives passenger demand, better computer modelling and more computer power to do it," he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18733308

 

[radamfi]

For a start since the Labour were booted out of power in 2010, thousands who were languishing on benefits have gone out and got a job. So clearly they could have gone out and got a job under the previous Labour Govt but they made it so easy to claim off the state that people who could have worked simply didn't bother.

When you first started posting about PR, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse by saying how complicated it is. But maybe I now believe you. Maybe, just maybe, unemployment is affected more by economic recession than being bothered to look for work. After recovery from recession, more jobs are available. Is this really that difficult to understand?

 

[ainsworth74]

When you first started posting about PR, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse by saying how complicated it is. But maybe I now believe you. Maybe, just maybe, unemployment is affected more by economic recession than being bothered to look for work. After recovery from recession, more jobs are available. Is this really that difficult to understand?

It isn't even vaguely accurate to be honest. Unemployment at April 2008 was recorded by the ONS at 1.61m (with 0.79m Jobseekers Allowance claims). Unemployment at March 2015 was 1.83m (with 0.77m Jobseekers Allowance claims). So basically since 2008 we've seen a huge increase in unemployment (peaking at 2.68m in October 2011) and then a huge decrease back to where we were.

A narrative in which hundreds of thousands of 'scroungers' have been forced to get of their backsides is really just not true seeing as we haven't even begun to dip below 2008 levels (which were the lowest since the early 1990s). Once we start to get well below the 2008 level you might be able to claim that 'scroungers' are being forced to get of their backside.

Then we come to the issue of the 'colossal' welfare bill being made up mostly of benefits for pensioners rather than working age people. Hardly any of which is actually being touched by the current reforms.

Similarly the Conservatives wanted to take credit for Universal Credit by simply revising plans already put in place by Labour.

Hmm I'm not so sure about that. Universal Credit is pretty much Iain Duncan Smith's baby and was born out of a report by a think tank the Centre for Social Justice (which IDS helped to found in the early 00s). Though it is noteable that, as far as I'm aware, the UC that was proposed by that think tank was more generous than the UC which is currently implemented.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And as I said in my previous posts, previous Labour Govts were very happy to cosy up to the banks when they were bringing in serious amounts of tax revenues to then bash them like crazy when the crash happened.

Surprisingly, I somewhat agree with you on this one point. Blaming banks or bankers for the crash, as many in the Labour party do, is simplistic and wrong. The crash happened as a result of an interplay of a variety of complex reasons, and picking out one group and saying 'they caused it all' is frankly silly. It's just as silly whether it's Labour supporters blaming 'bankers' or Conservative supporters blaming 'Gordon Brown'.

Talking of which...

Labour was at the helm when the crash happened

Labour was at the helm in the UK. The crash happened in the USA and then quickly spread to most other countries. I don't recall Labour ever being at the helm in the USA.

and they were the party that created a deficit of £175bn in the public finances.

As so many people have reminded you, but for some reason you seem to continually ignore, that was out of necessity because of events that occurred largely outside of the control of the UK.

Here is Pestons blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

Thanks for the link. I have to say after reading I think you've put a twist on it that isn't really justified by the entirety of the article.

A key quote that is very relevant (and I would say very factual) is (talking about the deficit under Gordon Brown):

Now there are plenty of economists and mainstream politicians who regard both public spending of that magnitude and a deficit of that scale as sustainable and indeed sensible.

And to put those figures into context, public spending by the government of Margaret Thatcher was significantly higher than that for her first seven years in office - and she consistently ran a deficit of that scale till her last three years in office.

So it is quite hard to describe the fiscal conduct by the government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as wildly irresponsible. And, to be clear, neither George Osborne or David Cameron were at the time shouting that the Labour government was maxing out the credit card and was about to bankrupt Britain.

So far as I can tell, your comments are largely based on this later paragraph.

The point is that since 2007-8, and as a direct result of the recession-induced collapse in tax revenues and surge in public spending on benefits, the national debt has doubled, from roughly 40% of GDP to 80% of GDP.

And the bleedin' obvious point is that if the national debt was today nearer 70% of GDP, almost the entire debate of this general election campaign wouldn't have to be about how much more austerity is needed and the timing of that austerity.

This paragraph argues that - in effect - if Gordon Brown had reduced the accumulated debt by 10% of GDP more than he actually did before the recession, then current debt would be 10% less (which is obviously true) and the current debate would not be so much about austerity. Personally I find that latter point somewhat implausible: Since it's clear (at least, to me ) that much of the Conservative's drive for austerity is driven by ideology rather than by genuine economic need (despite all their attempts to dress it up in that way), it seems unlikely that their message would change significantly if debt were a little bit less than it currently is.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Labour was at the helm in the UK. The crash happened in the USA and then quickly spread to most other countries. I don't recall Labour ever being at the helm in the USA.

This was an image that Tony Blair, in his "Bush love-in period", would have only to been too happy to give the impression of.

 

[Manchester77]

One assumes David1987 would have rather seen millions of people lose their savings as RBS and Lloyds collapsed as opposed to the government stepping in to nationalise the banks causing the deficit to increase as we bought out these banks? If this is not the case then you seem to be overly opposed to the actions the government had to take at the time in order to prevent people losing their money.