Jeremy Corbyn

[Premier Quality]

Of course it would - a global crash is a global crash. Would we have been in a better position to deal with it if Gordon had been more financially prudent and not got us into so much debt? Absolutely.

But then anyone who thinks he has the ability to personally 'put an end to boom and bust' was always going to be too arrogant to consider the consequences of failure.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Debt as a percentage of GDP was significantly lower when the crash hit in late 2007 than it was when Labour took office.

The biggest issue (that anyone in the UK could have done anything about) was over reliance on and subservience to the City which I won't defend and which incidentally successive Conservative governments have done nothing to reverse.

 

[Premier Quality]

We've had this discussion before - debt as a % of gdp was fine because we were in a boom period. Debt was way too high, so when we came out of boom and into bust (much to Gordon's shock and surprise as he'd ended it) then we were, to use a technical phrase, fucked.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Even if we're just taking the bald figures of debt then it still wasn't especially high in a historical context in 2007. Lower than it was for the majority of Major's time in government for instance.

If you have an economy based fundamentally on financial services and that sector crashes in a manner not seen for about 80 years then you are always going to have a problem, even if our borrowing at that stage had been £0 we would have been fucked. We shouldn't have allowed the City to dominate in such a way, we shouldn't have allowed manufacturing and industry to dwindle to the point of virtual non-existence. However the notion that Dave n' Gideon would have done anything different is laughable, they are on record at the time as wanting further deregulation of that sector. They also backed every single one of Labour's spending plans up to 2007 and in many cases pledged to surpass them.

Furthermore, by 2009-10 there was a recovery of sorts in place and the Tories then proceeded to press ahead with ideologically charged austerity nonsense, discredited by every leading economist in the world, and tanked the economy for two years. Well done.

 

[Premier Quality]

I put debt in the post above when I meant spending - the level of spending was ok whilst income remained high (boom times), but once income dropped the debt skyrocketed.

Brown was PM from mid 2007 to mid 2010 - even on your charts deutsch, that leap in debt is insane.

 

[Templeton Peck]

It's always the way isn't it though? Under investment under a tory government results in unsustainable spending in the next labour government.

One example, having been at school in the 80s the schools and buildings were an absolute disgrace. They are many times better now due to the labour government. Should they not have spent that money? And why didn't the tory government spend that money.

It's a circular argument and really tedious; however, you can't just say all labour governments are profligate, as they often have to be.

Great myths of our time: Labour piss money up the wall and the Tories have to get it all in order.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

 

[Templeton Peck]

I put debt in the post above when I meant spending - the level of spending was ok whilst income remained high (boom times), but once income dropped the debt skyrocketed.

Brown was PM from mid 2007 to mid 2010 - even on your charts deutsch, that leap in debt is insane.

Of course there was a leap. Recession kicked off which meant a big fall in income tax receipts as well as a rise in welfare payments. However, most of the rise was due to Darling pumping money into the economy as the recession took hold - exactly what a govt should do in a recession.

 

[Premier Quality]

No it wasn't mate - the spending was pumped into public spending such as inflating health service wages, gp wages, consultant wages with minimal improvements in services.

 

[Templeton Peck]

No it wasn't mate - the spending was pumped into public spending such as inflating health service wages, gp wages, consultant wages with minimal improvements in services.

Spikes of that size aren't going to be caused by a few pay rises in the NHS. The spikes in DW's chart dovetail nicely with the beginning of the credit crunch in 2007 and the the banks being bailed out in Autumn 08.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

There weren't increases in NHS wages during the Brown years. There were a lot of middle-management redundancies. Trust me, I know!

However, moving commissioning to GPs (stupid idea) massively hiked up costs.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Even if we're just taking the bald figures of debt then it still wasn't especially high in a historical context in 2007. Lower than it was for the majority of Major's time in government for instance.

If you have an economy based fundamentally on financial services and that sector crashes in a manner not seen for about 80 years then you are always going to have a problem, even if our borrowing at that stage had been £0 we would have been $#@!ed. We shouldn't have allowed the City to dominate in such a way, we shouldn't have allowed manufacturing and industry to dwindle to the point of virtual non-existence. However the notion that Dave n' Gideon would have done anything different is laughable, they are on record at the time as wanting further deregulation of that sector. They also backed every single one of Labour's spending plans up to 2007 and in many cases pledged to surpass them.

Furthermore, by 2009-10 there was a recovery of sorts in place and the Tories then proceeded to press ahead with ideologically charged austerity nonsense, discredited by every leading economist in the world, and tanked the economy for two years. Well done.

Disgrace but that's the system.

 

[Premier Quality]

Total public spending is forecast to be 48.1% of national income in 2010−11, up by 8.2% of national income from the 39.9% Labour inherited from the Conservatives. This would be the highest level of public spending as a share of national income since 1982−83.
• Most industrial countries have increased public spending as a share of national income since 1997. But between 1997 and 2007 – prior to the financial crisis – the UK had the 2nd largest increase in spending as a share of national income out of 28 industrial countries for which we have comparable data. Over the period from 1997 to 2010 – including the crisis – the UK had the largest increase. This moved the UK from having the 22nd largest proportion of national income spent publically in 1997 to having the 6th largest proportion spent publically in 2010.
• Spending on public services has increased by an average of 4.4% a year in real terms under Labour, significantly faster than the 0.7% a year average seen under the Conservatives from 1979 to 1997. This is largely due to increases in spending on the NHS, education and transport. Since 2000–01 public investment spending has increased particularly sharply and is now at levels not seen since the mid to late 1970s. Despite large increases in the generosity of benefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security spending has grown less quickly than it did under the Conservatives.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf

 

[Templeton Peck]

Agreed it went up. Its the why that's the issue. Spending as a % of GDP increases 7% in 2 years as opposed to 4% over the previous 10. I'd wonder why after 10 years of running a tight ship (including several years of spending levels lower than any reached by Major or Thatcher) that Brown suddenly decides to spunk a load of money precisely at the same time as the credit crunch begins.

 

[Premier Quality]

Spending as a % of gdp goes up because income went down - the key point is that spending was too high to cope with income going down because brown had whacked it up too far.

The lack of consideration for the future and lack of contingency planning is what made us suffer as badly as we did - as you can see from the second bullet above.

 

[visage]

Not really, no.

The only way you could have ridden out the post 2008 recession without any cuts is to have stockpiled literally hundreds of billions of pounds. I dont recall anyone in the run-up demanding that the government ran a massive surplus in order to cope with a crisis that very few foresaw.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Spending as a % of gdp goes up because income went down - the key point is that spending was too high to cope with income going down because brown had whacked it up too far.

The lack of consideration for the future and lack of contingency planning is what made us suffer as badly as we did - as you can see from the second bullet above.

What is 'too far'?

The highest it ever got pre-crunch was 42.9% of GDP. The lowest it ever got under Thatcher or Major was 38.7% in 1997. From 87-97 it averaged 40.7%. From 97-2007 it averaged it averaged 40.5%. This idea that govt over spending caused the economy to crash is a right wing myth.

 

[visage]

No, it's true. Labour building schools and hospitals led directly to Wall Street over indulging in leveraged debt derivatives. FACT.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Knows]

In its 2005 manifesto the Labour party promised sustained investment in the NHS to deliver its commitments to reduce waiting times, expand the NHS workforce and improve buildings and facilities. Specifically, it pledged to triple spending – compared to 1997 levels – by 2008.This reiterated the commitment made in the 2004 Comprehensive Spending Review.
Did Labour meet its spending commitment?

Yes, broadly speaking. By 2008/9 NHS spending had increased by a factor of 2.9 compared to 1997. NHS spending (in cash terms) increased from £33.5 billion in 1997/8 to £76.4 billion in 2005/6 and is expected to have reached £96.4 billion for the financial year 2008/9 (figure 1).

This represented a sustained increase in real terms, continuing a trend that started a decade ago, when Tony Blair pledged to bring health spending up to the EU average. Expenditure in real terms is projected to have increased by nearly 7 per cent each year between 2000/01 and 2010/11, compared to average increases of 4 per cent over the lifetime of the NHS. This represents the highest sustained increase in funding since the NHS was established (figure 2).


http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/key-election-questions/money-spent-nhs

 

[Premier Quality]

Not really, no.

The only way you could have ridden out the post 2008 recession without any cuts is to have stockpiled literally hundreds of billions of pounds. I dont recall anyone in the run-up demanding that the government ran a massive surplus in order to cope with a crisis that very few foresaw.

And yet we had THE largest increase of the 28 industrial nations mentioned. Presumably that's a global thing that was nothing to do with Brown either? All the other nations with lower increases weren't part of the global crash?

You think going from the 22nd to the 6th highest proportion of public spending is sensible, proportionate and left.us enough levers to deal with a crisis?

The excuses seem a tad desperate to me - you genuinely can't see anything wrong at all with his approach?

 

[visage]

Theres two pertinent points.

Firstly, Labours spending didnt cause the 2008 crash.
Secondly, Labours spending didnt impact on our ability to take measures to counteract the effects of the 2008 crash.