Re: Austerity gone too far? : Sun May 12, 2013 8:02 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Where in my point did I say anything about deregulation? - I said if you get a Labour government you will get an increase in the size of the state - this is exactly what happened under Blair. So by the measure I suggested Labour did under Blair exactly did what it always does - it increased the size of the state.

That is the reality/fact - what are you struggling with here!!

Is there any wonder the sie of the state increased?

Schools were falling down and teacher shortages were chronic. Similarly the health service had been run down to near 3rd world levels. Massive investment was required, not just in bricks & mortar but in attracting, developing and retaining teaching and healthcare professionals.

As we are now seeing, after three years the tories are determined to rip apart all the advances made under Labour, all in the name of "Austerity"

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Sun May 12, 2013 8:36 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Is there any wonder the sie of the state increased?

Schools were falling down and teacher shortages were chronic. Similarly the health service had been run down to near 3rd world levels. Massive investment was required, not just in bricks & mortar but in attracting, developing and retaining teaching and healthcare professionals.

As we are now seeing, after three years the tories are determined to rip apart all the advances made under Labour, all in the name of "Austerity"

Not disagreeing - but this yoyo will continue whilst you have two dominant parties with such different ideas.

As a nation we need to decide what quality of public services we want and then ring fence the money with agree annual budget increases and stick to it and accept the cost of doing so.

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Sun May 12, 2013 8:49 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: As a nation we need to decide what quality of public services we want and then ring fence the money with agree annual budget increases and stick to it and accept the cost of doing so. Thats the absolute truth of the matter. Most of us thought we had actually done that already back in 2010, especially when Dave paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of donor monies to have this poster erected on every street corner... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/cameron-promises-nhs-cash-protect-spending

Sal Paradise wrote: As a nation we need to decide what quality of public services we want and then ring fence the money with agree annual budget increases and stick to it and accept the cost of doing so. Thats the absolute truth of the matter. Most of us thought we had actually done that already back in 2010, especially when Dave paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of donor monies to have this poster erected on every street corner... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/cameron-promises-nhs-cash-protect-spending

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Sun May 12, 2013 3:47 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Where in my point did I say anything about deregulation? - I said if you get a Labour government you will get an increase in the size of the state - this is exactly what happened under Blair. So by the measure I suggested Labour did under Blair exactly did what it always does - it increased the size of the state.

That is the reality/fact - what are you struggling with here!!

I illustrated quite clearly that the Labour government was not a 'socialist' one or ;like any previous Labour government, but one that was a continuation, in many, many ways, of the previous ones under Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

I'm sorry that in the real world, it's hard to understand such things.

And as Coddy has amply illustrated, of course public spending increased, given that the previous governments had allowed hospitals and schools to crumble.

So, unless you believe that those schools and hospitals should simply have been allowed to crumble, it's rather difficult to see why you're complaining about Labour from this point of view.

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Sun May 12, 2013 4:23 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I illustrated quite clearly that the Labour government was not a 'socialist' one or ;like any previous Labour government, but one that was a continuation, in many, many ways, of the previous ones under Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

I'm sorry that in the real world, it's hard to understand such things.

And as Coddy has amply illustrated, of course public spending increased, given that the previous governments had allowed hospitals and schools to crumble.

So, unless you believe that those schools and hospitals should simply have been allowed to crumble, it's rather difficult to see why you're complaining about Labour from this point of view.

We are obviously going round in circles - Socialism in the 21st century isn't the same as it was under Bevan!! things change society changes. Even Mr Fish agrees that the state grew bigger under Blair - he was no different in that respect than Wilson & Callaghan before him. That is the fact - what are struggling with here - and the point I originally made.

You know as well as I do if ED/ED & Yvette get back in the size of the state will increase.

I agreed with Mr Fish re schools/health etc. and who says I was complaining? I was merely pointing out a fact to support my argument - so unless you have some wacky link that disproves my point I suggest you accept you have once again been proved to be found wanting. As the saying goes "In what world....."

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Mon May 13, 2013 7:44 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We are obviously going round in circles - Socialism in the 21st century isn't the same as it was under Bevan!! things change society changes. Even Mr Fish agrees that the state grew bigger under Blair - he was no different in that respect than Wilson & Callaghan before him. That is the fact - what are struggling with here - and the point I originally made.

You know as well as I do if ED/ED & Yvette get back in the size of the state will increase.

I agreed with Mr Fish re schools/health etc. and who says I was complaining? I was merely pointing out a fact to support my argument - so unless you have some wacky link that disproves my point I suggest you accept you have once again been proved to be found wanting. As the saying goes "In what world....."

And I was pinting out that, by standard definitions, Labour was not socialist.

But now you shift the goalposts by saying that everything changes – including socialism. In the case of Labour under Blair, this means, presumably, that socialism changed to become neo-liberalism with a bit of spending on schools and hospitals to make up for the chronic underspend of the previous years.

Or, as some have put it: Tory lite.

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Mon May 13, 2013 12:27 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We are obviously going round in circles - Socialism in the 21st century isn't the same as it was under Bevan!! things change society changes. Even Mr Fish agrees that the state grew bigger under Blair - he was no different in that respect than Wilson & Callaghan before him. That is the fact - what are struggling with here - and the point I originally made.

You know as well as I do if ED/ED & Yvette get back in the size of the state will increase.

I agreed with Mr Fish re schools/health etc. and who says I was complaining? I was merely pointing out a fact to support my argument - so unless you have some wacky link that disproves my point I suggest you accept you have once again been proved to be found wanting. As the saying goes "In what world....."

Looking at the overall tax-take as a percentage of GDP, it shot up under Thatcher, she inherited 32.8% and it went as high as 36% and 37%.
At no time during their tenures did Thatcher or Major lower the tax-take as a percentage of GDP.
And that excludes all the dosh they got from selling everything off, so goodness knows how much the State actually spent during that time.
So, for all the rhetoric about big-state and small state, what we actually see is large tory tax-takes ... where on earth does it all go?

Year £bn % GDP
1964-65 12.3 36.2
1965-66 11.5 31.6
1966-67 12.6 32.5
1967-68 13.9 33.8
1968-69 15.9 35.7
1969-70 17.8 37.4
1970-71 19.5 36.7
1971-72 20.7 35
1972-73 22 32.6
1973-74 24.5 32.6
1974-75 31.7 35.3
1975-76 40 35.7
1976-77 46.1 35.2
1977-78 51.6 33.9
1978-79 57.1 32.8
1979-80 70.6 33.7
1980-81 83.9 35.1
1981-82 98.9 37.6
1982-83 107.2 37.3
1983-84 115 36.7
1984-85 126.4 37.6
1985-86 134.5 36.4
1986-87 143.2 36.1
1987-88 156.8 35.6
1988-89 173.1 35.3
1989-90 187.4 34.9
1990-91 199.7 34.6
1991-92 211.2 34.8
1992-93 208.4 33.2
1993-94 215.1 32.4
1994-95 235.2 33.4
1995-96 252.8 34
1996-97 265.7 33.5
1997-98 293.6 34.8
1998-99 313 35.2
1999-00 336.6 35.6
2000-01 358 36.2
2001-02 365.6 35.4
2002-03 372.6 34.1
2003-04 398.3 34.4
2004-05 426.5 35.1
2005-06 457.1 36
2006-07 487.8 36.2
2007-08 514.3 36.1
2008-09 500 35.3
2009-10 485.7 34.5
2010-11 522.4 35.3
2011-12 542.9 35.5
2012-13 550.6 35.6
2013-14 573.5 35.9
2014-15 597.1 35.8
2015-16 624.3 35.9
2016-17 657.2 36
2017-18 689.1 36

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Mon May 13, 2013 12:30 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We are obviously going round in circles - Socialism in the 21st century isn't the same as it was under Bevan!! things change society changes. Even Mr Fish agrees that the state grew bigger under Blair - he was no different in that respect than Wilson & Callaghan before him. That is the fact - what are struggling with here - and the point I originally made.

You know as well as I do if ED/ED & Yvette get back in the size of the state will increase.

I agreed with Mr Fish re schools/health etc. and who says I was complaining? I was merely pointing out a fact to support my argument - so unless you have some wacky link that disproves my point I suggest you accept you have once again been proved to be found wanting. As the saying goes "In what world....."

If we look at the Thatcher/Major years, we find that the total tax-take went up substantially (not including the money from all the sell offs) and never came down to the level they inherited.
Big-state socialists were they?
One does wonder where it all went ... apart from police overtime obviously.
Year .....£bn...% GDP
1964-65 12.3 36.2
1965-66 11.5 31.6
1966-67 12.6 32.5
1967-68 13.9 33.8
1968-69 15.9 35.7
1969-70 17.8 37.4
1970-71 19.5 36.7
1971-72 20.7 35
1972-73 22 32.6
1973-74 24.5 32.6
1974-75 31.7 35.3
1975-76 40 35.7
1976-77 46.1 35.2
1977-78 51.6 33.9
1978-79 57.1 32.8
1979-80 70.6 33.7
1980-81 83.9 35.1
1981-82 98.9 37.6
1982-83 107.2 37.3
1983-84 115 36.7
1984-85 126.4 37.6
1985-86 134.5 36.4
1986-87 143.2 36.1
1987-88 156.8 35.6
1988-89 173.1 35.3
1989-90 187.4 34.9
1990-91 199.7 34.6
1991-92 211.2 34.8
1992-93 208.4 33.2
1993-94 215.1 32.4
1994-95 235.2 33.4
1995-96 252.8 34
1996-97 265.7 33.5
1997-98 293.6 34.8
1998-99 313 35.2
1999-00 336.6 35.6
2000-01 358 36.2
2001-02 365.6 35.4
2002-03 372.6 34.1
2003-04 398.3 34.4
2004-05 426.5 35.1
2005-06 457.1 36
2006-07 487.8 36.2
2007-08 514.3 36.1
2008-09 500 35.3
2009-10 485.7 34.5
2010-11 522.4 35.3
2011-12 542.9 35.5
2012-13 550.6 35.6
2013-14 573.5 35.9
2014-15 597.1 35.8
2015-16 624.3 35.9
2016-17 657.2 36
2017-18 689.1 36

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Tue May 14, 2013 11:03 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

You are falling into the "all borrowing is bad" trap.
That's like letting a burns patient freeze to death.

All government borrowing is bad.

Why borrow money from banks (who create said money out of nothing and charge interest) when the government could just create the money themselves and spend it into the economy?

Re: Austerity gone too far? : Tue May 14, 2013 11:44 pm  

LeighGionaire wrote:

All government borrowing is bad.

Why borrow money from banks (who create said money out of nothing and charge interest) when the government could just create the money themselves and spend it into the economy?

Because its too tempting for a government to continually create and spend more. However I'd be happy for a temporary system run by the BoE rather than the government so that the money created by QE could be spent on 1 off infrastructure projects rather than just buying bonds.