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.

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...

rlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/cameron-promises-nhs-cash-protect-spendingrl

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 That is the fact - what are struggling with here - and the point I originally made.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....."

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.

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

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

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.

This is a daft argument. If you create money you devalue it and inflation goes up.

That is why Governments issue bonds to raise cash.

The bonds are fixed term and and fixed interest rates so those who buy the bonds thus loaning the government money take a view on whether or not its worth it but they also do it even the rate of return is low because the money is considered safe (when invested in UK bonds). This is very different than a simple loan.

Now given the interest rates the government can sell it's bonds at are very low it is pretty much a no-brainer to borrow with a view to using the money raised to generate growth in the economy thus ensuring a higher rate of return on the money borrowed than you pay in interest on the debt.

What is stupid is to sell bonds to raise money to pay for people to sit on their backsides and that is the crux of the argument regarding austerity having gone too far. The government is having to borrow to pay its bills and is borrowing very little in comparison to invest in boosting the economy.

The motivations given for auterity are false i.e. we will end up like Greece. It is complete tosh to say so, so you have to wonder at the reasoning behind it and many believe austerity (and the increasing debt that results) is a price the Tories see as worth paying to shrink the state.

So back to your original point of printing money, even if that were a viable solution I don't think there would be any interest in adopting it because simply getting out of our current economic hole isn't the sole agenda.

Psst: he hasn't heard about Germany after WWI.

The banks have DOUBLED the money supply in the past ten years and although there has been some inflation (mainly in house prices) the world hasn't collapsed yet. Every day the government borrows more money from banks who create it from nothing and charge interest, how stupid is that when they could just create the money themselves and spend it into the economy?

Secondly creating new money does not automatically create inflation. If you create new money to pay somebody who's unemployed to make something, he or she is adding real wealth to the new money you created. For example pay a man £300 in new money to make some chairs, every chair he makes is new, real wealth. Printing new money can cause inflation but it isn't a certainty like you seem to think.

Anyway on another note I read the other day that the Government ran up over a £1000 new debt for every man woman and child in the country over the past 12 months. Anybody who thinks these government debts are repayable are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

It does not actually create new wealth. It seems to because the resources used and the environmental damage in economic activity are not valued in proper economic terms. If they were then most "economic" activity would not be economic. That fact that these things are not properly valued will result in the life-times of younger members of this forum in a something much worse than inflation.

It depends on what you want to do with the money. There is an argument that the money the B of E created to give to the banks via quantitative easing so they had money to lend in an attempt to kick-start the economy would generate more economic activity if it were parachuted into every citizens pocket.

However be that as it may you still seem to be under the impression the government is borrowing at some punitive rate off the banks. They aren't. To borrow they issue bonds as I explained. Printing money is not an alternative to that.

We then have the other aim which is to increase the money supply which is when the B of E employs quantitative easing. That isn't borrowing.

You also seem to be saying the fact money supply increases due to fractional reserve banking can or should be replaced by the B of E printing the cash instead. That would simply devalue the currency even faster than we have seen due to the amount of quantitative easing already occurred and inflation would rocket not just go up as the currency devalued more and more.



Well its not like you think that is for sure. You are on about printing billions with the aim of increasing the money supply without that being backed by any kind of asset value. That is nuts.

When they use QE the B of E uses the money it prints to buy assets off banks. The banks then in theory lend the money on (at low interest rates because you don't do QE when interests rates are not low). This policy may or may not work in its aim but you can't just print money as an alternative way to increase the money supply.



A different issue and so long as the interest on the debt is serviceable that doesn't really matter.