Contribute or go like all your previous identities, your choice.

Well you are clearly a clueless individual if that is what you think.



As is illustrated by the above question as you clearly wish to imply that is what Labour did for its 13 years in office in the last 30 years. If you look the actual data you will find a different picture. The governments tax take was at its highest between 1981 and 1984 (37.6% of GDP both years) which was coincidentally when we also spent the most (48.1% and 47.5% of GDP). The biggest gap was in 1992 with the tax take down to 32.4% and spending at 43.7% which is not surprising as that followed a recession and blow me down, the Tory government [uincreased spending[/u to help bail us out of recession.

At no time during Labour's period in office prior to the crash in 2008 did taxation ever reach the levels seen in 1981 and 1984 and neither did spending. Spending didn't even reach that kind of level level until 2009-10 (47.7%) as Labour did what the Tories did in 1992, increased spending at the time of a recession which also delivered more growth than Osborne has managed since.

Furthermore the gap between spending an the tax take was consistently less under Labour than under the previous Tory administration bar a brief period at the end of the 80's.

The bottom line is if you go back as far as 1963 you will find only one period where we had a surplus. That was under Labour in the early 2000's. For the rest of the time the tax take has been remarkably similar usually taking a dip in recessions but as said never more under labour than the previous Tory administrations. Spending has varied to a greater extent generally regardless of who was in power but was actually highest under the Tories.

It may be a left wing ideology to tax and spend but its quite clear Labour when in office for 13 years taxed no more and spent no more than previous Tory governments, often less.

Well here are a couple of links from rather different sources that explain why running a deficit, permanently, isn't a bad thing.

[urlhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/[/url

[urlhttp://www.social-europe.eu/2010/08/running-a-permanent-fiscal-deficit/[/url

The first one gives a very simplistic view of the economics but is useful in illustrating the point of the effect spending v austerity.

The second is a more sophisticated look at why running a deficit, permanently, is normal (it's what we in the UK have done for literally decades under all governments).

The interesting question is what is our current government up to baring the above in mind? Is it trying to balance the books and in so doing is making everyone (well the majority) worse off when it should be doing things differently?

The idea 0.7% growth vindicates the austerity approach doesn't wash with me. It seems we have had a period where government borrowing was very cheap so had it borrowed for growth promoting investment then as mentioned by the second article the debt becomes self financing. Unfortunately the government has been borrowing at very high levels not to invest but to fund austerity and now the interest rates are increasing the cost of government borrowing is going up. To borrow at the levels it does [inot[/i for investment purposes is madness.

Spot on.
Debt is rising fast with no investment, no stimulus, no extra jobs, no growth, absolutely nothing to show for it.
But still they bang on about borrowing being bad, despite increasing it vastly.

Apparently it's OK to borrow and increase debt to fund austerity but not OK to borrow, say, the same amount to boost the economy.

And still the deficit is slow to come down.
Three years ago, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2015.
Two years ago, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2016.
Last year, they were going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2017.
Now, they are going to eliminate the deficit in five years, by 2018.

Is it working?

I think the penny has just dropped...

Isn't the owner of Wonga one of the major contributors to the Conservative Party ?

Surely they wouldn't take borrowing advice from them would they ?

Adrian Beecroft is a venture capitalist whose business links include Wonga. He is a donor to the Conservative Party – as are the direct owners of Wonga. Beecroft has coughed up around £500,000 – and got to pen a policy document. In essence, calling for it to be made easier to sack people: he claimed that 'a few' people getting sacked simply because their bosses didn't like them would be a price worth paying for 'economic growth'.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-how-adrian-beecroft-made-a-career-out-of-cutting-jobs-7789303.htmlArticle here about how he has been involved himself in sacking people.[/url Which has obviously done the economy proud.

Exactly. There's good borrowing and bad borrowing.

The links you provide kind of back up my claims that under the current debt based money system somebody somewhere always has to be going into further debt to keep the whole system functioning. If new money has to be continually spent into the economy why doesn't a government just create this new money themselves instead of borrowing debt based credit money from banks at interest when the same banks create this credit out if thin air?

In answer to my original question I personally think it will be chaos when the debt bubble finally collapses just like Brown envisioned if the quotes ascribed to him are true.

And the difference between the influence his type have on Tory policy and the influence the unions have on Labour policy is what? It is just you find the policies of the right less palatable - the scope of influence is no different, they pay their monies and they expect something in return.

Rather large.

Just to begin with, the Labour Party was created by the trades unions. It's a little bit of history that seems to be forgotten on occasions, including by some in the (particularly) Parliamentary Labour Party.

I am not aware of the Conservative Party having been founded by loans sharks or, indeed, by multi-national and trans-national business (which are new developments).

Further: trades unions are democratic organisations that have accountable leaderships. For instance, trade union members can elect – and unelect – the leaders of trade unions. In many cases (UNISON is a prime example) members have to opt [iin[/i to any trade union donation. It is not automatic.

I suggest that few consumers have much choice in whether, say, a percentage of their buy in a supermarket then goes to any political party.

So, democracy, accountability – those little matters are quite different.

Oooh ... let me try this one ... is it that the former want to sack people without giving a reason and the latter say you should have a bloody good reason?