Bishop Briggs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So Corbyn's on the "far left" with his socialist attitude and talk of ending austerity, and opposition to Trident replacement, and that makes him the wrong choice? Imagine what would happen if voters were offered the choice of a party dedicated to ending austerity, putting people before business, and redistribution of wealth through Land Reform? Oh, hang on - we don't have to. Tory austerity? Public spending as a proportion of GDP is much higher now than it was under Blair and Brown. It was much higher under Thatcher than it was under Blair and Brown too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Tory austerity? Public spending as a proportion of GDP is much higher now than it was under Blair and Brown. It was much higher under Thatcher than it was under Blair and Brown too. Proportion of GDP means nothing. The SNP wanted to raise spending to 0.5% above inflation which means public spending is below inflation....i.e ... Austerity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Proportion of GDP means nothing. The SNP wanted to raise spending to 0.5% above inflation which means public spending is below inflation....i.e ... Austerity. Proportion of GDP is the main comparator used by politicians, economists and international bodies. Hence commitments to protect overseas aid and defence spending to 0.7% and 2% of GDP respectively. Why do think that raising spending to 0.5% above inflation means that public spending below inflation? Totally bizarre! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Tory austerity? Public spending as a proportion of GDP is much higher now than it was under Blair and Brown. It was much higher under Thatcher than it was under Blair and Brown too.As a percentage of GDP, how much did Thatcher increase public spending by, and how much did Blair/Brown reduce it by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Tony can't even see the raging, frothing at the mouth British Nationalist that he is. Caring about Scotland = bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 As a percentage of GDP, how much did Thatcher increase public spending by, and how much did Blair/Brown reduce it by? Compared to the last two years of the Callaghan government, it rose by 2.5 to 3% to 46% in 1982. The average under Thatcher was around 39 to 40%. The average under Blair and Brown was 37 to 38%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Compared to the last two years of the Callaghan government, it rose by 2.5 to 3% to 46% in 1982. The average under Thatcher was around 39 to 40%. The average under Blair and Brown was 37 to 38%.I was meaning over the course of their terms in office. If you're going to conveniently pick out 78-82, forget the rest of the Thatcher term in office, then average out the Blair/Brown years without even saying what it was in 1996, the figures don't mean much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Well that's a terrible analogy. Not Blair's biggest fan but it's disingenuous to suggest he wasn't an extremely successful politican who still won elections after his so called warmongering. If by successful you mean "filled his pockets to overflowing and avoided being held to account for wrongdoing", then the man was in a class of his own. If you meant " looked after the people he represented and acted as they clearly wished their leader to do, while leaving the country's economic future on a secure footing ", then not so much. " so called ",ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OJrUcDV0vxhB3JYLc01O2u9agmL0EG8-aTRfm2_JdxU/htmlview?pli=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I was meaning over the course of their terms in office. If you're going to conveniently pick out 78-82, forget the rest of the Thatcher term in office, then average out the Blair/Brown years without even saying what it was in 1996, the figures don't mean much. I did not forget the rest of the Thatcher term in office. The averages are important as they take into account the economic cycles of PMs who is in office for two or more terms.. In 1996, it was 39% and dropped to 35% in 2000, a big drop in the early Blair/Brown years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I did not forget the rest of the Thatcher term in office. The averages are important as they take into account the economic cycles of PMs who is in office for two or more terms.. In 1996, it was 39% and dropped to 35% in 2000, a big drop in the early Blair/Brown years. Still doesn't mean much though, does it. It's just playing with statistics. You could just as easily say Thatcher brought it down, Blair/Brown increased it again and Cameron is bringing it down. Just because it's higher now than 2001 as a percentage doesn't mean Cameron is more committed to public spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Here's the thing people are overlooking. In 1979 any Conservative leader could have won that election given how unpopular Labour were at that time. Just like in 1997 where any Labour leader could have won given how sick people were of the Tories. We are still in the hangover period after the Blair/Brown era. Many of us are still pissed off about what happened with Iraq and feel we're being ignored, because politicians know the core voting base is in the south of England. It's only now we're threatening Westminster with independence that we're starting to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Still doesn't mean much though, does it. It's just playing with statistics. You could just as easily say Thatcher brought it down, Blair/Brown increased it again and Cameron is bringing it down. Just because it's higher now than 2001 as a percentage doesn't mean Cameron is more committed to public spending. It's not playing with statistics. % of GDP is the key statistic that politicians, government officials, journalists, commentators etc use to assess spending levels. I'm not saying that Cameron is more committed to public spending. My point is that public spending levels were much lower under Blair and Brown. It's therefore wrong to suggest that current spending levels are those of severe austerity. Few on the Left, or in the SNP, complained that about austerity when Brown was Chancellor. Those who advocate spending more to end the current "austerity" ( e.g. Corbyn and Sturgeon) must demonstrate that they have credible policies to cut the deficit and the massive government debts. We can't borrow more and more from the banks for ever as there will be another credit crunch and economic collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The yearning for a Tony Blair style all things to all men ideologically vacant Labour Party isn't going to get them anywhere. The Tories have them bent over because they actually have a position which they can unashamedly stick to. Nobody's in a position to be simultaneously dishing out gifts to welfare claimants and corporation shareholders anymore. Forget about St Tony and the good old days. As long as Labour refuse to actually to commit to any recognisable position, they're going to continue suffering humiliations like their shambolic performance the other day. Getting slated from all sides isn't going to win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The words of a raving Britnat... This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/10/labourleadership.labour2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The yearning for a Tony Blair style all things to all men ideologically vacant Labour Party isn't going to get them anywhere. The Tories have them bent over because they actually have a position which they can unashamedly stick to. Nobody's in a position to be simultaneously dishing out gifts to welfare claimants and corporation shareholders anymore. Forget about St Tony and the good old days. As long as Labour refuse to actually to commit to any recognisable position, they're going to continue suffering humiliations like their shambolic performance the other day. Getting slated from all sides isn't going to win anything. I would disagree that Blairism and the New Labour project are ideologically ' vacant'. We went into the last election with no fixed position and it was a disaster, we went left on some things, right on others, tried to chase populism in some respects whilst pretending the electorate were simply wrong on others. Miliband strikes me as someone with a stronger ideological sense than Blair, yet turned the Labour Party into one without any fixed ideology. Our one position seemed to be 'we are not the Tories.' You might not like the New Labour ideology, but there is one and it's one that resonated with the electorate at the time. I don't want to see a return to New Labour, but a lot of the lessons learnt during that period are being forgotten and I think that is dangerous for the party. I agree that Labour need a clear ideological position, what they don't need is the wrong one. Only two people in this leadership election are presenting change, Corbyn and Kendall. I hope Kendall wins, I worry Corbyn will but realistically I will be very surprised if we don't just end up with Burnham continuing down the Miliband 'vote for us because the Tories are twats' route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Not directly to do with the leadership election but a good analysis of where Labour went wrong. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/chuka-umunna-these-are-perilous-times-left Such a pity he isn't running for leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The words of a raving Britnat... http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/10/labourleadership.labour2 Didn't you know that it's only bad if you're Scottish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Not directly to do with the leadership election but a good analysis of where Labour went wrong. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/chuka-umunna-these-are-perilous-times-left Such a pity he isn't running for leader. He's not running because he knows it's too early for him and Labour have no chance at the next election and possibly the one after that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The blessed tony,whens the chilcot enquiry out again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.