Margaret Thatcher is dead
Apr 10th 2013, 5:48 am
#227
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
For the sake of technical accuracy, I should point out that the current Conservative-led government is spending far more than New Labour ever did. The average New Labour spending per annum as a percentage of GDP was 39.8%, and the average Coalition spending per annum is 45.1%. So if Blair and Brown were crazy, Cameron and Osborne are even crazier.
So again for accuracy's sake, I will compare single years and point out it was 47.7% in 2009/2010 the final year of Brown's leadership.
Since then it has dropped every year (46.8%, 45.4%), this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector.
(Maybe the cuts should be deeper and then you wouldn't consider Osborne as crazy as Brown.)
Apr 10th 2013, 6:42 am
#228
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
For the sake of accuracy you don't compare an average over 10 years with a 2 year figure, especially when comparing economics and its various cycles..
So again for accuracy's sake, I will compare single years and point out it was 47.7% in 2009/2010 the final year of Brown's leadership.
Since then it has dropped every year (46.8%, 45.4%), this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector.
(Maybe the cuts should be deeper and then you wouldn't consider Osborne as crazy as Brown.)
So again for accuracy's sake, I will compare single years and point out it was 47.7% in 2009/2010 the final year of Brown's leadership.
Since then it has dropped every year (46.8%, 45.4%), this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector.
(Maybe the cuts should be deeper and then you wouldn't consider Osborne as crazy as Brown.)
We know from predicted figures (that are obviously going to optimistically low) the spending right up till 2017, so we have seven years of Coalition figures to go on. If we compare these seven years figures, to the last seven years of the New Labour government's spending, which is what you want to do, we see that New Labour's average spending per annum as % of GDP was 42.1% and the Coalition's average spending per annum as % of GDP is 43.7%.
So going by your own demand that identical time periods be compares, we see that the Coalition is still spending more than the New Labour Government, and I will remind you that this government is supposed to be a Conservative government based on cutting.
Cherry-picking singe years in order to make an argument work is absurd. I concede Brown spent a lot in 2009, but Thatcher spent more in 1982, and others have spent more than that as well. We must look at long-term averages. As for your claim that the Coalition is spending less every year, this too is wrong because they themselves are predicting that spending will actually rise across the next two years, not fall.
All of this in the service of technical accuracy.
Apr 10th 2013, 6:53 am
#229
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 465
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
I take your point about the averages being derived from different-length time periods, but if we change the variables to keep you happy, and compare spending periods of the same length of time (pointless, but...) we get different figures.
We know from predicted figures (that are obviously going to optimistically low) the spending right up till 2017, so we have seven years of Coalition figures to go on. If we compare these seven years figures, to the last seven years of the New Labour government's spending, which is what you want to do, we see that New Labour's average spending per annum as % of GDP was 42.1% and the Coalition's average spending per annum as % of GDP is 43.7%.
So going by your own demand that identical time periods be compares, we see that the Coalition is still spending more than the New Labour Government, and I will remind you that this government is supposed to be a Conservative government based on cutting.
Cherry-picking singe years in order to make an argument work is absurd. I concede Brown spent a lot in 2009, but Thatcher spent more in 1982, and others have spent more than that as well. We must look at long-term averages. As for your claim that the Coalition is spending less every year, this too is wrong because they themselves are predicting that spending will actually rise across the next two years, not fall.
All of this in the service of technical accuracy.
We know from predicted figures (that are obviously going to optimistically low) the spending right up till 2017, so we have seven years of Coalition figures to go on. If we compare these seven years figures, to the last seven years of the New Labour government's spending, which is what you want to do, we see that New Labour's average spending per annum as % of GDP was 42.1% and the Coalition's average spending per annum as % of GDP is 43.7%.
So going by your own demand that identical time periods be compares, we see that the Coalition is still spending more than the New Labour Government, and I will remind you that this government is supposed to be a Conservative government based on cutting.
Cherry-picking singe years in order to make an argument work is absurd. I concede Brown spent a lot in 2009, but Thatcher spent more in 1982, and others have spent more than that as well. We must look at long-term averages. As for your claim that the Coalition is spending less every year, this too is wrong because they themselves are predicting that spending will actually rise across the next two years, not fall.
All of this in the service of technical accuracy.
"this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector."
It is a lot easier to start low and build up huge debt, than cut spending while still supporting the enormous debt and overblown public sector.
Apr 10th 2013, 6:59 am
#230
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Maybe you missed this part in what he was saying:
"this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector."
It is a lot easier to start low and build up huge debt, than cut spending while still supporting the enormous debt and overblown public sector.
"this despite the Coalition having to accommodate Labour's resulting enormous debt and overblown public sector."
It is a lot easier to start low and build up huge debt, than cut spending while still supporting the enormous debt and overblown public sector.
Are you not reading these posts?
I'll add in edit that the spending of the New Labour government was less than the spending of the Major government by some way (as % of GDP). So who built up all this debt? Just the Labour Party? Was the debt run up by previous governments imaginary debt?
Last edited by Zen10; Apr 10th 2013 at 7:02 am.
Apr 10th 2013, 7:12 am
#232
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Some facts. UK Government spending as % of GDP, by Prime Minister, average across government.
Thatcher: 44.6%
Major: 41.7%
Blair: 38.4%
Brown: 44.4%
Cameron (including forecast spending): 43.7%
So you see that first, there is very little in it (apart from the very low spending under Blair, the bulk of New Labour), and second, the Tories often spend more during their terms in power. So, enough of the "insane, crazy Labour spending" argument. It's not true.
Thatcher: 44.6%
Major: 41.7%
Blair: 38.4%
Brown: 44.4%
Cameron (including forecast spending): 43.7%
So you see that first, there is very little in it (apart from the very low spending under Blair, the bulk of New Labour), and second, the Tories often spend more during their terms in power. So, enough of the "insane, crazy Labour spending" argument. It's not true.
Apr 10th 2013, 9:30 am
#235
MODERATOR
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Redneck Wonderland
Posts: 9,932
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Some facts. UK Government spending as % of GDP, by Prime Minister, average across government.
Thatcher: 44.6%
Major: 41.7%
Blair: 38.4%
Brown: 44.4%
Cameron (including forecast spending): 43.7%
So you see that first, there is very little in it (apart from the very low spending under Blair, the bulk of New Labour), and second, the Tories often spend more during their terms in power. So, enough of the "insane, crazy Labour spending" argument. It's not true.
Thatcher: 44.6%
Major: 41.7%
Blair: 38.4%
Brown: 44.4%
Cameron (including forecast spending): 43.7%
So you see that first, there is very little in it (apart from the very low spending under Blair, the bulk of New Labour), and second, the Tories often spend more during their terms in power. So, enough of the "insane, crazy Labour spending" argument. It's not true.
Let us not forget that 2 days before he left office, Brown was effectively in caretaker mode, his Chancellor signed the U.K up to a £53 billion bailout fund for the rest of the E.U. £350 quid per U.K family as a departing gift to the incoming govt.
Apr 10th 2013, 9:40 am
#236
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
How about comparing debt versus deficit by prime minister? The 2.3 billion loan from the IMF that Callaghan's incompetent govt needed as a bailout had to be repaid by the successive Thatcher Govt just as the latest Tory Govt inherited the debt of Brown's failures.
Let us not forget that 2 days before he left office, Brown was effectively in caretaker mode, his Chancellor signed the U.K up to a £53 billion bailout fund for the rest of the E.U. £350 quid per U.K family as a departing gift to the incoming govt.
Let us not forget that 2 days before he left office, Brown was effectively in caretaker mode, his Chancellor signed the U.K up to a £53 billion bailout fund for the rest of the E.U. £350 quid per U.K family as a departing gift to the incoming govt.
Apr 10th 2013, 9:58 am
#237
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Both parties spend and spend. The only difference is that Labour spend wastefully and often just create bureaucracies that do nothing. At least the Tories have some concept of fiscal sense. It's just the same with the shower we have here in Australia. Labor just waste money (I read the NBN was now projected to cost 94Billion) but I doubt that if Abbott get's in spending will drop, it will just be spent on different things.
Apr 10th 2013, 10:21 am
#239
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Too many Tories believe in reaganomics. That is tax cuts lead to economic growth greater than the value of the cuts. History has shown it leads to deficits as the economic growth was not there. A penchant for defence spending doesn't help.
I'm no apologist for Labour, and I quite agree about their track record in the 1970s. I simply make the point that public spending of the two parties is broadly similar and the "crazy Labour spenders" argument is lazy and wrong, as I have shown. In this way, one can just as easily (and accurately) argue that Blair inherited a lot of debt from the Tories. The reason is that both parties subscribe to the same broken economic model.
Apr 10th 2013, 10:27 am
#240
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Tax cuts lead to more tax being collected, not deficits. This is what happened with Reagan and Clinton. I refer to to the Lafer curve.