Thank god Craig isn't here to carp relentlessly and just spew out a load of unconnected soundbites about how the Tories have made Britain Great again, without acknowledging that it's taken about three years longer than it had been on track to when Labour left office.

Thank god Craig isn't here to carp relentlessly and just spew out a load of unconnected soundbites about how the Tories have made Britain Great again, without acknowledging that it's taken about three years longer than it had been on track to when Labour left office.

Or, of course, the fact that GDP per head is still well below pre-crisis levels, one reason why so many people remain worse off then they were six years ago.

Plus wages are still 6% behind inflation. Yet they will claim this as a victory when in reality we'd be in a better state without them

Thank god Craig isn't here to carp relentlessly and just spew out a load of unconnected soundbites about how the Tories have made Britain Great again, without acknowledging that it's taken about three years longer than it had been on track to when Labour left office.

 

It's a good job the main opposition party aren't signed up to the exact same disastrous economic policies then!

 

 

Oh, wait...

err, as I recall both parties were near identical in terms of cuts in the last election, the only difference was the speed of the cuts - and there's no evidence either way to say one or the other would have proven better in the short run or the long run. Or that "better" is all relative - the rich, poor souls, are really suffering - you can tell that from the spiralling property prices, and the closing of all those high-end brand shops.

 

(PS just to be absolutely clear, I'm being sarcar-stic, it's the less affluent who have taken the hit, and we are nowhere near better off, or even close to where we were in 2008, and I see no party making any serious attempt to change a damn thing and hit the rich for a few years instead - OK they'll upsticks and move out of London, but on the plus side, there'll be loads of bargain properties suddenly on the market and a substantial tax on empty properties would ensure they don't just leave them vacant and sit on them, so rents might filter down a bit more cheaply)

 

Maybe.

err, as I recall both parties were near identical in terms of cuts in the last election, the only difference was the speed of the cuts - and there's no evidence either way to say one or the other would have proven better in the short run or the long run. Or that "better" is all relative - the rich, poor souls, are really suffering - you can tell that from the spiralling property prices, and the closing of all those high-end brand shops.

 

(PS just to be absolutely clear, I'm being sarcar-stic, it's the less affluent who have taken the hit, and we are nowhere near better off, or even close to where we were in 2008, and I see no party making any serious attempt to change a damn thing and hit the rich for a few years instead - OK they'll upsticks and move out of London, but on the plus side, there'll be loads of bargain properties suddenly on the market and a substantial tax on empty properties would ensure they don't just leave them vacant and sit on them, so rents might filter down a bit more cheaply)

 

Maybe.

 

That's right, the main parties' economic stances at the last elecrtion were virtually identical, which just made the vitriol they fired at each other ("incompetent Labour" and "evil Tories") look even more petty than usual since people couldn't discern any major differences between them and led to an all-time high of disgust with them. So it's perplexing that they've decided on a re-run for next year.

 

Had Labour won in 2010, if they hadn't gone back on Alistair Darling's plan for "tougher cuts than Thatcher", I doubt either the economy or public services/inequality would be in any particularly different state today, despite all the nonsense jargon about "fairer cuts" and "different priorities".

Cutting about half the money over double the time kind of does make a difference. What has more of an effect on your finances - cutting £200 for a year or £100 for two? The latter's manageable. As we've seen, the former just sucked the demand out of the economy.

It's a good job the main opposition party aren't signed up to the exact same disastrous economic policies then!

Oh, wait...

The important difference is timing and context of how well the economy is doing. Cuts that big and that frontloaded kicked the economy when it was down. Holding off the cuts for a year and only doing half of them was a level which almost certainly wouldn't have had the massive impact that this government's cuts did on the growth of the economy. We're now back in solid growth - the economy's at the stage where if you're going to make cuts, now is just about the only time it is able to absorb them.

The important difference is timing and context of how well the economy is doing. Cuts that big and that frontloaded kicked the economy when it was down. Holding off the cuts for a year and only doing half of them was a level which almost certainly wouldn't have had the massive impact that this government's cuts did on the growth of the economy. We're now back in solid growth - the economy's at the stage where if you're going to make cuts, now is just about the only time it is able to absorb them.

 

This shows just how little you understand the public's views on spending cuts. What you say might make sense in some uber-technical economics class (thought it's beyond proven by now that real economies, depending on volatile real people and unpredictable events, rarely pan out according to some academic theories) but as far as the public is concerned, the economy recovering means there's a lot less need for more spending cuts. And I thought the whole New Labour philosophy was never to argue with how the public see things?

Edited July 24, 201410 yr by Danny

Cutting about half the money over double the time kind of does make a difference. What has more of an effect on your finances - cutting £200 for a year or £100 for two? The latter's manageable. As we've seen, the former just sucked the demand out of the economy.

 

doesn't quite work out like that, as you are paying interest on the money you are still not paying off (reduced by whatever inflation reduces the value of the money paid back over the longer period), but I would certainly prefer gradual debt payoff, if only because it's kinder on those most vulnerable. One "shhh don't mention it" topic, is the large increase in suicides, people who need help to get over bad periods (and not necessarily financial) over the period of the recession/downturn.

This shows just how little you understand the public's views on spending cuts. What you say might make sense in some uber-technical economics class (thought it's beyond proven by now that real economies, depending on volatile real people and unpredictable events, rarely pan out according to some academic theories) but as far as the public is concerned, the economy recovering means there's a lot less need for more spending cuts. And I thought the whole New Labour philosophy was never to argue with how the public see things?

Am I allowed to point out the difference between Labour and Tory spending plans since I'm not tarred with the New Labour brush in your eyes? Your argument makes no sense as soon as you accept that sometimes the public is wrong about things.

If I hear "our long term economic plan is working" one more time... ARGH!

Am I allowed to point out the difference between Labour and Tory spending plans since I'm not tarred with the New Labour brush in your eyes? Your argument makes no sense as soon as you accept that sometimes the public is wrong about things.

 

I completely agree, but it's New Labour people who said that principles should always be sacrificed if it clashes with public opinion. I just find it amusing that it's been completely inverted now, and it's now New Labour people who say public opinion should be ignored when a majority say there's no need for 5 years more of cuts. Not to mention they always prided themselves on being more "realistic" than leftwingers, yet now peddle the patent rubbish that you can make huge spending cuts yet not have them affect anything that matters.

Edited July 25, 201410 yr by Danny

This shows just how little you understand the public's views on spending cuts. What you say might make sense in some uber-technical economics class (thought it's beyond proven by now that real economies, depending on volatile real people and unpredictable events, rarely pan out according to some academic theories) but as far as the public is concerned, the economy recovering means there's a lot less need for more spending cuts. And I thought the whole New Labour philosophy was never to argue with how the public see things?

This shows...just how little you understand the New Labour philosophy. If it was entirely down to the public's views, do you think academies, tuition fees, foundation hospitals and Iraq would've happened?

I completely agree

Do you? Because most of your arguments rarely seem to focus around why a plan won't work, more that it's a terrible idea because it's unpopular.

This shows...just how little you understand the New Labour philosophy. If it was entirely down to the public's views, do you think academies, tuition fees, foundation hospitals and Iraq would've happened?

 

Indeed, this shows their total double standards. When the public are against a "left-wing" thing, public opinion has to be respected and it's dangerous and Communist to try and persuade them otherwise, yet when they're against a right-wing thing, it doesn't matter and it should be forced through anyway.

 

 

Do you? Because most of your arguments rarely seem to focus around why a plan won't work, more that it's a terrible idea because it's unpopular.

 

No, when I make those arguments, I'm just trying to make the point that Labour's policies are not just unprincipled, they're fails on their own terms because in most cases they're not even popular policies.

 

For what it's worth, I would love politicians to ignore public opinion more (and perversely, I actually think the public themselves would like it since people want politicians to actually have principles that they aren't willing to throw under a bus, rather than cynically scraping around for any votes at any cost). Benefits is one thing where obviously I wish Labour would ignore what the public say and try and persuade them of their own point of view. *I* don't think Labour should not have 5 more years of spending cuts just because the public are against it -- far stronger reasons are that poverty and inequality will rise and public services will inevitably be decimated further, and that the Labour Party would almost certainly go into meltdown on the scale of the socialists in Spain and France.

Edited July 25, 201410 yr by Danny

Indeed, this shows their total double standards. When the public are against a "left-wing" thing, public opinion has to be respected and it's dangerous and Communist to try and persuade them otherwise, yet when they're against a right-wing thing, it doesn't matter and it should be forced through anyway.

That's a huge generalisation. Just as an example,a large minority of the public are in favour of capital punishment but it's a total non-argument in mainstream politics that even UKIP won't go near.

If I hear "our long term economic plan is working" one more time... ARGH!

 

Your meant to hear it so much that you'll be brainwashed into voting them in again - it's the Lynton Cosby formula!!

Your meant to hear it so much that you'll be brainwashed into voting them in again - it's the Lynton Cosby formula!!

And Crosby seems to have been allowed to write the BBC news bulletins.

Here is a chart showing change in real wages against RPI

 

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2014/07/Wage-price-590x422.jpg

 

Recovery is a LONG way off.

 

Wages for the tax year 2013/14 are decided typically in Jan/Feb of and take place in April, in Jan the economy was still very stagnant and wages reflected that but I suspect next April wages will go up much higher due to the stronger economy.

 

WRONG.