Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:
There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.

Its way to early to write him off. In a year those same Tories may well be making markedly different noises and the Blairites may well be remembering exactly what the Labour party was founded upon.

Corbyn certainly has a difficult task, not least the media's apparent dislike of him, but he has some advantages as well. He is outside of the 'establishment', he is openly principled and his politics are genuinely different. If he can hold the party together and if he can produce a genuinely progressive and workable manifesto then its entirely possible that he will be the next PM. Frankly I would be happy with virtually anyone but the lizard people in the current cabinet.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There's a reason the other Labour candidates are facedesking and the Conservatives whooping with glee.

Its way to early to write him off. In a year those same Tories may well be making markedly different noises and the Blairites may well be remembering exactly what the Labour party was founded upon.

This is true. But by the same measure, we could be in another giant war and have democracy suspended.

We can only ever predict from the current status quo (since the future is unknowable), but barring some major upset, the most likely results as things stand are not very rosy for Corbyn. IMO.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
and the Blairites may well be remembering exactly what the Labour party was founded upon.

The so called left and old Labour could also do with looking up the history of their own party.

Most would'n't recognise it.

 -Shrike- wrote:
I welcome Corbyn as the new head of the Labour party. To all of those naysayers who claim Labour will never stand a chance, and their electoral campaign will fail before it's even started - so what? I'd much rather have a choice of government, between a genuinely left-wing party and a right-wing party, rather than the right-wing and the we're-totally-left-wing-wink-wink.

It strikes me as a "kill or cure" move for Labour. He's risky, but he's something new and different--and a spectacular failure would be better than a slow slide into irrelevance, with nobody even able to tell how they're different from the Tories.

He appeals to the Greens, he appeals to the very disenfranchised liberal democrats who watched their own party sell it's soul and repaid it by destroying it. Labour voters will vote for him and while the Tories continue to chase and attempt to appease the UKIP voters, middle right wing may also end up drifting his way, I've spoken with several traditionally conservative voters who've been looking at him just by dint of what they perceive to be his honesty compared with the majority in Westminster.

People are, both sides of the pond, really tired of politicians, of the breed it's self. That's why we're seeing these wildcards actually gaining momentum. I would rather vote for someone who I believed was honest and had the best interests of the people at heart, even if they came from the other side of the floor, than the pocket-lining, back-scratching PR slick types we've been drowning in lately.

One of the most ferociously right wing guys I know in the US and I were talking the other night, he actually likes Bernie Sanders because 'I think he has an honest way about him and while I don't much care for his crowd, I think he'd be a down the line sort of guy', he's actually standing for things he believes in and I can respect that'.

Miracles could happen.

I think some Tories are rubbing their hands with glee assuming labour will be unelectable. While others are probably worried because it makes things more unpredictable . Who knows how things will develop in a couple of years and the direction the wind will blow with the electorate. I think many on both sides were happier with Labour being closer to the Conservatives as it doesn't create potential for a massive swing in favour of one or the other, they fear real choice and unpredictability.

As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.

I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.

The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.

Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.

YEAH!!! SUCK IT BLAIRITES!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232204/Red-buried-Poll-says-labour-lose-two-elections-Corbyn-sensationally-crowned-new-leader.html

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.

Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.

YEAH!!! SUCK IT BLAIRITES!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232204/Red-buried-Poll-says-labour-lose-two-elections-Corbyn-sensationally-crowned-new-leader.html

As factual and unbiased an article as ever can be expected from the Daily Mail

And a poll of 100 people! And 100 people who read the Mail on Sunday! That is sure to be representative of the public as a whole!

 Ketara wrote:

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.

I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.

Me too. PLus, for most of the past 15 years the Liberals have been more left wing than the Labour Party.

Anyone looking forward to a bit of this in Corbyn's Labour Party?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The rebellion started seconds after he was unveiled as new Labour leader at 11.42am. Labour Health spokesman Jamie Reed resigned via Twitter at 11.43am.

Another tweet posted by Andy Burnham’s shocked team at the same time said ‘f***’ – but it was quickly deleted.

YEAH!!! SUCK IT BLAIRITES!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232204/Red-buried-Poll-says-labour-lose-two-elections-Corbyn-sensationally-crowned-new-leader.html

As factual and unbiased an article as ever can be expected from the Daily Mail

And a poll of 100 people! And 100 people who read the Mail on Sunday! That is sure to be representative of the public as a whole!

Hey, it's a tabloid, little better than the Sun or Daily Star. I'm under no delusions and make no claims as to its objectivity and how factual it is. I just read it because I'm lazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Anyone looking forward to a bit of this in Corbyn's Labour Party?

My favourite cartoon as a kid.

The only people who think the Liberals will recover anytime soon are Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg's goldfish

To suggest any kind of support on the back of Corbyn's victory is pie in the sky politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.

I for one, would be happy with the Lib Dems supplanting Labour as the Opposition. I think that regardless of Clegg's getting played like an accordion, the Lib Dems are generally the nicest of the parties. I disagree with many of their policies, but I like their politicians the best.

Me too. PLus, for most of the past 15 years the Liberals have been more left wing than the Labour Party.

Say that again with a straight face

During their coalition days, the Libs Dems were enthusiastic cheerleaders for some of the worst excesses of Tory policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
As a relative of a staunch Liberal Democrat, I can tell you he's rubbing his hands in glee at the prospect of Labour centrists crossing the floor to the Lib Dems - and if Labour prove unelectable, that support from the centrists making the Lib Dems more electable.

2-3 years down the line, the lib dems will still be holding their meetings in a phone box. Nah, It'll take years for them to recover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think some Tories are rubbing their hands with glee assuming labour will be unelectable. While others are probably worried because it makes things more unpredictable . Who knows how things will develop in a couple of years and the direction the wind will blow with the electorate. I think many on both sides were happier with Labour being closer to the Conservatives as it doesn't create potential for a massive swing in favour of one or the other, they fear real choice and unpredictability.

Before the Tories start rubbing their hands with glee over Labour, they would do well to remember this important equation of British politics:

Tories + Slim Majority + Europe = Cluster feth of epic proportions

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The only people who think the Liberals will recover anytime soon are Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg's goldfish

To suggest any kind of support on the back of Corbyn's victory is pie in the sky politics.

Nobody said the word 'soon'. It's not going to happen next week, or next month, or even next year. What we're anticipating is the potential consequences for Labour as a result of Corbyn taking over combined with the current doctrinal void at the heart of the Labour party.

As things stand, the Lib Dems were 3 1/2 million votes down in 2015 compared to 2010. But that still left them with 2 1/2 million votes (as compared to the SNP's current 1 1/2 million). Those votes are their core voter base, the ones who aren't disaffected students or Labourites. They won't be going anywhere, and they can rebuild on those.

Now that may seem dreadful, but remember, memory in politics is short, and the Lib Dems still retain a highly organised UK wide party organisation, and have a fairly serious chunk of funding. They got blitzed in terms of seats this Parliament as a backlash for going into coalition, but that will be a temporary effect. I would be surprised if they didn't pick up another million extra votes and a handful more seats at the end of this Parliament regardless.

The Liberal Democrats are actually the natural voter base for the majority of today's younger voters. They're not Labourites, they remember Blair's smoke and mirrors, and Brown's feth ups too much. With the doctrinal void in Labour, there's nothing to keep them there. At the same time however, the Conservatives have always been the party of those that already have money/property, which the young don't tend to possess. In terms of principles, today's youth also tends to be liberal in matters of gay rights and suchlike. To repeat, the younger population are the natural Lib Dem voters.


Now all this is somewhat irrelevant though if Labour stays together as a cohesive force. Labour still soaks up too many votes for the Lib Dems to have any chance in the next decade or two. If Labour splits as a result of Corbyn though, a scenario I'd give 50/50 odds on right now, Labour will disintegrate into the real left wingers, who will pull actual socialist policies out of the hat, and a new party filled with the Blairites. I'd estimate that in such a scenario, Labour's voterbase in the general election will probably be split about 35/30(with the rest defecting). Old school Labour has taken the Labour Party by storm (which I expected), I don't see it taking the country. Too many remember when the dead weren't being buried and the bins backing up for real old school Socialism to do very well. But the Blairites aren't exactly an attractive lot either.

In such a scenario, the Liberal Democrats will probably be on an even footing with the two Labour descendants in terms of money and core voter base. What's more, they'll also still be a unified, organised force, whereas the two Labour descendants will be squabbling over who campaigns where, and who gets which party HQ. In such a scenario, a canny Liberal Democrat leader would be well-placed to shove the other two out of the door, and assume the role of the Opposition over a ten year period or so.

I'd place the odds on that occurring at about 20% right now. Not staggeringly high, but Corbyn's substantial victory (and bringing in of Tom Watson) has raised it from the somewhat iffy 8% I would have given it five days ago.

Younger people were the Lib Dems natural voters.

But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.

To say nothing of the Tories messing about with the NHS or Welfare.

Young people don't like being lied to. I didn't and I won't consider voting for them again until every last one of the MPs who voted for Tory policies which were completely against the Lib Dem manifesto are no longer in the party.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Younger people were the Lib Dems natural voters.

But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.

Quite frankly, the only young people who were burned by the tuition fees increase were the ones too stupid to read the actual T &C on student loans, and vastly overinflated the issue (I was an undergrad at the time). I still remember watching them on telly camped out around Parliament, tearfully sobbing that they could 'never raise that kind of money to go to University'. They were also too thick to grasp the financial ramifications of 50% of people going to University.

Five years on, more people than ever are going to uni, and that batch of young people are now 'not so young' people. In another five years, they'll just be 'people', and a new batch of 'young people' will have replaced them who don't know or care about what the Lib Dems did in coalition a decade beforehand.

Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.

The only contributions my parents needed to make was with travel expenses (minimal, as I lived on campus for 3 years) and food (£25 a week in my 2nd year when my rent was particularly high). I lived reasonably comfortably without needing a job (no social life and being only an occasional light drinker gives you a lot of spare cash. I probably spent more at GW in 3 years than I did on alcohol . )

University education is ridiculously bloated now anyway. I'm starting to wish I hadn't gone myself and had done something vocational or joined the RAF (which I briefly considered). Now I'm 24, and reconsidering the RAF, but I've just found out that having Aspergers is a total bar on joining (which I probably have).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.

The only contributions my parents needed to make was with travel expenses (minimal, as I lived on campus for 3 years) and food (£25 a week in my 2nd year when my rent was particularly high). I lived reasonably comfortably without needing a job (no social life and being only an occasional light drinker gives you a lot of spare cash. I probably spent more at GW in 3 years than I did on alcohol . )

University education is ridiculously bloated now anyway. I'm starting to wish I hadn't gone myself and had done something vocational or joined the RAF (which I briefly considered). Now I'm 24, and reconsidering the RAF, but I've just found out that having Aspergers is a total bar on joining (which I probably have).

As an ex student of this past year, I agree that there are too many people in university. I was one of them, I didn't want to go to university but because I want to be a teacher, I needed too.

Same for my loans, I haven't paid a penny towards my university degree. The government paid it, if I earn enough, I'll eventually pay it back. But I doubt I'll pay all of it off.

Which makes me think, seeing as most people won't get around to paying off their loans, why isn't the whole system free anyway? One way or another the government funds it.

As for labour, I'm old enough to remember brown and Blair, and I'm still not convinced by corbyn. Luckily I voted Tory, and I event predicted they would win months before the election.

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Younger people were the Lib Dems natural voters.

But now they're having to pay £9k a year for tuition and are also on the road to losing maintenance grants. All of which won't improve the countries economy one bit but will instead lead to a massive black hole in government money 30 years from now. And this was pushed through by people who didn't pay a penny for their own university education, except for possibly what their parents "donated" in order for them to get into Oxford or Cambridge.

Quite frankly, the only young people who were burned by the tuition fees increase were the ones too stupid to read the actual T &C on student loans, and vastly overinflated the issue (I was an undergrad at the time). I still remember watching them on telly camped out around Parliament, tearfully sobbing that they could 'never raise that kind of money to go to University'. They were also too thick to grasp the financial ramifications of 50% of people going to University.

Five years on, more people than ever are going to uni, and that batch of young people are now 'not so young' people. In another five years, they'll just be 'people', and a new batch of 'young people' will have replaced them who don't know or care about what the Lib Dems did in coalition a decade beforehand.

They also won't care about a party which only has 8 MPs (and I don't see that increasing much in the next election). If they want to vote for an underdog I think they'll be more likely to vote for the Greens. The Liberal Democrats are over.

Student loans that you'll 'never' have to pay off because of your income level still have disadvantages,

they are debt, and thus have a bearing on getting other sorts of loans like credit cards, mortgages etc, and because you'll 'never' pay them off this might not cause you grief now, but could come back to bite you at any time

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Isn't it the case that most people are entitled to at least a loan at bare minimum? I didn't get any grants as my parents are reasonably well off, but nor did I have to pay a penny up front, my entire costs were funded through loans.

Everyone gets the loan if they want it, the thing your parent's income level decides is how much of your maintenance cash is grant, and how much is tacked onto the loan. Altogether, they usually give you just about enough to pay your rent and food bills (although you'll have to be frugal if your parents are seriously high earners). If you're a heavy drinker/socialite, it won't be nearly enough, but the way I see it, if you want to urinate money away on booze, you should be getting a part-time job to pay for it.

welshhoppo wrote:

As an ex student of this past year, I agree that there are too many people in university. I was one of them, I didn't want to go to university but because I want to be a teacher, I needed too.

You used to be able to do teacher training at a Polytechnic, Canterbury Christchurch is an excellent example of an ex-poly which specialised in teacher training, and continues to do so. The only difference, is that now your qualification has 'degree' stamped on it, and costs an arm and a leg more to help fund their shiny new science department.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

They also won't care about a party which only has 8 MPs (and I don't see that increasing much in the next election). If they want to vote for an underdog I think they'll be more likely to vote for the Greens. The Liberal Democrats are over.

If a party can go from over 50 MP's to under ten in a single election, it can easily claw them back again. Your dislike of the current Lib Dems is blinding you to the fact that the FPTP system works in a very strange way. The SNP got a million less votes, and about fifty more seats this time around. Next time around (because political memory is short), they'll probably claw back another ten or so at least. Or perhaps more. Or perhaps not. The point being made here is that the number of seats actually has very little to do with votes gained and structural influence in this country.

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:Student loans that you'll 'never' have to pay off because of your income level still have disadvantages,

they are debt, and thus have a bearing on getting other sorts of loans like credit cards, mortgages etc, and because you'll 'never' pay them off this might not cause you grief now, but could come back to bite you at any time

Most banks usually discount student loans when making decisions for things like credit cards (or I wouldn't have one! ). I have a friend who works at Halifax and deals with these things, and she said that they rarely take a student loan into a decision on a mortgage beyond the standard 'How much do the repayments deduct from your income' perspective. Being a few thousand in overdraft is far more damaging.

@ketara.

I know that now, but I didn't know about it four years ago.

I was quite a bright student, cruised through my a levels with the greatest of ease.......

But I found that my school, and the schools of many other people that I've talked to, have this attitude of "your a good student, therefore the only option is university and we will make it very hard for you to try and apply for anything else." They make it into a case of university or death!

University and vocational training were meant to enable each and every special snowflake become super over achieving mega stars!

No matter that there were never enough jobs out there for each and every 3rd class media and social studies graduate.

My only thought on Corbyn is that you don't always have to lead the party to a national win to have an effect on politics. If nothing else, it's likely that future Labour politicians will have to be a lot more respectful of the left of their own party in order to be confident of winning and holding leadership of their party. The effect of that, possibly, is to drag UK politics a little to the left from where it is now.

Actually, my other thought is that he shares his initials with me and Jesus, so I find myself vaguely sort of barracking for him because of that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Historically the Conservatives have sold off an awful lot of public assets at low prices, starting with British Gas in the 1980s. Some of these schemes have worked pretty well (BT for example), while others have had dismal results (the railways and water industries in particular.)

Yeah, privatisation is pretty hit and miss. And while it's often obvious in hindsight which ones work or don't, I'm not sure anyone has ever set up a really clear set of descriptors for figuring it out beforehand. It's obvious now why telecommunications privatisation worked while water failed, but I'm not sure it should have been obvious beforehand.

I guess railway privatisation was always destined to fail, though. That one seemed obvious at the time.

Both Labour and Conservatives have comprehensively proven the last 30 years that neither of them should be allowed to run a bath, never mind the world's 6th richest country!

It's funny though, because you're not the 6th richest country in the world by accident. Your governments, both Conservative and Labour aren't the only reason why, but they also perhaps aren't purely the drag they're often seemed to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
If you look at Government expenditure from your perspective, the graph above tells us that all was hunky dory up until 2007, at which point Labour spending due to the GFC began rising. But such a graph (unfortunately) does not tell the whole story. It does not tell us if that spending was justified, it does not tell us if the expenditure of previous institutions was necessary where another's was not, it does not tell us what their income was to their expenditure, and it does not tell us if borrowing was being incurred. It does not tell us many things which are necessary to reach a reasoned judgement and a full economic overview, but many of which are encapsulated in the previous graphs I gave, namely the ones including government expenditure in real terms, the rising of the national debt, and the amount of public sector receipts.

Your graphs make no comment at all on whether spending was justified, or whether previous spending was necessary. Graphs can't do that. You need to actually review spending area by area, measure waste, set up best practice standards etc. Forget that for a forum debate

And yeah, if you want to make the claim that New Labour had spending consistent with previous Conservative governments but taxed much less you can make the claim and I think it's quite reasonable, but it's also miles away from the common narrative of the New Labour's financial performance. And of course, that opens up the question of whether the correct response was reduced spending or increased revenue...

If you cannot answer this key point, then you must concede that the Goverment was spending far beyond its means, and incurring debt unnecessarily. Which in turn, means they were not very good with finances.

No, the point I'm making is that New Labour brought spending down from the level it was under the previous Conservative government, and then saw it increase back up to the same level. They started with spending around 40% of GDP, they finished with spending around 40% of GDP.

There's a lot of commentary and much criticism that can be made, but 'ballooning spending' isn't really part of it once you see the real numbers.

 sebster wrote:


Your graphs make no comment at all on whether spending was justified, or whether previous spending was necessary. Graphs can't do that.

That's why I said that 'many' of the wider economic issues it is necessary to examine to reach a judgement are in the graphs I posted and not 'all' of them. The point here being that you've posted a single graph to support your assertion that New Labour actually wasn't really bad with money, and that that one graph is so specific as to tell us very little.

And yeah, if you want to make the claim that New Labour had spending consistent with previous Conservative governments but taxed much less you can make the claim

I've asserted nothing of the sort? I'm not arguing for Conservative competence here, but Labour incompetence.

and I think it's quite reasonable, but it's also miles away from the common narrative of the New Labour's financial performance. And of course, that opens up the question of whether the correct response was reduced spending or increased revenue...

Errr......New Labour raised taxes when they came into power. They raised taxes and raised spending. It's one of the reasons the tax receipts went up along with their expenditure.

No, the point I'm making is that New Labour brought spending down from the level it was under the previous Conservative government, and then saw it increase back up to the same level.

New Labour inherited balanced books and a budget surplus from John Major's government. They didn't 'bring spending down'. You're still fixating on that one chart of 'spending as a percentage of GDP' to the exclusion of all else. As a percentage of GDP, spending dropped in the 1998-2000 period yes, but in real terms, aka, the actual figure spent, government expenditure went from 308.4 billion to 340.8 billion.

Which, as I keep stating, is fine. The money was in the kitty. It's 2002-2007 figures that to me, prove New Labour's economic incompetence.

They started with spending around 40% of GDP, they finished with spending around 40% of GDP.

Is this genuinely the only measure by which you personally gauge a Government's economic competence? Because it seems to be the one figure you keep falling back on, whilst doing absolutely nothing to address the figures/reasoning I keep repeating. And whilst it's a useful enough tool to begin with, it really doesn't tell you very much at the end of the day.

There's a lot of commentary and much criticism that can be made, but 'ballooning spending' isn't really part of it once you see the real numbers.

Okay. ;'Real numbers' (as opposed to percentages of GDP). Government expenditure in 1997:- 308.4 billion. In 2002:- 389.1 billion. In 2006:- 523.5 billion. In 2009:- 633.8 billion.

Please tell me how this increase of expenditure does not qualify as 'ballooning spending'. Because even if the money had all been there (which it very clearly was not), a more than doubling of expenditure would still qualify as 'ballooning' in my book. The only way it would not be, would be if there had been substantial-hyper inflation, meaning the money was worth considerably less in real terms, or if the larger part of the increase was in the post 2007 period (to represent Keynesian economic stimulation, which would still be ballooning, but would be justified). But that's really not the case here in either example, so I'm genuinely curious as to how you can contradict me on this one.

 Ketara wrote:
That's why I said that 'many' of the wider economic issues it is necessary to examine to reach a judgement are in the graphs I posted and not 'all' of them. The point here being that you've posted a single graph to support your assertion that New Labour actually wasn't really bad with money, and that that one graph is so specific as to tell us very little.

No, my assertion is that the accepted narrative of runaway spending is not supported by the facts. A simple narrative that actually fit the facts would be 'New Labour started with spending at about 40%, brought that down considerably, then let it drift back up to 40%'.

I've got personal opinions on whether spending should ever be as high as 40% under any government in any developed country, but those opinions are likely formed by my experience as an Australian, and don't really matter to what level you guys should decide upon for your own country.

Errr......New Labour raised taxes when they came into power. They raised taxes and raised spending. It's one of the reasons the tax receipts went up along with their expenditure.

They bumped up taxes in the old strategy of letting the pain happen early on, then easing up. Much the same as the current Conservative strategy of slashing spending when they first came to term, then steadily going back to business as it always was. Look, graphs! See the spike when they first came to office, followed by a plateau on what was about the average historic rate of revenue.

New Labour inherited balanced books and a budget surplus from John Major's government. They didn't 'bring spending down'. You're still fixating on that one chart of 'spending as a percentage of GDP' to the exclusion of all else.

That is the only measure that has any value.

Is this genuinely the only measure by which you personally gauge a Government's economic competence?

It's not the only measure to gauge economic competence, but it is the only measure on which to gauge fiscal budgeting.

Okay. ;'Real numbers' (as opposed to percentages of GDP). Government expenditure in 1997:- 308.4 billion. In 2002:- 389.1 billion. In 2006:- 523.5 billion. In 2009:- 633.8 billion.

Real numbers ignore population growth, inflation and productivity increases. Which makes them useless. The way to factor in those is to measure as a % of GDP.

Because even if the money had all been there (which it very clearly was not), a more than doubling of expenditure would still qualify as 'ballooning' in my book.

It's pretty simple really. Let's say I'm treasurer for the local wargaming club. With 100 members in the club I spend $1,000 a year on all the necessary expenses - rent, maintenance, prizes and advertising. You are put in control, and over your first couple of years you reduce spending down to $800 a year. Then in the next 8 years is grows out to $1,200.

I want my old job back, so I complain that you increased spending by 50%, from $800 to $1,200. You point out that it isn't very sensible to pick a point part way through your tenure as the low point from which spending increased, and actually if you consider there's now 120 members, and so per member you're actually spending the same as it was before you took the job.

 Ketara wrote:
the Lib Dems still retain a highly organised UK wide party organisation, and have a fairly serious chunk of funding.

They can't compete with Labour on these areas (I know as someone who's done door-to-door campaigning for them at a General Election and is friends with one of the guys who works in that department for them).

This paper makes interesting reading.

www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn93.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3242494/Revenge-PM-s-snub-billionaire-funded-Tories-years-sparked-explosive-political-book-decade.html

It makes allegations of drug taking and debauchery by David Cameron
Suggests he knew in 2009 Lord Ashcroft was controversial 'non dom'
PM once 'put a private part of his anatomy' into dead pig, source claims

... ... he...what sorry ..???!!!??



.. wow.

Seems Black Mirror by Charlie Brooker was sharper than we thought perhaps.


edit :

https://twitter.com/charltonbrooker/status/645738652442734592

Just to clear it up: nope, I’d never heard anything about Cameron and a pig when coming up with that story. So this weirds me out.