Did Labour crash the economy?

[sten_super]

Where the hell did you get that piece of optimism from? The one thing all parties agree on is that our debt is too high.

Politicians are the wrong people to ask about debt serviceability. Try asking one of the traders on here, someone might deal in government bonds.

This chart makes the point quite succinctly, however.

Are you kidding?

"who plan to talk about the economy over the next 100 days. Here is a very simple fact. [3] GDP per head (a much better guide to average prosperity than GDP itself) grew at an average rate of less than 1% in the four years from 2010 to 2014. [1] In the previous 13 years (1997 to 2010), growth averaged over 1.5%. So growth in GDP per head was more than 50% higher under Labour than under the Conservatives, even though the biggest recession since the 1930s is included in the Labour period!"

Of course GDP was growing more slowly from 2010 (compared to 1997), because the country had been left in a complete mess. To say that the recession is included in the Labour period is laughable. It's not really worth reading more of a blog that's clearly biased bollocks.

I (kind of) agree with you that it's difficult to directly compare performance (and SWL makes the same point in the comments). But broadly speaking, GDP per capita dips during a recession and rises relatively quickly again afterwards; we had a sharp downturn during the recession but there's been far less pickup (see my rather hastily constructed graph attached). He is right in as much as Tory crowing on the economy is rather misplaced - but Labour made this easy for him by being quite so unequivocal about the impacts of austerity in the first place. Unfortunately the whole argument is reduced to political soundbites, which doesn't leave much room for nuance in what is clearly a complex area (the performance of the economy and the relationship between austerity and economic growth).

 

[Triggaaar]

The worse part of the recession was 2008 to 2010 wasn't it?

The recession was 2008-2009. Labour's overall figures are dented by a year of recession, and boosted by several boom years. The coalition's figures don't have any boom years, they just have figures from a slow recovery from a recession that, whatever your political persuasion, was clearly not the tory's fault. Labour can say they'd have done better, the tories can say labour would have done worse, such is politics. The GDP in recent years have clearly been hugely effected by the global recession, so comparing the current governments figures with those of a government that enjoyed the boom before the bust is pointless.

We were recovering when the coalition came to power? The country was in a global financial mess along with the rest of the world.

That's what I'm saying

 

[El Presidente]

The recession was 2008-2009. Labour's overall figures are dented by a year of recession, and boosted by several boom years. The coalition's figures don't have any boom years, they just have figures from a slow recovery from a recession that, whatever your political persuasion, was clearly not the tory's fault. Labour can say they'd have done better, the tories can say labour would have done worse, such is politics. The GDP in recent years have clearly been hugely effected by the global recession, so comparing the current governments figures with those of a government that enjoyed the boom before the bust is pointless.

That's what I'm saying

What would JESUS have done though?

 

[Brighton Mod]

Who knighted Fred the Shred for services to banking?

 

[Bold Seagull]

The recession was 2008-2009. Labour's overall figures are dented by a year of recession, and boosted by several boom years. The coalition's figures don't have any boom years, they just have figures from a slow recovery from a recession that, whatever your political persuasion, was clearly not the tory's fault. Labour can say they'd have done better, the tories can say labour would have done worse, such is politics. The GDP in recent years have clearly been hugely effected by the global recession, so comparing the current governments figures with those of a government that enjoyed the boom before the bust is pointless.

That's what I'm saying

So really, not total bollocks then? Just presented with a particular slant, as is all opinion. Perhaps you just overreacted to the initial part of the blog?

 

[Hotchilidog]

Labour did not crash the economy. They were the victims of a global recession. They did however facilitate it by following a Tory-esque level of financical deregulation which allowed the city to run riot. To suggest that the Tories would have prevented the collapse is simply delusional.

You only have to look at Osborne's failure to tackle the deficit and his record level of borrowing to see what bunch of economic incompetents the tories are. The man barely managed to get a history degree let alone one in economics or maths.

The sad reality for most of us, is that wherever you look either within the Conservatives or Labour party this current class of politician is extremely low. The Tories look out for their own and Labour just pander to whatever prejudice they think will win them a vote. Pitiful, both of them.

Hopefully the SNP and Greens will help the Labour party realise that they exist to represent the majority of hard working and less fortunate people in this country of ours and they can actually provide an alternative to the scapegoating of the Tories who are only interested in their rich mates.

 

[Machiavelli]

The coalition's figures don't have any boom years, they just have figures from a slow recovery from a recession that, whatever your political persuasion, was clearly not the tory's fault.

You keep on saying certain things, without justifying them. Economies tend to rebound quite well after recessions, as there's plenty of spare capacity that has been lost during the downturn. The economy did in the two other recessions featured in that graph, but it's been painfully slow this time round. So why can't we blame the incumbents this time round?

 

[Steve Foster]

More business leaders – including a Trade Minister in the last Labour government – have come out and said that Labour doesn’t understand business.
1.Lord Jones, the former Labour Trade Minister, says that Labour have a ‘problem with business’ (Today, 4 Feb 2015).
2.Brent Hoberman, founder of Lastminute.com, says that by waging a war on business, Labour are trying to ‘intimidate people into not voicing their opinion’.
3.Simon Woodroffe, founder of YO! Sushi, says that the prospect of a Labour government is scary: ‘What I don’t hear from Labour now is a good understanding of business and that scares me’ (Times, 4 Feb 2015).

These damning verdicts follow criticism of Labour from other business leaders, including the boss of Boots and the former head of Marks & Spencer.

Businesses bring investment to Britain and create the jobs that give security to hardworking families – but Labour doesn’t understand that.

It’s clearer than ever that Labour are anti-business and would mean chaos for our economy. They want to hit businesses with higher taxes, which would cost jobs and make families more insecure.

Only the Conservatives have a long-term economic plan that’s backing businesses, creating jobs and helping hardworking families.

 

[El Presidente]

Yeah it was you bushy, just you. You caused the crash.

Sir, Sir. BUSHY did it Sir!

 

[drew]

More business leaders – including a Trade Minister in the last Labour government – have come out and said that Labour doesn’t understand business.
1.Lord Jones, the former Labour Trade Minister, says that Labour have a ‘problem with business’ (Today, 4 Feb 2015).
2.Brent Hoberman, founder of Lastminute.com, says that by waging a war on business, Labour are trying to ‘intimidate people into not voicing their opinion’.
3.Simon Woodroffe, founder of YO! Sushi, says that the prospect of a Labour government is scary: ‘What I don’t hear from Labour now is a good understanding of business and that scares me’ (Times, 4 Feb 2015).

These damning verdicts follow criticism of Labour from other business leaders, including the boss of Boots and the former head of Marks & Spencer.

Businesses bring investment to Britain and create the jobs that give security to hardworking families – but Labour doesn’t understand that.

It’s clearer than ever that Labour are anti-business and would mean chaos for our economy. They want to hit businesses with higher taxes, which would cost jobs and make families more insecure.

Only the Conservatives have a long-term economic plan that’s backing businesses, creating jobs and helping hardworking families.

What a load of garbage. Of course Labour understand that business brings jobs but, given a free reign, a lot of business would not give security to hard working families. They would pay as little as they can get away with because the business leaders responsibility is not to their customers or their employees but to their shareholders. A lot of business leaders don't want a labour government because it threatens the amount they can earn, not because of any perceived threat to the broader society.

I've got no time for leaders of business who are only interested in their earnings just as I have no time for a trotsky esque union leader that only sees what benefits his union rather than the broader society.

 

[sten_super]

<snip>

Out of interest, do you write anything yourself or is every post a cut and paste from a press release? From memory a lot of your Israel stuff is similar...

 

[Hotchilidog]

More business leaders – including a Trade Minister in the last Labour government – have come out and said that Labour doesn’t understand business.
1.Lord Jones, the former Labour Trade Minister, says that Labour have a ‘problem with business’ (Today, 4 Feb 2015).
2.Brent Hoberman, founder of Lastminute.com, says that by waging a war on business, Labour are trying to ‘intimidate people into not voicing their opinion’.
3.Simon Woodroffe, founder of YO! Sushi, says that the prospect of a Labour government is scary: ‘What I don’t hear from Labour now is a good understanding of business and that scares me’ (Times, 4 Feb 2015).

These damning verdicts follow criticism of Labour from other business leaders, including the boss of Boots and the former head of Marks & Spencer.

Businesses bring investment to Britain and create the jobs that give security to hardworking families – but Labour doesn’t understand that.

It’s clearer than ever that Labour are anti-business and would mean chaos for our economy. They want to hit businesses with higher taxes, which would cost jobs and make families more insecure.

Only the Conservatives have a long-term economic plan that’s backing businesses, creating jobs and helping hardworking families.

I'm not sure if this sarcasm or irony. Whatever still bloody funny though.

 

[Hamilton]

Sir, Sir. BUSHY did it Sir!

Detention. Both of you.

 

[Steve Foster]

Out of interest, do you write anything yourself or is every post a cut and paste from a press release? From memory a lot of your Israel stuff is similar...

............................. perhaps I write some of the original articles

 

[beorhthelm]

What a load of garbage. Of course Labour understand that business brings jobs but, given a free reign, a lot of business would not give security to hard working families. They would pay as little as they can get away with because the business leaders responsibility is not to their customers or their employees but to their shareholders. A lot of business leaders don't want a labour government because it threatens the amount they can earn, not because of any perceived threat to the broader society.

business leaders are interested in wider society and its a sad state of affairs the polarisation of our politics that people dont see this. the better off, financially and in wellbeing, that the country is, the more people want to spend, the better it is for business. i dont know why the image of 19th century robber barons is the only image people have of business, i doubt it was common even then. your typical businessman will find a way to make money this way or that and they'll generally want the easier way - like we all do - which is to have a prosperous economy that businesses can flourish in.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Just heard Clegg (Clegg, not Cameron) trot out this hackneyed line (he thinks Labour should apologise). No doubt we will hear this a million times over between now and May. To what extent do you think this is true - or was the economic crisis caused by the greed of the bankers or global forces beyond Labour's control?

Could the Labour Government have left the country in a better place to be able to cope with a potential world economy crisis? - It presided over a period of long economic growth (possibly helped by the timing of the 3G license sales which boosted the coffers when the previous world slump happened so there was the money to be able to prop up the economy then and sadly for the country, there was nothing left because Labour had been spending everything it raked in (and far more) believing it's own spin of the end of boom and bust and hadn't saved for a rainy day (in good times with extra tax income, etc, they should have been reducing the burden on the public coffers rather than bloating the system with so many public employees who need to be paid for mainly by tax payers money, when the tax income drops (as happens in a recession) how do you continue to pay for it all?

Sadly with the countries monstrous debt, all parties are unable to achieve what they really want.
Labour - High spending on Government services like the NHS but we don't have the proper funds to achieve this, and a high tax rate to cover this reduces the publics spending power and therefore can effect the economy, causing a downturn.
Conservatives - lower tax burden for all and therefore more freedom to spend your earnings how you want rather than lose it in tax which boosts the economy and is better for business, but is there enough public tax income left to provide the level of services we all want?

Both are a balancing act and neither are probably have the right balance to be truly sustainable long term. Without such a national debt, there would be more of the tax income available to spend on our services, so the more past, present and future Governments borrow, the harder it will be to deliver what we truely want as a citizen and a tax payer.

Would you rather have the choice to spend your excess earnings on things you want to do, like attend football matches, or payt more in tax tyhinking it's to the benefit of the country because more is spent on services like the Police and NHS, even if, in reality there is a lot of public sector workers who are really only there to push paper to each other to justify their jobs and salary and contribute very little to delivering what the tax payer really wants to see from the use of their taxes.

 

[Machiavelli]

Out of interest, do you write anything yourself or is every post a cut and paste from a press release? From memory a lot of your Israel stuff is similar...

Arf, arf. The grammar and logic was a tad different to his usual output, and I see he's reverted to type subsequently.

 

[Bob!]

.....and we all know it won't be from Apple, google or Amazon......costas etc(you get my point.)
BUT....their out to get the tax dogers
.....

Costa?

I thought they were the good guys and paid theTax, Starbucks & Caffe Nero are dodgers.

 

[fat old seagull]

Just heard Clegg (Clegg, not Cameron) trot out this hackneyed line (he thinks Labour should apologise). No doubt we will hear this a million times over between now and May. To what extent do you think this is true - or was the economic crisis caused by the greed of the bankers or global forces beyond Labour's control?

Unless this is another tiresome Party Political thread, why ask on here. Get the *right answer* by googling "Global Recession 1997"

* the right answer you will read .....was initiated by the Collapse of the USA's Housing Market.... and not as Messrs Cameron and Glegg would like you to believe ...this small countries previous fiscal policies.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

 

[drew]

Could the Labour Government have left the country in a better place to be able to cope with a potential world economy crisis? - It presided over a period of long economic growth (possibly helped by the timing of the 3G license sales which boosted the coffers when the previous world slump happened so there was the money to be able to prop up the economy then and sadly for the country, there was nothing left because Labour had been spending everything it raked in (and far more) believing it's own spin of the end of boom and bust and hadn't saved for a rainy day (in good times with extra tax income, etc, they should have been reducing the burden on the public coffers rather than bloating the system with so many public employees who need to be paid for mainly by tax payers money, when the tax income drops (as happens in a recession) how do you continue to pay for it all?

Sadly with the countries monstrous debt, all parties are unable to achieve what they really want.
Labour - High spending on Government services like the NHS but we don't have the proper funds to achieve this, and a high tax rate to cover this reduces the publics spending power and therefore can effect the economy, causing a downturn.
Conservatives - lower tax burden for all and therefore more freedom to spend your earnings how you want rather than lose it in tax which boosts the economy and is better for business, but is there enough public tax income left to provide the level of services we all want?

Both are a balancing act and neither are probably have the right balance to be truly sustainable long term. Without such a national debt, there would be more of the tax income available to spend on our services, so the more past, present and future Governments borrow, the harder it will be to deliver what we truely want as a citizen and a tax payer.

Would you rather have the choice to spend your excess earnings on things you want to do, like attend football matches, or payt more in tax tyhinking it's to the benefit of the country because more is spent on services like the Police and NHS, even if, in reality there is a lot of public sector workers who are really only there to push paper to each other to justify their jobs and salary and contribute very little to delivering what the tax payer really wants to see from the use of their taxes.

Difficult to see the political slant on that post!!!!!