Congratulations, Gordon

[teamsaint]

Those figures also need to be looked at in relation to the tories from 79 to 97, when only 4 years were under 40% . (for better or worse).
There were two main phases of spending growth under labour. From 2002 onwards, due in a fair degree to the decision to spend a lot more on the NHS, and from 2008 onwards due to the banking crash.

AIC, if it is "nothing to do with the crash", what did cause the huge rise from 2008 onwards?
Where did all that rescue money come from?

From 1980/81 to 1985/86 the tories were above 45%...6 consecutive years.
It is simply untrue to say that labour was , in general, reckless with public finance. I am not defending anybody, just pointing out a few facts.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As I recall, the first two thrifty years were when they claimed they were sticking with the locked-in plans of the previous administration. It seems the rot set in around 2001 when they started those additional spends in the public sector. Nothing to do with the crash.

Looking at the figures, spending only got out of hand in 2008-9, and that was as a result the crash. Public spending is generally a good thing, but not when it becomes reckless (like building free schools)

[teamsaint]

Looking at the figures, spending only got out of hand in 2008-9, and that was as a result the crash. Public spending is generally a good thing, but not when it becomes reckless (like building free schools)

the spending pattern is plain to see from those figures. Public spending is fine, if its spent well. Rescuing greedy banks doesn't fit my criteria for being spent well.

[Serial_Apologist]

I understand that if GB hadn't "saved" the banks, all our savings would have gone down the swannee; at the time it was said we were a hair's breadth from all the withdrawal facilities being withdrawn. I don't see how the move could have been avoided, unfortunately.

[teamsaint]

well the government had a long term scheme to protect certain levels of savings . That level is currently£85 k per bank, I think.
It would be an interesting discussion. One point that is of interest, is that "Moral Hazard", so beloved of the Neo cons in america doesn't seem to apply to banks.
but, as I say, perhaps for another thread....

[An_Inspector_Calls]

AIC, if it is "nothing to do with the crash", what did cause the huge rise from 2008 onwards?
Where did all that rescue money come from?

I think you mean 'the huge rise from 2002'. Wasn't that the time that the huge handouts to the public sector started?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4555344.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/943374.stm

And Labour can take the crown for highest ever percentage:

1973-74 44.4
1974-75 48.6
1975-76 49.7
1976-77 48.6
1977-78 45.6
1978-79 45.1

[teamsaint]

There was a rise from 2002, but it was STILL well within the historic norms and well below what the tories had spent.

huge handouts? I suggested already that it was substantially down to increases in NHS spending, which certainly did happen. As for schools, well I haven't examined the spending closely.It certainly didn't give classroom teachers much bigger pay packets.

None of which has anything to do with my original point, which is that it is a fallacy/myth/lie , call it what you will, to suggest that labour was reckless with public spending, compared to the tories.

and incidentally, even after the huge sums spent on rescuing the banks, labour spent over 47% of GDP in just 2 years. The tories managed 5 successive years at over 47 % from 1980 to 85, mostly caused no doubt by spending on the dole, caused by their recession.

So it is in fact the tories who are reckless with public spending, over the last 30 years, not labour.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

There was a rise from 2002, but it was STILL well within the historic norms and well below what the tories had spent.

Well it was less than during the war, but then it was a departure from the norm during a period of low inflation, and it was done with overt intent. So rubbish, Labour were profligate with our money.

[teamsaint]

Well it was less than during the war, but then it was a departure from the norm during a period of low inflation, and it was done with overt intent. So rubbish, Labour were profligate with our money.

How about you actually demonstrate with some of those very good statistics from the Guardian ,that labour spent more over any period of time than the tories?
It can't be done, and you moving the goalposts or bringing the war (or whatever) into won't make any difference.
It is clear as daylight. Whats more , I don't even care who spent more.
The truth is at issue. The stats are clear.
The claim that , compared to the tories, labour were profligate, is a lie.

Argue the stats, or you are trolling.

[ahinton]

How about you actually demonstrate with some of those very good statistics from the Guardian ,that labour spent more over any period of time than the tories?
It can't be done, and you moving the goalposts or bringing the war (or whatever) into won't make any difference.
It is clear as daylight. Whats more , I don't even care who spent more.
The truth is at issue. The stats are clear.
The claim that , compared to the tories, labour were profligate, is a lie.

Argue the stats, or you are trolling.

Hey, cool it! Surely they've all been profligate with our money to greater or lesser degree until recently when they've necessarily deveoped the skill to be more profligate with the money that they've borrowed and which in part substitutes for at least some of what was once deemed to be "our" money? After all, whose money is who's any more? (not that this question undermines the gravity of that governmentally universal financial-stream-of-consciousness profligacy)...

[Lateralthinking1]

And on 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) to discharge the last of its war loans from the US so that too has to be deducted. I have always believed that there was a link between the timing of that final payment and the American crash. In substantive terms, it wasn't highly significant but psychologically it should have changed the relationship and people were aware some years earlier that it would be paid. Arguably the US had become overly reliant on the idea of Europe being in debt to it. Instinctively it wobbled while simultaneously ensuring that rebalancing wouldn't occur, even to its own detriment.

[teamsaint]

Hey, cool it! Surely they've all been profligate with our money to greater or lesser degree until recently when they've necessarily deveoped the skill to be more profligate with the money that they've borrowed and which in part substitutes for at least some of what was once deemed to be "our" money? After all, whose money is who's any more? (not that this question undermines the gravity of that governmentally universal financial-stream-of-consciousness profligacy)...

Well you have a point AH, but looking back over the thread, its clear that my point was, all along, that there is a myth perpetrated that labour are always more profligate with our money,but that in fact the stats don't bear this out.
But you are right, governments of all flavours are frequently profligate with our money.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

looking back over the thread, its clear that my point was, all along, that there is a myth perpetrated that labour are always more profligate with our money

Ah, there you go, changing the slant of the argument. No, the thread's about Labour principally under Gordon. Not about Labour in general.

Here's a nice piece, totally unbiased, about Gordon/Balls overspending:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8569367/Labour-spending-Gordon-Brown-and-Ed-Balls-ignored-warnings-and-wasted-billions.html

Crystal clear. No revisionist finance required!

[teamsaint]

Ah, there you go, changing the slant of the argument. No, the thread's about Labour principally under Gordon. Not about Labour in general.

Here's a nice piece, totally unbiased, about Gordon/Balls overspending:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8569367/Labour-spending-Gordon-Brown-and-Ed-Balls-ignored-warnings-and-wasted-billions.html

Crystal clear. No revisionist finance required!

as ever, just moving the goalposts, or misrepresenting people.
Please don't.
My posts on this thread have ALWAYS been about how misrepresentations are made, NOT about who did a better job.
you don't like the facts, so you misrepresent me.
The thread is about Brown, but my points about how people are perceived are relevant and valid.

one telegraph article really dosn't stack up against the Guardian Stats, which show that, over decades, the tories spend more as a percentage of GDP than labour.
Those are the facts.
I don't care who spent more money. I wouldn't vote for either of the big two parties. I am interested in the truth.

[Resurrection Man]

Ah well you weren't to know Lats, but Thatcher turns out not to be a good comparator in making your point ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/s...r-hotel-living

Petty jealousy, nothing more nor less.

If I had some friends who offered to put me up somewhere comfortable to recuperate then why not?