UK - Election 2015

[Information Analyst]

Nonsense. I clearly mean; as long as they don't seek to determine our constitutional arrangements because of their lots of money they're welcome.

I thought Mike's point was that the uncertainty of the referendum robbed Scotland of a lot of investment, not that the potential investors were seeking any political influence through that investment.

 

[anglolawyer]

The argument there being that if Labour had run a tighter ship earlier in their time in office then we would have been in a stronger position to withstand the crash. The further argument being that it was Brown's short-sighted deregulation regime which allowed many of the unsafe banking practises which meant banks were less able to withstand the crash.

Happenstance. Are you seriously suggesting that, had the tories been in power in the lead up to the crash of 2008, there would have been tighter regulation of the banks?

 

[Information Analyst]

Happenstance. Are you seriously suggesting that, had the tories been in power in the lead up to the crash of 2008, there would have been tighter regulation of the banks?

Indded. It's notable that these complaints about Labour's performance are never coupled with any reference to pertinent warnings at the time on the part of Cameron et al as to where things might be headed.

 

[anglolawyer]

Indded. It's notable that these complaints about Labour's performance are never coupled with any reference to pertinent warnings at the time on the part of Cameron et al as to where things might be headed.

I think Vince Cable was the only one warning darkly about things overheating in the run-up to the 2008 fiasco. Governments of all stripes lurch about shutting stable doors after the horses have bolted. Now we must regulate more, now less, now home owners can have a 120% mortgage, now no more than 75% etc etc

Gordon Brown used to go on and on about 'transparency'. What I think he meant was that the flows of capital around the world are invisible, being mediated through private hands, making it hard to see what's going on until it has already happened. I visualise these trends as great ocean swells on which the ship of state is tossed willy-nilly with little to do but batten down the hatches and ensure all is as ship-shape as possible.

 

[MikeG]

Very much so. I've getting totally *********** bored with all the "Wah! Labour ********** the economy! They'll obviously do it again!" ******** as a "justification" to re-elect the same shower of ***** who have caused so much pain and misery in the last five years.

Right. Well, here's a statement then. Labour always **** the economy. They ALWAYS leave it in a worse mess than they find it. They always spend more than they should, because it is always their instinct to increase the size of the State.

You'll notice that nowhere in that bald unsubstantiated assertion did I say that the Conservatives don't also leave it in a mess now and then, or preside over huge crashes or high inflation. You'll also notice that I said nothing about the Conservatives propensity for leaving things in a societal mess.

But for your "***** who caused so much pain and misery over the last 5 years" I'd say........thanks to the Lib Dems who mitigated most of the pain. You did a great job, which only history will ever thank you properly for.

 

[Craig B]

I thought Mike's point was that the uncertainty of the referendum robbed Scotland of a lot of investment, not that the potential investors were seeking any political influence through that investment.

I understood that. I don't know how much it cost, if any net amount. My point is that we can't simply be swayed, in consideration of constitutional changes, by what some individual with lots of money would prefer in the way of certainty. That would fix things in their present condition for all time.

It is not suggested that the individual referred to intended to seek direct influence through financial contact with politicians, although of course that phenomenon is pervasive in modern politics as you must well know. But it is not what I was alluding to in my post.

 

[The Don]

I think Vince Cable was the only one warning darkly about things overheating in the run-up to the 2008 fiasco. Governments of all stripes lurch about shutting stable doors after the horses have bolted. Now we must regulate more, now less, now home owners can have a 120% mortgage, now no more than 75% etc etc

True, after the lending fiasco in the 80's we were assured that never again would mortgages of more than 3 1/2 times earning or 95% of house value be offered again. Indeed, even though we had a 10% deposit (£8k) for our flat in 1993 we had to buy an additional £800 insurance policy to indemnify the lender in the event that we defaulted and ended up in negative equity.

Roll the clock forward to 2003 and a colleague had a self-certified mortgage at 5 times earnings and 120% of property value.

 

[Information Analyst]

You'll notice that nowhere in that bald unsubstantiated assertion did I say that the Conservatives don't also leave it in a mess now and then, or preside over huge crashes or high inflation. You'll also notice that I said nothing about the Conservatives propensity for leaving things in a societal mess.

Every government ends up in a mess of some sort, otherwise they'd never get ousted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Every government ends up in a mess of some sort, otherwise they'd never get ousted.

Not altogether true.

Swing voters (the only ones who count when it comes to changes of government) are surprisingly easily swayed by the "grass is always greener on the other side" argument. Therefore, even if the current government is actually doing OK by objective measures, the opposition party/parties can almost always make a seductive argument that "we could do things even better".

And when you add in the depressing facts that the vast majority of voters in the UK are a) economically illiterate, b) uncomprehending of nearly all policy stances of all the main parties, and c) swayed by personalities over issues every day of the week, then it becomes easier to see how and why elections are won and lost.

 

[Rum]

Not altogether true.

Swing voters (the only ones who count when it comes to changes of government) are surprisingly easily swayed by the "grass is always greener on the other side" argument. Therefore, even if the current government is actually doing OK by objective measures, the opposition party/parties can almost always make a seductive argument that "we could do things even better".

And when you add in the depressing facts that the vast majority of voters in the UK are a) economically illiterate, b) uncomprehending of nearly all policy stances of all the main parties, and c) swayed by personalities over issues every day of the week, then it becomes easier to see how and why elections are won and lost.

..not helped by the two main parties keeping their cards so close to their chests. Nobody has any real or detailed idea where the savings/cuts are going to come to try to reduce the deficit.

 

[MikeG]

..not helped by the two main parties keeping their cards so close to their chests. Nobody has any real or detailed idea where the savings/cuts are going to come to try to reduce the deficit.

Isn't that the most galling thing about this whole campaign? Who'd have thought we could get through all of the last 4 or 5 weeks of campaigning without actually having a clue about the most important aspect of policy for the next 5 years. Shame on both of them.

 

[The Don]

..not helped by the two main parties keeping their cards so close to their chests. Nobody has any real or detailed idea where the savings/cuts are going to come to try to reduce the deficit.

Because they themselves have no idea. It's a Micawberesque hope that something will come along.

Economic growth may eventually bail them out but until and unless they grasp the nettles which are welfare (and in particular pensions) and the NHS (including social care and care for the elderly) then nothing much will happen.

 

[angrysoba]

I understood that. I don't know how much it cost, if any net amount. My point is that we can't simply be swayed, in consideration of constitutional changes, by what some individual with lots of money would prefer in the way of certainty. That would fix things in their present condition for all time.

It is not suggested that the individual referred to intended to seek direct influence through financial contact with politicians, although of course that phenomenon is pervasive in modern politics as you must well know. But it is not what I was alluding to in my post.

Yeah, I get what you mean. It is similar to arguments like, "We can't get rid of the monarchy. The Queen is a massive tourist attraction, and brings in huge money from people wanting to come to Buckingham Palace and see Royal babies etc..." which suggest that our constitutional arrangements ought to have a price attached to them instead of principle.

 

[Craig B]

Because they themselves have no idea. It's a Micawberesque hope that something will come along.

Economic growth may eventually bail them out but until and unless they grasp the nettles which are welfare (and in particular pensions) and the NHS (including social care and care for the elderly) then nothing much will happen.

The Welfare State was introduced at a time when UK National Debt As % of GDP was very much higher than it has been in recent years. See this Table.

 

[The Don]

The Welfare State was introduced at a time when UK National Debt As % of GDP was very much higher than it has been in recent years. See this Table.

There are however a number of significant differences in those circumstances.

In 1945 we were just coming out of a world war and the debts were, in the main, incurred as a result of the two world wars and the 1930s depression.

The rate at which the debt fell in GDP terms post 1945 illustrated that at the time there were great opportunities for economic growth and, given the marginal tax rates during the period, ability to generate tax revenue. Unless there is a fundamental and unprecedented change to the UK economy those growth rates are no longer attainable and raising taxes sufficiently is no longer politically possible (and given the sophistication of tax evasion and avoidance - eminently avoidable).

The size of the welfare state was also significantly smaller. Demand for NHS services seems to be almost entirely elastic and expectancy (both personal and life) is at all-time highs at the same time that social cohesion is low. Back in the day I'd retire (if I was lucky) and would expire pretty soon afterwards. These days with any luck I'll be a drain on national resources for 20 years or more and demand all kinds of support towards the end not least the kinds of social care I would likely have received from my family.

IMO we need to decide as a nation whether we want to continue to provide these services and benefits and if so how we intend to pay for them in a way which does not inflict too much of a drag on the economy - or if we decide that we don't want to, how we are going to deal with the ranks of the sick and poor that result.

 

[Information Analyst]

The size of the welfare state was also significantly smaller.

It's also the case that what happened in 1948 was essentially an expansion of the NI-funded benefits for workers that had existed since before the First World War, rather than the creation of the NHS and the welfare state from scratch.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, I get what you mean. It is similar to arguments like, "We can't get rid of the monarchy. The Queen is a massive tourist attraction, and brings in huge money from people wanting to come to Buckingham Palace and see Royal babies etc..." which suggest that our constitutional arrangements ought to have a price attached to them instead of principle.

Nobody goes to see Versailles? Caserta? Ludwig II's mad castles in Bavaria? The Winter Palace in St Petersburg? The Forbidden City in Beijing?

 

[Craig B]

It's also the case that what happened in 1948 was essentially an expansion of the NI-funded benefits for workers that had existed since before the First World War, rather than the creation of the NHS and the welfare state from scratch.

Here is how wiki presents it.

The Labour Government elected in 1945 had made manifesto commitments to implement the recommendations of the Beveridge Report of 1942. The report's recommendation to create "comprehensive health and rehabilitation services for prevention and cure of disease" was implemented across the United Kingdom on 5 July 1948. The services were initially funded through general taxation and National Insurance as part of the introduction of a wider Welfare State. They were initially free at the point of use, although some prescription charges were soon introduced in response to economic difficulties. These charges are still in place with the English NHS, but not in the other three systems.

In the UK Parliament at Westminster, the new health services were established through two Acts:

The National Health Service Act 1946, creating the National Health Service in England and Wales
The National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, creating the National Health Service in Scotland.

This was massive, and the incoming Labour government was not deterred by the debt, vastly greater than it is today, compared to GDP.

In the year of its introduction rationing reached a peak. Bread was included, which it had not been during the war. But they went ahead. They increased the stock of social housing too.

 

[Darat]

I'm very sorry that the vagaries of democracy and proposals for constitutional change are disturbing successful expats and their lots of money. How about we just let these people run things directly? They do so to a great degree indirectly already anyway. Then we can get rid of all this senseless politicking that gets in the way of decision making by people with lots of dosh.

Eh?

 

[Darat]

The argument there being that if Labour had run a tighter ship earlier in their time in office then we would have been in a stronger position to withstand the crash.

How is that calculated?

The further argument being that it was Brown's short-sighted deregulation regime which allowed many of the unsafe banking practises which meant banks were less able to withstand the crash.

The true deregulation of the financial sector started with Thatcher and progressed through all subsequent governments. And none of it was done in secret and there was support for it from nearly all the political parties. Labour policies are no more specifically to blame than were the Tories.