76 people made 41% of donations to political parties

[joeyjojo]

are all these dips due to selling off public assets? like 1998 is the gold?

It's the opposite, the dips are periods of borrowing (budget deficit).

Notice how 2008 and 2009 were massive deficits as the recession really bit. I wonder if 2008-09 is so large because of the bank bailout (£76 billion was spent on RBS shares, for example)?

Anyway as elmarko says the point is the Conservative party ran a bigger deficit between 1990 and 1996 than the Labour party did 2002-2007.

 

[ancientmariner]

In what way exactly? What would you have instead? Publicly funded political parties via taxation? Because thats what John Prescott wants and I don't suppose he's alone. We get their endless drivel rammed down our throats and you want them to bleed us dry as well? If a few individuals want to throw their money away on these wasters let them. Rather them than me.

When there are candidates from normal backgrounds who understand the real needs of the population and are motivated by the same things as those whom they wish to represent, perhaps then I will change my view.

In simple terms, when there is something worth voting for, i will vote at that time. As it stands, a vote for labour or conservative is a vote for more of the same. I refuse to be complicit in another popularity contest between people who pretend to have the public's best interest at heart, When in reality, they only have themselves and the corporations they are funded by in mind.

 

[Glaucus]

It's the opposite, the dips are periods of borrowing (budget deficit).

Notice how 2008 and 2009 were massive deficits as the recession really bit. I wonder if 2008-09 is so large because of the bank bailout (£76 billion was spent on RBS shares, for example)?

Anyway as elmarko says the point is the Conservative party ran a bigger deficit between 1990 and 1996 than the Labour party did 2002-2007.

Nope, you are elmarko are cherry picking, as you have ignored the economy.
Early 90s was a recession as such Tories had to borrow it's what you want to do in such times.
On the other hand labour where in a massive boom time and should have been paying the early 90s debt off. Instead they spent something like £3 to boost the economy by £1 meaning when the recession hit, are debt was sky high and so borrowing more wasn't really a sensible option. Meaning it was a much harder and longer recession due to labour.

And that's ignoring infrastructure projects, which labour shied away from and instead highered 10s of thousands of pen pushers which didn't really have a hob, so when public sector had massive cuts, we had no tangible benefits from those billions being pumped into the country by increasing debt.
Want to spend large sums of debt to increase employment, build infrastructure.

 

[elmarko]

Nope, you are elmarko are cherry picking, as you have ignored the economy.
Early 90s was a recession as such Tories had to borrow it's what you want to do in such times.
On the other hand labour where in a massive boom time and should have been paying the early 90s debt off. Instead they spent something like £3 to boost the economy by £1 meaning when the recession hit, are debt was sky high and so borrowing more wasn't really a sensible option. Meaning it was a much harder and longer recession due to labour.

And that's ignoring infrastructure projects, which labour shied away from and instead highered 10s of thousands of pen pushers which didn't really have a hob, so when public sector had massive cuts, we had no tangible benefits from those billions being pumped into the country by increasing debt.
Want to spend large sums of debt to increase employment, build infrastructure.

Our debts were not sky high when the recession hit.

Where are you getting these fantasy figures from?, they with within a standard variance of the last 15 years before.

I agree we need infrastructure projects, but no political parties have done this - I'm not defending Labours poor performance I'm saying that poor performance is standard across both of the main political parties.

 

[Glaucus]

You mean in the 15 years coming out a previous recession.
You mean announcing you'll sell a shed load of gold is good business.
You think spending debt in a boom time is good business?
You think spending £3 if said debt to boost the economy by an extra £1 is good business? That's extremely poor return of investment.

Don't you think these are all fundamental finacial mistakes that show how incompetent they where. I certainly do.

Or in good times do you keep borrowing on your CC and in hard times borrow even more on your CC?

 

[Dolph]

What a load of utter rubbish. Look pre 2007/2008.

The 'Labour always mismanage the economy' line is fictional, it's make believe - the reality is there is no notable difference between the two parties regarding the economy since the 80's.

That graph is meaningless without an overlay of general economic performance for the uk. Doing that shows the big problem, deficit spending during the boom from 2002 - 2007.

Joeyjojo, the graph excludes financial interventions, so the rbs bailout isn't covered, and comparing the 1990 to 95 period to 2002-2007 is flawed as the former is a recession and recovery, the latter a boom.

 

[Dolph]

Excuse me? It's Labour's fault and not the crazy sub-prime mortgage lending?

Pull the other one.

Don't confuse the crash (which labour didn't cause) with our terrible public spending position going into the crash (which labour did cause via deficit spending during a boom).

 

[scorza]

That graph is meaningless without an overlay of general economic performance for the uk. Doing that shows the big problem, deficit spending during the boom from 2002 - 2007.

There has never been, and never will be a rule that says it's a bad idea to run a deficit during a period of economic growth - it's just been made up by a few Tories. During 2002-2007 there was a European wide limit on deficits of 3%, which were largely stuck to - better than other EU nations anyway. I seem to recall there was a bit of a boom during the '80s and early '90s too - guess what, the Tories ran a deficit during those years too, as demonstrated by the chart you quoted.

 

[Dolph]

There has never been, and never will be a rule that says it's a bad idea to run a deficit during a period of economic growth - it's just been made up by a few Tories. During 2002-2007 there was a European wide limit on deficits of 3%, which were largely stuck to - better than other EU nations anyway. I seem to recall there was a bit of a boom during the '80s and early '90s too - guess what, the Tories ran a deficit during those years too, as demonstrated by the chart you quoted.

I take it you never heard of Keynes or the concept of counter cyclical spending?

Also, you may want to check your history and rethink your view of the deficit and trend when you remember the early 80s and early 90s recessions (hint, the boom was approx 1985 to mid 1990)

 

[Tefal]

Excuse me? It's Labour's fault and not the crazy sub-prime mortgage lending?

Pull the other one.

How did sub prime mortgage lending result in a government deficit befote it crashed.?

 

[scorza]

I take it you never heard of Keynes or the concept of counter cyclical spending?

Also, you may want to check your history and rethink your view of the deficit and trend when you remember the early 80s and early 90s recessions (hint, the boom was approx 1985 to mid 1990)

You mean the bit where you're supposed to keep inflation under control? I don't recall anything saying you're supposed to run a budget surplus during a 'boom' - this will just make your currency too strong anyway and kill off your export industries which you'll need cometh the recession.

So not much different to my assertion that there was a period of economic growth 'during the '80s and early '90s' then?

 

[elmarko]

You mean in the 15 years coming out a previous recession.
You mean announcing you'll sell a shed load of gold is good business.
You think spending debt in a boom time is good business?
You think spending £3 if said debt to boost the economy by an extra £1 is good business? That's extremely poor return of investment.

Don't you think these are all fundamental finacial mistakes that show how incompetent they where. I certainly do.

Or in good times do you keep borrowing on your CC and in hard times borrow even more on your CC?

The credit card analogy is flawed to begin with.

Secondly you are arguing against a position I'm not supporting, for the last time (on the hope that it will finally sink into your skull) - I'm not defending Labour poor performance (my words).

I'm stating that poor performance is standard across both of the main parties.

How did sub prime mortgage lending result in a government deficit befote it crashed.?

A deficit isn't abnormal for a modern western democracy.

 

[Glaucus]

Poor performance might be standard, but see if you can understand this. They are not equal. Eg. All parties are rubbish some are more rubbish than others though.
And CC might not be like for like, but it still useful comparison. You can not keep running into higher and higher debt with less and less assets.
You know what everyone number one priority should be? Economy. Without economy you can't afford anything. Less jobs, less welfare, less infrastructure, less h&S, less workers rights. Everything hinges around money.

It's why as a country we should heavily invest in science. Ever £1 invested you get over 4x back. Sometimes far more than that. Not spend 3 and get 1 back.

 

[Dolph]

You mean the bit where you're supposed to keep inflation under control? I don't recall anything saying you're supposed to run a budget surplus during a 'boom' - this will just make your currency too strong anyway and kill off your export industries which you'll need cometh the recession.

So not much different to my assertion that there was a period of economic growth 'during the '80s and early '90s' then?

Counter cyclical spending is nothing to do with inflation. I don't think you are this dumb so I will have to go with you being wilfully dishonest instead, which is worse.

The deficit was going down during the periods specified, not up, so very different again from your dishonest interpretation.

When all you have left is lies, it speaks volumes about the validity of your words and your contempt for those reading them.

 

[elmarko]

The deficit was going down in 2006, with every reason to believe in 2007 it would have continued to reduce had the recession not kicked in.

Every single other reduction following a stabilising historically has followed this trend.

Poor performance, yes - unfortunate timing - also yes.

Significantly worse than the Conservatives performance historically? - I'm not convinced. Besides, public spending increased significantly to make up for holes in the NHS budget over that period (going from 5.4% to 7.9% of national income.

 

[Dolph]

Ko

The deficit was going down in 2006, with every reason to believe in 2007 it would have continued to reduce had the recession not kicked in.

Every single other reduction following a stabilising historically has followed this trend.

Poor performance, yes - unfortunate timing - also yes.

Significantly worse than the Conservatives performance historically? - I'm not convinced. Besides, public spending increased significantly to make up for holes in the NHS budget over that period (going from 5.4% to 7.9% of national income.

Such a shame our NHS didn't improve significantly above the European trend to reflect the increased spending. We could have saved thousands of additional lives a year if we had.

Also, the stabilisation occurred prior to 2002 as the figures show. The period 1997 -2001 shows the final stabilisation after the recession of the early 90s...

 

[elmarko]

Ko

Such a shame our NHS didn't improve significantly above the European trend to reflect the increased spending. We could have saved thousands of additional lives a year if we had.

Also, the stabilisation occurred prior to 2002 as the figures show. The period 1997 -2001 shows the final stabilisation after the recession of the early 90s...

By what metric are you saying they didn't improve significantly enough?.

Preventable deaths dropped quite significantly over the period of increased NHS spending.

 

[Dolph]

By what metric are you saying they didn't improve significantly enough?.

Preventable deaths dropped quite significantly over the period of increased NHS spending.

Preventable deaths dropped significantly across all of Europe, hence why I referenced a lack of above trend change, not a lack of change. The spending increases did not drive a change above those that were occurring in countries where they weren't doubling spending.

 

[Glaucus]

No no, it was down to spending, not better medicine, surgery etc.
Some people are totally deluded.

 

[elmarko]

Looking healthcare spending increases for a number of nations the increases seem reasonably proportional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

I want to see some figures, some data - as I know you are fundamentally opposed to public services from your 'tax is theft' ideological stance & would opposed nationalised healthcare even if it was working effectively.

Clearly there is waste, that is undeniable.

But is the waste statistically significantly worse than other comparative nations?. Is the increase in performance statistically significantly worse compared to like nations as a ratio of increased spending to make up that assertion?.

If you can't answer the above then frankly your point isn't worth debating.

Finally, looking at infant mortality birth rates - pretty much all western nations have both increased spending by a similar proportion & the rates have also declined by a similar proportion.

No no, it was down to spending, not better medicine, surgery etc.
Some people are totally deluded.

Before running your mouth off & making yourself look stupid you are aware what additional funding often results in?.