Poll: Should Labour turn left or right?

[Freddie1980]

Cameron is going to have his work cut-out pleasing the Tory voters, his back-benchers and keeping David Davis' quiet.

I would rather have Cameron in charge in a situation like this then John Major. The lessons of history and 13 years of opposition should be ringing in every Tory backbenchers ear.

 

[Amp34]

There is no class in my eyes, I treat everyone the same regardless of status or money, it means nothing to me.

Class seems to be an obsessive compulsion of most guardian writers/readers*, probably because Rupert and Quentin believe that as much as they grew up with mummy and daddy sending them to private school, now they write for the guardian they are really down with the normal people...

*Says the non class guardian reader...


As for the question, nobody trusts them with the economy. As much as the conservatives are not much better they are probably the best of a bad bunch of career politicians. No point voting for other parties as they will never get in.

 

[jigger]

I think the bigger question right now is what direction the conservatives turn.

 

[Tefal]

Well actually that's not quite true but it does lead to an interesting point, Labour had to make sure any spending commitment they made in their manifesto was fully funded or else the Tory Propaganda machine would have ripped them to shreds

really i saw an interview with miliband where he said every bit was funded and said they would give 8bn extra to the nhs the interviewer said about how they had 2bn of that down and accounted for but what about the other 6bn wheres that comming from

what followed was 5 minutes of the interviewer asking where the other 6 billion was coming from and ed repeatedly saying "it's fully funded" but unable to say how.

 

[Tefal]

The nominal value of the national debt isn't as important as it's relative size. Between 1997 and 2008 the economy grew by about the same factor as that debt grew, so the debt as a % of the GDP stayed pretty flat.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

A debt/GDP of 30-40% is not unusual. The "labour overspent" myth is just that, a myth.

Mediamacro myth 2: Labour profligacy

but surely it would have been much more sensible to have reduced the debt relative to the economy not keep it the same?

 

[D.P.]

I think the bigger question right now is what direction the conservatives turn.

They should at least attempt to go back to a center right party instead of a far-right.

 

[D.P.]

but surely it would have been much more sensible to have reduced the debt relative to the economy not keep it the same?

Why?

 

[Tefal]

Why?

so that when things went **** up you had more leeway.

 

[Glaucus]

Why?

Maybe so we can spend more of our own tax revenue in projects, rather than interest payments, maybe as boom and crash cycle will never end, we have far more money in times if recessions.

So many like to miss the point, but labour was foolish with the money. Not only did they spend way to much, they spent it on nothing. Just tons of pen pushes that had no real jobs. at least spend it on national infrastructure that has lasting and meaningful benefits.

 

[D.P.]

so that when things went **** up you had more leeway.

And limit growth before hand?

 

[D.P.]

Maybe so we can spend more of our own tax revenue in projects, rather than interest payments.

I'll stop you right there, paying off the debt would require investing in less projects. There is nothing wrong with a country running a deficit and having a manageable debt to GDP ratio like the UK had under Labour. Labour's deficit was bang on the long term average and well within bands recommended by economists.

 

[Glaucus]

I'll stop you right there, paying off the debt would require investing in less projects. There is nothing wrong with a country running a deficit and having a manageable debt to GDP ratio like the UK had under Labour. Labour's deficit was bang on the long term average and well within bands recommended by economists.

More money long term by not paying interest.
Because what we've done so far has worked out so well.
That you think it was good for labour to spend money increasing growth, but it was growth less than what they spent.

It really is a silly position to stand, there spending can not be defended. Just look at what they sown it on. Lots of pen pushers that weren't missed when the cuts came. It wasn't even on projects.

 

[jigger]

More money long term by not paying interest.
Because what we've done so far has worked out so well.
That you think it was good for labour to spend money increasing growth, but it was growth less than what they spent.

It really is a silly position to stand, there spending can not be defended. Just look at what they sown it on. Lots of pen pushers that weren't missed when the cuts came. It wasn't even on projects.

Makes no difference though really as it's very unlikely the debt would have been lower with a Tory government.

 

[D.P.]

More money long term by not paying interest.
Because what we've done so far has worked out so well.
That you think it was good for labour to spend money increasing growth, but it was growth less than what they spent.

It really is a silly position to stand, there spending can not be defended. Just look at what they sown it on. Lots of pen pushers that weren't missed when the cuts came. It wasn't even on projects.

There is more money long term by investment in infrastructure, projects, education, etc., which is exactly why it is beneficial to run a a small deficit because you reap many rewards in the future, which is exactly why most countries purposely run a deficit. It is like buying a house, that puts i in a huge amount of debt and your debt to income ratio goes extreme, but you get the long term benefits of a mortgage free house in the future, the house value appreciating, and all the other benefits of house ownership.

Long term the debt will have an increasingly lower value thanks to inflation.

The dept to GDP ratio has remained the same so the growth has kept in line with exactly the amount spent, so you are wrong.


"there" [sic] spending can easily be defended as their deficit ratio was well within recommended limits and matches the UK's historic average, the same as the average of con governments.

 

[Participant]

I reckon we just need three different Conservative parties, across the spectrum from centre to right. That would be far more useful than the current situation.

 

[Glaucus]

There is more money long term by investment in infrastructure, projects, education, etc., which is exactly why it is beneficial to run a a small deficit because you reap many rewards in the future, which is exactly why most countries purposely run a deficit. It is like buying a house, that puts i in a huge amount of debt and your debt to income ratio goes extreme, but you get the long term benefits of a mortgage free house in the future, the house value appreciating, and all the other benefits of house ownership.

Long term the debt will have an increasingly lower value thanks to inflation.

The dept to GDP ratio has remained the same so the growth has kept in line with exactly the amount spent, so you are wrong.


"there" [sic] spending can easily be defended as their deficit ratio was well within recommended limits and matches the UK's historic average, the same as the average of con governments.

Rofl, again that system worked so well didn't it and your defending spending money on pointless public sector jobs rather than national infrastructure and increase spending to not even make that money back. Spectacular opinion there.

I know one thing, Tories wouldn't have employed 10s of thousands to do nothing. So there would have been a massive improvement over labour.

 

[Eurofighter]

They should stay about the same and have someone with a posh accent as leader that is a bit like Tony Blair.

 

[Robosapien]

I don't think Labour could get any more right if they actually tried.

 

[joeyjojo]

but surely it would have been much more sensible to have reduced the debt relative to the economy not keep it the same?

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight. But the fault for not foreseeing the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the USA can't lie entirely with the Labour government here.

I reckon we just need three different Conservative parties, across the spectrum from centre to right. That would be far more useful than the current situation.

But then one would be left, one centre, and one right! They're just relative terms!

As written in that excerpt above, the current Tory position would be considered far-right not so long ago. E.g. marketising the NHS would be considered extremely radical in the 1990s.

 

[D.P.]

Rofl, again that system worked so well didn't it

It did, the recession had nothing to do with labour's fiscal policy.

and your defending spending money on pointless public sector jobs

I'm not, you are just making the unfounded assumption that the money was wasted on pointless public sector jobs, without any evidence to back up your ideological myth.

rather than national infrastructure and increase spending to not even make that money back. Spectacular opinion there.

The money was spent on a variety of projects and services. The proof that the money spent was already seen in returns is there in black and white as the GDP to debt ratio didn't reduce. the long term gains will be seen in the years to come. Improving education doesn't create an instant growth feedback for example.

I know one thing, Tories wouldn't have employed 10s of thousands to do nothing. So there would have been a massive improvement over labour.

Where is the evidence they did nothing?