2022 mini-budget discussion

[Devilman]

So to the last Tory government?

Even if it is 30 years in your whataboutery they've STILL been in power for nearly 60% of it so they're STILL the main problem.

This is worse than that...

If we take his "30 years" comment and then analyze it a bit, we find that since 1992, Labour was in power for a total of approx 12-13 years and the Tories have been in power for 17-18 years, INCLUDING the last 12.

There is literally ZERO excuse for trying to use the "but it's successive governments fault" when the reality is that the "government" for the last 30 years has been Tory for a lot longer than Labour and most importantly, it is the Tories who have been in government for the last 12 years.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Both have let us down, maybe one more than the other but they are both crap.

 

[Devilman]

Both have let us down, maybe one more than the other but they are both crap.

While that is certainly part of the issue, I don't think it's either fair or balanced for people to keep expressing such a view.

It comes across as very "dismissive" of the utter shambles the last 12 years has been, the blatant corruption the last couple of years have seen and the bold-faced lying by Cabinet Ministers and the PM.

I don't honestly think the failings of the respective governments are comparable, one of the few things that could genuinely be argued as "equally Labours fault as it is the Tories" has been the total lack of any proper energy policy over the last 3 - 4 decades.

Compare that to what we have witnessed over the last few years, let alone the last few weeks and I think it's fair to say that the majority of the blame lies at the feet of the Tories, it's members and supporters / enablers.

 

[Mrwong]

While that is certainly part of the issue, I don't think it's either fair or balanced for people to keep expressing such a view.

It comes across as very "dismissive" of the utter shambles the last 12 years has been, the blatant corruption the last couple of years have seen and the bold-faced lying by Cabinet Ministers and the PM.

I don't honestly think the failings of the respective governments are comparable, one of the few things that could genuinely be argued as "equally Labours fault as it is the Tories" has been the total lack of any proper energy policy over the last 3 - 4 decades.

Compare that to what we have witnessed over the last few years, let alone the last few weeks and I think it's fair to say that the majority of the blame lies at the feet of the Tories, it's members and supporters / enablers.

What government went to war? what government cause migration from east to west? which government wanted EU enlargement, which government build the least social homes on record, which government put social service call centres in India, the list is long.

 

[GordyR]

What government went to war? what government cause migration from east to west? which government wanted EU enlargement, which government build the least social homes on record, which government put social service call centres in India, the list is long.

Eh?

 

[Devilman]

What government went to war?

Yes true that is one of the things which is often brought up in this kind of discussions and while I do not dismiss it's relevance, I do wonder how things may (or may not) have played out differently had a Tory government been in power.

what government cause migration from east to west?

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, you will need to elaborate further. Are you attempting to say the Labour government is the cause of, and reason for the migration we have seen from Eastern Europe into Western Europe? If so, that is a very bold claim to make.

which government wanted EU enlargement

Considering the post-Brexit impact that was predicted and is now being seen for real, we can say for certain that being a member of the EU gave us at least a 4% boost to our economy so I am not sure why wanting "more of that" is a seen as such a bad thing?

which government build the least social homes on record

Well, lets see... the "sell-off" of social housing began under Thatcher in '79 with the "Right to Buy" scheme and that between '79 and now, Labour was in power for a total of approximately 13 years, while the Tories have been in power for approximately 30 years - it is deliberately mis-representing the data to paint your narrative.
The REAL question you should be asking is "which government has built the least social homes PER YEAR during their tenure. But I suspect you already know the answer to that question, as do most of the rest of us

which government put social service call centres in India

Whilst I do not have the information to prove or disprove this, are you saying in that in the last 12 years of Tory government they were prevented or otherwise totally unable to reverse such a decision, even if it was initiated by a Labour government 12+ years ago? I find that very unlikely considering just how many "reversals" of policy we have witnessed just in the last few weeks from our talented PM and Chancellor.

the list is long

It is indeed, but as you can hopefully see from someone taking the time to individually address each point - they are for the most part entirely incorrect, unfounded or just ignorant of the idea that governments are not bound by law to carry on doing things a certain way just because "the other guy set it up that way! - Blame Him!!"

 

[SpeedFreak]

Corbyn was also abysmal at countering the Brexit case. Either way the current energy "strategy" has been years in the making.

 

[The Funktopus]

Let's blame the Romans while we're at it.

ROMANS GO HOUSE!

 

[Murphy]

What government went to war? what government cause migration from east to west? which government wanted EU enlargement, which government build the least social homes on record, which government put social service call centres in India, the list is long.

I'd love to know, have you looked into any of those issues? As in what the possible repercussions would've been if we didn't go to war or even who we were fighting alongside, whether you think an alternative government would've done anything differently.

To be clear I'm not saying the list isn't long but i do question how much further your thought process has gone.

 

[Mrwong]

Yes true that is one of the things which is often brought up in this kind of discussions and while I do not dismiss it's relevance, I do wonder how things may (or may not) have played out differently had a Tory government been in power.



Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, you will need to elaborate further. Are you attempting to say the Labour government is the cause of, and reason for the migration we have seen from Eastern Europe into Western Europe? If so, that is a very bold claim to make.



Considering the post-Brexit impact that was predicted and is now being seen for real, we can say for certain that being a member of the EU gave us at least a 4% boost to our economy so I am not sure why wanting "more of that" is a seen as such a bad thing?



Well, lets see... the "sell-off" of social housing began under Thatcher in '79 with the "Right to Buy" scheme and that between '79 and now, Labour was in power for a total of approximately 13 years, while the Tories have been in power for approximately 30 years - it is deliberately mis-representing the data to paint your narrative.
The REAL question you should be asking is "which government has built the least social homes PER YEAR during their tenure. But I suspect you already know the answer to that question, as do most of the rest of us



Whilst I do not have the information to prove or disprove this, are you saying in that in the last 12 years of Tory government they were prevented or otherwise totally unable to reverse such a decision, even if it was initiated by a Labour government 12+ years ago? I find that very unlikely considering just how many "reversals" of policy we have witnessed just in the last few weeks from our talented PM and Chancellor.



It is indeed, but as you can hopefully see from someone taking the time to individually address each point - they are for the most part entirely incorrect, unfounded or just ignorant of the idea that governments are not bound by law to carry on doing things a certain way just because "the other guy set it up that way! - Blame Him!!"

For instance selling off council homes, why didn't labour reverse it? Oh just to let you know labour under Blair build the least amount of social homes.

Labour wanted EU enlargement, this started a host of new problems for the UK.

Btw Labour pushed call centers to India, jobs that should have remain here.

And the one most related to what is going on now, Gordon Brown and pensions.

You see it is not as simple to say the one political group was detrimental to our society. Very easy to blame the new government and forget that it was the previous governments failures.

And truly Labour under Blair set the seeds of destruction that has brought us to our current problems.

Btw don't like to read essays or reply to them and I guess most do not either.

 

[Mrwong]

I'd love to know, have you looked into any of those issues? As in what the possible repercussions would've been if we didn't go to war or even who we were fighting alongside, whether you think an alternative government would've done anything differently.

To be clear I'm not saying the list isn't long but i do question how much further your thought process has gone.

I have looked into those issues, the war issue is an unknown one. This comes down to the essay and wmd that changed and lead to boots on ground.

It could have gone both ways and we do not know how a different party would have reacted.

Labour have a lot to blame, policies take a long time to feed through the system from years to decades.

One thing for sure we are here because of labour polices.

 

[Murphy]

The war issue isn't unknown, there's historic facts you can drawn from.

As there are historic facts for all the other issues you raised but failed to address, it's easy for you to keep peddling your divisive politics, to see things through the lens of your side my side, but if you've not researched these wedge issues that your using then you do come across as part of the problem.

e: For example it took me 5min to research your "labour under Blair build the least amount of social homes" and while correct you also seem to be missing the context...

Conclusion
Mr Hunt's claim about the building of new social housing is factually accurate. However by using the figures to attack Labour's record it could be argued that he is glossing over the legacy of the previous Conservative government and a much longer trend of decline in social housing.
Indeed the figures quoted show that the number of new homes being built each year fell by 72,850 under the Tories, but actually went up 2,220 under Labour.
Nevertheless with waiting lists for social housing running at four million, the Tory frontbencher, is justified in questions over Labour's policy during the last 13 years.

The question i have is what your reasons are for missing that context, is it simply that you weren't aware of the context or are you choosing to ignore it?

 

[Mrwong]

The war issue isn't unknown, there's historic facts you can drawn from.

As there are historic facts for all the other issues you raised but failed to address, it's easy for you to keep peddling your divisive politics, to see things through the lens of your side my side, but if you've not researched these wedge issues that your using then you do come across as part of the problem.

e: For example it took me 5min to research your "labour under Blair build the least amount of social homes" and while correct you also seem to be missing the context...

The question i have is what your reasons are for missing that context, is it simply that you weren't aware of the context or are you choosing to ignore it?

Between 1979 and 1996 an average of 50,761 new homes in the social housing sector were built, compared to 24,299 from 1997-2008.

Does not matter how they spin it the statistics back it up, what they did not say there was a period under labour they build less than 100 or was it 200 homes in one financial year. The lowest amount of social homes built in any given year. You can go to the ONS and look it up.

You can spin it how you like but the numbers show the truth, I took the paragraph from the same website you took your selected paragraph.

Why did you not post the paragraph?

social homes build by housing associations in partnership with RBS and another two banks, which the banks own but lease out to housing associations. Which are independent of the government, housing associations are supposed to be non profit but really that's just lie.

"Indeed the figures quoted show that the number of new homes being built each year fell by 72,850 under the Tories, but actually went up 2,220 under Labour."

They suggesting that every year it went up by that figure and dropped by that figure ? And was that social homes or the private sector and nice spin.

 

[Devilman]

OK, let's take this 1 step at a time again shall we?

For instance selling off council homes, why didn't labour reverse it? Oh just to let you know labour under Blair build the least amount of social homes.

Why did the Tories introduce it in the first place, or not reverse it in the 30 years they have held power since it was implemented, vs the 13(ish) years Labour were in power?
With regard to social homes .. you still have not said if that is total built under their tenure, or per year, or what?

Labour wanted EU enlargement, this started a host of new problems for the UK.

Such as?

Btw Labour pushed call centers to India, jobs that should have remain here.

Even if that is the case, the government for the last 12 years led by the Tory Party. Why did they not reverse the policy to return the jobs to the UK?

And the one most related to what is going on now, Gordon Brown and pensions.

Sorry you're going to have to elaborate slightly on this... What happened with the pensions and the BOE needing to step in was entirely as a response to the current Chancellor's "mini-budget" and I fail to see what that has to do with Gordon Brown?

You see it is not as simple to say the one political group was detrimental to our society. Very easy to blame the new government and forget that it was the previous governments failures.

I never said it was simple or that it was 1 political group, but you appear to be holding 1 group by a different set of rules and expectations to another.
On the one hand you say "Why didn't Labour reverse the Right-to-Buy policy?" then on the other hand you're trying to say "Labour moved all the call centers to India" as if somehow it was impossible to reverse that decision, or undo what a previous Labour government had implimented?
Which is it? Either a government *can* undo what a previous one did - as you suggested in your comment regarding Labour not reversing RtB, or they cannot reverse what a previous government did - and hence we're "stuck" with our call centers in India now.

And truly Labour under Blair set the seeds of destruction that has brought us to our current problems.

I'm sorry to say this but.... What does this bit of world-salad even mean? It doesn't even have anything quantifiable in it, just a generic "mark my words, they'll be trouble" like some end-of-day'er screaming at the clouds.

But even IF we take it at face value and accept the notion that Labour under Blair set the "destruction that has brought us to our current problems." - Which in itself would have course mean implying that somehow Blair is also to blame for Putin invading Ukraine, for the gas prices to go nuts, for energy supply to become a primary concern for a lot of the population, for Brexit losing us 4% GDP and lot's of rights we used to enjoy as an EU citizen and so many other things which have happened both as a direct result of and under the tenure of a Tory Part government. - that would still leave us at the same place... Tories have been in power for the last 12 years... Why have they not attempted to undo those "destruction that has brought us to our current problems"?

They seem to in fact to have undertaken a course of action over the last few years which has either directly caused, or contributed to a great deal MORE of our "current problems".

Btw don't like to read essays or reply to them and I guess most do not either.

If you don't like to read a reply which takes each of your claims and examines them, perhaps stop making such claims?

You cannot blame people for responding to a discussion if one person suddenly walks in the room and starts spouting a load of guff, while expecting nobody to challenge them on it.
If other's do not wish to read such long replies they can either tell me themselves, rather than you trying to speak for them with your "guesses", or put me on ignore, that's what the feature is there for.

 

[Murphy]

Between 1979 and 1996 an average of 50,761 new homes in the social housing sector were built, compared to 24,299 from 1997-2008.

Does not matter how they spin it the statistics back it up, what they did not say there was a period under labour they build less than 100 or was it 200 homes in one financial year. The lowest amount of social homes built in any given year. You can go to the ONS and look it up.

You can spin it how you like but the numbers show the truth, I took the paragraph from the same website you took your selected paragraph.

Why did you not post the paragraph?

And the number you refer to was social homes build by housing associations in partnership with RBS and another two banks, which the banks own but lease out to housing associations.

It's not gone unnoticed that you've failed to address a single point i raised with you, the question isn't about how accurate your claims are, the question was how much you've looked into the issues you raised.

And so far, based on what you're saying, you didn't look into the issues because you bought into the whole divisive politics things.

e: To be clear as i suspect you maybe finding this hard to follow, I'm not questioning how accurate or even how valid the issues you raised are, I'm questioning how much you actually looked into those issues, how much research you did, whether you've looked into the causes and/or alternative solutions to the issues you raised, whether you've made at least a cursory glance beyond what seem to be your parroting of newspaper headlines and political rhetoric.

 

[Devilman]

Just had a brief look at some figures on fullfact, It would seem that in 1980 (just at the start of the Right-to-buy sell-off) the UK had approx 5 million council houses. It is estimated that the number today is around 1.6 million.

Even *if* in the years of Tory leadership they managed to maintain a build rate higher than that of Labour, it still shows a grossly unbalanced equation, they have been hemorrhaging Council Housing stock ever since 1980 yet NO government has built replacements at the required rate to maintain the stock, leading to vast swathes of "private rentals" and Housing Benefit (Your Taxes) being funneled into the pockets of LandLords.

Which brings us right back to the "Why have the Tories, in roughly 30 years of Leadership (compared to Labour's roughly 13) not done anything REMOTELY close to enough to address this shortfall?"

No matter which way you slice the cake, Tories have held power significantly longer than Labour, yet here we are, in a cess-pit of our own making.

 

[adidan]

I think the more pertinent question at the moment is the influx of Russian money into the UK since the Tories took power and also where the donations to their party came from.

 

[Mrwong]

It's not gone unnoticed that you've failed to address a single point i raised with you, the question isn't about how accurate your claims are, the question was how much you've looked into the issues you raised.

And so far, based on what you're saying, you didn't look into the issues because you bought into the whole divisive politics things.

e: To be clear as i suspect you maybe finding this hard to follow, I'm not questioning how accurate or even how valid the issues you raised are, I'm questioning how much you actually looked into those issues, how much research you did, whether you've looked into the causes and/or alternative solutions to the issues you raised, whether you've made at least a cursory glance beyond what seem to be your parroting of newspaper headlines and political rhetoric.

I have addressed it, but you clearly fail to see the error in that report.

You can spin it how you like but the truth is labour built less homes and that is a numerical fact and no matter how you word it, the truth will not change.

 

[Mrwong]

I think the more pertinent question at the moment is the influx of Russian money into the UK since the Tories took power and also where the donations to their party came from.

Russian money started to come In under Labour.

Abramovich purchased Chelsea in July 2003, there were many that came to London during 2001.

Gordon Brown took donations from the Russians and so did Blair.

 

[Murphy]

I have addressed it, but you clearly fail to see the error in that report.

You can spin it how you like but the truth is labour built less homes and that is a numerical fact and no matter how you word it, the truth will not change.

Error in that report!

What part about me not questioning the validity of your claims is it that you don't get? I even edited my post to make it clear that I'm not questioning the validity of your claims, I'm questioning whether you've looked into the causes and/or alternative solutions to the issues you raised. You've not even come close to addressing that, in fact the more you keep going on about the validity of your claims the more you're proving that you've not looked into the causes and/or alternative solutions to the issues you raised, that you're playing into the whole divisive politics nonsense.