Why you should vote for the Conservatives

Original post by jamestg

The economic crisis wasn't the Conservatives fault... it was Labour's.

Although they didn't cause the worldwide crisis, they didn't handle it effectively and our country's economy was ruined because of it.

It is a fact that although Labour started out well in 1997, it did deteriorate and the Conservatives were essentially handed a mess. Yes you can blame the Conservatives for not meeting all of their promises, but the scale of the problem was caused by Labour.

If it were a smaller mess, perhaps it would've been dealt with by now...

It is also known that Labour make the mess, the Conservatives have to clean it up and although they don't do an amazing job. It's still in the right direction - much better than the 'Labour direction'.

WRONG!! The simple minded always blame Labour for the economic mess in 2008, but fail to recgonise that this was an international banking crisis caused by a lack of regulation, which during the run upto the crisis the Tories were calling for even less regulation!

The truth is it would of been no different regardless of who was in power. The government of the day had two choices either let the banks fail ( which would of been deviststing for those with substantial savings, and pensions) or bail them out in order to protect peoples money. I'm no Labour voter but im sick of hearing people blaming labour for the 2008 crash who don't look at the wider picture.

Reply 84

OP

Original post by Cubchoo

WRONG!! The simple minded always blame Labour for the economic mess in 2008, but fail to recgonise that this was an international banking crisis caused by a lack of regulation, which during the run upto the crisis the Tories were calling for even less regulation!

The truth is it would of been no different regardless of who was in power. The government of the day had two choices either let the banks fail ( which would of been deviststing for those with substantial savings, and pensions) or bail them out in order to protect peoples money. I'm no Labour voter but im sick of hearing people blaming labour for the 2008 crash who don't look at the wider picture.

"Although they didn't cause the worldwide crisis, they didn't handle it effectively and our country's economy was ruined because of it." So I did recognise that it was an international banking crisis.

You can't really say that it would've been the same if the Conservatives were in power - other countries dealt with the worldwide financial problem pretty well, so it may not have been the same. So we can blame Labour for not dealing with it properly. If others can managed why can't we? Because we had an incompetent Labour government.

Reply 85

Original post by jamestg

"Although they didn't cause the worldwide crisis, they didn't handle it effectively and our country's economy was ruined because of it." So I did recognise that it was an international banking crisis.

You can't really say that it would've been the same if the Conservatives were in power - other countries dealt with the worldwide financial problem pretty well, so it may not have been the same. So we can blame Labour for not dealing with it properly. If others can managed why can't we? Because we had an incompetent Labour government.

Which countries managed their finacial services industry better???

Reply 86

OP

Original post by Cubchoo

Which countries managed their finacial services industry better???

The top countries best surviving the global recession:
1st – Australia
2nd – China
3rd – India and Singapore (equal)
5th – Hong Kong
6th – Canada
7th – Japan and Qatar (equal)
9th – New Zealand
10th – Malaysia, Sweden and Vietnam (equal)

Reply 87

Original post by jamestg

The top countries best surviving the global recession:
1st – Australia
2nd – China
3rd – India and Singapore (equal)
5th – Hong Kong
6th – Canada
7th – Japan and Qatar (equal)
9th – New Zealand
10th – Malaysia, Sweden and Vietnam (equal)

You haven't answered my question, instead you've posted an irrelevant list...
The economies of Australia and China are not focused on financial services and therefore not comparable to The UK economy. The Australian and Chinese economies are focused on commodity exports and manufacturing retrospectively therefore separate from the global banking crisis. I'm skeptical of Japan being on that list... as their deficit is MASSIVE and the Abe administration is still pursuing a low spend, high tax agenda in order to deal with the country's debts.

Reply 88

Original post by jamestg

My main argument is that 5 years simply wasn't enough to fix the problems of Labour. The Conservatives did overthink a few things, but that doesn't mean they've failed.

As long as we are on the correct path, will can continue to grow and fix the problems in our country. The Conservatives have been doing it over the past five years, and with another five - think what could be achieved...

"Ons net immigration from the EU 292,000 last year" now you are just making up rubbish and trying to pass it off as fact!! By your figures that would mean that 8000 migrants from the USA, Australia, South America, China, Russia, Africa and the Indian sub-continent in total came to work and settle in the UK last year. This is absurd!! Probably find that there are more then 8000 chinese students alone!! Regardless of than those on work visias or seeking asylum. It's quite clear that the Tories have become the party of mass immigration, you are deluded my friend.

You praise this Tory/lib dem coalition government, but then say we need a strong one party majority government and that smaller parties aren't helpful, surely you've just contradicted yourself!

Reply 89

OP

Original post by Cubchoo

"Ons net immigration from the EU 292,000 last year" now you are just making up rubbish and trying to pass it off as fact!! By your figures that would mean that 8000 migrants from the USA, Australia, South America, China, Russia, Africa and the Indian sub-continent in total came to work and settle in the UK last year. This is absurd!! Probably find that there are more then 8000 chinese students alone!! Regardless of than those on work visias or seeking asylum. It's quite clear that the Tories have become the party of mass immigration, you are deluded my friend.

You praise this Tory/lib dem coalition government, but then say we need a strong one party majority government and that smaller parties aren't helpful, surely you've just contradicted yourself!

"There were statistically significant increases for immigration of non-EU citizens (up 49,000 to 292,000)" see for yourself.

When voted in, the lib dems were pretty big sharing 22% of the vote. You can't exactly call them a small party. Albeit now their popularity has decreased. I was referring to the smaller parties not being helpful in causing instability. Having 3 different parties with 3 different objectives is much more unstable than having 2 different parties with 2 different objectives.

Reply 90

OP

Original post by Cubchoo

You haven't answered my question, instead you've posted an irrelevant list...
The economies of Australia and China are not focused on financial services and therefore not comparable to The UK economy. The Australian and Chinese economies are focused on commodity exports and manufacturing retrospectively therefore separate from the global banking crisis. I'm skeptical of Japan being on that list... as their deficit is MASSIVE and the Abe administration is still pursuing a low spend, high tax agenda in order to deal with the country's debts.

These economies still rely on countries like the US and the UK. Yes China can manufacture loads of stuff but their biggest customer, the US, will not be able to buy all of it. China relies on manufacturing like you said - but if they're not selling all of it what do you think is going to happen to China? China managed to cope with it quite well, seeing as they were relatively unaffected because the government 'did the right thing'. Obviously this is highly simplified, but the principle is still correct.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/China_Economy.htm - just look at this.

Reply 91

Original post by jamestg

These economies still rely on countries like the US and the UK. Yes China can manufacture loads of stuff but their biggest customer, the US, will not be able to buy all of it. China relies on manufacturing like you said - but if they're not selling all of it what do you think is going to happen to China? China managed to cope with it quite well, seeing as they were relatively unaffected because the government 'did the right thing'. Obviously this is highly simplified, but the principle is still correct.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/China_Economy.htm - just look at this.

The Australian and Chinese economies stayed afloat, because they are not dependant on the financial services sector. Simple as that.

Reply 92

You're conflating two very different issues with regards to the banking crisis and the growth of china. The Chinese economy continued to grow in 2008 because their government didn't need to bail out their own banks!

Funny that you consider their government of "doing a good job" even with their centrally planned economy. Yet you're advocating a vote for the less regulated, market driven agenda of the conservatives.

Reply 93

OP

Original post by Cubchoo

You're conflating two very different issues with regards to the banking crisis and the growth of china. The Chinese economy continued to grow in 2008 because their government didn't need to bail out their own banks!

Funny that you consider their government of "doing a good job" even with their centrally planned economy. Yet you're advocating a vote for the less regulated, market driven agenda of the conservatives.

Countries are still hugely dependent on each other, it's a drawback of globalisation. If one country goes down, the countries linked to it will go down if not handled correctly.

Let's not forget the huge spending and the selling of gold...

You are trying to support the ex-Labour government. Which is quite frankly ludicrous.

Reply 94

Shaughney

3

Posted this earlier today but I feel it's also relevant to this thread about how labour wasn't to blame:

In 2007 before the crisis UK debt to GDP was 43%, compared to 67% in Germany and 107% in Greece. Economist Mark Blyth has said the only Country guilty of spending their way into economic trouble was Greece.

The figures are visible here [URL="http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country :uk:

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en"]http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y= gd_pc_gdp&idim=country

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en

Secondly, you need to understand that Governments constantly switch between running a budget surplus and a budget deficit. Using the above link, change it to display government surplus/deficit and you can see that in 1996 the Tory govt was running a deficit of 4.3%, by 1998 the Labour govt had reduced that deficit to 0.1% and reached a surplus of 3.5% by 2000. So basically they wiped out the Tory deficit they had inherited....why Ed doesn't mention that is beyond me.

Ok, so a surplus means that the govt is receiving more money than it spends. Clearly it cannot do that for long because people would start calling for tax cuts and for the government to spend more....
So spend more is what Labour did, and by 2002 we were running a budget deficit of 2.1%. From 2002 to the crisis, our deficit stayed at between 2-3.5% - compared to 5.7% in Greece.

The problem was that Labour was running a deficit when the banking crisis hit the economies of the US, UK and EU. This was a crisis that NOBODY anticipated or saw coming. This was a crisis caused by increasingly relaxed regulation of the banks. This relaxed regulation was STARTED in the 80s by Reagan/Thatcher and continued by New Labour. If the Tories were in power instead of Labour then the outcome would probably have been worse considering David Cameron argued for even less regulation of the banks.

The subprime banking crisis meant that the banks in the US and UK had to be bailed out by the governments. This meant that the govt injected public money into the banks, taking a stake in the banks but also taking a stake of their debt. As the banking system was on its knees, this meant the tax revenue they contributed to UK GDP took a massive hit.
So we can see that:

1.

The banks aren't giving as much as tax revenue for the UK which means UK GDP falls. Which will then mean our debt to gdp ratio gets worse, even without any extra spending.

2.

The UK government injects the banks with cash and inherits the banks debt. Which means the UK debt to gdp ratio suddenly looks a lot worse.

3.

The banking crisis then spreads to the wider economy, people lose their jobs and spending on welfare naturally increases as more people fall back on the safety net.

So we can see that as a result of the banking crisis, UK GDP fell, UK spending had to go up and UK debt was also increased as a result of saving the banks. All those things suddenly take the debt to gdp ratio from 43% in 2007 to 67% in 2009 and 78.4% in 2010.

Basically, Labour was damned if they do, damned if they don't. They did not cause the crash, spending did not cause the crash. UK Debt to GDP ratio and budget deficit was a SYMPTOM of the crash, not the cause.
What the Tories don't mention is that they would have had to have acted in a similar fashion, and they could easily have relaxed bank regulation even more.

It really frustrates and angers me that Cameron/Osborne keep referring to the "mess Labour left behind" and claim the UK could have ended up like Greece. We still have a central bank, which means that we can print money to an extent.
It also annoys me that Labour/Milliband are so ineffective at defending themselves. Ed was right to highlight a global economic crisis but I wish he would pull out the above figures I've quoted and shut people up!

Reply 95

frankieboy

13

Original post by Shaughney

Posted this earlier today but I feel it's also relevant to this thread about how labour wasn't to blame:

In 2007 before the crisis UK debt to GDP was 43%, compared to 67% in Germany and 107% in Greece. Economist Mark Blyth has said the only Country guilty of spending their way into economic trouble was Greece.

The figures are visible here [URL="http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country :uk:

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en"]http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y= gd_pc_gdp&idim=country

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en

Secondly, you need to understand that Governments constantly switch between running a budget surplus and a budget deficit. Using the above link, change it to display government surplus/deficit and you can see that in 1996 the Tory govt was running a deficit of 4.3%, by 1998 the Labour govt had reduced that deficit to 0.1% and reached a surplus of 3.5% by 2000. So basically they wiped out the Tory deficit they had inherited....why Ed doesn't mention that is beyond me.

Ok, so a surplus means that the govt is receiving more money than it spends. Clearly it cannot do that for long because people would start calling for tax cuts and for the government to spend more....
So spend more is what Labour did, and by 2002 we were running a budget deficit of 2.1%. From 2002 to the crisis, our deficit stayed at between 2-3.5% - compared to 5.7% in Greece.

The problem was that Labour was running a deficit when the banking crisis hit the economies of the US, UK and EU. This was a crisis that NOBODY anticipated or saw coming. This was a crisis caused by increasingly relaxed regulation of the banks. This relaxed regulation was STARTED in the 80s by Reagan/Thatcher and continued by New Labour. If the Tories were in power instead of Labour then the outcome would probably have been worse considering David Cameron argued for even less regulation of the banks.

The subprime banking crisis meant that the banks in the US and UK had to be bailed out by the governments. This meant that the govt injected public money into the banks, taking a stake in the banks but also taking a stake of their debt. As the banking system was on its knees, this meant the tax revenue they contributed to UK GDP took a massive hit.
So we can see that:

1.

The banks aren't giving as much as tax revenue for the UK which means UK GDP falls. Which will then mean our debt to gdp ratio gets worse, even without any extra spending.

2.

The UK government injects the banks with cash and inherits the banks debt. Which means the UK debt to gdp ratio suddenly looks a lot worse.

3.

The banking crisis then spreads to the wider economy, people lose their jobs and spending on welfare naturally increases as more people fall back on the safety net.

So we can see that as a result of the banking crisis, UK GDP fell, UK spending had to go up and UK debt was also increased as a result of saving the banks. All those things suddenly take the debt to gdp ratio from 43% in 2007 to 67% in 2009 and 78.4% in 2010.

Basically, Labour was damned if they do, damned if they don't. They did not cause the crash, spending did not cause the crash. UK Debt to GDP ratio and budget deficit was a SYMPTOM of the crash, not the cause.
What the Tories don't mention is that they would have had to have acted in a similar fashion, and they could easily have relaxed bank regulation even more.

It really frustrates and angers me that Cameron/Osborne keep referring to the "mess Labour left behind" and claim the UK could have ended up like Greece. We still have a central bank, which means that we can print money to an extent.
It also annoys me that Labour/Milliband are so ineffective at defending themselves. Ed was right to highlight a global economic crisis but I wish he would pull out the above figures I've quoted and shut people up!

At last someone talking objective sense, including a few of the bits that are conveniently never mentioned. Good post.

Reply 96

Gazzaaa

12

Vote Tory for stability and security within the country. We've achieved a lot in 5 years, let's not go backwards by voting Labour propped up by the SNP.

Reply 97

OP

Original post by Shaughney

Posted this earlier today but I feel it's also relevant to this thread about how labour wasn't to blame:

In 2007 before the crisis UK debt to GDP was 43%, compared to 67% in Germany and 107% in Greece. Economist Mark Blyth has said the only Country guilty of spending their way into economic trouble was Greece.

The figures are visible here [URL="http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country :uk:

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en"]http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y= gd_pc_gdp&idim=country

de:fr&hl=en&dl=en

Secondly, you need to understand that Governments constantly switch between running a budget surplus and a budget deficit. Using the above link, change it to display government surplus/deficit and you can see that in 1996 the Tory govt was running a deficit of 4.3%, by 1998 the Labour govt had reduced that deficit to 0.1% and reached a surplus of 3.5% by 2000. So basically they wiped out the Tory deficit they had inherited....why Ed doesn't mention that is beyond me.

Ok, so a surplus means that the govt is receiving more money than it spends. Clearly it cannot do that for long because people would start calling for tax cuts and for the government to spend more....
So spend more is what Labour did, and by 2002 we were running a budget deficit of 2.1%. From 2002 to the crisis, our deficit stayed at between 2-3.5% - compared to 5.7% in Greece.

The problem was that Labour was running a deficit when the banking crisis hit the economies of the US, UK and EU. This was a crisis that NOBODY anticipated or saw coming. This was a crisis caused by increasingly relaxed regulation of the banks. This relaxed regulation was STARTED in the 80s by Reagan/Thatcher and continued by New Labour. If the Tories were in power instead of Labour then the outcome would probably have been worse considering David Cameron argued for even less regulation of the banks.

The subprime banking crisis meant that the banks in the US and UK had to be bailed out by the governments. This meant that the govt injected public money into the banks, taking a stake in the banks but also taking a stake of their debt. As the banking system was on its knees, this meant the tax revenue they contributed to UK GDP took a massive hit.
So we can see that:

1.

The banks aren't giving as much as tax revenue for the UK which means UK GDP falls. Which will then mean our debt to gdp ratio gets worse, even without any extra spending.

2.

The UK government injects the banks with cash and inherits the banks debt. Which means the UK debt to gdp ratio suddenly looks a lot worse.

3.

The banking crisis then spreads to the wider economy, people lose their jobs and spending on welfare naturally increases as more people fall back on the safety net.

So we can see that as a result of the banking crisis, UK GDP fell, UK spending had to go up and UK debt was also increased as a result of saving the banks. All those things suddenly take the debt to gdp ratio from 43% in 2007 to 67% in 2009 and 78.4% in 2010.

Basically, Labour was damned if they do, damned if they don't. They did not cause the crash, spending did not cause the crash. UK Debt to GDP ratio and budget deficit was a SYMPTOM of the crash, not the cause.
What the Tories don't mention is that they would have had to have acted in a similar fashion, and they could easily have relaxed bank regulation even more.

It really frustrates and angers me that Cameron/Osborne keep referring to the "mess Labour left behind" and claim the UK could have ended up like Greece. We still have a central bank, which means that we can print money to an extent.
It also annoys me that Labour/Milliband are so ineffective at defending themselves. Ed was right to highlight a global economic crisis but I wish he would pull out the above figures I've quoted and shut people up!

Labour and Miliband aren't using this because it's bending statistics and context to a point where it can back them up. Similar to writing an essay, analysing everything into so much detail it eventually backs their points up.

Labour would have handled it better if they didn't sell the gold at a ridiculous price and borrowed/spent so much. You can't go waffling on about how "it wasn't their fault, they had to do it". If you sell gold at its lowest rate, borrow billions of pounds over a long period of time and spend huge amounts of GDP consistently - it won't be sustainable. Just because the economy was all bright and wonderful doesn't mean it'll be like that in the future. If Labour weren't so complacent and stupid, they could've handled it better.

But the fact is they didn't. They lost the trust of the British people and never really gained it back. Their note left to the Chancellor wasn't a joke, it really reflects just how stupid the Labour government were and not much has changed.

Labour is a party full of hypocrites, they are not for the working people. They are for the people who don't work. They are not for business. I really don't care how negative I'm being towards Labour.

Also remember all of the hype around zero hours contracts and NHS privatisation which is now backfiring on Labour. Ouch.

Reply 98

OP