Turn on thread page Beta

Labour's economic policy watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Consumer confidence received a bump with the royal wedding (handily labelled for you on the graph...) but fell off a cliff after that.
    How would a royal wedding increase consumer confidence? Have you got the rest of the grah?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    My view is that the government has been unlucky both in terms of imported inflation tht it can't do anything about i.e fuel prices, gas prices etc, which has hurt people's spending power and the lower than expected demand from a eurozone in tatters.
    And unlike the government i do not accept that Labour's plan would condemn us to Greek style misery, because both of their economic plans are so similar.
    Thoughts?
    LOL seriously?! The Tories have been unlucky with a few problems in Europe so that absolves them of all guilt, but when the global financial system collapses and plunges the world into a recession, the debt racked up to keep the economy going is all Labours fault?!

    Absolutely laughable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    LOL seriously?! The Tories have been unlucky with a few problems in Europe so that absolves them of all guilt, but when the global financial system collapses and plunges the world into a recession, the debt racked up to keep the economy going is all Labours fault?!

    Absolutely laughable.
    Where do i say the current situation is entirely Labour's fault? Can you read? My post was a critique of labour's current economic policy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Will Lucky)
    Oh they have a fair point.

    But I'm quite certain were Labour in power they would probably be carrying out the exact same measures that the coalition is. They are in opposition, they have the luxury of being able to argue for a different plan without actually presenting it.
    One difference. They'd roll over to the unions.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    One difference. They'd roll over to the unions.
    *Negotiate and avoid crippling strikes
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Where do i say the current situation is entirely Labour's fault? Can you read? My post was a critique of labour's current economic policy.
    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if we were having an argument about the Tories cutting, you'd be saying 'well its all Labours fault we have to do this'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    *Negotiate and avoid crippling strikes
    They'd roll over. The only reason Ed Milliband is Labour leader is because of the unions. Your a moron if you think he'd even negotiate. "Yes union leader. Whatever you want!"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labour's economic policy isn't much different to the conservatives', given the economic problems and the debt crisis. However, there are a few differences. Bear in mind that Labour have a 2 year policy system so most of policy is still being designed.

    1. Labour would not have cut in the first year. The Conservatives did, the economy stagnated (not necessarily because of the cuts but the cuts would have an impact, as would the fuel duties and VAT), which meant now the government missed its deficit reduction target. Labour don't want a deficit either, of course, but their more Keynesian approach means they would try and grow before cutting, after all, this makes cutting easier.

    2. Labour would have raised income tax higher, VAT lower, and not placed the burden on education, health and welfare. The Conservatives cut things like SureStart, university funding, etc., Labour would have cut less in education and health, more on things like the armed forces, prisons, etc.

    3. Labour support a financial transactions (or Robin Hood) tax.

    4. Labour would have invested in infrastructure, e.g. High speed rail, motorways etc., earlier, whereas the Tories have left it till now, hoping the economy would have picked up.

    5. Labour would not have had tax breaks for married couples, and kept many benefits including disability, child benefits, and EMA, partially cut by the Conservatives. (although after the first year Labour may have cut these.)

    6. Labour would have greater financial/bank regulation as they see this as the cause of the recession, and may have taxed top incomes higher.

    7. Labour would have supported things like the Merlin Project more and invested in long term schemes to prevent youth unemployment, something overlooked by the Conservatives.

    8. Labour would have set up a green investment bank.

    9. Labour would have waited longer for the selling of Northern Rock, and taken greater advantage of the fact that they owned banks. E.g. Through issuing public shares or using it as a platform to regulate the City.

    10. Perhaps most importantly, Labour have different ideological objectives. The Conservatives tend to be much more pro-free market and laissez-faire, targeting growth and low inflation. Labour would be more concerned about employment, equality of opportunity, general welfare, and development of deprived areas. They are also more likely to do this through government intervention in the economy, state ownership of certain industries, and fiscal policy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    They'd roll over. The only reason Ed Milliband is Labour leader is because of the unions. Your a moron if you think he'd even negotiate. "Yes union leader. Whatever you want!"
    Oh look, calling me a moron. That's a good debating technique. Oh wait no, it's the sign of someone who knows they're about to be made to look stupid.

    Yes, of course Ed Miliband would never oppose the unions:



    ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI )

    Want to take that stupid comment back?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    Oh look, calling me a moron. That's a good debating technique. Oh wait no, it's the sign of someone who knows they're about to be made to look stupid.

    Yes, of course Ed Miliband would never oppose the unions:



    ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI )

    Want to take that stupid comment back?
    How is that even relevant? Post date: 30th July... Miliband wasn't elected until late september and most likely didn't know at that point that the unions would be the ones to get him in.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-standby.html

    ^^^Proff: Miliband calls the strikes terrible, however still supports the unions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if we were having an argument about the Tories cutting, you'd be saying 'well its all Labours fault we have to do this'.
    You'll meake a great politician, answering an entirely different question to the one being asked.
    If you haven't got the intellectual capability to answer the OP then don't bother.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    How is that even relevant? Post date: 30th July... Miliband wasn't elected until late september and most likely didn't know at that point that the unions would be the ones to get him in.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-standby.html

    ^^^Proff: Miliband calls the strikes terrible, however still supports the unions.
    It's relevant because you implied Miliband would never go against the unions. He condemned them earlier this year.

    Seems to me like he supports the unions when he thinks its right and opposes them when he thinks that right.

    Or rather, with all political leaders, he'll just do what wins the most votes. He's hardly entirely controlled by the unions though.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    You'll meake a great politician, answering an entirely different question to the one being asked.
    If you haven't got the intellectual capability to answer the OP then don't bother.
    What, so you agree that the deficit was caused largely by the bank bailouts, caused by the global recession?

    Or do you think its largely Labours fault?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    What, so you agree that the deficit was caused largely by the bank bailouts, caused by the global recession?

    Or do you think its largely Labours fault?
    Where the blame lies for the financial crisis:
    1) SOME of the banks. It is important not to demonise them all.
    2) The regulators got off bloody lightly seeing as it's there job to stop these things happening.
    3) Ordinary consumers, those that borrowed excessively. Remember a bank doesn't force you to take out a Loan, it just credit available.
    Labour were of course not responsible for the global recession any idiot can see that.
    However, we ran defecits from the year 2002 onwards even though the economy had been growing for 9 years by 2002. It is totally irresponsible to be running defecits at that point int he economic cycle.
    Labour employed 1/2 a million extra public sector workers from Mar 2008 onwards massively adding to the defecit and conveniently buying votes in the process.

    The fact of the matter is if we had had a fiscally sensible government over the past decade (eithe new labour 1997-2001, or a conservative government), we would have been in a much better position when the crisis hit and the cuts and tax rises would not had to have been as large.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    3) Ordinary consumers, those that borrowed excessively. Remember a bank doesn't force you to take out a Loan, it just credit available.
    I never understand this thinking. If you have a friend who never pays their debts, has no job and generally wastes his money, would you blame him if, after lending him £50 you never get it back?
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    The fact of the matter is if we had had a fiscally sensible government over the past decade (eithe new labour 1997-2001, or a conservative government), we would have been in a much better position when the crisis hit and the cuts and tax rises would not had to have been as large.
    The same conservative party that was pledging to match and exceed Labour's spending as late as 2007?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dc_lawrence)
    Labour's economic policy isn't much different to the conservatives', given the economic problems and the debt crisis. However, there are a few differences. Bear in mind that Labour have a 2 year policy system so most of policy is still being designed.

    1. Labour would not have cut in the first year. The Conservatives did, the economy stagnated (not necessarily because of the cuts but the cuts would have an impact, as would the fuel duties and VAT), which meant now the government missed its deficit reduction target. Labour don't want a deficit either, of course, but their more Keynesian approach means they would try and grow before cutting, after all, this makes cutting easier.

    2. Labour would have raised income tax higher, VAT lower, and not placed the burden on education, health and welfare. The Conservatives cut things like SureStart, university funding, etc., Labour would have cut less in education and health, more on things like the armed forces, prisons, etc.

    3. Labour support a financial transactions (or Robin Hood) tax.

    4. Labour would have invested in infrastructure, e.g. High speed rail, motorways etc., earlier, whereas the Tories have left it till now, hoping the economy would have picked up.

    5. Labour would not have had tax breaks for married couples, and kept many benefits including disability, child benefits, and EMA, partially cut by the Conservatives. (although after the first year Labour may have cut these.)

    6. Labour would have greater financial/bank regulation as they see this as the cause of the recession, and may have taxed top incomes higher.

    7. Labour would have supported things like the Merlin Project more and invested in long term schemes to prevent youth unemployment, something overlooked by the Conservatives.

    8. Labour would have set up a green investment bank.

    9. Labour would have waited longer for the selling of Northern Rock, and taken greater advantage of the fact that they owned banks. E.g. Through issuing public shares or using it as a platform to regulate the City.

    10. Perhaps most importantly, Labour have different ideological objectives. The Conservatives tend to be much more pro-free market and laissez-faire, targeting growth and low inflation. Labour would be more concerned about employment, equality of opportunity, general welfare, and development of deprived areas. They are also more likely to do this through government intervention in the economy, state ownership of certain industries, and fiscal policy.
    1. The Coalition cut £6 billion in the first year. In a £1.5 trillion economy to say that caused the current low growth rate is utter lunacy.
    2. Utter nonsense. labour pledged to cut NHS spending, the Coalition will increase it in real terms. They have also protected schools spending in real terms.
    3. Have they actually come out and said that? I know they support a bankers bonus tax but if they supported the FTT i'm sure they'd be shouting about it from the rooftops and anyway the Swedish finance minister came out a month or so ago and said when they introduced it in the 80's all the business just moved to London and they actually lost money.
    4. Labour pledged to cut infrastructure spending in half , the coalition increased it from that level.
    5. There are no tax cuts for married couples. The coalition have kept child benefits for all those not in the higher tax baracket and Labour have said they support the majority of the welfare changes.#
    6. Labour support the proposals of the bickers report initiated by the Coaltion government and have said a 50% tax rate is as far as they will go.
    7. The future jobs fund was a joke and the Coalition have just invested £1 billion in a youth contract scheme as well as the work programme.
    8. The Coalition have set up a green investment bank.
    9. the coaltion had to sell of northern rock before 2013 because of a deal signed by Alistair darling with the european union.
    10. You seem to be comparing Old labour to the Conservatives there.

    TBH your post has more lies and half-truths in it that i have ever seen on this forum and you need to research before posting nonsense like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    LOL seriously?! The Tories have been unlucky with a few problems in Europe so that absolves them of all guilt, but when the global financial system collapses and plunges the world into a recession, the debt racked up to keep the economy going is all Labours fault?!

    Absolutely laughable.

    Yes as stewards in charge of Britain's economy during the run up to the BRITISH financial crisis Labour are at least partially responsible for consumer debt levels and wholly responsible for national debt levels. Other countries may also be suffering, but that doesn't absolve Labour of their financial recklessness while they were going on one the largest spending sprees this country has ever known. Labour saw it, spent it, and then borrowed some more while pledging their children's and grandchildren's future income as security. It's beyond disgusting and borders on criminal imo
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Yes as stewards in charge of Britain's economy during the run up to the BRITISH financial crisis Labour are at least partially responsible for consumer debt levels and wholly responsible for national debt levels. Other countries may also be suffering, but that doesn't absolve Labour of their financial recklessness while they were going on one the largest spending sprees this country has ever known. Labour saw it, spent it, and then borrowed some more while pledging their children's and grandchildren's future income as security. It's beyond disgusting and borders on criminal imo
    I love this. I bet you have no idea what debt levels are - you're just parroting what you've heard in the media.

    Our debt levels actually went down under Labour, pre-financial crisis. So I think you're talking about the deficit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    I love this. I bet you have no idea what debt levels are - you're just parroting what you've heard in the media.

    Our debt levels actually went down under Labour, pre-financial crisis. So I think you're talking about the deficit.
    Nope, Labour were paying down the national debt upto about 2001 when they were following Ken Clarke's spending plans but as soon as Brown's vision became policy the debt levels started to escalate. This is the official debt level btw, so doesn't include little things like New Labour's disasterous PFI, or the nuclear cleanup cost, or the massive public pension liability etc etc.

    What they did in 200X is irrelevent though, by the time they left office the coffers were empty and we were directly involved in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, that's their legacy and why they won't be returning to office for another generation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    1. The Coalition cut £6 billion in the first year. In a £1.5 trillion economy to say that caused the current low growth rate is utter lunacy.
    2. Utter nonsense. labour pledged to cut NHS spending, the Coalition will increase it in real terms. They have also protected schools spending in real terms.
    3. Have they actually come out and said that? I know they support a bankers bonus tax but if they supported the FTT i'm sure they'd be shouting about it from the rooftops and anyway the Swedish finance minister came out a month or so ago and said when they introduced it in the 80's all the business just moved to London and they actually lost money.
    4. Labour pledged to cut infrastructure spending in half , the coalition increased it from that level.
    5. There are no tax cuts for married couples. The coalition have kept child benefits for all those not in the higher tax baracket and Labour have said they support the majority of the welfare changes.#
    6. Labour support the proposals of the bickers report initiated by the Coaltion government and have said a 50% tax rate is as far as they will go.
    7. The future jobs fund was a joke and the Coalition have just invested £1 billion in a youth contract scheme as well as the work programme.
    8. The Coalition have set up a green investment bank.
    9. the coaltion had to sell of northern rock before 2013 because of a deal signed by Alistair darling with the european union.
    10. You seem to be comparing Old labour to the Conservatives there.

    TBH your post has more lies and half-truths in it that i have ever seen on this forum and you need to research before posting nonsense like this.
    I was comparing Labour economic policy to what the Conservatives proposed in the last budget. It's only recently that the conservatives have realised what they did wrong and started spending on infrastructure, etc. The coalition pledged to cut £81 billion in the first year, not 6.

    Labour promised NO Cuts in the first year, none to infrastructure, or anything. The Conservatives jumped straight in and regretted it. There is no doubt that the cuts have had an effect on GDP, in a country where half of GDP relies on the state. But there are of course other factors explaining the current weak growth.

    Labour did promise to maintain the 50% tax rate, while the conservatives are considering cutting it. Also, they did promise to raise NI, effectively the same as income tax.

    And of course Old Labour are more different to today's Tories. But today's Labour government is still the most likely to represent the unions, which inevitably leads to more left wing / socialist policy, even of to get votes they have to appear more centrist.
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.