Coalition vs New Labour Watch

Poll: Have the coalition done a better job of running our country than new labour>
A lot better (15)
31.91%
A lot worse (10)
21.28%
No difference (8)
17.02%
A bit worse (5)
10.64%
A bit better (9)
19.15%
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
(Original post by InnerTemple)
Did the Tories propose lower spending?

That's right: no, they didn't.
Sadly that's the game of politics. When we have political parties that pander to the mass population by defining success as who can give away the greatest amount from the public purse, then a political party is never going to get into power by saying in boom times were going to cut spending. The vast majority of the population don't understand economics or care about it. They'd much rather gorge on it. Labour has no need to increase public spending to the levels that they did, but they chose to.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by InnerTemple)
They also reduced the deficit left behind by the Tories too - everything was going very well.
Nah, 96/97 deficit was lower than the 06/07 or projected 07/08 one.

Where are you getting your numbers?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by Alfissti)
Do as little as possible = interfere with the economy sparingly.

Deregulation and getting rid of red tape = working towards the goal above. Definitely a lot more can be done but it will take time especially with so many fire-fighting that goes on within the Coalition and also within the Conservative Party. I guess you could say that I'm willing to give the government time as such redtape are an amalgamation of 13 years of Liebour and EU work, it will take time to formulate new and far more efficient as well as effective policies and then dismantle the old junk and crappy ones.

Taxation, there is a lot more to do but it will also take time and I can understand it that it is an extremely delicate political balance. I will give it to them, they can't expect to cut taxes for the wealthier and still win and election.
I doubt they'll be cutting taxes to the wealthier. If you actually look at what this government has done whilst in power, they've actually done what labour claims they will do. Under labour, top end tax rate was 40%, and its now 45%. So labour supporters keep banging on that the Tories give the rich tax cuts. They've actually increased taxation for the rich.

The present government has increased tax breaks for the poor. So in the tipsy turvey world the coalition have made the poorer in society better off and made up the shortfall by taxing the rich. We also have a conservative PM who is leading the charge with G8 to try and close tax avoidance loopholes down.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Labour has no need to increase public spending to the levels that they did, but they chose to.
It was less raising public spending, it was the reduction of the basic rate which tipped things over the edge.

You can argue that either way really, but for me it was when Labour started cutting tax while raising expenditure, that the deficit went a little OTT.

Not that anybody much apart from the EU was arguing at the time.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
(Original post by Alfissti)
Red tape has gone down a lot under this government. This government is far more interested in SMEs within UK far more than under Labour who would support anyone but UK SMEs, selling our products and services to the government has improved a lot as it's no longer a case of needing to wait up to 8 months to get payment though you're promised 60 days, these days if they say 60 days by day 48 to 50 you will be told on what date you could expect payment. It's a lot easier to bid for government contracts as well these days so to me this is good.

granted I'm not unhappy about WTCs, allows me to give 12-16 and in some cases 0 hour contracts to quite a lot of my employees and they are more than happy, I'd have a rebellion at my businesses if I did the same in Norway or Iceland where I also have business interests.

Ministers I'm extremely disappointed and unhappy with :- That idiot Nick Clegg and that ******* Vince Cable, these are the stumbling blocks of the government from implementing proper policies.
So basically what you are saying is you like the Coalition government's work on
- reducing red tape
- SME policy
- SME access to government contracts
- flexible labour market

which is all BIS policy

and you are extremely disappointed and unhappy with Vince Cable

I suppose maybe all these things you have done were down to BIS civil servants IN SPITE of the government policy and Secretary of State.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I doubt they'll be cutting taxes to the wealthier. If you actually look at what this government has done whilst in power, they've actually done what labour claims they will do. Under labour, top end tax rate was 40%, and its now 45%. So labour supporters keep banging on that the Tories give the rich tax cuts. They've actually increased taxation for the rich.

The present government has increased tax breaks for the poor. So in the tipsy turvey world the coalition have made the poorer in society better off and made up the shortfall by taxing the rich. We also have a conservative PM who is leading the charge with G8 to try and close tax avoidance loopholes down.
The 50% rate kicked in April '10. So what do you mean the Tories have risen top end tax to 45%?

Yeah, Cameron has tried to keep quiet what hes done to the higher rate threshold...
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I doubt they'll be cutting taxes to the wealthier. If you actually look at what this government has done whilst in power, they've actually done what labour claims they will do. Under labour, top end tax rate was 40%, and its now 45%. So labour supporters keep banging on that the Tories give the rich tax cuts. They've actually increased taxation for the rich.

The present government has increased tax breaks for the poor. So in the tipsy turvey world the coalition have made the poorer in society better off and made up the shortfall by taxing the rich. We also have a conservative PM who is leading the charge with G8 to try and close tax avoidance loopholes down.
And yet they still claim Britain is "open for business"

You can keep scapegoating the rich but in the end they will just leave and take their wealth elsewhere and where will that leave us?

When guys like Blair and Mandleson were running the show there was no problem with people being rich, wealth creators were actively welcomed and we didn't need the leftish social engineering experiment that seems to be in fashion today.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 5 years ago
#28
(Original post by Quady)
Nah, 96/97 deficit was lower than the 06/07 or projected 07/08 one.

Where are you getting your numbers?
HM Treasury.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 5 years ago
#29
(Original post by InnerTemple)
HM Treasury.
Your technically correct however the deficit consistently fell from 1993 through to the election and Labour stuck to Tory spending plans (we went into surplus in the 1997-1998 fiscal year), i commend them for sticking with it but it was hardly a result of their actions really, infact generally Blair is even quoted as saying that the Tories left him a "golden economy".
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 5 years ago
#30
(Original post by InnerTemple)
HM Treasury.
I don't see how -a 4% deficit in 07/08 is lower than 3% in 96/97...
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 5 years ago
#31
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)

You can keep scapegoating the rich but in the end they will just leave and take their wealth elsewhere and where will that leave us?
This assumes you believe that money is the same thing as wealth. It also seems to be alluding to the fallacy of trickle-down economics. Hard work, ideas, resources, thinkers, creators, labourers create wealth. Money is supposed to be representative of real wealth but is routinely manipulated, as evidenced by the manner in which fiat currency can be printed at will (thus devaluing the money in your pocket) and magicked into existence through fractional reserve lending. The money is only given value through the real wealth. And those with the most money seem be be set on gambling in derivatives markets and turning numbers into bigger numbers without doing anything that you or I would consider hard work, or creating anything of true value. Not sure I'd miss them really.
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 years ago
#32
(Original post by Rakas21)
Your technically correct
Are they? What were the numbers, Browns March '07 budget speech predicted '-4' as the budget deficit and the figure I have from 96/97 was a 3% deficit from a Deloitte report.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 5 years ago
#33
(Original post by Quady)
Are they? What were the numbers, Browns March '07 budget speech predicted '-4' as the budget deficit and the figure I have from 96/97 was a 3% deficit from a Deloitte report.
Use the HMT pocket databank for these kind of figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...PDB_141113.pdf

p 14 has 'net borrowing' although technically this should be 'net surplus' because they put a minus sign to indicate deficit, ANNX is net borrowing and BKTL is nominal GDP so ANNX/BKTL is the headline figure used as a government statistic for deficit as a proportion of GDP

The budget balance in 1996/97 was deficit of 3.4 per cent of GDP
The budget balance in 2006/07 was deficit of 2.4 per cent of GDP
The budget balance in 2007/08 was deficit of 2.5 per cent of GDP

We actually had a worse deficit in 1993/94 than we do now....food for thought by all the doom mongers. Also the way that deficit melted away in the next 5 years shows that when the economy grows on trend its relatively easy to get a budget back in to balance.

The ONS website has all the full time series

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/site-infor...ies/index.html
0
reply
Brit_Miller
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#34
Report 5 years ago
#34
A lot worse from a human perspective. Austerity measures are crushing the poor, sick and disabled whilst they go all out to protect corporate interests and banker's bonuses. People are worse off, living standards are dropping. ATOS is an absolute disgrace. Education is now the most expensive in Europe and post-grad courses are now exclusively for the rich. Iain Duncan Smith is a disgusting human being.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 5 years ago
#35
(Original post by Davij038)
Has the coalition done a better job of running our country than new labour (Blair and Brown) and why/ why not?

Would love to hear what people have to say on this subject.

Thanks to all replies.
If we ignore the Blair first term which would even have been good enough to get my vote in 01 then the Tories have been a bit better than the second and third terms.

Regarding the economy they made a mistake in cutting capital spending which delayed the recovery however they have made sufficient spending cuts to impress me (i considered the state quite bloated). On education they have been very good as they have also being in foreign policy and international trade. On taxation they have made the right moves raising the tax allowance and scrapping the 50% rate. On employment they have been extremely impressive with near a million jobs created once you deduct their work programmes, unemployment only rising due to public sector redundancies (the private sector never stopped creating jobs).

On health i think they have been average to poor as the reform was over-complicated and botched. On defense they have been far too severe in spending cuts and the delay in the carriers. On the environment they have been abysmal (badger cull, insufficient incentives for GM crops). On welfare they have been the worst government i have ever heard of, they have not means tested pensioner benefits, they have watered down the cut in child benefit, they did no planning or research regarding the bedroom tax and they contracted the disability review to ATOS who don't do their job properly.

In conclusion they get 6/10 from me and the Tories will likely retain my vote in 2015 (the Liberals have won it for the Euro's in 2014). To improve they should immediately sack Owen Patterson and Ian Duncan Smith. Laws and Alexander are welcome to defect anytime they like (very impressive) and Pickles and Willets are somewhat the unsung heroes working extremely well in the background.
0
reply
lucas13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 5 years ago
#36
(Original post by InnerTemple)
I think that the coalition overstated the case for their economic polices. They made it sound like that when they took control in 2010, the sky was about to fall down. They made it appear that we were in the position purely because of Labour's policies. They said that their ideas were the only way to get us out of the mess they said we were in.

None of these things were true, however the hysteria that the coalition managed to whip up allowed them to push through some incredibly unfair and ill thought out policies.

Additionally, for those still fooled by the coalition's confidence trick, it will be hard to evaluate the present government's time in office compared to Labour's time.

I won't be sad to see the Tories gone in 2015.
what policies, you mean actually living within our means was a bad thing
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 5 years ago
#37
(Original post by Quady)
Are they? What were the numbers, Browns March '07 budget speech predicted '-4' as the budget deficit and the figure I have from 96/97 was a 3% deficit from a Deloitte report.
I believe he was referring to the surplus in Labour's first term as a result of Tory deficit reduction and Labour sticking to the plan. Only in their second term did things go downhill.
0
reply
lucas13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 years ago
#38
(Original post by Brit_Miller)
A lot worse from a human perspective. Austerity measures are crushing the poor, sick and disabled whilst they go all out to protect corporate interests and banker's bonuses. People are worse off, living standards are dropping. ATOS is an absolute disgrace. Education is now the most expensive in Europe and post-grad courses are now exclusively for the rich. Iain Duncan Smith is a disgusting human being.
the government is still spending way more than it receives it tax revenues. what your trying to advocate would mean the government would go bankrupt. people are worse off due to policies from way in the past, things take a lot of time to have an effect so past labour policies mean the economy is uncompetitive now.
0
reply
KoalaElf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 years ago
#39
(Original post by Alfissti)
What I'm unhappy over? I'm unhappy that benefits are still so generous that so many people are willing to say it isn't worthwhile to work a NMW or AMW job. I suppose capping it to a 1% annual rise is something but I'd been happier if it had been 0.1%
Maybe if people were paid enough to afford a basic standard of living (a situation massively exacerbated by property bubbles supported by policies that encourage endless property 'investing' that you are also profiting from) then they would find it worthwhile to work. Even Henry Ford understood that you have to ensure your workers can afford your product, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. To think otherwise is very short-termist and demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for your fellow human.


(Original post by Alfissti)
It's been better for me, to my existence in UK is mostly an economic one, the day there is no money to be had from here I'm outta here pronto.

...prefer they concentrate on far more pressing issues especially those that I could make money off
Sums things up really. I actually thought your callous, self-serving, shallow viewpoint was a tongue in cheek satirical post, designed to subtly illustrate the foolish and cruel nature of policies that favour those who wish to 'farm' people like cattle, but then I read your follow up post and realised you are completely serious.

I am sad to think about what might have happened to you to make you so lacking in empathy and unable to differentiate between what serves your personally and what is good for a country, the world or people in general.
2
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 years ago
#40
(Original post by KoalaElf)
Maybe if people were paid enough to afford a basic standard of living (a situation massively exacerbated by property bubbles supported by policies that encourage endless property 'investing' that you are also profiting from) then they would find it worthwhile to work. Even Henry Ford understood that you have to ensure your workers can afford your product, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. To think otherwise is very short-termist and demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for your fellow human.




Sums things up really. I actually thought your callous, self-serving, shallow viewpoint was a tongue in cheek satirical post, designed to subtly illustrate the foolish and cruel nature of policies that favour those who wish to 'farm' people like cattle, but then I read your follow up post and realised you are completely serious.

I am sad to think about what might have happened to you to make you so lacking in empathy and unable to differentiate between what serves your personally and what is good for a country, the world or people in general.
The empathy is there.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Economics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (51)
14.17%
The paper was reasonable (180)
50%
Not feeling great about that exam... (88)
24.44%
It was TERRIBLE (41)
11.39%

Watched Threads

View All