Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Did Labour really spend that much money? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In 2005 the Government spent 38.9% of GDP, the current Tory Government spent 44.1% of GDP in 2012.

    Surely these figures speak for themselves, and that proportionate to how much we were outputting in the economy, the Blair government was spending less than current Tory governments?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    2010 figures would likely give a far better indication than comparing government spending today with one from 8 years ago.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why did you pick 2005? Surely 2009, the last full year they were in power would be more sensible?

    Personally I don't think one data point each is enough to draw conclusion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeropoint)
    Why did you pick 2005? Surely 2009, the last full year they were in power would be more sensible?

    Personally I don't think one data point each is enough to draw conclusion.
    I pick this period as with all the debates I've had, Tories always claim Labour 'spent far too much money in the boom period' which is clearly not true.
    They say that lavish spending was the route of all the current economic turmoil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    In 2005 the Government spent 38.9% of GDP, the current Tory Government spent 44.1% of GDP in 2012.

    Surely these figures speak for themselves, and that proportionate to how much we were outputting in the economy, the Blair government was spending less than current Tory governments?
    GDP has fallen as a result of Labour's recklessness and irresponsibility. It stands to reason that spending is a higher proportion of GDP now than then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't claim to be Tory, but isn't the argument that the labour government should have been saving up during the boom years, so that when things went sour we would have more to fall back on.

    I think the current government are ideologically against spending a penny more than they have to, while the previous government were perhaps a little more willing to splash out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    GDP has fallen as a result of Labour's recklessness and irresponsibility. It stands to reason that spending is a higher proportion of GDP now than then.
    Surely the Tory policy of deregulating the Banks led to Casino Bankers.

    The Banks collapsed because the Bankers were lending too much money, and because our biggest sector is financial services we were bound to suffer.

    The crash was just resultant of Capitalism. People want to gamble more and more money for big returns, leading to the crash.

    There is a global recession, reducing the trade with other countries. Do you really think spending 38.9% of GDP is so high that therefore this caused countries such as the USA to go down under aswell? Anyway, Labour spending proportionate to GDP output clearly wasn't that much, so what is the problem?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    GDP has fallen as a result of Labour's recklessness and irresponsibility. It stands to reason that spending is a higher proportion of GDP now than then.
    (Original post by zeropoint)
    I wouldn't claim to be Tory, but isn't the argument that the labour government should have been saving up during the boom years, so that when things went sour we would have more to fall back on.

    I think the current government are ideologically against spending a penny more than they have to, while the previous government were perhaps a little more willing to splash out.
    Cameron wanted more deregulation of banks, which is one of the criticisms of Brown for causing this recession: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/0...s-than-labour/ . Thus, if we had such a big crash in 2007 with Brown, it would have been even worse under Cameron.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Debt interest payments are now much higher

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    In 2005 the Government spent 38.9% of GDP, the current Tory Government spent 44.1% of GDP in 2012.

    Surely these figures speak for themselves, and that proportionate to how much we were outputting in the economy, the Blair government was spending less than current Tory governments?
    Debt interest payments are nowmuch higher

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Surely the Tory policy of deregulating the Banks led to Casino Bankers.
    And Labour policy.

    The companies act of 2005 didn't help matters did it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Debt interest payments are nowmuch higher

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    6% of GPD (ie 90bn/annum) higher?

    Aren't interest payments falling year on year as high interest debt is replaced with low interest debt? (even though the total debt is growing)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    The Banks collapsed because the Bankers were lending too much money, and because our biggest sector is financial services we were bound to suffer.

    The crash was just resultant of Capitalism. People want to gamble more and more money for big returns, leading to the crash.
    There is nothing inherently wrong with 'casino' banking. It is a major part of the financial system. Risk is a part of everything, from investment to buying a product. You need to ask yourself what poison was poured into the system to make it sick.

    The banks lent too much money precisely because of left wing ideals. It all started in the US with the Fed keeping interest rates low (a Keynesian premise), which created the housing bubble. Rising house prices were a key factor in banking; banks presumed prices would keep on rising so lent more. Well bubbles burst. When banks found they had sub prime mortgages bundled into their CDOs the **** hit the fan. The banks collapsed because they, like everyone else, were conned by the phony boom created by government.

    Creating bubbles like the Fed did is not capitalism. Bailing out companies is not capitalism. It is government intervention and I can tell you're the type of person who would call for more of it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Intresting :beard:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    In 2005 the Government spent 38.9% of GDP, the current Tory Government spent 44.1% of GDP in 2012.

    Surely these figures speak for themselves, and that proportionate to how much we were outputting in the economy, the Blair government was spending less than current Tory governments?
    Doesn't quite work like that. You need to take into account tax receipts.

    In 2005 the economy was boomin and we had a very high amount of tax receipts going to HMRC. And we still spent that money.

    Currently the Givernment has to borrow money to make up for a shortfall in tax receipts due to a struggling economy. Not helped by the increased interst payements on loans that the Labour Government took out even though they didn't need to.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Surely the Tory policy of deregulating the Banks led to Casino Bankers.

    The Banks collapsed because the Bankers were lending too much money, and because our biggest sector is financial services we were bound to suffer.

    The crash was just resultant of Capitalism. People want to gamble more and more money for big returns, leading to the crash.

    There is a global recession, reducing the trade with other countries. Do you really think spending 38.9% of GDP is so high that therefore this caused countries such as the USA to go down under aswell? Anyway, Labour spending proportionate to GDP output clearly wasn't that much, so what is the problem?
    It didn't help that Labour gave up control of the BoE who monitored banks performance, and monitoring in control of their newly set up FSA.

    It's a bit like leaving sweets in the room with a small child around and trusting them not to eat them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People that say Capatalism caused the banking crisis clearly don't quite understand what happened.

    Aritificially fixing prices and interest rates,, government intervention, that is a huge part of what precipitated the crisis.

    And a government that is needlessly running at a deficit at the height of a boom is not a good government.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    People that say Capatalism caused the banking crisis clearly don't quite understand what happened.

    Aritificially fixing prices and interest rates,, government intervention, that is a huge part of what precipitated the crisis.

    And a government that is needlessly running at a deficit at the height of a boom is not a good government.
    Amen to that brother. It's just basic common sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labour are wicked.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    Labour are wicked.
    Not quite. But they need to stop bribing voters with freebies that ultimatley need paying for.

    My predictions are. The oresent government will do the ground work for the recovery that will be unpopular and criticised. They loose in 2015. The groundwork would've been done and come to fruition in about 2017. Labour will claim the credit after not changing any of teh repsent governments policies.

    They'll do something daft. The economy will crash again. Torys will get voted back in and the cycle begins again.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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

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