interestrateripoff Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Frazer Nelson has an interesting aside that over the Labour years the govt grew by 60%, I assume he means spending the article isn't too clear but he claims the only person in history who grew the state faster over a decade wore a moustache and barked orders in German. Is he correct on this? If he is has everyone's life got better or does everyone feel that they are in debt by 60% more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_ringledman_* Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 (edited) And as the state grew 60%, the real private wealth creating sector shrunk. Rather than create an environment for private industries to flourish to real global demand, the public sector imposed itself on the private, forcing firms to buy into the promise of public sector contracts. It was a ponzi scheme of the highest order. Labour's economic policies were so short sighted and aimed at one thing only - re-election. Edited October 17, 2010 by ringledman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Sadly there was fertile ground in a populace now so hopelessly hobbled that huge swathees of it truly believe they have rights to jobs, lifestyles, long life and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Frazer Nelson has an interesting aside that over the Labour years the govt grew by 60%, I assume he means spending the article isn't too clear but he claims the only person in history who grew the state faster over a decade wore a moustache and barked orders in German. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Sadly there was fertile ground in a populace now so hopelessly hobbled that huge swathees of it truly believe they have rights to jobs, lifestyles, long life and so on. There will always be jobs, even if we have to employ each other to go to war against ourselves. Or employ ourselves to go to war with each other. It depends on whom we wish to have the wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 If he is has everyone's life got better or does everyone feel that they are in debt by 60% more? If you're unemployed/on disability or one of the god knows how many immigrants over the last 13 years then probably yes. Otherwise no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 If you're unemployed/on disability or one of the god knows how many immigrants over the last 13 years then probably yes. Otherwise no. Labour effectively cut unemployment benefit. For JSA to be the same value relative to 1997 it would need to be £80, it is £50-65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhail Liebenstein Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Â Hmmm....60% you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 And as the state grew 60%, the real private wealth creating sector shrunk. Rather than create an environment for private industries to flourish to real global demand, the public sector imposed itself on the private, forcing firms to buy into the promise of public sector contracts. It was a ponzi scheme of the highest order. Labour's economic policies were so short sighted and aimed at one thing only - re-election. + 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 There will always be jobs, even if we have to employ each other to go to war against ourselves. Or employ ourselves to go to war with each other. It depends on whom we wish to have the wealth. Wealth has to be produced first. That is the main bit the left doesn't get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Wealth has to be produced first. That is the main bit the left doesn't get. And the highest paying jobs in this country do not create wealth, they merely control and extract it. The wealth creating jobs are for the most part low paid. How are we to create wealth when we reward the wealth creators the least and the extractors of wealth the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted October 17, 2010 Author Share Posted October 17, 2010 Labour's economic policies were so short sighted and aimed at one thing only - re-election. Sadly isn't that the point of being in govt? Nothing as noble as making future generations better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 (edited) And the highest paying jobs in this country do not create wealth, they merely control and extract it. The wealth creating jobs are for the most part low paid. How are we to create wealth when we reward the wealth creators the least and the extractors of wealth the most. I am not sure I understand what you mean there. Would it be by any chance that you think that only manual labour creates wealth? If so, that is not what I meant, or think. Do you? . Edited October 17, 2010 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I am not sure I understand what you mean there. Would it be by any chance that you think that only manual labour creates wealth? If so, that is not what I meant, or think. Do you? . No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambie Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Frazer Nelson has an interesting aside that over the Labour years the govt grew by 60%, I assume he means spending the article isn't too clear but he claims the only person in history who grew the state faster over a decade wore a moustache and barked orders in German. Is he correct on this? If he is has everyone's life got better or does everyone feel that they are in debt by 60% more? I presume he means real terms Total Managed Expenditure http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_2010_complete.pdf page 59 Table 4.1 Public expenditure aggregates, 1967–68 to 2010–11 1997-98 = £419bn 2009-10 = £669bn which is an increase of 60% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I presume he means real terms Total Managed Expenditure http://www.hm-treasu...10_complete.pdf page 59 Table 4.1 Public expenditure aggregates, 1967–68 to 2010–11 1997-98 = £419bn 2009-10 = £669bn which is an increase of 60% GDP has increased by 68% in that time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 GDP has increased by 68% in that time You mean expenditure. Based on borrowing, backed by properties, etc. You know the story. Ponzi. Party is over now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Sigh. Usual idiot claptrap. Labour ran with tory policies. The reason people are dependant on the state is that all the non-state jobs have moved to eastern europe and the far east. This happened because house prices rose to the point that it pushed wages so high that every job could be done cheaper abroad. In the public sector jobs have started to be moved to india. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Usual idiot claptrap. Labour ran with tory policies. It's all Thatcher's fault! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 GDP has increased by 68% in that time GDP includes government spending; it's an illusion if that growth is helped on by debt fuelled spending. The last time there was a budget surplus was 2002 I believe (someone can confirm that). Of course, we all know the other part of the equation - consumer spending - involved household debt rising dramatically to £1.4t. Fantasy budgeting, fantasy economics I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 The last time there was a budget surplus was 2002 I believe (someone can confirm that). Sounds about right - Brown promised to follow Clark for the first term then cut loose after that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 (edited) Frazer Nelson has an interesting aside that over the Labour years the govt grew by 60%, I assume he means spending the article isn't too clear but he claims the only person in history who grew the state faster over a decade wore a moustache and barked orders in German. Is he correct on this? If he is has everyone's life got better or does everyone feel that they are in debt by 60% more? ...as I opened the thread a I guessed it was "the man with the moustache"....how appropriate for the Blair and Brown years ....I knew these people were evil..... Edited October 17, 2010 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.