Exit Poll Shows Tories On 316, 10 Short Of Majority

[interestrateripoff]

Does that include all the PFI crap that Labour hid off balance sheet or is that only reflected in the later stats?

Secondly the debt to GDP ratio becomes meaningless as a measure when you consider that booming house prices where feeding into increased GDP.

Good Inflation, Bad Inflation: The Housing Boom, Economic Growth and the Disaggregation of Inflationary Preferences in the UK and Ireland

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00380.x/abstract

Our own calculations suggest that such credit-based consumption was, between 2004 and 2006, typically worth between 4 and 6 per cent of GDP—or, in other words, responsible in and of itself for keeping the UK economy in growth at what most would see as a relatively high point in the economic cycle (Hay et al. 2006).

[davidg]

Meaningless graph, the GDP figures were based on an unsustainable bubble.

[R K]

Nope. Wrong.

Labour took government spending up + over 40$, were running 3% budget deficit whilst having a massive credit and public sector binge.

The banks all went wrong, recession kicked in and the UK had a budget deficit of 11% - thats fcking huge!!!

It was a massive private sector debt binge and a massive public sector spend.

Nonsense.

It was 38% or so as the chart indicates and that was AFTER a manifesto commitment in 2005 to increase spending on the nhs which was endorsed by the public. So there was a democratic desire to moderately increase public spending.

There simply wasnt a massive public spending "binge" nor was there an especially massive private sector "binge" despite lots of nonsense in the media claiming there was.

Ofc when RBS collapsed and at the hieght of the great financial crisis public debt rose due to bailing the banks (savers) but also due to the correct function of the automatic stabilisers. i.e. taxes fall and unemployment payments rise to offset a rise in private sector savings. Without which ofc the recession would have been an even deeper depression.

You can have a debate about whether running a 2.5% deficit was sensible in the years running up to the crash but since few people either predicted it or the timing of it its mostly only hindsight bias & in any event would have made little difference to the outcome. Osborne is running a much higher deficit for instance 7 years later and he apparently is seen as being more competent for some reason.

UKs main problem was RBS. RBS wasnt mentioned once during this election which shows you how successful the City has been at directing the narrative - similar to your posts in fact. Problem is it is incorrect.

Edited May 9, 2015 by R K

[BorrowToLeech]

Meaningless graph, the GDP figures were based on an unsustainable bubble.

Of course, but it was the bubble that was the problem. Government spending was not the cause of the economic crisis.

Financialisation of the economy led to a private debt bubble, which led to an unprecedented economic collapse. And what were people debating? Government spending.

Why? Because the Tories will increase the financialisation of the economy, but they can at least promise to cut spending.

The Tories framed the debate in their favour, so they won the argument.

[BorrowToLeech]

..hah..hah...Milliband and the SNP would have been a nightmare..which planet are you on...? ...both wanted to live beyond their means and called living within means... austerity....well we know only the feckless do that....very leftie point of view ...overall ....a massive swing to the right if you include the UKIP percentage share of the vote....

Osbrown has followed Labour's plans for deficit reduction for the last five years. Unfortunately, this sort of fact was absent from the election debate.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of Ed Miliband and was hoping for a hung parliament.

[South Lorne]

Osbrown has followed Labour's plans for deficit reduction for the last five years. Unfortunately, this sort of fact was absent from the election debate.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of Ed Miliband and was hoping for a hung parliament.

....well a hung Parliament would have benefited Milliband ...and the SNP....a marriage made in heaven...in Labour's last year of Government they had no deficit reduction plan as they were on an upward curve of spend to win votes ...they failed ......

[South Lorne]

Of course, but it was the bubble that was the problem. Government spending was not the cause of the economic crisis.

Financialisation of the economy led to a private debt bubble, which led to an unprecedented economic collapse. And what were people debating? Government spending.

Why? Because the Tories will increase the financialisation of the economy, but they can at least promise to cut spending.

The Tories framed the debate in their favour, so they won the argument.

...not sure what you mean...all economies are based on financials in the current world.....

[Guest_northshore_*]

Meaningless graph, the GDP figures were based on an unsustainable bubble.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/labour-lost-the-economic-argument-5-years-ago/

..."If Gordon Brown had not run deficits in the early and mid 2000s, the public debt might now be a little less, but not much. Most of the sharp increase debt came about as a result of the recession. But politics is just as important as economics and the Conservatives won the politics hands down before Labour had realised what was going on. A lot of people are still convinced that the Blair and Brown governments were responsible for the rapid increase in debt in the late 2000s. It will take a long time for Labour to persuade them otherwise. If it ever does."

[South Lorne]

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/labour-lost-the-economic-argument-5-years-ago/

..."If Gordon Brown had not run deficits in the early and mid 2000s, the public debt might now be a little less, but not much. Most of the sharp increase debt came about as a result of the recession. But politics is just as important as economics and the Conservatives won the politics hands down before Labour had realised what was going on. A lot of people are still convinced that the Blair and Brown governments were responsible for the rapid increase in debt in the late 2000s. It will take a long time for Labour to persuade them otherwise. If it ever does."

....in the UK it was Nuliebour policies which caused the recession boom and then bust....that was Gordo ...he suggested there would be boom but no bust....of course " the best laid plans of mice and men" ....as 'Rabbie' Burns observed ...don't always turn out,.....

[thecrashingisles]

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/labour-lost-the-economic-argument-5-years-ago/

..."If Gordon Brown had not run deficits in the early and mid 2000s, the public debt might now be a little less, but not much. Most of the sharp increase debt came about as a result of the recession. But politics is just as important as economics and the Conservatives won the politics hands down before Labour had realised what was going on. A lot of people are still convinced that the Blair and Brown governments were responsible for the rapid increase in debt in the late 2000s. It will take a long time for Labour to persuade them otherwise. If it ever does."

I take it you also vigorously dispute any claims that the last 5 years have seen brutal Tory austerity?

[mattyboy1973]

Of course, but it was the bubble that was the problem. Government spending was not the cause of the economic crisis.

Financialisation of the economy led to a private debt bubble, which led to an unprecedented economic collapse. And what were people debating? Government spending.

Why? Because the Tories will increase the financialisation of the economy, but they can at least promise to cut spending.

The Tories framed the debate in their favour, so they won the argument.

Exactly, and we are in still in the same situation - or worse - regarding bubbly HPI inflating GDP.

I never bought the narrative the Labour caused the crash - at least insofar as the Tories wouldn't have if they were in power at the time. Financial deregulation caused the crash, and although Brown was certainly complicit in that, he was supported every step of the way by the Tories when doing so - who in fact were calling for more. So would the crash have happened in the UK under the Tories? In my view, yes, with 100% certainty. If anything "saved" us (relative to other countries, particularly the EU), it was having control over our own currency - and for that we actually have to thank Brown (although the Tories may well have also kept us out). Don't forget we took an almost immediate 30% hit to Sterling in the early post GFC days and savers have been stuffed ever since.

[Guest_northshore_*]

I take it you also vigorously dispute any claims that the last 5 years have seen brutal Tory austerity?

Why is your response to a chart/blog reflecting historical data a question about my opinion on partisan austerity/not? Would my answer either way make any difference?

[slawek]

..hah..hah...Milliband and the SNP would have been a nightmare..which planet are you on...? ...both wanted to live beyond their means and called living within means... austerity....well we know only the feckless do that....very leftie point of view ...overall ....a massive swing to the right if you include the UKIP percentage share of the vote....

fear is irrational, there was a reason why Cons used SNP in their campaign against Lab

there was no shift to the right vs GE2010 unless you treat LibDem as left

right (Con/UKIP/DUP/BNP) 42% (2010) vs 50% (2015)

left (Lab/SNP/Green/PC) 32% (2010) vs 40% (2015)

16% LibDem votes were split equally between right and left in GE2015

[thecrashingisles]

Why is your response to a chart/blog reflecting historical data a question about my opinion on partisan austerity/not? Would my answer either way make any difference?

Because you seem to be selectively talking about 'big lies' on fiscal history. The 'austerity' and 'Tory cuts' messages were extremely prominent in this election.

[BorrowToLeech]

Exactly, and we are in still in the same situation - or worse - regarding bubbly HPI inflating GDP.

I never bought the narrative the Labour caused the crash - at least insofar as the Tories wouldn't have if they were in power at the time. Financial deregulation caused the crash, and although Brown was certainly complicit in that, he was supported every step of the way by the Tories when doing so - who in fact were calling for more. So would the crash have happened in the UK under the Tories? In my view, yes, with 100% certainty. If anything "saved" us (relative to other countries, particularly the EU), it was having control over our own currency - and for that we actually have to thank Brown (although the Tories may well have also kept us out). Don't forget we took an almost immediate 30% hit to Sterling in the early post GFC days and savers have been stuffed ever since.

Also, the republicans were in power in the US during the bubble, and did nothing to prevent it. Since the Republicans are what Tories want to be when they grow up, it's hard to see they would have done anything differently.

[richc]

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/labour-lost-the-economic-argument-5-years-ago/

..."If Gordon Brown had not run deficits in the early and mid 2000s, the public debt might now be a little less, but not much. Most of the sharp increase debt came about as a result of the recession. But politics is just as important as economics and the Conservatives won the politics hands down before Labour had realised what was going on. A lot of people are still convinced that the Blair and Brown governments were responsible for the rapid increase in debt in the late 2000s. It will take a long time for Labour to persuade them otherwise. If it ever does."

Umm, so Thatcher was in government during that period?

Brown/Blair are to blame for the huge increase in government debt because they based the public finances on an unsustainable private-sector credit boom. They loudly trumpeted their plans to lower regulations on the City, allowing an increase in private-sector credit, and then tax the profits to fund welfare spending. Maybe you've not noticed the millions of posts on this very website since the early 2000's pointing out the stupidity of this strategy (dutifully carried on by Cameron/Osborne since 2010), but it was pretty obvious to most semi-informed people what was going on.

[Guest_northshore_*]

Because you seem to be selectively talking about 'big lies' on fiscal history. The 'austerity' and 'Tory cuts' messages were extremely prominent in this election.

As far as I can judge you're the one bringing up austerity and Tory cuts. I just posted a blog chart in the context of debt to GDP and/or GDP bubble claims.

If you tell me which 'big lies' I'm being selective about by posting that link I'll try to answer.

[Guest]

Labour were in power during the crisis.

Labour didn't regulate the banks properly.

Labour bailed them out with more public borrowing.

Labour didn't force restructuring or separate retail and investment banking, post crash.

Labour printed an awful lot of money.

Who cares if the Tories would or wouldn't have done the same. The fact is they didn't, and Labour did. The 1998-2004 housing-bubble based 'boom' was entirely down to Gordon. All those dodgy self-certified mortgages wrapped up in CDOs were just wonderful when they were making people feel rich and vote Labour.

It's entirely appropriate to blame Labour for the crash. Voting Tory doesn't appear to have been a solution, though...

[Guest_northshore_*]

Umm, so Thatcher was in government during that period?

Brown/Blair are to blame for the huge increase in government debt because they based the public finances on an unsustainable private-sector credit boom. They loudly trumpeted their plans to lower regulations on the City, allowing an increase in private-sector credit, and then tax the profits to fund welfare spending. Maybe you've not noticed the millions of posts on this very website since the early 2000's pointing out the stupidity of this strategy (dutifully carried on by Cameron/Osborne since 2010), but it was pretty obvious to most semi-informed people what was going on.

If you're going to try disputing a quote why not read the full reference text first and evidence your point. It's not particularly flattering about Labour, and I'm not personally flattering of Labour either having never voted for them (except perhaps first election I could vote in, don't remember).

Thatcher...Blair...Brown...blah blah blah. This is 2015 and the election's over; if everyone's going to persist with switching any discussion towards their pet peeve this is a waste of time.

[thecrashingisles]

As far as I can judge you're the one bringing up austerity and Tory cuts. I just posted a blog chart in the context of debt to GDP and/or GDP bubble claims.

If you tell me which 'big lies' I'm being selective about by posting that link I'll try to answer.

Sorry it was someone else whose argument you were backing up. This was what I was referring to:

No, this was the big lie of the election.

Labour didn't particularly spend big until the banks went bust.

They didn't let the country down by favouring their tribe, they let the country down by favouring the Tory tribe - bankers and landlords.

It was the private debt bubble that led to the crisis.

Labour's defeat was due to the conservatives ability to rewrite the history of the credit crunch, and because Ed Miliband doesn't look right.

[BorrowToLeech]

I take it you also vigorously dispute any claims that the last 5 years have seen brutal Tory austerity?

Brutal, yes, for some vulnerable people. Austerity, no, not really.

As far as I can tell, the election was being fought in a parallel universe to the one I live in.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

It amazes me people are still arguing about tory, labour etc when they are all a bunch of self serving parasite establishment puppets.

Your all arguing black, black and black are all white.

Have any of these people's champions got rid of the landed gentry in the last two hundred years, reversing centuries of oppression?

Where's our constitution? Where's the land that was taken by force?

Guess who they serve most?

It's not labour versus tory it's 1% versus 99% and right now the old boys club is wining.

Edited May 9, 2015 by TheCountOfNowhere

[Guest_northshore_*]

Sorry it was someone else whose argument you were backing up. This was what I was referring to:

Ok although I wasn't backing up any partisan point beyond data disputing aspects of the Conservative debt narrative.

That post seems to be saying the account of massive Government debt under Labour to favour their tribe is a lie, because (like every other party I guess) everything was about homeownerism/private credit/finance sector priorities.

Assuming that most people think of the Labour tribe as younger, renting, lower-wage workers and (non pensioner) welfare recipients - and given that the past decades, recession and aftermath has been particularly hard on younger, renting, lower-wage workers and (non pensioner) welfare recipients - what part of buytoleech's post isn't true?

Fwiw I am allowed to despise the equally-bullsh!t dialogue and priorities of the Conservatives AND Labour.

[spyguy]

Not sure the point you are making, You can see the point of inflection starts in 2008, way before the Cons/Libs got in.

Government spending is like an ocean liner.

[stormymonday_2011]

It amazes me people are still arguing about tory, labour etc when they are all a bunch of self serving parasite establishment puppets.

Your all arguing black, black and black are all white.

Have any of these people's champions got rid of the landed gentry in the last two hundred years, reversing centuries of oppression?

Where's our constitution? Where's the land that was taken by force?

Guess who they serve most?

It's not labour versus tory it's 1% versus 99% and right now the old boys club is wining.

Precisely.

Back in the 1960s given the option of abolishing such notable bastions of inherited privilege such as the big public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Rugby etc or Grammar schools which offered a genuine education opportunity to the poor based on examination open to all guess which ones the Labour party chose. Mrs Thatcher and a generations of Conservative politicians since have had absolutely no problem living with that type of socialism as they have never made any effort to reverse the decision. FFS Labour have never even questioned Etons charitable status even though it is devoted to serving the interests of a tiny few. If they were ever really committed to creating equality of opportunity in the UK you would have thought they would at the very least tried it here. The fact Labour did nothing about Public schools says all you need to know about their view of socialism and the fact the Tories have never brought back the Grammar schools or even tried to slow their abolition (the record for closure being held one Mrs Thatcher as education minister under Ted Heath) says all you need to know about their commitment to an open market in educational talent based on meritocratic competition

Edited May 9, 2015 by stormymonday_2011