Tories borrow more in 3 years than Labour borrowed in 13.

[pap]

The Tories claim to be the party of economic competence, yet this report in the Huffington Post (also appears elsewhere) seems to suggest the complete opposite. The coalition government has borrowed more money than Labour managed during its entire 13 year tenure. For those with short memories, that money was spent on hospitals, schools, programmes like Sure Start, imperialistic wars of aggression and saving the world financial system. I can't say I subscribe to or agree with all of those line items, but superficially at least, it seems like Labour have got more bang for their buck than the "economically competent" Conservatives.

 

What the f**k have they spent all that money on?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html

[Whitey Grandad]

Oh for goodness sake.!

 

There is a lag between spending commitments and borrowing the money to pay for them of a few years. Today's borrowing is due to overspending from previous years. It's as simple as that. If we're going to have a debate about value for money for government largesse at least let's understand the economics first. What the f**k have they spent all that money on? It's going on all the people to fill those hospitals, schools etc. Plus interest on the money that was previously borrowed.

[pap]

Oh for goodness sake.!

 

There is a lag between spending commitments and borrowing the money to pay for them of a few years. Today's borrowing is due to overspending from previous years. It's as simple as that. If we're going to have a debate about value for money for government largesse at least let's understand the economics first. What the f**k have they spent all that money on? It's going on all the people to fill those hospitals, schools etc. Plus interest on the money that was previously borrowed.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with all of this.

 

For starters, the Conservatives have instituted some fairly radical ideas of their own, such as top-down re-organisation of the NHS, workfare programs which see vast sums of cash going to the likes of atos, paying people off to leave their public sector jobs, the additional cost involved in "cost-cutting" measures (such as putting families up in B&Bs which work out more expensive than the HB-financed places they were in) and the much debated HS2 project.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Tories claim to be the party of economic competence, yet this report in the Huffington Post (also appears elsewhere) seems to suggest the complete opposite. The coalition government has borrowed more money than Labour managed during its entire 13 year tenure. For those with short memories, that money was spent on hospitals, schools, programmes like Sure Start, imperialistic wars of aggression and saving the world financial system. I can't say I subscribe to or agree with all of those line items, but superficially at least, it seems like Labour have got more bang for their buck than the "economically competent" Conservatives.

 

What the f**k have they spent all that money on?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html

 

This money labour spent on Schools and hospitals, are you counting PFI agreements?

[pap]

This money labour spent on Schools and hospitals, are you counting PFI agreements?

 

Yup, I'm including those shockingly poor value for money PFI contracts - and all the money spent during their tenure servicing them. Fully accept that the Tories have to keep those agreements (and payments) in place, but still at a loss as to how we've borrowed more in 3 years than we managed in 13. Paying back Labour's PFI commitments doesn't cover it.

[trousers]

How much would Labour have needed to borrow over the last 3 years to uphold their 2010 election pledges?

#comparinglikewithlike

[pap]

How much would Labour have needed to borrow over the last 3 years to uphold their 2010 election pledges?

#comparinglikewithlike

 

If we were truly comparing like with like, the question would be more like:-

 

How much would Labour have needed to borrow to prosecute its pre-planned agenda, which may or may not reflect their pre-2010 election pledges?

 

Or perhaps framed more specifically, whatever happened to the Conservative commitments on "no top down reorganisation of the NHS" and "green energy"?

 

Whereabouts in the Tory manifesto did they say that "we promise to give a lot of money to our mates so they can get unemployed people to work for free"?

[trousers]

So, in summary, we've no idea whether Labour would have borrowed at a greater or lesser rate than the coalition government have had to over the last 3 years?

Edited 25 November, 2013 by trousers

[Verbal]

#comparinglikewithlike

 

#whatabouteryfail

[pap]

So, in summary, we've no idea whether Labour would have borrowed a a greater or lesser rate that the coalition government have had to over the last 3 years?

 

I'm not even sure that's germane to the point.

 

As someone who supports the broadly stated tenets of Conservatism, one of which is smaller government and more self-reliance, doesn't it alarm you that they've spunked 13 years worth of cash in 3?

 

Adjust it all for inflation all you like. Have a hypothetical argument if you like.

 

The fact is, you and I will end up paying for this largesse. On a purely financial level, the UK taxpayer should be f**king horrified at the bills run up in one's name in the last 3 years.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yup, I'm including those shockingly poor value for money PFI contracts - and all the money spent during their tenure servicing them. Fully accept that the Tories have to keep those agreements (and payments) in place, but still at a loss as to how we've borrowed more in 3 years than we managed in 13. Paying back Labour's PFI commitments doesn't cover it.

 

You shouldn't be at a loss to understand it, it's pretty simple. It's the result of incompetent economics. The cost of economic failure is expensive and debt will always go up during a recession. The secret is to pay it down during the upturns , something labour spectacularly failed to do. Then again they did abolish boom and bust.

 

Everybody knows why borrowing is up, but nobody will make the proper cuts required to bring it under control. We basically have 3 social democratic parties arguing over a failed economy like 3 baldies arguing over a comb. Who you blame for the mess we're in is basically down to which side you swing, so to speak. Personally, as bad as the torys have been, I believe labour would have made things a lot worse.

[trousers]

#whatabouteryfail

 

#mypleasure

[pap]

Everybody knows why borrowing is up

 

One of the major questions being asked in this thread is where the money has gone.

 

I don't know why borrowing has gone up to the extent that it has. I'm not part of your everyone set, so perhaps you could explain. Why, in a time of real cuts which are hurting people, is the government BORROWING MORE MONEY THAN EVER BEFORE?

[trousers]

I'm not even sure that's germane to the point.

 

As someone who supports the broadly stated tenets of Conservatism, one of which is smaller government and more self-reliance, doesn't it alarm you that they've spunked 13 years worth of cash in 3?

 

Adjust it all for inflation all you like. Have a hypothetical argument if you like.

 

The fact is, you and I will end up paying for this largesse. On a purely financial level, the UK taxpayer should be f**king horrified at the bills run up in one's name in the last 3 years.

 

So what should the coalition government have spent less on over the last 3 years to bring spending back down to the halcyon days of Labour borrowing c.1997 - 2010?

 

Btw, if I had won the lottery in 1997 and it took me 13 years to spend all my winnings, I'd hazard a guess that my borrowing levels since 2010 would be higher than they were between 1997 and 2010.

 

#yetmoretrouserswhataboutery

Edited 25 November, 2013 by trousers

[Whitey Grandad]

The fact is, you and I will end up paying for this largesse. On a purely financial level, the UK taxpayer should be f**king horrified at the bills run up in one's name in the last 3 years.

 

They weren't run up in the last 3 years!!!!

 

They were run up by the previous lot. If you can't understand that then we are wasting our time even debating it.

 

'Bye

[Wurzel]

Maybe (and I say maybe as I'm guessing) it's because for the first part of Labours tenure we were "in credit" so first they spent all that and only had to start borrowing once they had blown it all. Tories have had to start from an "already considerably overdrawn" situation so have had to carry on borrowing whilst also trying to repay some of the deficit.

[pap]

They weren't run up in the last 3 years!!!!

 

They were run up by the previous lot. If you can't understand that then we are wasting our time even debating it.

 

'Bye

 

Who took out the money?

[pap]

Maybe (and I say maybe as I'm guessing) it's because for the first part of Labours tenure we were "in credit" so first they spent all that and only had to start borrowing once they had blown it all. Tories have had to start from an "already considerably overdrawn" situation so have had to carry on borrowing whilst also trying to repay some of the deficit.

 

I think that could be a factor, but that doesn't imply economic competence on the part of the Conservatives. Anyone can sell the vast majority of publicly owned utilities for rock-bottom prices and have a bit of cash in the bank. The problem is that you don't have those assets anymore - and that's a real problem.

 

Both the housing and energy bill crises of today began back in the 1980s.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Pap, I can't help but feel you are being a little blinded by your dislike of the Tories.

 

I'm not saying they have done a great job, or that this borrowing is not concerning - but really? HS2 as an example to prove your point? This was long in the pipeline well before 2010.

 

Are you going to tell me Labour never broke a pre-election promise?

[pap]

Pap, I can't help but feel you are being a little blinded by your dislike of the Tories.

 

I'm not saying they have done a great job, or that this borrowing is not concerning - but really? HS2 as an example to prove your point? This was long in the pipeline well before 2010.

 

Are you going to tell me Labour never broke a pre-election promise?

 

Perhaps, KRG, perhaps.

 

HS2 is a perfectly valid example, tho. Planning started in 2009, but the decision to build (and contracts on who gets to build it) are very much of this government. They made the decision at a point when the UK economy was deep in recession, while simultaneously telling the public that there was no money left. Lest you attempt to lecture me on the whole investment-return conundrum, I get it. I'd even say that I'm broadly in favour of large infrastructure projects, both for the jobs they create first and the infrastructure left behind afterwards.

 

The Conservatives have raked Labour over the coals for their borrowing record, and rightly so. As I said before, I don't agree with every line item on Labour's spending - but they managed to finance a lot more stuff while borrowing less money. Extrapolated over a similar (hellish) period of Conservative government, the Tories will out-borrow Labour 4-to-1. They've cut benefits across the board and raised VAT to 20%. The social fallout from their policies is going to be incalculable over the long term. So where has the dosh gone?

[Batman]

isnt this a coalition with the liberals?

as for the dosh, there wasnt none in the 1st place was there?

 

and on that, I am out. impossible to debate with pap on this as he will never ever consider the tories anything other than the devil

[pap]

isnt this a coalition with the liberals?

 

What are the great drivers of borrowing coming from the LibDem side then?

[trousers]

isnt this a coalition with the liberals?

 

Sssshhhh.... we only mention that when we're having a dig at the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. This is just about Tory bashing so we'll leave the Lib Dems out of this one thank you very much....

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The Tories claim to be the party of economic competence, yet this report in the Huffington Post (also appears elsewhere) seems to suggest the complete opposite. The coalition government has borrowed more money than Labour managed during its entire 13 year tenure. For those with short memories, that money was spent on hospitals, schools, programmes like Sure Start, imperialistic wars of aggression and saving the world financial system. I can't say I subscribe to or agree with all of those line items, but superficially at least, it seems like Labour have got more bang for their buck than the "economically competent" Conservatives.

 

What the f**k have they spent all that money on?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html

 

Consonant please carol

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Perhaps, KRG, perhaps.

 

HS2 is a perfectly valid example, tho. Planning started in 2009, but the decision to build (and contracts on who gets to build it) are very much of this government. They made the decision at a point when the UK economy was deep in recession, while simultaneously telling the public that there was no money left. Lest you attempt to lecture me on the whole investment-return conundrum, I get it. I'd even say that I'm broadly in favour of large infrastructure projects, both for the jobs they create first and the infrastructure left behind afterwards.

 

The Conservatives have raked Labour over the coals for their borrowing record, and rightly so. As I said before, I don't agree with every line item on Labour's spending - but they managed to finance a lot more stuff while borrowing less money. Extrapolated over a similar (hellish) period of Conservative government, the Tories will out-borrow Labour 4-to-1. They've cut benefits across the board and raised VAT to 20%. The social fallout from their policies is going to be incalculable over the long term. So where has the dosh gone?

 

In some respects papster I agree, I do think it is worrying at how much has been borrowed - absolutely. I agree the Tories haven't covered themselves in glory in this government, in many areas, not least the economy - even if things are probably slowly starting to turn around now.

 

In regards HS2, it's been an issue I have been aware of for quite some time, as it's a hot topic for a lot of people local to me as it goes right through Ruislip - where I grew up and lived for most of my life. Though not for economic reasons in the sense of what you discuss, it does have an impact in our area, as it means people in Birmingham can be in Central London in about the same time as us, on the edge of London, and various other concerns which I won't bore people with as it isn't all that relevant here. I personally am very sceptical of the 'business case' for HS2 - but that may be a consequence of the bias against it in my local area. But, I also agree the timing, whilst in a recession is just bizarre. Though I thought that was usually Labour's approach to getting out of debt? Borrow more & spend more?

 

What really worries me, is that whilst I don't really think Dave & Gideon are a safe pair of hands with the economy, do I think Ed plural (both of whom were pretty tightly linked to New Labour's failings, and have done little in opposition to suggest to me they have a better alternate plan) or Clegg & Cable? Nah not really. Worrying really.

 

I'm not really one for parties or ideologies, if I'm honest. I don't see politics like football - I won't brand myself "party x til' I die!" - as I think that is just silly. I prefer a more pragmatic & practical view on things. Who is best to do what, and who has the best policies to deal with problem x,y,z. As always, just my opinion.

[pap]

Sssshhhh.... we only mention that when we're having a dig at the Lib Dems as well as the Tories. This is just about Tory bashing so we'll leave the Lib Dems out of this one thank you very much....

 

The only role that the LibDems have had apart from "moderating the Tories" is being f**king handy scapegoats for every unpopular policy going. I refer sir to the case of tuition fees.

 

Until this coalition, they've not been a relevant party of government for almost a century, their role in coalition war governments obviously excepted. In the years leading up to government, they operated as a party of principles, a relatively mainstream outlet for anyone dissatisfied with the red and blue teams.

 

The biggest mistake they ever made was joining the coalition. It has finished them as a political force, and while I have some sympathy for their position within the context of our electoral system ( under PR they'd almost be equal partners with the Tories on the 2010 ballot ), they knew the game they were playing and who they were playing it with. The consequence of that was a "principled" party being shown up on practical matters. They're a spent force and even in government, a complete and utter irrelevance, operating largely as an unwitting shield to the Conservative party.

[JackFrost]

I'm not sure I can agree with all of this.

 

For starters, the Conservatives have instituted some fairly radical ideas of their own, such as top-down re-organisation of the NHS, workfare programs which see vast sums of cash going to the likes of atos, paying people off to leave their public sector jobs, the additional cost involved in "cost-cutting" measures (such as putting families up in B&Bs which work out more expensive than the HB-financed places they were in) and the much debated HS2 project.

 

as has been the case since when Gordon Brown first hired them 5 years before Cameron came to office . . . .

 

Then again it's one of the Tories biggest mistakes that they extended that contract when they brought in the changes to the benefit system

[pap]

as has been the case since when Gordon Brown first hired them 5 years before Cameron came to office . . . .

 

Then again it's one of the Tories biggest mistakes that they extended that contract when they brought in the changes to the benefit system

 

As an aside, we really need to stop looking West for our social policies. The US really does have little to teach us there, especially when it comes to employment.

 

It has been argued that the changes to the benefit system aren't really saving us any money. Case in point is the benefit cap at 26K p.a. It's a great political soundbite, but it costs a hell of a lot more money.

 

Anyway, at this rate, Labour are looking like a f**king bargain. A quarter of the price and no demonisation of the poor.

[trousers]

Yep, bring back Labour... They would have borrowed less than the Tories over the last 3 years....

[pap]

In some respects papster I agree, I do think it is worrying at how much has been borrowed - absolutely. I agree the Tories haven't covered themselves in glory in this government, in many areas, not least the economy - even if things are probably slowly starting to turn around now.

 

In regards HS2, it's been an issue I have been aware of for quite some time, as it's a hot topic for a lot of people local to me as it goes right through Ruislip - where I grew up and lived for most of my life. Though not for economic reasons in the sense of what you discuss, it does have an impact in our area, as it means people in Birmingham can be in Central London in about the same time as us, on the edge of London, and various other concerns which I won't bore people with as it isn't all that relevant here. I personally am very sceptical of the 'business case' for HS2 - but that may be a consequence of the bias against it in my local area. But, I also agree the timing, whilst in a recession is just bizarre. Though I thought that was usually Labour's approach to getting out of debt? Borrow more & spend more?

 

What really worries me, is that whilst I don't really think Dave & Gideon are a safe pair of hands with the economy, do I think Ed plural (both of whom were pretty tightly linked to New Labour's failings, and have done little in opposition to suggest to me they have a better alternate plan) or Clegg & Cable? Nah not really. Worrying really.

 

I'm not really one for parties or ideologies, if I'm honest. I don't see politics like football - I won't brand myself "party x til' I die!" - as I think that is just silly. I prefer a more pragmatic & practical view on things. Who is best to do what, and who has the best policies to deal with problem x,y,z. As always, just my opinion.

 

I don't see politics as a team sport either, but frequently make the analogy to highlight that some people do. It's mindless tub-thumping in many cases. You only need to look at the abortive attempts to add to the debate here. Our caped crusader seems to have a "Whatabatarang" in his utility belt, but that's it. There's nothing further. We won't be getting a detailed breakdown of Liberal Democrat spending objectives in from Gotham anytime soon.

 

I'm not sure on the two Eds either, but for me, the difference is this. Only one party seems to wilfully operate against the interests of the British people while it is in power. Oddly enough, it's the one that was founded to "conserve" traditional British values. Perhaps they are and I'm just starting from the wrong reference point. Maybe they're looking to conserve the workhouse values of Victorian Britain.

 

I've seen people bash Labour's borrowing record for years. Most moderate conservatives will accept that a large proportion of that money went toward saving the financial system, yet even with that burden, Labour still borrowed less.

 

So if the Conservatives are less economically competent, which surely follows from their need to borrow 13 years worth of cash in 3, what does that actually make them? I've said before that I've no problem with a bit of belt-tightening if the country emerges from it in a stronger position. That is not happening here. We're borrowing more money yet the quality of public services is degrading. On that basis, even the much maligned New Labour look like f**king good value for money.

[Johnny Bognor]

There is a big 'if' here. If you don't account for inflation, then the statement is true. However, you have to account for inflation to compare like for like.

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

 

It's like saying "tonight I spent more in Sainsbury's than the entire cost of the Roman invasion of Britain, if you don't take inflation into account".

[pap]

There is a big 'if' here. If you don't account for inflation, then the statement is true. However, you have to account for inflation to compare like for like.

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

 

It's like saying "tonight I spent more in Sainsbury's than the entire cost of the Roman invasion of Britain, if you don't take inflation into account".

 

At this rate, the inflation adjusted point will be moot soon anyway. Also, it's bugger all like your Roman invasion analogy. We're talking cumulative inflation over 16 years.

 

Osborne has failed to deliver on his financial prudence and you don't need to compare prices from 2,000 years ago to work out why. When they took office, both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems talked of creating a government to serve the national interest. Each "cost-cutting" measure has cost more money. We're means testing people who say they can't work, which usually involves a 20 minute test in which we tell them they can and a costly appeal afterward in the courts.

 

It's short-term knee-jerk thinking all the way, only with added u-turns. If Osborne was being taunted by football fans, "you don't know what you're doing" would seem appropriate.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

At this rate, the inflation adjusted point will be moot soon anyway. Also, it's bugger all like your Roman invasion analogy. We're talking cumulative inflation over 16 years.

 

Osborne has failed to deliver on his financial prudence and you don't need to compare prices from 2,000 years ago to work out why. When they took office, both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems talked of creating a government to serve the national interest. Each "cost-cutting" measure has cost more money. We're means testing people who say they can't work, which usually involves a 20 minute test in which we tell them they can and a costly appeal afterward in the courts.

 

It's short-term knee-jerk thinking all the way, only with added u-turns. If Osborne was being taunted by football fans, "you don't know what you're doing" would seem appropriate.

 

I think it's naive to think that Osborne actually has anything to do with the Tories economic policies.

[Johnny Bognor]

At this rate, the inflation adjusted point will be moot soon anyway. Also, it's bugger all like your Roman invasion analogy. We're talking cumulative inflation over 16 years.

 

So you're advocating massive massive cuts way beyond what is being done by condem or being proposed by labour?

 

Don't you remember Gordon Brown's scorched earth policy to leave the nation with spirralling debts knowing that when Labour lost the election, the new party would be saddled with it? And to think they used to call the **** prudent LMFAO

Edited 26 November, 2013 by Johnny Bognor

[rooney]

Do not worry about the Tories. The bookies and the opinion polls are never wrong. Only a couple of years to go.

[pap]

I think it's naive to think that Osborne actually has anything to do with the Tories economic policies.

 

He does seem to have other interests apart from economics.