The myth Labour spent a lot & achieved nothing
-
cockneygeezer2009
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The myth Labour spent a lot & achieved nothing
"The myth Labour spent a lot & achieved nothing".
'Spent a lot & achieved nothing' are open to so much interpretation i personally don't worry about it. It's all a matter of opinion.
'Spent a lot & achieved nothing' are open to so much interpretation i personally don't worry about it. It's all a matter of opinion.
The harder you cum. The more you enjoy it.
Re: The myth Labour spent a lot & achieved nothing
In terms of social policy there are problems that won't be solved or even affected very much in the short term, however no-one admits this and continues to expect an instant fix.
I would think that it's quite hard to assess 'achievement' .. it might appear that there have been achievement and 'wins' in the short term, but are they sustainable ?
I would think that it's quite hard to assess 'achievement' .. it might appear that there have been achievement and 'wins' in the short term, but are they sustainable ?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Cockneygeezer
""The myth Labour spent a lot & achieved nothing".
'Spent a lot & achieved nothing' are open to so much interpretation i personally don't worry about it. It's all a matter of opinion.
I don't think it is all a matter of opinion. For instance, the Tory coalition in one of the most comprehensively and expertly co-ordinated lying campaigns ever seen in British politics have at every single interview almost, stated that the Labour government went on a massive spending splurge that had never been seen in previous governments and produced debt levels unprecedented in British history.
The report correctly nails that lie
"Public spending went up by 60 per cent and from 39.5 to 47.4 per cent of GDP; but until the crisis hit after 2008, spending levels were unexceptional by historic UK and international standards, and national debt levels were lower than when Labour took office."
"National debt levels were lower than when Labour took office". That is not "all a matter of opinion".
'Spent a lot & achieved nothing' are open to so much interpretation i personally don't worry about it. It's all a matter of opinion.
I don't think it is all a matter of opinion. For instance, the Tory coalition in one of the most comprehensively and expertly co-ordinated lying campaigns ever seen in British politics have at every single interview almost, stated that the Labour government went on a massive spending splurge that had never been seen in previous governments and produced debt levels unprecedented in British history.
The report correctly nails that lie
"Public spending went up by 60 per cent and from 39.5 to 47.4 per cent of GDP; but until the crisis hit after 2008, spending levels were unexceptional by historic UK and international standards, and national debt levels were lower than when Labour took office."
"National debt levels were lower than when Labour took office". That is not "all a matter of opinion".
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Measuring achievements
"I would think that it's quite hard to assess 'achievement' .. it might appear that there have been achievement and 'wins' in the short term, but are they sustainable ?"
I think that is fair comment. Infrastructure development which includes many of the points mentioned in the paragraph below is relatively easier to assess as an "achievement" but if they are all paid for on the PPI never-never they might not be financially sustainable in the longer term.
Having said that where the Labour government failed abysmally was to regulate the private sector. The gap between rich and poor increased considerably. There was a huge increase in low paid, minimum wage employment which resulted in a spiralling tax credit bill and the Labour government did nothing to control the private housing sector and allowed rents and hence housing benefit run out of control.
However I think what is undeniable is to achieve all that work on improving infrastructure which was in a state of ruin in 1997 and still have a debt before the financial crisis struck lower than that inherited from the Tories is impressive.
"Most of the extra spending went mainly on improving services. For example there were new hospitals, schools, equipment and ICT, 48,000 extra FTE teachers, 3500 new children?s centres, and more doctors and nurses. Access and quality in public services improved - for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard. The ?gap? in the infant mortality rate between routine/manual groups and the whole population had dropped by 10 per cent in 2008-10".
Most of the extra spending went mainly on improving services. For example there were new hospitals, schools, equipment and ICT, 48,000 extra FTE teachers, 3500 new children?s centres, and more doctors and nurses. Access and quality in public services improved - for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard. The ?gap? in the infant mortality rate between routine/manual groups and the whole population had dropped by 10 per cent in 2008-10.
I think that is fair comment. Infrastructure development which includes many of the points mentioned in the paragraph below is relatively easier to assess as an "achievement" but if they are all paid for on the PPI never-never they might not be financially sustainable in the longer term.
Having said that where the Labour government failed abysmally was to regulate the private sector. The gap between rich and poor increased considerably. There was a huge increase in low paid, minimum wage employment which resulted in a spiralling tax credit bill and the Labour government did nothing to control the private housing sector and allowed rents and hence housing benefit run out of control.
However I think what is undeniable is to achieve all that work on improving infrastructure which was in a state of ruin in 1997 and still have a debt before the financial crisis struck lower than that inherited from the Tories is impressive.
"Most of the extra spending went mainly on improving services. For example there were new hospitals, schools, equipment and ICT, 48,000 extra FTE teachers, 3500 new children?s centres, and more doctors and nurses. Access and quality in public services improved - for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard. The ?gap? in the infant mortality rate between routine/manual groups and the whole population had dropped by 10 per cent in 2008-10".
Most of the extra spending went mainly on improving services. For example there were new hospitals, schools, equipment and ICT, 48,000 extra FTE teachers, 3500 new children?s centres, and more doctors and nurses. Access and quality in public services improved - for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard. The ?gap? in the infant mortality rate between routine/manual groups and the whole population had dropped by 10 per cent in 2008-10.
Re: Measuring achievements
David, I think you might want to consider what statistics you use in future. One in particular jumped out at me:
"for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard" ?
What the fuck does that even mean? What is the definition of a decent standard? Does someone go round have a look at the house, shrug his shoulders and say, "yeah, it's alright, decent enough I suppose"
Please do not take this personally, I generally agree with most of your posts, however I am fed up of people coming out with a made up "statistic" and passing it off as fact.
In fact, I am 110% fed up of shite like this.
P.S David keep sticking it to the idiots on here but do not stoop to there level.
"for example 90 per cent of social housing was brought up to a decent standard" ?
What the fuck does that even mean? What is the definition of a decent standard? Does someone go round have a look at the house, shrug his shoulders and say, "yeah, it's alright, decent enough I suppose"
Please do not take this personally, I generally agree with most of your posts, however I am fed up of people coming out with a made up "statistic" and passing it off as fact.
In fact, I am 110% fed up of shite like this.
P.S David keep sticking it to the idiots on here but do not stoop to there level.
The problem is...
The electorate in this country aren't very bright as long as something is continually repeated they will be it.
Please note super Daves new union bashing approach by linking unite with labour spinning the tale that they tell labour what to do.
Of course Dave doesn't mention the Ashcroft millions or news international, wonga etc..
Please note super Daves new union bashing approach by linking unite with labour spinning the tale that they tell labour what to do.
Of course Dave doesn't mention the Ashcroft millions or news international, wonga etc..
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Fatmick
Clearly what I quoted was a summary paragraph from the London School of Economics report.
If you wanted to read all the background you would need to plough through the report. Last time I tried it wouldn't load the pdf.
If you wanted to read all the background you would need to plough through the report. Last time I tried it wouldn't load the pdf.