Political Crossfire Forums

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7103 Location: Herefordshire

Some facts I picked from CPS:

When Labour came to power in 1997, public spending was £322.1 billion a year. In 2007 it will have risen to £580 billion. (a rise of 80%)

In 2000, total public spending as a proportion of GDP was 38%. In this (financial) year, it will be 42%. This is the most rapid increase in any advanced country in this time period.

Since Labour came to power, 750,000 extra people have been added to the public payroll. (Thats a lot of Diversity Officer Under-Secretary types methinks)

China currently accounts for 13% of global output. This is predicted to reach 19% in a decade's time. That would rank it equal with America and 2% above the combined 25 countries of the present EU.

The question is not whether we should cut spending and reduce taxes, but by how much. The New Labour consensus cannot be sustained if the UK is to compete in the world economy and take up the challenge countries like China will present us. As the new leader of the Conservative Party (and hopefully our next prime minister) David Cameron simply must address this.

*EDIT* Some more:

Red Tape is estimated to cost Britain £40 billion a yearThe UK has dropped from 4th to 13th in world competitiveness rankings since New Labour came to powerBusiness investment in the UK is currently at its lowest level since records began

JDnCoke · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 1153 Location: Oxford, Queen's

What are you worrying about? Tony Blair has been the best Tory PM since Thatcher.

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Cameron would be a fool to promise tax cuts. He can say "i would like to cut taxes" and "if the economic opportunity arose I would cut taxes" but to specifically promise tax cuts for 2009 would be very reckless of him.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7103 Location: Herefordshire

JDnCoke wrote: What are you worrying about? Tony Blair has been the best Tory PM since Thatcher.

Not on public spending and taxes, obviously :roll:

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7103 Location: Herefordshire

bury wrote: Cameron would be a fool to promise tax cuts. He can say "i would like to cut taxes" and "if the economic opportunity arose I would cut taxes" but to specifically promise tax cuts for 2009 would be very reckless of him.

Why would it be reckless? We need cuts in tax and public spending to sustain the economy. We can't go on as we are.

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Lord Hargreaves wrote: bury wrote: Cameron would be a fool to promise tax cuts. He can say "i would like to cut taxes" and "if the economic opportunity arose I would cut taxes" but to specifically promise tax cuts for 2009 would be very reckless of him.

Why would it be reckless? We need cuts in tax and public spending to sustain the economy. We can't go on as we are.

you assume everything will be the same in 2009 as it is now. He could promise tax cuts today and find that come election time it's completely infeasible. Then he'll have to withdraw his promise and look dishonest

who knows what sort of state the economy will be in in four years time.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 7103 Location: Herefordshire

bury wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: bury wrote: Cameron would be a fool to promise tax cuts. He can say "i would like to cut taxes" and "if the economic opportunity arose I would cut taxes" but to specifically promise tax cuts for 2009 would be very reckless of him.

Why would it be reckless? We need cuts in tax and public spending to sustain the economy. We can't go on as we are.

you assume everything will be the same in 2009 as it is now. He could promise tax cuts today and find that come election time it's completely infeasible. Then he'll have to withdraw his promise and look dishonest

who knows what sort of state the economy will be in in four years time.

I'm sorry - are you expecting New Labour to address this anytime soon? How will this situation be any different in 2009, aside from being worse?

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: you assume everything will be the same in 2009 as it is now. He could promise tax cuts today and find that come election time it's completely infeasible. Then he'll have to withdraw his promise and look dishonest

Allowing people to keep their own money is always feasible, well unless there's another world war; and if there was one I doubt 'looking dishonest' would be anyone's main worry.

Quote: who knows what sort of state the economy will be in in four years time.

Whatever state it's in, it will benefit from tax cuts

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Lord Hargreaves wrote: bury wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: bury wrote: Cameron would be a fool to promise tax cuts. He can say "i would like to cut taxes" and "if the economic opportunity arose I would cut taxes" but to specifically promise tax cuts for 2009 would be very reckless of him.

Why would it be reckless? We need cuts in tax and public spending to sustain the economy. We can't go on as we are.

you assume everything will be the same in 2009 as it is now. He could promise tax cuts today and find that come election time it's completely infeasible. Then he'll have to withdraw his promise and look dishonest

who knows what sort of state the economy will be in in four years time.

I'm sorry - are you expecting New Labour to address this anytime soon? How will this situation be any different in 2009, aside from being worse?

I don't know what to expect from the government. but if you expect everything to be exactly the same in four years then you don't understand economics.

Think about oil prices, think about the NHS, think about pensions.

if you're going to promise tax cuts you have to know you can do it without cutting services and you can't do that Four Years in advance.

It's always possible to cut taxes but it's not always a good idea.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: if you're going to promise tax cuts you have to know you can do it without cutting services

You don't have to know that you can do it without cutting services, cutting services would do Britain an incredible amount of good - cut taxes in order to reduce government.

Quote: It's always possible to cut taxes but it's not always a good idea.

Give an example other than pretty extreme war.

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Quote: You don't have to know that you can do it without cutting services, cutting services would do Britain an incredible amount of good - cut taxes in order to reduce government.

i disagree with that completely and i can pretty comfortably say the majority of the public is with me on that.

Cameron can pledge to slowdown the rate of spending and cut waste but that's all.

if the Cameron vows to cut funding to public services they will LOSE the next election and i thought the conservatives were tired of losing.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: i disagree with that completely and i can pretty comfortably say the majority of the public is with me on that.

The majority of the British public also believe in imprisonment without trial for 90 days (3 months), and probably a lot longer going by how big the majority is. The vast majority of the Australian population supported ID cards before people argued against it's illiberality.....then they swung completely the other way.

The same must be done for government spending.

Quote: Cameron can pledge to slowdown the rate of spending and cut waste but that's all.

No, he must make the case for less government otherwise it will continue to grow and we will sink further into tyranny.

Quote: if the Cameron vows to cut funding to public services they will LOSE the next election and i thought the conservatives were tired of losing.

Not if he makes the case clearly. One does not need to follow polls to be elected (though that's an option), one can also win the debate and change the polls. It's called having principles and aiming for a better, brighter, freer future.

Sparse1 · Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 266 Location: Kent

So the government should cut taxes to benefit the economy in the face of increased competition from the far east..........how is letting people have more money to spend on Chinese imports going to help the British economy???

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: So the government should cut taxes to benefit the economy in the face of increased competition from the far east..........how is letting people have more money to spend on Chinese imports going to help the British economy???

Well they will choose how to spend their money, their money will thus be more valuable to them. Thus they will work more to make more of it. Also there will be more in the private sector, generally, the sector that gives us long term economic growth.

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Reason wrote: Quote: i disagree with that completely and i can pretty comfortably say the majority of the public is with me on that.

The majority of the British public also believe in imprisonment without trial for 90 days (3 months), and probably a lot longer going by how big the majority is. The vast majority of the Australian population supported ID cards before people argued against it's illiberality.....then they swung completely the other way.

The same must be done for government spending.

Quote: Cameron can pledge to slowdown the rate of spending and cut waste but that's all.

No, he must make the case for less government otherwise it will continue to grow and we will sink further into tyranny.

Quote: if the Cameron vows to cut funding to public services they will LOSE the next election and i thought the conservatives were tired of losing.

Not if he makes the case clearly. One does not need to follow polls to be elected (though that's an option), one can also win the debate and change the polls. It's called having principles and aiming for a better, brighter, freer future.

it would take a leader with super human abilities of persuasion to convince the public that cutting public services is a good idea (because it isn't)

the Conservatives need to attract new voters, a lot of new voters and their not going to get those votes with an ultra-rightwing agenda. infact they'd probably lose a lot of the moderate conservative votes and do even worse that last time.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: he Conservatives need to attract new voters, a lot of new voters and their not going to get those votes with an ultra-rightwing agenda. infact they'd probably lose a lot of the moderate conservative votes and do even worse that last time.

So does that make everyone who proposes a smaller government ultra-right wing? Since Bliar has created a bigger government we must then call him ultra-left wing.

bury · Joined: 09 Sep 2005 Posts: 58

Reason wrote: Quote: he Conservatives need to attract new voters, a lot of new voters and their not going to get those votes with an ultra-rightwing agenda. infact they'd probably lose a lot of the moderate conservative votes and do even worse that last time.

So does that make everyone who proposes a smaller government ultra-right wing? Since Bliar has created a bigger government we must then call him ultra-left wing.

there's nothing ultra-right about smaller government if your talking about cutting waste and bureaucracy, that's acceptable. However public services (that's schools, hospitals, police, the army, transport etc.) are pretty much untouchable.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: However public services (that's schools, hospitals, police, the army, transport etc.) are pretty much untouchable.

Why? Because you say so? Blair has increased spending on all of those, so if cutting spending is ultra-right then Blair is ultra-left.

antonio62 · Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:25 pm Post subject:

Reason wrote: Quote: However public services (that's schools, hospitals, police, the army, transport etc.) are pretty much untouchable.

Why? Because you say so? Blair has increased spending on all of those, so if cutting spending is ultra-right then Blair is ultra-left.

Cutting spending is different from cutting services if money was spent inefficiently and we cut bureaucracy and waste then we could improve services with less than what we are currently spending.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Cutting spending is different from cutting services if money was spent inefficiently and we cut bureaucracy and waste then we could improve services with less than what we are currently spending.

Yes, but BLair has hugely increased spending, he would not be ultra-left, by bury's definition, if he had cut waste and used the money spent for services.