New nuclear power station.....

[IC1967]

My point is that you always bang on about how the Tories were underfunding everything before Labour came into power and that Labour were justified in their wild overspending during the following 13 years. The Labour manifesto of 1997 clearly shows you to be completely wrong. If you were right then why does the extract from the manifesto that I have shown completely and utterly contradict you? I bet the other readers of the forum can't believe how contradictory your views are with what Labour thought at the time. Let me remind you of some of the salient points:

The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. Spending has risen.

The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent.

A new Labour government will give immediate high priority to seeing how public money can be better used.

New Labour will be wise spenders, not big spenders.

We will ask about public spending the first question that a manager in any company would ask - can existing resources be used more effectively to meet our priorities? And because efficiency and value for money are central, ministers will be required to save before they spend.

Save to invest is our approach, not tax and spend.

So I'm still waiting for a proper response to my question but failing that, an admission from you that you now realise the error of your ways and will promise to be good boy in future.

[BillyStubbsTears]

By 'eck Mick, it's heavy going isn't it?

But let's have another go. I don;t expect you to read this, because you clearly never get past the first few words of a post before you decide what to reply, but just for once, have a go. You'll learn something.

Right. The 1997 manifesto has Blair all over it. He was manically obsessed with the knowledge that Labour had been hammered in the 92 Election, with John Smith's spending plans torn to pieces. That gave Major the election win because he was seen as being more sensible on the economy. (And that turned out well didn't it...)

So Blair wanted Labour to be seen to be different from how they had been portrayed. He insisted that Labour would be seen to be fiscally "responsible". So Labour highlighted the fact (fact) that Govt spending had been high under the Tories. And that Labour would be more "responsible". And they were. Labour from 97-01 did not spend heavily. And look at the result. The collapse of the railway system that I've outlined before. School buildings falling apart. Hospitals decrepit (like the maternity ward in which the baby daughter of one of my best friends died in 2000, because an obsolete piece of monitoring equipment broke down).

I hated Blair for that at the time. But I understood the politics of what he had done, even though I fundamentally disagreed with it.

Now, you say that even Labour said that the Tories had spent heavily and it hadn't worked. For once, instead of taking one quote and making a case out of that, spend a moment looking into the numbers. They are there in the IFS report.

The biggest increase in spending under the Tories BY FAR was on welfare. Look at Figure 4.2b in that IFS report. It's there for you to see. The Tories had spent heavily because there had been appalling unemployment under their watch throughout the 80s and 90s. What the Tories DIDN'T do was spend heavily on the NHS which stagnated (Figure 4.3b), education, which, disgracefully, fell badly (Figure 4.4b) or transport which collapsed (Figure 4.13b).

Get it?

The Tories spent heavily because of unemployment. And in the meantime, the infrastructure which the country depends on for its education, health and being able to move around went to pot.

Blair understood all that. That is why he could castigate the Tories for spending without result.

Get it?

Now, as I've said in earlier posts (which you don;t appear to have read) Labour stuck to exactly what they said they would do in the 1997 manifesto. They reduced Govt spending significantly as a proportion of GDP between 97-01. Personally, I think that was a huge mistake, but they did what they said they were going to do.

Then, in 2001, they said in their manifesto, "enough is enough". Public services were collapsing. Labour openly said that they would invest heavily in CAPITAL spending to improve these services. They did exactly what they promised to do.

Get it?

[not on facebook]

BST.....tory or labour or whoever they are all bad eggs

Got it

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oslo.

ta for that mate. I hadn't thought about it that deeply.

[IC1967]

Right. The 1997 manifesto has Blair all over it. He was manically obsessed with the knowledge that Labour had been hammered in the 92 Election, with John Smith's spending plans torn to pieces. That gave Major the election win because he was seen as being more sensible on the economy. (And that turned out well didn't it...)

So Blair wanted Labour to be seen to be different from how they had been portrayed. He insisted that Labour would be seen to be fiscally "responsible". So Labour highlighted the fact (fact) that Govt spending had been high under the Tories. And that Labour would be more "responsible". And they were. Labour from 97-01 did not spend heavily. And look at the result. The collapse of the railway system that I've outlined before. School buildings falling apart. Hospitals decrepit (like the maternity ward in which the baby daughter of one of my best friends died in 2000, because an obsolete piece of monitoring equipment broke down).

I hated Blair for that at the time. But I understood the politics of what he had done, even though I fundamentally disagreed with it.

Now, you say that even Labour said that the Tories had spent heavily and it hadn't worked. For once, instead of taking one quote and making a case out of that, spend a moment looking into the numbers. They are there in the IFS report.

The biggest increase in spending under the Tories BY FAR was on welfare. Look at Figure 4.2b in that IFS report. It's there for you to see. The Tories had spent heavily because there had been appalling unemployment under their watch throughout the 80s and 90s. What the Tories DIDN'T do was spend heavily on the NHS which stagnated (Figure 4.3b), education, which, disgracefully, fell badly (Figure 4.4b) or transport which collapsed (Figure 4.13b).

Get it?

The Tories spent heavily because of unemployment. And in the meantime, the infrastructure which the country depends on for its education, health and being able to move around went to pot.

Blair understood all that. That is why he could castigate the Tories for spending without result.

Get it?

Now, as I've said in earlier posts (which you don;t appear to have read) Labour stuck to exactly what they said they would do in the 1997 manifesto. They reduced Govt spending significantly as a proportion of GDP between 97-01. Personally, I think that was a huge mistake, but they did what they said they were going to do.

Then, in 2001, they said in their manifesto, "enough is enough". Public services were collapsing. Labour openly said that they would invest heavily in CAPITAL spending to improve these services. They did exactly what they promised to do.

Get it?

So you are now saying that the Tories spent heavily (something that Labour clearly agreed with) and that Labour didn't spend heavily. Forgive me but I feel like I've walked into a parallel universe. You are always banging on about how the Tories underfunded everything and the crap state of the NHS etc. is all their fault and Labour had to spend heavily to put things right. So you then now blame Blair for not spending heavily enough after the 1997 election. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

So I just want to be clear about this. Labour are the ones that caused much of our infrastructure to go downhill from 1997 to 2001. Prior to this the Tories had spent heavily and things weren't too bad and they were getting better. Well I'm glad you've now realised Labour are to blame, so please stop blaming the Tories.

Now I'm not saying I agree with your analysis, I'm just amazed at how you have quite happily contradicted everything you've said before.

However the main point is this. It is not right for governments to borrow money (and for the most part waste it) and then pass on the bill to future generations. We should not be borrowing money at all. We should be living within our means. If that means our infrastructure suffers in the short term then so be it. It's all we can afford. Once we get free of our crippling debt then we can start to improve things.

Our politicians and all you lefties should read David Copperfield. In it you will find Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

That Charles Dickens knew what he was on about.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

So you are now saying that the Tories spent heavily (something that Labour clearly agreed with) and that Labour didn't spend heavily. Forgive me but I feel like I've walked into a parallel universe. You are always banging on about how the Tories underfunded everything and the crap state of the NHS etc. is all their fault and Labour had to spend heavily to put things right. So you then now blame Blair for not spending heavily enough after the 1997 election. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

So I just want to be clear about this. Labour are the ones that caused much of our infrastructure to go downhill from 1997 to 2001. Prior to this the Tories had spent heavily and things weren't too bad and they were getting better. Well I'm glad you've now realised Labour are to blame, so please stop blaming the Tories.

Do you need remedial reading lessons? You appear to be utterly unable to read something and understand what you are reading. Have another go and see if you can do a bit better. Until then, as always, it is pointless talking to you.

I'll help you by repeating the gist of what I said in simple words. Actually, this is NOT what I THINK - these are FACTS easily checkable in that IFS report (I even told you which graphs to look at to check it for yourself - go and have a look).

1) The Tories DID spend heavily.
2) They spent heavily because welfare costs were appalingly high under them, because we had appallingly high unemployment.
3) They did NOT spend heavily on infrastructure, which is why our infrastructure was in such an appalling state by 1997.
4) Labour followed the Tory spending plans from 97-01.
5) Labour spent less from 97-01 than the Tories had done for most of the period 79-97.
6) Infrastructure got worse.
8) Then from 2001 onwards, Labour invested heavily in infrastructure.
9) Infrastructure got better.

Simple enough? Or can you find a way to misrepresent that lot?

[IC1967]

Billy, I must refer you once again to the Labour party manifesto. You can refer to all the graphs and charts you want but life is too short to be wading through every report you can find until you drop on something you think you can twist to suit your point of view. You have your view as to how things should have been. These views are wildly at odds with what your beloved Labour party put in their manifesto in 1997. This was the most important part of the manifesto. So lets go through it again in more detail.

Spending and tax: new Labour's approach

The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. Spending has risen. But more spending has brought neither greater fairness nor less poverty. Quite the reverse - our society is more divided than it has been for generations. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent.

The national debt has doubled under John Major. The public finances remain weak. A new Labour government will give immediate high priority to seeing how public money can be better used.

New Labour will be wise spenders, not big spenders. We will work in partnership with the private sector to achieve our goals. We will ask about public spending the first question that a manager in any company would ask - can existing resources be used more effectively to meet our priorities? And because efficiency and value for money are central, ministers will be required to save before they spend.

Save to invest is our approach, not tax and spend.

So as you can see this is what the Labour Party came up with at the time. There is no mention that most of the increase in spending was on welfare. I'm sure anyone with an open mind reading the above would form the conclusion that Labour thought that the Tories were spending heavily across all areas. New Labour were saying they would be wise spenders not big spenders. By implication they were saying the Tories were big spenders.

Why would they feel the need to state that the national debt had doubled to further make this point if this isn't what they believed at the time. Why did they say that 'ministers will be required to save before they spend?' They obviously thought at the time that each department was spending too much money and cutbacks could be made without affecting services. I could go on but the above conclusively proves that what you espouse about the Tories under investing in the country was clearly not a view held by your beloved Labour party. Do you really think that if the situation had been as bad as you espouse Labour would not have been able to make political capital out of it? Of course they would have done. They didn't because there was no political capital to be made because the Tories were spending heavily across all areas. How anyone can interpret the above in the way you do is a complete mystery to me.

[jonnydog]

Off on another tangent completely... Am I right in Thinking IC1967 has stopped denying he is Mick now?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Pardon me for being blunt, but your opinion of what the Tories were or were not spending, and what they were spending it on is not worth shit.

Neither is mine.

We're not talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. Established, recorded, undeniable facts. I've shown you where they are. Now, stop boring the lot of us with what you think the facts are. Your opinion on that is pointless and worthless. You could argue till you were blue in the face that the sun went round the earth. You would be wrong. Equally, you can argue all you want that the Tories spent heavily across the board. You are wrong. There's no further discussion to be had on the topic.

I appreciate that in Mickland, Mick's opinion trumps everything else. But out here in the real world, when you find a fact that disproves your opinion, you change your opinion. Or you look a right dick.

[IC1967]

I'm talking about facts. I'm talking about the most important part of the Labour manifesto just before they came to power. The fact is that anyone reading it would find it completely at odds with your version of history. Fact not opinion.