The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

Quite, to assume your country is in terminal decline is, basically, to give up.

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.

The fact is, we spend less than half the percentage of our national wealth on defence than we did 20 years ago, so we can almost certainly afford to spend more (as a percentage of GDP) over the next 20 years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.

I am afraid this is not correct. By all measures defense spending has increased since 1998, Labour's first full year in power.

Disregarding inflation, Labour has increased defense spending by fifty percent. This is not the most relevant figure. Better is a measure by constant 2009 pounds, that is, corrected for inflation. By this measure, Labour has increased defense spending by about 25%.

This enormous increase, incidentally, is almost singular within Europe. In stark contrast to the next three biggest European defense spenders, whose defense spending saw in this period a far smaller increase (France), or even a decrease (Germany, Italy).
In Western Europe, only Spain and Finland have seen a similarly large increase in defense spending. Spain, because of its long awakening from its dictatorship, and Finland because of the end of Finlandisation and the need to project neutrality.


Defense spending as a percentage of GDP has mostly been stabilised under Labour. Under Thatcher (especially after 1985) and Major, defense spending as percentage of GDP was severly slashed. Halved.
Labour put an end to these endless defense spending cuts.


Don't take my word for it! Use sources:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 13.5
1981 253.154 14.6
1982 277.198 16.7
1983 302.973 16.2
1984 324.633 17.4
1985 355.269 19.1
1986 381.782 20.1
1987 421.559 20.4
1988 470.748 20.9
1989 517.075 21.5
1990 560.887 23.3
1991 589.739 24.4
1992 614.776 26.0
1993 645.5 26.3
1994 684.067 26.3
1995 723.08 25.6
1996 768.905 24.9
1997 815.881 25.2
1998 865.71 24.5
1999 911.945 26.7
2000 958.931 27.7
2001 1003.3 28.8
2002 1055.79 29.0
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1184.3 32.3
2005 1233.98 33.5
2006 1303.92 35.0
2007 1343.75 36.3
2008 1419.55 38.1
2009 1439 41.9
2010 1411 43.5

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- (2000) Defence-total
1980 630.963 36.9
1981 621.78 35.8
1982 633.662 38.2
1983 655.979 35.1
1984 672.787 36.1
1985 696.582 37.4
1986 724.263 38.1
1987 757.452 36.7
1988 795.317 35.3
1989 812.725 33.8
1990 819.007 34.0
1991 807.814 33.4
1992 809.54 34.2
1993 827.886 33.7
1994 863.623 33.2
1995 889.041 31.4
1996 913.8 29.6
1997 942.154 29.1
1998 973.748 27.5
1999 1003.37 29.4
2000 1041.52 30.0
2001 1066.22 30.6
2002 1088.11 29.9
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1154.68 31.4
2005 1175.92 31.9
2006 1210.29 32.5
2007 1247.28 33.7
2008 1256.64 33.7
2009 1212.66 35.3
2010 1227.82 37.8

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 5.85
1981 253.154 5.76
1982 277.198 6.04
1983 302.973 5.35
1984 324.633 5.36
1985 355.269 5.38
1986 381.782 5.26
1987 421.559 4.84
1988 470.748 4.44
1989 517.075 4.16
1990 560.887 4.15
1991 589.739 4.14
1992 614.776 4.23
1993 645.5 4.07
1994 684.067 3.84
1995 723.08 3.54
1996 768.905 3.24
1997 815.881 3.09
1998 865.71 2.83
1999 911.945 2.93
2000 958.931 2.88
2001 1003.3 2.87
2002 1055.79 2.75
2003 1118.24 2.67
2004 1184.3 2.72
2005 1233.98 2.71
2006 1303.92 2.68
2007 1343.75 2.70
2008 1419.55 2.68
2009 1439 2.91
2010 1411 3.08

What do these numbers mean? The most acutely relevant measure is defense as percentage of GDP:

Thatcher came in power in 1979:
1980 230.8 5.85

Major came in power in 1990:
1991 589.739 4.14

Blair came in power in 1997:
1998 865.71 2.83

It is now 2010:
2010 1411 3.08

Two things are striking:
- The defense cuts happened under the Conservatives, whereas Labour stabilised defense spending.
- The last two Conservative PMs halved British defense spending. The vast majority of this outerworldly decrease happened before the fall of the wall, rubbishing the Tories' perennial excuse.



I think somebody in this thread said it earlier: Labour hates the military, but increases its funding. The Conservatives profes to love the military, but cut back its funding.


Don't blame me, blame the numbers.

[Furunculus]

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus...

i willing to accept the good with the bad?

[Brenus]

What really puzzle me is why the English still accept to have a Chamber of the LORDS and a Chamber of Common…

[rvg]

Gotta have somebody to look after the interests of the aristocracy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And the reserved seats for the bishops of the Church of England.

Cool if you're a Scot or a Catholic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Loius:

A quick search produced different figures to yours, slightly higher under the Tories, slightly lower under Labour.

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...g+pmqs/3267817

Overall, it shows a trend toward decline.

[Boohugh]

Ironically I recently bought all the Yes, Minister series on DVD and have been watching them over the last few days. It's amazing how much still seems to hold true! The latest episode I watched (the first with Hacker as PM) even has the head of the army slagging off the navy and RAF...I guess politics really doesn't change all that much

[InsaneApache]

I reckon the BNP would increase war defence spending.

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?

Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility. You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

New Labour. New Britain.

[al Roumi]

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?

It's what you might call a global recession. Thought you might have heard of that, even in the dales.

Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility.

Show me the stats please.

You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?

[rory_20_uk]

So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?

Erm, that's what Labour has done - just bankrupted us doing it.

To be fair, their redistribution of wealth has enabled many outside the UK to become richer.

[al Roumi]

Erm, that's what Labour has done

Is it now? Please do me, and your own intelectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.

[rory_20_uk]

Is it now? Please do me, and your own intellectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility

Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.

[InsaneApache]

Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?

Show me the stats please.

You are kidding right?

I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.

New Labour. New Britain.

[al Roumi]

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility

Ok, so exactly how is that Labour's doing? That report was compiled by an all-party panel, welcomed by both sides of the house.

"In his foreword Milburn (Labour MP) says: "Britain's got talent – lots of it. It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity."

He argues that the professional classes have erected a host of new barriers to keep their jobs the preserve of the middle classes – including restricting work experience to the children of friends, internships that are only available to children in the south who have the parental wealth to work for nothing, and "qualification inflation" that prevents those without university degrees getting a job."

Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link!

Well otherwise we could just bray at each other like sheep -if you'd prefer.

[al Roumi]

Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?

Fair point, it was an assumption based on the tone of your posts. I'm guessing you are (broadly speaking) right wing?

You are kidding right?

I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.

Well if we are both too lazy this isn't going to go very far...

[InsaneApache]

Just to make it clear. I will not be voting tory in the election.

As for right wing, I'll let you decide.

The groundnut scheme is a template for all Labours disasters. Shall I provide a link?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility

Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.

I'm sorry, but your link does not show a falling social mobility under Labour.


In fact, the report on which it is based, by The Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, - though I must admit to not having read it back to front - makes it clear that social mobility in Britain has been declining for decades, but seems to have bottomed out under Labour.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/stra...ofessions.aspx



Social mobility has sharply declined under Thatcher and Major. 'Destroyed in class warfare from above' might be the better description. This decline has been halted and stabilised under Labour.


Of course, I resent NewLab for merely stopping the trend, instead of reversing it. But that is the nature of NewLab - too cowardly in the face of allegations of 'waging a class war' itself. Too cowardly to stand up for that part of the population which has to, you know, wake up and go to work everyday. As a result, in the West, social mobility in Britain is second only to the US. From the bottom that is.
Meanwhile, talented, hard-working Germans, Swedes, Canadians born into non-priviledged circumstances do get rewarded for their efforts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)



Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:

1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20

Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.


For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- Public Net Debt-total
1900 1.885 30.17
1901 1.893 33.24
1902 1.906 35.92
1903 1.881 38.02
1904 1.881 37.81
1905 1.949 36.29
1906 2.033 34.42
1907 2.113 32.35
1908 2.011 33.30
1909 2.052 32.39
1910 2.14 31.65
1911 2.227 29.22
1912 2.327 27.30
1913 2.42 25.83
1914 2.451 25.30
1915 2.943 36.59
1916 3.434 61.36
1917 4.276 93.25
1918 5.108 114.52
1919 5.484 135.20
1920 5.975 130.70
1921 4.907 154.00
1922 4.458 171.33
1923 4.254 181.68
1924 4.366 174.70
1925 4.508 168.25
1926 4.349 173.51
1927 4.599 164.00
1928 4.599 163.41
1929 4.692 159.59
1930 4.615 161.58
1931 4.316 171.49
1932 4.223 175.76
1933 4.298 177.57
1934 4.517 172.91
1935 4.72 165.01
1936 4.987 156.08
1937 5.334 145.95
1938 5.502 145.65
1939 5.918 137.71
1940 7.183 109.97
1941 8.654 119.79
1942 9.482 137.54
1943 10.093 156.77
1944 10.18 182.34
1945 9.908 215.64
1946 9.968 237.12
1947 10.772 237.94
1948 11.988 213.72
1949 12.732 197.67
1950 13.285 194.22
1951 14.793 175.23
1952 16.023 161.58
1953 17.147 151.93
1954 18.148 146.48
1955 19.505 138.09
1956 20.966 128.97
1957 22.111 122.15
1958 23.05 118.14
1959 24.347 112.44
1960 25.974 106.77
1961 27.404 103.09
1962 28.691 99.94
1963 30.366 98.29
1964 33.162 91.15
1965 35.802 85.02
1966 38.099 82.26
1967 40.191 79.58
1968 43.53 78.55
1969 46.883 72.49
1970 51.523 64.20
1971 57.469 58.19
1972 64.342 55.70
1973 74.02 49.83
1974 83.793 48.28
1975 105.864 43.83
1976 125.203 45.19
1977 145.663 46.11
1978 167.905 47.16
1979 197.438 44.01
1980 230.8 41.30
1981 253.154 38.79
1982 277.198 41.05
1983 302.973 41.32
1984 324.633 40.82
1985 355.269 40.42
1986 381.782 41.12
1987 421.559 38.55
1988 470.748 35.65
1989 517.075 32.37
1990 560.887 27.40
1991 589.739 25.76
1992 614.776 24.56
1993 645.5 25.69
1994 684.067 40.68
1995 723.08 43.36
1996 768.905 44.58
1997 815.881 43.76
1998 865.71 40.87
1999 911.945 38.84
2000 958.931 33.32
2001 1003.3 32.06
2002 1055.79 33.06
2003 1118.24 34.00
2004 1184.3 35.62
2005 1233.98 37.40
2006 1303.92 38.41
2007 1343.75 44.80
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk...ebt_chart.html

[al Roumi]

Merci Louis le gros!

[Boohugh]

Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)

No, all that shows is that as the country got richer, Labour kept borrowing instead of creating a surplus for hard times.

Perhaps we should look at the amount of borrowing in real terms instead:

Year GDP Public Net Debt-total
1979 644.413 283.6
1990 819.007 224.4
1997 942.154 412.3
2008 1256.64 543.4
2009 1212.66 669.4

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Year GDP- (2000) Public Net Debt-total
1900 159.936 48.3
1901 163.303 54.3
1902 165.759 59.5
1903 164.222 62.4
1904 166.111 62.8
1905 170.976 62.0
1906 175.265 60.3
1907 178.599 57.8
1908 171.957 57.3
1909 176.024 57.0
1910 180.658 57.2
1911 186.619 54.5
1912 189.377 51.7
1913 197.178 50.9
1914 201.13 50.9
1915 212.002 77.6
1916 214.415 131.6
1917 213.105 198.7
1918 217.201 248.7
1919 200.145 270.6
1920 180.532 236.0
1921 163.001 251.0
1922 171.655 294.1
1923 176.74 321.1
1924 185.082 323.3
1925 191.595 322.4
1926 185.617 322.1
1927 199.892 327.8
1928 201.676 329.6
1929 207.431 331.0
1930 205.78 332.5
1931 196.234 336.5
1932 196.368 345.1
1933 202.613 359.8
1934 214.702 371.2
1935 222.643 367.4
1936 233.259 364.1
1937 241.423 352.4
1938 243.296 354.4
1939 254.002 349.8
1940 279.206 307.0
1941 303.518 363.6
1942 308.961 424.9
1943 314.269 492.7
1944 300.44 547.8
1945 286.701 618.3
1946 279.653 663.1
1947 276.084 656.9
1948 284.961 609.0
1949 294.407 582.0
1950 303.773 590.0
1951 312.06 546.8
1952 312.223 504.5
1953 324.201 492.6
1954 337.531 494.4
1955 349.24 482.3
1956 352.483 454.6
1957 358.33 437.7
1958 359.473 424.7
1959 374.832 421.5
1960 394.798 421.5
1961 403.924 416.4
1962 408.141 407.9
1963 425.622 418.4
1964 448.934 409.2
1965 458.957 390.2
1966 467.807 384.8
1967 479.351 381.5
1968 499.428 392.3
1969 509.811 369.5
1970 521.235 334.6
1971 531.786 309.5
1972 550.752 306.8
1973 590.009 294.0
1974 581.985 281.0
1975 578.338 253.5
1976 593.63 268.3
1977 607.844 280.3
1978 627.546 295.9
1979 644.413 283.6
1980 630.963 260.6
1981 621.78 241.2
1982 633.662 260.1
1983 655.979 271.1
1984 672.787 274.6
1985 696.582 281.6
1986 724.263 297.8
1987 757.452 292.0
1988 795.317 283.5
1989 812.725 263.1
1990 819.007 224.4
1991 807.814 208.1
1992 809.54 198.8
1993 827.886 212.6
1994 863.623 351.3
1995 889.041 385.5
1996 913.8 407.4
1997 942.154 412.3
1998 973.748 398.0
1999 1003.37 389.7
2000 1041.52 347.0
2001 1066.22 341.9
2002 1088.11 359.7
2003 1118.24 380.2
2004 1154.68 411.3
2005 1175.92 439.8
2006 1210.29 464.8
2007 1247.28 558.8
2008 1256.64 543.4
2009 1212.66 669.4
2010 1227.82 883.4

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...ent%20Of%20GDP

So actually, as you can see...what Labour has done is given the UK the largest ever national debt in real terms, larger even than that created when it last peaked in 1946. I.E. This Labour government has managed to create a bigger debt pile than the one created by WW2 for us to deal with!

See, I can play with statistics too .

[Louis VI the Fat]

See, I can play with statistics too .

Spin.


It doesn't matter to the millionaire if he owes a thousand quid. For the pauper it spells the end.
Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP.



No doubt to the delight of all those to the right of the Liberal Democrats, I'll be here all the way until election day.

[Vladimir]

How does Britain's military spending compare to that of other EU nations?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Harriet Harman will reopen the politically explosive debate over class tomorrow by insisting that it remains the single biggest factor in determining individual achievement.
In a speech designed to put the fight against inequality at the heart of the general election campaign, the Labour deputy leader will unveil a new "inequality bible" which admits that the government has merely slowed the trend in rising inequality despite more than 12 years in office.
The 420-page report, commissioned by the government, has been written by a panel chaired by Professor John Hills.


In her speech, Harman will say the report, to be published next week, makes uncomfortable reading for Labour, and sets out home truths about the scale of the challenge.
But she will also seek to create dividing lines with the Tories by arguing that the evidence shows socio-economic background, not parental warmth, is the main determinant of an individual's success.
The report's findings are politically sensitive since they may revive accusations – furiously denied by Gordon Brown – that Labour is embarking on a "class war".


Harman will say that public policy can still have a significant impact on inequality by intervening at certain key points in a person's life, such as pre-school years or re-entry into work after having children.
She will insist that the big choice at the next election will be which party people trust to ensure that as a society "we do not return to the days when inequality was spiralling and where a tiny minorty of the population got all the rewards".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...neral-election

Good. This after David Milliband started a similar attack two weeks ago.

Labour needs to return to its roots. 'Old' Labour, the party of miners and dock workers, became obsolote and was clung onto for far too long. A New Labour had to be formed in the 1990's. This New Labour is now past it's expiration date too. Back to sticking up for the law-abiding, tax-paying, actual working man.

Let the people have something to choose between, instead of two parties battling over the same few square centimeters of neo-liberalism.

[InsaneApache]

Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.

Oh Louis, please do stay until the election, I love your wind ups.

[al Roumi]

Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.

How is it hypocritical that she gives a and is trying to change things?

[Subotan]

Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP. :

That's incredibly basic economics. A growth in debt in real terms is totally meaningless if GDP grows by a faster or the same rate.

[InsaneApache]

How is it hypocritical that she gives a and is trying to change things?

Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

[al Roumi]

Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

Am I being dense? Harriet Harman is a Labour MP, how does any of this make her a tory toff???

[InsaneApache]

Am I being dense?

As they say in Yorksheer, if tha cap fits.....