UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[EwanI Ted]

I'd go one step further and say the majority of Conservatives in power over the last 9 years have been tax and spend Blairites, rather than any kind of right wing austerity loons. The only difference being that Blair's tenure was during a global boom where growth was much higher.

Current tax levels as a % of GDP are up there with the highest they've ever been in a non-recession peacetime period. UK spend to GDP follows the same trend - our spend to GDP in 2000 under Blair was just over 34% compared with current spend at over 38% (see final image).

The amount of tax that is paid by the highest earners is likewise at a high. For example the mean amount of tax paid by all people earning over £2m is £1.88m (39%). The amount for people earning between £1m and £2m is £546k (40%). The mean amount of income tax paid for people earning between £500k and £1m is £271k (40%). Likewise the amount of income tax paid by the lowest earners is at its lowest level. People earning up to £12500 pay an average of £222 (1.6%). People earning between £12.5k and £15k pay an average of £871 of 5% and people earning between £15k and £20k pay £2.2k (9%). The poorest 50% of taxpayers pay less income tax than ever before and the richest 1% and 10% pay a far greater proportion than ever before.

At the same time the minimum wage has grown at a faster rate than before by an average of 24p per annum between 2010 and 2019 from £6.08 to £8.21 (3.5% per annum - 35% total), compared with inflation at 2.7% average.

Corporation tax receipts to GDP have grown from 2.2% (£26.5b) back in 2002 to 2.7% (£52.5b) in 2017 and are forecasted to be over £59b this year.

Likewise they've targeted big business and nearly tripled revenue in terms of insurance tax from £2.3m to £6.2b. The tax rate likewise has tripled from 4% in 1999 compared with the current rate of 12%.

Even the much criticised UK Public Health spend as a % of GDP is close to a record high at nearly 7.5%, compared with under 5% back in 2000 or 6.5% back in 2007. A further inflation busting 3.4% per annum has been allocated for the next 4 years.

UK pension spend is also at a historic high.

This is why I'm always confused by the accepted "austerity" caricature that was peddled by Labour and then worn as a badge of honour by the Tories to seem fiscally responsible. The below graph is a good illustration, given that there was a global recession the ability to increase spending year on year is quite phenomenal. Compare it to the actual austerity that is occurring across Europe and it's actually somewhat insensitive.

At the same time people state that pretty much every government department is experiencing austerity. It's a complete oxymoron.

Spoiler: Uk Spending

Spoiler: Italy Spending

Spoiler: Greece Spending

Spoiler: Spain Spending

Spoiler: UK Spend % GDP

The GDP to public spend ratio doesnt really support this argument. Or at least, suggests there's more to it than you're making out. It increased at a historic rate under Blair, and fell at a rate comparable to Thatcher under Cameron/Osborne.

Spoiler

 

[Abizzz]

Farage's best bet is to not field anyone. All tactical plans could all backfire badly. He'll be in danger of losing his beloved Brexit altogether if the Leave vote is split and there's a hung parliament.

His best bet is that Johnson is the only option for disaffected Labour leavers who hold will their noses and break a lifetime and even a generational habit and vote Tory.

Even if the Brexit party winds up propping up the government, he will never get his version of Brexit through. Better take some Brexit than none.

You honestly think Farage wants to get Brexit done though? His time at the center of British politics would be over, there would be no use for him other than as Trump's mouthpiece (and with that mouth there's no need for a piece). Half of the beauty of Brexit is that those who want it don't actually WANT it. They want the political gain from wanting it. However that evaporates once it's actually there...

 

[sammsky1]

Corbyn threw a surprise when he set out the Labour agenda today. Finally buried the curse of Blair and cheap Toryism.
Defending the NHS, saving the people and protecting Britain - old style 50s Socialism delivered in 21st century rhetoric.
This might just turn into a very interesting election.

I see the Blair cultists have been angered.

This election will be decided by the centrist voters. Corbyn just lost the entire lot. And so there goes any chance of Labour getting in, and Labour making the choice to hand this election to Boris Johnson, without Tory's even needing to compete.

Once Labour lose, I will hold Corbyn accountable for Brexit. Because taking this electoral strategy is a merely a suicidal self indulgent ego trip and nothing else.

 

[Sweet Square]

If that's supposed to be your response to me I've already left for Lib Dems. The point is Labour has no hope of gaining power without people like me voting for them, so you can either be a vocal protest movement, chaining yourself to railings and making lots of noise but never changing anything, or you can be pragmatic, treat other people with similar but more moderate views than yours with respect and work with them to change everyone's lives for the better.

What liberal tory voters ?

Out of interest has Blair started a new centrist party ?

Look you've listed the reasons why you've joined the Lib Dems and the fact is you've left the Labour Party because its now a left wing social democratic party. The only way to win you over would be actually go further to the right New Labour never was. The whole program would have to be destroyed which includes such things as a green new deal and stop welfare sanctions(Sorry mate but your really not that interesting or useful for these polices to be dropped). The fact is the party you've joined isn't a centrist party, it isn't New Labour 2.0. The Lib Dem imposed austerity measures, have literally former conservative mp's(One who think migrates should be HIV tested!!!)and its leader when in government voted more with the tories than Micheal Gove.

The red tory argument that is made against yourself and others has it seems, turned out to be true. Again to win you over would mean changing the whole party platform into something more right wing than New Labour(That's why I posted the clip, to get you to understand the party has changed). So because that can't happen(I really want to make some effort to fight against the earth dying)the Labour Party has to try and win over other people who have far better politics than yourself. Which is a very hard task to meet but if the party just relies on with voters like yourself then UK will keep its inhumane welfare tests, it will continue the attacks on disable people, continue kicking the shit out of working people, continue to have a murderous foreign policy and do feck all about climate change.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

Farage's best bet is to not field anyone. All tactical plans could all backfire badly. He'll be in danger of losing his beloved Brexit altogether if the Leave vote is split and there's a hung parliament.

His best bet is that Johnson is the only option for disaffected Labour leavers who will hold their noses and break a lifetime and even a generational habit and vote Tory.

Even if the Brexit party winds up propping up the government, he will never get his version of Brexit through. Better take some Brexit than none.

Farage caring about Brexit is laughable. If Brexit happens they're politically finished.

All Farage wants is a paycheque and some kind of power, with the latter not really at the forefront.

 

[Sweet Square]

This election will be decided by the centrist voters. Corbyn just lost the entire lot. And so there goes any chance of Labour getting in, and Labour making the choice to hand this election to Boris Johnson, without Tory's even needing to compete.

Once Labour lose, I will hold Corbyn accountable for Brexit. Because taking this electoral strategy is a merely a suicidal self indulgent ego trip and nothing else.

I believe it won't be. Not based on anything but I believe it so its true. You make your own future, right ?

Annoying isn't it ?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

I believe it won't be. Not based on anything but I believe it so its true. You make your own future, right ?

Its annoying isn't it ?

Will revisit this when labour get obliterated.

 

[Smores]

I'd go one step further and say the majority of Conservatives in power over the last 9 years have been tax and spend Blairites, rather than any kind of right wing austerity loons. The only difference being that Blair's tenure was during a global boom where growth was much higher.

Current tax levels as a % of GDP are up there with the highest they've ever been in a non-recession peacetime period. UK spend to GDP follows the same trend - our spend to GDP in 2000 under Blair was just over 34% compared with current spend at over 38% (see final image).

The amount of tax that is paid by the highest earners is likewise at a high. For example the mean amount of tax paid by all people earning over £2m is £1.88m (39%). The amount for people earning between £1m and £2m is £546k (40%). The mean amount of income tax paid for people earning between £500k and £1m is £271k (40%). Likewise the amount of income tax paid by the lowest earners is at its lowest level. People earning up to £12500 pay an average of £222 (1.6%). People earning between £12.5k and £15k pay an average of £871 of 5% and people earning between £15k and £20k pay £2.2k (9%). The poorest 50% of taxpayers pay less income tax than ever before and the richest 1% and 10% pay a far greater proportion than ever before.

At the same time the minimum wage has grown at a faster rate than before by an average of 24p per annum between 2010 and 2019 from £6.08 to £8.21 (3.5% per annum - 35% total), compared with inflation at 2.7% average.

Corporation tax receipts to GDP have grown from 2.2% (£26.5b) back in 2002 to 2.7% (£52.5b) in 2017 and are forecasted to be over £59b this year.

Likewise they've targeted big business and nearly tripled revenue in terms of insurance tax from £2.3m to £6.2b. The tax rate likewise has tripled from 4% in 1999 compared with the current rate of 12%.

Even the much criticised UK Public Health spend as a % of GDP is close to a record high at nearly 7.5%, compared with under 5% back in 2000 or 6.5% back in 2007. A further inflation busting 3.4% per annum has been allocated for the next 4 years.

UK pension spend is also at a historic high.

This is why I'm always confused by the accepted "austerity" caricature that was peddled by Labour and then worn as a badge of honour by the Tories to seem fiscally responsible. The below graph is a good illustration, given that there was a global recession the ability to increase spending year on year is quite phenomenal. Compare it to the actual austerity that is occurring across Europe and it's actually somewhat insensitive.

At the same time people state that pretty much every government department is experiencing austerity. It's a complete oxymoron.

Spoiler: Uk Spending

Spoiler: Italy Spending

Spoiler: Greece Spending

Spoiler: Spain Spending

Spoiler: UK Spend % GDP

I can't be bothered to go through all this but our tax % as GDP isn't at an all time high at all unless you're doing some very creative definition on peace time. Largely though you're taking a limited time frame in most of your analysis which coincidentally aligns to a recession where GDP is hit and yes tax % increase as a comparison. Hardly any of that impacts real term funding for services though.

NHS spending as %GDP has gone down every year since 2009. It's the biggest sustained reduction ever and you're trying to paint it as a record level. Seriously?

I can only assume you've grabbed all this from some right wing source because it's selective nonsense.

 

[Sweet Square]

Will revisit this when labour get obliterated.

Its a reference to something @sammsky1 has said in the past. It isn't my actual view.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

Its a reference to something @sammsky1 has said in the past. It isn't my actual view.

Ah ok, fair.

 

[sullydnl]

@Sweet Square

So how do you think Labour will win the GE? As in what voter bases are they appealing to beyond that obvious base left-wing one?

That's a genuine question btw. I can't see where the votes will come from but I assume there is at least a theory as to who they're supposed to attract that I'm less aware of as someone from outside the UK. Who are they targeting?

 

[Smores]

This election will be decided by the centrist voters. Corbyn just lost the entire lot. And so there goes any chance of Labour getting in, and Labour making the choice to hand this election to Boris Johnson, without Tory's even needing to compete.

Once Labour lose, I will hold Corbyn accountable for Brexit. Because taking this electoral strategy is a merely a suicidal self indulgent ego trip and nothing else.

What are you even referring to here? What policies?

Beyond nationalisation and the green deal there's nothing that radical about Labours current proposals. I think some of you are misled by Labour wanting to appear radical when in fact the vast majority wouldn't really be that far from a Blair or Brown manifesto.

 

[fergieisold]

I'd go one step further and say the majority of Conservatives in power over the last 9 years have been tax and spend Blairites, rather than any kind of right wing austerity loons. The only difference being that Blair's tenure was during a global boom where growth was much higher.

Current tax levels as a % of GDP are up there with the highest they've ever been in a non-recession peacetime period. UK spend to GDP follows the same trend - our spend to GDP in 2000 under Blair was just over 34% compared with current spend at over 38% (see final image).

The amount of tax that is paid by the highest earners is likewise at a high. For example the mean amount of tax paid by all people earning over £2m is £1.88m (39%). The amount for people earning between £1m and £2m is £546k (40%). The mean amount of income tax paid for people earning between £500k and £1m is £271k (40%). Likewise the amount of income tax paid by the lowest earners is at its lowest level. People earning up to £12500 pay an average of £222 (1.6%). People earning between £12.5k and £15k pay an average of £871 of 5% and people earning between £15k and £20k pay £2.2k (9%). The poorest 50% of taxpayers pay less income tax than ever before and the richest 1% and 10% pay a far greater proportion than ever before.

At the same time the minimum wage has grown at a faster rate than before by an average of 24p per annum between 2010 and 2019 from £6.08 to £8.21 (3.5% per annum - 35% total), compared with inflation at 2.7% average.

Corporation tax receipts to GDP have grown from 2.2% (£26.5b) back in 2002 to 2.7% (£52.5b) in 2017 and are forecasted to be over £59b this year.

Likewise they've targeted big business and nearly tripled revenue in terms of insurance tax from £2.3m to £6.2b. The tax rate likewise has tripled from 4% in 1999 compared with the current rate of 12%.

Even the much criticised UK Public Health spend as a % of GDP is close to a record high at nearly 7.5%, compared with under 5% back in 2000 or 6.5% back in 2007. A further inflation busting 3.4% per annum has been allocated for the next 4 years.

UK pension spend is also at a historic high.

This is why I'm always confused by the accepted "austerity" caricature that was peddled by Labour and then worn as a badge of honour by the Tories to seem fiscally responsible. The below graph is a good illustration, given that there was a global recession the ability to increase spending year on year is quite phenomenal. Compare it to the actual austerity that is occurring across Europe and it's actually somewhat insensitive.

At the same time people state that pretty much every government department is experiencing austerity. It's a complete oxymoron.

Spoiler: Uk Spending

Spoiler: Italy Spending

Spoiler: Greece Spending

Spoiler: Spain Spending

Spoiler: UK Spend % GDP

Some nice information in this, thanks!

 

[Cockney Phil]

This election will be decided by the centrist voters. Corbyn just lost the entire lot. And so there goes any chance of Labour getting in, and Labour making the choice to hand this election to Boris Johnson, without Tory's even needing to compete.

Once Labour lose, I will hold Corbyn accountable for Brexit. Because taking this electoral strategy is a merely a suicidal self indulgent ego trip and nothing else.

There is no longer a centre ground - Brexit saw to that - it’s all about binary choices. The positions and agendas were set out with the stark choices yesterday. Johnson is standing by Brexit while losing his party’s old one nation Tories and offering Americanised globalism. Labour has dumped on the Blairites while presenting a Socialist manifesto. Farage was slow off the starting gate and clinging to Trump. Those who vote for the old centre ground will have to choose the Lib-Dems and their recent years of unreliability in office. Localism and regionalism will further distort matters.

This election will be more like 1945 than 1979 but will stand beside them in bringing about massive national change.

 

[NWRed]

What liberal tory voters ?

Out of interest has Blair started a new centrist party ?

Look you've listed the reasons why you've joined the Lib Dems and the fact is you've left the Labour Party because its now a left wing social democratic party. The only way to win you over would be actually go further to the right New Labour never was. The whole program would have to be destroyed which includes such things as a green new deal and stop welfare sanctions(Sorry mate but your really not that interesting or useful for these polices to be dropped). The fact is the party you've joined isn't a centrist party, it isn't New Labour 2.0. The Lib Dem imposed austerity measures, have literally former conservative mp's(One who think migrates should be HIV tested!!!)and its leader when in government voted more with the tories than Micheal Gove.

The red tory argument that is made against yourself and others has it seems, turned out to be true. Again to win you over would mean changing the whole party platform into something more right wing than New Labour(That's why I posted the clip, to get you to understand the party has changed). So because that can't happen(I really want to make some effort to fight against the earth dying)the Labour Party has to try and win over other people who have far better politics than yourself. Which is a very hard task to meet but if the party just relies on with voters like yourself then UK will keep its inhumane welfare tests, it will continue the attacks on disable people, continue kicking the shit out of working people, continue to have a murderous foreign policy and do feck all about climate change.

I've voted Labour my entire life up to this years local and EU elections, as did my entire family. I grew up on council estates and owe everything I have to great parents and the support they received from the welfare state in very difficult times. Like I said, if Labour have lost people like myself then they've no chance of a majority.

I believe my mother still votes Labour but she pays little attention to the news or politics and just calls Labour "us" and the Tories "them". My sister is of the same opinion as me. If Labour was led by Starmer then it might be different but, to be frank, Corbyn is person I just don't trust. He is far more interested in his own image as some sort of freedom fighter than he is in actually changing peoples lives for the better. This momentum movement and the vitriol they spew towards people whom they need to win over to actually win just makes staying and fighting for/waiting for change impossible.

I'm afraid the take over of Labour by the far left will be for at least the next decade (until the party realises they should never have left the centre) and the Tories (never an option for me whether of not) are in the grip of the far right, the only realistic option left is the Lib Dems.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Red Tories, Yellow Tories, Green Tories and Blue Tories - we hate you all but please vote for us, cheers Labour.

 

[711]

Farage's lot are red, white and blue Tories. Actually he could use that message, if he could direct it at Tory held seats, I reckon it would work.

 

[finneh]

The GDP to public spend ratio doesnt really support this argument. Or at least, suggests there's more to it than you're making out. It increased at a historic rate under Blair, and fell at a rate comparable to Thatcher under Cameron/Osborne.

Spoiler

My post stated "non-recession period". The spikes you're highlighting (40%+) correspond to recessions.

Of course the spend to GDP was always going to drop under any government who took over at the height of a recession. It dropping from 45% to 38% though is nothing compared with the booming spend in the late 90's and early 2000's at around 34-35%.

 

[Infra-red]

You honestly think Farage wants to get Brexit done though? His time at the center of British politics would be over, there would be no use for him other than as Trump's mouthpiece (and with that mouth there's no need for a piece). Half of the beauty of Brexit is that those who want it don't actually WANT it. They want the political gain from wanting it. However that evaporates once it's actually there...

This. Brexit being 'done' is Farage's worst nightmare.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

@Sweet Square

So how do you think Labour will win the GE? As in what voter bases are they appealing to beyond that obvious base left-wing one?

That's a genuine question btw. I can't see where the votes will come from but I assume there is at least a theory as to who they're supposed to attract that I'm less aware of as someone from outside the UK. Who are they targeting?

Appealing to all voters why might want to live in a better society. Regardless of how much money we all have, we still live in the same country using the same roads, relying on the same public services and under the rule of the same government. There's no protection bubble, things improve and deteriorate as a whole with every government even when it gets better or worse for some, the general direction is always the same.

 

[finneh]

I can't be bothered to go through all this but our tax % as GDP isn't at an all time high at all unless you're doing some very creative definition on peace time. Largely though you're taking a limited time frame in most of your analysis which coincidentally aligns to a recession where GDP is hit and yes tax % increase as a comparison. Hardly any of that impacts real term funding for services though.

NHS spending as %GDP has gone down every year since 2009. It's the biggest sustained reduction ever and you're trying to paint it as a record level. Seriously?

I can only assume you've grabbed all this from some right wing source because it's selective nonsense.

I specifically stated all time high outside of recession time as obviously in times of depressed GDP the spend to GDP naturally increases.

Please see below real terms health spend and health to GDP taken from the UK Parliament website (it's remained consistent since 2015 and is due to rise from next year).

If you again exclude the recessionary spike between 2008 to 2010, then the spend is higher than it's ever been. It's higher than when Blair took over in 1997 and higher than when he left in 2007.

Spoiler: UK Historic Health Spend

Please see below table showing values taken from Parliament website also showing current spend at 7.1% which is greater than at any recorded point prior to the 2008 recession.

Spoiler: Historic Health Spend

 

[sammsky1]

What are you even referring to here? What policies?

Beyond nationalisation and the green deal there's nothing that radical about Labours current proposals. I think some of you are misled by Labour wanting to appear radical when in fact the vast majority wouldn't really be that far from a Blair or Brown manifesto.

We’ve had this chat many times before. Not worth repeating again!

 

[Sweet Square]

I've voted Labour my entire life up to this years local and EU elections, as did my entire family. I grew up on council estates and owe everything I have to great parents and the support they received from the welfare state in very difficult times. Like I said, if Labour have lost people like myself then they've no chance of a majority.

I believe my mother still votes Labour but she pays little attention to the news or politics and just calls Labour "us" and the Tories "them". My sister is of the same opinion as me. If Labour was led by Starmer then it might be different but, to be frank, Corbyn is person I just don't trust. He is far more interested in his own image as some sort of freedom fighter than he is in actually changing peoples lives for the better. This momentum movement and the vitriol they spew towards people whom they need to win over to actually win just makes staying and fighting for/waiting for change impossible.

I'm afraid the take over of Labour by the far left will be for at least the next decade (until the party realises they should never have left the centre) and the Tories (never an option for me whether of not) are in the grip of the far right, the only realistic option left is the Lib Dems.

And now your about to vote for a party who fecked over a ton of people on welfare only few years ago. Kl.

If your problem is just Corbyn than firstly how you get around voting for someone like Jo Swinson ? And secondly you literally outline the left wing policies you disagree with, so why would Starmer being leader change this ?

Lib Dems - Like Revoke A50 - you may not like it but this election is about Brexit.

Labour - dislike (to begin with):
1. Wasting time renegotiating with a CU which would, long term, probably hurt the country more than a hard Brexit.
2. A leadership with economic policies and ideas rooted in the 1970s and, frankly, juvenile foreign policy ideals.
3. Hypocrisy over having a democratic party (the voting at this years conference spoke volumes for how much the party leadership was willing to back up it's rhetoric with action)
4. Corbyn's historical hostility to the EU, support for the IRA, support for terrorists (I'm no Israeli sympathiser but the leadership of both sides are not interested in peace).
5. Absurd policies such as seizing private property of schools.

So which is it ? The policies or Corbyn ?

Honestly if really is just Corbyn you have a issue with, then just grown the feck up and vote to improve the conditions of working class people in Britain. Also your mother has a better analysis of politics than 99% of people in in the media.

I'm afraid the take over of Labour by the far left will be for at least the next decade (until the party realises they should never have left the centre) and the Tories (never an option for me whether of not) are in the grip of the far right, the only realistic option left is the Lib Dems.

Tell me the policies that are far left ? Bernie Sanders has a put forward a 20% worker owned share in companies, Labour is still at 10%. Finland doesn't have private schools. What is far left about stopping the sell of arms to the saudi royal family.

Labour being a party of the far left is just absurd.

 

[sammsky1]

And now your about to vote for a party who fecked over a ton of people on welfare only few years ago. Kl.

If your problem is just Corbyn than firstly how you get around voting for someone like Jo Swinson ? And secondly you literally outline the left wing policies you disagree with, so why would Starmer being leader change this ?

So which is it ? The policies or Corbyn ?

Honestly if really is just Corbyn you have a issue with, then just grown the feck up and vote to improve the conditions of working class people in Britain. Also your mother has a better analysis of politics than 99% of people in in the media.

Do you Corbynisters have any other strategy aside from emotional blackmail to re-attract disillusioned labour voters with? Asking for a friend.

 

[Red Dreams]

@Drifter

@Red Dreams

Who does the 'cuts' affect the most?

or are you unaware of them?

 

[Sweet Square]

Do you Corbynisters have any other strategy aside from emotional blackmail to re-attract disillusioned labour voters with? Asking for a friend.

YES! Policies such as the green new Deal, ending benefits sanctions, nationalisation, a living wage, improved workers rights, workers shares in companies, stopping the selling of arms to the saudi royal family, 2nd referendum on EU membership and a million other things.

Christ almighty you lot are hard work.

 

[sammsky1]

Not sure where to put this as its relevant to Brexit, Racism and also this election. But this thread seems to be the sweet spot right now.

Seems like nothing has changed at all ...

Our People | 1979 | What fuels Racism? | Multi Cultural East End London

 

[Smores]

I specifically stated all time high outside of recession time as obviously in times of depressed GDP the spend to GDP naturally increases.

Please see below real terms health spend and health to GDP taken from the UK Parliament website (it's remained consistent since 2015 and is due to rise from next year).

If you again exclude the recessionary spike between 2008 to 2010, then the spend is higher than it's ever been. It's higher than when Blair took over in 1997 and higher than when he left in 2007.

Spoiler: UK Historic Health Spend

You're just confirming what i said. It's the longest ever sustained reduction in spending as a % of GDP.

You can't just jump from GDP in one paragraph to real terms in the next because GDP suddenly becomes inconvenient to your point. Even then the real term spend isn't increasing as you'd expect.

I genuinely can't believe we have someone trying to argue it isn't being squeezed.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

YES! Policies such as the green new Deal, ending benefits sanctions, nationalisation, a living wage, improved workers rights, workers shares in companies, stopping the selling of arms to the saudi royal family, 2nd referendum on EU membership and a million other things.

Christ almighty you lot are hard work.

Smells like communism to me.


jokes babes xx

 

[Smores]

We’ve had this chat many times before. Not worth repeating again!

Convenient

 

[sammsky1]

Convenient

Im not willing to give up my future generations inheritance, nor am I willing to give up the right to pay for a better education for my children.

These are deal breakers. There is nothing you or anyone else can say to change that.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Farage's lot are red, white and blue Tories. Actually he could use that message, if he could direct it at Tory held seats, I reckon it would work.

Farage will do all he can to try to stop Brexit.

 

[finneh]

You're just confirming what i said. It's the longest ever sustained reduction in spending as a % of GDP.

You can't just jump from GDP in one paragraph to real terms in the next because GDP suddenly becomes inconvenient to your point. Even then the real term spend isn't increasing as you'd expect.

I genuinely can't believe we have someone trying to argue it isn't being squeezed.

That's a bizarre point of view... We're spending more on health as a % of GDP that at any point from the formation of the NHS to 2008 when spend spiked (not in pounds and pennies) due to the depression of total GDP. Remember this is as a % of GDP and not absolute spend; so it can't increase indefinitely without other departments being subject to a comparable reduction. Expecting health spend to continually increase as a % of GDP is also asking for all other departmental spending to decrease.

Overall spend at 2018/19 prices has increased from £129b to £153b over that decade.

 

[EwanI Ted]

My post stated "non-recession period". The spikes you're highlighting (40%+) correspond to recessions.

Of course the spend to GDP was always going to drop under any government who took over at the height of a recession.

Dont follow you here, perhaps you could clarify. As I read it, after the mid 70s and 81 recessions spend to GDP fell, while after the 91 and 2008 recessions it increased. Of the times its gone over 40, once was after a recession, twice it wasnt. Dont see a rule of thumb there.

It dropping from 45% to 38% though is nothing compared with the booming spend in the late 90's and early 2000's at around 34-35%.

Maybe, either way, you have to agree they're going in opposite directions.

 

[EwanI Ted]

YES! Policies such as the green new Deal, ending benefits sanctions, nationalisation, a living wage, improved workers rights, workers shares in companies, stopping the selling of arms to the saudi royal family, 2nd referendum on EU membership and a million other things.

Christ almighty you lot are hard work.

What if, like me, you think some of those are good ideas, but dont believe that Corbyn and his team are competent enough to actually do them? That's a major block for me, I think he'll try and do them with the best of intentions but will just mess it up.

Edit:typo

 

[finneh]

Dont follow you here, perhaps you could clarify. As I read it, after the mid 70s and 81 recessions spend to GDP fell, while after the 91 and 2008 recessions it increased. Of the times its gone over 40, once was after a recession, twice it wasnt. Dont see a rule of thumb there.

The early 60's recession caused spend to spike from 37% to 43%.

The multiple recessions between 1973 and 1981 caused spend to GDP to spike from 38% to 46% and later 43%.

The recession between 2008 - 2014 caused spend to GDP to spike from 38% to 45%.

The periods post recession once the economy had recovered (late 60's to early 70's, late 80's to early 90's and late 90's to 2007) showed consistent and "normal" spend between 34 - 38.5%. The Tories are at the upper limit of this historic normal spend.

Maybe, either way, you have to agree they're going in opposite directions.

The Tories could have cut spend to GDP from 45% to say 37-38% instantly back in 2010 and then gradually increased it over time; however this would have required a cut of around 15% or around £100b in one hit. This would have been what most countries would classify as austerity. Instead they brought spending down slowly and managably over an 8-10 year period with spending increased in cash terms but decreasing as a % of GDP back to normal levels.

 

[Smores]

That's a bizarre point of view... We're spending more on health as a % of GDP that at any point from the formation of the NHS to 2008 when spend spiked (not in pounds and pennies) due to the depression of total GDP. Remember this is as a % of GDP and not absolute spend; so it can't increase indefinitely without other departments being subject to a comparable reduction. Expecting health spend to continually increase as a % of GDP is also asking for all other departmental spending to decrease.

Overall spend at 2018/19 prices has increased from £129b to £153b over that decade.

A fact can't be a wierd view. Simple question has NHS spending as a % of GDP increased or decreased since 2010?

Your original post runs counter to your GDP claims but lets use another basis from full fact.

https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/

 

[Sweet Square]

What if, like me, you think some of those are good ideas, but dont believe that Corbyn and his team are competent enough to actually do them? That's a major block for me, I think he'll try and do them with the best of intentions but will just mess it up.

Edit:typo

How for example ?

Corbyn team(Which is the left of the PLP and the Unions) has been planning what do if they win power since the end of the last election. One of plus I would argue is that Corbyn knows that the British civil service and parts of British capital will be trying their very best to stop these reforms(Look at Tony Been time in government). Also Corbyn started off as 400-1 to be Labour leader, won a second leadership election with a even bigger margin than the first time and has been leader nearly 5 years. We can argue about the level of competence of Corbyn team of course but he clearly better than what the other parts of the Labour have had to offer.

Also even if we say these concerns grounded, what other choice have we got ? On one else is offering anything as near as good with regards to policy. The maybe potential of something going wrong possibly shouldn't be enough to vote against the policy program. I could possibly understand this competent worry if there was another party offering something similar but there just isn't.

 

[Charlie Foley]

I bloody love an election. Looking forward to sitting down to watch this in December

 

[decorativeed]

I've voted Labour my entire life up to this years local and EU elections, as did my entire family. I grew up on council estates and owe everything I have to great parents and the support they received from the welfare state in very difficult times. Like I said, if Labour have lost people like myself then they've no chance of a majority.

I believe my mother still votes Labour but she pays little attention to the news or politics and just calls Labour "us" and the Tories "them". My sister is of the same opinion as me. If Labour was led by Starmer then it might be different but, to be frank, Corbyn is person I just don't trust. He is far more interested in his own image as some sort of freedom fighter than he is in actually changing peoples lives for the better. This momentum movement and the vitriol they spew towards people whom they need to win over to actually win just makes staying and fighting for/waiting for change impossible.

I'm afraid the take over of Labour by the far left will be for at least the next decade (until the party realises they should never have left the centre) and the Tories (never an option for me whether of not) are in the grip of the far right, the only realistic option left is the Lib Dems.

And the evidence of this is?...

Corbyn has plenty of actual flaws with demonstrable evidence (as has practicallly every other figure in politics), but this seems like pure imagination on your part to me.

Also, you say Labour have no chance of a majority, then go as far as to say "the only realistic option lift is the Lib Dems". The Lib Dems have 19 MPs. Less than 10% of Labour's numbers. How is it in any way a realistic chance that they would somehow overturn that and better?!