Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

I don't claim any great understanding of economics but how was it that labour made all these plans for grants, schemes and so an when there was no blooody money?

64 replies

moondog · 29/06/2010 14:16

Eh?

OP posts:
TheCrackFox · 29/06/2010 15:59

I think Gordon Brown genuinely believed that he had "abolished boom and bust economics" and simply couldn't conceive that the good times would ever end. In saying that, he massively overspent even without the recession buggering everything up.

sarah293 · 29/06/2010 15:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

claig · 29/06/2010 15:42

agree with domesticsluttery, it was another of their cynical political ploys, at which they are the masters

vesela · 29/06/2010 15:38

There was a fair bit of UK exceptionalism at play, I think. You can still see it in the endless "Britain isn't like Greece!" articles. The UK is lucky to have the long-maturing debt that it has. It's not a given.

diggingintheribs · 29/06/2010 15:26

Government borrowing went up to record levels at a time of economic growth when the government should have been saving. People like to blame the banks but the way debt was rising we were going to get in trouble anyway (cross ref Greece).

Labour relied far too much on economic growth (as said above - using optimistic forecasts) when planning spending. They forgot the basics of saving when times are good so you have money to spend when times are bad.

So bow we're in a position where times are bad but we have nothing to fall back on. If labour had won the election I'm afraid the axe would still be swinging.

Chil1234 · 29/06/2010 15:17

Also 'ideology' played a big part. Crushing big government ideology to keep us all fearful and dependent. On the one hand, lavish public spending and borrowing money to give tax credits, child trust funds and winter fuel payments to people who didn't need them. (Lollipops!!! Come and get your lollipops!!!!) And just to get us to run into the Childcatcher's wagon a little faster they said they'll also protect us from the bogeymen with liberty-reducing proposals like 90 days detention without trial, ID card schemes and DNA databases. And we very nearly bloody swallowed it.

vesela · 29/06/2010 14:51

Arrogance.

domesticsluttery · 29/06/2010 14:33

It probably wasn't that simple, but I do think that was behind a lot of it.

Of course they couldn't have predicted the economic crisis, but the economy does run in cycles so it was fairly obvious that we couldn't sustain growth forever.

Chil1234 · 29/06/2010 14:32

Stranger things have happened than governments buying a few votes. Also, Labour had a perennial habit of being a little too optimistic about growth forecasts, giving the impression that the good times would roll on for ever. Looking back, the credit crunch/banking crisis/global recession or whatever you like to call it was hovering, waiting to happen... but, like nearly everyone else, they didn't predict it or (worse) prepare for any kind of 'rainy day'.

compo · 29/06/2010 14:31

Some of it was aimed to get people back to work like free nursery places and tax credits
they couldn't predict the global financial crisis

moondog · 29/06/2010 14:28

Just seems a really reckless and amateur way to run the show.

OP posts:
littleducks · 29/06/2010 14:23

I think they were hoping that more money would be forthcoming (economic growth?) and it would all be alright in the end

moondog · 29/06/2010 14:20

Do yo really reckon it was as simple as that?
(serious question)

OP posts:
domesticsluttery · 29/06/2010 14:19

Because they wanted people (pensioners, middle income families etc) to vote for them.

Everyone was so impressed by what they could have (tax credits, winter fuel payments, free bus passes etc) that they forgot to check whether we could afford them.