On the button

[newwave]

I plagerised this but it is spot

Can Labour neutralise the Tory story about the past and turn public attention on who's to blame for the present?

Not until they successfully refute the biggest of the many lies peddled by the Tories before and since the last election, The Great Debt Lie, endlessly repeated but never supported by an iota of evidence. Not surprising, since all the facts point in the opposite direction:

Fact 1: A few minutes research on the www.ukpublicspending.co.uk website shows that average annual spending as a proportion of GDP was lower in the years 1998-2008 (37%) than during the previous 18 years of Conservative government (40%). Even if you include the two years of recession (2009-2010), the average was still lower (38%). And remember that, as late as 2008, Cameron was promising to stick to Labour?s spending plans.

Fact 2: National debt as a proportion of GDP was lower in 57 years of the 20th century than it was in 2010. When the Tories were removed from office in 1997, it was 42% of GDP. In 2008, before the effects of the financial crisis took hold, it was 36%. To put these figures into perspective, Japan?s national debt as a % of GDP is 200% and will rise to 250% in 2015. And, despite George Osborne's fatuous comparison of Britain's problems with those of Greece, a 2010 IMF study suggested, in the words of the Financial Times, "that the US and UK could probably increase their public debt burden by another 50% of gross domestic product beyond projected 2015 levels without triggering a crisis."

Fact 3: On November 4th 2010, George Osborne was criticised by the Treasury select committee for claiming the UK was near bankruptcy in the weeks after he took office. He was accused of using inflammatory language to justify massive public spending cuts and, whilst giving evidence about the spending review, was forced to admit that overall debt levels remained below those of the UK's main rivals.

Fact 4: You cannot include the total future liabilities under PFI contracts in the national debt figure any more than you can say that you?re insolvent now because you?re going to buy a house in 10 years time. There are about 800 PFI agreements. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2010), the estimated costs to the government of getting these projects started is £64 billion, and then another £267 billion in repayments to private companies over the next 50 years. The annual total cost of PFI is therefore £6.42 billion per year, which will amount to no more than 0.69% of the total national debt for 2011 (£932 billion). Remember too that PFI was introduced by John Major?s Conservative government and will, in all probability, be continued by the Coalition ? not surprising since it is privatisation by the back door.

As always, the biggest deficit is the one between the ears of the Conservatives and their apologists, who seem determined to live up to John Stuart Mill?s description of them as ?the stupid party?, and whose standard response to criticism is either to quote astronomical debt figures without putting them into context, or to blather on about the money tree and unemployed single mothers ? always a sure-fire way of getting a few hundred recommendations from the inmates of the Tory asylum and distracting the rest of us from the fact that a wealthy minority have been systematically looting the economy for the last 30 years.
*

May I add

4 more facts which blow apart The Great Debt Lie, and with it the fallacy on which every Conservative election campaign of the last 30 odd years has been based ? that Labour governments always spend beyond their means:

Fact 1: Osborne and Cameron have both said that Britain has the biggest budget deficit in the G20. Not true. Last year, according to the IMF, the US had a deficit of 12.5% of GDP, compared with 10.9% for Britain. This year, 2010-11, the Office for Budget Responsibility says Britain's deficit will be 10.1% of GDP, below America's 11%. And before the financial crisis, the UK?s budget deficit was the second lowest in the G7.

Fact 2: Despite the propaganda churned out by the Right (and threats from the same credit rating agencies which encouraged reckless borrowing and failed to foresee the financial crisis), the UK has never been in the slightest danger of having its Triple AAA credit rating downgraded, as most government debt is held by bondholders and financial institutions in the UK, over a long period of time and at very low interest rates ? which reflects the fact that the British government is a reliable borrower with a zero chance of defaulting.

Fact 3: The largest proportion of the government's deficit is not the product of Labour over-spending, but the direct result of the financial crisis and its aftermath ? the collapse of private investment and tax receipts, the bank bailout and a mild stimulus. And although the financial crisis was the result of Gordon Brown?s failure to regulate the banks, it needs to be pointed out bank deregulation first started in the 1980s, when Cecil Parkinson?s bonfire of controls unleashed the ?Big Bang?. Remember also that Cameron criticised Gordon Brown?s ?light touch? regulation of the banks as excessive.

Fact 4: Austerity measures always result in disaster:
? In 1937, FDR?s premature attempt to balance the US budget helped to plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession and Neville Chamberlain?s disastrous deflationary budget of 1932 had a similar effect in Britain.
? More recently, the economic meltdown experienced by Greece and Ireland has shown that harsh austerity programmes result in a slowdown in growth, reduce tax takes, increase deficits and raise the cost of servicing debts ? which is why national debt in 2011 is predicted to be 60% of GDP compared to 52% in 2010.
? In the US, Obama?s stimulus package has had the opposite effect on the economy, which grew at 0.8% in the last quarter, compared with negative growth of 0.5% in the UK. As a result, the US budget deficit will be less in 2010-11 (11%) than it was in 2009-10 (12.5%).
? In China, a spending package of around 15% of national income has lifted the country's growth rate to around 10%.

  And lastly, if it was the white stuff which caused negative growth during the last quarter, then perhaps Osborne should lay off it for a while. It might help him to put together an economic policy which actually works.

For a more balanced view - try the Full Fact Guide to the Economy.

Newwave - I appreciate this will be of little interest to you .

Jack, a Tory and truth are an oxymoron whilst most Tories are just Morons :o

Where have you got this from OP? Link?

Newwave. You have utterly wasted your time, writing/posting, all of the above. As we know it is all lies.

The labour party/bankers caused this mess, and everyone knows it! So why waste your time putting digit to keyboard! With the above fairy tale?

P.S. This is MN, have you got children? how do you have so much spare time to write
scribble so much!

uyter. the comment is free website in posts regarding todays Poly Toynbee article.

imright, it was a cut and paste, I did say I plagerised it :o

I like you newwave, you certainly do have a sense of humour

I like you newwave, you certainly do have a sense of humour

I do indeed, I need it with the Tories in control, it's helps to ameliorate the despair :o

A few minutes research on the www.ukpublicspending.co.uk website shows that average annual spending as a proportion of GDP was lower in the years 1998-2008 (37%) than during the previous 18 years of Conservative government (40%). Even if you include the two years of recession (2009-2010), the average was still lower (38%). And remember that, as late as 2008, Cameron was promising to stick to Labour?s spending plans

This is irrelevant, our problem is that the Government were spending more than their tax revenues. If you do that then you will end up with a deficit irrespective of the % of GDP that the Government spends

"National debt as a proportion of GDP was lower in 57 years of the 20th century than it was in 2010. When the Tories were removed from office in 1997, it was 42% of GDP. In 2008, before the effects of the financial crisis took hold, it was 36%. To put these figures into perspective, Japan?s national debt as a % of GDP is 200% and will rise to 250% in 2015. And, despite George Osborne's fatuous comparison of Britain's problems with those of Greece, a 2010 IMF study suggested, in the words of the Financial Times, "that the US and UK could probably increase their public debt burden by another 50% of gross domestic product beyond projected 2015 levels without triggering a crisis"

The problem is with the structural deficit not the national debt

"Despite the propaganda churned out by the Right (and threats from the same credit rating agencies which encouraged reckless borrowing and failed to foresee the financial crisis), the UK has never been in the slightest danger of having its Triple AAA credit rating downgraded, as most government debt is held by bondholders and financial institutions in the UK, over a long period of time and at very low interest rates ? which reflects the fact that the British government is a reliable borrower with a zero chance of defaulting"

The credit rating agencies were threatening to downgrade us, our outlook was downgraded from stable to negative.

"The largest proportion of the government's deficit is not the product of Labour over-spending, but the direct result of the financial crisis and its aftermath ? the collapse of private investment and tax receipts, the bank bailout and a mild stimulus"

Thats just explaining what a deficit is, except the banking bailout is not part of the structural deficit.

"Austerity measures always result in disaster"- Crude and simplistic analysis

Newwave - Full Fact is a non partisian organisation. They consciously and deliberately avoid any political bias.

Polly Toynbee is well......none of the above .

Quoting Polly Toynbee's opinions on the economy is like quoting Andy Grays opinions on feminism .

That's poorly informed and virtually irrelevent .

Polly Toynbee is well......none of the above

No she is probably the foremost and most informed leader writer alive today.

That's poorly informed and virtually irrelevant.

Strange that, I thought the same about your analysis

Newwave - I very much doubt you opened it.....if you did you would have pounced on the bits critical of the Coalition.

That's is after all what 'balanced' means - looking at the facts impartially.

Polly Toynbee uses facts selectively (and sometimes incorrectly) to fit her view of the world.

A few posters have taken the time to point out these inaccuracies - maybe you should respond to them?

Jack, please accept my apologies I was referring to Hudds post at 23-02, I should have made myself clearer.

A few posters have taken the time to point out these inaccuracies - maybe you should respond to them?

Only two have pointed out anything, Hudd and yourself and I have responded to Hudd, when I have opened your link them I will respond to you.

Polly Toynbee. Writes for that lefty north london rag, The Guardian. circulation 285.000.

I would rather read the Daily Mail, at leasts it is 'on the button', and has a circulation of 2.4 million. (and over half the readers are women!)

Yes I do believe the magazine 'Tunnel Boring'
has something in common with the Guardian, same readership circulation!