I remember back in about 2004/5 whilst the Blair government was in power, the Tories wanted to ease regulation of the banking sector. Fortunately this did not happen, but if a Tory government had been in place at the time I dread to think what the consequences of the financial crash would have been in 2007/8.
Yes you make a very good point and it is also arguable that the crash was not bad luck but deliberately engineered by hedge-fund employees and managers; cf Sunak who was in 2007/09 a partner at the hedge fund TCI (if ever something were misnamed it is “The Children's Investment Fund”). TCI actively pushed for the RBS-led takeover of ABN Amro, a deal that many would say was fraudulent and that was a major factor in the subsequent collapse. TCI made a £555 million profit in 2007/08, with partners, including Sunak, sharing in over £93 million of profit.
Such information aught to reduce the amount of denigration of this Labour government, but it won't. There is so much more yet to change before we can restore balance to living standards in all sectors but that doesn't mean we should give up trying in the face of criticism. Proposed changes will often not be quite the best way of doing so and the government must have the courage to adjust their course where necessary. The media will report it as a shocking u-turn and sign of incompetence but a progressive government must be flexible despite mindless criticism.
I remember the difference between the Thatcher & Blair govt in a different way, from a health viewpoint. In July 1996, my husband was diagnosed with a faulty heart valve. By April 1997, his need for an operation was deemed urgent. Under the Thatcher govt, there was a huge waiting list & his operation took place at the end of July, by which time he had developed heart failure & his operation had become much more dangerous. He suffered a haemorhage & spent all night bleeding,which finally stopped in the early hours of the morning. He survived thanks to the great skills of the international team that saved him, but his heart had suffered a great deal of damage due to the long wait for surgery & he was no longer able to work. Years later, his repaired valve failed & he needed an artificial heart valve. This was dealt with quickly & very efficiently by another international medical team, under a Labour govt. Sadly, the NHS is under great pressure again. It is worth remembering it is very precious for most of us & it needs to survive. Politics matter. Beware of politicians who want to ditch the NHS for the US health care system! It is infinitely worse, unless you are very rich, like Nigel Farage.
If you go back even further, to the start of the 20th Century, the picture is even more distressing. It's worth remembering that from the time the Labour movement became a parliamentary party, the Tories were the ruling party more than 75% of the time. Admittedly, that includes several periods of "Government of National Unity", but even so, Labour's time as the party in power pales by comparison.
What has happened during that period? Britain has gone from being an industrial powerhouse to a basket case. Numerous industrial innovations can be attributed to Britain's world-leading companies. By the end of the First World War, these were still punching above their weight, despite the war's cost. By the end of the Second World War, the decline was more evident, even as the country was bankrupt. It took Thatcher to drive a stake through the heart of our industrial base. Now, India and China dictate our industrial strategy.
That in itself is a major turnaround. Two former colonies/vassals have outperformed Britain over the same period. It's hard to think of another Imperial decline in history that saw the former masters so utterly dominated by former conquered people in such a short space of time. Britain has gone from a globe spanning Empire to struggling to hold together the remaining four nations of the United Kingdom.
In the run-up to WWII, Britain had perhaps a dozen aviation companies that produced revered aircraft such as the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Mosquito, Shackleton, Lightning, and Harrier. Now, the RAF is reliant on American and European firms for its combat and transport aircraft. The irony of the two new aircraft carriers brought into service in recent years is that we sold off the remaining Harriers to the Americans and then waited several years for the F-35. The Americans have mothballed the Harrier fleet for spares, while continuing to use the aircraft with their Marine Corps.
The last decade has been a completely new experience, though, hasn't it? There has long been a suspicion that politicians are adept at working the system for maximum profit. Backhanders, donations, lucrative 2nd, 3rd, 4th .... or 11th jobs, seats in the Lords, and 'consulting' jobs on leaving office have all been endured since politicians at least pretended to have a degree of respectability. The expenses scandal prised open the lid on that world and left the country seething. Since then, though, the snouts have dug ever deeper into the trough. Britain is slowly slipping down the corruption index, to hardly anyone's surprise. The leaders in this process? I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out.
It's not just economic competence, then, that the Tories have an unjust reputation for. Ethical and moral behaviour, respect for the electorate, honesty, courtesy, ... What we once dismissed as conspiracy theory and the ranting of the deluded, we now accept as established fact. It's also worth bearing these points in mind when considering Reform, since the majority of their politicians are Tories.
Hi Tim and thanks for your interesting comment in which you make a number of important points. I have replied to comments about the industrial revolution in the comment thread and a paper about the UK's imperial exploitation and the use of private companies is gestating in my mind but I wanted to be careful to stick to my self-set remit comparing the records of the two parties in a measured manner using cold verifiable statistics
So, basically the same story as in the USA where the economy has systematically performed better with Democrats in power. Is it perhaps remotely possible that governing for the benefit of everybody in stead of just for the moneyed class has something to do with it?
😂 Yes indeed - who ever would have thought that implementing economic policy that puts more disposable income in the pockets of the working and middle classes, that helps them improve their wages and working conditions and that actually helps them buy decent affordable housing would be beneficial to a country as a whole in so many ways, not least the increase the consequent rise in GDP growth.
It’s so obvious. And in a similar vein this is also why I don’t get the AI hype. So the premise and promise is that robots will do all the work. And the 90% or so of the population who is now out of work will buy the products of all that robotic labour how? Looks like we’re headed towards the Earth depicted in the sci-fi book and TV series ”The Expanse” where the majority of the population lives bloody awful lives, basically on the dole and in intellectual and material poverty. Glad I’ll miss it.
Some silicon Valley C level execs have already dismissed AI as another South Sea Bubble and they'e the ones creating the AI engines! Boy must they be laughing at the sucker politicians and those trying to hang on to their investment coat tails. Like you I'm glad I won't be around to watch the inevitable crash that will come.
Hi Patricia. Yes a post about the social and public services record of the two parties would be very revealing. I'll consider writing one. In the meantime I have described my recent NHS experiences. do read them if you'd care to ..
Your analysis of government debt is fundamentally flawed.
A sectoral balance analysis shows that a government deficit means a surplus in the non-government sector so government "debt" is better understood as the accumulated surplus of the non-government sector. It is an endogenous indicator. For a country using a fiat currency the currency issuer can always meet any interest obligations on the outstanding balance, insolvency is not possible.
The real problem is non-government debt, and that is what caused the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which came as a surprise to orthodox economists because they (still!) consider it to be unimportant and do not include it in their modelling.
Both Labour and the Tories adhere to orthodox economics and both are completely wrong.
You are free to take those views regarding debt repayment and the causes of the financial crash and I welcome them. However nowhere did I mention national insolvency would result from the records of either Tpories or Labour and most economic analysts disagree with you regarding the causes of the 07/08 crash. Private debt both at a corporate and consumer level is a huge problem and would need to be the subject of a separate paper examining the causes of its growth and was IMO way outside the remit I set which was comparing the economic records of the two main parties of government.
I remember back in about 2004/5 whilst the Blair government was in power, the Tories wanted to ease regulation of the banking sector. Fortunately this did not happen, but if a Tory government had been in place at the time I dread to think what the consequences of the financial crash would have been in 2007/8.
Yes you make a very good point and it is also arguable that the crash was not bad luck but deliberately engineered by hedge-fund employees and managers; cf Sunak who was in 2007/09 a partner at the hedge fund TCI (if ever something were misnamed it is “The Children's Investment Fund”). TCI actively pushed for the RBS-led takeover of ABN Amro, a deal that many would say was fraudulent and that was a major factor in the subsequent collapse. TCI made a £555 million profit in 2007/08, with partners, including Sunak, sharing in over £93 million of profit.
Such information aught to reduce the amount of denigration of this Labour government, but it won't. There is so much more yet to change before we can restore balance to living standards in all sectors but that doesn't mean we should give up trying in the face of criticism. Proposed changes will often not be quite the best way of doing so and the government must have the courage to adjust their course where necessary. The media will report it as a shocking u-turn and sign of incompetence but a progressive government must be flexible despite mindless criticism.
I couldn't agree more Richard.
I remember the difference between the Thatcher & Blair govt in a different way, from a health viewpoint. In July 1996, my husband was diagnosed with a faulty heart valve. By April 1997, his need for an operation was deemed urgent. Under the Thatcher govt, there was a huge waiting list & his operation took place at the end of July, by which time he had developed heart failure & his operation had become much more dangerous. He suffered a haemorhage & spent all night bleeding,which finally stopped in the early hours of the morning. He survived thanks to the great skills of the international team that saved him, but his heart had suffered a great deal of damage due to the long wait for surgery & he was no longer able to work. Years later, his repaired valve failed & he needed an artificial heart valve. This was dealt with quickly & very efficiently by another international medical team, under a Labour govt. Sadly, the NHS is under great pressure again. It is worth remembering it is very precious for most of us & it needs to survive. Politics matter. Beware of politicians who want to ditch the NHS for the US health care system! It is infinitely worse, unless you are very rich, like Nigel Farage.
I was 19 when Thatcher came to power.
Since then Tory policies inc. the financialisation of the economy have made a complete and utter mess of things.
Seen it all and the whole lot is traceable back to her policies, attitudes and values.
Their claim to be uniquely competent is an outright lie.
If you go back even further, to the start of the 20th Century, the picture is even more distressing. It's worth remembering that from the time the Labour movement became a parliamentary party, the Tories were the ruling party more than 75% of the time. Admittedly, that includes several periods of "Government of National Unity", but even so, Labour's time as the party in power pales by comparison.
What has happened during that period? Britain has gone from being an industrial powerhouse to a basket case. Numerous industrial innovations can be attributed to Britain's world-leading companies. By the end of the First World War, these were still punching above their weight, despite the war's cost. By the end of the Second World War, the decline was more evident, even as the country was bankrupt. It took Thatcher to drive a stake through the heart of our industrial base. Now, India and China dictate our industrial strategy.
That in itself is a major turnaround. Two former colonies/vassals have outperformed Britain over the same period. It's hard to think of another Imperial decline in history that saw the former masters so utterly dominated by former conquered people in such a short space of time. Britain has gone from a globe spanning Empire to struggling to hold together the remaining four nations of the United Kingdom.
In the run-up to WWII, Britain had perhaps a dozen aviation companies that produced revered aircraft such as the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Mosquito, Shackleton, Lightning, and Harrier. Now, the RAF is reliant on American and European firms for its combat and transport aircraft. The irony of the two new aircraft carriers brought into service in recent years is that we sold off the remaining Harriers to the Americans and then waited several years for the F-35. The Americans have mothballed the Harrier fleet for spares, while continuing to use the aircraft with their Marine Corps.
The last decade has been a completely new experience, though, hasn't it? There has long been a suspicion that politicians are adept at working the system for maximum profit. Backhanders, donations, lucrative 2nd, 3rd, 4th .... or 11th jobs, seats in the Lords, and 'consulting' jobs on leaving office have all been endured since politicians at least pretended to have a degree of respectability. The expenses scandal prised open the lid on that world and left the country seething. Since then, though, the snouts have dug ever deeper into the trough. Britain is slowly slipping down the corruption index, to hardly anyone's surprise. The leaders in this process? I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out.
It's not just economic competence, then, that the Tories have an unjust reputation for. Ethical and moral behaviour, respect for the electorate, honesty, courtesy, ... What we once dismissed as conspiracy theory and the ranting of the deluded, we now accept as established fact. It's also worth bearing these points in mind when considering Reform, since the majority of their politicians are Tories.
Hi Tim and thanks for your interesting comment in which you make a number of important points. I have replied to comments about the industrial revolution in the comment thread and a paper about the UK's imperial exploitation and the use of private companies is gestating in my mind but I wanted to be careful to stick to my self-set remit comparing the records of the two parties in a measured manner using cold verifiable statistics
So, basically the same story as in the USA where the economy has systematically performed better with Democrats in power. Is it perhaps remotely possible that governing for the benefit of everybody in stead of just for the moneyed class has something to do with it?
😂 Yes indeed - who ever would have thought that implementing economic policy that puts more disposable income in the pockets of the working and middle classes, that helps them improve their wages and working conditions and that actually helps them buy decent affordable housing would be beneficial to a country as a whole in so many ways, not least the increase the consequent rise in GDP growth.
It’s so obvious. And in a similar vein this is also why I don’t get the AI hype. So the premise and promise is that robots will do all the work. And the 90% or so of the population who is now out of work will buy the products of all that robotic labour how? Looks like we’re headed towards the Earth depicted in the sci-fi book and TV series ”The Expanse” where the majority of the population lives bloody awful lives, basically on the dole and in intellectual and material poverty. Glad I’ll miss it.
Some silicon Valley C level execs have already dismissed AI as another South Sea Bubble and they'e the ones creating the AI engines! Boy must they be laughing at the sucker politicians and those trying to hang on to their investment coat tails. Like you I'm glad I won't be around to watch the inevitable crash that will come.
Hi Patricia. Yes a post about the social and public services record of the two parties would be very revealing. I'll consider writing one. In the meantime I have described my recent NHS experiences. do read them if you'd care to ..
https://andygjburge.substack.com/p/my-nhs-experience
https://andygjburge.substack.com/p/my-nhs-experience-continues
Your analysis of government debt is fundamentally flawed.
A sectoral balance analysis shows that a government deficit means a surplus in the non-government sector so government "debt" is better understood as the accumulated surplus of the non-government sector. It is an endogenous indicator. For a country using a fiat currency the currency issuer can always meet any interest obligations on the outstanding balance, insolvency is not possible.
The real problem is non-government debt, and that is what caused the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which came as a surprise to orthodox economists because they (still!) consider it to be unimportant and do not include it in their modelling.
Both Labour and the Tories adhere to orthodox economics and both are completely wrong.
You are free to take those views regarding debt repayment and the causes of the financial crash and I welcome them. However nowhere did I mention national insolvency would result from the records of either Tpories or Labour and most economic analysts disagree with you regarding the causes of the 07/08 crash. Private debt both at a corporate and consumer level is a huge problem and would need to be the subject of a separate paper examining the causes of its growth and was IMO way outside the remit I set which was comparing the economic records of the two main parties of government.
Fair enough but trying to choose which is "best" is like trying to pick between syphilis & gonorrhoea...