Why is it taken as axiomatic that the Tories are better at running the economy?

First topic message reminder :

The myth of Tory economic competence should be confronted every time that it's suggested. The Tories don’t tell you that they needed an IMF loan in 1956, that they left behind a huge balance of payments deficit in 1964 (which Labour turned into a surplus by 1970), that they gave us double-digit inflation in 1974 and then left a debt equivalent to 43.76% of GDP in 1997. They don’t tell you that in the month before Thatcher was booted out in 1990, inflation was higher than when she came in, or that the Tories left office in 1997 with unemployment higher than when they came to power on the strength of those ‘Labour isn’t working’ posters in 1979. They don’t mention the two recessions their policies caused in the 1980s, and they certainly won’t talk about ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992.

The other side of the coin is to peddle the lie that every Labour government leaves behind a financial mess. It wasn’t true in 1951, not true in 1970 and not true in 1979. Much of the IMF loan sought in 1976 (following the effects of the quadrupling of the price of oil) was never taken up, and the economy was growing steadily until Thatcherism was inflicted on it.

'The mess' was only true in 2010 because Gordon Brown had no alternative but to bail out the bankers when global capitalism proved itself to be a failure, but even then the economy had started to grow until Osborne stamped on the green shoots of recovery. The longest uninterrupted period of growth in the UK economy in the last 200 years occurred when Brown was chancellor of the exchequer. The Tories supported Labour’s spending plans until the global credit crunch occurred, and the Tories supported the bailout of their banking cronies, who Cameron thought had been subject to too much regulation. The UK's deficit prior to the global financial crisis (which few economists predicted, which no politicians could have avoided and which could hardly be blamed on one government's fiscal policy) was lower than it had been in the mid-1990s. But trust the Tories not to let the truth ever get in the way of their mythology.

I'm inclined to think that 'wealth' (still waiting for a reliable definition) is definitely created or enhanced by working folk - as you say by the sweat of their brow - the rest of us just count the proceeds

Better at running "their economy" than at running "The Economy".

What Really Happens When You Call The Universal Credit Helpline

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/universal-credit-helpline-costs_uk_59de1cc8e4b01df09b77ac8c

"Universal Credit claimants languish on hold to a government helpline while racking up bills as high as £16, without the option of an immediate call back, contradicting claims made today by Downing Street.

One call placed by HuffPost UK to the dedicated 0345 number on Wednesday afternoon took 12 and a half minutes to be answered in person, at which point an advisor refused to call back straight away due to data protection rules.

(Your call IS important to us - Terms and Conditions apply)

I volunteer at a local advice agency - we have no funding and I use my own phone. I have had to change my mobile phone contract (2000 minutes) to a new one which gives 3500 minutes because in 2 days per week (average of 48 hours per month volunteering) I was regularly exceeding my allowance - waiting for DWP, HMRC, UC helplines to answer.

The only way you can get an appointment at the Job Centre by the way, is by making an appointment (on the phone, via the UC helpline)

This has become a major part of our work - we don't give a lot of advice any more - just facilitate these soul-destroying telephone contacts

Well done for doing the volunteering boatlady.

I was (sort of ) amused today when I saw Rees-Mogg being asked on TV whether he could manage if he didn't receive his salary for 6 weeks.

I was poised to send him a cheque to tide him over but , in the event, he seemed to suggest that it wouldn't be necessary...

Well of course, if you've got it - Flaunt it! (In the immortal words of Groucho Marx)

Though not easy to see what some people have to flaunt if everything they "have" was inherited.

Choose your parents carefully, children!

Well , quite!

But can I prevail upon you to tell 'em...?

Think that only really applies to 'ordinary' people - I'm sure the likes of Rees-Mogg won't be affected

oftenwrong wrote:I dispute whether wealth is ever "created", though it is regularly re-distributed as we have seen since 2008. Added-value has usually come from the sweat of someone's working-class brow.

Karl Marx called it “surplus value”, I believe. Reminds me of Robert Tressell’s analysis of the population when he wrote his masterpiece just over a hundred years ago. There were – and still are – the aristocracy and others who have inherited wealth, who produce nothing (69% of the land in the UK today is owned by 0.6% of the population). Then Tressell described the exploiters of labour – “thieves, swindlers, pickpockets, burglars, bishops, financiers, capitalists, shareholders and ‘ministers’ of religion”, before getting on to those who are engaged in unnecessary work. His example was “half a dozen drapers’ shops within a stone’s throw of each other, often even next door to each other, all selling the same things”. Why do estate agents come to mind now?

Finally, Tressell moved on to those who perform necessary work, what he described as “the production of the benefits of civilisation”. However, “as the people in the first two categories are universally considered to be the most deserving, we give them two-thirds of the whole”. He continues: “Compare the quality and quantity of the clothing possessed by the wife or daughter of a rich man with that of the wife or daughter of a worker......for most of those whose labour produces all these good things, anything is considered good enough.”

I keep looking for a flaw in this reasoning, but I can’t find it. But maybe that’s just me being thick.

You're not thick - Tressell was right - the only difficulty (as always) is how we translate that rightness into policies that will redress the balance

Well, thanks for pointing that out, Theresa. After seven years of Tory economics we have learned that there is no money for the Police, nor Army/Navy/Airforce; National Health, benefits for the disadvantaged, investment in roads, social housing, proper care for the elderly etcetera, etc.

But for anyone with access to a television set, there is evidently enough money to have frequent meetings in the palatial offices of the EU in Brussels, for Limousines, formal dinners, security details and facilities for the world's Press. The Houses of Parliament is a crumbling ruin, which the occupants plan to rebuild regardless at cost - when an obsolescent cruise-ship moored alongside the Palace of Westminster would be better at the job.

So the one thing we really cannot afford is .... Politicians.

So the one thing we really cannot afford is .... Politicians.


YES

oftenwrong wrote:So the one thing we really cannot afford is .... Politicians.  

And the Queen could christen it the Flying Dutchman at its opening, and send it on its way.  Just a thought.  And Politicians are the only thing we CAN afford.  We all know the British worker is among the least productive in Europe - why expect any better from Politicians.

Now here's a thought to scare you all. If a General Election came along in the next couple of years I might even vote Labour - just to stay in the single market.

Smelling salts, anyone?

What's happening to police numbers?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

Fifth of UK workers still earning below 'real' living wage

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/fifth-of-uk-workers-still-earning-below-real-living-wage/ar-AAus58M?li=AA54rU&ocid=mailsignout

Women are considerably more likely to be paid below the real living wage than men. This year, around 26pc of women are not being paid the higher rate, compared to around 16pc of men.


No change there then.

There is More (or perhaps less), depending upon your viewpoint, to this headline.  Aramco wants to have a quotation on the London Stock Exchange, but it's not willing to risk losing control to perfidious Albion.  Only 5% of stock is on offer.

Not much prospect of shareholder revolt there then.

Well !  Who'd have expected that?

Vote for THEM again? You must be joking.

Hammond denies spending more on Brexit than NHS

The Chancellor has committed £3bn more to provisions for the UK's exit from the EU, with only £2.8bn extra being handed to the NHS in England.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hammond-denies-spending-more-on-brexit-than-nhs/ar-BBFx0FR?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=iehp

The Chancellor used an RAF aircraft yesterday and is expected to be allowed to use one on Friday if a trip to Europe goes ahead, but will be allowed no more flights after that until his department settles its account.

Mr Hammond is reported to have used RAF aircraft to fly to more than 20 destinations this year on official business, including Manchester, Leeds, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Aberdeen, Paris, Brussels and Frankfurt.

Why is it taken as axiomatic that the Tories are better at running the economy?

I have no idea - they're rubbish at it

"they're rubbish at it"
... and pretty-much everything else.

How on earth was anybody but the filthy rich persuaded to vote Conservative at any time since 1914?

Tories are the modern equivalent of Genghis Khan's Horde: an invading army.
(Or plague of locusts, choose one).

(a) "Budget 2016:  George Osborne's cuts to hit police and councils hardest"
    Evening Standard
    https://www.standard.co.uk/business/budget-2016-george-osborne-s-cuts-to-hit-police-and-councils-hardest-a3202691.html


(b)

"Police spark shoplifting boom"
    Telegraph

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBHolR8.img?h=373&w=624&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=362&y=462

It's happening in front of our eyes - and yet so many seem unable to see