5 ms·

The issue for (1) was that the government had already been borrowing and spending a great deal. Blair was fairly restrained but after Brown came in, he opened t

The issue for (1) was that the government had already been borrowing and spending a great deal. Blair was fairly restrained but after Brown came in, he opened the taps and government spending and borrowing skyrocketed. Then the financial crisis came in on top of that too. At any rate, regardless of what you think the right solution was, the population agreed that spending at such high levels above tax revenue wasn't sustainable and some cutbacks were needed. And again, remember, Labour accepted this argument! They didn't try to claim it was wrong. They just didn't seem to take it seriously and often forgot about it. So the Conservatives argued that Labour couldn't be trusted with the finances now Blair was gone and they'd create a re-run of the 70s, and voters agreed with that argument. Resentment against the EU had been building for years due partly to the totally incorrect initial claims made about immigration levels, and then the lack of interest/ability in controlling it. Even voters who weren't that affected by it saw that there were now real issues that affected local people which had effectively been removed from democracy and felt that was wrong. So there was a broad coalition being built by Farage, both the people who cared primarily about immigration levels and wage suppression of the working classes, and also those who cared about the constitutional issue it was exposing.

Lolaccount 4y ago
"Blair was fairly restrained but after Brown came in, he opened the taps and government spending and borrowing skyrocketed. " That's an odd framing of events considering Brown came in midway through 2007. Just before the 2008 GFC. You make it sound like he went Brown went on a spending spree on a whim ... that isn't what happened. Any increased spending that took place when he became PM was easily within the scope of the UK economy. And considering National Debt was well managed until then (during a time when Brown was Chancellor), your recollection of what happened is wrong. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-nationa...
- revelio 4y ago
  Your own graph shows that during Brown's time debt went from 35% of GDP to 70% of GDP, and yet Labour had nothing to say on the topic of reducing government spending to slow down that skyrocketing rise. It was only after 2010 that the rate of growth slowed and eventually reached zero before lockdowns (a policy demanded by hard left academics) pushed it up to 100% of GDP. And that is exactly the point being made. Brown was in charge when the economy entered a crisis and yet was too left wing to slam the brakes on government spending in response. Voters reacted accordingly.
  - Lolaccount 4y ago
    I'm borderline incredulous at your interpretation ... were you around in 2008? Do you not remember bailing out the banks? Emergency stimuli to keep the economy going from recession to depression? Decreasing tax revenue as the economy entered recession? And yet, you say Brown was too left wing to slam on the brakes on government spending? ... we would be finished as a nation if you were in charge. It's just me and you. I'm sure no one else is reading this. So I'll just say. I'm quite confident you have no idea what you're talking about. Either you were too young at the time, no idea how the economy works (especially during a crisis) or ... let's leave it at that.
    - revelio 4y ago
      Of course I remember these things, I was an adult at the time. You're maybe willfully misinterpreting my point. It doesn't matter why Brown spent so much money. What matters is that after he did so nobody in the Labour hierarchy adjusted to the new reality that they'd spent all the money, and they'd need to implement austerity via large budget cuts to try and reduce the suddenly massive deficit. The Conservatives did realize that, did make that argument, and the voters agreed with them. Which is the point I've been making all along. BTW it's very rich that in a thread where I'm having to remind people about the issues in an election that only happened 13 years ago, you're claiming I'm too young to remember what happened at the time! The economy, Labour's claims to be competent at it "we have ended boom and bust" etc followed by their Labour's inability to seem serious about the deficit remained an issue for years. Don't you recall Miliband's doomed notes-free speech and his subsequent political exile? That was in 2014. Even years after losing to the coalition, they still didn't want to talk about cutting public sector spending and voters reacted accordingly: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/ed-miliband-forgets-labour-conference-speech https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/ed-miliband... There's an analysis by Labour supporters here: https://labourlist.org/2010/05/why-labour-lost/ https://labourlist.org/2010/05/why-labour-lost/ "People stopped trusting the party and they didn’t believe what it said about foreign wars, the state of the economy, reform of Parliament and public spending"
      - 4y ago

Lolaccount 4y ago

"Blair was fairly restrained but after Brown came in, he opened the taps and government spending and borrowing skyrocketed. " That's an odd framing of events considering Brown came in midway through 2007. Just before the 2008 GFC. You make it sound like he went Brown went on a spending spree on a whim ... that isn't what happened. Any increased spending that took place when he became PM was easily within the scope of the UK economy. And considering National Debt was well managed until then (during a time when Brown was Chancellor), your recollection of what happened is wrong. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-nationa...

revelio 4y ago
Your own graph shows that during Brown's time debt went from 35% of GDP to 70% of GDP, and yet Labour had nothing to say on the topic of reducing government spending to slow down that skyrocketing rise. It was only after 2010 that the rate of growth slowed and eventually reached zero before lockdowns (a policy demanded by hard left academics) pushed it up to 100% of GDP. And that is exactly the point being made. Brown was in charge when the economy entered a crisis and yet was too left wing to slam the brakes on government spending in response. Voters reacted accordingly.
- Lolaccount 4y ago
  I'm borderline incredulous at your interpretation ... were you around in 2008? Do you not remember bailing out the banks? Emergency stimuli to keep the economy going from recession to depression? Decreasing tax revenue as the economy entered recession? And yet, you say Brown was too left wing to slam on the brakes on government spending? ... we would be finished as a nation if you were in charge. It's just me and you. I'm sure no one else is reading this. So I'll just say. I'm quite confident you have no idea what you're talking about. Either you were too young at the time, no idea how the economy works (especially during a crisis) or ... let's leave it at that.
  - revelio 4y ago
    Of course I remember these things, I was an adult at the time. You're maybe willfully misinterpreting my point. It doesn't matter why Brown spent so much money. What matters is that after he did so nobody in the Labour hierarchy adjusted to the new reality that they'd spent all the money, and they'd need to implement austerity via large budget cuts to try and reduce the suddenly massive deficit. The Conservatives did realize that, did make that argument, and the voters agreed with them. Which is the point I've been making all along. BTW it's very rich that in a thread where I'm having to remind people about the issues in an election that only happened 13 years ago, you're claiming I'm too young to remember what happened at the time! The economy, Labour's claims to be competent at it "we have ended boom and bust" etc followed by their Labour's inability to seem serious about the deficit remained an issue for years. Don't you recall Miliband's doomed notes-free speech and his subsequent political exile? That was in 2014. Even years after losing to the coalition, they still didn't want to talk about cutting public sector spending and voters reacted accordingly: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/ed-miliband-forgets-labour-conference-speech https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/ed-miliband... There's an analysis by Labour supporters here: https://labourlist.org/2010/05/why-labour-lost/ https://labourlist.org/2010/05/why-labour-lost/ "People stopped trusting the party and they didn’t believe what it said about foreign wars, the state of the economy, reform of Parliament and public spending"
    - 4y ago