For my first post, I thought I would begin with a general piece about the current cuts being made by the coalition government, see what you think:
As the first waves of cuts are announced by the coalition government, the electorate is feeling the squeeze and understandably quivering in the expectation of more. The public sector fears job losses which are guaranteed, the NHS is to be controversially restructured, free bus-pass entitlement is set to be limited and students are likely to face rising tuition fees, amongst other changes. But as all of these, perhaps ‘drastic’ cuts, are detailed by the new government, it is important to remember why these cuts are necessary and why they must be made now.
The Labour government lead the country for twelve years and in which time managed to accumulate, on the nation’s behalf, a record debt of £903bn. As a percentage of GDP, this stands at 63%. While the worldwide recession is responsible for large amounts of this debt, it is worth looking at whether or not harmful economic policy has played a part, and at the extent of this harm. While the Labour party will continue to tell us of all the things it has done well the fact of the matter is, as Lord Myner – who was drafted in by the Labour government – asserts, “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation." It would be great to be able to provide the health service with a blank cheque, create jobs for all those able and seeking work, no tuition fees and even a bus pass for all. But it is this policy which has flawed our economy and provided us with interest payments, per annum, which nearly equate to our allowance for spending on defence (£35 billion 2009). Brown during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us of the stability he would provide and the end to ‘boom and bust’; but this was overconfidence, and economic naivety on his part. The success of his first ten years, for the most part, was borrowed and simply ‘put off’ a recession like never seen before. The strength of our economy was an illusion created by the Labour party, an illusion shattered by the collapse of the mortgage market and Britain has been found wanting; ‘you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’.
The worst thing that could’ve happened is for Labour to have been re-elected, giving them chance to cover their tracks with regard to the appalling nature of their debt accumulation, until the point when this country was really on its knees. The labour party needs to tread carefully over the coming months as cuts are made, it would be a poor show if they were to criticise the parties who have volunteered to come and clean the mess that they, and only they, have left Britain with.
2 comments:
It would have been interesting to see what policies the labour government would have implemented if they had been successful. Seems unlikely they would have cut like the coalition have had to do, but they sure as hell wouldn't have been able to spend for very long as, in their own words left in the form of letter from Liam Byrne, there was no money left. Amazes me when people say they are scared of what Cameron might do as leader, when Brown could lead us to anarchy.
In my view, we have had thirteen years of seeing what Labour ‘would’ve done’ and have done. Labour pitched their entire election campaign on impossible continuations of public spending and postponed cuts; it was a dishonest campaign which thankfully ended without them in government. When you contrast this with the Conservatives who’s message throughout this years general election was both blunt and honest, you can see why the election was as close as it was (and closer than it should’ve been!)
Post a Comment