The Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch

[Gloster]

Andy Street and Ruth Davidson are promoting this Prosper UK group to encourage the party to return to the centre ground and to appeal to the 7 million apparently homeless voters.

Conspicuously, it is so far just former politicians endorsing this new group.

They say they support Kemi for PM, but I think they are only saying this in the name of party unity. A bit like when Michael Howard was Leader.

Prosper UK - About

Prosper UK is bringing people together who share our values, care about the future of the country, and want politics to work better.

prosperuk.com

They seem to be trying to imitate the Labour Party of old: when in trouble start infighting.

 

[SargeNpton]

They seem to be trying to imitate the Labour Party of old: when in trouble start infighting.

In fairness, all political parties are like that at times.

 

[ainsworth74]

I must admit one of the things I struggle with at the moment is the rank hypocrisy or perhaps memory holing that is so rife from the Tories (and their friends in the media). Take this recent Tweet by Badenoch:

While Keir Starmer dithers, we are taking defence seriously.

@jcartlidgemp and I visited KNDS to see British-built armoured vehicles up close. Our military relies on world-class equipment, and it is being built here in the UK.

The @Conservatives are the only party with a plan to rebuild our Army to 80,000 and increase our reserves to 40,000, funded by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap.

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2029922028824764775

So the Tories are going to "rebuild our Army"? I wonder, perhaps, Kemi why the army needs rebuilding? Could it be that in 2010 the army had 102,000 regulars but by 2024 it was down around 75,000? And whose political party was the Government during that period? Could it be that your Government presided over a failure of procurement that means that we have soldiers riding around in vehicles that their grandfathers were driving? That the replacements that were eventually ordered are seemingly causing hearing loss for the soldiers that use them?

Could that be it Kemi? Could it be those 14 years of governance by your party that mean the army needs rebuilding?

As for "taking defence seriously"? Could it be that Starmer (and Britain) has so few options because your party oversaw a, I think quite possibly, terminal decline in the Royal Navy? Could it be that your party instituted further cuts to the surface escort fleet taking it from 23 in 2010 to 19 following your Governments defence review? That you then dithered for so long in ordering more escorts (and then when you did dragged out the build anyway) that the remaining escorts are now basically so long in the tooth that they have to be taken out of service without replacement meaning we're now down to around 11 escorts.

We've also gutted minesweepers, the auxiliaries, the amphibious assault fleet, and our hydrographic ships. And the ships we do have cannot deploy because we don't even have enough sailors any more to crew them all so we're just shuffling a dwindling pool of sailors from ship to ship. Let's not even talk about the attack submarines, most of which have been tied up alongside for years. We probably don't even have qualified crew for them any more they've all been alongside for so long. God knows how we'll regenerate that capability.

Or the RAF? Kemi, how about the RAF? We had around 160 fast jets in 2010 now we're down to around 100. We now have no airborne early warning aircraft because your government retired our E-3s before their replacements were in service. Oh and you ordered 3 aircraft to replace them. That's almost not worth bothering with to be honest. Your government also cancelled our replacement maritime patrol aircraft order (in fairness, that wasn't necessarily a bad decision) but then took until 2016 to even order replacements and then only 9.

"Taking defence seriously"? Kemi your party should be on your hands and knees begging forgiveness for the absolute cavalier disregard that your party gave to the defence of the UK and it's armed forces. Labour aren't blameless, of course they're not, they also presided over savage cuts of their own through the 1990s and up to 2010. But the armed forces of 2010 were undersized but still had latent potency. The armed forces of 2024 that you left for Labour to inherit (fully ten years after it should have been obvious that it was time to take defence seriously again) were a hollow shell.

How Badenoch can even dare to suggest that her party takes defence seriously without acknowledging how much they're the direct cause of the current state of what's left of armed forces is pathetic and infuriating.

Apologies to anyone that made it this far with my rant, but watching Badenoch and others pretend as if it's somehow all Labour's fault for why we cannot find a single solitary warship to deploy to Cyprus has somewhat driven me over the edge!

As I say Labour 1997 - 2010 have a lot to answer for in what they did to our defence capabilities. But the Royal Navy of 2010 would have been able to find a warship to send to Cyprus, heck, it would have quite likely had several in the Med and Gulf on normal operations. And it's not Labour of 2024 onwards fault for why that isn't the case now.

And if you'll excuse me I'm going to put my soapbox away and find a dark room to have a lie down in to calm down.

 

[m0ffy]

I must admit one of the things I struggle with at the moment is the rank hypocrisy or perhaps memory holing that is so rife from the Tories (and their friends in the media). Take this recent Tweet by Badenoch:

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2029922028824764775

So the Tories are going to "rebuild our Army"? I wonder, perhaps, Kemi why the army needs rebuilding? Could it be that in 2010 the army had 102,000 regulars but by 2024 it was down around 75,000? And whose political party was the Government during that period? Could it be that your Government presided over a failure of procurement that means that we have soldiers riding around in vehicles that their grandfathers were driving? That the replacements that were eventually ordered are seemingly causing hearing loss for the soldiers that use them?

Could that be it Kemi? Could it be those 14 years of governance by your party that mean the army needs rebuilding?

As for "taking defence seriously"? Could it be that Starmer (and Britain) has so few options because your party oversaw a, I think quite possibly, terminal decline in the Royal Navy? Could it be that your party instituted further cuts to the surface escort fleet taking it from 23 in 2010 to 19 following your Governments defence review? That you then dithered for so long in ordering more escorts (and then when you did dragged out the build anyway) that the remaining escorts are now basically so long in the tooth that they have to be taken out of service without replacement meaning we're now down to around 11 escorts.

We've also gutted minesweepers, the auxiliaries, the amphibious assault fleet, and our hydrographic ships. And the ships we do have cannot deploy because we don't even have enough sailors any more to crew them all so we're just shuffling a dwindling pool of sailors from ship to ship. Let's not even talk about the attack submarines, most of which have been tied up alongside for years. We probably don't even have qualified crew for them any more they've all been alongside for so long. God knows how we'll regenerate that capability.

Or the RAF? Kemi, how about the RAF? We had around 160 fast jets in 2010 now we're down to around 100. We now have no airborne early warning aircraft because your government retired our E-3s before their replacements were in service. Oh and you ordered 3 aircraft to replace them. That's almost not worth bothering with to be honest. Your government also cancelled our replacement maritime patrol aircraft order (in fairness, that wasn't necessarily a bad decision) but then took until 2016 to even order replacements and then only 9.

"Taking defence seriously"? Kemi your party should be on your hands and knees begging forgiveness for the absolute cavalier disregard that your party gave to the defence of the UK and it's armed forces. Labour aren't blameless, of course they're not, they also presided over savage cuts of their own through the 1990s and up to 2010. But the armed forces of 2010 were undersized but still had latent potency. The armed forces of 2024 that you left for Labour to inherit (fully ten years after it should have been obvious that it was time to take defence seriously again) were a hollow shell.

How Badenoch can even dare to suggest that her party takes defence seriously without acknowledging how much they're the direct cause of the current state of what's left of armed forces is pathetic and infuriating.

Apologies to anyone that made it this far with my rant, but watching Badenoch and others pretend as if it's somehow all Labour's fault for why we cannot find a single solitary warship to deploy to Cyprus has somewhat driven me over the edge!

As I say Labour 1997 - 2010 have a lot to answer for in what they did to our defence capabilities. But the Royal Navy of 2010 would have been able to find a warship to send to Cyprus, heck, it would have quite likely had several in the Med and Gulf on normal operations. And it's not Labour of 2024 onwards fault for why that isn't the case now.

And if you'll excuse me I'm going to put my soapbox away and find a dark room to have a lie down in to calm down.

Quality rant, would read again.

To add to this, who outsourced recruitment to Capita, absolutely wrecking it in the process? The Tories. They don’t care about defence. They care about defence, they care about personal profit.

 

[Gloster]

I must admit one of the things I struggle with at the moment is the rank hypocrisy or perhaps memory holing that is so rife from the Tories (and their friends in the media). Take this recent Tweet by Badenoch:

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2029922028824764775

So the Tories are going to "rebuild our Army"? I wonder, perhaps, Kemi why the army needs rebuilding? Could it be that in 2010 the army had 102,000 regulars but by 2024 it was down around 75,000? And whose political party was the Government during that period? Could it be that your Government presided over a failure of procurement that means that we have soldiers riding around in vehicles that their grandfathers were driving? That the replacements that were eventually ordered are seemingly causing hearing loss for the soldiers that use them?

Could that be it Kemi? Could it be those 14 years of governance by your party that mean the army needs rebuilding?

As for "taking defence seriously"? Could it be that Starmer (and Britain) has so few options because your party oversaw a, I think quite possibly, terminal decline in the Royal Navy? Could it be that your party instituted further cuts to the surface escort fleet taking it from 23 in 2010 to 19 following your Governments defence review? That you then dithered for so long in ordering more escorts (and then when you did dragged out the build anyway) that the remaining escorts are now basically so long in the tooth that they have to be taken out of service without replacement meaning we're now down to around 11 escorts.

We've also gutted minesweepers, the auxiliaries, the amphibious assault fleet, and our hydrographic ships. And the ships we do have cannot deploy because we don't even have enough sailors any more to crew them all so we're just shuffling a dwindling pool of sailors from ship to ship. Let's not even talk about the attack submarines, most of which have been tied up alongside for years. We probably don't even have qualified crew for them any more they've all been alongside for so long. God knows how we'll regenerate that capability.

Or the RAF? Kemi, how about the RAF? We had around 160 fast jets in 2010 now we're down to around 100. We now have no airborne early warning aircraft because your government retired our E-3s before their replacements were in service. Oh and you ordered 3 aircraft to replace them. That's almost not worth bothering with to be honest. Your government also cancelled our replacement maritime patrol aircraft order (in fairness, that wasn't necessarily a bad decision) but then took until 2016 to even order replacements and then only 9.

"Taking defence seriously"? Kemi your party should be on your hands and knees begging forgiveness for the absolute cavalier disregard that your party gave to the defence of the UK and it's armed forces. Labour aren't blameless, of course they're not, they also presided over savage cuts of their own through the 1990s and up to 2010. But the armed forces of 2010 were undersized but still had latent potency. The armed forces of 2024 that you left for Labour to inherit (fully ten years after it should have been obvious that it was time to take defence seriously again) were a hollow shell.

How Badenoch can even dare to suggest that her party takes defence seriously without acknowledging how much they're the direct cause of the current state of what's left of armed forces is pathetic and infuriating.

Apologies to anyone that made it this far with my rant, but watching Badenoch and others pretend as if it's somehow all Labour's fault for why we cannot find a single solitary warship to deploy to Cyprus has somewhat driven me over the edge!

As I say Labour 1997 - 2010 have a lot to answer for in what they did to our defence capabilities. But the Royal Navy of 2010 would have been able to find a warship to send to Cyprus, heck, it would have quite likely had several in the Med and Gulf on normal operations. And it's not Labour of 2024 onwards fault for why that isn't the case now.

And if you'll excuse me I'm going to put my soapbox away and find a dark room to have a lie down in to calm down.

With regard to the Navy, the situation is likely to get worse. One new frigate (HMS Glasgow) is due, which means ‘hoped’, to join the fleet next year, but the next of her type will be another one to two years behind, followed by one more and then who knows when the other ones will arrive. The first of the Inspiration (ridiculous name in my opinion) Class Type 31 frigates is due next year (with a little bit of bloomin’ luck), but then it is again a case of ‘who knows’. Meanwhile the Type 23 are ageing rapidly as they are overstretched and overworked, while the Type 45 is likely to continue to have poor availability, although better than the point when it was nought out of six.

The Conservative Party must bear a share of this as they fiddle-faddled about after the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and then (as you say) slowed construction of new ships to save money. HMS Glasgow will have taken ten years from laying down to commissioning; even the first Type 23 took only just over four and a half.

And we have to find someone to man them. The Navy is reported to be seriously short, but we still have those massive targets, the Queen Elizabeth carriers, to man. Even with only one manned at a time, it will still need escorts to be found from…somewhere to keep it safe. And what can we use them for: invading somewhere or emergency relief. So if you want us to help after a natural disaster, please give us a couple of months notice.

 

[Railwaycat]

With regard to the Navy, the situation is likely to get worse. One new frigate (HMS Glasgow) is due, which means ‘hoped’, to join the fleet next year, but the next of her type will be another one to two years behind, followed by one more and then who knows when the other ones will arrive. The first of the Inspiration (ridiculous name in my opinion) Class Type 31 frigates is due next year (with a little bit of bloomin’ luck), but then it is again a case of ‘who knows’. Meanwhile the Type 23 are ageing rapidly as they are overstretched and overworked, while the Type 45 is likely to continue to have poor availability, although better than the point when it was nought out of six.

The Conservative Party must bear a share of this as they fiddle-faddled about after the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and then (as you say) slowed construction of new ships to save money. HMS Glasgow will have taken ten years from laying down to commissioning; even the first Type 23 took only just over four and a half.

And we have to find someone to man them. The Navy is reported to be seriously short, but we still have those massive targets, the Queen Elizabeth carriers, to man. Even with only one manned at a time, it will still need escorts to be found from…somewhere to keep it safe. And what can we use them for: invading somewhere or emergency relief. So if you want us to help after a natural disaster, please give us a couple of months notice.

HMS Queen Elizabeth?
I thought it was called HMS Sitting Duck...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

THE TRAMWAY AND RAILWAY WORLDWith regard to the Navy, the situation is likely to get worse. One new frigate (HMS Glasgow) is due, which means ‘hoped’, to join the fleet next year, but the next of her type will be another one to two years behind, followed by one more and then who knows when the other ones will arrive. The first of the Inspiration (ridiculous name in my opinion) Class Type 31 frigates is due next year (with a little bit of bloomin’ luck), but then it is again a case of ‘who knows’. Meanwhile the Type 23 are ageing rapidly as they are overstretched and overworked, while the Type 45 is likely to continue to have poor availability, although better than the point when it was nought out of six.

The Conservative Party must bear a share of this as they fiddle-faddled about after the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and then (as you say) slowed construction of new ships to save money. HMS Glasgow will have taken ten years from laying down to commissioning; even the first Type 23 took only just over four and a half.

And we have to find someone to man them. The Navy is reported to be seriously short, but we still have those massive targets, the Queen Elizabeth carriers, to man. Even with only one manned at a time, it will still need escorts to be found from…somewhere to keep it safe. And what can we use them for: invading somewhere or emergency relief. So if you want us to help after a natural disaster, please give us a couple of months notice.

Im not going to denude how complex the defence/offence systems are on the ships but the basic fabrication of the vessel should be straightforward enough and with todays equipment and plant be able to be assembled quickly. A ship of this size 80 years ago would be ready from keel laying to launch in perhaps as little as nine months with another 6-9 months to fit out and complete sea trials. Yet ten years on we are still waiting. Of course we similar outcomes in the railways and one has to wonder whether we are just over complicating these machines.

 

[dgl]

Going round looking at military equipment is the thing a dictator does, maybe Keir is better staying at Downing Street talking to advisers and making plans.
As has been said your party can't destroy the military then complain that it's not large enough when there's not been the time for the new party in power to do anything about it.

 

[Revilo]

I must admit one of the things I struggle with at the moment is the rank hypocrisy or perhaps memory holing that is so rife from the Tories (and their friends in the media). Take this recent Tweet by Badenoch:

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2029922028824764775

So the Tories are going to "rebuild our Army"? I wonder, perhaps, Kemi why the army needs rebuilding? Could it be that in 2010 the army had 102,000 regulars but by 2024 it was down around 75,000? And whose political party was the Government during that period? Could it be that your Government presided over a failure of procurement that means that we have soldiers riding around in vehicles that their grandfathers were driving? That the replacements that were eventually ordered are seemingly causing hearing loss for the soldiers that use them?

Could that be it Kemi? Could it be those 14 years of governance by your party that mean the army needs rebuilding?

As for "taking defence seriously"? Could it be that Starmer (and Britain) has so few options because your party oversaw a, I think quite possibly, terminal decline in the Royal Navy? Could it be that your party instituted further cuts to the surface escort fleet taking it from 23 in 2010 to 19 following your Governments defence review? That you then dithered for so long in ordering more escorts (and then when you did dragged out the build anyway) that the remaining escorts are now basically so long in the tooth that they have to be taken out of service without replacement meaning we're now down to around 11 escorts.

We've also gutted minesweepers, the auxiliaries, the amphibious assault fleet, and our hydrographic ships. And the ships we do have cannot deploy because we don't even have enough sailors any more to crew them all so we're just shuffling a dwindling pool of sailors from ship to ship. Let's not even talk about the attack submarines, most of which have been tied up alongside for years. We probably don't even have qualified crew for them any more they've all been alongside for so long. God knows how we'll regenerate that capability.

Or the RAF? Kemi, how about the RAF? We had around 160 fast jets in 2010 now we're down to around 100. We now have no airborne early warning aircraft because your government retired our E-3s before their replacements were in service. Oh and you ordered 3 aircraft to replace them. That's almost not worth bothering with to be honest. Your government also cancelled our replacement maritime patrol aircraft order (in fairness, that wasn't necessarily a bad decision) but then took until 2016 to even order replacements and then only 9.

"Taking defence seriously"? Kemi your party should be on your hands and knees begging forgiveness for the absolute cavalier disregard that your party gave to the defence of the UK and it's armed forces. Labour aren't blameless, of course they're not, they also presided over savage cuts of their own through the 1990s and up to 2010. But the armed forces of 2010 were undersized but still had latent potency. The armed forces of 2024 that you left for Labour to inherit (fully ten years after it should have been obvious that it was time to take defence seriously again) were a hollow shell.

How Badenoch can even dare to suggest that her party takes defence seriously without acknowledging how much they're the direct cause of the current state of what's left of armed forces is pathetic and infuriating.

Apologies to anyone that made it this far with my rant, but watching Badenoch and others pretend as if it's somehow all Labour's fault for why we cannot find a single solitary warship to deploy to Cyprus has somewhat driven me over the edge!

As I say Labour 1997 - 2010 have a lot to answer for in what they did to our defence capabilities. But the Royal Navy of 2010 would have been able to find a warship to send to Cyprus, heck, it would have quite likely had several in the Med and Gulf on normal operations. And it's not Labour of 2024 onwards fault for why that isn't the case now.

And if you'll excuse me I'm going to put my soapbox away and find a dark room to have a lie down in to calm down.

From 2010 to 2015 the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, so it cannot all be blamed on the Conservatives. And also, on coming to power, the coalition was forced to implement austerity because of the economic crash under the previous Labour government of Gordon Brown.

 

[nw1]

From 2010 to 2015 the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, so it cannot all be blamed on the Conservatives. And also, on coming to power, the coalition was forced to implement austerity because of the economic crash under the previous Labour government of Gordon Brown.

You mean the world economic crisis caused by the credit crunch?

 

[BAFRA77]

From 2010 to 2015 the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, so it cannot all be blamed on the Conservatives. And also, on coming to power, the coalition was forced to implement austerity because of the economic crash under the previous Labour government of Gordon Brown.

Although the 2010–15 government was a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, the Conservatives held the key ministries (Prime Minister, Treasury, MoD) and drove the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010, which imposed major cuts to personnel, equipment, and capabilities. These decisions reflected Conservative fiscal priorities rather than an equal coalition stance.


The argument that austerity was “forced” by Labour’s 2008–09 economic crisis is not supported by expert analysis. Research shows the coalition’s austerity agenda - underpinning the defence cuts - was ideologically motivated rather than economically unavoidable, aiming to shrink the state rather than simply stabilise finances.


Furthermore, a central justification for the SDSR was the £38 billion MoD procurement overspend, a long‑standing internal issue predating the crash, not merely the result of Labour’s handling of the economy.

Economists broadly agree austerity is not a necessary or effective response to recession, undermining claims that deep defence cuts were unavoidable.

In summary - you’re utterly wrong

 

[JamesT]

Although the 2010–15 government was a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, the Conservatives held the key ministries (Prime Minister, Treasury, MoD) and drove the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010, which imposed major cuts to personnel, equipment, and capabilities. These decisions reflected Conservative fiscal priorities rather than an equal coalition stance.


The argument that austerity was “forced” by Labour’s 2008–09 economic crisis is not supported by expert analysis. Research shows the coalition’s austerity agenda - underpinning the defence cuts - was ideologically motivated rather than economically unavoidable, aiming to shrink the state rather than simply stabilise finances.


Furthermore, a central justification for the SDSR was the £38 billion MoD procurement overspend, a long‑standing internal issue predating the crash, not merely the result of Labour’s handling of the economy.

Economists broadly agree austerity is not a necessary or effective response to recession, undermining claims that deep defence cuts were unavoidable.

In summary - you’re utterly wrong

It may have been ideologically motivated, but it was an ideology shared by all the major parties at the 2010 election. They all planned spending cuts and tax increases.

 

[edwin_m]

It may have been ideologically motivated, but it was an ideology shared by all the major parties at the 2010 election. They all planned spending cuts and tax increases.

The Labour ones would have been less and later, once the economy had started to recover.

 

[JamesT]

The Labour ones would have been less and later, once the economy had started to recover.

There really wasn’t that much difference. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/coalitioneffect_ch6.pdf

As best we can tell from the statements they have made to date,
all three parties aim to implement a fiscal tightening of 4.8% of
national income, or £71 billion, by 2016–17. The only real
difference is that the Conservatives would aim to get most of the
job done a year earlier by 2015–16.
This does not make an enormous difference to the total amount
of government borrowing over the next few years or to the
long-term pro le for government debt. Over the next seven years
(2010–11 to 2016–17 inclusive), Labour and the Liberal
Democrats plan to borrow £643 billion, while the Conservatives
would end up borrowing £604 billion, about £38 billion or just
6% less.

 

[edwin_m]

There really wasn’t that much difference. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/coalitioneffect_ch6.pdf

The graph below your quote, top of page 10, shows the Tories wanted to tighten by around 10% more than Labour or the LibDems.

 

[JamesT]

The graph below your quote, top of page 10, shows the Tories wanted to tighten by around 10% more than Labour or the LibDems.

Which in terms of overall government spending of around £700bn, is about 1%. It’s a marginal difference, the overall direction of all the parties was the same, to eliminate the deficit.

 

[DelW]

You mean the world economic crisis caused by the credit crunch?

Which had its principal origin in the so-called sub-prime mortgage crash in the US, which developed towards the end of George "dubya" Bush's second term. The US Republican Party has a lot to answer for, and blaming Gordon Brown (I know you didn't) is a considerable stretch.

 

[Egg Centric]

Which had its principal origin in the so-called sub-prime mortgage crash in the US, which developed towards the end of George "dubya" Bush's second term. The US Republican Party has a lot to answer for, and blaming Gordon Brown (I know you didn't) is a considerable stretch.

It's not legit to blame Gordon Brown for the financial crisis. It is legit to blame him for deficit spending at a time we should have been running a surplus, putting us in a much weaker position when the crisis hit than we ought to have been. Whether austerity was the right response or not is unknowable but I have noticed that curiously 99% of Tories think it was and 99% of Labourites think it wasn't, almost as if neither side is dispassionately analysing it from first principles.

 

[takno]

Which in terms of overall government spending of around £700bn, is about 1%. It’s a marginal difference, the overall direction of all the parties was the same, to eliminate the deficit.

It seems fairly clear that the aim of the Labour party was to get the deficit back into shape and stop there. In particular it's very likely that Labour would have responded to the improvement in the situation once it was clearer that the bank bailout was going to be somewhere near break-even. The Conservatives clearly had it as a point of principle to keep reducing spending even when there was no longer any credible case for doing so.

 

[Grimsby town]

It's not legit to blame Gordon Brown for the financial crisis. It is legit to blame him for deficit spending at a time we should have been running a surplus, putting us in a much weaker position when the crisis hit than we ought to have been. Whether austerity was the right response or not is unknowable but I have noticed that curiously 99% of Tories think it was and 99% of Labourites think it wasn't, almost as if neither side is dispassionately analysing it from first principles.

I don't think its even fair to criticise Brown over the deficit. It was a pretty a small percentage (~3%) of GDP and was largely covered by the economy growing at a similar rate during that period. Public sector debt was lower in 2007 than it was in 1997.

I think plenty problems we face now can be attributed to austerity. Cutting benefits and social support might save money in the short term but it can cause significant damage in the longer term including increasing crime, poorer health, and people dropping out the workforce. Unfortunately there seems to be little acknowledgement of this by either the Tories or Reform. Its pretty easy to go to America and see the kind of societal issues low public spending on social wellbeing causes.

 

[PGAT]

I think plenty problems we face now can be attributed to austerity. Cutting benefits and social support might save money in the short term but it can cause significant damage in the longer term including increasing crime, poorer health, and people dropping out the workforce. Unfortunately there seems to be little acknowledgement of this by either the Tories or Reform. Its pretty easy to go to America and see the kind of societal issues low public spending on social wellbeing causes.

Too much nonsense about the costs of doing XYZ and not enough emphasis about the costs of NOT doing XYZ..

 

[Egg Centric]

I don't think its even fair to criticise Brown over the deficit. It was a pretty a small percentage (~3%) of GDP and was largely covered by the economy growing at a similar rate during that period. Public sector debt was lower in 2007 than it was in 1997.

We should not have consistently been running a deficit at all. The economy was running hot most of the time.

 

[Topological]

We should not have consistently been running a deficit at all. The economy was running hot most of the time.

Sadly this sort of common sense is not allowed.

It did not help that Brown kept going on about "end of boom and bust", something which is actually impossible to do. New Labour rode a wave of recovery from the recession of the early 90s, but did little to ensure there was readiness for the next crash.

Though the financial markets are no mugs, I am sure there was overconfident borrowing and unnecessary risk baked in by a narrative that a crash could not come under the genius leadership of Blair and Brown.

YES the origin was the US, but the question was how ready was the UK?

 

[brad465]

Sadly this sort of common sense is not allowed.

It did not help that Brown kept going on about "end of boom and bust", something which is actually impossible to do. New Labour rode a wave of recovery from the recession of the early 90s, but did little to ensure there was readiness for the next crash.

Though the financial markets are no mugs, I am sure there was overconfident borrowing and unnecessary risk baked in by a narrative that a crash could not come under the genius leadership of Blair and Brown.

YES the origin was the US, but the question was how ready was the UK?

And even more importantly, when the whole thing crashed, there was no thought given to the idea that the system was broken and had to be replaced. Instead, neoliberals couldn't bear to let their precious baby die, so turned it into a zombie instead, in the form of relentless QE, ultra-low interest rates and massive bailouts for "too big to fail" banks. At the very least bankers responsible should have gone to jail (like they did in Iceland), but all of the aforementioned failure helped cause the wave of populism that followed, as these policies created very deep inequality.

 

[Topological]

And even more importantly, when the whole thing crashed, there was no thought given to the idea that the system was broken and had to be replaced. Instead, neoliberals couldn't bear to let their precious baby die, so turned it into a zombie instead, in the form of relentless QE, ultra-low interest rates and massive bailouts for "too big to fail" banks. At the very least bankers responsible should have gone to jail (like they did in Iceland), but all of the aforementioned failure helped cause the wave of populism that followed, as these policies created very deep inequality.

Not really the policies you would expect from a Labour government.

And then people wonder where the geography of discontent came from.

 

[The Ham]

One thing to note, the "data" behind the need for austerity was founded to be unsound (by a student who was trying to recreate the findings) and yet there are many who still want to use the same policies as it supported.

That's even before anyone starts to question if the economic model we should be using is different (i.e. those who suggest that the reason we have any money in the economy is because of the money created and spent by government and taxes are the controls to limit inflation vs those who say that taxes are needed to pay for government spending, the latter being the current view - I'm not commenting on which is right, just that even under the latter austerity doesn't have the scientific support that it was thought to have at the time).

 

[Cdd89]

Not really the policies you would expect from a Labour government.

Yep, which I think speaks to the idea that there wasn't any other choice. Suggesting there was another easy route is the kind of thing that's easy to argue in retrospect.

Austerity and shoring up investment may or may not have been the right way to address the crisis, I actually have a lot of time for the argument that it wasn't the right thing to do. However, the reaction from the bond markets to rejecting it would've been calamitous, and nobody wanted to be compared to the "PIGS" nations.

 

[The Ham]

Yep, which I think speaks to the idea that there wasn't any other choice. Suggesting there was another easy route is the kind of thing that's easy to argue in retrospect.

Austerity and shoring up investment may or may not have been the right way to address the crisis, I actually have a lot of time for the argument that it wasn't the right thing to do. However, the reaction from the bond markets to rejecting it would've been calamitous, and nobody wanted to be compared to the "PIGS" nations.

Like many things there was a lot of distance between what we did and what those nations did, there could have been a softer approach than we did without getting to the point that would have spooked the bond markers (or may have only slightly upset them, but within an acceptable amount).

Of course, cuts weren't the only option, there could have been a wealth tax (similar to the mansion tax) which wouldn't have impacted many but would have likely kept more people working in government jobs (for example, how many fewer librarians are there now than there was, and there's a fairly good chance that they are earning less than they were and so the "saving" isn't nearly as big, likewise a lot of councils added paid for services, however by the time you account for staff time and money handling costs that income is likely to be less than was hoped and could have been covered by a tiny extra amount in council tax in one of the early years when it was frozen*).


* An even better option to freezing all council tax would have been to have frozen it for lower bands but still have a small increase for the higher bands. For example an extra annual charge of £5 on a band E, £15 on a band F, £45 on a band G and £135 on a band H (locally to me that last one would have been a 5% rise in a year when it was otherwise frozen for bands A to D).

The thing is those increases would have meant that future rises were also a little higher for each of those bands, and so councils would have had a bit more money to work with.

There was a council (Dorset I think) which let you play with their budget during last year so people could understand the choices needed. Increasing council tax by the most allowed in their model (10% I think) allowed the remainder of budgets to be frozen or increased slightly, without such a rise (say the normal 5%) the cuts had to be fairly deep and if it was frozen then the cuts were likely to be so deep that it would cause issues to many people, not just those who some think of as lazy and so shouldn't benefit from "my taxes".

(It's also worth being aware that the average government spend per tax payer is £33,000, so the vast majority of people aren't covering that from taxes that they pay, even if you include VAT, fuel duty, etc. so are benefitting from other people's "my taxes" anyway).

 

[Harpo]

(It's also worth being aware that the average government spend per tax payer is £33,000, so the vast majority of people aren't covering that from taxes that they pay, even if you include VAT, fuel duty, etc. so are benefitting from other people's "my taxes" anyway).

Average spend per taxpayer does not equal that amount of benefit to the taxpayer. It does though, highlight the gulf between wealth and minimum wage.

 

[Falcon1200]

* An even better option to freezing all council tax would have been to have frozen it for lower bands but still have a small increase for the higher bands. For example an extra annual charge of £5 on a band E, £15 on a band F, £45 on a band G and £135 on a band H (locally to me that last one would have been a 5% rise in a year when it was otherwise frozen for bands A to D).

Council Tax is an unfair form of taxation, being levied not on income, or overall assets, but on house value, and moreover, not house value now but when last assessed, ie 30 plus years ago. Resulting in the situation in my street where one (1) house of a particular type is in Band F whereas all others of the same type are in Band E - Despite some of those homes having been extended so becoming larger than the Band F house! Despite electioneering promises no party has grasped the mettle of Council Tax reform because they fear losing the votes of those who would pay more.

BTW in Scotland a few years ago the 3 higher Bands were indeed increased by a greater proportion making the situation described above even more unfair than it already was.