Unfortunately you’re wrong.Bizarre. "Fantasy" about lack of austerity - while public expenditure was rising. Tory austerity policy since 2010 has been about cutting public expenditure - and if it has failed to cut public expenditure, that's a failure of the policy.
The tax burden fell from 1948 to 1951. Congratulations to the Tories on finally getting the postwar tax burden above the level Labour got it down to in 1951.
And there it is, in a nutshell. They've been performing a reverse-robin-hood on the nation for over a decade, and they're still expecting the public to take the gaslight.
And there it is, in a nutshell. They've been performing a reverse-robin-hood on the nation for over a decade, and they're still expecting the public to take the gaslight.
Those sunlit uplands are out there, somewhere.
Tax as share of GDP in 1945 - 37.6%Unfortunately you’re wrong.
The tax burden didn’t fall like you say. It peaked in 49-50. And spending didn’t rise overall, it fell.
What you actually saw was a major redirection of spending away from defence, and an historically large increase in the tax burden, which helped the headline borrowing figure to fall by 10%-pts of GDP over the parliament. But I suppose you’re not interested in the facts.
Have a good one.
The Unicorns are that away ----------------------------->
You’re quoting inaccurate data. The OBR has a historical database on their website, with the data directly comparable to the current day figures, and they are the ones to use. They show that spending actually fell slightly, taxes went up a lot and borrowing fell sharply.Tax as share of GDP in 1945 - 37.6%
In 1949 - 37.2%
In 1951 - 34.8%
Now it's back to 1945 levels and rising
And if Labour after the war kept spending high but diverted war spending to the health service and housing (and the five "giant evils" in society highlighted by Beveridge: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease) - do we take it you think this was inappropriate spending, only corrected by Thatcher?
I think I'll stick to the IFS data I linked to rather than the OBR date you didn't link to.You’re quoting inaccurate data. The OBR has a historical database on their website, with the data directly comparable to the current day figures, and they are the ones to use. They show that spending actually fell slightly, taxes went up a lot and borrowing fell sharply.
As for your other point about post-war spending on health and housing, why would I think that was inappropriate? It was clearly required at the time, but it is much easier for a government to increase investment when spending on welfare and health is around half the level it is now.
To be polite, you fucked us.Interesting little fantasy you’re peddling there about the lack of austerity under that Labour government.
They had a deficit of over 6% of GDP in 1946 and turned it into a surplus of 4% in 1951, with the tax burden rising sharply as well.
Public investment did rise, but it’s an lot easier to do that when health care expenditure is running at 3% of GDP versus 7%-plus currently and social security was half of what we’re spending now as well.
Do you advocate reducing welfare and health spending by 60% so that we can revive the railways again?