Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
I’m not sure where you think you are going with this. You told me that you had a document that showed no difference between Labour and Tory governments and I speculated how the figures would look if you took the non-Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 out of the data. In response, you assured me that it would make no difference, which, of course, caused me to believe that you’d sat and worked through the raw data to be so confident. When I asked you for your workings out, you’ve posted a load of stuff that includes the non-Labour governments of 1997 to 2010. Did you mean to post something else?
The significance of the Blair/Brown non-Labour government data being included is that it will skew the figures quite markedly as you are talking 13 years of government compared with only 11 years of actual Labour government within the period of the data set. You will recall that when he came to power in 1997, Blair kept to his manifesto promise (those were the days!) and followed the spending plans of the outgoing Tory administration. That resulted in him running significant budget surplus for several years.
As gm hints, isn’t the issue here that – if we accept your assertion that the data shows no difference between the outurns of the two brands of government – you have to look at the inputs in tax takes. In other words, given that the Tories tend to be tax cutters, isn’t the position that you are setting out that you pay less under the Tories to get the same results?
Hall Of Fame
Reply With Quote