Do They Think None Of Us Can Remember Pre 2010?

[New Judge]

Just watching the news. The Labour Party is accusing the Tories of pandering to the rich by suggesting that they are thinking of cutting the top rate of income tax from 45% to 40% (which, incidentally, the Tories deny):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32188499

Mr Balls is suggesting that a cut to 40% would mean a “tax cut of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the very richest in our country”

For all but about a fortnight of Labour’s term in office from 1997 to 2010 the top rate of income tax was 40%. Only a few weeks before they were certain to be booted out of office did they implement the 50% rate for incomes over £150k (which the Coalition reduced to 45%).

If Labour thought 40% was an inadequate rate to tax top earners why did it take them thirteen years to do something about it? The BBC, of course, when covering the issue, "rolled back" only to 2010 and stated that it was the new (Tory led) government that reduced the top rate tax but neglected to mention that it had taken Labour 13 years to introduce it. But that's par for the course.

[lindapalmara]

Oops. We were the ones in Europe bailing out banks.

[Old_Geezer]

There is plenty of incentive to build a success / empire, out of a sense of achievement. Once one has enough to live well the rest is just greed. There should be limits on that. I think the 24 hours a day 365 days a year on the job explanation, is rather overplayed. The vast majority of the rich set don't do that anyway. They play at companies. Manipulating what they can to achieve a result that satisfies them. Or worse play the stock markets and merely attract existing wealth in their direction.

[ToraToraTora]

good idea ron.

[Ellipsis]

> Major lost in 1997 on the economy

I take it that you, like I, was there. My recollection of it was that the economy was far from the reason that the Tories lost. The economy was in good shape and, if all other things were in as good a shape, the Tories would have won. But all other things were far from in as good a shape.

For a start, much of the electorate was shocked by Labour's failure to win the previous election and with the departure of Kinnock, the death of his replacement John Smith and the rise of Blair and the New Labour policies, that created the platform for a Labour victory. Add to that Tory sleaze, in-fighting over Europe and other self-inflicted wounds and the Tories were on a deserved hiding. But the economy was in comparatively great shape in 1997 when Labour came in - certainly compared to 2010, when they left.

[Gromit]

Linda

// And deregulating the banks so that that we became one of the few countries that had to bail out our reckless banks. Milliband apologised for that yet again in the debate last week. //

Labour didn't deregulate the banks, Mrs Thatcher did. She called it, rather prophetically, "The Big Bang".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)

The mistake Labour made in 1997 was to not immediately regulate it again. But Blair and the banks had made a Faustian Pact.

[mrs_overall]

Do you remember the note left on the desk - "sorry, the money has all gone"?

[Gromit]

Ellipsis

Are you seriously suggesting Labour won in 1997 because the electorate was shocked they hadn't won in '92?

The Conservatives didn't lose because of sleaze or Europe. They lost it because of Black Wednesday and 15% Interest Rates. We recovered from that, but it Exploded the myth that the Conservatives were competent with the economy and other parties weren't. Labour exploited the debacle in 1997.

[Gromit]

Mr O,

You are probably too young to remember 1962 General Election, and the outgoing Conservative Chancellor Reginald Maudling.

Maudling left a note to his successor, James Callaghan, simply stating "Good luck, old cock.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

The 2010 note was a parody of the 1962 note, except most people had forgotten Maudlings note and the joke backfired.

[Ellipsis]

> Are you seriously suggesting Labour won in 1997 because the electorate was shocked they hadn't won in '92?

No, and I don't think my answer suggested that. If you interpret things that way then it's no wonder you reach such odd conclusions sometimes.

[Gromit]

Not sure what the was the point of putting

// much of the electorate was shocked by Labour's failure to win the previous election //

In your answer to why labour won in 1997.

[Ellipsis]

It was the start of the building of the platform that delivered them victory five years later. It was not the reason for victory in and of itself.

[cassa333]

Heres one I remember from some political debate some time ago.

Labour closed and planned to close, more Mines and pits than Margaret Thatcher ever did. But she got the blame for the whole lot.

[Gromit]

One I learned recently, Margaret Thatcher, as Education Minister, closed more Grammar Schools than Labour did when they stopped funding.

[SirOracle]

To say nothing of stopping the young childrens free milk.

Remember her name "Thatcher the Snatcher"

[lindapalmara]

Linda

// Gromit. Labour didn't deregulate the banks, Mrs Thatcher did. She called it, rather prophetically, "The Big Bang". //

Then why does Milliband keep apologising for deregulating the banks then?

[lindapalmara]

SirOracle

The school milk wasn't being used. Tons of it were going down the drain. I can remember school milk in the 70s and crates of it were wasted. It was brought out in more Ostere times post war when children were also given spoonfuls of Orange juice to prevent them getting rickets. Once the country got back on its feet there was no need to do this.

[SirOracle]

Is that why it is being brought back again now.??

[lindapalmara]

Cassa333

Yes you are correct. It was me who pointed out that under Wilson there were twice as many pit closures than under Thatcher. It was in reply to Mickey saying he supported the miners. I am still a awaiting his reply.


http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2013/04/wilson-closed-more-coal-mines-than-thatcher.html

[tonyav]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html

[Gromit]

Linda,
I would be grateful if you would post a link to Miliband apologising for deregulating the banks.

Labour didn't deregulate. So I doubt Miliband has apologised for something they didn't do.

I look forward to your link (but I doubt you will find one).