Using the same data sources that I mined a week ago to extract data on which party has borrowed the most when in power I have now had a look at who made the economy grow the most. The data is based on annual average GDP growth rates. This is the result:
First note that six of the Conservative wins are just due to more years in office, which mean they were bound to have also delivered more growth overall. But then look at the average growth rates; these are what matter.
The Conservatives do win overall. That is unambiguous. But the story pre and post 1979 - which date marks the shift from the Keynesian to the neoliberal era - is what fascinates me. The Tory domination of the massive years of growth in the 1950s creates the enormous bias in its favour in the post war period. Macmillan was right: the Tories never had it so good.
Since 1979 it has been a different tale: I had to go to the third decimal place to differentiate the two, with Labour winning, just. And taking out the financial crisis era makes Labour's win much more emphatic: the Conservative record in the 80s and 90 was really not that good.
The conclusion? If we look at the modern economic era the hegemony of neoliberalism has failed to differentiate the parties and the overall result has been worse for Britain. That's a sobering thought.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But that hegemony has returned income and wealth inequalities to 1920s levels, making it an unqualified success as far as its real aims are concerned.
But frankly it’s so close that it probably confirms that over the long run governments don’t really influence growth rates.
Not at all
What it shows is that we have not been given the choice that allows a difference since there has been economic hegemony since 1979
Had some thoughts on this a while ago
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=50933186&p=354475493
With respect, it may be because the Conservatives were more adept at managing and presenting the figures for the media than the realities. When there is “growth” but large sections of manufacturing industry were being wiped out in the UK Mittlestand of the 60’s and 70’s, it may not have been “real” growth at all.
Atlee’s Governments suffered from the same, inaccurate and unfair, obloquy as Gordon Brown’s (used advisedly, since it’s clear Blair knew nothing about economics, substituting worship of the market for real study and analysis), namely that Labour had wrecked the economy.
I can still recall a discussion with one of my Tory-leaning fellow pupils at the Public boarding school that I attended up to 1964, telling me in those early 60’s, around 1962/63, when Labour looked likely to win power, that it was difficult to be at ease with that prospect, and to trust Labour “given the mess they made of the economy last time!” The same friend also pointed out how Macmillan had outbuilt Bevan as Minister of Housing.
That last was true, but SO was the fact that the Macmillan “You’ve never had it so good” boom was built on the heavy lifting of the Atlee Governments, that spent onto the economy, so reducing the debt/GDP ratio from 250% to around 50% by the time Atlee lost power.
In exactly the same way, Gordon Brown’s measures WERE leading to recovery, and if “Gidiot” Osborne had followed Labour’s lead, and BUILT on that 2010 recovery, instead of adopting the oxymoronic “expansionary contraction”, and all the (almost all UNNECESSARY) cuts, the UK economy could now be experiencing another “You’ve never had it so good” boom, with Osborne possibly already in No 10, and IDS perhaps having been able to implement the long-term strategic reform of welfare he claims to have been aiming for all along.
And hopefully all the shameful demonising of the poor, the disabled, the sick and the vulnerable – all the marginalised, that is – as “skivers and scroungers” might not have occurred, allowing the Nasty Party to morph back into a true “One Nation Conservative” Party.
But given,
a) that the two Eds adopted the crackpot strategy of adopting Tory-lite and austerity-lite policies, combined with a conscious decision NOT to defend the Labour record (!!!??? As I’ve said before, had the two Eds been my counsel in an important law suit, I’d have been tempted to sue them for professional negligence!), so why would Osborne bother to build on Labour’s record?, and
b) that the Nasty Party was already dead set on implementing what Philip Bond said in words to the effect that the Great Financial Crash offered a “golden opportunity to demolish the whole corrupt post-war political settlement”, by deconstructing the Welfare State in toto (including the NHS, of course) and so implementing Thatcherism Phase 2, at which Thatcher had always aimed, but knew it would take a generation to implement, namely a neo-feudal state and economy , of 1% Barons with ALL the rights (including right of tax-farming of revenue streams) and 99% with ALL the duties and NO rights (hence the desire to bring in a ‘chums’ charter” known as “The Bill of Rights”, which will offer rights to those who are “one of us”, and duties to everyone else.
In view of the above, there was never a cat in hell’s chance of Osborne taking a route that would have allowed the re-emergence of a “One Nation” Conservative Party.
Just a thought, would it be worth shifting the time series 6-12 months forward as the first part of governments term is really determined by what went before.
No!
This is about pwrceptions
Politicians and ordinary people do not build in time lags
But should we accept perceptions after all the point of the debt data was to see reality to challenge perceptions
But to change perceptions we have to understand that on which they are based
It may be that the apparent good Conservative performance over the 1947-79 period is partly an artifact of the so-called “Barber Boom” of 1972-3 – where, in response to unemployment reaching a post-war record of 1 million, the Chancellor in the Heath govt, Anthony Barber, massively reduced taxation and increased spending to generate real growth of around 7% in 1973. This however led to rampant inflation in 1974-5, and coupled with the 1973 oil shock and subsequent recession, real growth was negative in 1974 and 1975 (under Labour govts). So the Tory “win” is partly driven by a completely unsustainable boom which Labour then had to pick up the pieces of. But I don’t know if this completely explains the results – what happens if you do (e.g.) 1947-1970?
Howard
That is a significant factor – I had not realised how hyped growth was in those few years
Taking out 70 – 79 and just doing 47 – 70 seriously closes the gap – but not enough to get over the 50s boom
Richard
Personally if I was doing this sort of analysis I would be more inclined to look at the change in rate of growth of GDP to work out who was turning the ship which way.
To my mind a government turning 2% growth rate into 1% growth rate is doing a bad job whilst a government that turns an economy contracting at 4% into an economy contracting at a rate of 3% is doing rather better.
This would also eliminate the need to worry about whether a party came to power during a recession because each party would be judged on which direction it moved things instead. In fact governments that pulled the country out of recession would receive quite a lot of credit for doing so.
I have no idea who comes out better on this basis, but I would be curious to know.
But you miss the point of the analysis I am doing
In the post 79 period, population growth per year averaged around 0.35%/year under the Conservatives and 0.55%/year under Labour.
What is it about the Conservatives that makes people want to wear protection?
I’m not sure if it changes the qualitative results, but don’t you need to compound? A growth rate of 10% pa for 10 years grows 100 to 259, not 200.
To put it another way: growth of 174% over 69 years is not 2.5% each year on a straight line basis (=174/69) but rather 1.5% ( = {[2.74^(1/69)] – 1}*100) compounded.
On that basis, Labour’s 157% over 27 years is 1.68% pa compounded, and the Conservative’s 216% over 42 years is 1.85% pa compounded.
This is about perceptions
So no I do not need to compound
I am looking at growth perceptions
Sorry if that is not clear enough
If I’ve read this right, the public perception is that you are better off under the Conservatives. The public don’t look at national statistics, they just think this from personal experience and the media, and because people see the world through their own eyes, they think in GDP growth per head, that head being their own.
But if they took out the ‘per head’ part and looked up the GDP data under Labour and Conservatives, it’s a tie for practical purposes.
Yes
Growth is only of value if it benefits all members of society who contribute to it, does not harm the environment and society as a whole, protects those who are not able to contribute, and the surplus value is shared/invested for the benefit of the whole community.
As the current measurement of GDP (and it constituent parts) does not meet any of the above criteria, it would appear the debate about who created more of it is somewhat nebulous and irrelevant.
You would need to add in comparisons of GDP growth to measures of inequality, pollution, net carbon production, health, education etc etc… for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn in my opinion.