And note that none of the graphs are zero-based.

So does this mean we have socialism via the back door?

For the US, half of the budget goes to the military. That is, it is government supported employment. The fact that firms like Lockheed are nominally private doesn't change the fact that they exist only because of government payments.

I imagine that health care in most of Europe could be considered a government supported industry, regardless of who provides the services.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

Does this confirm, like I believe it does, that France, the only true communist country in the world, is actually doing very well compared to all its capitalist competitors?

Evviva il communismo e la liberta!!

And you can reframe this further -

The poor and middle classes are going into debt to sustain the personal wealth of the rich.

The spending is semi-voluntary, but the effect on personal wealth is very similar to taxation, in that there's less real money available. This will become a very bad thing over the next few years, because debt that was once used to fund luxuries is now increasingly being used to pay for essentials like housing, fuel and transport. At the same time 'economic reforms' will be putting pressure on real wages.

Also, it's not actually true that the repayments will be at low rates. I suspect a lot of that debt will be credit card debt, whose rates are notoriously usurious.

A considerable amount of the increase in public sector jobs are down to the Blair governments actions but it is often forgotten that these will include teachers and health workers.

Let's look at some factors that will be contributing to the increase.

For a start, there has been considerable recruitment of nurses and doctors to the NHS due simply to the changes in working patterns. Newly qualified doctors working in hospitals have had their hours reduced from the rediculous and dangerous level of 80-90 a week on call. This meant more were needed to provide 24/7 cover. Not in itself a significant number but there are also increases due to the pressure on health authorities to make extra provision.

The numbers involved in that will however be quite small compared to the education side, particularly the under 11s. Blair's famous "education, education education" commitment meant that more non-teaching staff were employed to support class teachers. Again fairly small in overall terms but more recently they have mandated that every teacher has a half day session a week for preparation, marking and personal professional development. This was already common practive in secondary schools where the teaching tends ot be undertaken by subject specialists. For most primary school teachers this was an innovation but it meant schools had to get their classes covered. The need is for an extra 10% teacher time. This does not necessarily equate to only another 10% of people employed as many of these cover posts will appeal to part timers or temporary teachers.

The main problem I see with Blair/Brown is not the fact that they have increased public spending, but the fact that they are cowards. Instead of challenging the proponents of deregulated untamed free trade, many of whom come from Britain, they continue to provide cover for them by pushing for more liberalization and not advocating a bigger role of the government in creating a more stable and sustainable economy.

Mikhail from SF