Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
one of the assertions that people struggle to accept is that George osboune has created more new debt than every labour government combined!! this one is particulary hard for people to come to terms with because in conflicts with the (totally inaccurate)"folk wisdom" that labour always spend loads of money ,then the tories have to tidy up the mess, further confusion is added when torie politicians try to conflate the meanings of "THE DEBT" and"THE DEFICIT" WHICH ARE ECONOMIC TERMS WITH COMPLETLY DIFERENT MEANINGS,
a look at the economic everdence that only 2 labour goverments left office with national debt higher as a percentage of GDP,than it was when they came to power,and all the others HAVE LOWERED IT as a percentage of GDP
on the 2 occasions labour saw a increase in the national debt as a percentage of gdp there were mitigating circumstances of huge GLOBEL FINANCIAL CRISIS, 1929-31 ramsey McDonald, 12% debt to gdp ratio, and the last few years of blair brown government 11% debt to ratio of gdp with the 2008 crisis, all other labour government reduced the scale of natonal debt!
by George osbornes own estimates the national debt with have increased by 26.9% of gdp 2010-2015, you can check this by looking at page 19 November 2010 OBR economic and fiscal outlook which records debt to GDP ratio as 53.5% of GDP for 2010. and page 20, of the December 2014 OBR economic and fiscal outlook which records the debt as GDP RATIO for 2014-15 as being 80.4%
very hard to follow but the facts and truth, to the lie that this government are competent..and that labour spends too much..
a look at the economic everdence that only 2 labour goverments left office with national debt higher as a percentage of GDP,than it was when they came to power,and all the others HAVE LOWERED IT as a percentage of GDP
on the 2 occasions labour saw a increase in the national debt as a percentage of gdp there were mitigating circumstances of huge GLOBEL FINANCIAL CRISIS, 1929-31 ramsey McDonald, 12% debt to gdp ratio, and the last few years of blair brown government 11% debt to ratio of gdp with the 2008 crisis, all other labour government reduced the scale of natonal debt!
by George osbornes own estimates the national debt with have increased by 26.9% of gdp 2010-2015, you can check this by looking at page 19 November 2010 OBR economic and fiscal outlook which records debt to GDP ratio as 53.5% of GDP for 2010. and page 20, of the December 2014 OBR economic and fiscal outlook which records the debt as GDP RATIO for 2014-15 as being 80.4%
very hard to follow but the facts and truth, to the lie that this government are competent..and that labour spends too much..
Show More
the debt is debt..the deficit is the speed at which the debt grows?..is it not? ..clever clogs..i see no tory can dispute the facts..
labour do not increase the debt of our nation when in power..as I said the 2 times it did happen was down to the crashes..all the other labour governments did not increase the national debt while in office...theres one myth busted.
the other is that this chancellor has increased the debt by more than any labour government has combined!!!
labour do not increase the debt of our nation when in power..as I said the 2 times it did happen was down to the crashes..all the other labour governments did not increase the national debt while in office...theres one myth busted.
the other is that this chancellor has increased the debt by more than any labour government has combined!!!
Tony should go for a career in politics the way he spins things. Osbourne hasnt done particularly well in cutting the deficit because he was too scared to seriously cut spending.
The fact he became chancellor with the deficit at record levels does need to be taken into account when judging how much he has borrowed and given how labour have been against virtually all the cuts he did manage to make its clear he has borrowed less than Brown would have done had he been reelected.
Perhaps Tony would tell us where he should have cut spending or raised taxes to have been more successful in cutting the deficit.
The fact he became chancellor with the deficit at record levels does need to be taken into account when judging how much he has borrowed and given how labour have been against virtually all the cuts he did manage to make its clear he has borrowed less than Brown would have done had he been reelected.
Perhaps Tony would tell us where he should have cut spending or raised taxes to have been more successful in cutting the deficit.
it is amazing that the right wing press forget that Osborne promised to sort the debt by this year, he has missed every target he aimed for..lost our AAA rating, this man has borrowed 207 billion pounds..and our economy is smaller! we as a country are less well off,wages are lower, our standard of living is lower the economy has flatlined for nearly 5 years.. we have never exported so little! and what do we get..that George boy has done a good job in hard times..i ask anyone who knows business or who is in business if a man had his record in any other job...would he still be working?
To be fair living standards were bound to fall and they will continue to do so whoever wins in May.
I see you didnt offer any alternative Tony.
I see you didnt offer any alternative Tony.
another one that is spun by the right, that the only way to cut the deficit is to cut cut cut.. spending! THIS MAN HAS CUT TO THE FUUCKN BONE AND STILL THE DEBT GROWS!! I explained imo why he has failed when he has cut so much..in another thread I wont waste my time explaining again..but you cannot cut your way to sort the debt..look im not into macroeconomics,but FISCAL MULTIPLICATION (economic benefit of government spending) e.g. a big social housing policy has strong fiscal multiplication, the government will get more back than it puts in.by employing people they spend there money it goes back into the economy!
Oh yes the good old spend more to cut debt? How great life would be if that worked. We could just spend ever more and get richer and richer.
One more question Tony? What would debt repayments be if you spent more since it would mean much hihger interest rates on our trillion of National Debt.
One more question Tony? What would debt repayments be if you spent more since it would mean much hihger interest rates on our trillion of National Debt.
You're badly out of your intellectual depth here Tony. Keeping posting these nonsense posts just illustrates that fact. It wouldn't be so bad if you learned anything from what people tell you.
eo ive only posted what is indeed fact..tell me my numbers are wrong?.tell me what ive posted is not in black and white..you won't..cos you don't like it when people give you the plain truth about whats gone on in the last 5 yrs..how dare I give you the government's own figures..
the debt is debt..the deficit is the speed at which the debt grows?..is it not? ..clever clogs..i see no tory can dispute the facts..
Imagine you get into debt because you spend more than you earn. So, you stop buying ****. You still spend more than you earn.
BUT-YOUR NOW GETTING INTO DEBT SLOWER!. You're fiscally prudent! You're leading a recovery!
That's the crux of the Tories argument and the ****wits here who wouldn't be able to find econ 101 in a university much less pass it.
Imagine you get into debt because you spend more than you earn. So, you stop buying ****. You still spend more than you earn.
BUT-YOUR NOW GETTING INTO DEBT SLOWER!. You're fiscally prudent! You're leading a recovery!
That's the crux of the Tories argument and the ****wits here who wouldn't be able to find econ 101 in a university much less pass it.
You're badly out of your intellectual depth here Tony.
You'd drown in an intellectual paddling pool.
You'd drown in an intellectual paddling pool.
its just funny how the right don't like the argument when its shown their weakness..lets take tax cuts for millionaires..they are very poor fiscal multipliers, because they just hire good lawyers to send it to tax havens..so its not brought back into the economy, what the government try to do is make you think that all this is over your head and that what they say must be right..
the failure of labour and ed balls is they have not taken this argument on full on..scared to be browbeaten by the right wing press they are terrified of being accused of economic mismanagement..when in truth,,the mismanagement is right in front of them across the government benches..
the failure of labour and ed balls is they have not taken this argument on full on..scared to be browbeaten by the right wing press they are terrified of being accused of economic mismanagement..when in truth,,the mismanagement is right in front of them across the government benches..
"the debt is debt..the deficit is the speed at which the debt grows?..is it not? ..clever clogs.."
Correct. So if the Coalition inherited a record deficit why are you remotely surprised that total debt has ballooned over a 5 year period?
Correct. So if the Coalition inherited a record deficit why are you remotely surprised that total debt has ballooned over a 5 year period?
"labour do not increase the debt of our nation when in power..as I said the 2 times it did happen was down to the crashes"
Brown was absurdly running deficits during a credit boom between 2001 and 2006. If he borrows during the boom, what do you think will happen when there is a crash? The Tories do this historically as well unfortunately.
Brown was absurdly running deficits during a credit boom between 2001 and 2006. If he borrows during the boom, what do you think will happen when there is a crash? The Tories do this historically as well unfortunately.
"it is amazing that the right wing press forget that Osborne promised to sort the debt by this year, he has missed every target he aimed for"
Well I agree with this. A disappointing performance from Osborne.
Well I agree with this. A disappointing performance from Osborne.
Well for starters there is this little beautiful example of idiocy Tony:
another one that is spun by the right, that the only way to cut the deficit is to cut cut cut.. spending! THIS MAN HAS CUT TO THE FUUCKN BONE AND STILL THE DEBT GROWS!!
another one that is spun by the right, that the only way to cut the deficit is to cut cut cut.. spending! THIS MAN HAS CUT TO THE FUUCKN BONE AND STILL THE DEBT GROWS!!
"THIS MAN HAS CUT TO THE FUUCKN BONE "
Government spending 2010 was 674 billion. Government spending 2014 was 723 billion.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/
Government spending 2010 was 674 billion. Government spending 2014 was 723 billion.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/
I agree Tony, the coalition have been terrible at reducing spending.
Could have made some real cuts to benefits & actually reduced the public sector gold plated pensions. They were too scared to touch the NHS, & the old were protected from cuts.
As a country we don't want to pay more tax, we want more money spent on health & we want more money spent on education & pensioners.
The coalition did not have the courage to actually cut spending.
Could have made some real cuts to benefits & actually reduced the public sector gold plated pensions. They were too scared to touch the NHS, & the old were protected from cuts.
As a country we don't want to pay more tax, we want more money spent on health & we want more money spent on education & pensioners.
The coalition did not have the courage to actually cut spending.
"BUT-YOUR NOW GETTING INTO DEBT SLOWER!. You're fiscally prudent! You're leading a recovery!"
It's taken several years, but it seems Cheese finally understands that the terms "debt" and "deficit" are not interchangeable. Do we have a badge for him or something chaps?
It's taken several years, but it seems Cheese finally understands that the terms "debt" and "deficit" are not interchangeable. Do we have a badge for him or something chaps?
Diane Abbot said the other day the British public want Scandinavian levels of social spending and US levels of taxation so even she understands how stupid the people of this country are.
Only a few short words Java but as I've also found they have the effect of detonating a bomb inside cheese's head:
Cheese finally understands that the terms "debt" and "deficit" are not interchangeable.
Those were the days.
Cheese finally understands that the terms "debt" and "deficit" are not interchangeable.
Those were the days.
She can't be that bright Dot once again mentioning members of the British public and Scandinavians. Didn't work out well last time.
well eo we can't all be as astute as yourself..the man who foresaw the 08 crash..im sorry we even question you?
I notice not one of you say my numbers are wrong? not one of you say what I stated is wrong?..as for George inheriting a bad job..he inherited growth in the economy ? with this mindset ..the man stifled any growth by choking any kind of public infrastructure..3 wasted years..including the debacle of the 2012 budget!!..we have flatlined..our balance of payments is the worst in history..he borrows 207 billion ..every target missed...and you have the audacity to blame it on labour...! if this was a truly independent forum you lot would be laughed off..as jokers..
"I notice not one of you say my numbers are wrong? not one of you say what I stated is wrong?.."
It seems you don't bother to read posts.
Government spending has increased 2010 to 2014.
Brown borrowed money between 2001 and 2008.
What is the point of people replying to you if you don't read other posts?
It seems you don't bother to read posts.
Government spending has increased 2010 to 2014.
Brown borrowed money between 2001 and 2008.
What is the point of people replying to you if you don't read other posts?
java, I gave you the figures for gdp ? brown borrowed money, but how can you say your more economically capable when you borrow more than any labour government combined ?..or do you forget that fact..and you never answered my question..are my numbers wrong? is it not true that this chancellor has borrowed more in this term than all of labours 13 or more years?
let me just refresh your memory..brown borrows 39 billion up to 08.......George 207 billion as of end 2014! were you want to blame it all is the crash...sorry the LABOUR crash! not the globel crash..cos labour brought the banks down..i remember..
"but how can you say your more economically capable when you borrow more than any labour government combined ?.."
I'm not sure if I can put this in a more simple way. Osborne inherited a record deficit. Debt will increase every year until the deficit has reduced to zero. Anyone who ran the economy after 2010 would have borrowed more than anyone in history.
I agree Osborne has not done enough to reduce the deficit. However, using the size of the current debt to beat him with is idiotic. It was a mathematical certainty.
I'm not sure if I can put this in a more simple way. Osborne inherited a record deficit. Debt will increase every year until the deficit has reduced to zero. Anyone who ran the economy after 2010 would have borrowed more than anyone in history.
I agree Osborne has not done enough to reduce the deficit. However, using the size of the current debt to beat him with is idiotic. It was a mathematical certainty.
it is not..he did nothing for 3 years..the debacle of the budget of 2012 shows you the absolute mess he was in..all his forcasts were wrong..how can you blame that on the last government cos he inherited debt.. I,ll just try to explain..hes made in a whole lot worse...
"let me just refresh your memory..brown borrows 39 billion up to 08.......George 207 billion as of end 2014!"
I give up. You simply don't process the posts other people make.
Additionally some correction on your figures.
Brown's combined deficit 1997 to 2008 was £250 billion. I've no idea why you are ignoring 2009 where he borrowed £156 billion either. Just looking at Labour's boom years and then comparing to Osborne in a recession would seem to be ridiculous.
Also Osborne was £370 billion up to 2012 alone so I've no idea where you get your figures from. Here are mine.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#img-1
I give up. You simply don't process the posts other people make.
Additionally some correction on your figures.
Brown's combined deficit 1997 to 2008 was £250 billion. I've no idea why you are ignoring 2009 where he borrowed £156 billion either. Just looking at Labour's boom years and then comparing to Osborne in a recession would seem to be ridiculous.
Also Osborne was £370 billion up to 2012 alone so I've no idea where you get your figures from. Here are mine.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#img-1
"how can you blame that on the last government cos he inherited debt"
For the last time I'm blaming it on the last government becauee they inherited a record DEFICIT.
For the last time I'm blaming it on the last government becauee they inherited a record DEFICIT.
I admire java in his attempts to explain to tony what most people would find elementary.
I fear he's wasting his time, but it does serve to explain why labour are still in with a chance od winning the next election.
The average labour supporter has little knowledge of the economical events of the last ten years let alone the capacity to understand them.
I fear he's wasting his time, but it does serve to explain why labour are still in with a chance od winning the next election.
The average labour supporter has little knowledge of the economical events of the last ten years let alone the capacity to understand them.
Balance of trade figures 2010 onwards, by calendar year:
2010 -37bn GBP
2011 -24bn GBP
2012 -34bn GBP
2013 -34bn GBP
2014 -32bn GBP
Source: . http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-371562
At first sight an appalling set of numbers. It's not quite so bad when you think that we import just less than £1.10 for every £1 exported so a 10% rebalance ( or around a 20% change in the value of the £1 versus the Euro ) would mean a tiny trade surplus, but at the moment the trade deficit is persistently negative. But not a record.
Unless tony is thinking of the current account deficit which is a much more complicated beast than just the trade in goods and services.
2010 -37bn GBP
2011 -24bn GBP
2012 -34bn GBP
2013 -34bn GBP
2014 -32bn GBP
Source: . http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-371562
At first sight an appalling set of numbers. It's not quite so bad when you think that we import just less than £1.10 for every £1 exported so a 10% rebalance ( or around a 20% change in the value of the £1 versus the Euro ) would mean a tiny trade surplus, but at the moment the trade deficit is persistently negative. But not a record.
Unless tony is thinking of the current account deficit which is a much more complicated beast than just the trade in goods and services.
There comes a time when even the most Sissyphian of us call time on educating morons because they are one of our few growth industries and no matter how quickly you slay one two will pop up in their place. Tony is just the latest in a very long and growing line of idiots.
tony - cut to the bone? LOL what a joke.
It’s easy enough to find and see the figures to show that from 1997 onwards public spending went into total overdrive, i.e labour as always behaved like chavs that have been given next doors credit card by mistake.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/recent_spending
Please look at the first chart showing public spending from 1985 onwards and perhaps peruse other parts of the site.
Anyone quoting figures without actual links to creditable sources just look silly really.
Everyone can argue all they want but it still comes back to what I said on the other thread, blair and brown started the snowball rolling down the hill and it’s obviously going to get bigger until some actual hard choices are made. You’re either in favour of REAL cuts or tax rises, or at least weight it more in one direction.
Personally I favour cuts, i.e. the foreign aid budget should get cut by 80% until we are in the black.
It’s easy enough to find and see the figures to show that from 1997 onwards public spending went into total overdrive, i.e labour as always behaved like chavs that have been given next doors credit card by mistake.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/recent_spending
Please look at the first chart showing public spending from 1985 onwards and perhaps peruse other parts of the site.
Anyone quoting figures without actual links to creditable sources just look silly really.
Everyone can argue all they want but it still comes back to what I said on the other thread, blair and brown started the snowball rolling down the hill and it’s obviously going to get bigger until some actual hard choices are made. You’re either in favour of REAL cuts or tax rises, or at least weight it more in one direction.
Personally I favour cuts, i.e. the foreign aid budget should get cut by 80% until we are in the black.
Cheese finally understands that the terms "debt" and "deficit" are not interchangeable.
Cheese sliced. I knew the coward would be on his toes after being reminded of that beauty. Yes folks. For those of you new to the forum he really did say that and many other pearls.
Cheese sliced. I knew the coward would be on his toes after being reminded of that beauty. Yes folks. For those of you new to the forum he really did say that and many other pearls.
Only one leader was realistic enough to mention the debt Farage.
Clegg touched on it, saying we have maxed out the credit cards and passing the bill to our kids.
Greedy politicians, took a uni education at the taxpayers expense but now they are taxpayers think students should pay typifies their selfishness and overwhelming sense of entitlement.
Of course the global financial crisis was a cause (or in Tory speak Blair and Brown started it, don't mention the Banks),
But Gideon has DOUBLED the debt, and now Cameron is asking us to judge him on his record. Judge him on tis and on his immigration policy,see what you come up with.
Fiddling about with a tax on spare bedrooms, limiting payments to £26k. p.a. , taxing caravans, all very well but they are fiddling while Rome burns.
Indefensible IMO, but carry on defending them and excusing them.
Clegg touched on it, saying we have maxed out the credit cards and passing the bill to our kids.
Greedy politicians, took a uni education at the taxpayers expense but now they are taxpayers think students should pay typifies their selfishness and overwhelming sense of entitlement.
Of course the global financial crisis was a cause (or in Tory speak Blair and Brown started it, don't mention the Banks),
But Gideon has DOUBLED the debt, and now Cameron is asking us to judge him on his record. Judge him on tis and on his immigration policy,see what you come up with.
Fiddling about with a tax on spare bedrooms, limiting payments to £26k. p.a. , taxing caravans, all very well but they are fiddling while Rome burns.
Indefensible IMO, but carry on defending them and excusing them.
Indeed susie Cameron has been a failure on immigration and deficit reduction amongst other things yet how can anyone consider voting Labour back in.
Does anyone seriously think that if Labour won in 2010 immigration would be lower than under Cameron or the deficit dealt with?
The choice Britain has is between useless and disastrous.
Does anyone seriously think that if Labour won in 2010 immigration would be lower than under Cameron or the deficit dealt with?
The choice Britain has is between useless and disastrous.
ive put up the figures, there government's own figures ...java first you thought I didn't know the difference between the debt and deficit, now its my numbers,all I put in the op are the correct numbers for GDP..at the times I mentioned...
pawras,
I used to get my bins collected once a week..its now once every 3 weeks,..3 nurseries in my borough have been forced to close,.the local youth club closed, the library is open but reduced hours and under threat,the council have to find more cuts in manpower and services, because of cuts to the budget,im less well off than I was , all the services in my area are worse or closed..most of the workers are earning less,..the council have cut funding to lots of manpower environmental heath in my part is non existent, some services have gone all together,..put that to the cuts in general and the ones still to come..in all aspects of our life..then I think its to the bone..
the council have saved OAP homes from cuts but at the exspense of other parts of the city...I don't know about were you live but I can see the cuts were I am..
pawras,
I used to get my bins collected once a week..its now once every 3 weeks,..3 nurseries in my borough have been forced to close,.the local youth club closed, the library is open but reduced hours and under threat,the council have to find more cuts in manpower and services, because of cuts to the budget,im less well off than I was , all the services in my area are worse or closed..most of the workers are earning less,..the council have cut funding to lots of manpower environmental heath in my part is non existent, some services have gone all together,..put that to the cuts in general and the ones still to come..in all aspects of our life..then I think its to the bone..
the council have saved OAP homes from cuts but at the exspense of other parts of the city...I don't know about were you live but I can see the cuts were I am..
Get used to it tony as even Miliband understands that Govt spending needs to be cut further.
tony look at the graph re public spending, it has to come down otherwise the deficit and subsequently the debt will never reduce, all the tories have done so far is stop it growing like a runaway train.
for me the argument is about where to make cuts not whether to make them
for one thing the public sector final salary pension scheme will probably have to end up a defined contribution one like most have in the private sector (more than ever thanks to Brown’s pension grab)
also public sector pay rises and promotions should be based on performance like the real world
then there’s foreign aid that I mentioned previously
then there’s the money we plough into the eu.
Any talk of tax rises will fall on death ears until some REAL cuts are made
for me the argument is about where to make cuts not whether to make them
for one thing the public sector final salary pension scheme will probably have to end up a defined contribution one like most have in the private sector (more than ever thanks to Brown’s pension grab)
also public sector pay rises and promotions should be based on performance like the real world
then there’s foreign aid that I mentioned previously
then there’s the money we plough into the eu.
Any talk of tax rises will fall on death ears until some REAL cuts are made
"we belive this goverments fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the last couple of years" .....ROBERT CHOTE ,chairman of the OFFICE FOR BUDGET RESPONSIBILTY!!..the goverments own so called independent office say this chancellor with his policys has stopped growth in the economy!
I think it shows that the lie that this government are competent, and my figures already have proved this..
I think it shows that the lie that this government are competent, and my figures already have proved this..
tony. Which country has the highest growth in the g8?
yes that's true,but by how much?were talking about 0.2%...the rest are all growing..
The rest arent all growing. I assume you mean 0.2 above the USA which is miles ahead of Germany? Why not try to be either balanced or accurate in what you post, just blind tribalism is pointless.
the majority are growing..why not admit this gov stifled growth for the first 3yrs by choking off any type of recovery for ideological reasons
Because fiscal consolidation was needed to maintain low interest rates. Osbournes real achievement is maintaining the confidence of the markets.
There is simply no way we could have borrowed more at these historical low rates surely you understand that?
There is simply no way we could have borrowed more at these historical low rates surely you understand that?
im not wanting more borrowing from him..im talking about his first 3 years in office..
Tony can you tell me why you didn’t post any (real) links in your OP? Do you not think it would give your statements a bit more credibility?
See it’s easy….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html
You didn’t comment on my link showing how public spending has gone skyward and all the tories have done is slow the rise
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/recent_spending
But that's not the main thing, the bottom line is that it's obvious that income is X ,outgoings is Y and debt Z, which is only going to increase while X is less than Y until we have the bailiffs at the door like Greece.
I’ve said what I’d do to try and get income greater than outgoings, what are your thoughts?
Ps the 70s kind of show that big rates don’t make a good economy.
Pps Oh yeah just in case cheese still isn’t sure about deficit and debt lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance
See it’s easy….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html
You didn’t comment on my link showing how public spending has gone skyward and all the tories have done is slow the rise
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/recent_spending
But that's not the main thing, the bottom line is that it's obvious that income is X ,outgoings is Y and debt Z, which is only going to increase while X is less than Y until we have the bailiffs at the door like Greece.
I’ve said what I’d do to try and get income greater than outgoings, what are your thoughts?
Ps the 70s kind of show that big rates don’t make a good economy.
Pps Oh yeah just in case cheese still isn’t sure about deficit and debt lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_balance
big tax rates don’t make a good economy....I meant to say
would you not consider the critical factor being the starting off position, and that the deficit would have been even higher under Lab
we know Lab disagreed with the policys that produced 2M new jobs and said it wouldnt happen, blame office of national statistics
we know Lab disagreed with the policys that produced 2M new jobs and said it wouldnt happen, blame office of national statistics
Debt is a promise without debt there's no promises and
nothings done ...so in a way without debt we have no
economy as we now have...
nothings done ...so in a way without debt we have no
economy as we now have...
pawras, when I post links you and your mates still find any way to attack it.., but its still a FACT none of you can dispute the numbers..or the facts..shout that Osborne was left with a mess or we have 2 million new jobs(bull****) but the op is factually correct..
pawras, I think you don't doubt that I never want to see my country like Greece..the reason the tories made the comparison (as you know) is bogus..the greeks joined the euro when they were in no state to do so..plus have you been to Greece?..a lot of the population NEVER PAID TAX on anything?..they hate paying tax especially the rich, the country is ina state for that reason....not only cos they borrowed money?
I explained before but obviously you didn't understand what ive said..plenty of governments of whatever colour have run small debts or even large debts..and cut the deficit, without hurting the economy or the fabric of society, this government just want to cut....I want us to cut ..but slowly..plus a tax increase for the people earning over 150k,i do not think we can get a surplus in 5yrs..or even 10 yrs..but that is possibly imo..there after ..this gov said they would pay the debt by this year we see how stupid that is..labour are stupid to say they will do it in the same time only softer....they should say we'll pay off the debt but in a longer time frame..if we get the jobs that pay the taxes then we could pay the debt off quicker which would be great all round..but not at the expense of the less well off..
pawras, I think you don't doubt that I never want to see my country like Greece..the reason the tories made the comparison (as you know) is bogus..the greeks joined the euro when they were in no state to do so..plus have you been to Greece?..a lot of the population NEVER PAID TAX on anything?..they hate paying tax especially the rich, the country is ina state for that reason....not only cos they borrowed money?
I explained before but obviously you didn't understand what ive said..plenty of governments of whatever colour have run small debts or even large debts..and cut the deficit, without hurting the economy or the fabric of society, this government just want to cut....I want us to cut ..but slowly..plus a tax increase for the people earning over 150k,i do not think we can get a surplus in 5yrs..or even 10 yrs..but that is possibly imo..there after ..this gov said they would pay the debt by this year we see how stupid that is..labour are stupid to say they will do it in the same time only softer....they should say we'll pay off the debt but in a longer time frame..if we get the jobs that pay the taxes then we could pay the debt off quicker which would be great all round..but not at the expense of the less well off..
So you won't post links and you expect people to verify your statements for themselves, that's weak !
As for “all other labour government reduced the scale of national debt”, well in terms of 1979 to now that is incorrect, all governments have increased it in that time from what I’ve found via http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
Year National debt (billions)
1979 86.88
1997 348
2010 759.5
2015 1355
The tories were left with a financial mess, that is FACT, do you deny labour's little note "there's no money left" ?
You still have NOT commented on the labour's spending overdrive, when are you going to acknowledge that?
Tweaking tax rates at the 150k point is gonna do f all for the deficit.
PS my grammar isn’t perfect by any means , but a phrase followed by ….. then another phrase then another …… does not constitute sentences and paragraphs and makes your posts a grind to read and easily ignored.
As for “all other labour government reduced the scale of national debt”, well in terms of 1979 to now that is incorrect, all governments have increased it in that time from what I’ve found via http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
Year National debt (billions)
1979 86.88
1997 348
2010 759.5
2015 1355
The tories were left with a financial mess, that is FACT, do you deny labour's little note "there's no money left" ?
You still have NOT commented on the labour's spending overdrive, when are you going to acknowledge that?
Tweaking tax rates at the 150k point is gonna do f all for the deficit.
PS my grammar isn’t perfect by any means , but a phrase followed by ….. then another phrase then another …… does not constitute sentences and paragraphs and makes your posts a grind to read and easily ignored.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1966_2016UKp_14c1li111mcn_G0t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
year debt as % of gdp party taking offic
1966 82 labour
1970 64 tory
1974 47.9 labour
1979 43.6 tory
1997 41.9 labour
2010 52.1 tory
2015 78.7 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
year debt as % of gdp party taking offic
1966 82 labour
1970 64 tory
1974 47.9 labour
1979 43.6 tory
1997 41.9 labour
2010 52.1 tory
2015 78.7 ?
You still have NOT commented on the labour's spending overdrive, when are you going to acknowledge that?
We've done this. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown spent less as a proportiong of GDP than the Thatcher/
Major governments which preceded them.
The opposition Tory leaders, Hague, Smith, Howard, during Labour's administration, in no case promised to cut spending.
Hague wanted to actually increase it whilst putting taxes down.
You are repeating a revisionist history myth created by some tory spin doctor in 2008. If you actually look back, particukary
at Labour's first term, Brown was much criticized for not spending enough, acquiring the nickname of the "Iron Chancellor".
The notion of Labour being profligate is one that has been imposed retrospectively by right-wingers who said nothing at all
about it at the time.
We've done this. The Labour governments of Blair and Brown spent less as a proportiong of GDP than the Thatcher/
Major governments which preceded them.
The opposition Tory leaders, Hague, Smith, Howard, during Labour's administration, in no case promised to cut spending.
Hague wanted to actually increase it whilst putting taxes down.
You are repeating a revisionist history myth created by some tory spin doctor in 2008. If you actually look back, particukary
at Labour's first term, Brown was much criticized for not spending enough, acquiring the nickname of the "Iron Chancellor".
The notion of Labour being profligate is one that has been imposed retrospectively by right-wingers who said nothing at all
about it at the time.
The letter recalls a similar note left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan in 1964: "Good luck, old **** ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."
The letter wasn't even an original! Those with no sense of humour shouldn't do jokes.
The letter wasn't even an original! Those with no sense of humour shouldn't do jokes.
yes ab----t,
but labour never used it as a tool to beat the tories with cos it was meant as confidential..and banter ..but the tories saw their opportunity and disregarded all protocol..and used it as a tool ..like Cameron using the steps of downing st to have a go at miliband announcing the election..(never done before by a pm)
but labour never used it as a tool to beat the tories with cos it was meant as confidential..and banter ..but the tories saw their opportunity and disregarded all protocol..and used it as a tool ..like Cameron using the steps of downing st to have a go at miliband announcing the election..(never done before by a pm)
David Laws, Lib Dem who published the letter. Labour Party used Reggie Maudlings letter often enough.
Tony is right in the fact that gideon has borrowed infinitely more than any previous chancellor.
He did inherit a mess but has not done a very good job sorting it out. At the last election he stated that labours plan to cut the deficit to 50% would resut in greece style chaos - it turns out he has done exactly the sameas what darling predicted.
Im amazed it isnt a bigger issue everyone seems so blaise to the fact we are adding astronomical amounts of debt eery year. The debt interest has already surpassed the amount we spend on defense and will soon be up their with education.
Osbourne should have cut spending much deeper and earlier than he did. It is his fault that the deficit remains so high. In the next parliament it seems highly likely the status quo will remain with the can being kicked down the road until one day it explodes.
He did inherit a mess but has not done a very good job sorting it out. At the last election he stated that labours plan to cut the deficit to 50% would resut in greece style chaos - it turns out he has done exactly the sameas what darling predicted.
Im amazed it isnt a bigger issue everyone seems so blaise to the fact we are adding astronomical amounts of debt eery year. The debt interest has already surpassed the amount we spend on defense and will soon be up their with education.
Osbourne should have cut spending much deeper and earlier than he did. It is his fault that the deficit remains so high. In the next parliament it seems highly likely the status quo will remain with the can being kicked down the road until one day it explodes.
Anyway I decided to look into the figures myself, so I’ve pulled out the numbers for 1950 – 2015
The table should (well provided I've got it to post correctly) be quite explanatory but from what I’m reading Labour in 1997 – 2000 reduced spending as % of national debt but then gradually ramped it up from that point.
In 1997 it was 37% and in 2010 it was 46%, even before the financial crisis it was 40.61 in 2008 then by the following year it was 45.47.
Regardless of which dates and figures you home in on the bottom line/inescapable truth is that UK PLC needs to bring it’s deficit down, where is all the money going at present?
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2015UKp_14c1li011tcn_F0t
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2015UKb_14c1li111tcn_F0t
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2016UKb_14c1li111mcn_G0t
The table should (well provided I've got it to post correctly) be quite explanatory but from what I’m reading Labour in 1997 – 2000 reduced spending as % of national debt but then gradually ramped it up from that point.
In 1997 it was 37% and in 2010 it was 46%, even before the financial crisis it was 40.61 in 2008 then by the following year it was 45.47.
Regardless of which dates and figures you home in on the bottom line/inescapable truth is that UK PLC needs to bring it’s deficit down, where is all the money going at present?
| Year | NatDebt(bills) | %ChngOnPrevYr | NatDebt %of GDP | %ChngOnPrevYre | Pub Spend (bills) | %ChngOnPrevYre | Pubc Spend % of GDP | %ChngOnPrevYr |
| 1950 | 25.8 | na | 193.89 | na | 4.78 | na | 35.89 | na |
| 1951 | 25.92 | 0.47% | 175.34 | -9.57% | 5.62 | 17.57% | 38.01 | 5.91% |
| 1952 | 25.89 | -0.12% | 161.99 | -7.61% | 6.25 | 11.21% | 39.07 | 2.79% |
| 1953 | 26.05 | 0.62% | 152.16 | -6.07% | 6.58 | 5.28% | 38.41 | -1.69% |
| 1954 | 26.58 | 2.03% | 146.66 | -3.61% | 6.57 | -0.15% | 36.24 | -5.65% |
| 1955 | 26.93 | 1.32% | 138.19 | -5.78% | 6.81 | 3.65% | 34.95 | -3.56% |
| 1956 | 27.04 | 0.41% | 129.03 | -6.63% | 7.36 | 8.08% | 35.1 | 0.43% |
| 1957 | 27.01 | -0.11% | 122.18 | -5.31% | 7.64 | 3.80% | 34.55 | -1.57% |
| 1958 | 27.23 | 0.81% | 118.14 | -3.31% | 8.1 | 6.02% | 35.12 | 1.65% |
| 1959 | 27.38 | 0.55% | 112.44 | -4.82% | 8.57 | 5.80% | 35.21 | 0.26% |
| 1960 | 27.73 | 1.28% | 106.76 | -5.05% | 9.14 | 6.65% | 35.2 | -0.03% |
| 1961 | 28.25 | 1.88% | 103.06 | -3.47% | 10.31 | 12.80% | 37.6 | 6.82% |
| 1962 | 28.67 | 1.49% | 99.87 | -3.10% | 11 | 6.69% | 38.31 | 1.89% |
| 1963 | 29.85 | 4.12% | 98.15 | -1.72% | 11.65 | 5.91% | 38.31 | 0.00% |
| 1964 | 30.23 | 1.27% | 90.97 | -7.32% | 12.74 | 9.36% | 38.35 | 0.10% |
| 1965 | 30.44 | 0.69% | 84.82 | -6.76% | 14.12 | 10.83% | 39.35 | 2.61% |
| 1966 | 31.34 | 2.96% | 82.07 | -3.24% | 15.29 | 8.29% | 40.04 | 1.75% |
| 1967 | 31.99 | 2.07% | 79.41 | -3.24% | 17.49 | 14.39% | 43.43 | 8.47% |
| 1968 | 34.19 | 6.88% | 78.33 | -1.36% | 19.09 | 9.15% | 43.73 | 0.69% |
| 1969 | 33.98 | -0.61% | 72.27 | -7.74% | 19.79 | 3.67% | 42.08 | -3.77% |
| 1970 | 33.08 | -2.65% | 63.99 | -11.46% | 21.6 | 9.15% | 41.77 | -0.74% |
| 1971 | 33.44 | 1.09% | 57.99 | -9.38% | 24.24 | 12.22% | 42.03 | 0.62% |
| 1972 | 35.84 | 7.18% | 55.46 | -4.36% | 26.39 | 8.87% | 40.84 | -2.83% |
| 1973 | 36.88 | 2.90% | 49.48 | -10.78% | 30.55 | 15.76% | 40.98 | 0.34% |
| 1974 | 40.46 | 9.71% | 47.87 | -3.25% | 39.22 | 28.38% | 46.4 | 13.23% |
| 1975 | 46.4 | 14.68% | 43.48 | -9.17% | 51.52 | 31.36% | 48.28 | 4.05% |
| 1976 | 56.59 | 21.96% | 44.81 | 3.06% | 58.46 | 13.47% | 46.3 | -4.10% |
| 1977 | 67.17 | 18.70% | 45.7 | 1.99% | 61.87 | 5.83% | 42.09 | -9.09% |
| 1978 | 79.18 | 17.88% | 46.76 | 2.32% | 71.95 | 16.29% | 42.49 | 0.95% |
| 1979 | 86.88 | 9.72% | 43.61 | -6.74% | 85.17 | 18.37% | 42.75 | 0.61% |
| 1980 | 98.2 | 13.03% | 42.11 | -3.44% | 103.86 | 21.94% | 44.54 | 4.19% |
| 1981 | 113.8 | 15.89% | 44.4 | 5.44% | 116.06 | 11.75% | 45.29 | 1.68% |
| 1982 | 125.2 | 10.02% | 44.55 | 0.34% | 128.04 | 10.32% | 45.56 | 0.60% |
| 1983 | 132.5 | 5.83% | 43.13 | -3.19% | 132.7 | 3.64% | 43.2 | -5.18% |
| 1984 | 143.8 | 8.53% | 43.59 | 1.07% | 140.5 | 5.88% | 42.59 | -1.41% |
| 1985 | 157.2 | 9.32% | 43.45 | -0.32% | 150.9 | 7.40% | 41.71 | -2.07% |
| 1986 | 162.7 | 3.50% | 41.81 | -3.77% | 158.6 | 5.10% | 40.76 | -2.28% |
| 1987 | 167.8 | 3.13% | 39.14 | -6.39% | 164.6 | 3.78% | 38.4 | -5.79% |
| 1988 | 167.4 | -0.24% | 34.98 | -10.63% | 173.6 | 5.47% | 36.28 | -5.52% |
| 1989 | 153.9 | -8.06% | 29.3 | -16.24% | 179.9 | 3.63% | 34.25 | -5.60% |
| 1990 | 152.2 | -1.10% | 26.69 | -8.91% | 200.9 | 11.67% | 35.23 | 2.86% |
| 1991 | 151.3 | -0.59% | 25.27 | -5.32% | 218.2 | 8.61% | 36.45 | 3.46% |
| 1992 | 166.1 | 9.78% | 26.7 | 5.66% | 236.2 | 8.25% | 37.97 | 4.17% |
| 1993 | 202.6 | 21.97% | 30.97 | 15.99% | 259.73 | 9.96% | 39.7 | 4.56% |
| 1994 | 249.8 | 23.30% | 36.05 | 16.40% | 271.54 | 4.55% | 39.18 | -1.31% |
| 1995 | 290 | 16.09% | 39.55 | 9.71% | 289.02 | 6.44% | 39.42 | 0.61% |
| 1996 | 322.1 | 11.07% | 41.2 | 4.17% | 304.33 | 5.30% | 38.93 | -1.24% |
| 1997 | 348 | 8.04% | 41.93 | 1.77% | 308.37 | 1.33% | 37.15 | -4.57% |
| 1998 | 352.9 | 1.41% | 40.14 | -4.27% | 318.43 | 3.26% | 36.22 | -2.50% |
| 1999 | 351.6 | -0.37% | 37.85 | -5.71% | 332.65 | 4.47% | 35.81 | -1.13% |
| 2000 | 345.4 | -1.76% | 35.38 | -6.53% | 340.8 | 2.45% | 34.91 | -2.51% |
| 2001 | 312.4 | -9.55% | 30.58 | -13.57% | 366.09 | 7.42% | 35.83 | 2.64% |
| 2002 | 315.5 | 0.99% | 29.34 | -4.05% | 389.07 | 6.28% | 36.18 | 0.98% |
| 2003 | 347.1 | 10.02% | 30.46 | 3.82% | 420.48 | 8.07% | 36.9 | 1.99% |
| 2004 | 382.8 | 10.29% | 31.84 | 4.53% | 455.07 | 8.23% | 37.85 | 2.57% |
| 2005 | 424 | 10.76% | 33.8 | 6.16% | 491.8 | 8.07% | 39.21 | 3.59% |
| 2006 | 463 | 9.20% | 34.85 | 3.11% | 523.51 | 6.45% | 39.4 | 0.48% |
| 2007 | 500 | 7.99% | 35.57 | 2.07% | 549.4 | 4.95% | 39.08 | -0.81% |
| 2008 | 525 | 5.00% | 36.61 | 2.92% | 582.23 | 5.98% | 40.61 | 3.92% |
| 2009 | 616.9 | 17.50% | 44.26 | 20.90% | 633.81 | 8.86% | 45.47 | 11.97% |
| 2010 | 759.5 | 23.12% | 52.08 | 17.67% | 673.1 | 6.20% | 46.15 | 1.50% |
| 2011 | 905.3 | 19.20% | 60.39 | 15.96% | 694.2 | 3.13% | 46.31 | 0.35% |
| 2012 | 1104 | 21.95% | 71.38 | 18.20% | 694.39 | 0.03% | 44.89 | -3.07% |
| 2013 | 1185 | 7.34% | 75.2 | 5.35% | 673.92 | -2.95% | 42.77 | -4.72% |
| 2014 | 1258 | 6.16% | 76.66 | 1.94% | 713.97 | 5.94% | 43.51 | 1.73% |
| 2015 | 1355 | 7.71% | 78.76 | 2.74% | 731.36 | 2.44% | 42.51 | -2.30% |
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2015UKp_14c1li011tcn_F0t
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2015UKb_14c1li111tcn_F0t
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2016UKb_14c1li111mcn_G0t
no ones saying we don't need to bring it down..i merely made the point that you blind fools blame labour for everything and say the tories have to clean it up..and its bogus..you have seen the figures ..
also my point is the actions of this chancellor made the economy worse..from 2010 .-13..he was a car crash..with the 2012 budget being widely accepted as one of the worst in history?..you can't make mistakes adding to the debt..and keep blaming labour?..now how to get the debt down..im not going through it again..we diver on how to do it..not that it needs to be done!
also my point is the actions of this chancellor made the economy worse..from 2010 .-13..he was a car crash..with the 2012 budget being widely accepted as one of the worst in history?..you can't make mistakes adding to the debt..and keep blaming labour?..now how to get the debt down..im not going through it again..we diver on how to do it..not that it needs to be done!
we'll have to agree to disagree on things, ie especially on labours economic performance after their first term, ramping up spending gdp% to 40.61% even before the crash was bound to cause problems.
I stand by my prev comment ie it was labour who started the snowball rolling down the hill.
ps geerrr! phrase......phrase...phrase with everything running into one
I stand by my prev comment ie it was labour who started the snowball rolling down the hill.
ps geerrr! phrase......phrase...phrase with everything running into one
has anyone done any research on where the money is going?
no finger in the air bullsh&t please, at least attempt to do it properly with links if you want it to be credible.
no finger in the air bullsh&t please, at least attempt to do it properly with links if you want it to be credible.
That required no graphs,research,statistical analysis or investigation hth
Personally I find it hard to decide who is the c&&t of c&&ts, phoney tony or the one eyed jock
I take acception to being called a phoney pawras..ive never knowing told a lie on this forum you may disagree with what ive said...but that's what forums are about...I,ll do what milliband should of done and respond in kind..you are a TAX DODGER!shameless
lol....I take it....you know that....I'm talking about....tony blair
dumb ass! lol I might disagree with you but I have no reason to call you a c&&t
just so you know for future ref
phoney tony = tony blair
one eyed jock = gordon brown
just so you know for future ref
phoney tony = tony blair
one eyed jock = gordon brown
amazing they get away with it.
yet crippen won't say a word..or cj mexico..its fine but a poor granny who gets a extra 50 on the side without declaring gets 6wks inside..one law for....
yet crippen won't say a word..or cj mexico..its fine but a poor granny who gets a extra 50 on the side without declaring gets 6wks inside..one law for....
Total disgrace there by Osbourne. At least all the labour MPS are honest or im sure you would have posted their fiddles.
yeah right.........
2 mins on google shows otherwise
is it true that the only mps to actually end up in jail were labour?
2 mins on google shows otherwise
is it true that the only mps to actually end up in jail were labour?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10462871/Its-no-coincidence-the-MPs-found-guilty-of-fiddling-are-all-Labour.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10462871/Its-no-coincidence-the-MPs-found-guilty-of-fiddling-are-all-Labour.html
The list of MP's that criminal charges were brought against.
David Chaytor Labour
Eric Ilsley Labour
Jim Devine Labour
Elliot Morley Labour
Denis MacShane Labour
Margaret Moran Labour
David Chaytor Labour
Eric Ilsley Labour
Jim Devine Labour
Elliot Morley Labour
Denis MacShane Labour
Margaret Moran Labour
they are as as bad as each other..but none are the chancellor?
Im shocked. I got the impression from reading on here that is was only the Tories who had been caught cheating.
Apr 12, 2015 -- 2:49PM, tony57 wrote:
they are as as bad as each other..but none are the chancellor?
Clearly not or those wouldn't have been the only people criminal charges were brought against.
greasy is chancellor of the exchequer and said "we are all in it together" whilst proving otherwise by fiddling his expenses.
Because some othe MP's were also to be blamed, like Cameron, and Michael Fallon, it does not lessen the the hypocrisy of Greasy.
Because some othe MP's were also to be blamed, like Cameron, and Michael Fallon, it does not lessen the the hypocrisy of Greasy.
so are you willing to comment on the fact labour mps ended up in PRISON for fiddling expenses???? I thought not gutless fk that you are
labour are not highlighting this stunning fact enough that osborne has borrowed more money in 5 years than labour did in 12 years
its being pointed out more every day in the media now though and hopefully on the doorsteps, the truth needs to come out
its being pointed out more every day in the media now though and hopefully on the doorsteps, the truth needs to come out
Perhaps most people realise that it's easier to crank up borrowing and spending than it is to bring it back down again.
I'm sure Labour won't be anxious to debate that fact.
Especially after they opposed every cut the government made except for the bedroom tax.
I'm sure Labour won't be anxious to debate that fact.
Especially after they opposed every cut the government made except for the bedroom tax.
empire - look at the table I posted showing how labour cranked up public spending in hard cash and in terms of % GDP
pawras,..I explained to you the numbers that say labour always spend are bogus,
www.anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2015/02george-osborne-has-created-more-debt-
www.anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2015/02george-osborne-has-created-more-debt-
Tony - I've shown you the actual figures for debt , debt as % of gdp , public spending and public spending as % of gdp from 1950 to 2015 plus the links of exactly where it comes from. Do you deny those figures????
I've posted the actual figures and the links to back it up, someone's 'blog' doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.
I'm not denying we are in the sh&t but don't try and say labour didn't ramp up spending after their first term because I'm afraid they did , it was at 40% even before the crisis
I've posted the actual figures and the links to back it up, someone's 'blog' doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid.
I'm not denying we are in the sh&t but don't try and say labour didn't ramp up spending after their first term because I'm afraid they did , it was at 40% even before the crisis
if you read this guy hes no labour supporter and he gos on obr and government figures..he links you to the gov figures ?
listen do what I did and do some actual research other than links to someone's blog (FFS) , e.g. directly to ons , then you might have an argument re the spending increase after labours second term
i.e. I even traced the data sources of the website I quoted to a government one
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/pubs/Charts-and-Tables-March-2015-Economic-and-fiscal-outlook.xls
i.e. I even traced the data sources of the website I quoted to a government one
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/pubs/Charts-and-Tables-March-2015-Economic-and-fiscal-outlook.xls
in their second term onwards after their first term - I meant
It's been done hundreds of times Tony. In order to get elected Labour agreed to maintain Tory tax and spend plans and after inheriting a stable growing economy obviously the national debt came down. All they had to do was stand back and await the plaudits. The issue is what you do into the face of a growing economy and indeed the back end where a boom comes prior to the bust. If you borrow hundreds of billions at that time (as Labour did 2002-08) then you fully deserve for history to damn you. Especially given they also moved a lot of their spending off the books. We are still crippled by what happened then and nobody has the answer because those were the good times and instead of saving for a rainy day we maxed out the credit card.
Keynes who advocated cyclical budgeting would have been puce with rage.
Keynes who advocated cyclical budgeting would have been puce with rage.
Would this be an example of their spending that didn't show up at the time
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-private-partnerships/public-private-partnerships
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9356532/The-NHS-is-paying-for-Labours-dodgy-deals.html
"Ministers are on the verge of taking over the South London Healthcare Trust, after it proved unable to cope with a bill of more than £60 million a year in interest alone. One of the trust’s three hospitals, the Princess Royal in Bromley, took £118 million to build, yet will cost roughly £1.2 billion. All told, Labour signed 103 PFI deals for the NHS, at a value of £11.4 billion and an eventual price of more than £65 billion. The diversion of that money away from patient care will put inexorable pressure on budgets, to the point where some hospitals will crack under the strain. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-private-partnerships/public-private-partnerships
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9356532/The-NHS-is-paying-for-Labours-dodgy-deals.html
"Ministers are on the verge of taking over the South London Healthcare Trust, after it proved unable to cope with a bill of more than £60 million a year in interest alone. One of the trust’s three hospitals, the Princess Royal in Bromley, took £118 million to build, yet will cost roughly £1.2 billion. All told, Labour signed 103 PFI deals for the NHS, at a value of £11.4 billion and an eventual price of more than £65 billion. The diversion of that money away from patient care will put inexorable pressure on budgets, to the point where some hospitals will crack under the strain. "
It's a pity that tony isn't bit brighter then he might realise what a shellacking he's taking on this thread.
Unfortunately it's all going over his head.
He's as dim as a Toc H lamp.
Unfortunately it's all going over his head.
He's as dim as a Toc H lamp.
Apr 13, 2015 -- 10:32AM, EMPIRE DAY wrote:
labour are not highlighting this stunning fact enough that osborne has borrowed more money in 5 years than labour did in 12 yearsits being pointed out more every day in the media now though and hopefully on the doorsteps, the truth needs to come out
Would have thought that even though Labour think their voters are stupid most of them aren't as stupid to not realise how debt works.
Under the tories its all spend spend spend
where is the money coming from
8 billion for the NHS
7 billion in tax cuts
and now help in buying houses
A tory spinner said its election time
we can lie untill the cows come home
where is the money coming from
8 billion for the NHS
7 billion in tax cuts
and now help in buying houses
A tory spinner said its election time
we can lie untill the cows come home
And it looks like in this situation that Labour are correct.
lampus - maybe they'll cut your jsa down to £50 to pay for it.......
on ian king live (sky news) it was said the IMF now project that Greece will outgrow our economy??lol..next year..only by 0.2% but I can't stop laughing that the tories compared us to Greece and now they may outgrow us next year?
Apr 14, 2015 -- 7:18PM, tony57 wrote:
on ian king live (sky news) it was said the IMF now project that Greece will outgrow our economy??lol..next year..only by 0.2% but I can't stop laughing that the tories compared us to Greece and now they may outgrow us next year?
That's with the expectation that they will leave the Euro and default.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539