Point taken- but you get my drift.... :)

 

I get your drift too, but Suedehead2 makes a great point which backs up what I said earlier about people only concentrating on what Lib Dems have not done, rather than what they have.

And of course the fact that Labour had plowed millions into the economy disguised as "Quantitative Easing" (or printing money in olden language) might have had something to do with the appearance of growth as well. This could never had continued but it's Labour's old answer to everything, "the trouble with Labour is that sooner or later they always run out of spending other people's money" not my quote but a very wise person's one. And before anyone brandishes the "He's a tory voter/scum" line I'm not, but on the balance of historical evidence they always the leave the country the same way.

 

I will say that Labour are better historically at providing socially progressive policies (abortion, homosexuality for example) but are shocking on the economic front.

 

Here we are with this fallacy again that the recent economic crisis was all Labour's fault... Seriously, stop it with the misinformation... IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL BANKING CRISIS which necessitated the taxpayer pumping about a trillion into the banks to prop them up, and then, as a "thank you" they f**ked us over and haven't paid back what they owe us.... How could Labour mess up the economies of the US, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland as well ffs...? You're giving Gordon Brown way too much credit here....

 

The banks, wall street and the city are the root causes of this shambles, Governments can be criticised perhaps for being too weak-willed before and after the fact, but the facts are we're suffering now as a consequence of the "liberalisation" policies introduced both here and the US in the 1980s by Thatcher and Reagan.... Remember "Reaganomics"..? Basically, it was an un-stitching of the safe-guards that FDR put in after the Great Depression to stop a banking crisis from ever happening again (which was the cause of the 1929 crash in New York..). And, of course, since the 80s whatever happens in America happens here.... And it makes us all the poorer for it as a society...

 

Here we are with this fallacy again that the recent economic crisis was all Labour's fault... Seriously, stop it with the misinformation... IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL BANKING CRISIS which necessitated the taxpayer pumping about a trillion into the banks to prop them up, and then, as a "thank you" they f**ked us over and haven't paid back what they owe us.... How could Labour mess up the economies of the US, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland as well ffs...? You're giving Gordon Brown way too much credit here....

 

The banks, wall street and the city are the root causes of this shambles, Governments can be criticised perhaps for being too weak-willed before and after the fact, but the facts are we're suffering now as a consequence of the "liberalisation" policies introduced both here and the US in the 1980s by Thatcher and Reagan.... Remember "Reaganomics"..? Basically, it was an un-stitching of the safe-guards that FDR put in after the Great Depression to stop a banking crisis from ever happening again (which was the cause of the 1929 crash in New York..). And, of course, since the 80s whatever happens in America happens here.... And it makes us all the poorer for it as a society...

Your point assumes that Britain was not running a fiscal deficit pre the banking crisis though which it was. This is of course nothing unusual most governments do run fiscal deficits I know, but Britain was in a worse place than most when the crisis hit. The crdit crunch is exactly that it affects those countries that have relied on credit the most, why would a country that has been in "boom" 1993 through to 2007 still be borrowing to fund its schemes? Labour certainly can't wash their hands of it- and least of all the chancellor through the greater majority it. I do however apologise if I give Gordon Brown too much credit, that's something I never want to be accused off again! :D

 

The thing with "Liberalisation" which incidently has facilitied the growth of the wealth of nations much better than any socialist system or protectionism has ever done, is that it is two sided. On the one hand you free people to do as they wish BUT if they fail then you allow them to take the consequences, what we have had in this country is one without the other.

 

I'm not saying that we should have allowed the banks to go to the wall but that is how Libertarianism SHOULD work, so it is not a failure implicit in it's ideology. Labour knew that increasing directly taxation would not only be a broken promise under their 1997 election promises but would also lead to accusations of "same old labour", the thing that the middle classes always, traditionally mis trusted Labour about. So in order to fund their ideas they borrowed instead of taxed, this is the story of Labour 1997-2007 the events of 2007-2010 allowed the situation to spiral quickly out of control but let's not forget this was the man who a) praised the bankers at every opportunity, B) couldn't care less about the chances that were being taken as long as the money rolled in and c) stood with a straight face and told the nation "We have broken the cycle of Boom & Bust"- as David Starkey said- "You put that on an A Level Economics paper you get a FAIL"

Oh dear, someone who actually takes that puffed up old queen Starkey seriously. In any case, though it was wrong for him to say that boom and bust had been ended, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that busts are inevitable. For example, had the regulation of the banks been left in place and the crisis not happened, leading to a failure of lending, we would still presumably be in a growth period...

 

You're also incorrect on us being in a worse position than other countries when the crisis hit - we had the 2nd lowest debt ratio in the G20 in 2007.

Your point assumes that Britain was not running a fiscal deficit pre the banking crisis though which it was. This is of course nothing unusual most governments do run fiscal deficits I know, but Britain was in a worse place than most when the crisis hit. The crdit crunch is exactly that it affects those countries that have relied on credit the most, why would a country that has been in "boom" 1993 through to 2007 still be borrowing to fund its schemes? Labour certainly can't wash their hands of it- and least of all the chancellor through the greater majority it. I do however apologise if I give Gordon Brown too much credit, that's something I never want to be accused off again! :D

 

The thing with "Liberalisation" which incidently has facilitied the growth of the wealth of nations much better than any socialist system or protectionism has ever done, is that it is two sided. On the one hand you free people to do as they wish BUT if they fail then you allow them to take the consequences, what we have had in this country is one without the other.

 

I'm not saying that we should have allowed the banks to go to the wall but that is how Libertarianism SHOULD work, so it is not a failure implicit in it's ideology. Labour knew that increasing directly taxation would not only be a broken promise under their 1997 election promises but would also lead to accusations of "same old labour", the thing that the middle classes always, traditionally mis trusted Labour about. So in order to fund their ideas they borrowed instead of taxed, this is the story of Labour 1997-2007 the events of 2007-2010 allowed the situation to spiral quickly out of control but let's not forget this was the man who a) praised the bankers at every opportunity, B) couldn't care less about the chances that were being taken as long as the money rolled in and c) stood with a straight face and told the nation "We have broken the cycle of Boom & Bust"- as David Starkey said- "You put that on an A Level Economics paper you get a FAIL"

Do you and Osbourne get your economic facts & figures from the same place?

David Starkey isn't an economist, he's a historian. Not only that, he's a historian who specialises on a period long before any of us were born. His views are also very right wing so anything he says has to be treated in context.

Haha now I know what name to drop to get everyone started! I only mentioned him in relation to a comment about boom & Bust- I know he's very right wing but on that point he was bang on. The evidence must speak for itself, is there any econony in the world which has NOT had boom & bust? Perhaps there is a way of avoiding it which we haven't discovered yet but until we do it is unavoidable at present.

 

I don't happen to think the Coalition has done EVERYTHING wrong since it came to power- clearly an unpopular opinion round here but hey ho- nor do I support everything it has done, in many ways I think a Labour Victory would have been the best outcome of the election (it would have been akin to the tory victory of 92 IMO and guaranteed a hefty absense from power after the next election) and then at least they would have to cleared up the mess they left behind.

 

As for the argument had the banks still had the regulations placed on them then this would not happened well to an extent that's true, but considering how much the banks poured into the coffers over those years Labour would not have had as much to spend and therefore they would either have had to borrow even more or tax more to acheive the same doubtful ends. If it was and remains an evil beast to be tamed then it's certainly a beast that ALL governments failed to see coming and doesn't therefore rest on leaders of any country some 30 odd years ago +

 

Very interesting piece in the guardian on the national debt from Jan 2007 and a warning from Vince Cable on what would happen if we did have a recession...here

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by gezza76

Very interesting piece in the guardian on the national debt from Jan 2007 and a warning from Vince Cable on what would happen if we did have a recession...here

 

How unfortunate, then, that Vince Cable never once said the Lib Dems would cut spending at anytime between 1997 and the banking crisis. In fact, neither did the Tories - as recently as 2007, George Osborne said they'd spend atleast as much as Labour in most areas if they were in office, and that they'd spend more than them on health and education. Only when the banking crisis hit, causing the deficit to explode (incidentally, the deficit was 8 times smaller in mid-2007 than it is now), did he change his tune.

 

In any case, Labour WERE cleaning up the "mess" when they left office - the economy was growing quickly and unemployment was falling steadily; now, after the Coalition has been in for just a year, the economy is flatlining and unemployment is even higher than it was 2 years ago in the middle of the crisis. The experiences of Greece and Ireland shows that you can have all the cuts you want, but unless you have economic growth, the deficit won't come down - both those countries have consisently been cutting spending over the last 18 months, only to lead to their economies tanking, the deficit not falling, and repeated bail-outs. And that's the danger of what the Coalition is doing.

I think we need to establish if we can compare our situation to that of Greece, Portugal etc. Whenever the tories do that Labour always say you can't compare the situations it's just ludacris (as in the pop star) but here we are doing it.

I think we need to establish if we can compare our situation to that of Greece, Portugal etc. Whenever the tories do that Labour always say you can't compare the situations it's just ludacris (as in the pop star) but here we are doing it.

 

That's the whole point - we're not comparable to Greece and Portugal NOW, unlike what Osborne says - but we're in danger of being in a comparable situation to them soon, because Osborne is following an identical path to them.

 

Look at this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361930 - it shows the UK's debt levels (which is far more relevant than the deficit) is MUCH lower than Greece/Ireland/Portugal, and in fact is virtually identical to France and Germany (who aren't in any sort of economic crisis and are barely cutting at all)

 

 

I have always known in my heart of hearts that the ConDems were lying about the debt and were using Labour as a convenient scapegoat.

 

Now here is proof they are bull$h!tters of the highest order and from what I can tell, Osborne doesn't have a clue about the simplest of economic policy.

I have always known in my heart of hearts that the ConDems were lying about the debt and were using Labour as a convenient scapegoat.

 

Now here is proof they are bull$h!tters of the highest order and from what I can tell, Osborne doesn't have a clue about the simplest of economic policy.

 

Precisely. Obviously Labour did some things wrong - they kept their fixation with the middle class vote far too long and let the banks get away with far too much. However, even if you do claim it was their mess, they were doing a pretty decent job of dragging us out of it.

 

It did amuse me that Gezza76 compared a Labour win last year to the Tories in '92, especially since he said it could have been a good thing since they'd have sorted it all out. If they continued to deal well with the crisis, do you really think that they'd be on the end of the biggest election swing since 1945 and lose by a landslide at the next election? They'd more likely get an increased majority, the Tories are keeping up with them in the opinion polls now despite making a complete arse out of the recovery.

I have always known in my heart of hearts that the ConDems were lying about the debt and were using Labour as a convenient scapegoat.

 

Now here is proof they are bull$h!tters of the highest order and from what I can tell, Osborne doesn't have a clue about the simplest of economic policy.

 

SPOT ON....

 

The deficit is an illusion... As Johann Hari has pointed out, this country's been in debt since the Industrial Revolution - CAPITALISM RELIES ON DEBT IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, always has done.... So, now all of a sudden, "debt" is a huge issue.... Cobblers....

 

There is no "huge deficit" because this country is OWED money by banks, tax evading b'astards like Vodafone, Tesco, Lord Ashcroft and Philip Green....

Deficit (-) / Surplus (+) of major EU nations (nations with 1 trillion plus GDP) - 2010:

 

United Kingdom 151,001,000 GBP (-10.4% of GDP)

Spain 98,227,000 EUR (-9.2% of GDP)

France 136,525,000 EUR (-7% of GDP)

Italy 71,211,000 EUR (-4.6% of GDP)

Germany 81,630,000 EUR (-3.1% of GDP)

 

So, out of the 5 1 trillion plus economies, Britain does have the highest deficit, but notice how all nations have a deficit here. Now, let's go onto debt:

 

 

Debt of major EU nations (nations with 1 trillion plus GDP) - 2010:

 

Italy 1,843,015,000 EUR (119.0% of GDP)

Germany 2,079,629,000 EUR (83.2% of GDP)

France 1,591,169,000 EUR (81.7% of GDP)

United Kingdom 1,162,365,000 GBP (80.0% of GDP)

Spain 638,767,000 EUR (60.1% of GDP)

 

However, the UK has debt comparable with Germany and France, and Italy is out of it's depth, with debt over GDP levels, that is a country in real difficulty. As Grimly said, most of our debt is in fact owed by internal factions (banks, tax evaders etc.) - Here we see that insurance companies are the ones that will need to cough back the most of it.

 

 

 

 

 

SPOT ON....

 

The deficit is an illusion... As Johann Hari has pointed out, this country's been in debt since the Industrial Revolution - CAPITALISM RELIES ON DEBT IN ORDER TO FUNCTION, always has done.... So, now all of a sudden, "debt" is a huge issue.... Cobblers....

 

There is no "huge deficit" because this country is OWED money by banks, tax evading b'astards like Vodafone, Tesco, Lord Ashcroft and Philip Green....

The deficit is an entirely different matter to debt, many nations in N Europe have no deficit, but have a surplus.

Remember ours is measured in GBP while the others are in Euros - but you have a point.

Remember ours is measured in GBP while the others are in Euros - but you have a point.

GBP has been tracking so close to the Euro in the past few years there's barely any difference.

 

Although in trillions that difference might be worth something :lol: but not enough to push above Germany's total.

 

 

 

 

Our deficit is reasonably big because people/companies don't pay a fair amount of tax when the poorest pay more than their fair share. But our overall debt is actually quite small compared to the west of the western world. [When all in $] so it's a complete fallacy to say we are in financial trouble. Yes there is fat to be trimmed, but these levels of cuts are not necessary and are doing far more harm than good. If anything we should be running a deficit and working to close the tax gap to help fund economic growth and getting this country back up and running to the point where we can actually afford to cut government spending to create a slight surplus or cut taxes slightly.

Hallelujah. Sadly these are all things the previous Labour government should have done. Nationwide tax evasion should never have been allowed to continue and even flourish under their watch. Of course the Tories aren't going to put through any unpopular legislation that would lead to their friends removing their financial support...