Unfortunately labour haven't got the guts to speak out about anything if it thinks it will cost them votes and the grey vote is where most votes come from now as no one really bothers to vote after all that's why pensioners haven't been targeted by cuts.
As for my dreams for a happy retirement I've never had any as it's now not possible to live to day to day and have a nice hefty final salary pension or all that cash from from that lovely house thatcher gave you or where able to buy when you had full scale employment and job security.
The Budget
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Leopardhunter
You seem to be getting confused.
"First of all we were discussing this years Budget and the current situation, do you feel you have so little to say on that that you need to jump back 30 years ? What this graph clearly shows is this......"
I was discussing this year's budget until you posted this "Labour crashed the economy and neither you, Millipede or Balls can fess up to it."
I then explained in response to YOUR post why I think Labour did not "crash the economy" and were in fact, more prudent generally than the Tories.
Now to address this post.
"Look at 78/79 through to 87/88 Thatcher bringing the debt ratio down and into surplus (contrary to your earlier fabrication) a tory surplus."
Nothing I have said in any post in this thread is a "fabrication" If you believe that, you have misunderstood my post. If you want to say what my "fabrication" is I will correct your understanding.
"Before Labour got in in 97 Brown said he would follow the Tory spending plans for 3 years, and he did, that's why you see another Tory surplus in 99/00. As soon as he had a free hand up it started going, it's all there in the chart."
No it isn't. If you go back to the chart I provided a link to, you will see for the period that Major was in power in terms of full years
1991- 96 6 years in all. The total public deficit for those years was about 224 bn.
If you then compare that with 2002-2007 - 6 years in all. The total public deficit for those years was about 203 billion.
So it is beyond question that prior to the GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, the Labour government was more prudent that the preceding Major government and both your graph and mine illustrate that point, backed up with the actual deficit figures which I quote above.
I notice you do not reply at all to that part of my post which illustrates what a failure Osborne is in terms of meeting his own goals i.e. promising to reduce the deficit to a value which is almost half of what the actual deficit is; stressing how the cornerstone of his policy was to keep the triple A credit rating etc. etc.
"First of all we were discussing this years Budget and the current situation, do you feel you have so little to say on that that you need to jump back 30 years ? What this graph clearly shows is this......"
I was discussing this year's budget until you posted this "Labour crashed the economy and neither you, Millipede or Balls can fess up to it."
I then explained in response to YOUR post why I think Labour did not "crash the economy" and were in fact, more prudent generally than the Tories.
Now to address this post.
"Look at 78/79 through to 87/88 Thatcher bringing the debt ratio down and into surplus (contrary to your earlier fabrication) a tory surplus."
Nothing I have said in any post in this thread is a "fabrication" If you believe that, you have misunderstood my post. If you want to say what my "fabrication" is I will correct your understanding.
"Before Labour got in in 97 Brown said he would follow the Tory spending plans for 3 years, and he did, that's why you see another Tory surplus in 99/00. As soon as he had a free hand up it started going, it's all there in the chart."
No it isn't. If you go back to the chart I provided a link to, you will see for the period that Major was in power in terms of full years
1991- 96 6 years in all. The total public deficit for those years was about 224 bn.
If you then compare that with 2002-2007 - 6 years in all. The total public deficit for those years was about 203 billion.
So it is beyond question that prior to the GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, the Labour government was more prudent that the preceding Major government and both your graph and mine illustrate that point, backed up with the actual deficit figures which I quote above.
I notice you do not reply at all to that part of my post which illustrates what a failure Osborne is in terms of meeting his own goals i.e. promising to reduce the deficit to a value which is almost half of what the actual deficit is; stressing how the cornerstone of his policy was to keep the triple A credit rating etc. etc.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Leopardhunter
"The chart shows that Labour never reduced borrowing, they only ever raised it."
Nonsense. Look at the surplus figures for the first four years of the Labour government. They reduced borrowing from the Major years. You are obviously wrong in the statement "Labour never reduced borrowing".
To take the view that any time Labour run a surplus it's down to the Tory plans is laughable.
"There may have been a surge in borrowing under Major, that was because there was a recession caused by Tom Foolery with the ERM, "
In other words, Tory financial incompetence then.
"what was Labours excuse for increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2008, a period during which there was uninterrupted continuous growth ?"
Well despite Thatcher and Major selling off the taxpayers' assets, basically anything that wasn't nailed down, they failed to invest in infrastructure such as the NHS, education. According to the independent King's Fund, the NHS was close to complete collapse in terms of infrastructure.
During the period 2002 to 08 Labour attempted to correct the devastation caused by Thatcher and Major. The collapse of heavy industry in the north under Thatcher resulted in the area being laid waste. Labour attempted to revive the area with huge infrastructure projects which completely transformed the likes of Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester.
"The Tories have shown how they can get borrowing under control, just look at the graph, 86/87 and 96/97, borrowing REDUCED to near zero and surplus by Tories."
Obviously you are wrong. Thatcher and Major never achieved a surplus for 4 successive years as Labour did, despite having an IT boom and selling off everything that the taxpayer owned at a knockdown rate to their mates in the city e.g. the utilities, railways, shipbuilding etc etc.
Nonsense. Look at the surplus figures for the first four years of the Labour government. They reduced borrowing from the Major years. You are obviously wrong in the statement "Labour never reduced borrowing".
To take the view that any time Labour run a surplus it's down to the Tory plans is laughable.
"There may have been a surge in borrowing under Major, that was because there was a recession caused by Tom Foolery with the ERM, "
In other words, Tory financial incompetence then.
"what was Labours excuse for increasing borrowing from 2002 to 2008, a period during which there was uninterrupted continuous growth ?"
Well despite Thatcher and Major selling off the taxpayers' assets, basically anything that wasn't nailed down, they failed to invest in infrastructure such as the NHS, education. According to the independent King's Fund, the NHS was close to complete collapse in terms of infrastructure.
During the period 2002 to 08 Labour attempted to correct the devastation caused by Thatcher and Major. The collapse of heavy industry in the north under Thatcher resulted in the area being laid waste. Labour attempted to revive the area with huge infrastructure projects which completely transformed the likes of Liverpool, Newcastle and Manchester.
"The Tories have shown how they can get borrowing under control, just look at the graph, 86/87 and 96/97, borrowing REDUCED to near zero and surplus by Tories."
Obviously you are wrong. Thatcher and Major never achieved a surplus for 4 successive years as Labour did, despite having an IT boom and selling off everything that the taxpayer owned at a knockdown rate to their mates in the city e.g. the utilities, railways, shipbuilding etc etc.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Leopardhunter
"The point is, we aren't going to take any lectures about debt not being reduced fast enough from the party whose only achievement was to increase it during the boom years."
The point I am making which you appear to have missed has nothing to do with Labour.
Osborne gave a number of targets for his economic policy in 2010. He has failed them all. By his own targets, he is a complete failure. Nothing to do with Labour policy at all.
The point I am making which you appear to have missed has nothing to do with Labour.
Osborne gave a number of targets for his economic policy in 2010. He has failed them all. By his own targets, he is a complete failure. Nothing to do with Labour policy at all.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Leopardhunter
Once again you are wrong. Brown in the campaign for the 1997 election committed to Tory spending plans for the first two years.
Still doesn't explain why Labour kept in surplus for four years running and overall ran a deficit below that of Major until the GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE came along..
Still doesn't explain why Labour kept in surplus for four years running and overall ran a deficit below that of Major until the GLOBAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE came along..