Labour goes back to its roots.

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I wanted figures. Please give me Net debt as a percentage of GDP. Lets have 1997 when they took over, 2001 when they started spending, and 2007 when the crash started. I wanted numbers, not slogans like "massive".

Come on you lot, I know the numbers, do you? "The boom" ran from what, 1995? So how much did debt increase "massive"ly during the boom?

At the end of the last Tory boom it was about 25%, then went up to the dizzy heights of 45% because of the bust.

Rochdale_Pioneers

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

At the end of the last Tory boom it was about 25%, then went up to the dizzy heights of 45% because of the bust.

We're heading towards some numbers I am sure. But lets take that point. Lawson's budget of 88 fuels vast inflationary boom which quickly pops, so 20% is added onto net debt. As I understand it the numbers are 35% to 55% btw - we haven't been down to 25% for a century. Anyway, we pay this off so that by 2001 we're back to 35%. Can anyone tell me how much debt was at the start of the mid 90s boom, at the start of Labour's tenure and in 2007 when the crash started? I've just given you the low point before Brown started spending.

We're now in what everyone recognises as the worst crash since the Great Depression. Our debt position was worsened by 40% as we spend cash to keep the banking system afloat. As with the last recession and the large increase in debt we will pay it off over time. And we'll do so just like the last one without slashing services and panicking.

Incidentally, 40% would have been added to debt regardless of what happened in the half decade prior to the crash. Lets pretend that Brown did what no chancellor had done for a century and had reduced debt down to below 30%. We'd still be looking to pay off the additional 40% no matter where we were starting from.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We WOULD be in recession for ages if you stung growth to pay for the losses.

Labour has been taxing growth for how long now? And this has got us where?

As for didnt fix the roof while the sun was shining, this also includes legislation. Gordon created the most de-regulised financial industry we have known for god knows how long.

Not deregulated enough for the Tory party though :rotfl:

Mortgage Regulation: We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.


http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-would-you-do-if-1232.html

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Incidentally, 40% would have been added to debt regardless of what happened in the half decade prior to the crash.

An extra 40% will be added between now and the end of the crash according to the rose-tinted-specs brigade at the Treasury.

How much of this is just the natural continuation of the deficits being run at the end of the boom, and how much of it is additional due the fact that this won't be an ordinary run-of-the-mill predictable recession, but a very very bad one.


I'd say the a normal recession would put us somewhere in the 'yellow' zone. Going from there to the top of the purple bit adds ~20% of GDP, I'd say.

So I'd roughly split that 40% deterioration of debt vs GDP as:
1) ~20% continued unsustainable spending in a 'normal' recession
plus
2) ~20% extra because this is a particularly nasty one

Whatever way you cut it, this does not compare favourably to the previous cycle which was in itself a complete flipping stinkpile. Oh dear.

Rochdale_Pioneers

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Whatever way you cut it, this does not compare favourably to the previous cycle which was in itself a complete flipping stinkpile. Oh dear.

Whatever way you cut it its also a distraction away from my original challenge. I want one of you to back up the claim that the roof wasn't fixed - that debt wasn't reduced during the boom.

Perhaps you are all struggling to back it up because its a blatant lie.

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Whatever way you cut it its also a distraction away from my original challenge. I want one of you to back up the claim that the roof wasn't fixed - that debt wasn't reduced during the boom.

Perhaps you are all struggling to back it up because its a blatant lie.

You're inviting a comparison between debt at the end of a bust and debt at the end of a boom.

It went up in £ terms, but down as a percentage of GDP. Adjusted for the cycle, it went up considerably whatever way you look at it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

You're inviting a comparison between debt at the end of a bust and debt at the end of a boom.

No, thats what you frothers are doing when you accuse the govenment of "not fixing the roof". The accusation is that nothing was done to clear debt during the long period of growth and its utter cobblers. Debt was paid off consistently from 1994 - 2001 as attested by the greatly dropping % of GDP that was debt. Even with the investment spending post 2001 net debt was still lower than it was both in 1997 when Labour took office and in 1994 when ken Clarke got things back on an even keel.

So what is the accusation? That Brown didn't continue to pay down more debt lower than the 35% it hit in 2001? When was the last time debt was that low (*cough pre-WWI*)? Name me another government who has done that? It seems that the accusation is that Brown failed to do what every other Chancellor failed to do.

Normally borrowing went back up as the economy tanked - oil crises, strikes, inflationary boom and bust, whatever - in this case it went up to spend money on something that actually matters. Such trauma.

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

No, thats what you frothers are doing when you accuse the govenment of "not fixing the roof". The accusation is that nothing was done to clear debt during the long period of growth and its utter cobblers. Debt was paid off consistently from 1994 - 2001 as attested by the greatly dropping % of GDP that was debt. Even with the investment spending post 2001 net debt was still lower than it was both in 1997 when Labour took office and in 1994 when ken Clarke got things back on an even keel.

So what is the accusation? That Brown didn't continue to pay down more debt lower than the 35% it hit in 2001? When was the last time debt was that low (*cough pre-WWI*)? Name me another government who has done that? It seems that the accusation is that Brown failed to do what every other Chancellor failed to do.

Normally borrowing went back up as the economy tanked - oil crises, strikes, inflationary boom and bust, whatever - in this case it went up to spend money on something that actually matters. Such trauma.

According to your figures net debt was 35% of GDP after the 90s, compared to what 44% at the end of this boom?

Also according to your figures net debt peaked at 55% of GDP after the 90s bust (thought the national statistics website is telling me 42%), compared to 79% forecast by the current lot.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the Tories and I think they messed things up in a big way. So you'd hope the comparison would be a favourable one...

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Not deregulated enough for the Tory party though :rotfl:

Mortgage Regulation: We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk.


http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-would-you-do-if-1232.html

One tiny paragraph, pulled from "somewhere" with no reference to the rest of the wording, or date, and used as a lib dems point to have a go at an MP?

It's about as amateurish as quoting select text from posts on here without taking any notice of anything else said.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Whatever way you cut it its also a distraction away from my original challenge. I want one of you to back up the claim that the roof wasn't fixed - that debt wasn't reduced during the boom.

Perhaps you are all struggling to back it up because its a blatant lie.

Ok, easy.

If the roof WAS fixed. Howcome we are left with no money while other nations are.

You are asking for this evidence, because you know, because of the vast measure included in "the roof being fixed" there is not one single piece of evidence that can be used, which will prove you wrong.

That's why you keep asking for it.

So, I shall revert the question to you.

If the roof was indeed fixed, howcome the labour party had to re-write their own fiscul rules and go past 40% GDP?

If the roof was fixed, surely this wouldn't be needed?