Shameless labour

nembot

LauraW10 wrote: »

Oh dear wookster are you starting to realise the dreadful truth that the Tories don't know what they're doing!

Perhaps you don't understand there was no infinite pot of money for Labour to borrow from?

It's a little naive to suggest we're in this position due to the coalitions short time in office, it'll take years to turnaround the Labour governments mess!!

angrypirate

Flyboy152 wrote: »

What would have been the result if they had taken the Tory's advice and done nothing?

So this old argument - what would the tories have done? Right now, we are where we are thanks to Labour (ie in a mess).

To answer your question its a matter of opinions. Had the Tory's been in power and done nothing, then the budget deficit would have been lower, inflation would have been lower but interest rates would have been higher. Also, i imagine national debt would have been a lot lower going into the recession.

I imagine the recession would have been worse but would have been a lot lot quicker. We are now in a position where, thanks to labour, this recession is probably going to trundle along now for a number of years.

angrypirate

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But then isn't funny how the Tories were asked for two years about what they would do, but answers came there none.

Its also funny how before those two years, the Tories came out with policies only for Labour to nick them, tweak them and use them for their own.

Dave101t

tories always bail out the country after labour c0ck it up. anyone remember the 70's?
oh, and the 15% interest rates of the early 90's? seen as terrible at the time, but if we had those now, think of the encouragement that would give savers, rewarded for a changed instead of raped of their savings. well done labour and their small minded supporters.

julieq

The depressing part about this is how readily people seem to believe that what we're doing now is paying off bank deficits to save banks. In fact we're not, the banks are making money by and large and the large scale losses feared didn't materialise.

What we're doing is paying for public sector growth way beyond the capacity of the private sector to pay for it. It was running away before the crisis, but nothing had been stashed away against bad times because boom and bust had been abolished.

If public money has now been spent, you get to pay for it in reduced standard of living. If you want more of the public sector, then you share the cost. It's called fairness. You can't pay for the level of deficit Labour were running by hoping there are enough rich bankers to tax until their pips squeak.

IronWolf

Its hard to speculate on what would have happened if we had let the banks fail, the losers would have been those with money in those banks, and the government would have had to cough up a lot of money to cover the guaranteed savings, but there still would be a lot of p*ssed off people in the country who lost a lot of money through no fault of their own. So it was either a proportion of the population bear the brunt of the losses, along with a lot of businesses, or the tax payer shared out the losses equally.

Im not opposed to the bail out in theory, but I cannot agree with how it has turned out, the government should have imposed some very strict sanctions for the bailed out banks, who cares if it would make them "uncompetetive", they lost every right to be competetive when they failed, they should be dead and buried in the ground, they have failed in the free market and deserve nothing more than to be bankrupt. The fact that the government bailed them out is not to save the company, its to save the rest of the country from suffering for their mistakes. IMO the government should bleed these banks dry for every £ they can recover from paying off their black holes of debt.

wolvoman

ninky wrote: »

out of interest, how long do people think it will be before the coalition can't blame the last labour government? 1 year? or a decade? presumably if there is a recovery then it will also be due to "the last labour government"...or is it just the bad things that are their fault?

If you had take home pay of £20,000 a year but owed £40,000 and was still overspending by £5,000 a year and not forecast to stop overspending until your debt reached £60,000 in 5 years time - how long do you thibnk it would take to recover?

That is what Gordon Brown left us with.

StevieJ

Dave101t wrote: »

tories always bail out the country after labour c0ck it up. anyone remember the 70's?
oh, and the 15% interest rates of the early 90's? seen as terrible at the time, but if we had those now, think of the encouragement that would give savers, rewarded for a changed instead of raped of their savings. well done labour and their small minded supporters.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, the mess of the 70's was caused by Teddy boy (even Tories with something between their ears recognise that). Oh and the 15% interest rates that we had in the 80's & 90's were a result of firstly the ill considered Lawson boom (and DM shadowing) closely followed by joining the ERM (think Euro
:eek:) and only recovering the situation by getting booted out. I won't bother with the antics of The Demon Barber in the 70's
Tell you what get back to your Daily Mail.

AndyGuil

dori2o wrote: »

You are aware that before the current Government started sqatting in No10, that the countrys economy was in growth growing by 1.1% in the first quater of they year, with the defecit decreasing faster than expected. Yet 9 months after Dave and Nick decided to cohabit, the defecit has risen, and the economy is now back in decline.

Make of it what you will.

Artificially risen by unsustainable QE and spending racking up even more debt. Now it has been stopped you can see how unsustainable it really was.

avantra

IronWolf wrote: »

Labour can't take credit for huge growth, particularly in financial services. If I remember correctly, it was the CONSERVATIVES who restructured the economy towards financial services, and transformed it from a stagnating farce into one of growth.

And look what happened when Labour got in charge, they just rode the FS industry, didnt care about how it was making its money "on paper" and the huge black holes that were hidden on balance sheets using flawed predictions.

As always, the Tories do things in the long term interest of the country, at the price of the present, and Labour just live in the now, and take credit for the long term Tory policies that pay off.

Well said, it's preety much how I see it as well, Tory=long run Tony's: short run.

What this country stopped appreciating long time ago is stabillity over political agenda. The truth is somewhere in the middle.