Shameless labour

Flyboy152

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How can you even suggest such nonsense?

We had a televised frickin debate. I don't remember that debate following the lines of labour telling us all how everything would eb done and tories and lib dems just saying nothing.

Jesus. Talk about blinkers.

Think I'm gonna have to leave this thread. The denial is too much to take.

That's funny, I do . But nonetheless, having a passing reference to a few polices, in the six weeks running up to an election, I hardly think is the same as presenting a cogent argument, about what their strategy would be, when asked abut them in the House of Commons, is it. The crisis started two thousand and eight, a couple of years before the election, what were their ideas about the economy during that time?

Flyboy152

IronWolf wrote: »

Really? As I read it, they wanted to let the banks go bankrupt, the true free market.

And yet still dodging the question about how you think the economy may have fared, if that was allowed to have happened.

Flyboy152

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The cut off point for me would be Q2 2011 GDP data.

Q1 will be a mish mash of previous and new policies.

Labour collosally screwed up in certain areas. Handing out money like sweets. Free laptops etc. It was all just silly in the end.

Labour also saw large declines in GDP, though this was all blamed on the global economic scene.

What I'd like to see, is those labour supporters continuing to look at the global economic scene, instead of dumping everything they said before, about how our GDP figures were made up of global problems, and simply attacking the tories for a reversal in GDP.

We do have global factors at play again.

I don't have much hope of this actually happening, and completely expect labour supporters to blame the tories for GDP 100%. It would just be nice if that wasn't the case and discussion could actually take place. You can't really blame global factors when your party is in office, then completely blind side the same factors cus the opposition is in party.

Aah, just after the Troy-caused double-dip recession and the economy hs bounced. :think:

Flyboy152

IronWolf wrote: »

Seriously, you need to take more time when reading, or you need some English lessons. He was saying that the countries credit rating being secured was a vote of confidence in the governments economic policies, which it is. He did not take credit for GDP growth.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You need to reflect on how you interpret text.

Wheezy_2

julieq wrote: »

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.

Paul Krugman might disagree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=paulkrugman&adxnnlx=1296048548-Z0RjMxb49cus62JOx38ecg

Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P.

nembot

julieq wrote: »

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.

How much did it cost the tax payer to save the banks at risk, julieq?

Hundreds of billions apparently...

Flyboy152

angrypirate wrote: »

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

We know what the Tories would have done; nothing.

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.

And what about the financial losses from the banks? What would have happened to everybody's money? In case you hadn't realised, the first recession ended in quarter four two thousand and nine. We are well on our way to a new one. Now, what about all those businesses who were relying on the banks for their cashflows? What about the overseas imports, who were relying on the banks for their overdraft facilities? Just a few questions for you to answer, I am sure there are more to come.

Flyboy152

angrypirate wrote: »

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.

Hmm...still avoiding those tricky questions I see.

Flyboy152

Dave101t wrote: »

tories always bail out the country after labour c0ck it up.

No they don't. Their policy was this time to do nothing and let the country go to the dogs. What did they care?

anyone remember the 70's?

Aah yes, the nineteen seventies, I do remember them very well. Your point?

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.

And all the homes that would be repossessed, I suppose the people who would be homeless don't matter, do they?

Wookster

Just another example of Labours inability to responsibility for everything - they even blame the tories when they weren't in power!