Cannot believe it. Ed Milliband preaches about a generation priced out.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But labour WERE in power and WERE running the defecit.

There is a difference.

I don't believe it's politics to just misrepresent continually? Labour ran a very clever misresprestation campaign on the forests stuff. Sure, the forests stuff isn't the biggest issue on our hands, but they have been able to totally misrepresent the whole issue, and have been succesful. Trouble is, the whole country then doesn't move forward.

I've not seen a party completely misrepresent an issue and completely misrepresent the actual policy before. Well, not since the Damien Green thing.

So the banking crisis had no effect. Why do the Tories say Labour won't cut the deficit not they would cut it slower. If you can’t see that all side misrepresent what the others say then you must be very short sighted.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

So the banking crisis had no effect. Why do the Tories say Labour won't cut the deficit not they would cut it slower. If you can’t see that all side misrepresent what the others say then you must be very short sighted.

You are filling my mouth with words.

ukcarper

Quote:
“On a visit to Gateshead, Mr Miliband said the UK had its own version of the "American dream" - that each generation will enjoy more opportunities than the previous one.

Speaking ahead of the speech, the Labour leader, who hosted a meeting of his shadow Cabinet in the north-east, said: "The problem is that the government has no plan for growth. The Confederation of British Industry have said they've no plan for growth, and actually they're kicking away the ladders from young people in this country who are the future growth of our economy.

"When you're abolishing plans to help young people back to work who are unemployed, or trebling tuition fees, then you don't have a plan for growth, you're kicking away those ladders."

Tell me what’s not true about the above statement or tell me what the Tories are doing for you people.

TheSaint_2

Bring back Maggie - someone get some DNA and clone her, then fill every position in govt with a maggie clone!

We want maggie (let me hear you chant!!).



You make your choice ->

Vote labour, get high taxes, high spending, nanny state and debt debt and more debt.
Vote Tory, get lower taxes (but not low enough!), lower spending, a take care of yourself attitude, but then also the "i'm rich and don't care" attitude toward the rest of us.

You can't win really, but personally I choose the lower taxes and lower debt option as it is less painful for me.
Lets not forget Labour raised taxes how many times while in govt? 3 or 4 times to national insurance to avoid breaking their "promise" on income tax (bah!). And then there are all the other stealth taxes.
At least we are getting a bit back already from the tories by way of higher personal tax allowance, though I wait with baited breath to see if the rest of their promises come good once the labour mess, sorry I mean deficit is sorted out.

Cast your minds back, Labour bankrupted the country last time they were in power too...

StevieJ

TheSaint wrote: »

Cast your minds back, Labour bankrupted the country last time they were in power too...

No they didnt, in fact Labour did quite a good job in the mid to late 70's repairing the damage of one of the worst govts that has ever been in power, I am talking about the Heath/Barber boom, recession, 3 day week, house price crash, incomes policy, oh and Bloody Sunday - was this over 13 years? no it was over 4 years. BTW Labour had to visit the IMF for a loan to repair some of the damage, and as I believe due to good stewardship from Healey (the chancellor) they never actually used it. The only problem the Labour govt had was being let down (not for the first time) by the Trade Unions and the winter of discontent, without which Thatcher would not have seen the light of day.
While we are at it we should look at the time before that 1964 -1970, what were the balance of payments like over those years,

Balance of payments 1964 -376 1967 -298 1970 +579

Interesting it seems that the Labour devaluation in 1967, transformed the economy, seen as a embarrassment at the time and almost certainly should have been done much earlier under Tory rule. I am under the impression that Roy Jenkins was probably one of the greatest ever chancellors.

I think we can give the Tory party tremendous credit for one thing, that is the power of their myth making machine, witnessed by that post above

Wookster

ukcarper wrote: »

So the banking crisis had no effect. Why do the Tories say Labour won't cut the deficit not they would cut it slower. If you can’t see that all side misrepresent what the others say then you must be very short sighted.

Well here is the graph you're looking for:



You will notice that the from about 2001 spending steadily increased until the interventions (rescuing the banks).

An increase in debt means running a deficit

Wheezy_2

Wookster wrote: »

Well here is the graph you're looking for:



You will notice that the from about 2001 spending steadily increased until the interventions (rescuing the banks).

An increase in debt means running a deficit

So net debt was lower in 07-08 than it was in 98?
Or am I reading your chart wrongly?

StevieJ

Wheezy wrote: »

So net debt was lower in 07-08 than it was in 98?
Or am I reading your chart wrongly?

Well spotted, not obvious is it

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Well spotted, not obvious is it

You giving labour the credit for that?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You giving labour the credit for that?

Credit for what? Spending less & raising more tax than the Cons they took over from?

Funny how people interpret information to suit their own idea of what went wrong.

I take you back to my previous comment. The Cons would of also deregulated if they would of won. Only loose change sets them apart except for the damage the Tories are doing to future tax revenue.

& by the way. We still own parts of big banks. That is an asset not a deficit.