We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Question time

123457»

Comments

  • chewmylegoff
    chewmylegoff Posts: 11,469 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Which is fine. Until you remember that for all of this spending binge Labour had less debt than they inherited until the crash forced them to start buying banks.

    public sector net debt went up from £365 billion in 1997 to around £500 billion just prior to the 'acquisition' of northern rock. of course you can talk about this figure as a % of GDP, but that is to specifically ignore the fact that the reason that the increase in GDP was fuelled almost entirely by an increase in consumption off the back of an increase in government, household and corporate debt. anyone trying to argue that labour had less debt than they started with prior to the banking crisis is trying to manipulate, or has themselves been convinced that borrowing to consume is a viable long term economic model.

    Or that Labour ran a surplus for more years of their 13 than the Tories ran in 18.

    and why was that? was it because (i) they inherited a budget that was in balance, and then stuck to the tories' spending plans for the first few years; and (ii) the 3G licence auction.

    once brown got going with his spending plans that was it. he used to trot out his projections at each budget which always showed a return to surplus 5 years in the future. each successive year, the future return to surplus was rolled forward a year. (at least this is my memory of what happened, could just be complete rubbish that my mind has fabricated).
    Or that Cameron's response to Labour's profligate spending was to pledge to match it if elected.

    this is what all politicians seem to do when entering govt - same with labour in 1997. presume it is because it's a combination of (i) lying to get votes (we are nice tories, we care about the NHS we really do) and (ii) laziness.
    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can't erase what was said and done at the time.

    although people don't necessarily agree with each others interpretation of what happened at the time - i expect you will probably not agree with a lot of what i have responded to your post with.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.