Yet more Evidence that the Coalition is incompetent

Generali

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Because Labour was led by a smiling idiot: Tony Blair. Hopefully the lesson has been learned. But running a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing - we have credit cards and use them, so why can't the state? What is the key here is how the money is used. And Blair wasted it on pointless IT programmes and making UK doctors the best paid in Europe (God knows why). Blair was all show and no substance but the British people voted him in, so doesn't that tell you something?

I'm no more a Labour die-hard than I am a Tory one. My issue is that shutting the door once the horse has bolted won't do any good. What we need is some extreme plan for austerity but a controlled long term project for reducing the debt burden while boosting the economy.

If you can work out such a pain-free plan then a Nobel Prize is yours. The problem is that the mistakes have already been made IMO. There is no simple way out of the current mess, merely a series of potentially least worst options.

Conrad

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

What we need is some extreme plan for austerity but a controlled long term project for reducing the debt burden while boosting the economy.

People are over doing the downside imo just as they over estimated the upside.

There are many indicators that the economy is turning around, which includes;

+ Best balance of trade in a quarter century
+ Big increase in exports to rest of world (Labour were too busy creating divesity committees to worry about such trivia as this)
+ 2 million net new private sector jobs
+ Big increase in self employed numbers (I see this as positive and a sign of a lean mean economy)

+ Best car manufactuing no's since 1970's
+ Concerted and robust approach to apprenteships
+ Cash rich companies (in a way perhaps being less reliant on Bank lending wont turn out so bad).
+ Safe haven effect - yes this is very real indeed and does matter

I am sure we will be quite soon well into boom territory however European downswing does have the potential to hamper this.

coastline

Wookster wrote: »

There is a very simple question that no labour die hard has answered: Why did Labour run a deficit from 2002 to 2007 and leave the public finances in the worst possible state when the credit crunch hit?

There was a budget deficit during that period of around 2% average of GDP...in total probably less than £40bn...
The national debt stands around 1 trillion or more today...the interest on that £40bn wouldn't make a great deal of difference today....£2bn ??
The Tories in 2007 were quite happy to increase spending and went as far as saying they would match Labour...£615bn up to £674bn by 2010.
If the previous 5 year period was such a disaster to the Tories then why didn't they say they would reduce spending..
The links below fit well with what I'm saying...one party was as bad as the other...the answers simple really ...they want to win the election and thats all they are bothered about...the lot of them..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2002_2010UKb_12c1li011mcn_F0t

angrypirate

coastline wrote: »

There was a budget deficit during that period of around 2% average of GDP...in total probably less than £40bn...
The national debt stands around 1 trillion or more today...the interest on that £40bn wouldn't make a great deal of difference today....£2bn ??
The Tories in 2007 were quite happy to increase spending and went as far as saying they would match Labour...£615bn up to £674bn by 2010.
If the previous 5 year period was such a disaster to the Tories then why didn't they say they would reduce spending..
The links below fit well with what I'm saying...one party was as bad as the other...the answers simple really ...they want to win the election and thats all they are bothered about...the lot of them..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2002_2010UKb_12c1li011mcn_F0t

You've got your maths wrong old boy. You are getting debt and deficit confused. 2002 - 2007 running a deficit of £40bn would mean an accrued national debt over that period of £200bn.

coastline

angrypirate wrote: »

You've got your maths wrong old boy. You are getting debt and deficit confused. 2002 - 2007 running a deficit of £40bn would mean an accrued national debt over that period of £200bn.

2% of GDP wouldn't be £40bn per year...public spending in 2002 was less than £400bn..2007 it was £550bn.

angrypirate

Well, lets see. UK GDP was running around the 2.8 trillion USD back in 2007. Call exchange rates 1.6 to the pound, so thats 1.75 trillion GBP per year. 2% of that is 35 billion GBP per year, so yes, thats a deficit of 35GBP per year. So over 5 years, thats 175billion pounds added to the national debt. Now see how reckless the Labour party were?

coastline

angrypirate wrote: »

Well, lets see. UK GDP was running around the 2.8 trillion USD back in 2007. Call exchange rates 1.6 to the pound, so thats 1.75 trillion GBP per year. 2% of that is 35 billion GBP per year, so yes, thats a deficit of 35GBP per year. So over 5 years, thats 175billion pounds added to the national debt. Now see how reckless the Labour party were?

debt is mounting regardless whos in power..

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1980_2007UKb_12c1li011mcn_90tG0t

angrypirate

In fact, lets look at this lovely guardian graph
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
2002 - 19bn
2003 - 35bn
2004 - 37bn
2005 - 42bn
2006 - 31bn
2007 - 34bn
Total = 198bn added to national debt between 2002 and 2007.

coastline

So the fact that the Tories were prepared to spend at the same rate means nothing...no mention of tightening..
I'm not bothered whos in power btw..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

coastline

angrypirate wrote: »

In fact, lets look at this lovely guardian graph
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
2002 - 19bn
2003 - 35bn
2004 - 37bn
2005 - 42bn
2006 - 31bn
2007 - 34bn
Total = 198bn added to national debt between 2002 and 2007.

More than £200bn added by the Tories in the period before...so whats new..

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1980_2007UKb_12c1li011mcn_90tG0t