Yet more Evidence that the Coalition is incompetent

angrypirate

coastline wrote: »

debt is mounting regardless whos in power..

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

That i dont deny. However, you were giving wrong information. I was merely showing that Labour were running an unnecessary reckless deficit in the boom years leaving no money for the bust.

Thrugelmir

Wookster wrote: »

We have our very own version of comical ali here.

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?

Blair argued with Brown in 2005 that public expenditure should be capped. Was the Chancellor that made the call. Seriously getting it wrong.

coastline

angrypirate wrote: »

That i dont deny. However, you were giving wrong information. I was merely showing that Labour were running an unnecessary reckless deficit in the boom years leaving no money for the bust.

not much of a surplus in the last 30 years...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47530000/gif/_47530170_uk_budget2010_466x345.gif

princeofpounds

debt is mounting regardless whos in power..

That's not a particularly meaningful chart. Inflation alone means that you would expect the number to continually increase. The expanding economy also means that it could continue to increase without being a higher overall burden as a % of GDP.

More useful is the chart below. The dip in debt burden after the 97 election of labour is due to their promise to follow tory spending plans (in a similar fashion to the tories not doing much different to what labout would have done after the recent election).

You can see that the sovereign debt burden DOUBLED from that level. So yes, the debt burden went up under both the last tory and labour governments, but the tories decided to, and succeeded, in capping it at 40% of GDP. That helped them get kicked out of office of course. The Blair/Brown labour government (and mostly Brown really) just kept spending and did not stop.

When the banking system got into trouble, their solution (remember the Gordon Brown 'saving the world' episode?) was to spend even more. The public sector GREW during the credit crisis. There never was a recession in the public sector, which is amazing when you think about it. And the state assumed the debt of bailed-out banks, either directly or indirectly.

It's a typical cycle you see over many economies in history. An excess builds up in the banking sector, which makes the economy 'strong'. The government feels confident spending the revenue from this strong economy. Then when it blows up, the government steps in to support things. Things stabilise, but don't get much better. This then transfers a financial sector crisis to being a sovereign debt crisis.

Then there is a private sector credit boom on top of this, which is not so much under the control of a government but you can question if they should have had some kind of role in restraining excesses.

A._Badger

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Blair argued with Brown in 2005 that public expenditure should be capped. Was the Chancellor that made the call. Seriously getting it wrong.

Brown and Balls, don't forget. And the latter imbecile still harbours ambitions to run the exchequer!

coastline

kabayiri wrote: »

No one will admit it, but state jobs cost more than private sector jobs nowadays. Also, there are inbuilt increases as people move up the scale, unaffected by the well publicised pay freeze.

The last government grew the state by over a million jobs, and we are picking up the tab. Profligacy effects can obviously linger.

According to this...Labour added nearly 850,000 public jobs...but left the public/private ratio at 20%...the same as the Tories in 1997.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860

coastline

coastline wrote: »

According to this...Labour added nearly 850,000 public jobs...but left the public/private ratio at 20%...the same as the Tories in 1997.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/how-many-public-sector-jobs-did-labour-create/2860

lloyds bank alone added more than 120,000 in the 850,000.

coastline

angrypirate wrote: »

That i dont deny. However, you were giving wrong information. I was merely showing that Labour were running an unnecessary reckless deficit in the boom years leaving no money for the bust.

Out of £175bn added to the national debt during 2002-2007...£125bn or more was service or interest payments .

angrypirate

coastline wrote: »

Out of £175bn added to the national debt during 2002-2007...£125bn or more was service or interest payments .

Well thats ok then. Im sure Mr Bank Manager would be happy with that as an excuse.....

SERIOUSLY?

THIS MAKES IT WORSE AS ITS A COST THAT COULD HAVE BEEN FACTORED IN PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND JUST SHOWS EVEN MORE HOW INCOMPETENT BROWN WAS AT RUNNING WITHIN BUDGET

Gracchus_Babeuf

kabayiri wrote: »

No one will admit it, but state jobs cost more than private sector jobs nowadays. Also, there are inbuilt increases as people move up the scale, unaffected by the well publicised pay freeze.

The last government grew the state by over a million jobs, and we are picking up the tab. Profligacy effects can obviously linger.

Not true. There are no more 'inbuilt increases as people move up the scale' because there are no more pay scales - there are pay bands with pay rises based on assessed performance, as in the private sector. Very few incremental increases have been awarded in the freeze, and these only to exceptional performers and/or those carrying out a higher role than their grade specifies.