Cons Increase Deficit & National Debt Targets Missed

GeorgeHowell

BobQ wrote: »

Well if we are still blaming Labour for everything now, this happened 2.5 years into a Labour administration following a period of Tory stewardship.:D

The comment about '79 was an aside, though it has given rise to much discussion. I'm much more concerned about the recent past. If Labour had got back in then certainly by now either we would be in hock to the IMF or whoever, or they would have had to do what this government has had to do, and at least staunch the bleeding that they created. Their alleged Plan B, that you can somehow stimulate growth overnight without increasing public spending unaffordably is a complete myth and they have not a clue how they would do it if they had to. But they say it because it is what a lot of people want to hear -- the lure of the easy way out.

BertieUK

BobQ wrote: »

Well if we are still blaming Labour for everything now, this happened 2.5 years into a Labour administration following a period of Tory stewardship.:D

I think that they will always blame Labour if they cannot find a resolve that works themselves.

When you blame others, you give up your power to change, then it is too late.

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

I think that they will always blame Labour if they cannot find a resolve that works themselves.

When you blame others, you give up your power to change, then it is too late.

Labour cannot afford to accept the blame. If it did and if people capable of doing so took notice, thought it through, and voted with heads and not hearts, it would never get elected to office again (or at least not until nobody was around to remember)

BertieUK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Labour cannot afford to accept the blame. If it did and if people capable of doing so took notice, thought it through, and voted with heads and not hearts, it would never get elected to office again (or at least not until nobody was around to remember)

If a person can hold their hands up and admit that they have made mistakes, surely this must be aknowleged that this person has the guts to tell the truth and admit, usually this is a sign of strength not weakness. Or am I in the past George?

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

Thats the beauty of their system, they dont select people on the basis of popularity, they select people to lead who have that ability to do the best for the nation.

The important question you need to ask is "in 50 years, who will hold global hegemony"? having seen the extent of Chinas global resource holdings (much acquired whilst we have been squabbling about ooman rites in the middle east and 'fighting for democracy') I bet its not the West.

is this ironic?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PaulF81 wrote: »

The important question you need to ask is "in 50 years, who will hold global hegemony"?

I bet its not the West.

It won't be China either.

That one child policy is about to bite them badly.

The demographics for China look quite frankly horrific after 2035, and their demographic, and hence economic, nightmare starts as soon as 2020....

A long and painful economic decline awaits China, and it'll take down much of the Asia/Southern Pacific region with it.

PaulF81

You are forgetting Hamish, they arent bound by socialist nonsense like state benefits and pensions.

They will trounce us. Whilst the rest of the globe will be squabbling over the scraps the chinese have left, they will have a robust, educated workforce that is second to none in terms of competitiveness.

The globe CANNOT support continued exponential growth in population. At some stage, the buck stops. As we are seeing here, it has already started.

DecentLivingWage

Cameron & Osborne threw away Labour's plan to halve the deficit over 4 years hoping against hope that deeper and faster tax rises and spending cuts would clinch the recovery Labour began and also reduce the deficit. Labour says this blunder has backfired snuffing out the sparks of recovery and increasing long-term unemployment.Now the Cons need to borrow £212bn more than they budgeted for to pay for economic failures like a huge rise in claimants, joblessness and people too scared to spend and keep others in work. Now the fiscal deal is close in the US will their mistakes be spotlighted against US pulling ahead - that fiscal deal may not be such good news for the Cons here!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/31/osborne-deficit-cuts-will-not-meet-labour-target

chris_m

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That one child policy is about to bite them badly.
The demographics for China look quite frankly horrific after 2035, and their demographic, and hence economic, nightmare starts as soon as 2020....

It's already started - they've already got 1/8 of the population over 60 and have just passed a law requiring people to visit elderly parents. The one-child policy has fequently resulted in parents remaining where they always were but their only child having had to move a long way away for work on the industrial centres. With a larger family (say 2-3 kids) it would have been more likely that at least one would be able to stay near the parents.

DecentLivingWage

Here's why the deficit increased (from Ramesh Patel Huffington Post) :

' in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it's implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html?utm_hp_ref=tw