Labour Ahead In Economy Poll -By 2% You Gov

coastline

prowla wrote: »

The government sure spent a lot of (our) money, but a lot of it didn't go on improvements.

The fact that they didn't see the crash coming just shows how incompetent they were; people were shouting from the rooftops about the bubble well in advance. The idea that you can continually increase borrowing on the basis that the underlying item's value will continue to increase indefinitely is stupid and unsustainable.

The idea that people can say in hindsight "if only we'd known" is ridiculous.

and the Tory party were just as incompetent if thats the case.
Not once did they say it was reckless to run a budget deficit and add to the national debt.

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

they were increasing spending...then after the financial crash they withdrew their claims..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3477235/David-Cameron-scraps-Labour-spending-plan-to-avoid-borrowing-bombshell.html#

Labour pumped an extra £150bn ?? into the economy over 5 years 2002-2007...many say it was needed as a decade of tight control had left many areas underfunded.
The idea that the national debt should be pegged around 30% of GDP is only a view anyway...whos view is it.??
Labour ran it around 35%...but even if it had been maintained around 30% we would have had a rapid rise in the national debt by 2008 onwards...
Look at the 1990's for example...30% goes up to 45% in a mild recession...we're going through a tougher time now.
So the main topic is this additional £150bn added to the national debt ...10% ?? today...probably another £5bn ?? in interest payments.

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Public Net Debt&year=1980_2011&sname=&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=42.11_44.40_44.55_43.13_43.59_43.45_41.81_39.14_34.98_29.30_26.69_25.27_26.70_30.97_36.05_39.55_41.20_41.93_40.14_37.85_35.38_30.58_29.34_30.46_31.84_33.80_34.85_35.57_36.61_44.26_52.08_59.97&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a[/IMG]

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Suggesting its down to one person is somewhat harsh. While media presence may not be great. Ability to deliver is what matters. So I believe that he's thick skinned enough to shrug off the flack, and get on with the job.

So why do you blame Blair and/or Brown for their mistakes if your beloved Cameron and Osborne cannot be blamed. Is it your Conservative Election Machine kicking into gear?

coastline

N1AK wrote: »

You're right that public opinion was in favour of increased spending but that doesn't allow the government off the hook it just spreads the blame. A governments job is to manage the country not just chase votes.

What makes Labour's behaviour even less excusable is the fact that the current conservative government is doing the unpopular, right, thing and dealing with our finances; what does Labour do? Campaign for more of the irresponsible spending without funding that got us here in the first place.

Politicians...thats all....the Tories would be saying the same.
They were in favour of less banking regulation...now they are calling it the other way around.
Today on PMQ's the prime minister has just said they are trying to help people into council housing...theres 1.8m waiting.
Last night on the news they were saying the government is encouraging tenants to buy the existing stock....at a discount.

N1AK

Moby wrote: »

I think you'd make a perfect tory voter...after all you can't spell 'ideology'!;)

Whereas the typical Labour voter wouldn't understand it

N1AK

coastline wrote: »

Politicians...thats all....the Tories would be saying the same.

In all honesty I think that's largely accurate. There's a lot about the conservatives that I don't like and although their economic policies aren't on that list I accept that they are not vastly better than labour even in that regard.

That said, I'd still prefer the party that makes less mistakes and smaller mistakes until a better option comes along.

Mr_Mumble

Moby wrote: »

Do you not think there would be any consequences from the proposals you put forward above? I mean halving the NHS budget....really! Think about it!

It would bring real NHS spending down to levels around 1990.

The advocates for keeping or increasing NHS spending could well be the folk who are responsible for seeing it cut back significantly.

If the IMF are called in to sort out Britain's dire deficit it will be health services that see the brunt of the cuts. Greece is a good example of this:

The economic crisis in Greece is strangling the country's hospitals, where budgets have been slashed by more than half. As a result, nearly all doctors in both public and private hospitals have seen their pay cut, delayed or even frozen.

Most health spending is an economic luxury and as British politicians don't have the cojones to tell their electorate that they have to cut the biggest service costs which provide the least value for money (NHS and education) they'll leaves it to foreign diplomats.

angrypirate

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

The Deliberate Impoverishment Model for the economy may be dead in the water says The Guardian (a seventies model for a futuristic global economy?) Cameron & Osborne can flap about on the hook as much as they like, but at the end of the day their failure means there are no goodies in the sweetie bag on budget day (except for millionaires tax of course) and as the article says, at the end of the day ... there is always the ballot box and they are totally dependent on that for voter sentiment... oh dear http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/beppe-grillo-may-shake-european-system

Their failure? Its almost certain that the rating would have been downgraded sooner if Labour been at the helm and the deficit would have been bigger

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

angrypirate wrote: »

Their failure? Its almost certain that the rating would have been downgraded sooner if Labour been at the helm and the deficit would have been bigger

It's far from certain.

Lack of growth was the main reason for the downgrade, as without growth the fiscal position and ability to cut the deficit worsens.

Osborne has snatched defeat form the jaws of victory by cutting too far and too fast.

America has spent their way out and are recovering far better than us.

Remember, UK national debt has rarely been lower than it is today.

BobQ

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Definition of idiology :.




(ĭd'ē-ŏl'ə-jē)

1. 1. (n.) Political dogma espoused by anyone whose intellectual credentials are derived solely from his experience in professional sports or the entertainment industry.
   Origins: The contraction of idiot and ideology.

As I said, I don't buy into it.

I had assumed you mage a typing error (we all do it). But now I know you are just making up words I cannot treat your seriously!:rotfl:

http://www.unwords.com/

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Which is why the electorate are retards. This is what happens when you don't save for a rainy day.

Clearly you will never be elected to Parliament with that kind of attitude:T