"Cost of living crisis" nonsense

Fella

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The Labour Party makes you pretty angry, doesn't it Fella.

I actually detest virtually all politicians since almost none of them can string two words together without lying. However the current Labour party, chiefly ruled by Brown's loathsome former inner-circle are a particularly obnoxious bunch. And unlike the Tories they don't even have the saving grace of being at least semi-literate economically.

Labour caused incredible damage to the economy in the years leading to 2010 & that pain will be felt most by the very people they claim to represent. All the while they'll be trying to claim some kind of moral high ground for their ruinous over-spending of other peoples money.

To say they make me angry would be putting it mildly.

Generali

lemonjelly wrote: »

The large increase in use of/need for foodbanks would suggest that people could be, were charitable support not there.

So food banks...what changed?

Food banks were unheard of in 2007 yet were everywhere by 2010. Benefits weren't cut, wages went down a little in real terms but not by that much.

What did change was that you couldn't borrow money so easily. People were required to pay down short term debt for the first time in a decade. I suspect that food banks are simply chickens coming home to roost.

Fella

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think the point being made by rugged, is that a government is supposed to be for the people, not for big business.

But that is just a nonsensical statement.

The "people" rely 100% on big business. They need big business to thrive like never before if we're to have any chance of repairing the damage done to the economy.

We need big business, for jobs, for the products they produce, for tax revenue, for pensions. To try to represent the people without doing everything you can to help big business is a crass concept.

In fact one of the main failings of this fairly gutless coalition is that they haven't done nearly enough to help business.

CLAPTON

Fella wrote: »

Labour caused incredible damage to the economy in the years leading to 2010 & that pain will be felt most by the very people they claim to represent. All the while they'll be trying to claim some kind of moral high ground for their ruinous over-spending of other peoples money.

To say they make me angry would be putting it mildly.

the budget deficit in 2007 was similar to that in 1997 (after 17 year of conservative government)

perhaps both were ruinous over-spending of other people's money?


the money spent due to the banking crisis was necessary and continued by the coalition.

michaels

I mentioned elsewhere that labour would vey quickly forget that the issue is the cyclically adjusted budget deficit not the nominal value and claim that any reduction in the deficit was the opportunity for more spending.

Fella

CLAPTON wrote: »

the budget deficit in 2007 was similar to that in 1997 (after 17 year of conservative government)

perhaps both were ruinous over-spending of other people's money?


the money spent due to the banking crisis was necessary and continued by the coalition.

Lol, it makes me laugh when people still try to blame the banking crisis for the problems Labour caused.

Brown overspent on a monumental scale & it was masked because of the revenue generated by the credit BOOM. The credit crunch wasn't the cause of any problems, it was just the inevitable bust after the boom. A competent chancellor would have reigned in spending during the boom years & not suffered nearly as much during the bust. Anyone who's seen Joseph & the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat can tell you that.

Brown & Labour increased the state & spent money like water, mainly in ways designed to buy votes. We're all paying for that now.

CLAPTON

Fella wrote: »

Lol, it makes me laugh when people still try to blame the banking crisis for the problems Labour caused.

Brown overspent on a monumental scale & it was masked because of the revenue generated by the credit BOOM. The credit crunch wasn't the cause of any problems, it was just the inevitable bust after the boom. A competent chancellor would have reigned in spending during the boom years & not suffered nearly as much during the bust. Anyone who's seen Joseph & the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat can tell you that.

Brown & Labour increased the state & spent money like water, mainly in ways designed to buy votes. We're all paying for that now.

browns 'overspending' in 2007 was the same level of overspending as that of 1996/7 under the conservatives
thereafter was spent to overcome the financial crisis which continues today.

maybe that level of spending was designed to buy votes and we a still paying for it now.

I'm amazed at your unique view that the banking crisis wasn't a problem... maybe time for that child to come to your rescue.

Fella

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm amazed at your unique view that the banking crisis wasn't a problem... maybe time for that child to come to your rescue.

I'm not in the slightest bit amazed that you're one of the people who'd like to blame everything on the banking industry. It's awfully convenient for you. However there are those of us who don't spin (or believe) the Labour party line that everything was wonderful and still would be if it wasn't for those nasty bankers.

CLAPTON

Fella wrote: »

I'm not in the slightest bit amazed that you're one of the people who'd like to blame everything on the banking industry. It's awfully convenient for you. However there are those of us who don't spin (or believe) the Labour party line that everything was wonderful and still would be if it wasn't for those nasty bankers.

the level of government deficit in 2007 was similar to that under the conservatives;
if one was ruinous then so was the other

99.99% of all economists would agree that the world wide banking crisis was the cause of the western world's recession after 2007

Fella

CLAPTON wrote: »

99.99% of all economists would agree ....

Lol I've never met 3 economists that could agree on anything let alone 99.99%.

The extremely unlikely event that 99.99% of them agreed on something would be all that it took to convince me that the opposite must be true.

Perhaps your 99.99% is the same 99.99% that didn't see the credit crunch coming?