The best election outcome for the economy?

Linton

Generali wrote: »

So you compare a period when the UK is coming out of recession with a boom and expect to come up with a valid or reasonable result.

Hmmmm.

During the 18 years of tory rule 1979-1997 the net debt as a % GDP was below that of the labour government just before the crash for a total of 5 years (end of 1988- end of 1993). If a tory government can only get 5 years of boom out of 18 does any more need be said? Suggest you look at the graph of the net debt as a % of GDP since 1900. The period of the labour government before the global crash shows an unusually low net debt.

Another way of looking at things is the interest payments on the debt as a % of GDP. The same reference as the previous one shows interest payments as a % of GDP during the labour government as the smallest for more than 100 years, a figure which would probably be much longer if records were available.

Methinks your political prejudices are blinding you to the data.

Fella

Linton wrote: »

Labour didnt "build up a huge deficit". Until the global crash ....

Don't forget that Labour not "fixing the roof while the sun shone" is only half of what they did wrong. They also, Brown in particular, were key contributors to that crash. He gleefully encouraged every single thing the bankers were up to because the resultant taxes funded his profligate spending. And it was calculated profligate spending; he bought votes wherever he could with an insane benefits program & the endless creation of public sector non-jobs.

To claim everything was rosy "until the crash" is at best, the worst kind of disingenuous talk. And when it's Brown or any of his cadre saying it, they are taking the electorate for fools.

Linton

Fella wrote: »

Don't forget that Labour not "fixing the roof while the sun shone" is only half of what they did wrong. They also, Brown in particular, were key contributors to that crash. He gleefully encouraged every single thing the bankers were up to because the resultant taxes funded his profligate spending. And it was calculated profligate spending; he bought votes wherever he could with an insane benefits program & the endless creation of public sector non-jobs.

To claim everything was rosy "until the crash" is at best, the worst kind of disingenuous talk. And when it's Brown or any of his cadre saying it, they are taking the electorate for fools.

Suggest you look at the data as to whether the things you claim happened actually did.

Perhaps my memory is failing me but I cant remember the Tory campaign to increase regulation of the bankers. Can you?

Linton

Suggest you look at this reference., If public spending prior to the crash was out of control why did Osborne promise to match it?

Thrugelmir

Linton wrote: »

Suggest you look at this reference., If public spending prior to the crash was out of control why did Osborne promise to match it?

Lloyds now regrets the shot gun marriage with HBOS. From the outside you don't really know what's going on.

Fella

Linton wrote: »

Suggest you look at the data as to whether the things you claim happened actually did.

Perhaps my memory is failing me but I cant remember the Tory campaign to increase regulation of the bankers. Can you?

Perhaps your memory is failing, if so commiserations. But just to help you, they didn't. What's that got to do with my point?

Your response is the response you'd need when I post defending the what the tories did when in opposition (hint: you won't find any examples of me doing that).

I'm discussing the substantial part Gordon Brown played in both creating the boom & failing to in any way prepare for the inevitable bust. Which is simple fact.