• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ed Milliband repeats himself

Of course - the 91-92 recession was a severe one....and they weren't far north of of Labour deficits in times of plenty?

The thing was, once the wheels came off, (and recessions will ALWAYS happen, contrary to Brown and his no more boom and bust gonads) we had built a MONSTER state sector with a million extra jobs created in 2002-2008!! So our deficit was close to ?ú200 billion!!! That is just fudging mental.

Even after all of the 'austerity' we will have spending levels and a headcount in the public sector comparable to 2004, (adjusted for inflation) was it really that bad in 2004?? Did the world stop turning??

You all know the answer.

There is only ONE architect of all of this, The Labour Party.
 
Leeds Spur said:
There is only ONE architect of all of this, The Labour Party.
Click to expand...

impp_0903_01_z%2B2008_mitsubishi_lancer_ralliart_fact_or_fiction%2Bfact.jpg
 
LOl....worst poster award ever goes to you mate.

No opinions, just carping from the sidelines.

What a coward!

Not intelligent enough to actually put forward an argument, nah...just snipe in with innuendo and one liners.

Utter failure of a human being.
 
Leeds Spur said:
There is only ONE architect of all of this, The Labour Party.
Click to expand...

I’ve already explained why i disagree with that above and i think the diagram i provided bares that out. ‎light touch regulation, the big bang and successive governments, regulatory bodies and bank CEO's not having ‎a clue what was going on in the banking sector are more to blame than the budget deficit under ‎labour, i guess everyone’s entitled to their opinions though, even if some are born out of political affiliations rather than the data and like you say the FACTS!
 
Of course the banks are to blame, there's no doubt they triggered the recession.

My point is.....even when we had record tax receipts we were running ever larger deficits.

Labour build a huge state sector and didn't pay down the debt when they had a chance. So when we had another recession, and a fudging monster one at that, we were double fudged.

Do you see where i'm coming from?

The Tories would have been able to borrow massively now if their policies on the late 1990's had been kept, but we can't do that as we already have a massive debt.

I agree with Keynes that we should be 'investing' but we cannot.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Of course the banks are to blame, there's no doubt they triggered the recession.

My point is.....even when we had record tax receipts we were running ever larger deficits.

Labour build a huge state sector and didn't pay down the debt when they had a chance. So when we had another recession, and a fudging monster one at that, we were double fudged.

Do you see where i'm coming from?

The Tories would have been able to borrow massively now if their policies on the late 1990's had been kept, but we can't do that as we already have a massive debt.

I agree with Keynes that we should be 'investing' but we cannot.
Click to expand...

i don't dispute that and allude to that in my earlier post.
 
NW5pur said:
i don't dispute that and allude to that in my earlier post.
Click to expand...

Then you have to accept that, at a local level, Labour are wholely responsible for the UK's inability to handle its debts. Gordon Brown ruthlessly persuaded his government and the public alike to borrow as much as they could under the pretence that he had killed the boom and bust cycle. From a very early point, many many commentators were alarmed at the rate at which, during a global upturn, Brown was managing to decimate the surpluss and bring us back into deficit.

That is the major difference between the mid 90s and the Labour cycle that you are ignoring. The deficit of the 90s was created during the recession. The deficit of the Labour goverment was created in spite of a period of continued record global growth. It is about as wreckless as anything the banks did.

The global banking crisis has led global economies to the brink of ruin, local decisions have dictated whether individual countries fall over the precipice. In the case of the UK, the ego and actions of Gordon Brown meant that we deliberately tore ourselves from a position of gain to one of wrack and ruin.

And the worst part is that during this time, he allowed hundreds and hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs to dissapear, only to be replaced with state dependant roles that are ensuring that the burgeoning state cannot be reduced without making thousands jobless.
 
NW5pur said:
I’ve already explained why i disagree with that above and i think the diagram i provided bares that out. ‎light touch regulation, the big bang and successive governments, regulatory bodies and bank CEO's not having ‎a clue what was going on in the banking sector are more to blame than the budget deficit under ‎labour, i guess everyone’s entitled to their opinions though, even if some are born out of political affiliations rather than the data and like you say the FACTS!
Click to expand...

Pleas explain the deficit in 2009

Clue: The graph excludes financial interventions
 
NW5pur said:
try google - http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...nances/the-economic-recovery-and-the-deficit/
Click to expand...

Ok, did that, here's another graph:

ImageVaultHandler.aspx


This still indicates a complete and utter cluster fudge by Labour

The fact of the matter is that the Tories always bail us out of the brick

Clearly the economy runs in cycles, and the graph shows how Brown inherited fiscal stability set by the Tories.

What did he do during the boom cycle? Borrowed more.


During the first two terms of the Tory government of the late 70s, the Tories spent a brick lot of time (as they are now) restructuring the finances due to Labour's reckless mismanagement of the economy.

All politicians are ****s, but only the Tories are capable of balancing the books.

If Labour had gone with a Keynes approach, then we wouldn't have seen a deficit during 2002 to 2007.


Brown would've saved up the surplus and the Tories would not be making 'savage' cuts.

Instead, he spent a few years tossing himself off trying to get into power. And what a monumental fudge up that was.

Useless c*nt doesn't even begin to describe him

[video=youtube;otqV4Qp4zlY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otqV4Qp4zlY[/video]
 
Last edited:
One of Labour's first acts as a Government in 1997 was to remove the death penalty for treason against the British state.

:-k
 
Southstand:

Well done, but that’s exactly the same graph that’s in the link i posted above isn’t it? it also doesn’t ‎provide as much historical perspective as the diagram I posted earlier in the thread and let’s be ‎honest, it’s not as pleasing on the eye.‎

I’ve already acknowledged twice in this thread that labour overspent and didn’t put enough away in ‎the good times, does it not count unless you get really angry and vicious and call everyone a ****, not ‎really my style i’m afraid. ‎

As for the tories being the knights in shining armour you portray them as, well i’m sorry, but that just ‎doesn’t stack up. ‎

You’re right about economic cycles, since WWII we’ve had two sustained periods of strong economic ‎growth (with the odd blip) followed by low / flat growth and economic turmoil (which we’re currently ‎in). the first was from the late 1940’s until 1973 followed by 9 years of turmoil. the second was ‎between 1982 and 2007 where we had a good 25 years of solid growth, apart from the blip in 1991, ‎after which we returned to growth within the year. during those 25 years of good growth we had a ‎tory government for 15 of the 25 years and they ran a budget deficit for all but two of those years. ‎

you claim credit for the surplus in the early labour years, which is fine, but where was the surplus in ‎the 15 years previous? and why, if they’re so great, did it take them so long to get an economic plan in ‎place which could generate a surplus? what were they doing? (apart from killing themselves by ‎asphxie-toss, flogging arms to saddam Hussein, purging themsleves and taking bribes to ask questions in parliament). the ‎impact of the recent banking crisis was such that if it had happened under any government, at any ‎time during the last 60 years, we would still have been fudged, it was by far the biggest shock to the ‎financial system since the great depression.‎

the original point of my contribution was to highlight the banks role in this crisis, which tends to often ‎get overlooked in this forum, we seem to prefer to target low paid civil servants, unions (fair enough) ‎and people with personal debt rather than the true culprits, even though they’re still at it - ‎http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396511420792008.html

For the record, i’m not some anti-capitalist socialist, i actually work in the city.‎

As for the youtube clip, what’s that got to do with the price of fish?‎
 
NW5pur said:
Southstand:

Well done, but that’s exactly the same graph that’s in the link i posted above isn’t it? it also doesn’t ‎provide as much historical perspective as the diagram I posted earlier in the thread and let’s be ‎honest, it’s not as pleasing on the eye.‎

I’ve already acknowledged twice in this thread that labour overspent and didn’t put enough away in ‎the good times, does it not count unless you get really angry and vicious and call everyone a ****, not ‎really my style i’m afraid. ‎

As for the tories being the knights in shining armour you portray them as, well i’m sorry, but that just ‎doesn’t stack up. ‎

You’re right about economic cycles, since WWII we’ve had two sustained periods of strong economic ‎growth (with the odd blip) followed by low / flat growth and economic turmoil (which we’re currently ‎in). the first was from the late 1940’s until 1973 followed by 9 years of turmoil. the second was ‎between 1982 and 2007 where we had a good 25 years of solid growth, apart from the blip in 1991, ‎after which we returned to growth within the year. during those 25 years of good growth we had a ‎tory government for 15 of the 25 years and they ran a budget deficit for all but two of those years. ‎

you claim credit for the surplus in the early labour years, which is fine, but where was the surplus in ‎the 15 years previous? and why, if they’re so great, did it take them so long to get an economic plan in ‎place which could generate a surplus? what were they doing? (apart from killing themselves by ‎asphxie-toss, flogging arms to saddam Hussein, purging themsleves and taking bribes to ask questions in parliament). the ‎impact of the recent banking crisis was such that if it had happened under any government, at any ‎time during the last 60 years, we would still have been fudged, it was by far the biggest shock to the ‎financial system since the great depression.‎

the original point of my contribution was to highlight the banks role in this crisis, which tends to often ‎get overlooked in this forum, we seem to prefer to target low paid civil servants, unions (fair enough) ‎and people with personal debt rather than the true culprits, even though they’re still at it - ‎http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396511420792008.html

For the record, i’m not some anti-capitalist socialist, i actually work in the city.‎

As for the youtube clip, what’s that got to do with the price of fish?‎
Click to expand...

I do agree with most of what you're saying

But I have two key points to make

1) I maintain we'd be in a stronger position had the crash occurred under a Tory government (this is of course opinion)
2) This is my key point, and one that frustrates me the most: Labour seem not have learnt their lesson at all

Labour still insist that we need to spend MORE to encourage growth ](*,)

Only last night, Chris Bryant (Labour's voice for the evening) came up with a crude analogy alongs the lines of

"If you lose your job, it would be reasonable to take on some debt to buy a new car, in order for you to be able to find new employment"

This is where Labour and the Tories really differ.

One party wants to deal with the debt and the deficit. The other wants to delay the inevitable.

You clearly know your history so I apologise if this sounds patronising. but here's my analogy:

- Let's assume you are massively in debt with credit cards
- Do you take your medicine and pay them off (ideally in order of the highest interest rate) ? (Tory policy)
- Or do you take on another credit card in the hope that you will earn more next year and will be able to cope with the repayments (Labour policy)

Which is the more reckless approach?

That said, we are where we are.

It is VERY clear that we need tighter regulation of the banks.

But in my opinion, we need to maintain the fiscal policy set out by Osborne.

Any deviation (perhaps after the next election if we all decide to be macarons and forget how we got here in the first place), will be fatal for long term prospects of the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back