Even Tony Blair admits:

"We missed an opportunity to put the country into a better fiscal position going into the economic crash of 2008."

Do you not agree?

No he doesn't. Bloody hell at least read the sodding article you've linked to.

Further evidence you don't know what you're on about.

Got any answers to the questions put to you by various people? You can try all you want, you're not getting away with just posting stuff and not answering anything to do with it. Neither you nor Sal.


So, the answers?

His admission is at odds with repeated refusals by Labour’s current front bench to accept Conservative accusations that the party let spending run out of control and left Britain exposed when the credit crunch hit.

Who's admission?

Blair's admission that he should have cut spending before the crash.

Do you mean this admission? Or have you moved on to another one?
"We missed an opportunity to put the country into a better fiscal position going into the economic crash of 2008."

Do you understand the difference between overspending and wasteful spending yet?

Have you answered the questions put to you yet? Are you ever going to?

Not answering questions again are we?

Is it this admission we're discussing or not?

[i"We missed an opportunity to put the country into a better fiscal position going into the economic crash of 2008."[/i

It's a very simple question.

As is the difference between wasteful and overspending.
Do you understand the difference yet?

Will you answer the questions others have put to you?

Did you miss this bit ... "=#0040FFBlair added that the possible effect of the FSR <Fundamental Savings Review> "[ipales into insignificance compared with the impact of the financial crisis, frankly[/i".

Ajw71 is obviously angling for a job at Tory central office in the PR department where selective quoting and taking things out of context to argue a point has been standard practice for some time.

What I don't understand is since it is so transparently obvious what Ajw71 is doing is why they keep doing it!

What selective quoting is that? You didn't think Labour overspent, Blair admits they did.

You were wrong...again....just like you were wrong when you predicted the economy wouldn't grow before the next election. You seem to be wrong quite often on matters concerning the economy and what makes it worse is that you won't ever put your hands up like a man and say 'I was wrong'.

I'm not even involved in the thread but why do I get this picture when I read this guys posts -:

Will you answer the questions put to you?

Because some people are so invested in a failed economic ideology that even their ideology was given pretty much free reign and resulted in a huge clusterfsck that required the largest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in the history of man, and government guarantees and state intervention to rescue the embarrassment that the bastions of capitalism had made of the world that they literally cannot listen to criticisms of their ideology or those who implement it because it would force them to address the fact that the poor, the immigrants, the sick, and the disabled aren’t the bogeyman stealing their money and time and rights, that their punishments and demonization of these people isn’t the fair response to laziness and gaming the system, but exploiting and destroying people and lives because of their own greed, avarice and selfishness.

Everyone gets predictions wrong, that can't be difficult to understand



If he won't admit he's wrong, I reckon that makes him a prime candidate for a front bench post under your mate Dave C. After all the current incumbents seem to have difficulty with that concept too.

The selective quoting of the definition of socialism and ditto the selective quote from Blair both of which you have been pulled up for on this thread. I think you have got a short term memory problem to have forgotten about those already.

Come to think of it that would explain quite a bit! Especially your forgetfulness regarding answering direct questions asked of you.



No he doesn't. Your comprehension of English grammar is as bad as your short term memory if that is your conclusion from reading that article.

That is also the only conclusion to draw from your "quick search" post a short while back.

As you probably won't remember what you actually posted by now this is what you quoted from me.

"The fact of the matter is over its term in office Labour spending was never any more excessive than previous Tory administrations. In fact they ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001."

All of that is in fact true and is not contradicted by what Blair said. If you think it is, you have a problem.

It is the conclusion of the Times newspaper. It is the conclusion of any right thinking member of society who views the comments from an objective viewpoint.

Going to answer the questions?

More hilarious is that he's lecturing on [iobjective viewpoints.[/i

Nah, that would be too much of a coincidence.

I think the nub of this is the definition of overspent.
What do you think that word means?

I keep imagining a Wire version of Vicky Pollard: "yea but, no but, yea but" ad finitum. I still maintain it owes much to battery-licking and the drinking of shower water

Once again if you think that is what it says you illustrate your lack of comprehension of grammar.

"The former Prime Minister said that he regretted not following through on a plan to weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending in 2005."

That doesn't mean Blair thinks money spent on getting waiting lists down in the NHS or on programs like Building for Schools should not have been spent or was wasteful.

All he is doing is stating the obvious with the benefit of hindsight that had they put in place their program they could have saved some cash that would have helped in 2008 but goes on to say however much that was, it pales into insignificance compared to the amounts involved in the crash.

As I have also repeatedly pointed out the amounts that were actually spent are entirely in line with what previous Tory administrations spent (and often less including running a surplus) so even if that spending did include "unnecessary and wasteful spending" [uit STILL wasn't out of line with the previous administrations spending. [/u



No it isn't. Anyone who can read can ought to be able to understand the difference between waste and deliberate spending. For some reason you can't.

For this to be true:

"The Times says his admission flies in the face of repeated refusals by Labour's current leaders to accept Conservative accusations that the party let "spending run out of control and left Britain exposed when the credit crunch arrived"."

The conservatives should be accusing John Major and Maggie of the same thing given they spent similar amounts (which were also a higher % of our GDP then when Labour were in power!).

Credit where it's due, you're making progress.


Ah.
Marie, if you're going to say that, you'll presumably have some stats to back it up?
Or will you just point us at some [iDaily Mail[/i poll to "prove" it must be right?