So you don't accept that overspending in years 1,2, 3 and 4 will not have an effect on borrowing in years 5,6,7 and 8?

Hardly BS............

Correct.

Labour don't have a plan. Their plan is simply to cut the deficit a bit slower.

which, if I'm not mistaken IS a plan...

The only plan they should have had was to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Well he's got his head up his arrse there's no reason to think he won't have a pair of eyes up there too...

No I did not know what you meant, because you did not. The fact that you continued to talk about c. 200000 / 200,000 billion without being able to see that such figures were so far out of context relative to the UK economy shows you are full of 'BS.' You would not write the figure as 201,029 but as 201.029 bn - these are very standard conventions in numeracy, ones which should have been drummed into you at about 7 years of age. You are financially, numerically and economically illiterate and now starting to look even more so with your excuses.

In future, when trying to present a point of view based on links to articles please at least try to vaguely to understand what you have read. That's the end on my comments on the subject.

Thats as fine a definition of irony as I've ever seen.

Unless you're European.

Just pointing that out, that's all.

That is rich coming from you given your daily demonstrations of being
clueless.

As to convention you demonstrate your ignorance since both comma and dot notation are valid.

It is quite plain I meant circa 200 billion. If you could not see that then you are even less bright than I thought and you were not starting from a high point on that score as it was.

Your pedantry is just a lame attempt to detract from the obvious point that was made. The fact you can't even indulge in that without the insults speaks volumes.

You used neither in your [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=17060833&tsmp=1344675570#p17060833original post[/url. Nor in this [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=17061479&tsmp=1344676429#p17061479follow up post[/url.

Are you still unable to see the very clear pattern in the deficit from 1991-1996? It increases during the recession, peaks the year after the recession ends and then reduces year on year after that. This pattern continues all the way to the Labour surpluses from 1998-2000.

Comparisons of this period to Labour's overspending from 2002-2007 are simply not valid as the economy was not in a comparable state. It is as meaningless a comparison as saying that Labour ran an even greater deficit for the two years 2008-2009 than in either of those six year periods. Context matters.

Quite, and I think we are all well aware of why the Labour Party needed to spend tax and borrowed money on public services during their tenure.

Those of us who have been around for a few parliaments (and I still find it hard to come to terms with the fact that there are 30 year olds who have only ever known three parliaments) will be well aware that its always been the nature of parliament to have a socialist government spend money on public services and a capitalist government cut those services to the bone in favour of tax handouts (which by their nature usually benefit the more wealthy, more).

Has always been thus, will always be thus, you might say it balances the country out nicely and that three term governments upset that balance.

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"It's quite simple. Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill". The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain. I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money.'" This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view "[i In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."[/iThe Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired

Quote ="XBrettKennyX"It's quite simple. Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill". The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain. I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money.'" This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view "[i In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."[/iThe Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired

Quote ="major hound"This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view "[i In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."[/iThe Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired'" The Graudiad. That well known impartial newspaper.......... Absolute garbage. My favourite quote is Quote As for all that public sector borrowing, it is being done at negligible interest rates – much lower than the rate at which the private sector can borrow for all those "private" infrastructure initiatives the government is doctrinally trying to encourage.'" WHY are public sector interest rates so low? It's precisely because the money markets have confidence in the economic measures that are being implemented. What a moron the author is. I find it amusing that the left wingers try and pick holes in what is obviously correct. Why on earth would the Coalition government want to impose such fiscal prudence if it wastn't deemed absoulutely necessary, knowing that it will make themselves more unpopular? We have tried the Labour policiy of "buying votes with other peoples money". It doesn't work and has left us with an unprecedented debt.

Quote ="major hound"This just the straight Tory party line and a fallacy William Keegan's view "[i In their desperation to achieve their reform of the House of Lords they entered into a Faustian pact with the Conservatives. In the process, they allowed themselves to be frightened by the Treasury and the Bank of England into believing that the British economy's financing problems were on a par with those of Greece. Right from the beginning a handful of commentators, including your own correspondent, tried to warn them that this was far from the case; that the British debt position was one of the strongest in the western world; and that a deficit reduction programme was a worthy goal when an economy was growing fast, but likely to delay such a recovery if embarked on prematurely."[/iThe Tories' policies are working - their purpose is to keep the !% richest rich by making the 99% poorest poorer still. The reason people think they aren't working is because fo course this is not "what it says on the tin" www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... d-be-fired'" The Graudiad. That well known impartial newspaper.......... Absolute garbage. My favourite quote is Quote As for all that public sector borrowing, it is being done at negligible interest rates – much lower than the rate at which the private sector can borrow for all those "private" infrastructure initiatives the government is doctrinally trying to encourage.'" WHY are public sector interest rates so low? It's precisely because the money markets have confidence in the economic measures that are being implemented. What a moron the author is. I find it amusing that the left wingers try and pick holes in what is obviously correct. Why on earth would the Coalition government want to impose such fiscal prudence if it wastn't deemed absoulutely necessary, knowing that it will make themselves more unpopular? We have tried the Labour policiy of "buying votes with other peoples money". It doesn't work and has left us with an unprecedented debt.

I find The Guardian awful these days. The pages around the cartoon are constantly full of slanted negativity. It makes the Daily Mail look optimistic!

So if Labour bought votes with other peoples money, is the coalition buying votes for labour with other peoples money also?

The country is always in debt, the party in Downing Street just dictates which tiers of society receives the borrowed money.

Sorry m8 you lost me with your first paragraph. Can you rephrase?

And we have a winner.

No we don't.

The country is always in debt.

They key question is HOW MUCH debt are we prepared to be in.

Well, if Labour bought votes on borrowed money giving the public what they want, the Coalition must be helping Labour out pretty well not giving the public what they want with borrowed money! £5m to a bunch of yokels with Kalashnikov's whilst valued public services are axed!

Whilst I agree on your point re the spending of money abroad rather than at home, I think the point is that it would be easier for the Coalition to spend money "willy nilly" - i.e. do what Labour did.

However, whilst no doubt helping their popularity, this is not the right thing for the country. Therefore, they should be applauded for such selfless actions- actually they should not. They are doing their job, so need no applause.

Labour on the other hand should be condemned for wasting money in the way in which they did.

[url=http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2012/08/independent-forecasts-show-the-governments-utter-failure-on-growth-and-debt/Looks like we'll be borrowing even more then[/url

All down to the financial ineptitude of Gideon

Oh dear.

Let's look at the impartiality of the author shall we?

"[uBefore joining the TUC[/u I had a fairly varied career taking in the Bank of England, fund management, [uthe Labour Party and an international trade union confederation[/u".

Yes, very impartial.......











Is this the best the Lefties can do?

Quoting from The Grauniad and left wing authors?

Hilarious!

Doesn't matter about the opinion, do you doubt the figures ?

The idea we are getting low interest rates on government borrowing is down to this one factor is simplistic nonsense. A huge reason interests rates are so low for governments is there is no confidence that the private sector is any place to put your money. Long term yields in the USA are negative yet they can still borrow money as the lenders are in effect prepared to pay a premium for the US government to look after their money. It is a similar situation with the other big economies. Even France is seeing their rates drop. All across the world governments such as France, the UK, Germany, Japan, and Austria have never been able to borrow so cheaply and they are all are not following the UK governments austerity policy. Some the opposite. The idea the UK can borrow cheaply is as a direct consequence of the pin prick of a difference the austerity policies have made is a joke.



I find it amusing right wingers take such simplistic views.



Because they have a political agenda. Shrinking the size of the state is a political agenda. The Tories are using the crisis as an excuse to do this. They have been doing this from day one aided by the Lib Dems for the reasons the Guardian article mentions. One of the main points the article is trying to make is doing this at this time is stupid. That is given it costs next to nothing for the government to borrow money it makes no sense to try and get private money into the economy when it is going to cost the private sector [umore[/u to borrow it. It is much more sensible for the government to fund infrastructure investment directly by borrowing cheaply than asking the private sector to raise the cash to do so as they would have to pay higher interest rates meaning when the cost eventually gets passed on we pay more in the end.



Nonsense. The national debt was being managed in exactly the same way by both parties. In the 1950's it was about 240% of GDP and steadily fell under both Labour and Tory governments until about the mid-70's when it levelled off to something under 50% of GDP and stayed around that figure or less until 2008 (it was a mere 35% of GDP then). The deficit was also on a par as far as both parties go pre-2008. What changed the game was the 2008 financial crisis which has since led us to be running huge deficit ever since as this government struggles to get it down. So the national debt is now about 65% of GDP [iand rising[/i despite [icurrent[/i policies.