Wildcat Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 True. Cleggy promised he wouldn't prop up the Labour party in a coalition, so he had to put his money where his mouth is... He didn't actually make that promise... he said he wouldn't prop Brown up in a coalition.... But what of these promises.... http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-reveals-tories-13bn-vat-bombshell-18755.html or more importantly the ones I raised before... of not being a nasty party increasing poverty and social exclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 GDP in 2007 was far higher than it was in 1997, 37% of a big number is still far more than 42% of a smaller number So yes, Labour did gorge on debt and left us in a far worse condition to weather the storm of the banking crisis. The absolute scale of the debt is irrelevant, what matters is its proportion of its income, a figure that corresponds with GDP. The public finances were far healthier under labour before the banking crisis, than they were when they came to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The public finances were far healthier under labour before the banking crisis, than they were when they came to power. And why is that? Playing Devil's advocate, could it be that: a) because middle earners were taxed until they bled? or b) because McBroon sold off our gold reserves? or c) the pre-crisis public finance figures you refer to are false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Why would Conservative voters, vote for the LibDems in Hallam? <snip left wing bloggers diatribes> Ask them, but don't be under the illusion that there are hoards of Labour voters voting tactically for Clegg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 because he had the most votes overall? or because he changed the boundaries to the countries constituencies to make less votes required for labour to have a majority? or because he had the most seats in parliment? how exactly did that gormy oath of a short sighted man deserve to win the election? the fact is the mess the country is in is because of him. Did you feel that draught? it was that comment going over your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Ask them, but don't be under the illusion that there are hoards of Labour voters voting tactically for Clegg. You might want to consider the possibility of Tories returning to type though. The latest, admittedly flimsy, polling evidence seems to show a shift away from the Lib dems. Both major parties are the beneficiaries. Sheffield Hallam will be a very interesting seat at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The absolute scale of the debt is irrelevant, what matters is its proportion of its income, a figure that corresponds with GDP. The public finances were far healthier under labour before the banking crisis, than they were when they came to power. the absolute scale of the debt is very relevant it has to be serviced - and the bigger the debt the bigger the payment and at some point it has to be repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 the absolute scale of the debt is very relevant it has to be serviced - and the bigger the debt the bigger the payment and at some point it has to be repaid. Who to exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Who to exactly? 70% of it is to UK nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The more I look at this the more I think something freakish happened in the Lib Dem party, something almost like a Trojan horse. The electorate were softened up by a succession of left-ish Lib Dem leaders. It seemed pretty clear what the party stood for. Then comes along Nick Clegg, a new younger face for a progressive party the electorate seemed to understand. He talked the talk. He walked the walk. In the leader debates he positioned himself and his party in the same space, even to the left of Labour in some areas. So far so good, that's what the Lib Dems are all about isn't it. Wrong! That is not what Nick Clegg is about. He sees the state as a problem, he spoke very clearly about his views going back to 2007-8. Many of his views are completely compatible with Cameron's. David Laws is very much in the same space. Clegg and Laws would not be out of place in the Tory party. The electorate have not got the Nick Clegg they thought they were getting. There is none of the tempering of Tory policies many people who support the coalition thought they would get. The reason is that Clegg grees with a huge amount of what the Tories are doing. He may as well join them. Cameron is working on that apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.