Conrod Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The same would have happened if the conservatives were in power.Would it? Would the conservatives have bloated the welfare state and overspent the way Labour does every time it gets into power? (As ever leaving the Conservatives to repair the mess and take the flak for necessary recovery measures). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Since when is 'debt' calculated by estimating future liabilities whilst ignoring future income? It is used because it creates a huge number and is convenient propaganda for instilling the fear and sense of personal responsibility in us that is necessary for the Tories to go about their ideological attacks on the state and the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Would it? Would the conservatives have bloated the welfare state and overspent the way Labour does every time it gets into power? (As ever leaving the Conservatives to repair the mess and take the flak for necessary recovery measures). Spending as a proportion of GDP was lower under labour than it was in the years immediately preceding. It was Tory style deregulation that caused the crisis just as Tory austerity measures are hindering the recovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Spending as a proportion of GDP was lower under labour than it was in the years immediately preceding. I'd be very interested to see what figures support that, given the huge rise in national debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Spending as a proportion of GDP was lower under labour than it was in the years immediately preceding. It was Tory style deregulation that caused the crisis just as Tory austerity measures are hindering the recovery GDP is a meaninless figure. You can't spend GDP. Its like comparing the turnover of companies it has nothing to do with the amont of money available to spend. The fact is that the Labour Government spent consistently more money than it had available through tax revenues. In the last year Darling budgeted to spend £175 BILLION more than he expected to collect. As UKs total tax revenue is around £550 he was expecting to spend 30% more than his available income, he had done this in previous years and his plan was to carry on doing that. It is not sustainable and it's why we are so far up the creek without a paddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 It is used because it creates a huge number and is convenient propaganda for instilling the fear and sense of personal responsibility in us that is necessary for the Tories to go about their ideological attacks on the state and the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich The ideology of the state being as small as possible is a good one. The larger the state the more it feels the need to interfere in our lives and the less efficient as a country we are. I see no sign of redistribution from the poor to the rich, on the contrary in fact. Doesn't someone have a signature saying "the tories want to make us all a bit richer, labour want to make us all equally poor" or words to that effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The ideology of the state being as small as possible is a good one. The larger the state the more it feels the need to interfere in our lives and the less efficient as a country we are. I see no sign of redistribution from the poor to the rich, on the contrary in fact. Doesn't someone have a signature saying "the tories want to make us all a bit richer, labour want to make us all equally poor" or words to that effect? I'm reminded of Churchill's words which still ring true to this day: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery". (And whatever the left-wing love-in crowd claim, Labour is a socialist party - even though it may just not be socialist enough for some of them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAMALOCHA! Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 When you are in large amounts of debt, you spend less and earn more. It's not pleasant, but there is no option about it. It's what happens, either through choice or by force. true but my only issue with that is the banks are a business and should have gone under. also bonuses aswell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Britain has always Had national debt ! We should Be asking our selves is this system of compound Interest which is paid back by the working public Justified !! Compound interest is the money we must pay back Every time the Goverment / bank of England creates money Out of thin air ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Actually, it was a combination of both the bankers and LieBore. And the people who borrowed money they knew they could and would never pay back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.