Jesamaine Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Just been reading about how our Pensions and ISA’s have been hammered by 14% since the start of the year and it got me thinking about the shambles we are in and whether or not anyone still supports this lot. Is there anyone on here that still defends this lot, and has confidence they can get us out of this mess. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14920735 I think they are doing a very good job under the circumstances, they had to take over a country on it's knees at a very bad time worldwide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In your opinion it had nothing to do with bailing out the banks? So who did bail out the banks if not the government? Please explain what Labour's big spending plans were. Here is a list of Labour's budget deficits pre-bailing out of banks. 2002 £19,046 million 2003 £34,004 million 2004 £36,797 million 2005 £41,355 million 2006 £30,755 million 2007 £33,718 million 2008 £68,003 million Total 2002 – 2008 Deficit of £263,678 millions If the spending had been at a more controlled level during the boom, we'd have had more money to stimulate the recovery during the bust. The issue was we couldn't afford to carry on with that level of spending and also bail out the banks, but of course a general election was coming and Brown believed that any cut in the spending would have been political suicide. Especially so when you remember his mantra, an end to boom and bust. Even the civil servants of the day were worried with Labour's spending plans in the last couple of years, and they felt that they had to formally protest at Labour's spending plans. I'm not suggesting that the government could have avoided the credit crunch, but they were in a position to mitigate it's effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Here is a list of Labour's budget deficits pre-bailing out of banks. 2002 £19,046 million 2003 £34,004 million 2004 £36,797 million 2005 £41,355 million 2006 £30,755 million 2007 £33,718 million 2008 £68,003 million Total 2002 – 2008 Deficit of £263,678 millions If the spending had been at a more controlled level during the boom, we'd have had more money to stimulate the recovery during the bust. The issue was we couldn't afford to carry on with that level of spending and also bail out the banks, but of course a general election was coming and Brown believed that any cut in the spending would have been political suicide. Especially so when you remember his mantra, an end to boom and bust. Even the civil servants of the day were worried with Labour's spending plans in the last couple of years, and they felt that they had to formally protest at Labour's spending plans. I'm not suggesting that the government could have avoided the credit crunch, but they were in a position to mitigate it's effects. The figs you supplied are on their own meaningless as they are not expressed as proportion of GDP (gross domestic product). Labour inherited a debt situation of 44% of GDP from John Major in1997, until the banks bailout the debt situation was actually below the inherited 44% fig, giving the lie to the points you are trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The figs you supplied are on their own meaningless as they are not expressed as proportion of GDP (gross domestic product). Labour inherited a debt situation of 44% of GDP from John Major in1997, until the banks bailout the debt situation was actually below the inherited 44% fig, giving the lie to the points you are trying to make. Spot on as usual. Showing the Tory nutters are still living in their own fantasy world that even David Cameron wouldn't recognise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The figs you supplied are on their own meaningless as they are not expressed as proportion of GDP (gross domestic product). Labour inherited a debt situation of 44% of GDP from John Major in1997, until the banks bailout the debt situation was actually below the inherited 44% fig, giving the lie to the points you are trying to make. GDP rose over that period so the government had more money to spend but they increased their borrowing, when your income is low you borrow, as your income increases you pay it back and if it decreases again you borrow more. As GDP increases the deficit should decrease, as GDP decreases the deficit should increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Try not to be silly, it's you who has made outrageous claims based on your mantra of private good public bad. That may be your idealogical assumption but I don't think that I've ever said that. I simply believe that the public sector should be a high quality procurer of competitive and well managed and monitored private services. In all my years at the coalface it's been private sector managers who have implemented poor decisions and then been promoted or moved away before the fall out has occurred. Now you're being silly Max. Systems are what make things bad, not individuals. People make good or bad decisions as individuals not institutions or sectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 There was a good discussion on the radio this morning about the current problems and how differently the UK and the US had dealt with them. Overall both countries have had similar results from very different approaches with one exception. The US went for stimulus and have suffered from it, while we and many other EU nations have opted for Austerity. The only difference between the UK and the US is we maintained our AAA credit rating while the US lost theirs. There is little to sing and dance about as both trains of thought have failed to reverse rising unemployment and economic stagnation, but we have one bonus, it will be easier and faster for us to pay off our debts. The American speaking even joked that he was in the UK to ask to borrow money from us. So to be honest, be it austerity or stimulus, neither has been a solution to our problems but one thing is certain, debt is the weight around our neck that needs sorting one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Try not to be silly, it's you who has made outrageous claims based on your mantra of private good public bad. In all my years at the coalface it's been private sector managers who have implemented poor decisions and then been promoted or moved away before the fall out has occurred. I'm with Max on this one. I'm a public sector manager and work hard to make sure my decisions are the right ones. I'm monitored by higher levels and have to make sure taxpayers money is spent wisely and efficiently. Audits from various higher levels up the chain and FOI acts mean I can be scrutinised far easier than a colleague doing the same job in the private sector, and its far more likely any expensive mistake would make it into the papers than if a private sector manager made a bad decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fine line Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The figs you supplied are on their own meaningless as they are not expressed as proportion of GDP (gross domestic product). Labour inherited a debt situation of 44% of GDP from John Major in1997, until the banks bailout the debt situation was actually below the inherited 44% fig, giving the lie to the points you are trying to make. Spot on as usual. Showing the Tory nutters are still living in their own fantasy world that even David Cameron wouldn't recognise. In 1997 Labour inherited the best economy of any incoming government for 50 odd years. They spent the next 13 years destroying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 In 1997 Labour inherited the best economy of any incoming government for 50 odd years. They spent the next 13 years destroying it. So why did the Tories get kicked out in 97? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.