truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Actually I believe it's between 2002 and 2009. Between 97 and 98 the budget turned from a 15bn defecit to a 0.7 surplus. The surplus grew for a few years before it was jizzed up the wall from 2002 onwards. If anything that telegraph article shows what a massive impact the 2008 crisis had and how hard it's been to turn things around - but it shows things are moving back the other way. Yep I know it went up..it was on it's way to a surplus when the conservatives left office..never the less it went from a 15 B deficit to a 156B deficit under Labour.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yep I know it went up..it was on it's way to a surplus when the conservatives left office..never the less it went from a 15 B deficit to a 156B deficit under Labour.. Really? Have you got any stats to back that up? You seem to contradict all the official stats. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Really? Have you got any stats to back that up? You seem to contradict all the official stats. Here's the link from Mecky's post which I was using.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html Have a look at the graph.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Here's the link from Mecky's post which I was using.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html Have a look at the graph.. Yeah, it's the same one I linked to, it says we had a 29% GDP deficit in 1996 & we were borrowing over 50% of GDP in 1993. I'm not sure how you work out that 29% deficit is close to a surplus. Especially when the only financial crisis back then was one the Tories created that only affected the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yeah, it's the same one I linked to, it says we had a 29% GDP deficit in 1996 & we were borrowing over 50% of GDP in 1993. I'm not sure how you work out that 29% deficit is close to a surplus. If you look at the trend then it was towards a surplus,,,Labour changed very little when they came to power and got the benefit of the trend.. would have happened no matter who was in No 10/11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 And as for the economy and debt, read this interesting article by the Daily Telegraph which charts stuff over the last 40 years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html Yes, but that has nothing to do with the economy halving. Did you mean the predictions for growth halving? Do you even know what that means, and did you know actual figures which were better than the predictions are more important? ---------- Post added 22-01-2014 at 15:15 ---------- Yeah, it's the same one I linked to, it says we had a 29% GDP deficit in 1996 & we were borrowing over 50% of GDP in 1993. I'm not sure how you work out that 29% deficit is close to a surplus. Especially when the only financial crisis back then was one the Tories created that only affected the UK. The truth is that Labour ****** it all up the wall when the economy was good, why were we running at such a huge defecit in a boom period? Was it because Gordon brown had abolished boom and bust, the buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 If you look at the trend then it was towards a surplus,,,Labour changed very little when they came to power and got the benefit of the trend.. would have happened no matter who was in No 10/11 The trend was 29.2% away from being a surplus. Labour did in 2 years what the Tories couldn't manage in 10. Labour left the Tories with a 8.4% surplus in 1978, they quickly increased that to over 10 & it stayed around that level until 1988. Didn't unemployment triple in that time too & not really come down until after 1997? So why was the borrowing in 1991-1996 better than the borrowing from 2002-2007? Why did the Tories not make a 16% surplus in any of their 17 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The trend was 29.2% away from being a surplus. Labour did in 2 years what the Tories couldn't manage in 10. Labour left the Tories with a 8.4% surplus in 1978, they quickly increased that to over 10 & it stayed around that level until 1988. Didn't unemployment triple in that time too & not really come down until after 1997? So why was the borrowing in 1991-1996 better than the borrowing from 2002-2007? Why did the Tories not make a 16% surplus in any of their 17 years? What did Labour change to create the surplus? Genuine question..which policies were altered..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 The truth is that Labour ****** it all up the wall when the economy was good, why were we running at such a huge defecit in a boom period? Was it because Gordon brown had abolished boom and bust, the buffoon. Votes are expensive to buy remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It is true that most of these newly-created jobs are part-time or zero-hours contracts? I can't be bothered to read through three pages of insults and silly comments (apologies to anybody who did post a sensible comment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.