Stoatwobbler Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 New Labour was always divided into the Blair camp and the Brown camp. It's the Brown camp which did all the damage. They could do a lot worse than say sorry to the other Milliband for not making him leader even though the party voted for him and beg him to come back. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Blair gave us all sorts of terrible policies from Iraq to PFI. Blair seems to be given a free ride by some based on his electoral record and the fact that he left office before the financial crisis hit, thus landing Brown with all the blame. And David Miliband would be an even more terrible Labour leader than his brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) TBH I've seen a lot of contradictory figures from various places. Fine. What was total cash government spending at the start of 2010 and what was it at the start of 2015? I've actually looked it up: £673billion in 2010 £760billion in 2015 As I say. You'll continue to get a swift correction from me every time you describe the UK public spending policies as "austerity". I make no apology for that. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:59 ---------- the national debt is also increasing. You just advocated more public spending and a slower rate of deficit reduction. Of course debt is increasing. It won't start to fall until after the deficit is gone. You've hit your head again haven't you. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 13:01 ---------- I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Blair gave us all sorts of terrible policies from Iraq to PFI. Blair seems to be given a free ride by some based on his electoral record and the fact that he left office before the financial crisis hit, thus landing Brown with all the blame. And David Miliband would be an even more terrible Labour leader than his brother. Brown was in charge of the economy throughout. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't vote for Blair if I was on fire and it was the only way to get an extinguisher. But he was credible. If Labour choose either the failed policies of the '70s or the failed policies of the 00's they're doomed. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 13:18 ---------- the options appear to be two blairites and a socialist. And a conservative-lite outsider. Eugh! Okay. Then bye-bye Labour. I can't say it's been fun. I'll look forward to seeing Boris Johnson facing off against Nigel Farage at PMQs. Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 the standard of living rose under Labour, I think plenty are happy with that. So they spent a bit, they still didnt know global meltdown was round the corner. Hopefully future govts learn the lessons. In 2020 when the minimum wage is £9 an hour we might be saying the same about the Tories. Or on the other hand, increasing wages all round by £1 an hour might prove inflationary and bad for our struggling economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Fine. What was total cash government spending at the start of 2010 and what was it at the start of 2015? I've actually looked it up: £673billion in 2010 £760billion in 2015 As I say. You'll continue to get a swift correction from me every time you describe the UK public spending policies as "austerity". I make no apology for that. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:59 ---------- You just advocated more public spending and a slower rate of deficit reduction. Of course debt is increasing. It won't start to fall until after the deficit is gone. You've hit your head again haven't you. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 13:01 ---------- Brown was in charge of the economy throughout. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't vote for Blair if I was on fire and it was the only way to get an extinguisher. But he was credible. If Labour choose either the failed policies of the '70s or the failed policies of the 00's they're doomed. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 13:18 ---------- Eugh! Okay. Then bye-bye Labour. I can't say it's been fun. I'll look forward to seeing Boris Johnson facing off against Nigel Farage at PMQs. theres a reason for slower cuts - look into it before you start with the hit your head business. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 14:26 ---------- impossible to debate with a 'cuts denier' so may as well stop. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 14:27 ---------- In 2020 when the minimum wage is £9 an hour we might be saying the same about the Tories. Or on the other hand, increasing wages all round by £1 an hour might prove inflationary and bad for our struggling economy. Yes, I will respond to you mate, more sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) impossible to debate with a 'cuts denier' so may as well stop. £673billion in 2010 £760billion in 2015 That's an increase of 13%. Compound CPI inflation for that period was 12%. Should I apologise for denying something just because it isn't true? ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 14:31 ---------- theres a reason for slower cuts - look into it before you start with the hit your head business. You're complaining about the debt growing and the deficit being reduced too quickly at the same time. Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 £673billion in 2010 £760billion in 2015 Should I apologise for denying something just because it isn't true? ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 14:31 ---------- You're complaining about the debt growing and the deficit being reduced too quickly at the same time. not complaining about anything. There's other alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 not complaining about anything. There's other alternatives. Please enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 £673billion in 2010 £760billion in 2015 That's an increase of 13%. Compound CPI inflation for that period was 12%. Cuts as a percentage of GDP, in my book that feels like cuts, at least anyone has the right to claim so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Cuts as a percentage of GDP, in my book that feels like cuts, at least anyone has the right to claim so. Rubbish. That's just an advanced form of lying. Besides, the public spending percentage of GDP for 2020 is planned to be a little higher than in 2002. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor and Labour had been in office for 5 years. If it was enough then, why not now? You obviously wouldn't want public spending corrected for inflation to go down during a recession, which is what you'd get if you fixed it as a fraction of GDP. Or would you? Are you proposing that it should be a constantly increasing fraction of GDP? If so, what happens when it hits 100%? Edited August 18, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Rubbish. That's just an advanced form of lying. only you think so. ---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 15:10 ---------- Please enlighten us. the countries been run on debt for years. why should the poor bare the burden of a crisis which occured through bankers neglect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now