Student Riots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

But don't forget that, when it suited them, the Conservatives backed Labour's policies. In 2007 - when it appeared there might be a General Election in the wake of Brown becoming PM - George Osborne pledged to match Labour's spending for at least two years.

He's Chancellor now, so let's remember his words back then:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

So as shadow chancellor he either failed to understand the economy or he was lying. He can't blame Labour for doing what he admits he would have done himself.

---

:laugh: You are correct Dave and if you are claiming that Politicians lie to get into Government, then I agree completely. All politician do and it's a national sport picking them up on them and watching them back-track :D The only thing that confuses me is why some people expect them to keep to their word? There will only ever be true democracy when we have a system of Government that reflects the will of the people more closely.

I don't particularly like the Conservatives any more than Labour or the Lib Dumbs. My politics comprises of taking the parts from each party that I deem are the best and making as rational decision as possible about who to vote for and hope they keep to their word some of the time.

So, when I say I believe we need to rationalise and cut the amount we are borrowing, then it's because I believe this is the right thing to do. The Con-Dems will take the pain where Labour would cut some sectors and then borrow to fluff the bed of the demographic that votes for it so we don't actually get anywhere. This bribery went on at an increasing rate right up to the last general election and it was criminal IMHO.

If smart investments can be made to stimulate economic growth and increase jobs then we must do it but overall, we must cut back the rate we are borrowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

It's true that Labour agreed there would have to be cuts, but their plan was to get the economy well and truly back on track first, then to cut the deficit at a slower and more manageable pace.

---

Thats not strictly true. The Department of Health were telling the chief execs of key hospitals to expect a rapid 10% cut in the entire NHS budget if Labour got in and to expect the same from the Tories. I presume this would have been the ballpark figure for spending cuts across the board which is broadly in line with what the Tories have actually done.I think its wrong to claim that the Labour cuts would have been much less or later than the Tory plans whatever they were saying in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

70s when Labour last cocked it up you mean, agreed it was bad but the level of debt nowhere near what it is now (even allowing for inflation) but thankfully Maggie sorted it all out, thank god.

Labour are being asked constantly, they haven't a clue.

I don't like the VAT increase I'd like to see tax cuts to get folk spending and big cuts to the cost of the State.

---

I suppose it depends on how you measure these things.

My preferred comparrison is against GDP and the amount of debt we have now is equilivant to about 1970.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

My preferred comparrison is against GDP and the amount of debt we have now is equilivant to about 1970.

---

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z_3bgQQpLB...0/debt-gdp.jpg

Sometimes it takes a graph such as that to put things into perspective!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Sometimes it takes a graph such as that to put things into perspective!

---

It really does Mark if people know what it means.

During WW2, the UK built up huge levels of debt when compared to the income the nation was generating what with everyone being involved with war. The Women of this country did a sterling job keeping the basic manufacturing base ticking over but effectivly, the country wasn't working.

When the WW2 ended, Manufacturing and production started in earnest. Massive investment and rebuilding infrastructure took place and very quickly, the GDP to Debt ratio changed and within 25 years, was below where we are today.

Where it becomes interesting is since the early 70's. GDP has rocketed and in relation, debt went down until 1991 where we had a recession and GDP fell and the burden of debt rose before plateauing and dropping during recovery. Classic boom and bust.

However, look what's happened since the turn of the millinium...

Not just a decade of very positive GDP growth but the more we're making, the more we borrow? Now, come on, what's that all about? You would only do this if you knew there would never be another recession. Even then, I would suggest you use the massive influx of money being generated by the country to remove our national debt.

Just look where we are now!!! Our debt in the last 10 years compared to our GDP has DOUBLED!

Please, if someone can explain why this is a good idea, I'm all ears. This has got to stop and yes, people are going to hurt because we are in a totally false economic situation. We have to rationalise what we have out there, cut it back to a manageable amount and then rebuild. Not keep constructing on an unsustainable platform and chucking more debt at the problem.

Completely agree skc. I worked for a company very much in the mortgage industry and people were falling over themselves to get into loads of debt. Like I say though, this is not a party issue, its what people themselves have done to the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

However, look what's happened since the turn of the millinium...

Not just a decade of very positive GDP growth but the more we're making, the more we borrow?

---

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp...-borrowing.jpg

The dramatic increase in borrowing coincided with the banking crisis. This was not a deliberate decision by the government to plunge the country into more and more debt for the hell of it; it was a response to was is considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

Indeed, whatever government in power it was completely necessary to borrow a lot of money to get us out of the hole we (and the banks) had dug for ourselves. Then of course any government would have had to claw that back. The problem is when you hear "All Labours fault", when if the tories were in power they would have had to have done the same - no choice.

Yes, of course better regulation could have avoided this problem, but we've still seen downturns in countries which didn't indulge in the lending spree, you can't insulate yourself from global shocks as much as many would like to think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp...-borrowing.jpg

The dramatic increase in borrowing coincided with the banking crisis. This was not a deliberate decision by the government to plunge the country into more and more debt for the hell of it; it was a response to was is considered by many to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

---

This has been a terrible financial period which is not the fault of Labour. Nobody but an idiot would suggest it was (Enter BM stage left :) )

The crisis was caused by poor regulation of the financial industry especially in the US. Stupid lending and criminal trading meant fund managers were fantastically rewarded for shifting worthless stock. Well, I say criminal trading but actually it was legal because people like Gordon Brown removed controls that were in place. Basically, he thought he was their chum and pandered to their self serving requirements.

Yes, we can blame the bankers for being greedy but isn't that a bit like blaming a fox for eating chickens. No you don't? You build a fence which, funnily enough, was actually in place until Farmer Brown lifted up the wire to let the fox in.