Well your first link is your own link I stated Brown got us about 950 billion in debt your own graph puts the 2010 figure as 1 trillion. Interest on national deficit.Google gordon brown national deficit.follow list down to www.thisismoney.co.uk and it tells you interest up till oct 2018 servicing the deficit was 624 billion down to him. ADD Those 2 numbers together gets you to 1.6-1.65 trillion down to him,and with the annual national debt running at 100 billion per year in 2010 a minimum of 200-300 billion can be added before it could be brought under control,as I said before,a 100 billion a year loss takes years to bring down,as it would mean increasing tax by 15-20% which no government could do. So that takes it to 1.8-1.9 trillion,he is responsible for,and how much is the national debt ? exactly. Que burying your head in the sand,and start shouting it's all hear say.
Chesh, if this is your idea of evidence, don't go to court - do a runner! Gorgonzola isn't the word for this tripe. For a start, Brown is not responsible for all that went before him. Debt did go up during labour's time in office, but it was nothing like what you suggest. Somewhere in the region of £350-400bn is much more accurate. It most certainly didn't hit £950bn (clear evidence from HM Treasury in the above chart above must surely convince you. You must accept it's accurate - it was issued by the tories, after all!!). So let's be generous to the tories & say that Brown ran up £400bn of debt in his 13 year tenure, and even exclude the fact that emergency action had to be taken to resolve the WORLDWIDE financial crisis (action that the tories were consulted on but could provide no alternative plan). Less generously, I have to mention that in the last 8 years, the tories have added ONE TRILLION to that total. Go check any credible source you like - our current debt is in the region of 1.8tn. Simple sum, but just in case the enormity escapes you, that's two and a half times the debt run up by Brown. Brown's performance: £400bn/13 years = ~£31bn pa tory performance: £1000/8 years ) ~£125bn pa. If we're going to be pedantic about this, we should note that Brown was only Chancellor for 10 years, and in this time (check above graph again) the national debt only rose by about £150bn = £10bn pa. You have to make your mind up if you're attacking Brown as Chancellor, or the labour party performance. Either way, you're on a hiding to nothing. Finally, thisismoney is not a credible source. You're surely aware that it's a commercial publishing enterprise, and not obliged to be transparent by avoiding bias, political slant, opinion, or tactical factual omission. It's like asking a pundit that hates Leeds if they should get points deducted for Pontus disrespecting his Chairman in the tunnel under charter 3.4 or whatever it's called. FFS! It'll be the Dandy next. No wonder you don't quote your sources.
You put the link up,and now your saying you put up bull **** and switch to another one and no one said anything about Chancellor or priminister his blame is with both,you then claim the interest on Browns debt is bias and based on a company who made up the number because they hate Brown can you prove this,maybe they like Brown and the numbers are lower to help him.I await your link which show they hate him and cooked the books against him.
As Martin Wolf says, countries are not companies and national debt is not the same as corporate debt. People are unnecessarily afraid of national debt. This is despite the fact that the British Empire was only possible because of the creation of national debt in 1694, which enabled the country to outspend all others in the 18th Century and then fund the war against Napoleon, ending up with a massive empire and countries reliant on Britain. The US did the same in the First and Second World Wars, which led to their 20th century dominance. The key with national debt is that it is affordable for the country. That, broadly, comes in two categories: 1) the cost of borrowing, for a decade now at all time lows (and therefore there has never been a better time for the U.K. government to be in debt); 2) how you use the money to get a return, i.e. borrowing to invest and make a profit. The problem that both Brown and the Tories have created is the additional debt they both laid on isn’t in line with 2). Brown, because much of it was propping up the banks, the Tories because they’ve been obsessed with and afraid of debt, meaning they’ve focused on austerity rather than using government money to invest. The key is not borrowing to fritter it away pointlessly, but borrowing enough to keep the country going and using that money on, e.g. infrastructure and development of areas which would boost GDP and get a return against the cost of borrowing.
There you go,this is your link not mine,so were you bull ****ting then or now. Suppose you will now edit your post,change the link and swear to God you never put that link up,like you did last time I proved you wrong.
At the end of the day,Brown and Labour pretty much bankrupted the country.That's history and you can't change that no matter how much waffle you come up with.
So it's a big secret that you and 600 mps know about,non of the 600 have leaked this because Mps don't do that,they are honest and can keep a secret,and WJs credibility has just flown out of the window.
The baby boomer generation is the generation that has enjoyed peace, a generous welfare state, the NHS, affordable housing, social housing, free education extending to not only no University fees but maintenance grants, all created and paid by their parents generation but then when in power they have taken away these, sold the family silver and spunked away the North Sea Oil bounty. Baby boomers are the wealthiest generation in history, currently the richest generation in the UK and have the greatest percentage of home owners and second home owners. They are also the only generation to have increased their wealth since the financial crash. Now obviously this doesn't extend to to the entire generation, there are many in old age who are in severe poverty and indeed obviously many who have fought and opposed the selfish policies that have created these circumstances regarding housing, social housing, fees etc. But overwhemingly this generation has been a very lucky generation and then in a final kick of selfishness to the generations below they are the major voters for Brexit and when polled they are the group that say 'significant damage to the british economy would be a price worth paying to leave the EU' (70%) and 'me or a family member losing a job would be a price worth paying to leave the EU' (50%). This in spite the fact that most are in retirement or about to retire so this would obviously not affect them as much as the generations to follow.
Best case for leaving the corrupt EU club, well done sir The older folks have lived well before the EU quango started and lived through it, and know when something is so wrong
And what is that supposed to prove ? Yes the first and second world war also bankrupted the country and led to a great depression.Only Brown didn't need a world war to fook us up.It does show that it took 20 years to recover from it.
While you and Corbyn might not consider owing nearly a full years production in debt as being bankrupt it is.Only difference is, its not been called in,as it would be as a business.
