I'm on about all of the parties so don't read one side into this !thanks for confirming he said it. He's mad enough to implement it. That's the concern.
I'm on about all of the parties so don't read one side into this !thanks for confirming he said it. He's mad enough to implement it. That's the concern.
It didn't help 9 years ago when the pot was empty and the country was mortgaged to the hilt.
Labours plans still wouldn't take us to the levels of public spending the France and Germany spend !The idea that austerity was necessary to balance the books was necessary is farcical.
In 1945 the level of national debt to GDP was 240% and Labour government of the time built the NHS, nationalised major industries, started the welfare state and introduced social housing.
In 2010 debt to GDP was around 70% and after nearly 10 years of austerity it's now 86%.
Austerity is just way of transferring wealth upwards through tax cuts, privatisation and outsourcing of public services. Paid for by cuts to services.
A lot of the policies Labour are proposing are middle of the road in Scandinavia and Germany.Labours plans still wouldn't take us to the levels of public spending the France and Germany spend !
Also the cost of servicing the borrowing is very low at the minute so it wouldn't be the doomsday scenario that is being pushed by the right wing led media .
I trillion labour left now 1.8tn
You must log in or register to see media
That's probably not far off the mark actually!National debt has risen under the Tories,that's undeniable!!
It's a clever little chart in spin terms because it omits the period between 96/97( when national debt was £347 billion) and 2009/10 where it had risen to £1,011 billion.That 13 year period was of course under a Labour government,care to expand on that?
In 2010 Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling already had a plan in action for balancing the books, just not as quickly as Osborne chose to do. It was already working. Osborne chose to break it.The idea that austerity was necessary to balance the books was necessary is farcical.
In 1945 the level of national debt to GDP was 240% and Labour government of the time built the NHS, nationalised major industries, started the welfare state and introduced social housing.
In 2010 debt to GDP was around 70% and after nearly 10 years of austerity it's now 86%.
Austerity is just way of transferring wealth upwards through tax cuts, privatisation and outsourcing of public services. Paid for by cuts to services.
A lot of the policies Labour are proposing are middle of the road in Scandinavia and Germany.
Merkel is the leader of Germany's Tory party. Yet she's pro nationised industries, pro trade unions and pro investment.
That shows you how far right we've been dragged economically.
I agree, Labour increased the ND, then the tories came along and increased it further. My initial point was in reference to a suggestion which pretty much put all of the financial issues on Labours door step, when the truth is that the Tories are no better, in fact arguably worse as the ND position has gotten worse in an environment where govt spending has slowed under austerity.In simple terms...National debt almost trebled under the last Labour government!!
There was a lot of spending on schools and hospitals that had been left for 3 decades .That's probably not far off the mark actually!National debt has risen under the Tories,that's undeniable!!
It's a clever little chart in spin terms because it omits the period between 96/97( when national debt was £347 billion) and 2009/10 where it had risen to £1,011 billion.That 13 year period was of course under a Labour government,care to expand on that?
I think a key factor is that the proportional representation method of electing MPs is a large factor here, a non-2 party system allows for greater fluctuation in representation and makes it harder for a single or 2 parties to dominate. Worth noting they are still in power though.I'm curious as to why her party is floundering so badly then?
I agree 100% fella..they're all a bunch of $hits...I'm on about all of the parties so don't read one side into this !
In 2010 Chancellor of the Exchequer Alastair Darling already had a plan in action for balancing the books, just not as quickly as Osborne chose to do. It was already working. Osborne chose to break it.
The reason for the debt was that Brown bailed out the banks after the failure of free-market capitalism. In parliament, Cameron and Osborne both voted to use public money to rescue the banks, something they failed to mention in the 2010 election campaign.
They're not really.I'm curious as to why her party is floundering so badly then?
Yes by the skin of their teeth and Merkel will be history shortly.The right wing parties all over Europe are surging and immigration policies seem to be a key issue.I think a key factor is that the proportional representation method of electing MPs is a large factor here, a non-2 party system allows for greater fluctuation in representation and makes it harder for a single or 2 parties to dominate. Worth noting they are still in power though.
This is true but the worldwide financial crisis of 2007/08 played into their hands !Brown/Darling used a Keynesian style stimulus to boost the economy which was working.
Cameron and Osborne conned people thinking that the economy was like a household budget.
Brown/Darling used a Keynesian style stimulus to boost the economy which was working.
Have read Naomi Kleins book the Shock Doctrine?This is true but the worldwide financial crisis of 2007/08 played into their hands !
He does have a look of a character from Thunder Birds.Alastair Darling was once on the same plane as me from Heathrow to Dulles. He was in 1st class, I was in economy. He got through US immigration far quicker than me! Gawd, he's got thick eyebrows. Like a pair of caterpillars they are.
In it together was the message wasn't it ?Have read Naomi Kleins book the Shock Doctrine?
The Financial crash was used as a shock doctrine.