Why do conservatives hate people?

First topic message reminder :

Ok, I get how conservatives selfishly grub onto money, and how they have a political philosophy of extreme individualism vs. social justice.

But here in America they can't just leave it at that. They have to go after poor people so vociferously. So it's not about protecting themselves or their money. It's about hating other people.

So why?

Tommy Monk wrote:As shown, was declining when following Tory spending plans, then rising from 2001-2 onwards.

When did these Tory spending plans kick in then because the debt wasn't going down until Labour got in and as the graph shows they lowered it below the level they inherited didn't they,,,,,,,yes or no?

Did debt s art rising from 2001-2?
Yes or no?


We know that any incoming govt has to follow previous govt spending plans for a while.


Debt was starting to go down when labour got in.

Lone Wolf wrote:
   "Tommy Monk" keeps on digging himself into deeper and deeper holes on each thread that he wanders into...

He seems intent on proving himself to be the stupidest and thickest member on this forum...

EVEN below those erstwhile competitors victor', heavenly, Raggs and smelly'..    

   I'M always more than happy to admit when I was wrong, as all the more intelligent and 'with it' people on here are quite well aware...

AND sad to say, I was wrong last Sunday on my list of the stupidest people on here..

AFTER her outstanding and stellar efforts across several anti-Muslim threads this week, VoD has firmly cemented her and her equally half-witted heavenlyhubby's proud positions as the lowest of the low on here at this time !    

Tommy Monk wrote:Did debt s art rising from 2001-2?
Yes or no?


We know that any incoming govt has to follow previous govt spending plans for a while.


Debt was starting to go down when labour got in.

UK public debt

1993 up to 34.8

1994 up to 39.0

1995 up to 41.5

1996 up to 42.5

So where was it falling under the Tories?

And according to simple arithmetic 36.4 is lower than 42.5, by a fair bit,,,,,,,,,yes?

Back to school for you lad.

Here's an interesting graph......






As you can see, debt was rising on a clear considerable upward trend without the banking debt added.


This was after labours spending started spiraling out of control.

In fact it was rising from 2001/2 as you can see from the previous graphs.


It is true there was slight rise at the end of Tory govt, there had been a couple of slight ups and downs under Torys 18 years, up slightly when borrowing was needed then plans in place to get it quickly back down again.


This is what we can see happening at the end of Tory govt, a slight rise in borrowing, plans in place to correct this, then labour took over as Tory spending plans saw the borrowing declining. Labour followed Tory spending plans for a couple of years after taking govt.



Then after labour spending plans kicked in, the borrowing started rising from 2001/2, up, up and away!!!!



You can clearly see this in the graph I just put up as it shows the core govt borrowing separate from total with the bank bail outs.




There is nowhere to hide with the spin of blaming all this extra borrowing on bank bail outs!!!!



Rumbled!!!!





Labour = lies and spin

Right click on graph and view image or open in new window to see it all and colour definitions.



But basically the base govt borrowing is at bottom of graph lines in dark blue....





And you've gone very quiet iron....... what's up?????



Oh yes, it was the massive borrowing by labour....!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Here's an interesting graph......






As you can see, debt was rising on a clear considerable upward trend without the banking debt added.


This was after labours spending started spiraling out of control.

In fact it was rising from 2001/2 as you can see from the previous graphs.


It is true there was slight rise at the end of Tory govt, there had been a couple of slight ups and downs under Torys 18 years, up slightly when borrowing was needed then plans in place to get it quickly back down again.


This is what we can see happening at the end of Tory govt, a slight rise in borrowing, plans in place to correct this, then labour took over as Tory spending plans saw the borrowing declining. Labour followed Tory spending plans for a couple of years after taking govt.



Then after labour spending plans kicked in, the borrowing started rising from 2001/2, up, up and away!!!!



You can clearly see this in the graph I just put up as it shows the core govt borrowing separate from total with the bank bail outs.




There is nowhere to hide with the spin of blaming all this extra borrowing on bank bail outs!!!!



Rumbled!!!!





Labour = lies and spin

Unlike you Tommy I don't maintain a constant vigil here and I was actually a wee bit busy this evening.

So now you want to show a graph that doesn't show that the debt was rising leading up to Labour taking over and not going down as you were claiming? Tommy, you are a chancer.

What you have posted here changes nothing and you can crunch the numbers any way you like but you will never change the fact that up to the recession kicking in Labour reduced the national debt below what they inherited from the Tories and by a margin as well.  Simple arithmetic tells you that 36.4 will always be lower than 42.5 and those are the figures that you can't dispute.
As for the debt rising after the recession? Well that's just common knowledge and it rose not just because of recapitalising the banks, it rose also because of people going on the dole reducing the tax take and funding the resulting unemployment and implementing back to work schemes.
Just don't move the goalposts to hide the data you don't want to discuss any longer and stick with your failed argument.

A reminder of the data supplied by the IFS - just for you...

By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives.• And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

Back to school for you my lad.

Anyway, I'm away to watch the big fight from Wembley and I'm sure it will be a better contest than what you are offering up here lol.

More denial of the facts clearly shown.



Labour = lies and spin.



I've shown you a graph that shows total borrowing rising and it shows that it was still rising without the bank bail out money.


If you look at your own posted figures you will see that the borrowing at end of Tory govt was going up by smaller amounts to level when labour took over and started going down due to Tory spending plans that labour had to follow when took office.


Then by 2001/2 when labour spending plans kicked in, borrowing went up and up and up!!!


And that borrowing didn't include all the off balance sheet PFI stuff either, but that came back to bite in the arse towards. if end of labours term and borrowing soared!!!!!



All in the graphs and figures I have provided, And your graph confirms this.



Obviously you need to go back to school as you obviously can't understand what the figures and graphs clearly say.



Or maybe you can but just can't bring yourself to admit it......!?

Tommy Monk wrote:More denial of the facts clearly shown.



Labour = lies and spin.



I've shown you a graph that shows total borrowing rising and it shows that it was still rising without the bank bail out money.


If you look at your own posted figures you will see that the borrowing at end of Tory govt was going up by smaller amounts to level when labour took over and started going down due to Tory spending plans that labour had to follow when took office.


Then by 2001/2 when labour spending plans kicked in, borrowing went up and up and up!!!


And that borrowing didn't include all the off balance sheet PFI stuff either, but that came back to bite in the arse towards. if end of labours term and borrowing soared!!!!!



All in the graphs and figures I have provided, And your graph confirms this.



Obviously you need to go back to school as you obviously can't understand what the figures and graphs clearly say.



Or maybe you can but just can't bring yourself to admit it......!?

Tommy Monk wrote:More denial of the facts clearly shown.



Labour = lies and spin.

Sorry Tommy but that handle belongs to you as you are just runningaround twisting and turning to try and get out of the mess you have ended up in. Just admit that you were wrong all along and let it be man. Surely that isn’t beyond you,,,,,,surely!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I've shown you a graph that shows total borrowing rising and it shows that it was still rising without the bank bail out money.

Sorry, but the original graph that you put up showed that debt under the Tories actually went up and not down as you were claiming. Massive mistake on your part but that’s the way it goes when you have not looked properly at what information you are actually providing.

Tommy Monk wrote:If you look at your own posted figures you will see that the borrowing at end of Tory govt was going up by smaller amounts to level when labour took over and started going down due to Tory spending plans that labour had to follow when took office.

Woah!!! Hold the phone here. So now you are admitting that the debt under the Tories was actually rising but just by smaller amounts instead of going down which was at the heart of your argument all along. Tommy, you are a chancer

Tommy Monk wrote:Then by 2001/2 when labour spending plans kicked in, borrowing went up and up and up!!!

But it was still below what they inherited from the Tories so the original statement by the IFS that Labour reduced the public debt is correct.,,,,,,yes?

Tommy Monk wrote:And that borrowing didn't include all the off balance sheet PFI stuff either, but that came back to bite in the arse towards. if end of labours term and borrowing soared!!!!!

Another diversion away from the original argument about reducing the debt and something that has already been dealt with. Your really struggling now

Tommy Monk wrote:All in the graphs and figures I have provided, And your graph confirms this.

The graph you started with shows that the debt was rising under the Tories and that up to the collapse of the global banking system the debt was lower than what Labour inherited from the Tories and that’s a fact. Coming up with another graph that doesn’t show all that is just another attempt to get out of the mess you got yourself into. Tommy, you are a chancer.

Tommy Monk wrote:Obviously you need to go back to school as you obviously can't understand what the figures and graphs clearly say.

Your problem is that I can actually read a graph accurately and if you had done the same you wouldn’t have been claiming that the debt under the Tories was falling.,,,,,iit wasn’t.

Tommy Monk wrote:Or maybe you can but just can't bring yourself to admit it......!?

Tommy, 36.4 is lower than 42.5, by a fair bit any day of the week and nothing you can say or do can change that. Thems the facts so just admit you have been wrong all along and I’ll let you go at that

And BTW, that was a cracking fight and although Groves went down and almost out like a light at least he put up a better defence that you have managed to muster here.

You're a chancer Tommy

Wrong iron.



I have showed two graphs.


And have explained that borrowing was going up slightly at the end of Tory govt. But at lesser amounts every year to level out and start coming down when they left office and labour took over.


Labour followed Tory spending commitments for first couple of years and borrowing rate was going down.


This would have happened whoever was in govt as the decisions had already been made and spending commitments already in place before labour got in.


Then from 2001/2 after labour started spending more, borrowing started going up.


And up, And up.


You can clearly see the rise in both graphs, and the one you showed, And in my second graph you can clearly see that without the bank bail out borrowing, the main govt borrowing was continuing to rise massively still.


There is no escape from this.


You can try to blame it all on bank bail out borrowing but my second graph shows that in separate breakdown and it is simply not true.

Plus if you want to look back further, you will see that Tory brought down the borrowing from what they inherited from labour, even with the rise at the end of their term.


I also watched the eight for free on myp2p, Google it.

Tommy Monk wrote:Wrong iron.

Tommy Monk wrote:I have showed two graphs.

Yeah you did, and the first one was a massive mistake because it showed the debt was going up and had been for years not down like you were saying. You can't back away from that now because your fingerprints are all over this thread.

Tommy Monk wrote:And have explained that borrowing was going up slightly at the end of Tory govt. But at lesser amounts every year to level out and start coming down when they left office and labour took over.


Labour followed Tory spending commitments for first couple of years and borrowing rate was going down.


This would have happened whoever was in govt as the decisions had already been made and spending commitments already in place before labour got in.

Don't be ridiculous. Labour didn't increase public spending but they managed at the same time to reduce the public debt at the same time because of the ticket they stood on to to implement immediately in their 1997 budget the New Deal” programme to bring down unemployment financed with a £5.2 billion “windfall tax” on some public utilities privatised by the Tories.
That Budget concentrated as well on the young unemployed, giving them training in subsidised private sector work. That's just a couple of examples of changes that took place to tackle the national debt.

Tommy Monk wrote:Then from 2001/2 after labour started spending more, borrowing started going up.


And up, And up.

But it didn't go up beyond what they inherited from the Tories until the global banking collapse so the IFS statement that Labour reduced the national debt below what they inherited from the Tories was 100% accurate and that was still the case about 8 years later.

Tommy Monk wrote:You can clearly see the rise in both graphs, and the one you showed, And in my second graph you can clearly see that without the bank bail out borrowing, the main govt borrowing was continuing to rise massively still.


There is no escape from this.


You can try to blame it all on bank bail out borrowing but my second graph shows that in separate breakdown and it is simply not true.

Your second graph - the one that blots out the rise in debt by the Tories.
Not once have I blamed it all on the bank bail-out, indeed I told you earlier what the contributing factors were. You obviously didn't read it.

Here's a guy that knows how to do sums and he'll explain how 36.4 is lower than 42.5.

 

Tommy Monk wrote:Plus if you want to look back further, you will see that Tory brought down the borrowing from what they inherited from labour, even with the rise at the end of their term.


I also watched the eight for free on myp2p, Google it.

Oh Aye.Ended up just about back where they first started



Can't be bothered with the buffering and it won't change until BT upgrades the Eskbank exchange about 5 miles away.
Cracking fight though.

Well look back bit further before Tory took office in 79....




But let's just clear something up.



You are making your claim using selective dates and selective figures.



When judging borrowing and spending plans/commitments, you can't really just start from when new govt get in.


Because every incommgmg govt will always inherit previous govts spending plans and have to follow them for a while, a year or two usually.


So whoever got in in 97, the economic decisions had already been made, and results would happen regardless for a while.


What you have to do when assessing these figures is to look from a couple of years after new govt took office, when THEIR spending plans started to be implemented up until a year or two AFTER they left office and new govt took over, as again this new govt (in this case the Torys) would also inherit the economy as it was and be stuck with spending/borrowing commitments too, for at least a year or two until they could get their spending plans implemented and changes could be seen to have effect!!!



So you can't just stick with trying to only look from 97-2007/8, because firstly that doesn't cover the whole of labours term anyway, and secondly you have to not only look at whole of labours term being up until 2010, but really to see more accurate assessment, have to be looking from a year or two AFTER labour took office as well as into a year or two into when Tory took over, as Tory inherited the spending/borrowing commitments left by labour and had to follow them for a year or two as well.



You can't keep clinging to 97-2007/8 figures and blaming the following years on just the bank bail outs, as I have already shown that core govt borrowing (without bank bail out money) was still rising massively and continued rising after Tory took over and this was due to the mess labour left behind!!!!



To have a more accurate assessment you have to look from 98-99 to 20011-12.



As any incommgmg govt has to follow the spending/borrowing plans already set in place by previous govt.




I know you don't want to admit this. And by looking at the graphs I provided, it is obvious why!!!!



But it doesn't change the truth!!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Well look back bit further before Tory took office in 79....

lol I did and showed you evidence that the Tories left the public debt in 1997 just as high as they inherited when the got in in 1979

Tommy Monk wrote:But let's just clear something up.



You are making your claim using selective dates and selective figures.

No I'm not. The figures and the dates are bang on the money and there is nothing selective about them

Tommy Monk wrote:When judging borrowing and spending plans/commitments, you can't really just start from when new govt get in.


Because every incommgmg govt will always inherit previous govts spending plans and have to follow them for a while, a year or two usually.


So whoever got in in 97, the economic decisions had already been made, and results would happen regardless for a while.

I showed quite clearly what Labour did as soon as they got in and if it had been the same as the Tories then the debt would not have gone down. They had years to do it but they didn't - Labour did.

Tommy Monk wrote:What you have to do when assessing these figures is to look from a couple of years after new govt took office, when THEIR spending plans started to be implemented up until a year or two AFTER they left office and new govt took over, as again this new govt (in this case the Torys) would also inherit the economy as it was and be stuck with spending/borrowing commitments too, for at least a year or two until they could get their spending plans implemented and changes could be seen to have effect!!!

The public debt was lower than what Labour inherited from the Tories almost 8 long years after Labour got in so the IFS statement that Labour paid down the debt below what they inherited from the Tories is absolutely accurate and there is nothing you can say or do that is ever going to change that.

Tommy Monk wrote:So you can't just stick with trying to only look from 97-2007/8, because firstly that doesn't cover the whole of labours term anyway, and secondly you have to not only look at whole of labours term being up until 2010, but really to see more accurate assessment, have to be looking from a year or two AFTER labour took office as well as into a year or two into when Tory took over, as Tory inherited the spending/borrowing commitments left by labour and had to follow them for a year or two as well.

The point is that the debt was paid down prior to the collapse of the global banking system. Spending plans for Labour and the Tories went out the window after that so you're just talking nonsense.

Tommy Monk wrote:You can't keep clinging to 97-2007/8 figures and blaming the following years on just the bank bail outs, as I have already shown that core govt borrowing (without bank bail out money) was still rising massively and continued rising after Tory took over and this was due to the mess labour left behind!!!!

How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not just blaming the banking bail-outs when I have clearly showed you that it was not just that that caused the debt to go up after 2007. Are you actually reading what I post?

Tommy Monk wrote:To have a more accurate assessment you have to look from 98-99 to 20011-12.

See above



As any incommgmg govt has to follow the spending/borrowing plans already set in place by previous govt.

Rubbish. Spending plans for Labour and the Tories went out the window after the global banking collapse so you're just talking nonsense. Osborne pledged to match Labours spending pland didn't he

Tommy Monk wrote:I know you don't want to admit this. And by looking at the graphs I provided, it is obvious why!!!!



But it doesn't change the truth!!!!

I looked at the graphs and they show that prior to the collapse of the global system Labour had lower the public debt below what they inherited from the Tories and that was 8 long years after they took office and that's a fact.

You're just running around like a blue arsed flea trying to deny that or to give the credit to the Tories for a public debt that was paid down 8 years later after they left office.

36.4 by Labour is lower than 42.5 by the Tories and they left a public debt in 1997 just as high as they got when they took office in 1979. Tommy, you are a chancer

Why are you still clinging to this 2008 waffle?


Debt was higher when Labour left office.


And rising massively.


We are talking about core govt borrowing not including bank bail out money, so you can stop trying to hide labours disasterous spending spiral on just the bank bail out money.


Because Labour left office with massively higher core govt borrowing and rising through the roof!!!


The chancer is you still banging on about only up to 2008 rubbish, and trying to claim credit for the leveling off of borrowing and the declining borrowing from 96/97 when it was completely down to the Tory spending plans that labour followed for a couple of years after they took office!!!!


This was happening not because of labour, but despite labour!


I have already showed the truth in this graph here.....




Which clearly shows that core govt borrowing, not including the bank bail out debt, was rising massively.


And we can see from this graph below that although borrowing was going up slightly at the end of Tory govt, (it had been coming down throughout their previous years in office from the high left by labour), you can see the rate was starting to level out by 96 and the subsequent decline was inherited by labour, because of Tory spending plans that labour also inherited!!


You cannot get into govt and make any immediate change in spending plans.

You are stuck with the previous govts spending plans and commitments for at least a year or two.

We can see by both of these graphs......






... that the decline started leveling out by about 2000 when labours spending plans started kicking in, which not only stopped this decline, but it then caused the borrowing rate to start rising, which is clearly seen by beginning of 2002.


Here is another interesting graph showing net govt borrowing.....




The truth of the matter is, labour inherited a strong economy and borrowing was leveling out and declining during their first couple of years as they were following Tory spending plans and commitments that they also inherited, then as labours spending started kicking in, the decline stopped then started rising again, and then went through the roof, without including the bank bail out money that You so desperately try to cling onto to try to hide the massive failure by labour, and Tory then inherited this massive rising borrowing which had to continue rising because Tory also inherited labours spending commitments, and are doing their best to sort out this mess labour left.

(You only have to look at the graphs to see what I say is true.)


BUT LABOUR HAVE OPPOSED EVERY CUT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED SINCE!!!

So are in fact in favour of even more borrowing on top!!!



So far you have told us that labour spent loads of extra money sorting things out during their term in govt, But didn't raise any taxes, stealth or otherwise, and didn't borrow any extra money either...????


So where did all this extra spending money come from then iron????



The only chancers here are you and the rest of your deluded looney labour lot.


Lies and spin.

Rumbled!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Why are you still clinging to this 2008 waffle?


Debt was higher when Labour left office.


And rising massively.


We are talking about core govt borrowing not including bank bail out money, so you can stop trying to hide labours disasterous spending spiral on just the bank bail out money.


Because Labour left office with massively higher core govt borrowing and rising through the roof!!!


The chancer is you still banging on about only up to 2008 rubbish, and trying to claim credit for the leveling off of borrowing and the declining borrowing from 96/97 when it was completely down to the Tory spending plans that labour followed for a couple of years after they took office!!!!


This was happening not because of labour, but despite labour!


I have already showed the truth in this graph here.....




Which clearly shows that core govt borrowing, not including the bank bail out debt, was rising massively.


And we can see from this graph below that although borrowing was going up slightly at the end of Tory govt, (it had been coming down throughout their previous years in office from the high left by labour), you can see the rate was starting to level out by 96 and the subsequent decline was inherited by labour, because of Tory spending plans that labour also inherited!!


You cannot get into govt and make any immediate change in spending plans.

You are stuck with the previous govts spending plans and commitments for at least a year or two.

We can see by both of these graphs......






... that the decline started leveling out by about 2000 when labours spending plans started kicking in, which not only stopped this decline, but it then caused the borrowing rate to start rising, which is clearly seen by beginning of 2002.


Here is another interesting graph showing net govt borrowing.....




The truth of the matter is, labour inherited a strong economy and borrowing was leveling out and declining during their first couple of years as they were following Tory spending plans and commitments that they also inherited, then as labours spending started kicking in, the decline stopped then started rising again, and then went through the roof, without including the bank bail out money that You so desperately try to cling onto to try to hide the massive failure by labour, and Tory then inherited this massive rising borrowing which had to continue rising because Tory also inherited labours spending commitments, and are doing their best to sort out this mess labour left.

(You only have to look at the graphs to see what I say is true.)


BUT LABOUR HAVE OPPOSED EVERY CUT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED SINCE!!!

So are in fact in favour of even more borrowing on top!!!



So far you have told us that labour spent loads of extra money sorting things out during their term in govt, But didn't raise any taxes, stealth or otherwise, and didn't borrow any extra money either...????


So where did all this extra spending money come from then iron????



The only chancers here are you and the rest of your deluded looney labour lot.


Lies and spin.

You are wrong and rewriting history when you say that public debt was down from what the Tories inherited in 1979 as this graph clearly shows that it was as high as it was when they took office in 1979 as it was when they were dumped  in  1996 and that it only started to go down from 1997 onwards.



The public debt prior to the collapse of the global banking system was down by 6.1% so after having been in office for around 8 years  the statement that the IFS made as follows is absolutely correct. Here it is again

By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives.• And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited.

Do you really deny this is true?

And if you believe that the public debt minus the bank bail-outs was what it otherwise would have been after the banking collapse  then you really are tuppence short of a shilling.

Workers lose their jobs which means less income tax revenue for the government from taxpayers and business.

People end up on the dole meaning they become dependent on welfare payments and the state for support at a time when the government is taking in less.

The government spends more in pushing social programmes and job creation schemes to try and kick start the economy and get growth going again. All that costs money and that  had to be borrowed which means that government borrowing goes up higher that had been planned for. And on top of all that Osborne has had to spend billions more than he planned for simply because he has missed almost every single fiscal target he set in his public spending review in 2010 which is why his one term deficit reduction plan has hit the buffers and he’s had to extend it out for another few years. Now if you can’t understand that then you are either making things up, just plain lying or you really don’t have a clue what you are on about.

You have been running around all over the place trying to in some way to claim that the reduction in the public debt under Labour was in some way down to the Tories even  8 years after they were dumped out of office  It’s absolutely laughable and typical of the Tory mindset which is spin it around, create diversions, invent a different scenario but I’m afraid that at the end of the day 36.4 will always be lower than 42.5 and that is the figure that was in place when the banking collapse hit the wall and you are stuck with it..  

Tommy, you are one hell of a chancer

Talking about WHOLE of labour term in govt, Not just up to 2008 And not including bank bail out money.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Talking about WHOLE of labour term in govt, Not just up to 2008 And not including bank bail out money.....

That's what I have just done. You're a chancer Tommy.

Just clinging to '36 is lower than 42' and only wanting to count to 2008 just does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.



Total govt debt, without even adding the bank bail out money rose exponentially by the time labour left office as shown in the graphs I presented.


Total govt debt, excluding bank bail out money rose to almost a trillion pounds when labour left govt!!!!






Labour inherited strong economy, borrowing was already leveling out and declining as labour took office, and because of already existing spending plans and commitments already in place by Tory, that labour also inherited.






Will you admit that any new incoming govt will inherit previous govt spending plans and have to follow them for at least a year or two...????

Irn Bru is as always selevtive in his figures and the way he spins them. When Labour came to power the Tories already had the economy going in the right direction Brown had committed to keeping to the Conservative spending plans for the first three years which he did.

That's when he

1. Sold our gold at rock bottom prices when he didn't need to.

2. Opened the spending taps BIG style and started to create hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs most of which were bean counters.

3. He forced Blair to junk two years research and policy planning to reform the welfare state and instead introduced the night mare of tax credits with it's incumbent huge work force and unworkable systems.

4. He went on an off book spending spree on PFI initiatives the ramifications of which we will feel for decades.

5. He fucked up private pensions whilst making salaries and pensions in the public sector the best they had ever been in history.

Need I go on. It ultimately lead to collapse of public finances when the banks went into decline as he spent every penny and then some.

I will say in fairness at the time the politicians on the opposition benches were trying to say they would also spend generously. They wouldn't have been so stupid I think and lets face it since the crash they have been trying to pay down Labours deficit.

Irn Bru thinks Gordon Brown was iconic enough said. Prudent he wasn't. Indeed he was as prudent as Irn Bru is honest and intelligent.

At las a voice of reason and sanity.....


The decline in borrowing when labour got in was the direct result of Tory spendidg plans.


With borrowing starting to rise by 2001-2 when labours spending plans kicked in, as I've been saying all along.


With this borrowing rising up and up as labour spent more And more.

Leaving the country in a complete mess.

You will never get Irn Bru to admit Brown did anything wrong even though Labour senior people now admit he did.

Irn Bru has his tongue up GB arse so far he is incapable of reason.

Tommy Monk wrote:Just clinging to '36 is lower than 42' and only wanting to count to 2008 just does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.

Sorry Tommy but it does because that’s what you decided to dispute.  Here it is again...

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
• By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

So you see, up to the financial crisis Labour had reduced the public debt below what they inherited from the Tories by 6.1% - 8 long years later and by a fair bit lower as well don't you think?

Tommy Monk wrote:Total govt debt, without even adding the bank bail out money rose exponentially by the time labour left office as shown in the graphs I presented.

I’ve already explained to you that it was not just the bank bail-outs that increased the national debt and detailed why that was. Are you disputing what I said or are you really tuppence short of a shilling?

Tommy Monk wrote:Total govt debt, excluding bank bail out money rose to almost a trillion pounds when labour left govt!!!!

Labour inherited strong economy, borrowing was already leveling out and declining as labour took office, and because of already existing spending plans and commitments already in place by Tory, that labour also inherited.

You said that the public debt had been falling for years but I gave you a graph that showed that the public debt under the Tories was just as high as when they were booted out in 1997 as it was when they took power in 1979. Are you disputing that as well?

Tommy Monk wrote:Will you admit that any new incoming govt will inherit previous govt spending plans and have to follow them for at least a year or two...????

They don’t have to follow what the prevuious government spent the money on and Labour held their own budget right after they were elected that kicked off much need reforms to get people into work and it was these reforms that brought down public spending which was to be invested for growth and not just running public services. I’ve highlighted that in the IFS statement above.

You’re a chancer Tommy and you have just been  running around trying to deny that Labour paid down the national debt until the financial crisis came along just like the IFS said it did.

Keep doffing that cap  and keep tugging that forelock to your masters though – I’m sure they really appreciate it

Alright said Fred wrote:Irn Bru is as always selevtive in his figures and the way he spins them. When Labour came to power the Tories already had the economy going in the right direction Brown had committed to keeping to the Conservative spending plans for the first three years which he did.

That's when he

1. Sold our gold at rock bottom prices when he didn't need to.

2. Opened the spending taps BIG style and started to create hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs most of which were bean counters.

3. He forced Blair to junk two years research and policy planning to reform the welfare state and instead introduced the night mare of tax credits with it's incumbent huge work force and unworkable systems.

4. He went on an off book spending spree on PFI initiatives the ramifications of which we will feel for decades.

5. He fucked up private pensions whilst making salaries and pensions in the public sector the best they had ever been in history.

Need I go on. It ultimately lead to collapse of public finances when the banks went into decline as he spent every penny and then some.

I will say in fairness at the time the politicians on the opposition benches were trying to say they would also spend generously. They wouldn't have been so stupid I think and lets face it since the crash they have been trying to pay down Labours deficit.

Irn Bru thinks Gordon Brown was iconic enough said. Prudent he wasn't. Indeed he was as prudent as Irn Bru is honest and intelligent.

Ah welcome Drinky. You’re a bit late in the game on this one but Tommy will appreciate the support because he sure as hell needs it.

All that above has already been covered so get up to sctrach by reading back and let me know any points that I have raised that would like to dispute.

And just for the record – I didn’t think Gordon Brown was the right man for the job and he certainly made mistakes by following the Tory line in not regulating banks but he was certainly better than the alternative being offered up by a sleaze ridden Tory government that was kicked out of office with nothing to show for 18 years but rot and terminal decay of the public infrastructure

Keep doffing and keep Tommy company.

Waffle.


Labour inherited a strong economy.


Yearly borrowing was already leveling out when they took over, and they followed Tory spending plans for a couple of years which resulted in borrowing declining.



By the time labour spending plans kicked in, borrowing increased and then went through the roof by the time they left office and continued rising after Torys took over as they inherited labour spending commitments which made that happen.



I have already shown that borrowing and overall national debt rose massively under labour, and this is excluding bank bail out money.


You are a liar if you claim otherwise.

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle.


Labour inherited a strong economy.


Yearly borrowing was already leveling out when they took over, and they followed Tory spending plans for a couple of years which resulted in borrowing declining.



By the time labour spending plans kicked in, borrowing increased and then went through the roof by the time they left office and continued rising after Torys took over as they inherited labour spending commitments which made that happen.



I have already shown that borrowing and overall national debt rose massively under labour, and this is excluding bank bail out money.


You are a liar if you claim otherwise.

Spending went through the roof because of the collapse of the global banking system and you can't understand that spending over and above the banking bail outs would increase and entail more than just that like reduced tax intakes and supporting all those unemployed etc. then you clearly don't have a clue about what happens in a recession.

Just accept the fact that up to the collapse that Labour had reduced the public debt below what it had inherited from the Tories by a fair amount and that the IFS statement is correct.

From the governor of the Bank of England

Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.

Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

I know that's like a dagger in your heart to read that but I'm afraid it's all too true and your argument hit the buffers ages ago.

Labour didn't reduce anything,they inherited a strong economy and the Tory spending plans already in place, which they had to follow as any incoming govt has to do.


There is no choice in this.



It's a bit like taking over control of a massive oil tanker vessel or container ship. You get up to the bridge and take command from the other captain who has finished his shift, but you don't have any immediate control of the direction or speed of travel of the ship at all.


The course and speed are already set in place, and anything you do to try to change this will take a while before any real change actually happens at all.




If you took control over a ship that was already heading on a good course and speed, then that is down to the previous captain, just like If you took over control of The ship which was heading for the rocks would also be down to the previous captain.



This is exactly what you lefties are doing over the economy.


Trying to claim credit for the strong economy you inherited in 97, and then trying to blame Torys for the mess they inherited that labour left behind.

Tommy Monk wrote:Labour didn't reduce anything,they inherited a strong economy and the Tory spending plans already in place, which they had to follow as any incoming govt has to do.


There is no choice in this.



It's a bit like taking over control of a massive oil tanker vessel or container ship. You get up to the bridge and take command from the other captain who has finished his shift, but you don't have any immediate control of the direction or speed of travel of the ship at all.


The course and speed are already set in place, and anything you do to try to change this will take a while before any real change actually happens at all.




If you took control over a ship that was already heading on a good course and speed, then that is down to the previous captain, just like If you took over control of The ship which was heading for the rocks would also be down to the previous captain.



This is exactly what you lefties are doing over the economy.


Trying to claim credit for the strong economy you inherited in 97, and then trying to blame Torys for the mess they inherited that labour left behind.

Oil tankers and container ships now - whatever next

8 long years, Tommy. 8 long, long years after the nation had decided that they had had enough of the Tories, Labour had reduced the public debt by around 6.1% below what they had inherited from the Tories who had left the debt in 1997 at around the same level they inherited in 1979.
But as Mervyn King said.....

After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.

Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.



Now that's a fact you have to live with.

Rock on

It's amazing how the left in the U.S. have been far more responsible about the national debt than the right as well!

It's almost as if the right is simply making shit up!

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://www.nationalmemo.com/deficit-down-by-37-6-percent-this-year-but-most-americans-think-its-growing/

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's amazing how the left in the U.S. have been far more responsible about the national debt than the right as well!

It's almost as if the right is simply making shit up!

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://www.nationalmemo.com/deficit-down-by-37-6-percent-this-year-but-most-americans-think-its-growing/

Strange that David Cameron said it wasn't Labour's fault and that the problems with the banking sector went back for around 30 years which took it to the big bang brought about by Thatcher. Yet now he claims it's all Labour fault and that's on the back of Osborne pledging to match Labour's spending plans.

Amazing huh!!!

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Did debt s art rising from 2001-2?
Yes or no?

We know that any incoming govt has to follow previous govt spending plans for a while.

Debt was starting to go down when labour got in.

UK public debt

1993 up to 34.8

1994 up to 39.0

1995 up to 41.5

1996 up to 42.5

So where was it falling under the Tories?

And according to simple arithmetic 36.4 is lower than 42.5, by a fair bit,,,,,,,,,yes?

Back to school for you lad.

  

WORLDWIDE, national long term debts have always increased sharply under conservative regimes ~ that is a fact of life !

AT THE same time, they have moved even more debts onto future generations by reducing current recurring expenditures, and reducing maintenance and repairs of public infrastructure and assets..

AND now they have added the extra 'robber baron' expense by pandering to their corporatist mates by "privatising all profits, while 'socialising' debts".

THE lies that the likes of Tommy, nicko, L'ilAndy, Tess and VoD keep revisiting endlessly upon forums and "liberal-commie-socialist" audiences is legion ~ unsupportable nonsense that they hope will gain at least some credibility through their repeated parroting..

 

Still clinging to 8 years....


Look at The graphs you cretin.

Tommy Monk wrote:Still clinging to 8 years....


Look at The graphs you cretin.

The 8 years is relevant because it was around that time that the financial crisis kicked in and screwed up the public spending plans for Labour as well as George Osborne's pledge to match them and indeed exceed them.
And if you think that it was only the banking bail outs that increased public spending over and above what was planned then I'm certain you won't find an economist or a financial expert anywhere that would go along with that view.
Just accept that up until the financial storm hit most western economies in the world Labour paid down the national debt well below what they inherited from the Tories in 1997 because that's a fact that you can't dispute.

 

TOMMY just has to keep on demonstrating that he knows absolutely zero about economics, politics and world history...

AND keeps on making up his silly stories and attempting to rewrite modern history to suit his imaginings..   

HEY Lone wolf, I hope your not a typical example of how a Aussie male is now. The Aussies I knew years ago were intelligent brave men.

More waffle, I have posted a graph that sionp clearly that borrowing was rising massively WITHOUT the bank bail out money but the lefties pretend otherwise still.




And still can't answer this simple question......



How did labour increased spending but didn't increase borrowing or taxes?



You can't have it both ways lefties!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:More waffle, I have posted a graph that sionp clearly that borrowing was rising massively WITHOUT the bank bail out money but the lefties pretend otherwise still.

It wasn't rising massively enough to get back to the level they inherited from the Tories therefore Labour paid down the public debt by around 6.1% from what it was when they took power and that's a fact.

And you won't find an economist or a financial expert anywhere that would even remotely support your view that outwith the bail outs that public spending by Labour, or what was proposed by George Osborne in matching it was not altered by the financial crisis. Don't you think that there was additional spending required to cope with that or is it that you just don't have a clue?

Tommy Monk wrote:And still can't answer this simple question......



How did labour increased spending but didn't increase borrowing or taxes?



You can't have it both ways lefties!!!

Growth in the economy and investing it rather than just using it to run the government. That was the Tory way. Pointed out to you in the IFS briefing. You must have missed it

Growth was based on unsustainable rising consumer spending through massive rising personal debt and borrowing, Which led to the 'credit crunch' where everyone was spent out..


As well as the huge amount of PFI deals creating private investment into schools and hospitals but destined to come back and bite us all hard in the arse when we had to start paying the extortionate bill that labour had agreed to for it.







Labour inherited a strong economy with govt borrowing leveling out and already destined to start declining when labour took over.



And you obviously missed this.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Growth was based on unsustainable rising consumer spending through massive rising personal debt and borrowing, Which led to the 'credit crunch' where everyone was spent out..

We had a balanced economy based on sustainable growth until irresponsible bankers screwed it all up.  A legacy Relinquished to them going back around 30 years to the big bang.

Tommy Monk wrote:As well as the huge amount of PFI deals creating private investment into schools and hospitals but destined to come back and bite us all hard in the arse when we had to start paying the extortionate bill that labour had agreed to for it.

A Tory concept to cover cost over runs in public sector procurement that cost just as much, if not more than PFI. In 2009 the NAO stated that PFI was delivering good value for money but in 2010 it said it wasn't in todays financial climate but that didn't stop George Osborne signing up to even more. Perhaps you should watch this...

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid601325122001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_Vh4qBcIZDrvZlvNCU8nxccG&bctid=909644602001

Tommy Monk wrote:Labour inherited a strong economy with govt borrowing leveling out and already destined to start declining when labour took over.

8 years later the public debt was lower than it was in 1997  - fact. 8 years.

Tommy Monk wrote:And you obviously missed this.....

That's the strangest of all your graphs and the one that you think shows that public spending remained at the levels it would have after the banking crisis.

You really don't have a clue.

You are so full of twisting denials and waffle that it is impossible to have any sensible and reasoned debate about anything.



I could show you a picture of a cloudy sky and you would try to tell me that under labour the clouds were thinner and less wide spread and how we actually enjoyed more average sunshine compared to under the Tories.



You would argue night is day if it was in protection of your beloved labour party.



You completely ignore that labour inherited a strong economy with borrowing already leveling out and destined to decline.


Labour followed Tory spending plans so had absolutely nothing to do with this decline in annual borrowing that was seen during their first 2-3 years in office.


You claim a growing economy, but fail to recognise that this was happening anyway as they took over and followed Tory spending plans.


You fail to factor in all the PFI investment that happened under labour which had a huge effect on growth but didn't show up as borrowing.


AS well as the enormous rise in personal debt and borrowing which also contributed to the growth that we had.



All unsustainable and eventually this bubble burst.



My last graph shows clearly that borrowing was spiraling out of control.



This is after labours false economic growth based on consumer debt/borrowing and spending ended when it hit the credit limit, and after the spending from all the off balance sheet PFI deals stopped.



Whatever way you look at it, growth under labour was based on debt.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are so full of twisting denials and waffle that it is impossible to have any sensible and reasoned debate about anything.



I could show you a picture of a cloudy sky and you would try to tell me that under labour the clouds were thinner and less wide spread and how we actually enjoyed more average sunshine compared to under the Tories.



You would argue night is day if it was in protection of your beloved labour party.



You completely ignore that labour inherited a strong economy with borrowing already leveling out and destined to decline.


Labour followed Tory spending plans so had absolutely nothing to do with this decline in annual borrowing that was seen during their first 2-3 years in office.


You claim a growing economy, but fail to recognise that this was happening anyway as they took over and followed Tory spending plans.


You fail to factor in all the PFI investment that happened under labour which had a huge effect on growth but didn't show up as borrowing.


AS well as the enormous rise in personal debt and borrowing which also contributed to the growth that we had.



All unsustainable and eventually this bubble burst.



My last graph shows clearly that borrowing was spiraling out of control.



This is after labours false economic growth based on consumer debt/borrowing and spending ended when it hit the credit limit, and after the spending from all the off balance sheet PFI deals stopped.



Whatever way you look at it, growth under labour was based on debt.

That's just another uninformed rant. You just can't accept the truth.

Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

Mervyn King – Governor of the Bank of England

But he added: "If I'm honest, I have to admit that we, the Conservative Party, didn't see this as early as we could have."
There were other areas where Tory party policy had gone wrong, he said, such as basing its plans on the hope that economic growth would continue.
In a striking admission, Mr Cameron said not all of the present problems had been created since Labour came to power almost 12 years ago. "If we're honest we must recognise that some of our economic difficulties today relate not only to what has happened in the last ten years, but also to fundamental weaknesses that have been there for decades," he said.
These remarks could upset Tory traditionalists who will see it as a partial apology for Thatcherite policies.

David Cameron – Prime Minister

http://www.scotsman.com/news/cameron-apologises-for-past-tory-failings-over-economy-1-1029731


Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives.• And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.


Institute for Fiscal Studies...

We can't all be wrong and borrowing went up because of the banking crisis. Just deal with it. You don't have a clue.

Growth was artificial, unsustainable as was completely debt based, firstly massive spending into the economy by huge number of PFI investment at massive later burden of costs to tax payer, and also the massive debt based consumer spending spree that also happened.



We have seen the graph that shows borrowing/%/gdp also rising consistently.from 2001-2 when labours spending plans kicked in, and then starting to rise sharply to through the roof by the time they left and still increasing as it would have been for any incoming govt.



You claim borrowing was not rising because of growth, while presiding over a growth that is only happening because of PFI borrowing and spending and massive consumer spending which was also the result of massive increase in personal debt by borrowing.





The Torys/jib dems have tried to curb this borrowing and sort out the mess labour left, but labour have opposed every spending reduction put forward.

You heard it here first folks......



Borrowing wasn't rising, taxes weren't rising, but spending was increasing, through growth..... but this growth was only because of PFI investment borrowing that was off balance sheet borrowing, and a massive consumer spending spree that was fueled by this massive PFI investment based on off balance sheet borrowing and also increasing personal loans and credit card borrowing and spending.




But according to iron bru, nothing to do with borrowing or labour....

It's been a while since anyone has been shocked that Republicans hate pretty much everyone but the sick bastards in the mirror, but I thought it would be enlightening to work out quantitatively just how big a proportion of the US population the Republican Party actively campaigns against, so I'll describe step-by-step each of the demographics they openly demagogue, find out what proportion of the population they represent, and then at the end of the process put the data into a pie chart showing how much of America the Republican Party hates.

... So now you have a concrete talking point: The Republican Party hates 71% of Americans. This is how much Republicans hate America.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1082932/-Demographic-Pie-Chart-of-Republican-Hate

Tommy Monk wrote:Growth was artificial, unsustainable as was completely debt based, firstly massive spending into the economy by huge number of PFI investment at massive later burden of costs to tax payer, and also the massive debt based consumer spending spree that also happened.



We have seen the graph that shows borrowing/%/gdp also rising consistently.from 2001-2 when labours spending plans kicked in, and then starting to rise sharply to through the roof by the time they left and still increasing as it would have been for any incoming govt.



You claim borrowing was not rising because of growth, while presiding over a growth that is only happening because of PFI borrowing and spending and massive consumer spending which was also the result of massive increase in personal debt by borrowing.





The Torys/jib dems have tried to curb this borrowing  and sort out the mess labour left, but labour have opposed every spending reduction put forward.

I went and found that graph that you are bleating on about and it quite clearly tells you in the text above that the figures include additional spending.

And what happens in a recession?

The economy goes into recession, costing many workers their jobs, and at the same time causing corporate profits to decline. This causes less income tax revenue to flow to the government, along with less corporate income tax revenue. Occasionally the flow of income to the government will still grow, but at a slower rate than inflation, meaning that flow of tax revenue has fallen in real terms.

Because many workers have lost their jobs, their is increased use of government programs, such as unemployment insurance. Government spending rises as more individuals are calling on government services to help them out through tough times.

To help push the economy out of recession and to help those who have lost their jobs, governments often create new social programs during times of recession and depression. FDR's "New Deal" of the 1930s is a prime example of this. Government spending then rises, not just because of increased use of existing programs, but through the creation of new programs.

Because of factors one, the government receives less money from taxpayers, while factors two and three, the government spends more money. Money starts flowing out of the government faster than it comes in, causing the government's budget to go into deficit.

Now if you don't understand that then you are plainly thick. I don't think you are and you're just arguing to try and deny that the public debt had been paid down by Labour 8 years later at around 6.1% from the level that they inherited from the Tories in 1997.

Just accept that we can't all be wrong and you right.

Tommy Monk wrote:You heard it here first folks......



Borrowing wasn't rising, taxes weren't rising, but spending was increasing, through growth..... but this growth was only because of PFI investment borrowing that was off balance sheet borrowing, and a massive consumer spending spree that was fueled by this massive PFI investment based on off balance sheet borrowing and also increasing personal loans and credit card borrowing and spending.




But according to iron bru, nothing to do with borrowing or labour....

You're right. This is the first time I've heard your explanation that the spending on public debt carried on in much the same way as if there had been no recession.

It's a classic I'll give you that.