Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

Who will you vote for?

  • Total voters
    1,453
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caged said:
And you've been asked to consider what might have happened in 2008 that caused that debt.
Click to expand...
I really don't get how you find it so hard to understand a relatively simple graph and quote from the independant report a Labour support here highlighted and then you say i'm arguing in bad faith. What does that have to do with Saint Jeremy promising free stuff to everyone and evil Tories having to try to get the debt run up by the previous labour government under control. You seem confused.

"In the past eight years, debt has increased to 80% of GDP, but is beginning to stabilise"


national-debt-since-1945-600x424.png
 
It happened on their watch, but it doesn't support your claim that it was handouts to buy votes, and it doesn't make the notion of a national credit card accurate, which you'll remember what where this conversation started originally.

The projections done of policies to try and tackle the deficit showed it improving quicker than the coalition plan that replaced it, but obviously we will never know if that would have happened or not. It's irritating seeing people constantly parrot it because this popular idea that somehow Labour are awful with economics yet the Tories are all complete geniuses just isn't borne out by any actual evidence.
 
Caged said:
It happened on their watch, but it doesn't support your claim that it was handouts to buy votes, and it doesn't make the notion of a national credit card accurate, which you'll remember what where this conversation started originally.

The projections done of policies to try and tackle the deficit showed it improving quicker than the coalition plan that replaced it, but obviously we will never know if that would have happened or not.
Click to expand...
Sooo, is it also fair to say if the previous Labour government hadn't run that debt up the subsequent Tory government wouldn't have had to introduce cuts to try and get it back under control? Again, just a yes or no will be fine rather than a paragraph of spin.
 
See earlier comment about arguing in bad faith. This isn't a yes/no discussion, there are nuances to it. I mistakenly thought you wanted a discussion, it's clear you just want to 'win' an argument.

For reference, I dispute they "ran it up" because the implication was that it was optional and a result of party policies.
 
This entire topic is entirely pointless, it was a global financial meltdown, whether it was Labour or Conservatives or the bloody Monster Raving Looney party in charge in 2008, whoever was at the helm could do little to stop the effects and whoever arrived in 2010 had a crappy stick to pick up and deal with.

Pretending it was all the result of party politics is completely pointless.
 
Caged said:
See earlier comment about arguing in bad faith. This isn't a yes/no discussion, there are nuances to it. I mistakenly thought you wanted a discussion, it's clear you just want to 'win' an argument.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how you switch to the Ad Hominem attack when confronted with inconvenient things like facts from the very report presented by a Labour supporter here. Very poor attempt - 5 out of 10 must try harder.
 
You seem to believe that debt taken on as a result of a global financial crisis was somehow a policy decision, sorry that you can't grasp it. You are presenting an incredibly overly simplified view and showing no desire to understand further, so I'm not bothered with trying.
 
Caged said:
You seem to believe that debt taken on as a result of a global financial crisis was somehow a policy decision, sorry that you can't grasp it. You are presenting an incredibly overly simplified view and showing no desire to understand further, so I'm not bothered with trying.
Click to expand...
I like you, you're funny... Shilling is awfully difficult to do when you have to argue against the facts presented by your own supporters. Feel free to carry on with the Ad Hominem attacks and spin on how nothing was the labour government of 13 years fault despite deregulating the banks and running up the debt from 2002.

"Gordon Brown helped fuel Britain’s banking crisis by pressuring the City regulator not to intervene and stop reckless lending, Lord Turner, the head of the Financial Services Authority, said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rown-helped-fuel-banking-crisis-FSA-head.html
 
A good visualisation of recent UK/France/Germany's debt as a percentage of GDP.

https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata...0&tend=1464994800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Make of it what you will, people justifying Austerity based on notions of household budgets are thankfully starting to get sidelined, there is evidence around the world and in our history that shows that good inward investment/spending can reduce the national debt, not increase it.

As should be clear to most, you don't quantitatively ease your household budget, you are unlikely to discover a new massive energy resource in your garden.
 
Macro said:
I like you, you're funny... Shilling is awfully difficult to do when you have to argue against the facts presented by your own supporters. Feel free to carry on with the Ad Hominem attacks and spin on how nothing was the labour government of 13 years fault despite deregulating the banks and running up the debt from 2002.

"Gordon Brown helped fuel Britain’s banking crisis by pressuring the City regulator not to intervene and stop reckless lending, Lord Turner, the head of the Financial Services Authority, said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rown-helped-fuel-banking-crisis-FSA-head.html
Click to expand...

But lets not pretend it was a left wing ideal to deregulate banking markets, or that the Conservatives opposed that position!
 
Caged said:
You seem to believe that debt taken on as a result of a global financial crisis was somehow a policy decision, sorry that you can't grasp it. You are presenting an incredibly overly simplified view and showing no desire to understand further, so I'm not bothered with trying.
Click to expand...

he hadn't mentioned the financial crisis and Labour were gradually increasing a deficit immediately prior to it... we had an early 90s recession where the deficit grew under the tories and they then steadily reduced it... until Blair took over - that trend continued for a bit more turning into a small surplus - then labour started spending and running up a large deficit, not as a result of any recession but just because, well, ideologically they wanted to spend... and then the financial crisis hit - something that would have happened under either party but the impact of which on public finances was much greater as a result of the previous few years of deficit
 
stewski said:
But lets not pretend it was a left wing ideal to deregulate banking markets, or that the Conservatives opposed that position!
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree - I just find it funny to see the Labour shills here try to spin that it was nothing to do with the Labour government and just the Tories wanting to be evil to people with cuts. I'm happy to accept there may have been other, perhaps better, routes to stabilizing the economy but to try to paint it as all just down to the Tory government is disingenuous at best. I only highlighted the chart and independent study put forward by a Labour supporter here, it's not my fault if on reflection it causes Saint Jeremys faithful to get their pants in a bunch :)

Having run out of scripted answers they start going for the Ad Hominem attack rather than a sensible debate (such as the post i'm answering here).
 
Bill Clinton, African Americans, dodgy US mortgage salesmen and David Bowie... all have a share of the blame in addition to 'the bankers' and the Labour Party... in fact the first two mentioned are much more to blame
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom