I'm afraid we are not allowed to. The current Labour voter must be far left and hate the tories else the rest walk off with their football.
The Labour party has been a party of the centre or even slightly right at least since the mid 90's. I know there are some hard liners but that is true of the Tories too. The fact is that we have no true left wing party anymore.
First time I've heard a PM blamed for marriage break-ups!
You're taking superficial party politics too far, Paul.
Actually I'm not. Ignoring for the moment that you are I disagree on some things the Labour Party used 1998 figures and determined that there was a shortage of IT workers in 2001. So when industry said there was a shortage the Labour Party said of course - bring in all these cheap workers and no need for a local needs test.
Now there may indeed have been a shortage in 1998 - we had the Euro, Y2K and the internet. By 2001 all these demands had vanished. Industry went from a shortage to a surplus - this was a given at the time and those of us in the industry expected it.
We did not expect a huge influx of cheap workers.
Some very good people found that from having a surplus of calls asking if they were available - went to phones only ringing once a week, or spending hours on the phone. One went from having 3 or 4 competitors for a job to 150 people.
The pressure of this got to some people - their marriages suffered and others lost homes as their livelihood was ripped from under them.
Labour's reaction was basically 'prove it'.
The cynic in one might think that Labour's close relationship with large consultancies such as Andersens was a bit of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. In the immortal words of Francis Urquart - 'You might say that, I could not possibly comment'.
Actually I'm not. Ignoring for the moment that you are I disagree on some things the Labour Party used 1998 figures and determined that there was a shortage of IT workers in 2001. So when industry said there was a shortage the Labour Party said of course - bring in all these cheap workers and no need for a local needs test.
Now there may indeed have been a shortage in 1998 - we had the Euro, Y2K and the internet. By 2001 all these demands had vanished. Industry went from a shortage to a surplus - this was a given at the time and those of us in the industry expected it.
We did not expect a huge influx of cheap workers.
Some very good people found that from having a surplus of calls asking if they were available - went to phones only ringing once a week, or spending hours on the phone. One went from having 3 or 4 competitors for a job to 150 people.
The pressure of this got to some people - their marriages suffered and others lost homes as their livelihood was ripped from under them.
Labour's reaction was basically 'prove it'.
The cynic in one might think that Labour's close relationship with large consultancies such as Andersens was a bit of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. In the immortal words of Francis Urquart - 'You might say that, I could not possibly comment'.
Oh, I see.
So basically what you're saying is that anybody who has a relationship that fails due to them being made redundant and losing their homes (who work in the public sector, say) is the personal fault of David Cameron and Nick Clegg?
So basically what you're saying is that anybody who has a relationship that fails due to them being made redundant and losing their homes (who work in the public sector, say) is the personal fault of David Cameron and Nick Clegg?
H'mmm.
Wonder if they can sue?;)
No I'm not - I'm saying that the way Labour decided to open up borders to cheap workers with outdated figures (either deliberately or incompetance) led to people losing their homes.
As a supporter of decent wages I'm surprised to see you supporting a Labour government advocating the suppression of wages - because that was the net result of increasing the supply of workers.
At that time it was not clear exactly how much Brown had overspent - he was a master at hiding his spending.
Wrong- At that point the Debt was coming down, that is exactly why Osbourne thought he could spend more.
That would be the growth which started under the Tory government - indeed the first 5 years of growth under Brown was less than the growth for the last 5 years under the Tories. And the rebuilding of schools was in a large part paid for by PPP which again it has clearly been shown to have been badly negotiated and poor value for money.
Wrong - Growth really took off in Q3 of 1999 under Labour, and as a result of Brown’s policies.
Further it has clear that much of the growth he did deliver was based on an unsustainable debt boom (both government and personal)
Wrong How do you think Capitalism works, if Growth is outstripping the deficit you are earning your way.
The Tories changed their tune after the crash and with the benefit of hindsight and have been proven incapable of running the economy, we have another 2 years of this stagnation to put up with.
No I'm not - I'm saying that the way Labour decided to open up borders to cheap workers with outdated figures (either deliberately or incompetance) led to people losing their homes.
As a supporter of decent wages I'm surprised to see you supporting a Labour government advocating the suppression of wages - because that was the net result of increasing the supply of workers.
So what of the current government's considered policy of slashing jobs in the public sector, and people losing their homes - and relationships - because of that?
You can't say that Blair/Brown were personally responsible for marriage break-ups and not Cameron/Clegg!
(Although, of course, it seems to me a rather silly thing to say either way if you don't mind me saying!)
The Government torpedoed any need for a Chancellor of the Exchequer after 1997, when responsibility for setting Monetary Policy was transferred to the Quasi Independent Monetary Policy Committee.... and, in the same way as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was established to defend the Minister of State for Health from the decision to implement a defacto policy of Medical Rationining, so the MPC of the BoE can offer a defence against an economic downturn being responsibility for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Of course, as in the case of Gordon "Mr Casino Banker" Brown, the Chancellor can proverbially screw up the economy, continue to fast track nominated people to the MPC of the BoE, and yet can plead "not my fault".
Wrong - Growth really took off in Q3 of 1999 under Labour, and as a result of Brown’s policies.
There was a peak in GDP annual growth rate in 2000 of 5.6 and it declined for the next year before starting to rise again - something which it is now clear was based on borrowing and the housing price boom.
Wrong How do you think Capitalism works, if Growth is outstripping the deficit you are earning your way.
But this was not the case - Brown borrowed for 10 out of 13 years he was in power - that is a fact. But he had growth for 10 out of 13 years - for 7 years Brown's spending outstripped his tax income even though GDP was growing. In a classic Keynesian economy he should have not needed to borrow money until the recession hit post the credit crunch of 2007.
The Tories changed their tune after the crash and with the benefit of hindsight and have been proven incapable of running the economy, we have another 2 years of this stagnation to put up with.
It was always planned for the structural deficit to take 5 years - even that plan had a leeway of 1 year either way - as it is we are looking at 7 years, partly down to the Euro crisis - which nobody expected back in 2010.
Current predictions are for growth to return this year and to steadily grow.
So what of the current government's considered policy of slashing jobs in the public sector, and people losing their homes - and relationships - because of that?
Their have been more jobs created in the private sector than lost in the public sector.
There were surpluses in the first Quarter of 2006 and 2007
Every single one of the 10 years Brown was in charge of the economy spending outstripped tax income. Individual quarters (especially the quarter when he gets the most tax from corporates) are irrelevant.
Every single one of the 10 years Brown was in charge of the economy spending outstripped tax income. Individual quarters (especially the quarter when he gets the most tax from corporates) are irrelevant.
Why do Tories feel that you can get away with just making stuff up like this and your original post.
From 1998 to 2002 Gordon Brown produced the large surpluses much greater than the so called Tory boom years, and if a Q1 surplus outstrips subsequent three Quarter deficits as it did in 2006 it is hardly irrelevant.
You can rest assured that my figures are backed up with evidence unlike yours that you seem to be making up.
Why do Tories feel that you can get away with just making stuff up like this and your original post.
From 1998 to 2002 Gordon Brown produced the large surpluses much greater than the so called Tory boom years, and if a Q1 surplus outstrips subsequent three Quarter deficits as it did in 2006 it is hardly irrelevant.
You can rest assured that my figures are backed up with evidence unlike yours that you seem to be making up.
Perhaps you can show us these figures, backed up by evidence?
Why do Tories feel that you can get away with just making stuff up like this and your original post.
From 1998 to 2002 Gordon Brown produced the large surpluses much greater than the so called Tory boom years, and if a Q1 surplus outstrips subsequent three Quarter deficits as it did in 2006 it is hardly irrelevant.
You can rest assured that my figures are backed up with evidence unlike yours that you seem to be making up.
You can clearly see how borrowing went down from 1997 to 2000, there was still a surplus (although smaller) in 2001 and borrowing increased from 2002 - 2009 and the borrowing level has continued to go down.
Brown promised to keep to Tory spending limits on first gaining power - something he continued to do - the PSBR continued to decline from 1997 to 2000 being in surplus - something Ken Clarke had predicted during the budget of 2006.
Government expenditure has risen from 40.6% to 45.4% of
GDP since 1997 eventually ending up higher than Germany.
GDP is of course not a measure of wealth but of production and includes what the government does which no doubt contributes to the FTSE being 9% lower despite growth of 36% and inflation of approx 35% - this has been the case for all post-war Labour governments - the stock market suffers.
Their have been more jobs created in the private sector than lost in the public sector.
Paul, why are you ducking the point?
Yesterday you made the astonishing claim that Blair and Brown were personally responsible for marriage break ups due to policies carried out by their governments.
For the last time, do you personally blame Cameron and Clegg for people whose relationships founder because they have their homes repossessed today due to government policies on employment?
Comments
I'm afraid we are not allowed to. The current Labour voter must be far left and hate the tories else the rest walk off with their football.
The Labour party has been a party of the centre or even slightly right at least since the mid 90's. I know there are some hard liners but that is true of the Tories too. The fact is that we have no true left wing party anymore.
Classic.
If only!
Actually I'm not. Ignoring for the moment that you are I disagree on some things the Labour Party used 1998 figures and determined that there was a shortage of IT workers in 2001. So when industry said there was a shortage the Labour Party said of course - bring in all these cheap workers and no need for a local needs test.
Now there may indeed have been a shortage in 1998 - we had the Euro, Y2K and the internet. By 2001 all these demands had vanished. Industry went from a shortage to a surplus - this was a given at the time and those of us in the industry expected it.
We did not expect a huge influx of cheap workers.
Some very good people found that from having a surplus of calls asking if they were available - went to phones only ringing once a week, or spending hours on the phone. One went from having 3 or 4 competitors for a job to 150 people.
The pressure of this got to some people - their marriages suffered and others lost homes as their livelihood was ripped from under them.
Labour's reaction was basically 'prove it'.
The cynic in one might think that Labour's close relationship with large consultancies such as Andersens was a bit of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. In the immortal words of Francis Urquart - 'You might say that, I could not possibly comment'.
Oh, I see.
So basically what you're saying is that anybody who has a relationship that fails due to them being made redundant and losing their homes (who work in the public sector, say) is the personal fault of David Cameron and Nick Clegg?
H'mmm.
Wonder if they can sue?;)
No I'm not - I'm saying that the way Labour decided to open up borders to cheap workers with outdated figures (either deliberately or incompetance) led to people losing their homes.
As a supporter of decent wages I'm surprised to see you supporting a Labour government advocating the suppression of wages - because that was the net result of increasing the supply of workers.
So what of the current government's considered policy of slashing jobs in the public sector, and people losing their homes - and relationships - because of that?
You can't say that Blair/Brown were personally responsible for marriage break-ups and not Cameron/Clegg!
(Although, of course, it seems to me a rather silly thing to say either way if you don't mind me saying!)
not sure where you get that from - growth rate doesn't look to have changed much year on year from 1993 thru 2007.
GDP Growth
How could the debt be coming down in 2007, given that we were running a deficit from 2002 onwards?
Of course, as in the case of Gordon "Mr Casino Banker" Brown, the Chancellor can proverbially screw up the economy, continue to fast track nominated people to the MPC of the BoE, and yet can plead "not my fault".
There was a peak in GDP annual growth rate in 2000 of 5.6 and it declined for the next year before starting to rise again - something which it is now clear was based on borrowing and the housing price boom.
But this was not the case - Brown borrowed for 10 out of 13 years he was in power - that is a fact. But he had growth for 10 out of 13 years - for 7 years Brown's spending outstripped his tax income even though GDP was growing. In a classic Keynesian economy he should have not needed to borrow money until the recession hit post the credit crunch of 2007.
It was always planned for the structural deficit to take 5 years - even that plan had a leeway of 1 year either way - as it is we are looking at 7 years, partly down to the Euro crisis - which nobody expected back in 2010.
Current predictions are for growth to return this year and to steadily grow.
Their have been more jobs created in the private sector than lost in the public sector.
There were surpluses in the first Quarter of 2006 and 2007 and in 2006 the Debt was coming down as a perctage of GDP.
By July 2007 it was down to 35.4%, the trend was down, hence the Obourne promises to increase spending.
Every single one of the 10 years Brown was in charge of the economy spending outstripped tax income. Individual quarters (especially the quarter when he gets the most tax from corporates) are irrelevant.
Debt, as a percentage of GDP, rose every year from 2002.
Why do Tories feel that you can get away with just making stuff up like this and your original post.
From 1998 to 2002 Gordon Brown produced the large surpluses much greater than the so called Tory boom years, and if a Q1 surplus outstrips subsequent three Quarter deficits as it did in 2006 it is hardly irrelevant.
You can rest assured that my figures are backed up with evidence unlike yours that you seem to be making up.
Bit of a sheepish answer where is your evidence.
Here
Perhaps you can show us these figures, backed up by evidence?
Please you first I would like to see on what basis you have made the outrageous statements in your posts.
I believe the only 'statement' i've made on this thread is that we ran a deficit from 2002 onwards.
Is that considered to be 'outrageous' now?
I have n't made up those figures - just cannot find the chart which shows it. However if you look at this link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdEdNdWlxdGhJVHE1WE9OYlVQazZUcWc#gid=2
You can clearly see how borrowing went down from 1997 to 2000, there was still a surplus (although smaller) in 2001 and borrowing increased from 2002 - 2009 and the borrowing level has continued to go down.
Brown promised to keep to Tory spending limits on first gaining power - something he continued to do - the PSBR continued to decline from 1997 to 2000 being in surplus - something Ken Clarke had predicted during the budget of 2006.
Government expenditure has risen from 40.6% to 45.4% of
GDP since 1997 eventually ending up higher than Germany.
(see http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111027113017-20090501EconomyTheStockMarketUnderLabour.pdf Page 8)
GDP is of course not a measure of wealth but of production and includes what the government does which no doubt contributes to the FTSE being 9% lower despite growth of 36% and inflation of approx 35% - this has been the case for all post-war Labour governments - the stock market suffers.
Paul, why are you ducking the point?
Yesterday you made the astonishing claim that Blair and Brown were personally responsible for marriage break ups due to policies carried out by their governments.
For the last time, do you personally blame Cameron and Clegg for people whose relationships founder because they have their homes repossessed today due to government policies on employment?