Margaret Thatcher is dead
Apr 10th 2013 | 2:31 am
#259
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 94,305
From: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Apr 10th 2013 | 2:43 am
#261
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Apr 10th 2013 | 2:47 am
#262
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 94,305
From: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
I'd just got in from Aus, my legs were jetlagged 
better check my life insurance is in order 
Apr 10th 2013 | 3:32 am
#265
Home and Happy
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 94,305
From: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
I won't expect you for a while then
Apr 10th 2013 | 4:20 am
#266
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 238
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
Or maybe I read it, and dismissed it as rubbish, having solidly demonstrated that any debt created by Labour is less than that currently being created by the Coalition?
Are you not reading these posts?
I'll add in edit that the spending of the New Labour government was less than the spending of the Major government by some way (as % of GDP). So who built up all this debt? Just the Labour Party? Was the debt run up by previous governments imaginary debt?
Are you not reading these posts?
I'll add in edit that the spending of the New Labour government was less than the spending of the Major government by some way (as % of GDP). So who built up all this debt? Just the Labour Party? Was the debt run up by previous governments imaginary debt?
% GDP cannot be used as the sole indicator of debt. It's a simple indicator and therefore can easily be misused. You have to also take into account the general economic conditions, actual GDP, tax income etc.
Thatcher took over after years of spending above 45%GDP, the Coalition when the spend (as a %GDP) was rising rapidly. In both instances the economy was in a dire situation. Therefore it is obvious that these governments would be forced for a time to maintain an unacceptable high rate. The worse the situation, the longer the time with high rates will be required. But you can be sure that if Osborne carried on with the rate of Brown's spending we would be spending around 50% of GDP due to the economic situation. Hence large cuts being required.
Blair had it easy with relative spend falling and a stable economy. But instead of keeping a reign on the spend and saving for the future, within 5 years the money was being spent at unnecessary rate. Between 2001 and 2006 the rate rose in the UK when other countries such as Germany were reducing theirs or only increasing slightly (like the US).
Additionally, because of the excessive gaps between tax income and spend Brown topped up his funds with taxes on pension funds and selling off gold at a 20 year low price. (The final two were appalling acts from Brown). Oh and of course using National Lottery funds to cover up holes in his finances. Without these raids the %GDP spend would have been much higher and therefore the declared %GDP rate of spend means little in these circumstances.
Its the size of the gap between tax receipts and spend that drives the debt, not the %GDP rate of spend. The tax income gap reduced over the Thatcher and Major years but was eventually higher under Brown than at any time since 1979, despite increasing taxation (another failed Brown policy). To spend wildly under these circumstances was criminal. Note the gap is now falling under the Coalition but the country is still saddled with unacceptable rates for several years to come. The fact that the debt may still be increasing doesn't make it any less a Labour created issue.
Apr 10th 2013 | 7:10 am
#267
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 465
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
The fact that the debt may still be increasing doesn't make it any less a Labour created issue or make the spend under Labour any less acceptable or less crazy. The scale just means the Coalition and the country is saddled with unacceptable rates for several years to come, thanks to B&B.
% GDP cannot be used as the sole indicator of debt. It's a simple indicator and therefore can easily be misused. You have to also take into account the general economic conditions, actual GDP, tax income etc.
Thatcher took over after years of spending above 45%GDP, the Coalition when the spend (as a %GDP) was rising rapidly. In both instances the economy was in a dire situation. Therefore it is obvious that these governments would be forced for a time to maintain an unacceptable high rate. The worse the situation, the longer the time with high rates will be required. But you can be sure that if Osborne carried on with the rate of Brown's spending we would be spending around 50% of GDP due to the economic situation. Hence large cuts being required.
Blair had it easy with relative spend falling and a stable economy. But instead of keeping a reign on the spend and saving for the future, within 5 years the money was being spent at unnecessary rate. Between 2001 and 2006 the rate rose in the UK when other countries such as Germany were reducing theirs or only increasing slightly (like the US).
Additionally, because of the excessive gaps between tax income and spend Brown topped up his funds with taxes on pension funds and selling off gold at a 20 year low price. (The final two were appalling acts from Brown). Oh and of course using National Lottery funds to cover up holes in his finances. Without these raids the %GDP spend would have been much higher and therefore the declared %GDP rate of spend means little in these circumstances.
Its the size of the gap between tax receipts and spend that drives the debt, not the %GDP rate of spend. The tax income gap reduced over the Thatcher and Major years but was eventually higher under Brown than at any time since 1979, despite increasing taxation (another failed Brown policy). To spend wildly under these circumstances was criminal. Note the gap is now falling under the Coalition but the country is still saddled with unacceptable rates for several years to come. The fact that the debt may still be increasing doesn't make it any less a Labour created issue.
% GDP cannot be used as the sole indicator of debt. It's a simple indicator and therefore can easily be misused. You have to also take into account the general economic conditions, actual GDP, tax income etc.
Thatcher took over after years of spending above 45%GDP, the Coalition when the spend (as a %GDP) was rising rapidly. In both instances the economy was in a dire situation. Therefore it is obvious that these governments would be forced for a time to maintain an unacceptable high rate. The worse the situation, the longer the time with high rates will be required. But you can be sure that if Osborne carried on with the rate of Brown's spending we would be spending around 50% of GDP due to the economic situation. Hence large cuts being required.
Blair had it easy with relative spend falling and a stable economy. But instead of keeping a reign on the spend and saving for the future, within 5 years the money was being spent at unnecessary rate. Between 2001 and 2006 the rate rose in the UK when other countries such as Germany were reducing theirs or only increasing slightly (like the US).
Additionally, because of the excessive gaps between tax income and spend Brown topped up his funds with taxes on pension funds and selling off gold at a 20 year low price. (The final two were appalling acts from Brown). Oh and of course using National Lottery funds to cover up holes in his finances. Without these raids the %GDP spend would have been much higher and therefore the declared %GDP rate of spend means little in these circumstances.
Its the size of the gap between tax receipts and spend that drives the debt, not the %GDP rate of spend. The tax income gap reduced over the Thatcher and Major years but was eventually higher under Brown than at any time since 1979, despite increasing taxation (another failed Brown policy). To spend wildly under these circumstances was criminal. Note the gap is now falling under the Coalition but the country is still saddled with unacceptable rates for several years to come. The fact that the debt may still be increasing doesn't make it any less a Labour created issue.
Pretty much the point I was trying to make, but I couldn't have said it as well as this. Spot on.
Apr 10th 2013 | 11:25 am
#269
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
The fact that the debt may still be increasing doesn't make it any less a Labour created issue or make the spend under Labour any less acceptable or less crazy. The scale just means the Coalition and the country is saddled with unacceptable rates for several years to come, thanks to B&B.
Apr 10th 2013 | 12:15 pm
#270
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 465
Re: Margaret Thatcher is dead
I'm going to stop you right there before I read the rest of your post, because once again you seem to go from a starting point that Coalition debt is something they have been saddled with by Brown and Blair, when it is something they have been saddled with by all previous governments of both parties over many decades. Labour inherited debt, etc. If you can't see this, and insist on Labour creating all debt, then there's no point debating your other arguments.
