Ajw71 wrote:
It is the conclusion of the Times newspaper.
Once again if you think that is what it says you illustrate your lack of comprehension of grammar.
"The former Prime Minister said that he regretted not following through on a plan to weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending in 2005."
That doesn't mean Blair thinks money spent on getting waiting lists down in the NHS or on programs like Building for Schools should not have been spent or was wasteful.
All he is doing is stating the obvious with the benefit of hindsight that had they put in place their program they could have saved some cash that would have helped in 2008 but goes on to say however much that was, it pales into insignificance compared to the amounts involved in the crash.
As I have also repeatedly pointed out the amounts that were actually spent are entirely in line with what previous Tory administrations spent (and often less including running a surplus) so even if that spending did include "unnecessary and wasteful spending"
it STILL wasn't out of line with the previous administrations spending. It is the conclusion of any right thinking member of society who views the comments from an objective viewpoint.
No it isn't. Anyone who can read can ought to be able to understand the difference between waste and deliberate spending. For some reason you can't.
For this to be true:
"The Times says his admission flies in the face of repeated refusals by Labour's current leaders to accept Conservative accusations that the party let "spending run out of control and left Britain exposed when the credit crunch arrived"."
The conservatives should be accusing John Major and Maggie of the same thing given they spent similar amounts (which were also a higher % of our GDP then when Labour were in power!).
