[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:54 pm  

Dally wrote:

I am convinced your "facts" are wrong.

If you add the figures up for the years in question that is the total. So why are you convinced they are wrong?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm  

Once again, the wall of text from the Lefties.

Is it any wonder people can't be bothered debating on here?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:24 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Once again, the wall of text from the Lefties.

Is it any wonder people can't be bothered debating on here?

You're not debating, you are putting over a point of view and when it gets challenged you are sticking your fingers in your ears.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:35 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

You're not debating, you are putting over a point of view and when it gets challenged you are sticking your fingers in your ears.

How ironic..........

Your first post in response to me was

No they didn't. Until our wonderful banking institutions decided to play fast and loose we had a very good balance of payments. Facts hey, tricky things.

Fantastic debating skills. Not only do you offer no counter to the argument, you then bizarely bring up a completely seperate issue, BOP.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:40 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

How ironic..........

Your first post in response to me was

Fantastic debating skills. Not only do you offer no counter to the argument, you then bizarely bring up a completely seperate issue, BOP.

There was nothing to argue against FFS, to make a matter of opinion with nothing to back it up is not debating, when challenged you make more statements, shift dates and still produce nothing to back up your statements, again not debating.

If you think the current situation and the banking collapse are separate issues then we have nothing to debate, you simply don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:41 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Fantastic debating skills. Not only do you offer no counter to the argument, you then bizarely bring up a completely seperate issue, BOP.

You have not offered a single counter argument to my responses to your posts other than posting the nonsense that we were in recession from 1991-1997. Making stuff up doesn't count as debating. HTH.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:46 pm  

DaveO wrote:

If you add the figures up for the years in question that is the total. So why are you convinced they are wrong?

Look at your figures again they are ludicrous.

You are suggesting that the "deficit" was running at c. 20 times annual GDP for 6 years running. Who on Earth would have lent us the money if that were the case? What would the current debt be as a percentage of GDP!!??

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:24 pm  

DaveO wrote:

If you add the figures up for the years in question that is the total. So why are you convinced they are wrong?

I'll make it simple for you - they are out by a factor of c. 1,000! Which goes to show you ain't actually got the faintest idea of what you are talking about, you have just done websearches, picked out some figures which you wholly misinterpreted because you simply don't understand them.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:27 pm  

Dally wrote:

I'll make it simple for you - they are out by a factor of c. 1,000! Which goes to show you ain't actually got the faintest idea of what you are talking about, you have just done websearches, picked out some figures which you wholly misinterpreted because you simply don't understand them.

Oh dear


This is the danger with quoting statistics without standing back and interpeting them.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:32 pm  

Dally wrote:

Look at your figures again they are ludicrous.

You are suggesting that the "deficit" was running at c. 10 times annual GDP for 6 years running. Who on Earth would have lent us the money if that were the case? What would the currect debt be as a percentage of GDP?

They are not "my" figures and you clearly have not read the post properly.

I said:

"Before the financial crisis of 2008 Labour ran a deficit for 6 years which totaled £201029bn. The Tories ran a deficit for the last 6 years of their last government up to 1997 totaling £222788bn. "

That is this was the total deficit for 6 years not that they ran these deficits every year for 6 years which is clearly how you must have read it

So to spell it out for you:

Labour deficit:

2002 - 19046
2003 - 35050
2004 - 37840
2005 - 42399
2006 - 31801
2007 - 34893

Add that up and you get £201029bn

Tory deficit:

1991 - 17976
1992 - 40155
1993 - 50869
1994 - 45945
1995 - 38603
1996 - 29240

Add that up and you get £222788bn

Both totals represent the combined deficit both governments racked up over a SIX YEAR period when in office.

Now what is ludicrous about any of this?