Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:37 pm  

DaveO wrote:

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?

Try million not billion!

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:40 pm  

DaveO wrote:

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?

I know exactly what you said but an average annual deficit of c. 33 billion pounds over 6 years is frankly ludicrous.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:41 pm  

DaveO wrote: You really, really ought to do a bit of research before making yourself look a complete twit. Here is a list of recessions in the UK since 1900: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom As you can see the recession in the 90's lasted a total of 5 quarters in the years 1990-1992. That is 1 1/4 years not 6 years! What that means is - if you look at that graph I posted is that the Tories ran a deficit when we were not in recession for about 4 1/2 years. So you do not have a point at all as they ran large deficits on an economic upside as well. Then again I suppose you could be trying to excuse the Tory deficit of the 90's as spending their way out of recession (we were no longer in!) but that can't be right or you would be calling for the same thing now wouldn't you instead of harping on about paying off the "credit card bill"? What is also interesting about the list of recessions table is the "causes" column. Both the 1990-1992 recessions and the 2008-2009 recessions were caused by external factors. US savings and loan collapse in 1990-1992 and the financial crisis in 2008. In both cases the recessions lasted 1 1/4 years. The causes of the latest recession are Fiscal retrenchment and the Euro crisis which means it is at least partly "Made in Britain" by the current government trying to pay off the "credit card bill" as you simplistically call it too quickly. It is also the first double dip recession since 1975. So it seems to me in your attempt to excuse what went on in the 1990's you are arguing against current government policy. You seem a tad confused. Firstly I should have said "that contained" one of the worst recessions. For no time did I think that the technical recession lasted for 6 years. The latest recession is caused by 2 things imo. Externally the collapse of the Euro, hitting exports (as evidenced by our recent BOP position) and a lack of public confidence, with the resultant impacts on spending and investment. The governement is doing exactly the right thing by trying to reduce our debt burden, therefore allowing economic expansion in the future. I don't accept that calling the massive indebtedness a "credit card bill" is overly simplistic. The two situations share very many similarities and it's a useful analogy for those who struggle with what's going on. As demonstrated by your lack of ability to interpet the figures above, it's often much better to understand the big picture, rather than try and show a statistic or two ........ However, if you want evidence of the previous governments economic mismanagement..... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... al&units=b I'm sure that you don't need me to point out the lag involved around this?

DaveO wrote: You really, really ought to do a bit of research before making yourself look a complete twit. Here is a list of recessions in the UK since 1900: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom As you can see the recession in the 90's lasted a total of 5 quarters in the years 1990-1992. That is 1 1/4 years not 6 years! What that means is - if you look at that graph I posted is that the Tories ran a deficit when we were not in recession for about 4 1/2 years. So you do not have a point at all as they ran large deficits on an economic upside as well. Then again I suppose you could be trying to excuse the Tory deficit of the 90's as spending their way out of recession (we were no longer in!) but that can't be right or you would be calling for the same thing now wouldn't you instead of harping on about paying off the "credit card bill"? What is also interesting about the list of recessions table is the "causes" column. Both the 1990-1992 recessions and the 2008-2009 recessions were caused by external factors. US savings and loan collapse in 1990-1992 and the financial crisis in 2008. In both cases the recessions lasted 1 1/4 years. The causes of the latest recession are Fiscal retrenchment and the Euro crisis which means it is at least partly "Made in Britain" by the current government trying to pay off the "credit card bill" as you simplistically call it too quickly. It is also the first double dip recession since 1975. So it seems to me in your attempt to excuse what went on in the 1990's you are arguing against current government policy. You seem a tad confused. Firstly I should have said "that contained" one of the worst recessions. For no time did I think that the technical recession lasted for 6 years. The latest recession is caused by 2 things imo. Externally the collapse of the Euro, hitting exports (as evidenced by our recent BOP position) and a lack of public confidence, with the resultant impacts on spending and investment. The governement is doing exactly the right thing by trying to reduce our debt burden, therefore allowing economic expansion in the future. I don't accept that calling the massive indebtedness a "credit card bill" is overly simplistic. The two situations share very many similarities and it's a useful analogy for those who struggle with what's going on. As demonstrated by your lack of ability to interpet the figures above, it's often much better to understand the big picture, rather than try and show a statistic or two ........ However, if you want evidence of the previous governments economic mismanagement..... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... al&units=b I'm sure that you don't need me to point out the lag involved around this?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:45 pm  

DaveO

On the Wigan board you are normally a reasonably sensible guy. Ok your walls of text are legendary and have put many readers off (including me I have to admit), but to quote deficits in any particular year is meaningless if used to judge the performance of that Government.

There is obviously a lag between cause and effect, but you conveniently ignore it to back up your "argument".

Frankly your figures, irrespective of your metrics, are meaningless...........

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:52 pm  

Dally wrote:

Try million not billion!

Or even £201,029bn.

You knew exactly what I meant (or would have done had you looked at the graph) so accusations of "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."

Is complete and utter BS on your part. Of course you could have said "I think you mean £201,029bn not £201029bn" but instead you prefer to be obtuse.

There is no denying the fact that in the two six year periods the total deficit for Labour was less than that of the Tories. Is that a misinterpretation of the figures or not?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:02 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Or even £201,029bn.

You knew exactly what I meant (or would have done had you looked at the graph) so accusations of "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."

Is complete and utter BS on your part. Of course you could have said "I think you mean £201,029bn not £201029bn" but instead you prefer to be obtuse.

There is no denying the fact that in the two six year periods the total deficit for Labour was less than that of the Tories. Is that a misinterpretation of the figures or not?

No. I think you meant £201,029 or £201029 million (not billion). Do you agree or not?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:10 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Or even £201,029bn.

You knew exactly what I meant (or would have done had you looked at the graph) so accusations of "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."

Is complete and utter BS on your part. Of course you could have said "I think you mean £201,029bn not £201029bn" but instead you prefer to be obtuse.

There is no denying the fact that in the two six year periods the total deficit for Labour was less than that of the Tories. Is that a misinterpretation of the figures or not?

Irrelevant. You have to take into account the preceding circumstances that led to the deficits.

Given the "golden inheritance" gifted to "New Labour", the figures are shocking.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:17 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Firstly I should have said "that contained" one of the worst recessions. For no time did I think that the technical recession lasted for 6 years.

So you can't justify the last 4 1/2 years of of the 1990's Tory government as deficit spending at the low point of the economic cycle.

The latest recession is caused by 2 things imo.

Externally the collapse of the Euro, hitting exports (as evidenced by our recent BOP position) and a lack of public confidence, with the resultant impacts on spending and investment.

That is one thing (which I mentioned) and the other (which you fail to mention) is this governments policy of retrenchment.

The governement is doing exactly the right thing by trying to reduce our debt burden, therefore allowing economic expansion in the future.

All parties recognize the need to get the debt burden down but the way to do it is what differs. What you ignore though is where that dount comes from. Pre-2008 it was due to running the deficits already mentioned which were nothing out of the ordinary.

I don't accept that calling the massive indebtedness a "credit card bill" is overly simplistic. The two situations share very many similarities and it's a useful analogy for those who struggle with what's going on.

It is over simplistic because it implies there only one way out of the debt is to pay it off by earning money. Which is what you have to do to pay your credit card bill every month. Governments have many other options to manage the debt including lending money to other governments, taxation, printing money and allowing inflation to inflate the debt down. None of this is applicable to a credit card debt so the analogy is very misleading.

As demonstrated by your lack of ability to interpet the figures above, it's often much better to understand the big picture, rather than try and show a statistic or two ........ However, if you want evidence of the previous governments economic mismanagement.....

Come off it. If I can't "interpret the figures" then I am sure you can. And you don't like what they show do you?

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=&chart=G0-total&units=b


I'm sure that you don't need me to point out the lag involved around this?

And you accuse me of not being able to interpret figures! That graph is for public spending. In the period 1998-2001 we ran a surplus not a deficit yet during that period your graph shows higher public spending than previously. Clearly there is no direct correlation between higher public spending and a deficit because of course if your revenues are higher you do not need to borrow money and revenues are not shown. It also shows the estimated public spend will increase to even higher levels to 2015 under this "wonderful" Tory economic management. Now clearly what that means is that despite the cuts they will be spending even more. If they are so much better at economic management, why is this? The answer is of course what has contributed to the double dip recession - government retrenchment which lowers revenues and puts up costs.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:36 pm  

Dally wrote:

No. I think you meant £201,029 or £201029 million (not billion). Do you agree or not?

These days in finance a billion is a US billion which is 1,000,000,000.

So writing the six year deficit total out in full we get £201,029,000,000.

You can call it £201029 million if you want but that would be wrong as it ignores the convention.

At the moment people refer to the deficit in 2009 (for example) as over 152 billion. They do not refer to it as over £152000 million as you seem to want to do.

Now do you get it?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:42 pm  

DaveO wrote:

These days in finance a billion is a US billion which is 1,000,000,000.

So writing the six year deficit total out in full we get £201,029,000,000.

You can call it £201029 million if you want but that would be wrong as it ignores the convention.

At the moment people refer to the deficit in 2009 (for example) as over 152 billion. They do not refer to it as over £152000 million as you seem to want to do.

Now do you get it?

Don't talk nonsense. The Guardian graphic is clearly headed million not billion. I am aware that we have slipped into using 10 to the 9 rather than 10 to the 12 as billion. That said, how can £201,029,000,000 be both £201,029 million and £201,029 billion as you say!!?? It is £201,029 million or c. £201 billion (not £201,029 billion as you keep saying)! Fact is, you are confused by the numbers and have no concept of their size / relevance against the size of the UK economy; which, as I said, shows you are not on top of the issue in the slightest.