[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:44 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

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.

Not this BS again. As has been pointed out to you we came out of recession in 1992 yet for 4 1/2 years the Tories still ran a deficit an order of magnitude way above anything from1 1979 to 1990. If there was no justification for Labour running one from 2001 to 2007 there wasn't one form 1992 to 1996 either.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:48 pm  

Dally wrote:

Don't talk nonsense. The Guardia 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 concept of their relevance against the size of the UK economy, which, as I said, shows you are not on top of the issues in the slightest.

Oh FFS we are going round in circles. Do you agree the total deficit for that 6 year period was £201,029,000,000 or not?

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:50 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Oh FFS we are going round in circles. Do you agree the total deficit for that 6 year period was £201,029,000,000 or not?

On your bike! You've now realised what a buffoon you have been (despite being told 4 times) and are weasling. As I said, you ain't got a clue about the subject so don't try to pretend otherwise. Cutting and pasting / linking and misinterpreting do not show insight.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:00 pm  

Dally wrote:

On your bike! You've now realised what a buffoon you have been (despite being told 4 times) and are weasling. As I said, you ain't got a clue about the subject so don't try to pretend otherwise. Cutting and pasting / linking and misinterpreting do not show insight.

Come off it. You knew exactly what was meant but have chosen to indulge yourself in childish points scoring exercise. Grow up.

There was no misinterpretation of the fact that in the two six year period in question the total deficit under the Tories was greater than that under Labour. Show me where that is wrong. Go on. I am waiting.

[DaveO]

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:09 pm  

Dally wrote:

On your bike! You've now realised what a buffoon you have been (despite being told 4 times) and are weasling. As I said, you ain't got a clue about the subject so don't try to pretend otherwise. Cutting and pasting / linking and misinterpreting do not show insight.

It is also worth adding that 201,029,000,000 is written as two hundred and one billion and twenty-nine million pounds. So shortening that to 201,029bn ought to get that across given the context unless you want to be obtuse. As I said you knew exactly what I meant.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:13 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Not this BS again. As has been pointed out to you we came out of recession in 1992 yet for 4 1/2 years the Tories still ran a deficit an order of magnitude way above anything from1 1979 to 1990. If there was no justification for Labour running one from 2001 to 2007 there wasn't one form 1992 to 1996 either.

So you don't accept that overspending in years 1,2, 3 and 4 will not have an effect on borrowing in years 5,6,7 and 8?

Hardly BS............

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:47 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

It's quite simple.

Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill".

The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain.

I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money.

Correct.

Labour don't have a plan. Their plan is simply to cut the deficit a bit slower.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:01 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Labour don't have a plan. Their plan is simply to cut the deficit a bit slower.

which, if I'm not mistaken IS a plan...

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:08 pm  

The only plan they should have had was to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

Re: Coalition to break? : Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:11 pm  

Hindsight is a wonderful thing