dead is stable.



still, in 13 years the last lot managed to spend up, leave us in the worst recession since god knows when and stick an extra half a million on the unemployment pile. but they stopped dogs killing foxes. excellent work.

Half term already? That went quick...

did it? what did you get up to? build a den or something?

. They did not cause Lehman Brothers to go tits up. Or any of the other banks. They did not cause the banks to screw up so badly that they needed bailing out.



Now, which part of this do you struggle to get your brain around?



And it is equally a fact that Labour, however much it might have been happy for the perception to be such, did not spend record amounts on the public services.



Still, you 'think' that a new product can be created, designed, built and markets found for it overnight.

if you can point out anywhere i said labour 'caused' the recession i'd be most grateful. clearly someone with your huge brain will have no trouble.



mind you, you think we should dole out money to stop people robbing us. so it may take a while.

Your previous post in this thread did it entirely adequately.

You blamed Labour for the unemployment and debt at the end of their time in power. Seen as though both of these were lower at the onset of the financial crisis than when Labour came to power the only way it makes sense to blame labour is if you blame them for the financial crisis which was the only thing causing them to rise. I think Mintball was giving you too much credit though, I think you just don't have a clue.

I think the "spend up, leaving us in the worst recession" might have been influential, just a thought...

Yeah it's called 'not fixing the roof when the sun was shining'.

did it? are you sure about that?

so who else was spending the money? pixies? does unemployment in a recession not count or something?