Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[DelToro]

Good reply from Rascal
Another angle is to take the right wingers on using their own figures.
Between the boom years in the eighties 1982-87 the Tories ran a cumulative deficit of 56 bn, between 2002 - 2007 Labour ran a cumulative deficit of 200bn.
Correcting for inflation mid eighties to mid noughties ,value of £1 increases to between 2 and 3.5 depending on how you measure it, call it 2.5 to be on the safe side and the Tories cumulative deficit is 140bn in mid noughties money.
Ok , 60 bn less over five years than Labour ( using this simple measure), worth a discussion maybe,but not the radical and fundamental difference between the two parties some on here are talking about.
Large part of the difference would be Labour spending on NHS.
As a % of GDP both parties ran deficits of 2- 3 % of GDP in these periods.
To repeat not much difference between the two.
Postscript: to put these figures into perspective George Osborne has borrowed 500bn in five years , 200bn more than he predicted when he came into power. Sort of brings into context Labour's pre crash borrowing figures doesn't it. It's like someone in debt nowadays to the tune of a few hundred grand wishing he'd saved that 2s/6d spare bit of cash he used to have in the good old days.

Pathetic attempt. You are beyond help, but thankfully you only have one vote.

Why is it pathetic?

Why don't you simply try to refute the points one by one and let other posters then judge whether Len Rum's post was pathetic?

 

[Bill]

i have foed all the lefties. they chat such shit.

 

[DelToro]

i have foed all the lefties. they chat such shit.

I was thinking of foeing all the RWNJs but that left me with only half a dozen posters I could communicate with.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Good reply from Rascal
Another angle is to take the right wingers on using their own figures.
Between the boom years in the eighties 1982-87 the Tories ran a cumulative deficit of 56 bn, between 2002 - 2007 Labour ran a cumulative deficit of 200bn.
Correcting for inflation mid eighties to mid noughties ,value of £1 increases to between 2 and 3.5 depending on how you measure it, call it 2.5 to be on the safe side and the Tories cumulative deficit is 140bn in mid noughties money.
Ok , 60 bn less over five years than Labour ( using this simple measure), worth a discussion maybe,but not the radical and fundamental difference between the two parties some on here are talking about.
Large part of the difference would be Labour spending on NHS.
As a % of GDP both parties ran deficits of 2- 3 % of GDP in these periods.
To repeat not much difference between the two.
Postscript: to put these figures into perspective George Osborne has borrowed 500bn in five years , 200bn more than he predicted when he came into power. Sort of brings into context Labour's pre crash borrowing figures doesn't it. It's like someone in debt nowadays to the tune of a few hunred grand wishing he'd saved that 2s/6d spare bit of cash he used to have in the good old days.

Pathetic attempt. You are beyond help, but thankfully you only have one vote.

Why is it pathetic?

Why don't you simply try to refute the points one by one and let other posters then judge whether Len Rum's post was pathetic?

Because he's scratching around trying to dig up any random statistics (wrong ones at that) he can in order to try to justify (to himself perhaps) a completely unjustifiable position. You could show him a white card with just the number 3 on it and he'd try and claim it said 2. He is in denial and to be honest, not worth arguing with.

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And if Len had his way and given he would have had us spend much more than Osborne has done, it would have been worse still.

 

[Rascal]

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And given Len would have us spend more and borrow less, if he had his way, it would be worse still.

Fucking hell.

You have lost the plot lad. Deficit obsessed nonsense.

Can you explain why we no longer bother talking about the BOP deficit or why productivity in heavily unionised Socialist France is 20% higher than in the UK. These things used to matter. The deficit if you bothered to read my long post or perhaps if you did you could not grasp its meaning has never been an issue for the UK since time immemorial.

Now seeing as though the deficit is your bag big time and you being a dutiful Tory and all that can you explain why Osborne after promising to eradicate the deficit in the last parliament failed so abysmally and had to resort to some mild Keynesianism to save his backside.

And more crucially when the deficit is eradicated as Osborne now predicts for 2019 will you advocate the surplus is used to invest, cut taxes or to pay off debt?

Can you also explain why QE has not lead to inflation as predicted when the money supply is increased especially as it diametrically opposes Thatcherite monetirist policy.

Can you also further explain why the 1.9 Million jobs the Tories claim to have created has resulted in little impact on the overall tax take of the government when you would expect it to create better conditions for lowering your beloved deficit.

Can you also explain why seeing as though this deficit is a noose around our neck Osborne is such a proponent of HS2 especially as it comes at such a ridiculous cost to the nation.

Awaiting your wisdom as ever.

Cheers

 

[sd92]

Re: Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/DtgDCV8iIHk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/DtgDCV8iIHk</a>

 

[law74]

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And given Len would have us spend more and borrow less, if he had his way, it would be worse still.

Fucking hell.

You have lost the plot lad. Deficit obsessed nonsense.

Can you explain why we no longer bother talking about the BOP deficit or why productivity in heavily unionised Socialist France is 20% higher than in the UK. These things used to matter. The deficit if you bothered to read my long post or perhaps if you did you could not grasp its meaning has never been an issue for the UK since time immemorial.

Now seeing as though the deficit is your bag big time and you being a dutiful Tory and all that can you explain why Osborne after promising to eradicate the deficit in the last parliament failed so abysmally and had to resort to some mild Keynesianism to save his backside.

And more crucially when the deficit is eradicated as Osborne now predicts for 2019 will you advocate the surplus is used to invest, cut taxes or to pay off debt?

Can you also explain why QE has not lead to inflation as predicted when the money supply is increased especially as it diametrically opposes Thatcherite monetirist policy.

Can you also further explain why the 1.9 Million jobs the Tories claim to have created has resulted in little impact on the overall tax take of the government when you would expect it to create better conditions for lowering your beloved deficit.

Can you also explain why seeing as though this deficit is a noose around our neck Osborne is such a proponent of HS2 especially as it comes at such a ridiculous cost to the nation.

Awaiting your wisdom as ever.

Cheers

I can answer the bit about the alleged new jobs not creating more tax revenue to pay off the "deficit" if you want :-)

 

[The perfect fumble]

Pathetic attempt. You are beyond help, but thankfully you only have one vote.

Why is it pathetic?

Why don't you simply try to refute the points one by one and let other posters then judge whether Len Rum's post was pathetic?

Because he's scratching around trying to dig up any random statistics (wrong ones at that) he can in order to try to justify (to himself perhaps) a completely unjustifiable position. You could show him a white card with just the number 3 on it and he'd try and claim it said 2. He is in denial and to be honest, not worth arguing with.

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And if Len had his way and given he would have had us spend much more than Osborne has done, it would have been worse still.

Under the Alistair Darling plan we'd be in a much better place.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And given Len would have us spend more and borrow less, if he had his way, it would be worse still.

Fucking hell.

You have lost the plot lad. Deficit obsessed nonsense.

Can you explain why we no longer bother talking about the BOP deficit or why productivity in heavily unionised Socialist France is 20% higher than in the UK. These things used to matter. The deficit if you bothered to read my long post or perhaps if you did you could not grasp its meaning has never been an issue for the UK since time immemorial.

Now seeing as though the deficit is your bag big time and you being a dutiful Tory and all that can you explain why Osborne after promising to eradicate the deficit in the last parliament failed so abysmally and had to resort to some mild Keynesianism to save his backside.

And more crucially when the deficit is eradicated as Osborne now predicts for 2019 will you advocate the surplus is used to invest, cut taxes or to pay off debt?

Can you also explain why QE has not lead to inflation as predicted when the money supply is increased especially as it diametrically opposes Thatcherite monetirist policy.

Can you also further explain why the 1.9 Million jobs the Tories claim to have created has resulted in little impact on the overall tax take of the government when you would expect it to create better conditions for lowering your beloved deficit.

Can you also explain why seeing as though this deficit is a noose around our neck Osborne is such a proponent of HS2 especially as it comes at such a ridiculous cost to the nation.

Awaiting your wisdom as ever.

Cheers

I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The very idea that he should cite as a criticism, Osborne borrowing £200bn more than predicted, when Labour left us having to borrow nearly £200bn every year, is quite hilarious. The fact we continue to borrow at excessively high rates is Labour's fault. And given Len would have us spend more and borrow less, if he had his way, it would be worse still.

Fucking hell.

You have lost the plot lad. Deficit obsessed nonsense.

Can you explain why we no longer bother talking about the BOP deficit or why productivity in heavily unionised Socialist France is 20% higher than in the UK. These things used to matter. The deficit if you bothered to read my long post or perhaps if you did you could not grasp its meaning has never been an issue for the UK since time immemorial.

Now seeing as though the deficit is your bag big time and you being a dutiful Tory and all that can you explain why Osborne after promising to eradicate the deficit in the last parliament failed so abysmally and had to resort to some mild Keynesianism to save his backside.

And more crucially when the deficit is eradicated as Osborne now predicts for 2019 will you advocate the surplus is used to invest, cut taxes or to pay off debt?

Can you also explain why QE has not lead to inflation as predicted when the money supply is increased especially as it diametrically opposes Thatcherite monetirist policy.

Can you also further explain why the 1.9 Million jobs the Tories claim to have created has resulted in little impact on the overall tax take of the government when you would expect it to create better conditions for lowering your beloved deficit.

Can you also explain why seeing as though this deficit is a noose around our neck Osborne is such a proponent of HS2 especially as it comes at such a ridiculous cost to the nation.

Awaiting your wisdom as ever.

Cheers

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Neither would I. I really cannot be arsed. Vote communist for all I care. Or kill yourselves. Whatever.