EU referendum

EU referendum

  • In

    Votes: 503 47.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 547 52.1%

  • Total voters
    1,050
Status
Not open for further replies.
Labour increased unemployment by 500,000 from two million before the 1997 general election to 2.5 million by 2010.
Almost one million 16-to-24-year-olds in England were classed as not in education, employment or training by the time the party left office.
Of the increase in employment levels under Labour, 72 per cent was accounted for by foreign workers. Migrant workers were imported while Britons were allowed to languish on welfare.

Ministers disastrously predicted only 13,000 arrivals from Eastern Europe when they threw open the UK’s borders in 2004. More than one million came.
A policy of mass immigration saw the foreign-born population rise by 3.6 million — equivalent to the combined population of Leeds, Birmingham, Glasgow, Sheffield and Bradford.

Just saying..
Just before the financial crash of 2008 UKunemployment was 1.72 million , or 5.5 % of the workforce.
Following the crash it rose to 2.5 million.
Selective use of statistics can detract from the overall point you're trying to make.
 
Anyone frankly who seriously uses the 2007-2009 figures to try and criticise the economic performance of any government right or left doesn't understand the most basic economic issues in the slightest.
its unicorn and fairy dust politics to try and pretend in those years anything too different could have been done. I accept the 97-07 comments and things were done wrong then in the UK and in countries like Aus where huge surpluses were frittered away in middle class welfare but once Armageddon hit there was little option for governments
Pmsl. I'd eat you alive for understanding of economic issues. It's how I earn money. You completely ignored the profligate spending during a period of sustained economic growth 97-2007 leaving no money for a rainy day. If they hadn't fucked up with that then 2008-09 needn't have been so bad as the government could have spent their savings (rather than borrow) on infrastructure projects to help the economy. Instead they had used all that money along with borrowing to bribe the over bloated public sector.
 
Ha Ha, there's even less money around since Gideon took over, he's increased the national debt by 600M!
Move on mate. It's 2016 if you hadn't noticed, not 2010.

Oh for Christ's sake, not this again. The debt will only stop growing when the deficit is reduced to zero. If the growing national debt is so important to you, then I assume you're a supporter of the Tory cuts and are disappointed they aren't cutting far enough into the public sector? Put it this way - had Labour been elected then that national debt would have increased by much much more than £600m!
 
Oh for Christ's sake, not this again. The debt will only stop growing when the deficit is reduced to zero. If the growing national debt is so important to you, then I assume you're a supporter of the Tory cuts and are disappointed they aren't cutting far enough into the public sector? Put it this way - had Labour been elected then that national debt would have increased by much much more than £600m!
What are you on about mate.
I understand perfectly the difference between the deficit and the total debt.
If Jeffrey had eliminated the deficit as he promised by 2015 the total national debt would have been about 1.3 trillion as opposed to 1.6 trillion it currently stands at.
He revised his targets to eliminate the deficit by 2020 and it now looks as if he will miss that target.
 
Oh for Christ's sake, not this again. The debt will only stop growing when the deficit is reduced to zero. If the growing national debt is so important to you, then I assume you're a supporter of the Tory cuts and are disappointed they aren't cutting far enough into the public sector? Put it this way - had Labour been elected then that national debt would have increased by much much more than £600m!

No this is not correct. It appears that you have fallen for politicians' soundbites rather than any sound economics, but if it was economics then it was the wrong economics. Most people have the idea of a government's budget as being analogous to that of a household budget. This is an incorrect and totally misleading idea of the government's true role in the economy. It is more to correct to say that a government's role, especially one with its own central bank and ability to print money, is that of bank. Banks are never debt free, if they are, they dont make money and they cant expand. A government can only sufficiently service the debt and keep the economy working by running a deficit, under those conditions, you should get sustained growth and take in revenue and pay it off faster than the interest accumulates. Otherwise the taxpot will continue shrinking and the government will have to up borrowing rates or the private sector will take on debt and when debt levels are already too high then it only leads down the path towards another economic crisis.

watch this video, it explains perfectly. Oh and this guy predicted the 2008 crisis.

 
What are you on about mate.
I understand perfectly the difference between the deficit and the total debt.
If Jeffrey had eliminated the deficit as he promised by 2015 the total national debt would have been about 1.3 trillion as opposed to 1.6 trillion it currently stands at.
He revised his targets to eliminate the deficit by 2020 and it now looks as if he will miss that target.

I appreciate it's not really a debate for this thread. If he had reduced the deficit to zero by 2015, that would have meant even harsher cuts. Is that something you wanted?
 
Pmsl. I'd eat you alive for understanding of economic issues. It's how I earn money. You completely ignored the profligate spending during a period of sustained economic growth 97-2007 leaving no money for a rainy day. If they hadn't fucked up with that then 2008-09 needn't have been so bad as the government could have spent their savings (rather than borrow) on infrastructure projects to help the economy. Instead they had used all that money along with borrowing to bribe the over bloated public sector.
Same applies to Gideon in 2010-2015.
He let his borrowing targets rip to ensure a general election victory.
If there's another crash then he also will guilty of "leaving no money for a rainy day".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.