Just before the financial crash of 2008 UKunemployment was 1.72 million , or 5.5 % of the workforce.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..
Ha Ha, there's even less money around since Gideon took over, he's increased the national debt by 600M!In the words of Liam Byrne I’m afraid there is no money, Good Luck...
We will see when everyone has declared.If you don't allow a small % margin for error then yes incorrect. If you apply any reasonable statistical variance to it then the statement is entirely correct.
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.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
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.
What are you on about mate.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.
Same applies to Gideon in 2010-2015.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.
Frankly I very very much doubt it, but honestly It's pretty irellevant , you could be another Harvard educated nobel laureate, a modern day Adam Smith - in your own mind and in your forum persona and good luck to you if you believe it - that's half the battle.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.
Don't argue with a self confessed genius he will eat you got elevenses if he has room leftSame 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".
No I wouldn't.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?
The good news is most of the impact will be the same in or out long term as it won't change the Ponzi scheme or who the country is run for too much either way.Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
That's the sad reality of the decision, whatever happens will affect the nation for decades and irreversibly so if we are ultimately governed by the EU bureaucrats.
In the words of Liam Byrne I’m afraid there is no money, Good Luck...
Indeed.The Hungarian referendum will be more interesting, especially as the result is a foregone conclusion.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ban-will-call-referendum-on-eu-refugee-quotas
Borders and fences are going up all over the EU and Brussels will be powerless to do anything about it.
The EU is becoming irrelevant because of changing circumstances. Member states never really cared about unity but only what they could get of membership, and as the EU lurches from crisis to crisis this is becoming ever more obvious.