Did Gordon actually 'save the world'?

Sponsored Links
The drop after 2010 was the legacy from labour. It's just like a big train in motion and you apply the brakes. Takes a while to bring it to a stop and then start the arduous task of reversing.
The labour lot were obviously drunk at the helm.

If they get back in next time it will nose dive again and will take a tory only government to pull us out.
 
Sponsored Links
Our growth has been anemic, and mostly fueled by more bubble.

If you actually look at tory spending, it has risen, they have done pretty much what labour would have done.

A few headline cuts (tuition, bedroom 'tax', freeze on public sector wages), gives the impression of austerity, meanwhile overall spending increases.

And this is simply because they have not removed any functions (for example, they got rid of loads of quangoes, only for government departments to take over the duties = same staff, same spending, different department).

Just like labour, the tories of today don't stick to their values, they are all center left.

May as well vote Labour, and at least get the real deal.
 
Norcon. The graph quite clearly shows gdp rising in 2010 until the tories got in at which point it drops. How in the world do you work out it is labour's fault?
 
petermeachem said:
Norcon. The graph quite clearly shows gdp rising in 2010 until the tories got in at which point it drops. How in the world do you work out it is labour's fault?
Click to expand...

The crash happend wiping out some private sector value, government printed money to make up the difference. Meaning GDP rose, but only because of the government printing money.

This money printing slowed when the tories came in (which it was due to anyway, so it's not something that they can take credit or blame for), the economy was never 'fixed', so then we saw GDP shrinkage.

Nearly every new government stays with the last lots spending plans for the first 1-2 years, other than the odd tweak (cancelling infrastructure spending was the tory mistake).

The government printing money was the right thing to do, they just used that money for the wrong things. Labour at least had the right idea to spend it on infrastucture, which would take years to actually start up (about now, if the plans had not been cancelled).

Don't take me for a labour supporter, but the current lot of tories are just a crap version of labour.
 
Second gold sale by Bank prompts price rally Jake Lloyd-Smith Wednesday 22 September 1999 (Independant)

...The UK central bank is selling off 415 tonnes of its 715-tonne reserves to rebalance its portfolio in favour of greater currency holdings.

The programme of sales, which will see 125 tonnes sold this fiscal year in a series of five sales, has attracted sharp criticism from the Conservative Party and leading producers.

Francis Maude, the shadow Chancellor, yesterday said: "We oppose this bungled operation, which will cost Britain hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of the slump in the world gold price."...

Funny that, the Tory soothsayer 'Maude' ('kin woman aint it?) didn't mention Billions lost by 2014 due to the increase in gold value - Now do you understand 'hindsight'?
Manipulation by lazy journos and died in the wool politicos !! Don't we fall for it? or should we digress to 'Black Wednesday' - hang on, must have been Labour, musn't it ?

-0-
 
AronSearle said:
Our growth has been anemic, and mostly fueled by more bubble.

If you actually look at tory spending, it has risen, they have done pretty much what labour would have done.

A few headline cuts (tuition, bedroom 'tax', freeze on public sector wages), gives the impression of austerity, meanwhile overall spending increases.

And this is simply because they have not removed any functions (for example, they got rid of loads of quangoes, only for government departments to take over the duties = same staff, same spending, different department).

Just like labour, the tories of today don't stick to their values, they are all center left.

May as well vote Labour, and at least get the real deal.
Click to expand...
Borrowing isn't that important on its own. All governments borrow - particularly in times of recession - and Labour would have borrowed much more. The important figure is net borrowing - which has fallen steadily since 2010 and is predicted to continue. We can argue over how the money is spent. I heard today that the government has spent 1 £billion on deporting foreign crim's but the number deported has gone up. Sounds mad! What the report doesn't say though is that setting up the law so that these people can more easily be deported (i.e. reversing the human rights bo!!ocks that Labour foisted on us) takes years so the result won't show up in the figures til 2016 - 2017. Which, ironically, will be just in time for the next Labour government to take the credit for it. Probably just before they pass a few more laws to give the crim's even more rights than their victims.
 
reversing the human rights bo!!ocks that Labour foisted on us
Click to expand...
I am always astonished by people who say quite seriously We don't want any of that human rights nonsense. Cannot be thinking properly.

Anyway, the European Court of Human Rights was set up (in 1959) to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights which was set up in 1953. It was largely drafted by a Scottish Conservative politician and judge.
 
ladylola said:
and a sustainable energy policy and TEQ's would still give you adequate access to energy.
Click to expand...

Adequate, as defined by who?

Solar doesn’t work at night, wind power can only provide a percentage of power, and costs more. Tidal can provide lots of power, and also costs LOTS more, and the green party is anti nuclear. The green parties energy policy is about as realistic as unicorn fart power.

Nice choice of words by the way, sustainable, adequate, what a surprise you failed to include expensive into the mix.
 
petermeachem said:
Anyway, the European Court of Human Rights was set up (in 1959) to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights which was set up in 1953. It was largely drafted by a Scottish Conservative politician and judge.
Click to expand...

I don't care who set it up, but the function of the ECHR appears to be solely to overrule decisions made by our own courts, especially when they involve deporting criminal illegal immigrants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top