Ajw71 wrote:It's a fact that Labour operated a deficit during the boom years. They didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. They claimed to have ended boom and bust, their own minsters admitted there was no money left.
This is Labour's economic legacy. This is why the economy is still in such bad shape and this is why the British public will not trust them to run the economy again in a very long time.
It is a fact that you are thick.
It is a fact that all governments operate a deficit. You've been given facts showing this for the last 30-odd years (there are plenty of stats showing this reality over a century and more) – spend a second or so actually looking at them.
If you condemn Labour for operating a deficit, then you have to condemn all governments for doing exactly the same.
It is not why the economy is in the mess it is.
That is down to a recession that was caused by the global cock-ups of the banks. If Brown had not acted quickly to bail out the banks in the UK, the mess here might have been far greater. As mentioned earlier, some economists believe it would have led to a depression rather than a recession.
There are very serious questions about Labour and regulation – but again, if you condemn the lack of regulation, then you have to condemn those who deregulated in the first place (and now want even further deregulation) and understand what such demands are a part of, ideologically.
You won't do that, because you're only interested in maintaining a myth – or, at best, a very small percentage of the true picture, and preferably without any context.
You want to go: 'oh look – Labour left a mess!' without the context of why the economy was in a mess at the time. When someone tries to explain that, you metaphorically put your fingers in your ears and go: 'Blah blah blah – not listening – not interested!'
If you seriously imagine that that is something like a proper way of debating, then you're an even bigger fool than you appear.