Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up.

(source)

The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years.

Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn't? I'm confused as to why this totally irrelevant fact keeps getting brought up.

(source)

The issue isn't about what happened prior to 2000 (we entered a boom period and so were able to move to a surplus - there's a clear trend on the graph). Nor is it about what happened from 2008 onwards (global financial crisis). It's what went wrong in 2001/2002 that required the government to run a significant deficit for the following six years.

Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy.

The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

Nothing went wrong as you put it. What you fail to mention is that while the deficits were similar to the end of the last Tory government as a % of GDP they were much lower. They were therefore sustainable in the short term and were what they were because people wanted money spent on things like the school infrastructure and so on. And that money needed spending with schools falling down and people left lying on trolleys is hospital corridors. We did actually benefit from the spending you know. However even Darling knew that could not go on forever and was planning to reduce it before we ever had a banking crisis. You are perpetuatomg a complete myth that running a deficit from 2001 to 2007 was in some way economic incompetence. if you look back over the economic history of the UK and similar countries it is just for the course. Without a banking crisis had the Tories won they would have carried on the same level of spending. That was their stated plan so they clearly didn't see the level of defict as evil. They do now because it's politically expedient to do so to beat Labour up about it and unfortunately most people are too thick to understand the difference between having a credit card debt and running an economy.

The game changer was the banking crisis. The level of deficit prior to that was not.

This is true. The conservatives agreed with just about every Labour spending policy prior to the point where they were forced to show their hand (which I should say was far, far too late and the media simply let them get away with it).

Capitalism has always needed protecting from itself. Left unchecked in a resource-finite environment it must ultimately devour itself which is why the economic legislative system was constructed. Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that people still think they are living in a world where the key economic actors are states. It's comfortable to think "Britain" really can shape its own destiny but the reality is that in a world where half the GDP of the US is cycled through the financial markets daily, a corporation or coalitions of corporations can effectively bankrupt a country (via capital flight or such) which chooses to implement unfavourable policies, where unelected and unaccountable trans-national bodies such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank wield tremendous power (far greater than anything Cameron, Blair & Thatcher put together could ever muster) the latitude for economic decision-making is narrower than a pencil mark.

Of course, this is nothing new. Seventy years ago countries (such as Germany) were complaining bitterly about the likes of the Rotschchilds sabotaging economic reforms. But back then a prime minister or a president or a chancellor did have the ability to fundamentally re-shape his country's economic system. Today this just isn't possible - unless you are willing to brave the colossal penalties. I mean, if you want a good example look at what happened to Yugoslavia when it chose to take on the IMF & World Bank.

Cameron has plenty of faults. But he is simply a pawn in a much greater game.

This is true. The conservatives agreed with just about every Labour spending policy prior to the point where they were forced to show their hand (which I should say was far, far too late and the media simply let them get away with it).

Capitalism has always needed protecting from itself. Left unchecked in a resource-finite environment it must ultimately devour itself which is why the economic legislative system was constructed. Unfortunately, the problem we have today is that people still think they are living in a world where the key economic actors are states. It's comfortable to think "Britain" really can shape its own destiny but the reality is that in a world where half the GDP of the US is cycled through the financial markets daily, a corporation or coalitions of corporations can effectively bankrupt a country (via capital flight or such) which chooses to implement unfavourable policies, where unelected and unaccountable trans-national bodies such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank wield tremendous power (far greater than anything Cameron, Blair & Thatcher put together could ever muster) the latitude for economic decision-making is narrower than a pencil mark.

Of course, this is nothing new. Seventy years ago countries (such as Germany) were complaining bitterly about the likes of the Rotschchilds sabotaging economic reforms. But back then a prime minister or a president or a chancellor did have the ability to fundamentally re-shape his country's economic system. Today this just isn't possible - unless you are willing to brave the colossal penalties. I mean, if you want a good example look at what happened to Yugoslavia when it chose to take on the IMF & World Bank.

Cameron has plenty of faults. But he is simply a pawn in a much greater game.