SBR wrote:I know. That's why we should have continued to run a surplus to put ourselves in a better position to cope when things did go wrong.
Yes they were sustainable, in the short term, for as long as the boom continued. Unfortunately we are now paying the price for that short-termism. In the medium term the boom was always going to end and Labour should have know that and they should have been preparing for it. Instead they choose to increase spending.
The boom was going to end one way or another. Labour should have (and could have) put us in a better situation to cope.
There was nothing wrong with Labour's spending levels before the crisis, the Conservative party supported those spending levels.
Look at the 2007 Conservative Party Conference where Osborne responded to those that suggested the Tories were going to cut public spending from Labour's planned levels:
Quote:The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans.
In an echo of New Labour’s own 1997 manifesto promise to match the Tory Government’s projected spending levels, George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown’s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years.
“Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals,” the Shadow Chancellor said.
“Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £616 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010/11.
“Like Labour, we will review the final year’s total in a spending review in 2009,” Mr Osborne wrote in a newspaper article.
He added that the effect of the commitment “is that under a Conservative government, there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year”.
“The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false,” he said.
SBR wrote:I know. That's why we should have continued to run a surplus to put ourselves in a better position to cope when things did go wrong.
Yes they were sustainable, in the short term, for as long as the boom continued. Unfortunately we are now paying the price for that short-termism. In the medium term the boom was always going to end and Labour should have know that and they should have been preparing for it. Instead they choose to increase spending.
The boom was going to end one way or another. Labour should have (and could have) put us in a better situation to cope.
There was nothing wrong with Labour's spending levels before the crisis, the Conservative party supported those spending levels.
Look at the 2007 Conservative Party Conference where Osborne responded to those that suggested the Tories were going to cut public spending from Labour's planned levels:
Quote:The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown’s spending plans.
In an echo of New Labour’s own 1997 manifesto promise to match the Tory Government’s projected spending levels, George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown’s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years.
“Today, I can confirm for the first time that a Conservative government will adopt these spending totals,” the Shadow Chancellor said.
“Total government spending will rise by 2 per cent a year in real terms, from £616 billion next year to £674 billion in the year 2010/11.
“Like Labour, we will review the final year’s total in a spending review in 2009,” Mr Osborne wrote in a newspaper article.
He added that the effect of the commitment “is that under a Conservative government, there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year”.
“The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false,” he said.
Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019 League Leaders 2011 2016
Mintball wrote:So you hold opinions without believing they're right? How odd.
But I've yet to see anyone on here who claims to "know all the answers" - perhaps you can point out who does and on what you base such a claim? That would mean showing evidence that they think that they "know ALL the answers", as you suggest.
That is not what I said about holding opinions. The questioning response to a post based an a seemingly wilful misinterpretation of its meaning is a pretty crude tool. You use it rather a lot. The idea of you and Dally in a political coalition is obviously whimsical. You bit and he didn't.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18072 Location: On the road
El Barbudo wrote:Out of interest, when would you run a deficit? Just asking like.
When your tax revenues are less than your intended spending on public services - simple really
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18072 Location: On the road
sally cinnamon wrote:There was nothing wrong with Labour's spending levels before the crisis, the Conservative party supported those spending levels.
Look at the 2007 Conservative Party Conference where Osborne responded to those that suggested the Tories were going to cut public spending from Labour's planned levels:
Brown wanted to continue increasing spending even after the banking crisis, he was in complete denial. If Labour had got in again there would have been a massive hike in taxation.
In 2007 the tories were trying to get in a position to be elected, they are hardly going to alienate a big chunk of potential voters by showing their hand.
sally cinnamon wrote:There was nothing wrong with Labour's spending levels before the crisis, the Conservative party supported those spending levels.
Look at the 2007 Conservative Party Conference where Osborne responded to those that suggested the Tories were going to cut public spending from Labour's planned levels:
Brown wanted to continue increasing spending even after the banking crisis, he was in complete denial. If Labour had got in again there would have been a massive hike in taxation.
In 2007 the tories were trying to get in a position to be elected, they are hardly going to alienate a big chunk of potential voters by showing their hand.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Sal Paradise wrote:
In 2007 the tories were trying to get in a position to be elected, they are hardly going to alienate a big chunk of potential voters by showing their hand.
That isn't "not showing your hand", that's blatant lying
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
