Calling Rigo and BFYP

[BillyStubbsTears]

Chaps.

You two who have banged on about how iniquitous the last labour Government was in introducing fees for University students.

Here's a quote from the most soft liberal member of the new Government.

\"Students may have to pay more\"

That's from Vince Cable who has responsibility for try to keep something vaguely resembling a First World higher education system in place while George Osbourne runs round doing his \"Here's Johnny!\" act and swinging his axe over his head everytime he spots a penny being spent by Government.

The Browne commission meanwhile is expected to recommend that fees more than double AND University places are cut back.

There you go. You poured criticism on the last Government. Thank your lucky stars that you weren't going into education NOW!

EDIT: 'Course, Cable and Clegg campaigned on manifesto that pledged the removal of Tuition Fees. Liberals eh? What exactly DO they believe in? Apart from anything whatsoever that will get them a seat at the Cabinet?

[MrFrost]

I find it interesting BST, how in the other thread, you asked me to point out examples of labour overspending, of which you suggested there were none.

Well, I have posted my examples, and find it quit odd that you haven't turned them on their end to strengthen your side of the argument.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've just written a long and detailed response to your comments, then had the browser crash on me.

Ain't got time to re-do it, so I'll sum it up in a short synopsis.

\"You are wrong.\"

[MrFrost]

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

[BillyStubbsTears]

Paper down. Waders on. Reckon I've got a bite lads.

[bobjimwilly]

Is it a keeper?

 

[Mike_F]

I've no objection to reducing the number of university places. Surely the whole point of getting a degree is that sets you apart as an academic achiever. Now every Tom, Dick and HArry has one it kind of defeats the object. I firmly believe that the limited places should go to those who have earned them on merit rather than the old red-brick school tie system but that's an altogether different subject...

[jonrover]

MrFrost wrote:

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.

Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

[MrFrost]

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.

Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.

I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.

You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.

[Redandwhitewhizards]

MrFrost wrote:

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.

Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.

I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.

You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.

Co-operation tax?

You'd think that if you were in business, you'd at least know what tax you would be paying... Still, your business must be booming if the fall in CORPORATE tax rates is going to significantly support your ventures. Depending on the nature of the business, number of employees etc, the small reduction in SCR by a whole 1% is outweighed by increases in other areas.

[MrFrost]

Its funny what the human mind makes you type when you are having at the same time a conversation with your missus about who is going to the co-op to get some milk.

The reduction goes in part to offset the raise in VAT.

[jonrover]

MrFrost wrote:

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.

Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.

I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.

You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.

Generally, people with your selfish \"I'm all right Jack, screw everyone else\" attitude deserve to reap what they sow. That is my opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

And don't worry about Labour old cock. These Tory cuts will see them elected for the next generation (according to Mervyn King.) Once were back in recession and the dole queue is pushing 4 million there will be riots like not seen since the poll tax riots that toppled Thatcher. It could be interesting with tens of Thousands less bobbies, maybe your lot will have the army turn its guns on civilians like they did on Bloody Sunday?

Like I said, Labour needs activists inside to push it back Left again, and then demand some social justice, tax the rich correctly, close the tax avoidance loopholes pricks like Tory cash cow Lord Ashcroft benefit from which robs £24 billion a year of the treasury, and demand the banks pay what they borrowed back to the public purse plus interest.

[MrFrost]

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm wrong because you say I am.
It's a wonder folk like you and Bob don't stand for election. You are that perfect and political views so correct that surely everything would be perfect under your rule.
Or more simply could you both be self proclaimed \"know it alls\"

Funny thing is people like Billy and Bob are EXACTLY the kind of people Labour need to pull back to the Left away from Blairism, which has left the Labour party unrecognisable from what the party was historically set up to do, which is represent the working class. And my Trade Union is at the forefront of that fight and is training activists in political schools country wide to be able to fight elections in their local constituencies, instead of having bell ends like Dave and Ed Miliband representing people they have no idea about, just so their guaranteed office. Did Miliband care about the Jarvis workers? Did he shite. Will he care that thousands of hard working folk in Doncaster who are staring into the idealogical Tory abyss? Will he shite.

Give me Billy or Bob any day of the week. And as for self proclaimed know it alls? They've probably forgot more than you know on Tory policy and the economy. Even the Daily Fascist today say Gideon's cuts will send us spiralling back into recession. But you keep on believing and do a bit of praying while your at it because I'd hate to be a small business with what's round the corner. Mind you with some of the bile you've spewed on here, it couldn't happen to someone more deserving.

So because I take a different opinion, I deserve my business to go bust and my family to go hungry.

I'm not at all worried for my business as it happens. And I embrace the changes the coalition have put in place to support businesses. The reduction in co-operation tax for one. We had already budgeted for a VAT rise, so that is irrelevant.

You have also yourself admitted that Labour no longer represents the working class. What happens now then? It could take a generation for that to change.

Generally, people with your selfish \"I'm all right Jack, screw everyone else\" attitude deserve to reap what they sow. That is my opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

And don't worry about Labour old cock. These Tory cuts will see them elected for the next generation (according to Mervyn King.) Once were back in recession and the dole queue is pushing 4 million there will be riots like not seen since the poll tax riots that toppled Thatcher. It could be interesting with tens of Thousands less bobbies, maybe your lot will have the army turn its guns on civilians like they did on Bloody Sunday?

Like I said, Labour needs activists inside to push it back Left again, and then demand some social justice, tax the rich correctly, close the tax avoidance loopholes pricks like Tory cash cow Lord Ashcroft benefit from which robs £24 billion a year of the treasury, and demand the banks pay what they borrowed back to the public purse plus interest.

Then you can deal with my opinion can't you. That what you have stated will not happen.

[MrFrost]

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

[jucyberry]

Watching the news tonight, talking of the police cuts, I love the way figures are tweaked so to speak, I see they are trumpeting a drop in SOME crime figures..I wonder why no mention of the really serious crimes, rape, murder ect. I wondered too, because I'm not all that up on numbers, (i'm so Dyscalsic) how the publics figures could 1% different to the police's.
It's a depressing thought isn't it? That obviously the most terrible of crimes aren't coming down in number.

By they I mean the BBC.

[jonrover]

MrFrost wrote:

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

Yeah and your point is? I could post ten that disagree with that document, a few from Tory rags and comments from the OBR that have come out in the last day or two. But what's the point?

The fact is, Gideon is taking a huge gamble and if it fails, which it is more likely too than not, we are all up shit creek without an oar.

[Glyn_Wigley]

MrFrost wrote:

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

\"Cautiously optimistic\"? Wow, really nailed their colours to the mast with that, haven't they?

Talk about damned with faint praise.

[Glyn_Wigley]

jucyberry wrote:

Watching the news tonight, talking of the police cuts, I love the way figures are tweaked so to speak, I see they are trumpeting a drop in SOME crime figures..I wonder why no mention of the really serious crimes, rape, murder ect. I wondered too, because I'm not all that up on numbers, (i'm so Dyscalsic) how the publics figures could 1% different to the police's.
It's a depressing thought isn't it? That obviously the most terrible of crimes aren't coming down in number.

By they I mean the BBC.

It's OK, Jucy, they don't want to put people in prison anyway. It costs money to do that.

[MrFrost]

jonrover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

Yeah and your point is? I could post ten that disagree with that document, a few from Tory rags and comments from the OBR that have come out in the last day or two. But what's the point?

The fact is, Gideon is taking a huge gamble and if it fails, which it is more likely too than not, we are all up shit creek without an oar.

It's your opinion that it will fail. Mine that it wont. I present an article which isn't all doom and gloom, but people refuse to take the labour tinted specs off, just for a moment.

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

Well done. You pick an obscure website where one self-appointed expert gives his opinion that things might just be OK, in a report full of caveats that effectively say \"we don't really know what on earth is going to happen in a recession like this because no-one below the age of 80 has ever seen one, but fingers crossed that the most drastic cutback in public expenditure in a century won't f**k us up eh?\"

Why trust that man's opinion instead of, say, Paul Krugman, the American Nobel Prize winning economist who has called Osbourne's policy of cutting so viciously \"economic lunacy\"? What about the IMF, with their diplomatic \"you are running some very significant downside risks\" comments?

And, if you actually bother to burrow down into that weblink you posted, you see PRECISELY why cutbacks on this scale are not required. We are being told a story that Labour was obscenely irresponsible in running up a huge deficit in the good times. Now go and look at Chart B in that website. Look at the Public Spending figures. In 2007, before the banking crisis exploded, public spending was ~40% of GDP and stable. It was at one of the lowest levels that we have seen in two generations. Then the banking crisis and the recession blew up, and public expenditure had to rise, just as it did in the recessions of 73-74, 80-81, 90-91. That is what happens in recessions. It's what ALWAYS happens in recessions. And equally, public spending as a proportion of GDP tends to reduce as we come out of a recession providing the private sector is strong enough to recover. All the previous recessions saw a return to equilibrium without anything remotely like cutbacks as vicious as the ones being put in train by this lot.

Go look at the chart. You put the weblink up so presumably you read and understood that data.

Yes, public spending has to be cut-back as an economy comes out of recession, but ONLY then. Cutting it too early and too deeply is an apalling risk - it risks destroying fragile economic confidence before recovery is established. What defies belief is that Osbourne, Cameron, and their gutless, principle-less Liberal supporters are implementing such unprecedented cut-backs at a time when there is still such deep uncertainty over whether the private sector really is strong enough to bounce back. Reckless and dangerous. Just as the IMF's diplomatic warnings and Paul Krugman say.

This is a FAR more dangerous approach than the shibboleth of a sovereign debt crisis for the UK, which simply does not exist as an immediate and serious threat. For the simple reason that the majority of the UK Government's debt is long-term debt, so even if the credit agencies DID downgrade our AAA rating  - which they are a long, long way from doing - it would have no practical effect on the Government's ability to finance its debt. But the Greek crisis (where they really DO have a sovereign debt crisis) came at a perfect time for Cameron and Osbourne, giving them a bogeyman to scare people with and allowing them to let rip with what they always wanted to do for ideological reasons anyway.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Have a read of this
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/economics-weekly/2010-07-13.html

Well done. You pick an obscure website where one self-appointed expert gives his opinion that things might just be OK, in a report full of caveats that effectively say \"we don't really know what on earth is going to happen in a recession like this because no-one below the age of 80 has ever seen one, but fingers crossed that the most drastic cutback in public expenditure in a century won't fcuk us up eh?\"

Why trust that man's opinion instead of, say, Paul Krugman, the American Nobel Prize winning economist who has called Osbourne's policy of cutting so viciously \"economic lunacy\"? What about the IMF, with their diplomatic \"you are running some very significant downside risks\" comments?

And, if you actually bother to burrow down into that weblink you posted, you see PRECISELY why cutbacks on this scale are not required. We are being told a story that Labour was obscenely irresponsible in running up a huge deficit in the good times. Now go and look at Chart B in that website. Look at the Public Spending figures. In 2007, before the banking crisis exploded, public spending was ~40% of GDP and stable. It was at one of the lowest levels that we have seen in two generations. Then the banking crisis and the recession blew up, and public expenditure had to rise, just as it did in the recessions of 73-74, 80-81, 90-91. That is what happens in recessions. It's what ALWAYS happens in recessions. And equally, public spending as a proportion of GDP tends to reduce as we come out of a recession providing the private sector is strong enough to recover. All the previous recessions saw a return to equilibrium without anything remotely like cutbacks as vicious as the ones being put in train by this lot.

Go look at the chart. You put the weblink up so presumably you read and understood that data.

Yes, public spending has to be cut-back as an economy comes out of recession, but ONLY then. Cutting it too early and too deeply is an apalling risk - it risks destroying fragile economic confidence before recovery is established. What defies belief is that Osbourne, Cameron, and their gutless, principle-less Liberal supporters are implementing such unprecedented cut-backs at a time when there is still such deep uncertainty over whether the private sector really is strong enough to bounce back. Reckless and dangerous. Just as the IMF's diplomatic warnings and Paul Krugman say.

This is a FAR more dangerous approach than the shibboleth of a sovereign debt crisis for the UK, which simply does not exist as an immediate and serious threat. For the simple reason that the majority of the UK Government's debt is long-term debt, so even if the credit agencies DID downgrade our AAA rating  - which they are a long, long way from doing - it would have no practical effect on the Government's ability to finance its debt. But the Greek crisis (where they really DO have a sovereign debt crisis) came at a perfect time for Cameron and Osbourne, giving them a bogeyman to scare people with and allowing them to let rip with what they always wanted to do for ideological reasons anyway.

Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

While we're at it, that Chart B tells you, in one graph, everything you need to know about Labour vs Tory policy.

The Tories and Tory press (and Mr Frost) are screaming that Labour was criminally reckless in its public spending whilst in power. Chart B shows that in fact, before the recession hit, public expenditure was at a modest level by historical standards.

By contrast, the Thatcherite, viciously anti-state, anti-society policy over the 80s and 90s had manically driven down public expenditure to levels lower than we had seen for more than half a century. That was their ideology.

And the result?
Cutting public expenditure doesn't come without a cost. Anyone above the age of 35 from our area knows damn well what that cost was after 20 years of Thatcherite driving down of public expenditure.

Crumbling, overcrowded schools.
A collapsing rail system
The NHS all but dead on its feet.
Post-industrial communities left to rot after state support was pulled away.


In the 13 years of Labour being in power, there was a modest reversal of that approach. Public expenditure rose gently, back to more sane levels. The results are there to see for anyone.

The NHS incomparably better than it was.
Schools invested in.
The train system finally functional again.
Look at a photo of Donny from 1995 and compare it to how Donny is today. THAT alone tells you all you need to know.

And the Tories are telling us that Labour spending 42-43% of GDP on public spending (before the recession hit) was madness and reckless? What it actually was, was a sensible and fair redistribution after the wild-eyed ideologues had wreaked their damage over the previous 2 decades.

And now the Kitsons are patting us on the head and saying \"Let's get back to 80s public spending levels again folks...\"

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.

You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?

If this doesn't happen, I'll be f**king delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these Kitsons wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.

f**king well grow up.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.

You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?

If this doesn't happen, I'll be fcuking delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these cnuts wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.

fcuking well grow up.

I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to good old fashioned name calling.
Personally, I think you would be delighted if it happened, as it would prove you were right all along. And i'm betting you would remind me of the fact.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.

What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.

What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.

End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

Supposing this doesn't happen. What will you say then? I presume you are the kind of person that would never admit they are wrong.

You stupid dick. You think I actually WANT this to happen? You think this is about winning an academic debate?

If this doesn't happen, I'll be fcuking delighted. Because it'll mean that we DON'T go back to the devastation that these cnuts wrought in the 80s and 90s. Because, unlike you, I actually care about what happens to people.

fcuking well grow up.

I wondered how long it would take before you resorted to good old fashioned name calling.
Personally, I think you would be delighted if it happened, as it would prove you were right all along. And i'm betting you would remind me of the fact.

So. You ask me a question about my own opinions. I give you a straight answer. You reply by telling me what I actually think.

Perhaps we should set up a Forum where you can ask a question and answer on everyone's behalf.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.

What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.

End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?

'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.

Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.

[MrFrost]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.

What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.

End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?

'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.

Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.

Not if you take the stance of the writer of the article.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

I'm still waiting for someone to pull the evidence on Labour's overspending to pieces.

We didn't need to do. You answered your own question by posting that link with Chart B. Thanks very much.

What that chart shows, is the TOTAL picture. Not a few, selected, anecdotal examples chosen to support a particular argument. The chart shows that by any standards other than extreme Thatcherite ones, the last Labour Government was a sensible, pretty level-headed spender of public money. End of argument.

End of argument because you say it is? Who are you? My father?

'kin hell. This is getting like Adam Boulton's response to Alastair Campbell.

Calm down man. It's the end of the argument because the figures on that graph that YOU posted answer your question. Unless you're now going to tell us that those figures are wrong as well.

Not if you take the stance of the writer of the article.

No. Have you no comprehension of the role that facts play in an argument.

I'll repeat.

That graph shows that by NO rational assessment can the last Labour Government be called profligate: UNLESS you subscribe to the belief that the public spending policies of the last Tory Government were an ideal that we should aspire to. That's not about opinion - it's simple factual interpretation of the data on that graph.

I can give you other figures if you want, from the OBR's own post-Budget report. You can find them in Chart C5 here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf These figures show that, prior to the onset of the banking crisis and the worldwide recession, the Labour Government's spending was actually LOWER than it had been under John Major in 1996-7.

Labour's plans to reduce spending as we emerge from recession would, by 2015, have brought public spending as a proportion of GDP to something like what it was in 2007. Look at that C5 graph again and the comparisons with how long it took to get public spending back down after the previous two recessions. The trends were similar to what Labour had been planning. Now bear in mind that neither of the previous two recessions were as destructive to the fundamental economic base of the country as this one has been. So, Labour's spending reduction plans were sharp enough - on a par with what Thatcher did in the early 80s. Yet Osbourne's plans are to cut spending almost 50% faster again!

That would be a really hard job even after a \"normal\" recession. After one like we've just had, where NO-ONE knows how we will pick up (Alan Budd, the head of the OBR say his predictions are \"our best stab at an impossible job\") it's the gamble of the century.

If I'm going to be honest, I think that the Tories actually don't have a prayer of reducing public spending quite so quickly. Even Thatcher didn't manage to do that with a 150 seat majority and the manic certainty of the woman who won the Falklands War underpinning her. By comparison, the current lot are political pygmies with no electoral mandate. And they will have to rely on the continued support of a Liberal party that has effectively destroyed itself by signing up to this economic policy. I simply cannot see how such a weak Government can possible drive through the most divisive and controversial policies since the War and still survive. It defies all political logic. So we may be economically saved by circumstances.