Gordon Brown joins the gravy train

[wollowizard]

deadslow said:

wollowizard said:

deadslow said:

wollowizard said:

But cameron and clegg have done nothing

more or less correct

What can they do? come on really what can they do?

Edited by wollowizard on Sunday 15th July 00:56

Obviously you're correct. They can do nothing, given their capabilities, except U-turn and cow-tow.

I'm correct in what? I asked you what you would do as you seem to feel they are doing something wrong. Care to try and explain what you would do different?

[Oilchange]

...and this is where the argument falls down, there are no ideas coming from the opposition, just criticisms. If there are no ideas from the opposition, they clearly have NO IDEA.

wollowizard said:

deadslow said:

wollowizard said:

deadslow said:

wollowizard said:

But cameron and clegg have done nothing

more or less correct

What can they do? come on really what can they do?

Edited by wollowizard on Sunday 15th July 00:56

Obviously you're correct. They can do nothing, given their capabilities, except U-turn and cow-tow.

I'm correct in what? I asked you what you would do as you seem to feel they are doing something wrong. Care to try and explain what you would do different?

[DSM2]

deadslow said:

I'm surprised you resort to such tactics. I have an opinion, just as you do.

And it would be interesting to know how it is formed.

History already shows that the last labour administration was the most catastrophic ever seen. We are all paying the price and will do for generations. It is difficult to imagine any aspect of our lives that any other government could damage more.

Brown was one of, if not the main protagonist in that debacle, even during the Blair years, as he steadily fked the country financially and morally in his role as C of the E.

I can only assume you have a nationalistic bias towards him but the majority see him as a disaster who got away 'scot' free and is now reaping the reward for incompetence.

Or perhaps you are one of the feckless millions of scroungers who mistakenly think they did benefit under Brown's disgraceful stewardship?

[madala]

....plus 1 DSM....

.....those feckers sold us down the river....big time.

[Countdown]

DSM2 said:

And it would be interesting to know how it is formed.

History already shows that the last labour administration was the most catastrophic ever seen. We are all paying the price and will do for generations. It is difficult to imagine any aspect of our lives that any other government could damage more.

When you say catastrophic, how much do you think was down to Labour policies and how much was due to global issues. As you're probably aware there IS a recession amongst most of the major western economies.

[deadslow]

DSM2 said:

I can only assume you have a nationalistic bias towards him but the majority see him as a disaster who got away 'scot' free and is now reaping the reward for incompetence.

Or perhaps you are one of the feckless millions of scroungers who mistakenly think they did benefit under Brown's disgraceful stewardship?

I am not a Brown supporter - I actually thought he was a disaster as PM, so your nationalistic assumption is way off the mark. Nor am I a feckless scrounger, thanks.

[Oilchange]

...lets not descend into insults or spiteful bickering, it detracts from the crux of the matter that Brown was an economic 'Scorched Earth' at a time when Britain needed healing hands...

[AndrewW-G]

Countdown said:

DSM2 said:

And it would be interesting to know how it is formed.

History already shows that the last labour administration was the most catastrophic ever seen. We are all paying the price and will do for generations. It is difficult to imagine any aspect of our lives that any other government could damage more.

When you say catastrophic, how much do you think was down to Labour policies and how much was due to global issues. As you're probably aware there IS a recession amongst most of the major western economies.

The significant rise in government employees and the increasingly vast rise in public spending, were the direct result of the policies of winky and the other traitors.

The "global recession" didn't set unrealistic spending plans for the UK public sector . . . . .and doesn't seem to have had a great deal of effect on countries like Brazil or China (who have just reported a "drop" to +7% growth)

Our politicians failed to see any of the events of the past 4 years coming, instead believing their own hype, that they had banished boom and bust, when in reality they were standing in front of an incoming financial tide, trying to invoke the spirit of King Canute.

Whilst mental health problems aren't a laughing matter . . . .it's hard not to chuckle at the idiots who defend and voted for Brown . . . . PM isn't a role suitable for somebody in the grip of a breakdown!

[Countdown]

AndrewW-G said:

Countdown said:

DSM2 said:

And it would be interesting to know how it is formed.

History already shows that the last labour administration was the most catastrophic ever seen. We are all paying the price and will do for generations. It is difficult to imagine any aspect of our lives that any other government could damage more.

When you say catastrophic, how much do you think was down to Labour policies and how much was due to global issues. As you're probably aware there IS a recession amongst most of the major western economies.

The significant rise in government employees and the increasingly vast rise in public spending, were the direct result of the policies of winky and the other traitors.

Significant Increases that were achieved without equally significant increases in taxes - which suggests that, at the time, tax receipts and therefore the general economy, were quite healthy?

AndrewW-G said:

The "global recession" didn't set unrealistic spending plans for the UK public sector . . . . .and doesn't seem to have had a great deal of effect on countries like Brazil or China (who have just reported a "drop" to +7% growth)

As I understand it the spending plans were based on forecast GDP earnings so weren't that unrealisticat the time they were made. So then you have to ask why GDP has fallen so significantly,So what did Gordo do to cause GDP (and as a result, tax receipts) to fall?

AndrewW-G said:

[Our politicians failed to see any of the events of the past 4 years coming, instead believing their own hype, that they had banished boom and bust, when in reality they were standing in front of an incoming financial tide, trying to invoke the spirit of King Canute.

Our politicians were not unique in that respect. As you know, lots of countries are experiencing financial difficulties. It could be argued that we were/are in a better position to handle the crisis than orhers; IMF data (IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2010) shows the UK had the lowest government debt as a proportion of GDP among the G7 countries (the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Japan, Italy and France).

Whilst I fully agree GB could have done better I can't see how he was "catastrophic".

Edited by Countdown on Sunday 15th July 22:25

[wollowizard]

http://www.debtbombshell.com/


I think some people need a reality check.

[AndrewW-G]

Countdown said:

nonsense

Winky borrowed the money to increase government spending, however to suggest that taxation did not go up, should secure you the rubber room next to his.

Oh and at no point in my post did I use the word "catastrophic"

[wollowizard]

Countdown said:

No significent increase in tax

From 1987 to 1997 the UK tax take was £700 BILLION
From 1997 to 2007 it was £1.4 TRILLION


It doubled. isn't that significent? really? honestly?

[Countdown]

wollowizard said:

Countdown said:

No significent increase in tax

From 1987 to 1997 the UK tax take was £700 BILLION
From 1997 to 2007 it was £1.4 TRILLION


It doubled. isn't that significent? really? honestly?

Tax is taken as a percentage of earnings/profits. If the latter increases so does the former

[Countdown]

AndrewW-G said:

Countdown said:

nonsense

Winky borrowed the money to increase government spending, however to suggest that taxation did not go up, should secure you the rubber room next to his.

Oh and at no point in my post did I use the word "catastrophic"

AIUI public sector debt, as a %age of GDP, fell after Labour came into power and didn't exceed the1997 level until 2008 (which was when the banking crisis happened and the global recession started)

With regards to Income Tax, Ni, and VAT rates, the figures are widely available and I don't think they changed substantially after the Tories were kicked out in 1997.

It was another poster who used the word catastrophic. I'm glad you don't agree with him

[AndrewW-G]

Countdown said:

It was another poster who used the word catastrophic. I'm glad you don't agree with him

Actually I do agree with him, I was just highlighting your inability to read posts that don't agree with your position, which results in you wrongly attributing comments

[Countdown]

AndrewW-G said:

Countdown said:

It was another poster who used the word catastrophic. I'm glad you don't agree with him

Actually I do agree with him, I was just highlighting your inability to read posts that don't agree with your position, which results in you wrongly attributing comments

I'm fully capable of reading posts thanks. I never suggested you used the word catastrophic I simply assumed (correctly it seems) that you agreed with the previous poster.

Until you denied using the word, even though you agree with it.....

[wollowizard]

Countdown said:

wollowizard said:

Countdown said:

No significent increase in tax

From 1987 to 1997 the UK tax take was £700 BILLION
From 1997 to 2007 it was £1.4 TRILLION


It doubled. isn't that significent? really? honestly?

Tax is taken as a percentage of earnings/profits. If the latter increases so does the former

GDP rose in line with labours borrowing, is that what you are on about?

[AndrewW-G]

Countdown said:

I never suggested you used the word catastrophic

You did, and you've now edited your post . . . . . .

[Countdown]

wollowizard said:

Countdown said:

wollowizard said:

Countdown said:

No significent increase in tax

From 1987 to 1997 the UK tax take was £700 BILLION
From 1997 to 2007 it was £1.4 TRILLION


It doubled. isn't that significent? really? honestly?

Tax is taken as a percentage of earnings/profits. If the latter increases so does the former

GDP rose in line with labours borrowing, is that what you are on about?

It wasn't a linear relationship but GDP is a good guide to the affordability (or otherwise) of borrowing. As long as the economy is doing well it does no harm if you are borrowing to finance long term capital investment.

[Countdown]

AndrewW-G said:

Countdown said:

I never suggested you used the word catastrophic

You did, and you've now edited your post . . . . . .

Nahhh....that was to correct grammar and spelling. You know how vicious and cruel PH can be