Blair and Brown are ones to blame

OBVIOUSLY Allan Denney (Letters, January 24), like other Labour supporters and politicians, remains in total denial that the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 were the architects of the financial mess that now besets the country.

No, Mr Denney, long before the banking crisis the Labour government was stacking up debt at an alarming rate by spending money it just didn’t have.

I don’t deny that the banking crisis played its part in destroying our economy, but remember the banks had the support of Blair and Brown and they let matters get out of hand.

The previous Labour Government which was defeated by Mrs Thatcher in 1979 also left a financial mess with large loans from the IMF, to which it had gone cap in hand because that government too was spending more than it had.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself with Labour.

I have little doubt that David Cameron and George Osborne will repair the damage done by their predecessors, as did Mrs Thatcher before them.

In so doing they will be constantly attacked and reviled, but they are made of sterner stuff so they will win through. Let there be no doubt, a Conservative government will be re-elected in 2015.

Coun John Galvin, Conservative, Bishopthorpe Ward.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:31am Mon 28 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

Just don't mention the banking crisis and the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States.

Or the fact that borrowing has increased to record levels under the current incumbents.

Much, much easier to blame Blair and Brown.

School boy politics at its best.
Just don't mention the banking crisis and the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. Or the fact that borrowing has increased to record levels under the current incumbents. Much, much easier to blame Blair and Brown. School boy politics at its best. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 28 Jan 13

TerryYork says...

Agreed with that Buda. Only a moron would miss that key issue....then again, it is Tory Boy Gavin.

Gavin is bleating a party political statement on a public site. Rules say it must be balanced out.
Agreed with that Buda. Only a moron would miss that key issue....then again, it is Tory Boy Gavin. Gavin is bleating a party political statement on a public site. Rules say it must be balanced out. TerryYork
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Micklegate says...

The banks were stupid by the ridiculous lending but the whole point was their lending gave a 'boom' and 'growth' that was never there. It's like blaming the off licence for you being drunk.

Also in 2006 and 2005 and 2004 (you get the picture) all before the banks collapsed Labour was borrowing billions more than it was getting in.

Borrowing is increasing under the coalition as the books are so out of sync, people can't criticse the coalition for debt going up AND at the same time say they are cutting too much.

It seems to me that Cllr Galvin has got it spot on, but the fact that 'there is no money left' (as Labour's ex Chief Secretary admitted) isn't something people want to hear.
The banks were stupid by the ridiculous lending but the whole point was their lending gave a 'boom' and 'growth' that was never there. It's like blaming the off licence for you being drunk. Also in 2006 and 2005 and 2004 (you get the picture) all before the banks collapsed Labour was borrowing billions more than it was getting in. Borrowing is increasing under the coalition as the books are so out of sync, people can't criticse the coalition for debt going up AND at the same time say they are cutting too much. It seems to me that Cllr Galvin has got it spot on, but the fact that 'there is no money left' (as Labour's ex Chief Secretary admitted) isn't something people want to hear. Micklegate
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Maquis says...

Had Brown and Blair not left us with so much debt, the international events mentioned would not have had such a devastating effect on our economy.

Selling off our gold reserves to spend on projects such as the failed NHS computer system, or DFT, or DVLA systems, was verging on criminal and is totally inexcusable. These reserves could have eased the debt burden allowing money to be put into wealth generating capital building projects, helping us to get some growth.

The debt they built up while the going was good is costing us more in interest than it would to send every child of school leaving age to university every year.

These are clearly stated facts, easily accessed and simple to understand.

Clearing up this mess is not a six month job, it is almost a generational job. Things are still not great, but what do Labour suggest?
Borrow more!!!!!!

Throughout the years in opposition, they have said that they would cut less than the coalition, as it is turning out, spending is still on the increase.
So what do Labour say?
Spend more and borrow more!!!

They have no credibility at all. They oppose every cut and then shout when the deficit is not going down as fast as the government want.
How can anybody take them seriously?
Had Brown and Blair not left us with so much debt, the international events mentioned would not have had such a devastating effect on our economy. Selling off our gold reserves to spend on projects such as the failed NHS computer system, or DFT, or DVLA systems, was verging on criminal and is totally inexcusable. These reserves could have eased the debt burden allowing money to be put into wealth generating capital building projects, helping us to get some growth. The debt they built up while the going was good is costing us more in interest than it would to send every child of school leaving age to university every year. These are clearly stated facts, easily accessed and simple to understand. Clearing up this mess is not a six month job, it is almost a generational job. Things are still not great, but what do Labour suggest? Borrow more!!!!!! Throughout the years in opposition, they have said that they would cut less than the coalition, as it is turning out, spending is still on the increase. So what do Labour say? Spend more and borrow more!!! They have no credibility at all. They oppose every cut and then shout when the deficit is not going down as fast as the government want. How can anybody take them seriously? Maquis
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Mon 28 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!!

The very same thing people kick labour for.
You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!! The very same thing people kick labour for. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Mon 28 Jan 13

/kev/null says...

The problem is party politics and until we replace all the party members in the house with independents we won't get any honest behaviour from our so-called representatives. The parties are only interested in making careers and fortunes for their members - who in turn will only do what's best for their communities when it doesn't conflict with their party's interests.

If this is democracy then it is obviously broken.
The problem is party politics and until we replace all the party members in the house with independents we won't get any honest behaviour from our so-called representatives. The parties are only interested in making careers and fortunes for their members - who in turn will only do what's best for their communities when it doesn't conflict with their party's interests. If this is democracy then it is obviously broken. /kev/null
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Matt_S says...

Although I think Labour did borrow slightly too much, it is simply a myth that the amount they were borrowing was unprecendented.

The second graph on the following link shows the budget deficits from 1980 to 2009:

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/business/7734
971.stm

Labour's deficit was never more than 4% of GDP, and in fact from around 1998-2002 there was a surplus.

Compare this to the budget deficits under Thatcher and Major; it's pretty similar.

Spending and borrowing is fine, as long as what you spend it on generates more growth than it costs. This is true of individuals; if you need to buy a season ticket for a train journey in order to get a better job, it makes sense to borrow the money.

On the other hand, if you try to cut your expenses so much (e.g. 'austerity'), you'll lose the benefits of this extra future income.
Although I think Labour did borrow slightly too much, it is simply a myth that the amount they were borrowing was unprecendented. The second graph on the following link shows the budget deficits from 1980 to 2009: http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/business/7734 971.stm Labour's deficit was never more than 4% of GDP, and in fact from around 1998-2002 there was a surplus. Compare this to the budget deficits under Thatcher and Major; it's pretty similar. Spending and borrowing is fine, as long as what you spend it on generates more growth than it costs. This is true of individuals; if you need to buy a season ticket for a train journey in order to get a better job, it makes sense to borrow the money. On the other hand, if you try to cut your expenses so much (e.g. 'austerity'), you'll lose the benefits of this extra future income. Matt_S
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Mon 28 Jan 13

CynicaloldGit says...

Two points..........

1........Blair was not Labour, he was new Labour and told us all that NL had nothing in common with old Labour, He was anything than socialist. Nu Labour were nothing more than skyblue Tories.

2.....When Brown and Labour introduced the "not near far enough" banking regulations, the Tories demanded no regulation to let the banks run amock.

The situation we find ourselves in is down to one thing only........... greed.............gr
eed introduced into society by the Tories under Mrs T and unbridled capitalism in the western world, but mainly our so called friends across the pond.
Two points.......... 1........Blair was not Labour, he was new Labour and told us all that NL had nothing in common with old Labour, He was anything than socialist. Nu Labour were nothing more than skyblue Tories. 2.....When Brown and Labour introduced the "not near far enough" banking regulations, the Tories demanded no regulation to let the banks run amock. The situation we find ourselves in is down to one thing only........... greed.............gr eed introduced into society by the Tories under Mrs T and unbridled capitalism in the western world, but mainly our so called friends across the pond. CynicaloldGit
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 28 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

This sort of silly statement from a conservative is no surprise.
The Conservative Party feel that the only way they are going to win the next election is to keep saying what they have been saying all along - blame Labour for the global banking crisis. It seems they think most people are stupid enough to keep falling for the line the conservatives used in their last election campaign. Strange though how the media seldom challenge this statement which is trotted out at every opportunity by conservative supporters.
Does this not also say that if this is the only tactic the conservatives can think of to win the next election it shows a complete lack of vision and imagination? Do we want to be governed by a group of people whose only understanding of what went wrong is – it was the Labour Parties fault?
This sort of silly statement from a conservative is no surprise. The Conservative Party feel that the only way they are going to win the next election is to keep saying what they have been saying all along - blame Labour for the global banking crisis. It seems they think most people are stupid enough to keep falling for the line the conservatives used in their last election campaign. Strange though how the media seldom challenge this statement which is trotted out at every opportunity by conservative supporters. Does this not also say that if this is the only tactic the conservatives can think of to win the next election it shows a complete lack of vision and imagination? Do we want to be governed by a group of people whose only understanding of what went wrong is – it was the Labour Parties fault? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Mon 28 Jan 13

CHISSY1 says...

"No matter what is happening in this country all people are interested is,"who can we blame",even the weather".
"No matter what is happening in this country all people are interested is,"who can we blame",even the weather". CHISSY1
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

The Great Buda wrote:
You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!! The very same thing people kick labour for.
It's cause and effect....

Labour's mismanagement and profligacty was the cause, and the effect is that UK PLC has lost much of it's tax generation, meaning the current government are having to borrow more, but Labour would have us borrow even more.

The point is Maquis is right, and the Great Buda is a spin merchant, representing a party (Labour) who cannot and should not, be believed or trusted.

Good letter Coun Galvin, BTW.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!! The very same thing people kick labour for.[/p][/quote]It's cause and effect.... Labour's mismanagement and profligacty was the cause, and the effect is that UK PLC has lost much of it's tax generation, meaning the current government are having to borrow more, but Labour would have us borrow even more. The point is Maquis is right, and the Great Buda is a spin merchant, representing a party (Labour) who cannot and should not, be believed or trusted. Good letter Coun Galvin, BTW. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Matt_S says...

Here's George Osborne in 2007 pledging to match Labour spending:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4
r0
Here's George Osborne in 2007 pledging to match Labour spending: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4 r0 Matt_S
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Maquis says...

The Great Buda wrote:
You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!!

The very same thing people kick labour for.
Here is an analogy of the situation:
( I just made it up so I hope it works as well for you as for me)

The economy is a train, accelerated uncontrollably over the last 15 years until it is going too fast.

It went over the crest of a hill going too fast for the brakes to slow it. Up ahead was another train coming this way.

The driver (Labour) leaves the cabin, the new driver (Coalition) takes over, still heading toward the other train.

They get rid of some dead weight and apply the brakes, just in time they manage to switch to a different track avoiding the collision.

This new track is not great, it goes through the mountains, bumpy, but eventually getting you to where you need to go, a few fillings shaken out, some of your luggage lost to help slow the train, but you get there in one piece having avoided a fatal crash.

All this time, the original driver is running along side telling you how he would not have done things, not to change track, and blaming you for the speed, and the loss of peoples luggage hoping that once you get to the next station, he can drive the train again.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: You make some good points Maquis, but ignore the fact the Con-Dems are borrowing more!!! The very same thing people kick labour for.[/p][/quote]Here is an analogy of the situation: ( I just made it up so I hope it works as well for you as for me) The economy is a train, accelerated uncontrollably over the last 15 years until it is going too fast. It went over the crest of a hill going too fast for the brakes to slow it. Up ahead was another train coming this way. The driver (Labour) leaves the cabin, the new driver (Coalition) takes over, still heading toward the other train. They get rid of some dead weight and apply the brakes, just in time they manage to switch to a different track avoiding the collision. This new track is not great, it goes through the mountains, bumpy, but eventually getting you to where you need to go, a few fillings shaken out, some of your luggage lost to help slow the train, but you get there in one piece having avoided a fatal crash. All this time, the original driver is running along side telling you how he would not have done things, not to change track, and blaming you for the speed, and the loss of peoples luggage hoping that once you get to the next station, he can drive the train again. Maquis
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 28 Jan 13

perplexed says...

When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%.
When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP.
When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP.
When Labour left office it was 35%.
When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion.
Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion.
We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth.

Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others?

Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth.

Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service.

New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom.
When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%. When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP. When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP. When Labour left office it was 35%. When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion. Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion. We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth. Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others? Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth. Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service. New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom. perplexed
  • Score: 0

5:05pm Mon 28 Jan 13

PKH says...

perplexed wrote:
When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%.
When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP.
When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP.
When Labour left office it was 35%.
When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion.
Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion.
We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth.

Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others?

Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth.

Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service.

New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom.
And don't forget the deficit under Thatcher and Major was in spite of them selling all the public utilities etc otherwise their deficits would have been much higher.
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%. When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP. When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP. When Labour left office it was 35%. When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion. Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion. We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth. Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others? Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth. Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service. New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom.[/p][/quote]And don't forget the deficit under Thatcher and Major was in spite of them selling all the public utilities etc otherwise their deficits would have been much higher. PKH
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Yorkmackem says...

As mentioned above, the Tories had pledged to match Labour's so-called profligacy and were also in favour of less regulation of the markets and the banking sector. To accuse Labour of economic mismanagement is hypocrisy of the highest order.

It's also telling that the Tories trot out the "no money left" mantra only when it suits them, i.e. cutting benefits and public services. It doesn't seem to apply when handing out tax cuts to the rich or funding extravagances such as Trident and high speed rail, both of which serve only to line the pockets of fat cat Tory patrons.

And if the original poster really believes the Tories are heading for an election victory in 2015, he must be living in a parallel universe.
As mentioned above, the Tories had pledged to match Labour's so-called profligacy and were also in favour of less regulation of the markets and the banking sector. To accuse Labour of economic mismanagement is hypocrisy of the highest order. It's also telling that the Tories trot out the "no money left" mantra only when it suits them, i.e. cutting benefits and public services. It doesn't seem to apply when handing out tax cuts to the rich or funding extravagances such as Trident and high speed rail, both of which serve only to line the pockets of fat cat Tory patrons. And if the original poster really believes the Tories are heading for an election victory in 2015, he must be living in a parallel universe. Yorkmackem
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Mon 28 Jan 13

uriahh says...

Mr.Galvin,

Don't even begin to think Cameron and Osborne are in any way comparable to Thatcher - they are not and never will be and she had more balls then either of them put together!

Also, please don't compare the current Government's performance with Brown and Blair's as some substantiation of their performance. It would be like bragging you've just beaten a one legged man in an arse kicking contest!

Never forget that the Coalition's existence and its lack of performance is a direct consequence of Cameron and Osborne's abject failure in both Opposition and the General Election.Unlike Thatcher, who got the majority needed in far more difficult circumstances, Cameron couldn't even kill off the dead sheep that was Labour or even perform adequately since!

As a consequence the appalling problems bequeathed to us by Labour's 13 years, are now as b ad if not worse and our ability to remedy them is and will be far m ore difficult than was originally necessary!

The Tory Party needs a new Leader and an internal revolution! The 3 Party System in the UK has failed us all!
Mr.Galvin, Don't even begin to think Cameron and Osborne are in any way comparable to Thatcher - they are not and never will be and she had more balls then either of them put together! Also, please don't compare the current Government's performance with Brown and Blair's as some substantiation of their performance. It would be like bragging you've just beaten a one legged man in an arse kicking contest! Never forget that the Coalition's existence and its lack of performance is a direct consequence of Cameron and Osborne's abject failure in both Opposition and the General Election.Unlike Thatcher, who got the majority needed in far more difficult circumstances, Cameron couldn't even kill off the dead sheep that was Labour or even perform adequately since! As a consequence the appalling problems bequeathed to us by Labour's 13 years, are now as b ad if not worse and our ability to remedy them is and will be far m ore difficult than was originally necessary! The Tory Party needs a new Leader and an internal revolution! The 3 Party System in the UK has failed us all! uriahh
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Jam tomorrow says...

There is no '3 party system'.
They are all the same party. There is little difference between Labour, Liberal and Conservative. Vote who you like in but you get the same people and polices.
Until we all begin to see this we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. All their arguments are fatuous and made up to exaggerate the tiny differences between them.
We don't really vote governments in. We vote the one in, out, every time.
There is no '3 party system'. They are all the same party. There is little difference between Labour, Liberal and Conservative. Vote who you like in but you get the same people and polices. Until we all begin to see this we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. All their arguments are fatuous and made up to exaggerate the tiny differences between them. We don't really vote governments in. We vote the one in, out, every time. Jam tomorrow
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Lineker's Lad says...

One day, with the benefit of some historical perspective a true picture of what actually happened in the banking crisis will emerge and I trust that some of the posters here will become aware of just how deluded they are. Brown criticised the banks for being reckless but he was responsible for the destruction of HBoS and the strongarming of Lloyds TSB into taking them over (with the resultant problems for Lloyds) over the course of one weekend without allowing time for proper due diligence to be carried out. Brown is also responsible for the destruction of the well-capitalised British pension system with his foolish change to the treatment of dividends on equities held by the pension funds. Reckless? Who Mr Brown
One day, with the benefit of some historical perspective a true picture of what actually happened in the banking crisis will emerge and I trust that some of the posters here will become aware of just how deluded they are. Brown criticised the banks for being reckless but he was responsible for the destruction of HBoS and the strongarming of Lloyds TSB into taking them over (with the resultant problems for Lloyds) over the course of one weekend without allowing time for proper due diligence to be carried out. Brown is also responsible for the destruction of the well-capitalised British pension system with his foolish change to the treatment of dividends on equities held by the pension funds. Reckless? Who Mr Brown Lineker's Lad
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Mon 28 Jan 13

uriahh says...

Lineker's Lad wrote:
One day, with the benefit of some historical perspective a true picture of what actually happened in the banking crisis will emerge and I trust that some of the posters here will become aware of just how deluded they are. Brown criticised the banks for being reckless but he was responsible for the destruction of HBoS and the strongarming of Lloyds TSB into taking them over (with the resultant problems for Lloyds) over the course of one weekend without allowing time for proper due diligence to be carried out. Brown is also responsible for the destruction of the well-capitalised British pension system with his foolish change to the treatment of dividends on equities held by the pension funds. Reckless? Who Mr Brown
Add also the "soft" control of the Banks. Labour desperately needed the finance industry incomes and taxes to fill the massive hole in the UK Balance of Trade; they were in hock to them and did whatever was or whatever was not needed to maintain the "exports" and the tax revenues!
[quote][p][bold]Lineker's Lad[/bold] wrote: One day, with the benefit of some historical perspective a true picture of what actually happened in the banking crisis will emerge and I trust that some of the posters here will become aware of just how deluded they are. Brown criticised the banks for being reckless but he was responsible for the destruction of HBoS and the strongarming of Lloyds TSB into taking them over (with the resultant problems for Lloyds) over the course of one weekend without allowing time for proper due diligence to be carried out. Brown is also responsible for the destruction of the well-capitalised British pension system with his foolish change to the treatment of dividends on equities held by the pension funds. Reckless? Who Mr Brown[/p][/quote]Add also the "soft" control of the Banks. Labour desperately needed the finance industry incomes and taxes to fill the massive hole in the UK Balance of Trade; they were in hock to them and did whatever was or whatever was not needed to maintain the "exports" and the tax revenues! uriahh
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Mon 28 Jan 13

YSTClinguist says...

All countries are in debt. But don't treat countries debt like personal bank accounts. What's the point in arguing who did what? People are putting words in your mouths to distract from the dismantling of our society.

The present government have just admitted an error in not pumping money into building, whilst they are attempting to save money by withdrawing it from society, anyone but the corporations and the rich, their friends who put them in power and keep them there.

As this carries on they'll find new labels to attach to groups in society, have the groups attacking each other and there just will not be any end to it. Meanwhile the government breaks up everything our society 'earned' after the two wars, until it's utter dog eat dog, their friends running schools and hospitals for profit, whilst care and education are stripped and damaged.

Yet still people will come on here, and a multitude of other websites, and vent fury at the other groups, with these labels so conveniently attached, not wanting to turn away from their screens, to see their families, their homes, their neighbourhoods falling apart.

There has to be no Left wing, no Right wing. There has to be only the people of York, and what they need as a society through the collective taxes they pay. Strip away the waste, and demand effective services, value for money. Westminster is out of sight of us, this is Yorkshire!
All countries are in debt. But don't treat countries debt like personal bank accounts. What's the point in arguing who did what? People are putting words in your mouths to distract from the dismantling of our society. The present government have just admitted an error in not pumping money into building, whilst they are attempting to save money by withdrawing it from society, anyone but the corporations and the rich, their friends who put them in power and keep them there. As this carries on they'll find new labels to attach to groups in society, have the groups attacking each other and there just will not be any end to it. Meanwhile the government breaks up everything our society 'earned' after the two wars, until it's utter dog eat dog, their friends running schools and hospitals for profit, whilst care and education are stripped and damaged. Yet still people will come on here, and a multitude of other websites, and vent fury at the other groups, with these labels so conveniently attached, not wanting to turn away from their screens, to see their families, their homes, their neighbourhoods falling apart. There has to be no Left wing, no Right wing. There has to be only the people of York, and what they need as a society through the collective taxes they pay. Strip away the waste, and demand effective services, value for money. Westminster is out of sight of us, this is Yorkshire! YSTClinguist
  • Score: 0

6:53am Tue 29 Jan 13

CynicaloldGit says...

Quote........All countries are in debt. But don't treat countries debt like personal bank accounts. What's the point in arguing who did what? People are putting words in your mouths to distract from the dismantling of our society............e
nd

Very true, Thatcher tried to run the country;s finances like a "woman runs her household budget" it didn't work and she sold off this country's "family silver" and we are now in hock because of it, we pay our water, gas, electricity, even some of our rail fares to foreigners.

All she created was a stagnant economy....just like today in fact.
Quote........All countries are in debt. But don't treat countries debt like personal bank accounts. What's the point in arguing who did what? People are putting words in your mouths to distract from the dismantling of our society............e nd Very true, Thatcher tried to run the country;s finances like a "woman runs her household budget" it didn't work and she sold off this country's "family silver" and we are now in hock because of it, we pay our water, gas, electricity, even some of our rail fares to foreigners. All she created was a stagnant economy....just like today in fact. CynicaloldGit
  • Score: 0

9:41am Tue 29 Jan 13

Even AndyD says...

perplexed wrote:
When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%.
When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP.
When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP.
When Labour left office it was 35%.
When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion.
Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion.
We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth.

Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others?

Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth.

Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service.

New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom.
Absolutely spot on. The problem with politics is that people fall for the sort of rhetoric Mr Galvin peddles. One sided, all or nothing, blame. When in reality - our electoral system engenders this adversarial, short-termism which is destroying our country. Less swiping at the other side, Galvin - more doing your job. And that goes for all politicians of all sides!

Oh and the real problem today isn't so much public debt as private. And BOTH sides called for less banking regulation pre-2008, rather than more.

Today's problems will only linger if our politicians are simply allowed to get away with blaming 'the other lot'. Demand more of them.
[quote][p][bold]perplexed[/bold] wrote: When the tories left office in 1997 the deficit of GDP was 39%. When Labour left office it was 21% of GDP. When the tories left office in 1997 the debt 42% of GDP. When Labour left office it was 35%. When Labour left office the national debt was £800 billion. Two and a half years later the national debt is getting on for £1.5 trillion. We are on the edge of loosing our triple AAA rating. When Labour left office we had 2% growth. Of course Blair and Brown have questions to answer regarding the economy since 1997, as will Cameron and Osborne at the next election. For example why in times of austerity are we committed to providing almost £12 billion in overseas aid to China and Brazil amongst others? Even the Deputy PM acknowledges that in the early days of coalition there was too much emphasis on austerity rather than growth. Maquis' analogy of the train is an interesting one. Like the rail industry today, there has been chronic underfunding and investment for a generation or more . What few assets we have, were flogged off years ago, at huge public expense to speculators whose sole interest was always profit over service. New livery and a change of uniform is no guarantee of success. It is so easy to blame one side or the other but both parties have contributed and continue to contribute to the malaise blighting our country. Political posturing by local and national politicians is just one more sorry symptom.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on. The problem with politics is that people fall for the sort of rhetoric Mr Galvin peddles. One sided, all or nothing, blame. When in reality - our electoral system engenders this adversarial, short-termism which is destroying our country. Less swiping at the other side, Galvin - more doing your job. And that goes for all politicians of all sides! Oh and the real problem today isn't so much public debt as private. And BOTH sides called for less banking regulation pre-2008, rather than more. Today's problems will only linger if our politicians are simply allowed to get away with blaming 'the other lot'. Demand more of them. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

9:53am Tue 29 Jan 13

Even AndyD says...

Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York.

Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses.
Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York. Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses. Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

11:26am Tue 29 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

"our electoral system engenders this adversarial, short-termism which is destroying our country. "

Spot on Even AndyD
"our electoral system engenders this adversarial, short-termism which is destroying our country. " Spot on Even AndyD The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York. Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses.
Spot on AndyD, Alexander was shocking, and still is !
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York. Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses.[/p][/quote]Spot on AndyD, Alexander was shocking, and still is ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Tue 29 Jan 13

perplexed says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York. Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses.
Spot on AndyD, Alexander was shocking, and still is !
How mature ! The politics of the playground.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: Oh and before anyone calls me biased, I thought JA was shocking in opposition. Every statement seemed to be an attack on the opposition. Ditto Nigel Ayre of Wembley infamy. I may not like Ian Gillies politics, but in terms of behaving with some sort of decorum, I'd say he is one of our best in York. Lets concentrate on the issues, shall we chaps and chapesses.[/p][/quote]Spot on AndyD, Alexander was shocking, and still is ![/p][/quote]How mature ! The politics of the playground. perplexed
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree