|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 19:25:27 GMT
Well as someone who just about lived through the ERM disaster in 1992 and the enormous interest rates that followed, I have to disagree. John Major took us into that, Norman Lamont was Chancellor of the Exchequer when it happened. Norman Lamont was under orders from John Major to try to keep us in the ERM. Norman Lamont lost his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th of May 1993. He was replaced by Ken Clarke. By 1996 Ken Clarke's economic plan was a complete success with the deficit falling. Much as I do not like the man, Kenneth Clarke recovered the economy. Things were going well some time before Gordon Brown inherited his spending plans, which Gordon Brown stuck to until the 2001 General Election. Actually I like Ken Clarke He should have been in New Labour really.  . And regardless of what New Labour inherited they certainly did well. Interesting that if the Tories were so good in 1997, why they lost so spectacularly. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 21, 2023 19:32:24 GMT
John Major took us into that, Norman Lamont was Chancellor of the Exchequer when it happened. Norman Lamont was under orders from John Major to try to keep us in the ERM. Norman Lamont lost his job as Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th of May 1993. He was replaced by Ken Clarke. By 1996 Ken Clarke's economic plan was a complete success with the deficit falling. Much as I do not like the man, Kenneth Clarke recovered the economy. Things were going well some time before Gordon Brown inherited his spending plans, which Gordon Brown stuck to until the 2001 General Election. Actually I like Ken Clarke He should have been in New Labour really. . And regardless of what New Labour inherited they certainly did well. Interesting that if the Tories were so good in 1997, why they lost so spectacularly. Perhaps you wouldn't like him quite so much if you knew he held a meeting with eminent bankers to borrow millions in the late 80s, something that was off piste. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 22:23:39 GMT
?? - by 1993 base rates were down to the 5% range and stayed around there all the way up to the financial crash in 2008.. It was dropping out of the ERM that allowed rates to fall. Sorry mistake, I meant to put 1990 and over thought it. But new labour stabilised interest rates for 11 years and amazingly (Who'd have thought it) the BofE did not need to raise interest rates after the 2008 crash.Why would they? - Central Banks around the globe had embarked on QE You make printing money sound like a New Labour achievement..  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 21, 2023 22:28:42 GMT
Sorry mistake, I meant to put 1990 and over thought it. But new labour stabilised interest rates for 11 years and amazingly (Who'd have thought it) the BofE did not need to raise interest rates after the 2008 crash.Why would they? - Central Banks around the globe had embarked on QE You make printing money sound like a New Labour achievement.. Reminall d us all of what chanceler had to go cap in hand to the IMF because they had fucked up the economy and spent the money that the UK never had in the first place? Labour couldn't run sweet shop let alone a country. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 22:40:46 GMT
Why would they? - Central Banks around the globe had embarked on QE You make printing money sound like a New Labour achievement.. Reminall d us all of what chanceler had to go cap in hand to the IMF because they had fucked up the economy and spent the money that the UK never had in the first place? Labour couldn't run sweet shop let alone a country. ancient history. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 21, 2023 22:43:51 GMT
Reminall d us all of what chanceler had to go cap in hand to the IMF because they had fucked up the economy and spent the money that the UK never had in the first place? Labour couldn't run sweet shop let alone a country. Funny how you woke lefties have not tried to erase it then... |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 23:12:12 GMT
Funny how you woke lefties have not tried to erase it then... Allow me to clarify. Ancient history in the context of this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2023 23:18:27 GMT
Look at Labours record on the NHS Took over in 1997 with unacceptable waiting lists and waiting times Turned them around, waiting lists fell dramatically, as did waiting times Employed thousands of extra nurses and doctors All of this was done without any extra borrowing or tax increases to the public The workload of Junior Doctors was appaling and damn right dangerous up until 1997, the incoming Labour government fixed the problem. Stop defending the indefensible and attacking those that want to fix our NHS, Labour fixed it before, so do the right thing, give them the chance to do it again, and get rid of this shower of shit. In the first term there was no extra on balance sheet borrowing and no tax increases, but PFI was off balance sheet. It built up debt for the future. 2nd term, there was an official consultation period which ended in Sept 2001. Borrowing went up excessively and taxation went up too. Whereas they'd run a surplus in the first term, they began to run a deficit and carried on doing. By 2007 the economy had a deficit time bomb. Then the crash happened. __"In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK “current budget deficit” in 2005 was less than 2 percent of GDP, and declined to about 0.6 percent GDP in 2007 and 2008. In the Great Recession the deficit ballooned, to 6.9 Since then the deficit has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017."__ |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 23:20:37 GMT
In the first term there was no extra on balance sheet borrowing and no tax increases, but PFI was off balance sheet. It built up debt for the future. 2nd term, there was an official consultation period which ended in Sept 2001. Borrowing went up excessively and taxation went up too. Whereas they'd run a surplus in the first term, they began to run a deficit and carried on doing. By 2007 the economy had a deficit time bomb. Then the crash happened. __"In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK “current budget deficit” in 2005 was less than 2 percent of GDP, and declined to about 0.6 percent GDP in 2007 and 2008. In the Great Recession the deficit ballooned, to 6.9 Since then the deficit has steadily declined, to less than one percent GDP in 2017."__ Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2023 23:25:25 GMT
Reminall d us all of what chanceler had to go cap in hand to the IMF because they had fucked up the economy and spent the money that the UK never had in the first place? Labour couldn't run sweet shop let alone a country. ancient history. The post war conservative governments went cap in hand to the IMF at least twice, and the Conservative government that left the mess in 1974 had started to make plans for another visit, a visit that Labour had to fulfil. Most of that money borrowed from the IMF had been repaid by Labour before Thatcher was elected. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 21, 2023 23:25:43 GMT
Funny how you woke lefties have not tried to erase it then... So in otherwords you don't like to be reminded about the total fuck-up that labour always make of the UK economy |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2023 23:38:50 GMT
Starmer did change his opinions along with the changes taking place in the country. I give him full credit for that, and I would expect any leading MP regardless of party, to do just that. Who wants a Thatcher type PM, so embeded in their own ideology, and who no matter what "is not for turning". The problem is he has gone from supporting wacko Corbyn's far left agenda to adopting a Tory lite one... which makes people believe he actually stands for nothing other than wanting to be another World King like Boris. Most people want a Social Democracy party... not this populist shite he is peddling. He was supporting the Party he was a member of, he had no other way at that time of trying to stop Tory madness. With the demise of Corbyn as leader the political approach was wide open. That is not difficult to understand, yet so many non-thinkers pounce on the situation as a means of insulting Starmer. Center-Left politics is not the intended insult "Tory-Lite" that term is only used by morons who do not know any different. Would it be right to refer to Thatcher as Fascist-lite? You haven't got a clue what he is peddling, the Labour Manifesto hasn't been published yet. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 21, 2023 23:45:37 GMT
Like I said, PFI was "off balance sheet". Give the full history of off balance sheet PFI and why it was off. The last claims I read some time back claimed that 60% of PFI was on the Balance sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by nonnie2 on Jan 21, 2023 23:54:54 GMT
@jonsky
What you find is, Labour is always New Labour. What that means is, they erase their past because that was "out with the old", but, they claim the Conservatives are always the same. You are not allowed to do with the Conservatives as you can with Labour, that's a no no.
So in debates, listen to the Labourite rhetoric and I guarantee it, you will hear, "New Labour" and "Thatcher". Everytime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 22, 2023 0:04:17 GMT
Like I said, PFI was "off balance sheet". Give the full history of off balance sheet PFI and why it was off. The last claims I read some time back claimed that 60% of PFI was on the Balance sheet. When Cameron became PM in 2010 he changed the rules, now PFI is on the balance sheet. But, in 1997 and through most of the Labour era it wasn't. For balance, John Major's government introduced PFI. |
|
. 
