The tory fantasy again that Brown caused the global economic problems.Genuine Keynsian economics seeks to mitigate not eliminate the effects of boom and bust; you create a budget surplus during the boom and borrow during the bust, usually to invest in capital infrastructure projects that also require a significant labour force.
This investment precipitates the economy back to the boom part of the cycle with enduring benefits that create an upward economic trend that rises through the boom-bust cycle.
In the boom period the budget surplus then reduces the overall debt which, coupled with a reasonable level of inflation wipes out the debt.
Unfortunately Brown's version of Keynsian economics was to borrow during the boom (on the basis that he thought he'd ended the cycle) and have to borrow even more during the bust.
And "there is no more money left" was the legacy to the current coalition...
Very true.Sadly the Tory's(and their supporters) seem to think 20/20 hindsight empowered them with 20/20 foresight-it didn't/doesn't, they wanted less regulation and signed off every single Labour Budget. But then they are peerless when it comes to lies.
I think Osborne did make some tweaks to the austerity plan when he realised that it wasn't working given a number of outside factors. Credit to him is due for such pragmatism overiding ideology.
It is now working and a reintroduction of a more profligate approach is only going to undermine progress now taking place.
The tory fantasy again that Brown caused the global economic problems.
I think you'll find banks were the main problem.
What should we have done without to ensure no budget deficit between 2001 and 2007?Was the budget deficit between 2001 and 2007 justifiable?
What should we have done without to ensure no budget deficit between 2001 and 2007?
Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
What should we have done without to ensure no budget deficit between 2001 and 2007?
And would 2001 - 2007 been acceptable to the country as a whole?
Do they count for the whole deficit, if not then what else should have gone to ensure no deficit?
He really is the gift that keeps on giving isn't he?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/22/nick-clegg-mocks-grant-shapps-wikipedia-affairNick Clegg mocks Grant Shapps over Wikipedia affair
Contested account could have been edited by Tory chairmans alter ego Michael Green, suggests deputy prime minister
What?Sadly the Tory's(and their supporters) seem to think 20/20 hindsight empowered them with 20/20 foresight-it didn't/doesn't, they wanted less regulation and signed off every single Labour Budget.
That's a very unselfaware comment coming in the same paragraph that contains a completely unnecessary untruth.But then they are peerless when it comes to lies.
You seem to be making very basic statistical errors.I've posted this before, but I'll do it again for the benefit of the deluded out there who believe the Tories and tory media and swallow the myth that only the Tories can be trusted with the economy.
For the last 65 years, whether Tory or Labour government GDP / head has followed a trend-line..
Your chart shows a historically catastrophic drop in 'GDP per head, logged' during the financial crisis, so nothing to with the coalition or 'austerity'. It then shows a resumption of growth trend indistinguishable from the historic line you've drawn. It's pretty clear that the trend line doesn't include recent history, why not redraw it to show all available data, and the trend overall?other underlying data backs this up. Unless the government does somethng insanely stupid the economy grows fairly consistently irrespective of the colour of the government. However, this ConDem coalition did something stupid, Austerity. Growth, productivity have cratered. The economy is now slowly struggling back to some growth DESPITE austerity and the Tory policies, NOT because of them..
Your chart shows a historically catastrophic drop in 'GDP per head, logged' during the financial crisis, so nothing to with the coalition or 'austerity'. It then shows a resumption of growth trend indistinguishable from the historic line you've drawn.
Where has it worked?Why state the bleeding obvious - it's in their manifesto and it is there because it works.
Labour will do the same to a lesser degree as will the Libs. So the three main parties will continue with a varying degree of austerity.
If you disagree with austerity you got to vote SNP or Green because only they are anti.
Again all very obvious because it's in their manifestos. There is no need to state it here, I think we all know it.
Where has it worked?
2010 - 2012 = cuts = unmitigated disaster
2012 - 2015 = spends = growing economy (i.e. shrugging off the cape of ideology in practice, whilst still pretending to wear the cape of ideology in statements)
The most remarkable part of the Tory tenure has been to frame Labour with 'austerity' and Labour has followed suit, foolishly.