I completely agree and this is what was behind my comment about the Lib Dems halting the NHS legislation not breaking the agreement. I don't believe they would have ever agreed to it had they known the detail but they were never going to find out what Lansey was up to in a couple of weeks when there were all the other policies to be agreed on.

Once they did find out about it instead of wheeling out Shirley Williams to try and convince people it really was OK and the words in the amended legislation were good enough for them to accept they should have just stopped it dead. Alas they seemed more interested in working out a way to accept the NHS legislation so the coalition would hold so they could push their policies rather than doing the right thing and kicking it into touch.

Now they have lost another key bit of Lid Dem legislation it looks like they have finally spat the dummy out but it is too late.

In general I think this government has rushed through much ill thought out legislation (hence so many U turns) and the fact the original coalition agreement was cobbled together in a mere two weeks should have been a warning that thinking things through first wasn't going to be a strong point of this lot, Tory or Lib Dem.

I loved Simon Hughes's response when Eddie Mair accused the LimpDems of being childish: "well they started it"

I think the point is Tories have not made much headway on improving the public finances despite these cuts and reductions in services because they have sent us back into recession.

So because there isn't much movement on improving the public finances and reducing the budget deficit, their supporters say "well there hasn't even been any austerity yet".

Hahahaha

Are you for real? They would have to go a long long way to even get close to Labours record for wasting money.

Brown's selling of our Gold reserves anyone?

Or maybe creating 30k jobs for "Overseer of equal opportunities when looking at purchasing of pens".

The record of Labour is truly shocking.


Are you actually blaming the present government for the Trade Deficit? Can you elaborate please?

It's got nothing at all to do with the Eurozone self combusting I guess?

Nothing at all to do with consumers in the UK buying more foreign goods?

I criticise the Tories where they deserve it (and praise where they deserve it), but your constant blinkered left wing position is either amusing or very sad.

It's quite simple.

Labour overspent. They effectively ran up an unprecidented "credit card bill".

The only sensible thing to do is to pay off this credit card bill. That unfortunately means pain.

I find it very amusing to hear Labour giving economic advice on "how fast" to cut the bill, considering they were the ones who created it! It's a bit like a compulsive gambler giving advice on how to be prudent with money.

No they didn't. Until our wonderful banking institutions decided to play fast and loose we had a very good balance of payments. Facts hey, tricky things.

No they didn't, government debt & deficit is nothing like a credit card bill.

How much of this "bill" should they pay off? All of it?

Really? Labour caused Lehmann Brothers to collapse? Interesting, if strange point of view.

What a load of rubbish.

The [ufact[/u of the matter is over its term in office Labour spending was [inever[/i any more excessive than previous Tory administrations. In fact they ran a surplus from 1998 to 2001.

Before the financial crisis of 2008 Labour ran a deficit for 6 years which totaled £201029bn. The Tories ran a deficit for the last 6 years of their last government up to 1997 totaling £222788bn. They had a bigger "credit card bill" than Labour.

Here are the facts for you to digest and learn from:

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture[/url

You may not agree with what they spent than money on which was mostly things like rebuilding schools and getting patients off trolleys in corridors as they were left under Majors previous government but that is a different debate. What is clear is that they spent less on average than the Tories pre-the financial crisis.

Since the financial crisis we continue to run deficits of roughly over 4 times the typical amounts of Majors last Tory government and that of Brown.

These are facts which you simply cannot refute.

looks like Brett should stick to winning the Lance Todd...

Utter tripe.

Labour were in power at the crest of an economic upside, 1991-97 was one of the worst post war recessions.

Please come back when you have a clue what you are talking about.

LOL, living memory is a bit to close to try and re-write.

A Labour ministers own words, on leaving the Exchequer.......

"Dear chief secretary, I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck! Liam."

Q.E.D.

Please come back when you can actually argue a point through, rather than simply chosing to ignore it.

./must try harder.

It was spent trying to dig your banker friends out of the mess they got themselves in, best you do some more reading before making a complete t!t of yourself.

I don't recognise your revisionist version of the facts, you have no point, you have no argument.

That's the best you can come up with?

Given your previous on this and other threads where you've had your ar[is[/ie handed to you on a plate, I suppose it is the best you could come up with.

No chance of any facts, figures etc I suppose?

What banker friends?

No no no Coddy.............

Having a mass consensus of left wingers who shout people down behind their keyboards does not constitute them being "handed their s on a plate"....

Well, I have lived through the recession around 1990-1994 (at least that's when I felt it the most), and lived through the "boom years" 2000-2009.

It's a very simple point that requires no statistics.

It's much easier to balance the books in times of boom than it is in times of bust.

So you've no facts or figures then, just as I thought.

Quite obviously you don't require any statistics to argue your bollax, we can all see that quite clearly.

What happened 95-97, you've lost three years off your last "statistics".

Oh, and '90 has been added now, so the previous Tory administration had us in recession from 1990 to 1997 - I can see now why the current incumbants seem to think that we've seen nothing yet.

You really, really ought to do a bit of research before making yourself look a complete twit.

Here is a list of recessions in the UK since 1900:

[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom[/url

As you can see the recession in the 90's lasted a total of 5 quarters in the years 1990-1992. That is 1 1/4 years not 6 years!

What that means is - if you look at that graph I posted is that the Tories ran a deficit when we were not in recession for about 4 1/2 years. So you do not have a point at all as they ran large deficits on an economic upside as well.

Then again I suppose you could be trying to excuse the Tory deficit of the 90's as spending their way out of recession (we were no longer in!) but that can't be right or you would be calling for the same thing now wouldn't you instead of harping on about paying off the "credit card bill"?

What is also interesting about the list of recessions table is the "causes" column. Both the 1990-1992 recessions and the 2008-2009 recessions were caused by external factors. US savings and loan collapse in 1990-1992 and the financial crisis in 2008. In both cases the recessions lasted 1 1/4 years.

The causes of the latest recession are Fiscal retrenchment and the Euro crisis which means it is at least partly "Made in Britain" by the current government trying to pay off the "credit card bill" as you simplistically call it too quickly. It is also the first double dip recession since 1975.

So it seems to me in your attempt to excuse what went on in the 1990's you are arguing against current government policy. You seem a tad confused.

I am convinced your "facts" are wrong.

Quit while you still have some dignity left.