If you add the figures up for the years in question that is the total. So why are you convinced they are wrong?

Once again, the wall of text from the Lefties.

Is it any wonder people can't be bothered debating on here?

You're not debating, you are putting over a point of view and when it gets challenged you are sticking your fingers in your ears.

How ironic..........

Your first post in response to me was



Fantastic debating skills. Not only do you offer no counter to the argument, you then bizarely bring up a completely seperate issue, BOP.

There was nothing to argue against FFS, to make a matter of opinion with nothing to back it up is not debating, when challenged you make more statements, shift dates and still produce nothing to back up your statements, again not debating.

If you think the current situation and the banking collapse are separate issues then we have nothing to debate, you simply don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

You have not offered a single counter argument to my responses to your posts other than posting the nonsense that we were in recession from 1991-1997. Making stuff up doesn't count as debating. HTH.

Look at your figures again they are ludicrous.

You are suggesting that the "deficit" was running at c. 20 times annual GDP for 6 years running. Who on Earth would have lent us the money if that were the case? What would the current debt be as a percentage of GDP!!??

I'll make it simple for you - they are out by a factor of c. 1,000! Which goes to show you ain't actually got the faintest idea of what you are talking about, you have just done websearches, picked out some figures which you wholly misinterpreted because you simply don't understand them.

Oh dear






This is the danger with quoting statistics without standing back and interpeting them.

They are not "my" figures and you clearly have not read the post properly.

I said:

"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. "

That is this was the total deficit for [u6 years[/u not that they ran these deficits every year for 6 years which is clearly how you must have read it

So to spell it out for you:

Labour deficit:

2002 - 19046
2003 - 35050
2004 - 37840
2005 - 42399
2006 - 31801
2007 - 34893

Add that up and you get £201029bn

Tory deficit:

1991 - 17976
1992 - 40155
1993 - 50869
1994 - 45945
1995 - 38603
1996 - 29240

Add that up and you get £222788bn

Both totals represent the combined deficit both governments racked up over a SIX YEAR period when in office.

Now what is ludicrous about any of this?

Try million not billion!

I know exactly what you said but an average annual deficit of c. 33 billion pounds over 6 years is frankly ludicrous.

Quote ="DaveO"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.'" Firstly I should have said "that contained" one of the worst recessions. For no time did I think that the technical recession lasted for 6 years. The latest recession is caused by 2 things imo. Externally the collapse of the Euro, hitting exports (as evidenced by our recent BOP position) and a lack of public confidence, with the resultant impacts on spending and investment. The governement is doing exactly the right thing by trying to reduce our debt burden, therefore allowing economic expansion in the future. I don't accept that calling the massive indebtedness a "credit card bill" is overly simplistic. The two situations share very many similarities and it's a useful analogy for those who struggle with what's going on. As demonstrated by your lack of ability to interpet the figures above, it's often much better to understand the big picture, rather than try and show a statistic or two ........ However, if you want evidence of the previous governments economic mismanagement..... www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... al&units=b I'm sure that you don't need me to point out the lag involved around this?

Quote ="DaveO"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.'" Firstly I should have said "that contained" one of the worst recessions. For no time did I think that the technical recession lasted for 6 years. The latest recession is caused by 2 things imo. Externally the collapse of the Euro, hitting exports (as evidenced by our recent BOP position) and a lack of public confidence, with the resultant impacts on spending and investment. The governement is doing exactly the right thing by trying to reduce our debt burden, therefore allowing economic expansion in the future. I don't accept that calling the massive indebtedness a "credit card bill" is overly simplistic. The two situations share very many similarities and it's a useful analogy for those who struggle with what's going on. As demonstrated by your lack of ability to interpet the figures above, it's often much better to understand the big picture, rather than try and show a statistic or two ........ However, if you want evidence of the previous governments economic mismanagement..... www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... al&units=b I'm sure that you don't need me to point out the lag involved around this?

DaveO

On the Wigan board you are normally a reasonably sensible guy. Ok your walls of text are legendary and have put many readers off (including me I have to admit), but to quote deficits in any particular year is meaningless if used to judge the performance of that Government.

There is obviously a lag between cause and effect, but you conveniently ignore it to back up your "argument".

Frankly your figures, irrespective of your metrics, are meaningless...........

Or even £201,029bn.

You knew exactly what I meant (or would have done had you looked at the graph) so accusations of "Which goes to show you ain't actually got the faintest idea of what you are talking about, you have just done websearches, picked out some figures which you wholly misinterpreted because you simply don't understand them."

Is complete and utter BS on your part. Of course you could have said "I think you mean £201,029bn not £201029bn" but instead you prefer to be obtuse.

There is no denying the fact that in the two six year periods the total deficit for Labour was less than that of the Tories. Is that a misinterpretation of the figures or not?

No. I think you meant £201,029 or £201029 million (not billion). Do you agree or not?

Irrelevant. You have to take into account the preceding circumstances that led to the deficits.

Given the "golden inheritance" gifted to "New Labour", the figures are shocking.

So you can't justify the last 4 1/2 years of of the 1990's Tory government as deficit spending at the low point of the economic cycle.



That is one thing (which I mentioned) and the other (which you fail to mention) is this governments policy of retrenchment.



All parties recognize the need to get the debt burden down but the way to do it is what differs. What you ignore though is where that dount comes from. Pre-2008 it was due to running the deficits already mentioned which were nothing out of the ordinary.



It is over simplistic because it implies there only one way out of the debt is to pay it off by earning money. Which is what you have to do to pay your credit card bill every month. Governments have many other options to manage the debt including lending money to other governments, taxation, printing money and allowing inflation to inflate the debt down. None of this is applicable to a credit card debt so the analogy is very misleading.



Come off it. If I can't "interpret the figures" then I am sure you can. And you don't like what they show do you?



And you accuse me of not being able to interpret figures! That graph is for public spending. In the period 1998-2001 we ran a surplus not a deficit yet during that period your graph shows higher public spending than previously. Clearly there is no direct correlation between higher public spending and a deficit because of course if your revenues are higher you do not need to borrow money and revenues are not shown. It also shows the estimated public spend will increase to even higher levels to 2015 under this "wonderful" Tory economic management. Now clearly what that means is that despite the cuts they will be spending even more. If they are so much better at economic management, why is this? The answer is of course what has contributed to the double dip recession - government retrenchment which lowers revenues and puts up costs.

These days in finance a billion is a US billion which is 1,000,000,000.

So writing the six year deficit total out in full we get £201,029,000,000.

You can call it £201029 million if you want but that would be wrong as it ignores the convention.

At the moment people refer to the deficit in 2009 (for example) as over 152 billion. They do not refer to it as over £152000 million as you seem to want to do.

Now do you get it?

Don't talk nonsense. The Guardian graphic is clearly headed million not billion. I am aware that we have slipped into using 10 to the 9 rather than 10 to the 12 as billion. That said, how can £201,029,000,000 be both £201,029 million and £201,029 billion as you say!!?? It is £201,029 million or c. £201 billion (not £201,029 billion as you keep saying)! Fact is, you are confused by the numbers and have no concept of their size / relevance against the size of the UK economy; which, as I said, shows you are not on top of the issue in the slightest.

Not this BS again. As has been pointed out to you we came out of recession in 1992 yet for 4 1/2 years the Tories still ran a deficit an order of magnitude way above anything from1 1979 to 1990. If there was no justification for Labour running one from 2001 to 2007 there wasn't one form 1992 to 1996 either.

Oh FFS we are going round in circles. Do you agree the total deficit for that 6 year period was £201,029,000,000 or not?

On your bike! You've now realised what a buffoon you have been (despite being told 4 times) and are weasling. As I said, you ain't got a clue about the subject so don't try to pretend otherwise. Cutting and pasting / linking and misinterpreting do not show insight.

Come off it. You knew exactly what was meant but have chosen to indulge yourself in childish points scoring exercise. Grow up.

There was no misinterpretation of the fact that in the two six year period in question the total deficit under the Tories was greater than that under Labour. Show me where that is wrong. Go on. I am waiting.

It is also worth adding that 201,029,000,000 is written as two hundred and one billion and twenty-nine million pounds. So shortening that to 201,029bn ought to get that across given the context unless you want to be obtuse. As I said you knew exactly what I meant.