OT - George 'disappointing' Osborne once more

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

(Why are certain people obsessing about the 2000-01 3G licence auction now? What have they got to do with the economy today??)

(Why are certain people obsessing about the 1999 gold sales now? What have they got to do with the economy today??)

[Lost in Transportation]

Relevance to Labour's poor decisions costing the country billions?

You could ask why people are obsessed about a decision to sell gold a decade ago? Its hardly a significant issue in the scheme of things. And could you imagine the fuss on the Tory backbenches had Osborne sold gold to meet the IMF requirements?

Governments make good decisions and bad decisions. You got to take the yang with the yin.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

(Why are certain people obsessing about the 2000-01 3G licence auction now? What have they got to do with the economy today??)

(Why are certain people obsessing about the 1999 gold sales now? What have they got to do with the economy today??)

.....Beeeeecaaaaaause it was another example of Labour's very poor economic management.

And also that today's frontman in Labour's criticism of the Govt's economic handling is one of the very same Labour Treasury team from that time, who then went on to so effectively wreck the public finances in the build-up to one of the worst economic crises in modern history.

Sorry, is that not obvious?

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

Sorry, is that not obvious?

I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are being objective. But I am a simple soul, as you well know.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

Sorry, is that not obvious?

I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are being objective. But I am a simple soul, as you well know.

The 1979-1997 Tory govt left behind a fiscal regime that could have cleared a vast chunk of the national debt by now - estimates suggest our debt could have been down to just 10% of GDP by the time the crunch hit (instead of 40% and climbing*). And we would obviously have been in surplus too (as opposed to the maximum 3% deficit allowed by EU rules).

On top of that, in 1997 on a balanced budget, public spending was roughly the same % of GDP as Labour was managing in 2008, with a deficit budget, before the crunch hit.

That is the type of economic management I support. And as the economy is the absolute no.1 priority right now, that is where my support lies.

*Not counting off-the-books PFI debts and public sector pensions

Edit: Yes, I know this is a 'snapshot' and not the 'big picture' but it relates to my political leanings.

[... and chips]

Some stats might be helpful here:

In the first five years of the Labour government there was an average budget surplus of £6.88bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £90bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 9%.

Presumably some of that surplus came from selling gold.

[Locky_McLockface]

Keep going, guys, this is brilliant.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

Some stats might be helpful here:

In the first five years of the Labour government there was an average budget surplus of £6.88bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £90bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 9%.

Presumably some of that surplus came from selling gold.

Labour did not stick to the Tory regime for the first five years, just the first three. Between years 3 and 5, they turned a 2% surplus into a 3% deficit which would have reduced that average somewhat.

[... and chips]

Some stats might be helpful here:

In the first five years of the Labour government there was an average budget surplus of £6.88bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £90bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 9%.

Presumably some of that surplus came from selling gold.

Labour did not stick to the Tory regime for the first five years, just the first three. Between years 3 and 5, they turned a 2% surplus into a 3% deficit which would have reduced that average somewhat.

During the first three years there was an average surplus of £4.9bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £65bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 6.5%.

[HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife]

Some stats might be helpful here:

In the first five years of the Labour government there was an average budget surplus of £6.88bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £90bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 9%.

Presumably some of that surplus came from selling gold.

Labour did not stick to the Tory regime for the first five years, just the first three. Between years 3 and 5, they turned a 2% surplus into a 3% deficit which would have reduced that average somewhat.

During the first three years there was an average surplus of £4.9bn a year. If that had been maintained for the life of the administration almost £65bn would have been wiped off the national debt. That equates to about 6.5%.

Kelloggs?