Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I think I've done more than enough to explain my position on this, Den - it will get very boring if I have to keep saying the same things to justify my arguments.
However, it is relevant to look at what Labour did before and what it would do under Corbyn. Our economic position is complex to deal with, but it would be in a much worse state under Corbyn. We have seen some of his spending plans and they are absolutely mind boggling. If he went through with these under a Labour Government, he would create a situation where today's figures look like Utopia.
Of course the figures are bad - there was this banking crisis, you see, and Labour had no money put by in case of an emergency. Gordon Brown spent all the reserves on a massive spending spree so when the credit crunch came, there was no money to spare.
It fell to the Conservatives, with no money left, hampered in what they could do with the Lib Dems in coalition, to sort that mess out. They could have done it more quickly of course, but that would have increased austerity. That does not appear to be what you and many others like you would have wanted.
Those people who argue we should have borrowed even more in a vain attempt to put a sticking plaster over the nation's finances should not be allowed credit cards of their own.
|
Neither Labour or the Conservatives look at finance properly. What should happen is during the good times, taxes should go up and be invested for the bad times, so that taxes can be cut to help people in the lean times.
Instead, taxes are cut when people have spare, and raised when people are short.
Meanwhile, how many years should a government be in power before they stop blaming their predecessors?