Ed Balls again

[AtW]

Part of the reason rents are growing so much now is the number of people with housing benefit to spend in London.
Its them Landlords parasites.

FTFY

[vetran]

FTFY

yep instead of those filthy capitalists spending all their money on foreign disk drives & sofas rather than employing lots of school leavers with biros.

[AtW]

yep instead of those filthy capitalists spending all their money on foreign disk drives & sofas rather than employing lots of school leavers with giros.

WHS

[DodgyAgent]

I'm not a Labour supporter. However, I can look at a graph and see that the Labour borrowing was significantly less than Sir John's government.

The first thing that Brown did as chancellor was to pay off the debt from the Major government.

Without putting this in context it is like saying because Hitler displayed a few acts of kindness he wasn't such a bad bloke

[DirtyDog]

Without putting this in context it is like saying because Hitler displayed a few acts of kindness he wasn't such a bad bloke

I took it within the context of the original quote:

Labour did not spend too much in the years leading up to the economic crisis, Ed Balls insisted today.

Labour spending up until the banking crisis was no more out of control than the spending under the Major government.

Government borrowing 1986-1996 = £233.6bn
Government borrowing 1997-2007 = £180.8bn

Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

Interest bill as a percentage of government expenditure when Brown became chancellor - 9%
Interest bill as a percentage of government expenditure when Osborne became chancellor - 7%

[AtW]

Labour spending up until the banking crisis was no more out of control than the spending under the Major government.

So Labour just deferred future problems to the next Govt.

Secondly there is a level after which borrowing is dangerous - some reasonable amount of debt is ok, however ADDING IT UP when it's already high is not right even if you add less than predecessors.

It's probably easier to agree that both Labour and Tories are scumbags who'd say anything to get in power and would do anything to stay in power for as long as they can.

[The Spartan]

It's probably easier to agree that both Labour and Tories are scumbags who'd say anything to get in power and would do anything to stay in power for as long as they can.

I do believe that it is, the only reason to actually choose between either comes down to self interest

[DirtyDog]

So Labour just deferred future problems to the next Govt.

As does every government

Secondly there is a level after which borrowing is dangerous - some reasonable amount of debt is ok, however ADDING IT UP when it's already high is not right even if you add less than predecessors.

Unless you can borrow at record low rates to fund infrastructure projects, of course.

It's probably easier to agree that both Labour and Tories are scumbags who'd say anything to get in power and would do anything to stay in power for as long as they can.

I agree.

[Mich the Tester]

Unless you can borrow at record low rates to fund infrastructure projects, of course.

Wot, like the Millennium Dome?

[KentPhilip]

I would like to thank Ed Balls for handing lots of Labour votes to UKIP.
Labour will overtake the tories soon, in the rate of defections to us