Did you vote Conservative?

My take from looking at the deficit / surplus numbers is that from a good economic governance perspective, Labour should have had a budget surplus between 2002 and 2007.

GDP was at a high and cyclical costs such as unemployment benefit at a low. It would have been prudent to keep spending levels within income. Any extra increase in spend should have been met by increased tax.

I'm not sure how much of the 2002 - 2007 spend can be classed as investment - if it was, then it should be possible to freeze this investment and cause a significant drop in public spending.

I do think it's down to how you interpret the data. And hindsight is a wonderful thing.....

But I doubt we'll hear another chancellor claim to have removed 'boom and bust' in our life times..

It's easy to feel confident reducing the welfare state if you area millionnaire, like most of the members of the cabinet.

My area was virtually destroyed by the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. There is a deep, cruel sense of complacency in many Tories that revolts me.

I used to vote libdem and was really hoping that they would stick by their pledge to make the bankers (Tory cabinet's friends and family) pay. I feel betrayed.

Green for me from now on. Caroline Lucas for PM!

... we also can't afford a tax break for married people.

Idealogical pet projects are not solely the domain of the left.

"and would not have been there now if were not for the banking crisis."

But you see that's the problem. There was a banking crisis and because we only had a 'falling deficit' rather than a 'surplus' and because the economy's success relied so heavily on banks we quickly went from 'falling deficit' to 'bloody enormous deficit that isn't just going to sort itself out'

Labour did, therefore, overspend because their spending plans were based on the unrealistic assumption of there being continuous strong growth in tax revenue.... The 'end to boom and bust' statement came back to bite them

Thanks Jackstarb a really useful link.

You'd think that Labour were the only party ever to have had a deficit when you read LFN's posts only to see that actually of the 18 years of tory misrule they were only not in defecit for 3 of them.

LFN The reason the deficit increased during that period was to fund the massive improvements required in the infrastructure of this country - schools, hospitals (which I know should just be there for people who can afford it as in America according to you) and the transport network, as a result of the tories mismanagemant during their previous administration.

The deficit was falling again after 2005, and would not have been there now if were not for the banking crisis.

The figures in my previous post do relate to the debt that the tories are always referring to and do correct the myth that Labour over spent when clearly the tories ran much higher levels of debt despite having all utilities to sell to the devil.

LFN/ Madoka - You may be interested in an impartial analysis of our economic situation.

The Full Fact Guide to the Economy covers the debt and the deficit and looks at the various claims of both government and opposition.

Useful for getting straight the difference between debt and deficit, and understanding the importance of the structural deficit.

I think this is the 3rd time I've to linked this . I don't work for Full Fact - but I do admire what they do.

You don't seem able to understand basic economic concepts.

Firstly, I agree that under the Tory spending profile Labour ran in their early years, debt fell as a proportion of GDP. I applaud them for sticking to the sensible Ken Clarke economic plans.

You seem unable to comprehend the fact that Labour ran a deficit from 2002 onwards, despite your own figures. This was despite an economic boom - and was precisely because Gordon Brown thought he abolished boom and bust.

LFN - I feel sorry for you faced with the facts you blindly repeat your lies.

You are wrong - the tories have lied to you.

LFN debt as a % of GDP was always lower under Labour of 1997-2010 than the tories until the banking crash.

What are you talking about - where do you get your rubbish from - do facts actually matter to you or are the lies so ingrained you can't believe the truth.

Do you deny that Labour were running a deficit during the boom years 2003-2007? Indeed, your own figures show it.

Do you deny that it would have been better to pay down debt than borrow more and more during these boom years?

It took the Tories over a decade to get the economy back in shape after the last Labour economic crisis in the 70s. It might take even longer this time round.

No I did not, and I'm very angry at them for the cuts they are making which will cause unbelievable hardship for disabled people. I understand that cuts had to be made, but punishing the most vulnerable members of society and taking away their basic rights is downright evil. I am praying that the things I have heard recently about the cuts being illegal will be true and that they will be stopped.

Why is a compulsory insurance model "selfish, uncaring and mean spirited"? Or a "state pays, anyone can provide" model?

Why exactly should the State run our hospitals?

I believe universally accessible healthcare is a fundamental pillar of developed societies. Yet, somehow, questioning the NHS model is seen as heresy.

LFN - I am talking about debt as a % of GDP - I think I did clearly say that - it you have a different case please provide your figures.

Do not hide ebhind every tory MP's attempt to muddy the waters.

Where's your facts then - figures please not waffle.

Remember, in the early years - the only years when debt fell as a proportion of GDP - Labour were running to Ken Clarke's spending plans, because they were (rightly) concerned that the British people did not trust them with the economy.

Sorry LFN I meant not LDP can't think what I was thinking.

Anyway LFN your comment re the NHS just about perfectly sums up the selfish, uncaring and mean spirited attitute clearly required to be a tory voter.

Madoka Like all Labour MPs, it seems, you are deliberately talking about the debt instead of the deficit.

LDP I know that you'd like to believe that what you say is right. And that you've been spoon fed this lie by the tories over many years but it is not true you know.

Please find below the actual figures relating to what Labour did or didn't do regarding debt. I think mostly it does speak for itself and you might actually be surprised at the level of deception you've been exposed to. Labour clearly had paid down the debt and even at the end, before the banking crash Labours level of debt as a % of GDP was less than the figure they inherited from the tories in 1997.

UK National Debt As Percent Of GDP
Fiscal Years 1997 to 2010

1997 830.094 41.92%
1998 879.102 40.14%
1999 928.73 37.86%
2000 976.533 35.37%
2001 1021.83 30.57%
2002 1075.56 29.33%
2003 1139.75 30.45%
2004 1202.96 31.82%
2005 1254.06 33.81%
2006 1325.8 34.92%
2007 1398.88 35.74%
2008 1448.39 36.25%
2009 1395.87 44.19%
2010 1474 52.34%

The tories do like their porkies don't they?

The NHS is perhaps the biggest structural mistake this country has made for 100 years.

Left-wingers, answer me this: if the NHS is so fantastic, why has no other major country in the world copied it?

when the NHS was built the country was in much higher debt as a % of GDP than now.

we haven't just fought the second world war though. if something like that came along now ....

Madoka The only time Labour were fiscally prudent were when they were running on Tory spending plans. After the 2001 election Gordon Brown turned on the spending taps, and borrowed money like water - because he had "abolished boom and bust". Instead of paying down debt during the good times, we get a borrowing binge, and deficits for years before the banking crisis.

Lets see shall we.

Unfortunately for me I lived through the 80's and don't see anything different so far to thatchers nasty politics - which incidently the tories freely admitted to themselves.

They caused unemployment to rise from 1 million to 3 million. Devastated communities which only relatively recently have started to recover. And best of all they didn't give a damn, schools run down, hospitals run down. They didn't give a damn.

Yes EANP - you've got it I think - well nearly. yes governments have always had, have now and will always have debt - when the NHS was built the country was in much higher debt as a % of GDP than now.

The point is that the bail out and the sudden required injection of liquidity needed to stabalise the economy was due to the collapse of the banks - nothing else.

Thats why a sensible person knows the recession of 2007 was due to the greed of the bankers.

madoka growth in winter was really hit by the weather. that isn't a consequence of government, unless you think the Snow God s a Conservative.

Imagine evry person in the UK had to pay their portion of the national debt tomorrow.

the bank bailout portion would be about £3-400. depending how it goes - those shares can go up as well as down!

the rest - the consquence of government overspend - would be £66k

that is why a sensible person does not blame the banks.