Labour are a bunch of feckless spendthrifts who seem hell bent on bankrupting the country in order to please their target voters.
I kinda disagree with this. Labour eternal problem is that they categorically do not understand high finance or micro-economics .. or basically how a bloody economy works. There is a great quotation from the 1930s from a Scottish labour politician about this, where he says the "High finance destroyed the Labour government, and will destroy it again, and again, and again."
Which, of course, we saw repeated in 2007. It's baked in the Labour cake.
You can, I believe, see this very plainly when you look at GDP, money supply, overall credit conditions, debt levels and Brown's spending plans post-2001 -- when this whole deficit disaster started to take shape.
Incidentally, it is important to remember that we actually had a budgetary surplus in 2001 of about £4bn, which was referred to at the time as "Brown's war chest". 
It is also equally important to recognise that this "war chest" was a result of the Labour commitment to Tory spending plans in their first term (they used PFI in their first term to get round this commitment because once they were in power, they realised there wasn't actually enough money to do all the things that they had said the Tories were too "evil" to do, like rebuild hospitals etc, so in order to prove the Tories were "evil" like they said, they PFI'd public utilities with publicly-funded operational costs). Thanks for that one, NewLabour.
It was clear to anyone that cared to look that by about 2004, tax receipts were artificially inflated by cheap credit and that Brown was not only spending to these levels but over and above -- and that when the credit spigot stopped, tax receipts would collapse and leave us with a significant deficit that we would not have the taxation capacity to deal with. That actually what Brown was actually doing was a kind of anti-Keynesianism under the mistaken belief that you could spend over receipts both during a boom AND a recession.
Yes, Brown was seemingly under the impression that the "boom" between 2001 and 2007 was "real economic growth" and that, at some point, he could stop his increases in spend and GDP would still continue to grow and thus eventually render his overspend into underspend and the country would find it had a surplus again, which it could then use to begin to pay down debt. He really believed in this idea there was a "new economic paradigm" that somehow delivered exponential economic growth, despite the fact that we were still seeing significant levels of un-employment, particularly amongst the young, and debt levels were rising significantly.
In short, Brown drank the kool-aid provided by the "Masters of the Universe", the very same Masters that have destroyed Greece, because he couldn't and/or wouldn't read the economic situation properly, nor engage his brain or common-sense. When the Queen asked why no-one saw the problem coming, well, they did. They banged on and on about it -- even the damn Communist Party of Great Britain wrote about it.
So, of course, when the spigot did stop in 2007, which was inevitable, tax receipts collapsed, which they were always going to, and left us with an enormous operational deficit of around £200bn, which was about 33 times the annual cost of the police service. This deficit, of course, also included the £48bn-ish annual interest payments we were also forking out for to cover the interest on the national debt, which was, incidentally, around twice the annual cost of housing benefit.
So yes, the "recession" was "global" in a sense, but it was damn obvious that it was going to happen at some point and Labour made the impact worse by overspending during a so-called "boom". Interestingly, had they kept to 2001 spending levels or thereabouts, there would have been no deficit post-2007 and we would have been sat on about a £80bn to £100bn operational surplus to soften the effects of the recessive environment.
And that would have been proper Keynesianism.
So, to answer your point, it is not that they are hellbent on bankrupting the country, it is that they just do not seem to understand that money has an innate cost mechanism of its own and that there are consequences to the creation of liabilities.