It s smaller debt than labour would have lumped us with

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:11, 1 reply, 11 years ago)

you cannot say that for certain
you can however say for certain that they have borrowed more in 5 years than the previous government had in 13
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:19, Reply)

You can also say for certain that a lot of that borrowing goes to wards servicing the debt left by the previous government and the global recession
neither of which are under the control of the present government. To get to the amount labour would have borrowed take the current numbers and add back in all the money saved curbing the bloated public sector
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:22, Reply)

Yeah but David Cameron eats children while Georgie pleasures himself laughing.

(Baggenfrock get fucked, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:24, Reply)

Conjecture

(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:29, Reply)

The first part isn't

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:34, Reply)

No
but I didn't pull you on that, it was saying that the debt would have been larger under a Labour Gov.
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:46, Reply)

Isn't the basics of politics conjecture though? As both parties can't be in power impending it their p
licies at the same time? Labour were against the measures put in place to reduce the deficit, therefore they would have spent that money therefore increasing the deficiet. Simple really.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 14:53, Reply)

The counter argument would be that
their policies would have increased the tax revenue therefore reducing the debt
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Wed 3 Dec 2014, 15:18, Reply)