On-line banking hassles

[teamsaint]

I think it's the previous government leaving this one without any money.

they and their friends in the banks, really.

TBF to labour, they before the banking shambles, they pretty much spent as much as any other government. Too much on wars, but broadly the same amount.

[Resurrection Man]

.....
TBF to labour, they before the banking shambles, they pretty much spent as much as any other government.....

No they didn't. They were profligate spenders.

Suggest you read here http://www.robparker.org.uk/articles...e-of-payments/ and here http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/...sh-requirement

[DracoM]

And of course neither of those referred-to sites has a political agenda of its own, has it?

[teamsaint]

No they didn't. They were profligate spenders.

Suggest you read here http://www.robparker.org.uk/articles...e-of-payments/ and here http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/...sh-requirement

Well one of these is to do with balance of payments (not under discussion) and the other discusses public spending in the context of world and national events.
If you look here

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1900_2010UKp_11c1li0181366_667cs_F0t_UK_Public_Spending_As_Percent_Of_GDP

you will see that public spending FALLS rapidly as percent of GDP after labour came to power, which is the important and generally used statistic.

Over time labour and conservative governments spend broadly the same % of GDP. For instance, by 2005 the % was roughly the same as it was in the mid 90's under the tories. (a little less if anything).
I don't support or defend labour.
But the truth matters, and it is simply not true to say that labour were profligate compared to the tories. Whether they should have spent our money to save the banks is another matter.

[teamsaint]

And of course neither of those referred-to sites has a political agenda of its own, has it?

plus they are pretty irrelevant.

Most people use % off GDP as the relevant measure. see my previous post !