@Matt

"Your an individual who failed to mention house prices dropped in 2008 and 2010, who cannot explain why CGT was merged in 2008. "

Pathetic cluthcing at straws again, we've covered that at length. Do you really want to go through all that again? I will if you want, though we've been there twice already.

"The line about booming house prices between 1979-1990 is extremely valid, it is a historical fact, according to you, a housing boom is " socially and economic divisive " not my words Bozo555, yours, please remember that. "

Yes, just like the 1997 - 2007 boom, though that boom hasn't yet unravelled, making it far more relevant. Shame you can't seem to acknowledge that. I acknowledge the housing boom from 1979 to 1990, I'm not a Tory so it's no problem.

"It seems you don't have a problem with a conservative housing boom, why is that Bozo555. "

Equally pathetic, see my previous comments.

"I am not surprised you have mentioned low incomes again, you have forgot that Mrs T double the number of low income households in her reign, while fuelling a housing boom."

Doesn't change what happened under New Labour.

What did the housing boom under New Labour do for the low and middle earners and their ability to buy homes and raise families? I wonder if Matt will answer for once?

@Matt

"Poor Bozo555, the only thing juvenile is your economic analysis."

More pathetic childish insults, and no answers, as usual.

@Matt

Hopefully Matt won't disappear without answering any questions, as usual.

so... your saying Labour bails out the banks = labour good... banks aren't lending in 2011 = torys bad.. oh my god. maybe with a tiny bit of foresight instead of labour bailing the banks without any contractual obligations... then saying, "oh actually, would you mind lending some money, and actually, would it be ok if you didn't give big bonuses... pretty please?" maybe, just maybe a sinsible approach would have been... "we'll bail you... but only if you sign this, legally binding contract to up the lending and down the bonuses... and by the way, if you don't like our rescue package, we'll repossess you and sign it for you! LABOUR GOT US INTO THIS MESS... FACT! I know loads of "lefties" STILL moaning about "Margaret Bloody Thatcher" get over it! it's 2011... it's hard times, but thats YOUR fault... it wont be easy n quick but the Tories WILL get us there safer and stronger than Labour would. Balls to Balls!

Some desperate labour mathematicians around today it seems - .5% fall takes us to 99.5% and then 5% rise takes us to 99.9975%, however ALL these figures are being rounded up so 100% is near enough for me.
The fact remains that the world is in a downspiral due to a number of factors and we are not in a good place to improve the economy - the question is why are we were we are, labour denialists say it's osbornes fault, and of course 13 years of labour not doing anything to prepare us for a bad period is not an answer they like. However it is true.
Unbalanced economy - thanks labour, massive debt - thanks labour, lack of skills in our youth - thanks labour, poor control of banks - thanks labour.
And anyone who listens to that car salesman balls and thinks he could do better, with millie mandela nodding away in the background is living in cloud cuckoo land.

@Stu - Oh go on then, I'll bite and for the record, I'm not a a party member nor a supporter (I've voted for all major parties). All the debt they'd accrued? Up until 2008 we were either in surplus or with a healthy deficit ( < 3%). Yet again, you're just quoting the government that "Labour went made with the credit cards" over 13 years. Again, we have this idea that Labour failed to plan for disaster and save for the bust - along with the vast majority of the developed world.

I'm really lost by this argument that unilateral regulation from the government would have somehow saved the situation and that also, had the FSA not been created, it wouldn't have happened. Regulation was only one small party of the ensuing crises, other than demanding bank hold higher reserve capital ratios, I honestly can't see how they could have really prevented the original spread of toxic assets. It would have required international agreement on it and with America's commitment to the free market (and opposition to anything remotely sounding like government intervention), I don't think little Britain could really have done much.

Where I do think Labour did get it wrong was by taking too long to come with a long term plan once the initial shock to the system occurred. By this point the markets had already had too long to start doubting Britain. My issue is not with "tories" but with Osborne's blinding commitment to a plan which doesn't appear to be working as intended. Amending it won't show weakness (or that he "got it wrong") but will show that he's actually being proactive to changes in market conditions.

@Matt

"Still in denial mode Bozo555, he loves picking and choosing his housing booms."

Truly dismal comment, even by your standards, I think we can all see who's in denial and who answers nothing.

"I noticed your rowing back from the language of " economically and socially divisive " strange that isn't it Bozo555."

What on earth are you talking about now? I don't need to backtrack on anything, my argument is consistent and clear. Your efforts to ridicule my posts are increasingly pathetic.

@Andre Lopes
Whatever the argument or debate there's no running away from fact. We are in debt, Labour simply carried it over from the Tories and topped it right up.

Other countries are fairing much better in these harsh times, why can't Britain? what happened? Clearly something could have been done that wasn't!

maybe if Labour would have developed our manufacturing business sector so we have business through trade instead of reducing it and investing in the financial (eventually relying on) sector, we could have dealt with it better?

Any deficit is not 'healthy' just because we are deemed to be able to pay it back doesn't mean we are ok to be in debt as you can see in reality we can't pay it back and even today it's still increasing.

I would also like to see a proactive government and an Osbourne that can change his plans but we all know all political parties are more concerned about popularity and electability.

The coalition know that as soon as they do another u-turn Labour will waste no time in laying into them instead of saying 'well done chaps we've helped Britain closer to recovery than before, team Britain!' they will most certainly use it as a tool to bring them down thus increasing their own popularity and electability and worm their way back into power. - and the cycle repeats itself...

@Matt

"Another none response from Bozo555. "

In what way? Funny comment coming from someone who can't answer anything.

"Remind me which genius kept talking of the housing boom 1997-2010, even though house prices decline in 2008 and 2010?"

Pathetic, remind me what happened to the average house price between 1997 and 2010, even though prices declined in 2008 and 2010 (very slightly)? Or better still, what happened to house prices between 1997 and 2007? Any answer will do (though we won't get one).

Note how Matt hasn't answered any of my questions. What a surprise.

@Matt

"If I need a lesson in being pathetic, I will ask you, your the expert."

Post up some examples of me being 'pathetic'?

0.5% is pretty pathetic, isn't it, when last month they were saying it would be 0.8%.

Next thing Osborne will be telling us is not to bother leaving the house in the morning. He is pathetic.

I see Bozo555 fails to understand there was no economic growth over the last six months.

I wish he would remember how house prices boomed between 1979-1990.

Well said matthew fox.
Luddite fails to mention that the economy was growing at 1.7%Gdp in May 2010. Labour said they would start their programme of cuts when the economy was robust, (I would imagine that to be around 2%GDP), wheras Osborne is cutting even deeper while the economy is flat-lining, what an utter nonce!

When you consider how much of the Tory economic plan hinges on growth this year; growth which, it was pointed out at the time, was never likely, it seems like we need Michael Kaine back, perhaps he would like to reconsider his political alignment now.

@ang

"Labour didn't just print money, they invested it in people and that is why I will always vote Labour."

That GDP was rising as Labour left was surely at least partly down to the printing of £200bn in the way of QE? If you print such a colossal amount of money you would expect a jump in GDP, much more than we actually got perhaps?

Unfortunately the huge rise in house prices undid a lot of the good New Labour did, pricing the low and middle earners out of buying a home to raise a family in and leaving consumers heavily in debt, which is why I didn't vote for them last time around.

So, is Ed Balls the man to solve all our economic woe?

I think not, i think not.

The ever-shrill Blanchflower, Balls and Miliband lost the economic argument.

Playing party political games with the economy and trying to take political advantage of the situation the left got the nation into in the first place is a disgrace.

@Matt

I fully acknowledge the housing boom under the Tories was a disaster for many, though inflation offset it somewhat.

I wonder if Matt will acknowledge the disaster of the boom in house prices under New Labour and the effects it has on the low and medium paid?

Stan - it's not entertaining, its scary. These idealogues will not be happy until the country's economy implodes.

I think the ones playing politics with the economy are the Tories - they AGREED with Labour's spending plans until 2008. If the plans were so irresponsible, why did they do this? And why did they suddenly call for massive cuts in 2008? Naked political calculation.

Economy is rubbish, whats new? at least we're not in the likes of PIG! (portugal, Ireland, Greece) yet... Spain will be the next one to go and then the UK will suffer even more.

@swatantra nandanwar
You honestly think Ed Balls is equipped? he's the one that helped GB put us in this mess and you want more of him. All he's going to do is borrow more money and hope everything picks up enough for him to then put up taxes at a later date to repay the debt! thats Labour for you... put it off until the end which is where we are now!

@Pat
I'm not sure anyone knew the exact extent of the damage Labour imposed on us. For all you know in that budget report they could put any mickey mouse figures and hope we turn a blind eye very much as it is now.

@Al Bronte
Agree :D

It's early days, the defict was over a decade in the making. Who ever said debt reduction would be easy or painless, and let's be brutally honest here, if Labour was still in government, it to would be doing very much the same.

Oh and furthermore, the picture at the top of this article does rather look like Osborne is sitting on the pan:- kind of severely constipated? Which I guess is further evidence that he's just full of shite?

Labour have nothing to say beyond rebuttal and smear (sounds like a law firm). They hide behind their Union paymsters with accompanying hysterical shroud waving, with only one aim in mind. To get back into power, whatever the cost. The Tories have many faults but that doesn't make Labour worthy or credible.