GoonerAlexandre wrote:The graph isn't bullshit, your interpretation is bullshit.
Thanks for clearing that up given you originally said, "That graph is utter bullshit". Anyway, now that I understand where you're coming from, let's have a closer look at your analysis:
GoonerAlexandre wrote:Thatcher inherited a government where unemployment was going up.
No. Unemployment was slightly down in 1978, the year before Thatcher was in power.
It kept going up a slightly lower rate under Thatcher, but reached it's highest under her.
The second bit is right but the first is utterly false. Here's the graph again:
Thatcher was elected May 1979. Look at the the unemployment rate in 1980. Now 81, 82, 83 and 84. I can only assume you forgot the year Thatcher was elected to come to the conclusion that the increase of unemployment was at a lower rate than under Labour (were you thinking she was first elected in 1983, her second election?). Clearly, and I think you'll agree, the unemployment under Thatcher went dramatically up, REVERSING the trend of lower unemployment during the last two years of the Labour government. There's no real way to dispute that, you've already agreed the graph is accurate.
A deficit means that debt keeps increasing. The deficit is down, but the debt is up.
That's right. That said, I didn't mention debt anywhere (so I'm not sure why you'd think I'd be confused on the issue).
Labour left a deficit. [...] This is Labour's fault, not the Conservatives.
Labour ran a surplus four years in a row. After that they ran a deficit and increased the debt, due to the fact they were investing in schools and hospitals. Yes, that is Labour's "fault" - whether investment in these areas was worth the price of increasing our nation's debt is a matter of opinion - I won't debate you on that.
Conservatives have also continually ran a deficit - for only two years out of 26 years years in power have they had (a very small) surplus! They've added to our debt more than Labour have (even adjusting for years in power). That's not Labour's fault (the Conservatives were, after all, in power 18 years in a row!).
Of course, since 2010, the deficit has continued under the Conservatives after the WORLD-WIDE recession in 2008, and I don't blame the Conservatives for that - there was always going to be a huge deficit in those years (though Osborne originally predicted they'd be running a surplus by 2015 - they, obviously, completely missed that target and now Brexit has completely killed any hopes of lowering our debt in the foreseeable future - again weakening any economic argument about so-called Conservative competence). Perhaps you'd agree, that in hindsight, Labour should have regulated the banking sector more as it would have softened the blow of the crises and thus, reduced the deficit (did you mention 100% mortgages? Yes, they were a terrible idea). But, if you want banking regulation, Conservatives are not the answer as they believe in self-regulation.
CONCLUSION: I think you made an honest mistake in looking at unemployment graph and, thus, drew, wildly inaccurate conclusions. I don't blame you for that, as long as you're honest enough to see where you went wrong.
With regards to the deficit, the reason I posted that graph was merely to highlight that both parties have added to our National Debt (by, as you said, running a deficit). The Conservatives have added more to our debt, despite selling off our schools, hospitals and postal service, while also given us less value for money with massive problems facing both the NHS and our schooling system (which was my original point, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough).
One last thing: I'm not a huge Labour fan, by the way. I've only voted for them once in my life (out of a possible 6 times).