Search results

i know. and thats with cuts. if we'd targeted reducing the deficit by, say half, and missing that target, we'd be looking at larger debt. long time paying that down.

i see a debt vs deficit confusion creeping in... in 2010 the deficit was 130bn and the debt 760bn. the target was to cut the deficit completely to 0, so over the life of the parliament the debt would still increase but at a slower rate and from that point onwards the debt reduce. due to a...

yes. as they both have seperate residences its very above board. on housing benefit too, to add insult. i looked at it myself: if i move out and crashed with a friend (so no rent) my other half could claim a bunch of benefits while i carry on paying the mortgage. and i wouldnt have to pay 5k...

it benefits those not in formal cohabiting arrangments. for example i know a couple with children that claim as if they are single, so each get tax credits and housing benefits. all legal because they have seperate homes, even though they live togther for about 5 years. if not married already...

given that Labour had the same projections on growth to hand in 2010, planned less cuts/more spending, by how much do you expect they would have reduced the deficit? its rhetorical, of course we dont know, but there is no way in hades the deficit would have been less. the stated aim of Balls...