No government borrowing in 2018/19 .....

[keaton]

Not a pop at you personally but I'd be interested to hear from those who oppose the current plans to balance the books and how they suggest we, as a country, stop living on credit ?

Most councils had already cut their spending and Labour already had plans to reduce public spending.

Also the Tories plan is not to stop living on credit. It's to carry on living on the credit it has now

 

[L2MidgetGem B.H.A Seagull]

Cutting what MPs earn or claim, while morally justifiable, won't cure the debt issue. You somewhat contradict yourself with :

"We may as well be In Hitler's Germany Is I feel we are bordering communism." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler was extreme right wing ( and hated communism ) and communism is extreme left wing.

I apologize. I knew what I meant though. My mistake. All I know Is this Government has dry humped us more times than I care to remember. I'll be glad to have Immigrated. Wouldn't want my kids growing up being led by the Condems. They've already shown they don't give a toss about us. I know where I'm not welcome.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Most councils had already cut their spending and Labour already had plans to reduce public spending.

Also the Tories plan is not to stop living on credit. It's to carry on living on the credit it has now

Not strictly true - their plan is to stop borrowing more - they will still owe what has already been borrowed by the current government and previous governments.

 

[keaton]

Not strictly true - their plan is to stop borrowing more - they will still owe what has already been borrowed by the current government and previous governments.

What's the difference?
You said they'll stop living in credit, they're definetely not suggesting that

 

[Machiavelli]

..... really That seems quite an impressive feat if true !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25233233

While admiring your comments on football, your comments on politics are simply perplexing. As a member of the Green Party I, according to you, are a 'money grabbing moron'. I'd say that this was an ungenerous way of speaking about others, especially as the football team that you support is also home to the first Green MP elected to a UK parliament and, I understand, the first Green MP to be elected under the first-past-the-post system electoral system anywhere in the world.

As regards your claim that there will be no government borrowing in 2018/19, and that this constitutes an impressive feat. The man who you regard to be impressive in pulling off this feat doesn't even think it's impressive. This man, George Osborne, made his electoral pitch and based his entire economic strategy when coming to power in 2010 around removing government borrowing by 2015. So, he has failed in his own terms, yet you decide to declare this as an impressive feat. I might also point out that when he did come to power, the economy was growing rapidly, although this recovery was tentative. He stopped this growth almost immediately with his policies and, as a consequence, not only delayed his goal (reducing borrowing to nothing) which was, in part, related to the growth of the economy, but also choked off the recovery, visiting more misery on a vulnerable population.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

While admiring your comments on football, your comments on politics are simply perplexing. As a member of the Green Party I, according to you, are a 'money grabbing moron'. I'd say that this was an ungenerous way of speaking about others, especially as the football team that you support is also home to the first Green MP elected to a UK parliament and, I understand, the first Green MP to be elected under the first-past-the-post system electoral system anywhere in the world.

As regards your claim that there will be no government borrowing in 2018/19, and that this constitutes an impressive feat. The man who you regard to be impressive in pulling off this feat doesn't even think it's impressive. This man, George Osborne, made his electoral pitch and based his entire economic strategy when coming to power in 2010 around removing government borrowing by 2015. So, he has failed in his own terms, yet you decide to declare this as an impressive feat. I might also point out that when he did come to power, the economy was growing rapidly, although this recovery was tentative. He stopped this growth almost immediately with his policies and, as a consequence, not only delayed his goal (reducing borrowing to nothing) which was, in part, related to the growth of the economy, but also choked off the recovery, visiting more misery on a vulnerable population.

I think the was the give away as to how much I believed the government claim ( i.e. NOT my claim ! ).

As for the Green part - my signature is aimed at the idiots currently running B&H Council - mistake, after mistake, after mistake. Lucas is actually a reasonable MP ( although sometimes misguided ). I could type pages of text about what a bunch of morons the local Greens are ( who originally objected to the Amex ) but I won't subject you to that.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the was the give away as to how much I believed the government claim ( i.e. NOT my claim ! ).

As for the Green part - my signature is aimed at the idiots currently running B&H Council - mistake, after mistake, after mistake. Lucas is actually a reasonable MP ( although sometimes misguided ). I could type pages of text about what a bunch of morons the local Greens are ( who originally objected to the Amex ) but I won't subject you to that.

I believe the government claim, but just don't think it's that impressive. You're right about Green objections to the Amex but, as a minority council, the local Greens have had a pretty difficult time of it, especially given that Osborne passed a significant chunk of expenditure costs on to local councils, so all have had a tough time of it of late. I'm glad you won't subject me to pages in response. Perhaps we can just leave it that we agree about the Amex, but disagree about the government claim, and the council's policies. As much as I thought he was great last season, can we also agree that Lopez shouldn't get near the first team for a good few weeks yet?

 

[The Birdman]

That will change if Labour gain power. They'll bring the country to its knees.

Again

 

[drew]

Not a pop at you personally but I'd be interested to hear from those who oppose the current plans to balance the books and how they suggest we, as a country, stop living on credit ?

Haven't we lived on credit for over 300 years. What makes you think Gideon is going to change that. There is nothing wrong with credit as long as it is manageable, that is why most people have a mortgage to buy a house!


As for the thrust of the thread, presumably people are aware that we are borrowing £50b more now than was estimated by Gideon three years ago so why is everyone now taking his figures as gospel?

 

[beorhthelm]

Good spot, according to figures here (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data):

Under Brown: 36.5-53.4% of GDP

Current govt. : 53.4-75% of GDP

Fairly similar, hardly worth of "labour will bring this country to it's knees" territory. Some people seem to think debt is being reduced under the current government, just making sure the figures are available.

but the DEFICIT has gone down, yes? you understand the difference between debt and deficit? clue its the first graph in your link.


@ Westdene, its impressive isnt it, its the magic of macro-economic. and when you see this you realise exactly why some accuse Brown of being so prolifgate when he failed, with a growing economy, to get anywhere near break even or surplus prior to 2008.

 

[Machiavelli]

Haven't we lived on credit for over 300 years. What makes you think Gideon is going to change that. There is nothing wrong with credit as long as it is manageable, that is why most people have a mortgage to buy a house!

Yes, the best statistics I know indicate that Britain's debt (debt to GDP ratio) has been higher than it is now for 200 of the last 250 years. It currently stands at about 80%, and was over 200% in 1945 (as it is in Japan at present). The big question is why are the electorate so concerned about it now. My answer to that question is the triumph of Gideon and neoliberalism more broadly. For those that don't understand, I don't think Gideon has triumphed, but he's managed to persuade the electorate that government debt is what matters -- via his paying off your credit card metaphor, primarily. What he doesn't tell you is the level of indebtedness has escalated out of all proportions in the past few decades, that this level has accelerated since his been at the Exchequer, and that most of this is private debt. This private debt has escalated because we're encouraged to consume to keep the show on the road, and because real wages have been falling for a decade in the UK (and for decades in the US).

 

[worthingseagull123]

That will change if Labour gain power. They'll bring the country to its knees.

They cant do any worse than the current morons in charge.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I haven't borrowed any money this year ..whats this Osbourne guy know

 

[drew]

Yes, the best statistics I know indicate that Britain's debt (debt to GDP ratio) has been higher than it is now for 200 of the last 250 years. It currently stands at about 80%, and was over 200% in 1945 (as it is in Japan at present). The big question is why are the electorate so concerned about it now. My answer to that question is the triumph of Gideon and neoliberalism more broadly. For those that don't understand, I don't think Gideon has triumphed, but he's managed to persuade the electorate that government debt is what matters -- via his paying off your credit card metaphor, primarily. What he doesn't tell you is the level of indebtedness has escalated out of all proportions in the past few decades, that this level has accelerated since his been at the Exchequer, and that most of this is private debt. This private debt has escalated because we're encouraged to consume to keep the show on the road, and because real wages have been falling for a decade in the UK (and for decades in the US).

What do you mean by 'escalated out of all proportion'? In the first part of the Blair government, the national debt was paid down to a level of around 29% of GDP at the end of the first term. Even before the global crisis, it was still lower than it was in 95/96 and 97. I do agree with your comments that this is a scare story by the Tories, presumably to allow them to get the public sector as small as they possibly can and ultimately lower taxes and put more money in the pocket of their supporter. The debt sounds large but then so is our GDP.

 

[HOFNSKIN]

The current national debt equates to roughly £46,000 per household. Eventually investors will stop giving credit to any government, because there is no realistic hope of repayment.

 

[Hamilton]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

God that's made me laugh.

 

[El Presidente]

Be afraid, be very afraid. It's PFI that's the turd hidden in your cistern, so whilst the government definition of debt may go down in 2019, all that has happened is that it's been shifted off balance sheet. Future generations will pay for this folly, which is a joint Brown/Osborne creation.

 

[Machiavelli]

What do you mean by 'escalated out of all proportion'? In the first part of the Blair government, the national debt was paid down to a level of around 29% of GDP at the end of the first term. Even before the global crisis, it was still lower than it was in 95/96 and 97. I do agree with your comments that this is a scare story by the Tories, presumably to allow them to get the public sector as small as they possibly can and ultimately lower taxes and put more money in the pocket of their supporter. The debt sounds large but then so is our GDP.

I was referring to total debt (ie public and private). I can understand that the passage you've highlighted would lead you to question this, and I didn't differentiate properly at that point between public and private debt, but the next sentence indicates as much. All the other figures you use seem accurate according to my limited understanding of such data.

 

[keaton]

but the DEFICIT has gone down, yes? you understand the difference between debt and deficit? clue its the first graph in your link.


@ Westdene, its impressive isnt it, its the magic of macro-economic. and when you see this you realise exactly why some accuse Brown of being so prolifgate when he failed, with a growing economy, to get anywhere near break even or surplus prior to 2008.

That link doesn't seem to work. BUt you're saying as long as we can sell off the 4g thing every year the deficit will keep coming down. Sweet, nothing can go wrong with his plan

 

[ALBION28]

That will change if Labour gain power. They'll bring the country to its knees.

As opposed to cutting it to its knees by the Tories.