Leeds Spur
Banned
Yep. As I pointed out. Still need to get the deficit down.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Ed Milliband repeats himself
- Thread starter NickTB
- Start date
If you want the latest debt figures then get them from here.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm
The excel download shows all the net borrowing stats amongst others by year and month.
Email Tom Chappell and he'll email you the monthly updates, quite handy
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psf_statistics.htm
The excel download shows all the net borrowing stats amongst others by year and month.
Email Tom Chappell and he'll email you the monthly updates, quite handy
Leeds Spur
Banned
Lol. Monthly estimates? I'll just get the official ones as reported in the press! They are very depressing anyway. The main thing is the government is on target.
Leeds Spur
Banned
We canÔÇÖt afford public revolts against debt
Daniel Finkelstein
Published at 12:01AM, May 9 2012
People in Europe are refusing to pay their countryÔÇÖs bills. And that could threaten our very democracies
In 1972, holidaying in the Hotel el Toro in Benidorm, I noticed something odd. As I swam in the pool, music played on the loudspeakers. But it was the same song, over and over again ÔÇö Power to the People by John Lennon and the Plastic Ono Band. I had nothing against it. I liked John Lennon, still do. But I thought it was a bit funny to be playing it on a loop.
So I asked my mum why she thought they were doing it. And that is how, at the age of 9, I first learnt about General Franco. The repetitive music was a little act of rebellion against the dictator, you see.
At that age, it came as a bit of a surprise that there were dictators in Western Europe so near to home. I knew about authoritarian regimes, of course, because my parents had both been imprisoned by them and because the family photo albums were full of people who had been murdered or disappeared. But it all seemed a long time ago and what remained of it, behind the Iron Curtain, seemed a long way away.
Starting with that moment on a ClarksonÔÇÖs package holiday, I slowly began to understand that dictatorships werenÔÇÖt a long time ago or far away. There was Spain, obviously, and Greece and Portugal, all under military rule in my lifetime. And Poland, where my father was born, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were not distant lands, but parts of Europe and places where family still lived and Finkelstein homes still stood.
And as I grew older still and ten years no longer seemed like an age, I realised too that the gap that separated our stable, free life in Hendon from their deportation and camps was not all that long, just a few years really.
These are the thoughts that returned to me this weekend, when I saw the pictures of the neo-Nazi Nikos Michaloliakos, sitting under his Greek version of the Swastika, and telling the world that ÔÇ£Greece is only the beginningÔÇØ. We have had a junta in Greece once in my lifetime; is it really so impossible that we might have one again? We have had military officers firing guns in the Spanish parliament and the King having to go on television to save a fledgeling democracy. Is a repetition of an event like that somewhere in Europe inconceivable?
HereÔÇÖs what I think happened in Greece, and in France, and in the local elections in Italy a few days ago. Voters went to the polls to see if they agreed that two plus two equals four and decided that they did not.
Simple arithmetic ran for office, and lost.
We have arrived at the moment that the respected financial writer John Mauldin calls, in his book of that name, the endgame. It is the end of the debt supercyle, the end of decades in which borrowing rose from small to manageable to unmanageable. It is the moment at which those debts have to be reduced. And we arrive at it still borrowing more than we are raising in tax and with little clue how to close the gap.
And Mauldin puts it well: ÔÇ£We are left with no good choices ... We have created a situation that is going to cause a lot of pain. It is not a question of pain or no pain, it is just when and how we decide (or are forced) to take it. There are no easy paths.ÔÇØ
When Margaret Thatcher used to use household analogies to explain matters of national finance she was often sneered at. Countries and households are incomparable, explained her critics. Technically, you could see their point. But these technical objections, then and now, miss the big point that I think she saw. You canÔÇÖt go on borrowing for ever without one day testing the patience of your creditors. At some point you have to stop adding to the pile of debt. We have reached that point.
The financial crisis saw governments step in to take over debts that had been incurred by private citizens. They could do this because their power to tax their citizens assured lenders that they were good for the money. But two things have happened since 2008. The first is that the size of the debt grew so large in some countries that even its power to tax wouldnÔÇÖt raise enough money. The second, which was dramatically underlined by the election results at the weekend, is that the power to tax proved to be theoretical. Democratic governments canÔÇÖt tax (or reduce spending) if voters wonÔÇÖt let them.
The clash between financial reality and democratic response is as big a political crisis as most of us have ever seen. All over Europe, voters are in revolt against paying the bills they and their fellow countrymen have incurred. And not just in Europe. A recent visit to Japan found a country flitting from one prime minister to the next and still, after many years of struggle, no closer to determining how ÔÇö or even whether ÔÇö to deal with its economic problems.
There are some who want to put off the endgame for a few more years, hoping ÔÇö I think forlornly, others think not ÔÇö for a softer landing. LetÔÇÖs borrow just a bit extra, keep on going for a bit longer. But even for these people the endgame will come. And it can only be addressed by countries earning more and spending less. There is no other solution.
Persuading voters of this will be incredibly difficult. And so far EuropeÔÇÖs leaders are failing. The cause of the fall of one European government after another is obvious to us all at a distance ÔÇö it is a revolt against the consequences of the endgame. The political difficulties of our own Government we prefer to ascribe to the presentation of the granny tax and problems with the Leveson Inquiry.
Well, whatever. As long as David Cameron and Nick Clegg, renewing their vows yesterday, see it for what it really is. Those people who want the Government to have a mission beyond austerity, beyond the endgame, are not appreciating how big that task is, how difficult the mission. British voters are no different from any others. At the last election no party felt able to level with them about how bad things were, and what would be needed to put it right, because they correctly divined that if they tried to do so they would be horribly damaged.
The mission of this Government can only be to deal with the borrowing and, somehow, to take voters with them as they do it. And that will mean everyone paying more and getting less and putting off things we want to do until later. There wonÔÇÖt be time or political credit for anything else.
We take for granted our stability and our freedom and our democracy. We take for granted that of Europe as well. We shouldnÔÇÖt.
Daniel Finkelstein
Published at 12:01AM, May 9 2012
People in Europe are refusing to pay their countryÔÇÖs bills. And that could threaten our very democracies
In 1972, holidaying in the Hotel el Toro in Benidorm, I noticed something odd. As I swam in the pool, music played on the loudspeakers. But it was the same song, over and over again ÔÇö Power to the People by John Lennon and the Plastic Ono Band. I had nothing against it. I liked John Lennon, still do. But I thought it was a bit funny to be playing it on a loop.
So I asked my mum why she thought they were doing it. And that is how, at the age of 9, I first learnt about General Franco. The repetitive music was a little act of rebellion against the dictator, you see.
At that age, it came as a bit of a surprise that there were dictators in Western Europe so near to home. I knew about authoritarian regimes, of course, because my parents had both been imprisoned by them and because the family photo albums were full of people who had been murdered or disappeared. But it all seemed a long time ago and what remained of it, behind the Iron Curtain, seemed a long way away.
Starting with that moment on a ClarksonÔÇÖs package holiday, I slowly began to understand that dictatorships werenÔÇÖt a long time ago or far away. There was Spain, obviously, and Greece and Portugal, all under military rule in my lifetime. And Poland, where my father was born, Hungary and Czechoslovakia were not distant lands, but parts of Europe and places where family still lived and Finkelstein homes still stood.
And as I grew older still and ten years no longer seemed like an age, I realised too that the gap that separated our stable, free life in Hendon from their deportation and camps was not all that long, just a few years really.
These are the thoughts that returned to me this weekend, when I saw the pictures of the neo-Nazi Nikos Michaloliakos, sitting under his Greek version of the Swastika, and telling the world that ÔÇ£Greece is only the beginningÔÇØ. We have had a junta in Greece once in my lifetime; is it really so impossible that we might have one again? We have had military officers firing guns in the Spanish parliament and the King having to go on television to save a fledgeling democracy. Is a repetition of an event like that somewhere in Europe inconceivable?
HereÔÇÖs what I think happened in Greece, and in France, and in the local elections in Italy a few days ago. Voters went to the polls to see if they agreed that two plus two equals four and decided that they did not.
Simple arithmetic ran for office, and lost.
We have arrived at the moment that the respected financial writer John Mauldin calls, in his book of that name, the endgame. It is the end of the debt supercyle, the end of decades in which borrowing rose from small to manageable to unmanageable. It is the moment at which those debts have to be reduced. And we arrive at it still borrowing more than we are raising in tax and with little clue how to close the gap.
And Mauldin puts it well: ÔÇ£We are left with no good choices ... We have created a situation that is going to cause a lot of pain. It is not a question of pain or no pain, it is just when and how we decide (or are forced) to take it. There are no easy paths.ÔÇØ
When Margaret Thatcher used to use household analogies to explain matters of national finance she was often sneered at. Countries and households are incomparable, explained her critics. Technically, you could see their point. But these technical objections, then and now, miss the big point that I think she saw. You canÔÇÖt go on borrowing for ever without one day testing the patience of your creditors. At some point you have to stop adding to the pile of debt. We have reached that point.
The financial crisis saw governments step in to take over debts that had been incurred by private citizens. They could do this because their power to tax their citizens assured lenders that they were good for the money. But two things have happened since 2008. The first is that the size of the debt grew so large in some countries that even its power to tax wouldnÔÇÖt raise enough money. The second, which was dramatically underlined by the election results at the weekend, is that the power to tax proved to be theoretical. Democratic governments canÔÇÖt tax (or reduce spending) if voters wonÔÇÖt let them.
The clash between financial reality and democratic response is as big a political crisis as most of us have ever seen. All over Europe, voters are in revolt against paying the bills they and their fellow countrymen have incurred. And not just in Europe. A recent visit to Japan found a country flitting from one prime minister to the next and still, after many years of struggle, no closer to determining how ÔÇö or even whether ÔÇö to deal with its economic problems.
There are some who want to put off the endgame for a few more years, hoping ÔÇö I think forlornly, others think not ÔÇö for a softer landing. LetÔÇÖs borrow just a bit extra, keep on going for a bit longer. But even for these people the endgame will come. And it can only be addressed by countries earning more and spending less. There is no other solution.
Persuading voters of this will be incredibly difficult. And so far EuropeÔÇÖs leaders are failing. The cause of the fall of one European government after another is obvious to us all at a distance ÔÇö it is a revolt against the consequences of the endgame. The political difficulties of our own Government we prefer to ascribe to the presentation of the granny tax and problems with the Leveson Inquiry.
Well, whatever. As long as David Cameron and Nick Clegg, renewing their vows yesterday, see it for what it really is. Those people who want the Government to have a mission beyond austerity, beyond the endgame, are not appreciating how big that task is, how difficult the mission. British voters are no different from any others. At the last election no party felt able to level with them about how bad things were, and what would be needed to put it right, because they correctly divined that if they tried to do so they would be horribly damaged.
The mission of this Government can only be to deal with the borrowing and, somehow, to take voters with them as they do it. And that will mean everyone paying more and getting less and putting off things we want to do until later. There wonÔÇÖt be time or political credit for anything else.
We take for granted our stability and our freedom and our democracy. We take for granted that of Europe as well. We shouldnÔÇÖt.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
Fixed
Fairly basic economics really
+ Private sector, manufacturing, services
- Public sector, ridiculous pensions, union activity
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
so your saying that if i only have ?ú300 in the bank, i CANT buy that ?ú500 TV?
isn't that my friend the bank is there for? Mr Visa told me it was ok, i didn't think to question it.
also, don't we live in a socialist society? shouldn't we all be helping eachother out when things are tough?
Now, help me by buying that TV - it's 4" bigger than my neighbours and its affecting my karma.
Leeds Spur
Banned
Bang on the money
No they're not. They're spending more than the last lot. Their plan is already in tatters and will deteriorate further if the economy doesn't perk up dramatically.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
sorry - couldnt help but laugh at your choice of phrase!
Leeds Spur
Banned
The deficit fell from ?ú190 biillion odd to ?ú130 billion....which was the target for this year.
Admitedly they are still spending in epic proportions....something which doesn't quite fit with the 'cuts' narrative!
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Greed is the problem and unfortunately that is where we find ourselves, in the early 80's i was working on contract in California and everyone i worked with had everything on credit. I found that even paying for groceries the supermarket in cash was not easy, only one check out in the store was set up to take cash all the rest were on credit cards. During the time i was there Ronald RAYGUN came into power and one of the first things he did was stop a lot of building contracts ( construction at the time was second only to fruit picking) and there was a lot of construction workers laid off, over the next few months i had to watch as friends had there third cars, water beds, boats etc repossessed by the credit card companies.
I remember saying at the time that eventually England will become as bad when they started giving everyone a credit card and allow them to have things they could not afford. Since then it seems we followed America down the credit path and now we are faced with a load of debt. I know i may be old fashioned but i have always resisted buying anything if a i could not afford it unfortunately that is not the way society ( as a whole ) has gone over the last decade or so ( i want it and i want it today) seems to be the norm.
I accept that there is more to it then people being greedy and wanting something they have to get on credit but it was always going to happen
I remember saying at the time that eventually England will become as bad when they started giving everyone a credit card and allow them to have things they could not afford. Since then it seems we followed America down the credit path and now we are faced with a load of debt. I know i may be old fashioned but i have always resisted buying anything if a i could not afford it unfortunately that is not the way society ( as a whole ) has gone over the last decade or so ( i want it and i want it today) seems to be the norm.
I accept that there is more to it then people being greedy and wanting something they have to get on credit but it was always going to happen
true, but you kind of hit a bit of a snag in that theory when the specific part of the private sector which provides businesses with access to the capital they need to grow becomes insolvent and needs to be bailed out to the tune of billions of pound by the government. what happened in 2008?
View attachment 575
Leeds Spur
Banned
You'll note the decade of deficits before the credit crunch?
You'll also note the surplus when brown initially continued the Tory spending plans?
Yep. All labours fault.
You'll also note the surplus when brown initially continued the Tory spending plans?
Yep. All labours fault.
southstand1882
Mitchell Thomas
That just shows how badly Labour fudged the economy!
Nobody does it better.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
The thing is some of us were saying it at the time but no one would listen. I remember the excellent clarky saying it for years on this very site.
All semi intelligent people could see how much public spending was going up, how many extra public sector workers we were creating. Unemployment not going down with people just pushed onto the sick.
Extra jobs being created going to foreign workers because we did not do enough to encourage the working class into work, and those working class that did do the right thing got their wages kept low by foreign workers or if in the construction industry often under cut.
More rights and laws given to the EU so we can not change things on a national level by people elected by the people but instead have to go through europe. Europe that everyone could see was getting poorer, dd they try to increase trade with other areas of the world or keep us tied to the corrupt fudging stupid EU????
They also banned fox hunting and made people take things into their own hands
:-"undoubtedly it does, but is that all you see? the budget deficit / not putting anything away in the good times and personnel debt levels which have been blamed for the crisis in the last few posts are not the reason for the crisis, if they were then why didn't we plunge into crisis when the budget deficit was larger in 1994/95 under the tories?
in reality they're contributory factors which make the recovery all the more difficult, the real culprits are the banks, which is something that right wing zealots tend to forget when targeting low paid teachers trying to protect their pensions or civil servants trying to protect their jobs and livelihood etc.
obviously we need to make cuts to balance the books, but we also need the economy to grow i.e. take a top down bottom up approach to tackling the deficit, but the reason businesses aren't growing is because the banks are currently stuck between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they've been told they need to lend more money to business and on the other they're rightly being to told to recapitalise their balance sheets, two conflicting messages. we're essentially at gridlock, unfortunately the tory proclamation at the last election to cut and hope that the private sector magically pick up the slack was evidently flawed.
There's plenty of political ideologues out there in the media and blogosphere who like to point the finger at various issues and people and who also think they've got all the answers - cut more, spend more etc. but in my view both extremes are flawed, GDP takes into account government spending so cut more and you see a further slide into recession (which is what will happen in the US when the various stimulus packages they currently have expire) with the knock on effect of spooking the markets, increased borrowing costs and therefore a larger deficit. spend more and you again spook the markets who charge increased borrowing rates which results in a larger deficit. the only thing we can really do is tread water, as we are, and hope things improve, but unfortunately, in a globalised economy we're at the mercy of outside influences, just as we were in 2008.
Leeds Spur
Banned
The budget deficit was larger in 94/95?
This government should give a capital gains holiday on all capex for the next 2 years. Any news employees hired for the next 2 years shouldn't pay any NI or contributions.
Business is sat on a trillion pound cash pile they aren't spending, who can blame them? Given them an incentive to spend.
This government should give a capital gains holiday on all capex for the next 2 years. Any news employees hired for the next 2 years shouldn't pay any NI or contributions.
Business is sat on a trillion pound cash pile they aren't spending, who can blame them? Given them an incentive to spend.