Anyone got a spare 175 billion quid?

[1976_Child]

... if so be a darling and nip round to the Treasury and write them a cheque.

 

not sure I can face any more taxes.

 

Labour have bankrupted the country again. What a surprise.

[Saintandy666]

Not really... if that was so, no other country would be in a similar position but they are. This is a global recession, not much else can be done and our public debt is still much lower than most the G8 countries not that it makes it any better. The point is however, it isn't labours fault, it's testosterone filled bankers fault. On debt, Japan's is at 170%. Ours is 43%, though due to rise to 79% at its peak.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt - look at this(IMF sourced), right at the bottom of the G7 countries.

[1976_Child]

Not really... if that was so, no other country would be in a similar position but they are. This is a global recession, not much else can be done and our public debt is still much lower than most the G8 countries not that it makes it any better. The point is however, it isn't labours fault, it's testosterone filled bankers fault. On debt, Japan's is at 170%. Ours is 43%, though due to rise to 79% at its peak.

 

You are kidding right? Our deficit - 12% of GDP - is the HIGHEST in the developed world. You need to take those rose-tinted specs off mate. Britain is structurally unsound.

 

Oh and if you believe Darling's projected growth forecasts - on which all his borrowing figures are based - then you need therapy. There is not a snowball's chance of the economy growing at 3.5% the year after next. He reckons we will be growing at the end of this year. The IMF reckons not. They say we will continue to shrink next year by 0.4%. Darling reckons we will grow at 1.25%. It is all utter fantasy.

 

Oh, and also the borrowing figures do not include any PFI, bank-bailout asset protection money (which could potentially be 500 billion from just RBS and HBOS) or the mother of all calamities which is the rapidly changing demographics of the country. The state pension pot is almost completely empty. The country has historically low savings, house prices are still chronically over valued (only having retraced half of the bubble) and credit cards are maxed out. Almost all the 'growth' over the last decade came from the City and the consumer. The City is never going to get back to the way it was and the consumer is broke. Doesn't matter how much the government want us all to start buying useless crap we don't need, we aren't going to because we are skint.

 

No my Labour-loving friend, the country is not in good shape.

Edited 23 April, 2009 by 1976_Child

[bridge too far]

Here's an alternative:

 

We (the state) don't borrow any money.

 

Then we won't have to pay anywhere near so much in taxes.

 

The outcome of this will be:

 

1. Businesses will fail because there's no money to borrow / no guarantees in place to enable them to borrow.

 

2. Unemployment will grow very quickly to a very high level because the businesses have failed.

 

3. There will be a huge increase in the amount paid out in benefits.

 

4. Because unemployment becomes rife, people don't spend. A reduction in revenue from VAT will ensue together with even more business failure / unemployment.

 

4. Failing businesses will mean an end to revenues from income tax / corporation tax

 

So we'll end up with loads of unemployment and business failures and we will (as a state) pay for that how exactly?

 

It may be unpalatable, but the cost of not borrowing would be even more damaging to all of us than the cost of borrowing.

 

This is the conclusion that the majority of large economies in the world have come to, not just us.

[1976_Child]

Here's an alternative:

 

We (the state) don't borrow any money.

 

Then we won't have to pay anywhere near so much in taxes.

 

The outcome of this will be:

 

1. Businesses will fail because there's no money to borrow / no guarantees in place to enable them to borrow.

 

2. Unemployment will grow very quickly to a very high level because the businesses have failed.

 

3. There will be a huge increase in the amount paid out in benefits.

 

4. Because unemployment becomes rife, people don't spend. A reduction in revenue from VAT will ensue together with even more business failure / unemployment.

 

4. Failing businesses will mean an end to revenues from income tax / corporation tax

 

So we'll end up with loads of unemployment and business failures and we will (as a state) pay for that how exactly?

 

It may be unpalatable, but the cost of not borrowing would be even more damaging to all of us than the cost of borrowing.

 

This is the conclusion that the majority of large economies in the world have come to, not just us.

 

Great analysis, but a load of old bumkum.

 

Perhaps if we didn't expect the government to do everything for us - including wiping our back-sides then we would not need such levels of debt. Debt is never a good thing. Savings are. We have way too much of the former and absolutely none of the latter.

 

All the scenarios you lay out above will happen sooner or later when there is no one left to buy the bonds. There is only so much that China and the Sovereign wealth funds can soak up before they say no more thank you. And every western nation is now writing tonnes of bonds. The world is suddenly awash with bonds and no one in the will be buying. Believe me, in order to even have a hope of moving 220 billion of gilts this year the treasury will need to offer higher interest. They will certainly need to if the ratings agencies cut the AAA rating - which is very possible. Oh, and how ironic that the treasury will dispense with the auction system and instead move the bonds through a syndication process with -yes, you guessed it - the investment banks!

 

Good luck Britain, things are going to get a lot more ugly before they get better.

 

And then there is the spectre of inflation just around the corner. How tempting it would be to just inflate our way out of debt... just ask the Argentinians

 

(and don't even get me started on the way the chancellor casually tossed out that he expected the global economy to DOUBLE in twenty years!!!! Mentalist. That is not sustainable at all)

Edited 23 April, 2009 by 1976_Child

[Saintandy666]

You are kidding right? Our deficit - 12% of GDP - is the HIGHEST in the developed world. You need to take those rose-tinted specs off mate. Britain is structurally unsound.

 

Oh and if you believe Darling's projected growth forecasts - on which all his borrowing figures are based - then you need therapy. There is not a snowball's chance of the economy growing at 3.5% the year after next. He reckons we will be growing at the end of this year. The IMF reckons not. They say we will continue to shrink next year by 0.4%. Darling reckons we will grow at 1.25%. It is all utter fantasy.

 

Oh, and also the borrowing figures do not include any PFI, bank-bailout asset protection money (which could potentially be 500 billion from just RBS and HBOS) or the mother of all calamities which is the rapidly changing demographics of the country. The state pension pot is almost completely empty. The country has historically low savings, house prices are still chronically over valued (only having retraced half of the bubble) and credit cards are maxed out.

 

No my Labour-loving friend, the country is not in good shape.

 

Hey, I didn't say the country was in good shape, I just said we are in better shape as regard to public debt than other countries and I know we will recover. We will recover, and be as strong as before, until another 10-20 years and the next recession comes along. Half of this crisis is caused by mass panic and it didn't have to be as bad as this, but I guess we are in the first new media downturn.

 

The government is doing what is necessary to prevent a much worse outcome and higher taxes or not, it's the only way for the countries ecconomy to survive, like it or loathe it.

 

Also, I am not labour-loving, far from it, I can just see that the whole global recession is not Gordon Browns fault.

[1976_Child]

Hey, I didn't say the country was in good shape, I just said we are in better shape as regard to public debt than other countries and I know we will recover. We will recover, and be as strong as before, until another 10-20 years and the next recession comes along. Half of this crisis is caused by mass panic and it didn't have to be as bad as this, but I guess we are in the first new media downturn.

 

The government is doing what is necessary to prevent a much worse outcome and higher taxes or not, it's the only way for the countries ecconomy to survive, like it or loathe it.

 

Also, I am not labour-loving, far from it, I can just see that the whole global recession is not Gordon Browns fault.

 

Actually I think they are doing everything right to cause a MUCH bigger problem in the future. We have all become so used to everything ticking along nicely. I don't just mean the last 10 years, I mean since the end of the war. The one true constant in the history of human civilization is that things never stay the same for ever. Our 'wealth' and standard of living has been built upon two very false assumptions: first, that there will always be an infinite supply of cheap energy and second, that there we 'westerners' will always be able to consume at the expense of the less well off and that we can do so on credit. Neither of these two things has been around for longer than a century (and in the case of oil, really only 30 years of mass transit and aviation). Don't be so sure that things will always be the same!

 

In the case of global growth, when Darling flippantly says that the global economy will double in 20 years what he is in effect saying is that consumption of raw materials, food and energy will double. There is no growth without there being consumption somewhere. Even if you are talking about growing the service sector there is real consumption. So, it has taken human kind 4,000 years to reach the level of economic activity as we have today (measured in the number of person-to-person transactions) and we are going to DOUBLE it in just 20 years????

 

The biggest deficit the West has is a leadership deficit and primarily it is that the current crop of 'leaders' we have do not have the faintest idea of how powerful a force is the exponential function. Our whole world view is predicated on enjoying exponential growth while predicting linear consumption of resources. It is lunacy.

[Saintandy666]

Actually I think they are doing everything right to cause a MUCH bigger problem in the future. We have all become so used to everything ticking along nicely. I don't just mean the last 10 years, I mean since the end of the war. The one true constant in the history of human civilization is that things never stay the same for ever. Our 'wealth' and standard of living has been built upon two very false assumptions: first, that there will always be an infinite supply of cheap energy and second, that there we 'westerners' will always be able to consume at the expense of the less well off and that we can do so on credit. Neither of these two things has been around for longer than a century (and in the case of oil, really only 30 years of mass transit and aviation). Don't be so sure that things will always be the same!

 

In the case of global growth, when Darling flippantly says that the global economy will double in 20 years what he is in effect saying is that consumption of raw materials, food and energy will double. There is no growth without there being consumption somewhere. Even if you are talking about growing the service sector there is real consumption. So, it has taken human kind 4,000 years to reach the level of economic activity as we have today (measured in the number of person-to-person transactions) and we are going to DOUBLE it in just 20 years????

 

The biggest deficit the West has is a leadership deficit and primarily it is that the current crop of 'leaders' we have do not have the faintest idea of how powerful a force is the exponential function. Our whole world view is predicated on enjoying exponential growth while predicting linear consumption of resources. It is lunacy.

 

Ahhhhh, yes, but I believe everything will come to an abrupt halt when the cheap energy goes unless we developemnt renewable resource. I meant for the immediate next cycle. I think we will recover as strong as before, but we will be more on par with asia.

 

However, another train of thought of mine(the apocalyptic side), is that as resources become scarce, the first thing that will go will be democracy as governments reign in on survival, then the wars will start over the little resource with have, America and then the western world and then rest of the world afterwards will collapse and we will be forced to near extinction because of nuclear war before rising up again, at much more sustainable levels Bit of a tangent there but scary 50-100 years ahead guys, theres simply too many of us in this world.

[Johnny Bognor]

Here's an alternative:

 

We (the state) don't borrow any money.

 

Then we won't have to pay anywhere near so much in taxes.

 

The outcome of this will be:

 

1. Businesses will fail because there's no money to borrow / no guarantees in place to enable them to borrow.

 

2. Unemployment will grow very quickly to a very high level because the businesses have failed.

 

3. There will be a huge increase in the amount paid out in benefits.

 

4. Because unemployment becomes rife, people don't spend. A reduction in revenue from VAT will ensue together with even more business failure / unemployment.

 

4. Failing businesses will mean an end to revenues from income tax / corporation tax

 

So we'll end up with loads of unemployment and business failures and we will (as a state) pay for that how exactly?

 

It may be unpalatable, but the cost of not borrowing would be even more damaging to all of us than the cost of borrowing.

 

This is the conclusion that the majority of large economies in the world have come to, not just us.

 

Here's an alternative, why not save for a rainy day in the good times, so you don't have to borrow when the **** hits the fan

[Saint Martini]

Here's an alternative, why not save for a rainy day in the good times, so you don't have to borrow when the **** hits the fan

 

Good idea, lets start with that 15 years ago.....

[bridge too far]

Here's an alternative, why not save for a rainy day in the good times, so you don't have to borrow when the **** hits the fan

 

Some of the national debt has been paid off in the past few years.

 

Here's an interesting fact: After the end of WWII, our national debt was 150% of our GDP!

[Mole]

Gordon Brown made this mess.

 

He's a clueless Socialist cretin that taxed and spent through the good times and left nothing left for a rainy day.

 

A typical Socialist.

[Mole]

Some of the national debt has been paid off in the past few years.

 

Here's an interesting fact: After the end of WWII, our national debt was 150% of our GDP!

 

And your point is?

[bridge too far]

And your point is?

 

It's not a point, it's a fact.

[Mole]

It's not a point, it's a fact.

 

And it's also a fact that the said debt was accrued due to fighting in a world war for 6 years with the very existence of our sovereignty in doubt. So what's comrade Browns excuse?

[bridge too far]

And it's also a fact that the said debt was accrued due to fighting in a world war for 6 years with the very existence of our sovereignty in doubt. So what's comrade Browns excuse?

 

It just goes to show that, even with that level of debt, this country recovered.

 

I don't know what GB's excuse is. However, he might well say that, along with every other major economy in the world, we have had to increase our national debt to deal with the recession.

 

As has already been pointed out, our national debt as a % of GDP is less than many other major economies and even the IMF reckons we'll be better able to recover than many others.

[Draino76]

... if so be a darling and nip round to the Treasury and write them a cheque.

 

not sure I can face any more taxes.

 

Labour have bankrupted the country again. What a surprise.

 

I know, I knew this would happen in 1997. I wish we could retrieve the old saints board so I could drag up my old fred. Anyhoo, we're here now. The times had a decent pie chart on what the gov is spending our cash on. 10% was job seekers allowance payments.

If that was cut in half to £30/week, UKPLC would save £11 billion. There you go, on my journey to work I saved the country £11 billion. Not bad eh?

[1976_Child]

It just goes to show that, even with that level of debt, this country recovered.

 

I don't know what GB's excuse is. However, he might well say that, along with every other major economy in the world, we have had to increase our national debt to deal with the recession.

 

As has already been pointed out, our national debt as a % of GDP is less than many other major economies and even the IMF reckons we'll be better able to recover than many others.

 

******. sorry mate, you have obviously swallowed the nuLabour lies and spin with out even chewing. The government's figure of national debt does not include many off-balance sheet items such as PFI underwriting and the bank asset insurance scheme. If companies hid £500 billion of liabilities from their accounts they would be prosecuted.

 

And even if our national debt was lower than other countries that neither makes it morally right, economically right or that we are in a 'stronger' position.

 

By the way, the IMF completely disagrees with Darling's growth forecasts. Give me one economist who agrees with him. None does. The ultimate debt burden is heading north very rapidly and our children will be paying it off for ages.

 

It is morally reprehensible to put the next generation into so much debt with out even asking them and then also expect them to work their back-sides off and have a lower standard of living so that they can pay for our past consumption and also pay the boomers retirement cheques.

[TheCholulaKid]

******. sorry mate, you have obviously swallowed the nuLabour lies and spin with out even chewing. The government's figure of national debt does not include many off-balance sheet items such as PFI underwriting and the bank asset insurance scheme. If companies hid £500 billion of liabilities from their accounts they would be prosecuted.

 

And even if our national debt was lower than other countries that neither makes it morally right, economically right or that we are in a 'stronger' position.

 

By the way, the IMF completely disagrees with Darling's growth forecasts. Give me one economist who agrees with him. None does. The ultimate debt burden is heading north very rapidly and our children will be paying it off for ages.

 

It is morally reprehensible to put the next generation into so much debt with out even asking them and then also expect them to work their back-sides off and have a lower standard of living so that they can pay for our past consumption and also pay the boomers retirement cheques.

 

Sooooo tiresome and predictable blaming Labour. This whole greedy debacle started under the Tories and was continued by Labour. So, stop making out it's all Labour's fault. The Tories are just as guilty. And to be honest most of the population are just as guilty - greedy ****s - big TV, big car, big house....**** knows how we'll pay for it..doesn't matter...must buy more because I'm spiritually bankrupt and shiny things (don't really) make me feel better. People need to grow up and stop blaming the governments for everything.

 

And any idiot that still accuses Labour of being socialist is just a ****ing moron (that'll be you then, Stanley).

[bridge too far]

That'll be the PFI that the Tories introduced in the 90s then. And before you argue, yes they did. I was working on a PFI scheme in 97, just before the election. We were about to go to Financial Close and had to have a moratorium on the deal because of the General Election.

 

As a socialist, I've always been opposed to PFI and it will die in the water now as the financiers won't be able to make a killing by renegotiating their deals to a lower interest rate.

 

Greedy bankers, tch.

[1976_Child]

Sooooo tiresome and predictable blaming Labour. This whole greedy debacle started under the Tories and was continued by Labour. So, stop making out it's all Labour's fault. The Tories are just as guilty. And to be honest most of the population are just as guilty - greedy ****s - big TV, big car, big house....**** knows how we'll pay for it..doesn't matter...must buy more because I'm spiritually bankrupt and shiny things (don't really) make me feel better. People need to grow up and stop blaming the governments for everything.

 

And any idiot that still accuses Labour of being socialist is just a ****ing moron (that'll be you then, Stanley).

 

sorry, then who should we blame for the mess the country is in? Obviously in your fantasy make-believe world the government of the day (or in Labour's case, 12 years) are not in any way responsible for the policy decisions they make?

 

Yeah. That's right. Blame it on the Tories. They are the real culprits. Have you not realised yet that the Tories lost power in 1997????

 

(I'm no Tory apologist by the way, but to even try and blame them for this mess is just mentally ill)

[1976_Child]

That'll be the PFI that the Tories introduced in the 90s then. And before you argue, yes they did. I was working on a PFI scheme in 97, just before the election. We were about to go to Financial Close and had to have a moratorium on the deal because of the General Election.

 

As a socialist, I've always been opposed to PFI and it will die in the water now as the financiers won't be able to make a killing by renegotiating their deals to a lower interest rate.

 

Greedy bankers, tch.

 

and your point? I'm not sure I tried to land it on the present mob. I just pointed out that it is not included on the balance sheet of the country is all.

I totally agree that PFI is morally reprehensible. Especially when the Ministers who sign off on the deals then end up on the board of the company running the bloody project. (and both tory and labour are guilty there)

[bridge too far]

According to this article:

 

http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/features/features/is-this-the-end-of-pfi-1887.html

 

4th sentence down:

 

Changes to the international accounting standards will force it to bring £30bn of PFI liabilities onto the public balance sheet from 2009 to 2010

 

I don't know if this has appeared in the Red Book - I imagine it will since this applies to the current financial year. If that's the case, then the argument that PFI is off balance is now untrue.

[Johnny Bognor]

And any idiot that still accuses Labour of being socialist is just a ****ing moron (that'll be you then, Stanley).

 

Well since 99% of socialists voted for this shower of ****e, Labour are the political representatives of the socialists. Had they not have backed Labour, we might not have been in the mess we are now. So I blame the socialists.

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

Edited 23 April, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Well since 99% of socialists voted for this shower of ****e, they are the political representatives of the socialists. Had they not have backed Labour, we might not have been in the mess we are now. So I blame the socialists.

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

 

Source?

 

I'm a socialist - I voted for this party because it was the best on offer.

 

Anything was preferable to the previous shower of ****e, that's for sure. You bet your sweet life we would have been in this mess had the Conservatives been returned, just as other economies, most of them 'conservative' are.

[1976_Child]

According to this article:

 

http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/features/features/is-this-the-end-of-pfi-1887.html

 

4th sentence down:

 

Changes to the international accounting standards will force it to bring £30bn of PFI liabilities onto the public balance sheet from 2009 to 2010

 

I don't know if this has appeared in the Red Book - I imagine it will since this applies to the current financial year. If that's the case, then the argument that PFI is off balance is now untrue.

 

good find. but I am certain that the PFI is NOT on this red book. Admittedly I have only had 24 hours but I can't find it, and no commentators have picked up on it. Also the ONS recently criticized the treasury on precisely this issue.

[Weston Super Saint]

I heard it was going to be paid off by 2032.

 

Since that was over 2 hours ago we should be high and dry now shouldn't we

[Johnny Bognor]

Source?

 

I'm a socialist - I voted for this party because it was the best on offer.

 

Anything was preferable to the previous shower of ****e, that's for sure. You bet your sweet life we would have been in this mess had the Conservatives been returned, just as other economies, most of them 'conservative' are.

 

 

If you believe in taxing the well off to help the poor....then read this.

 

The general election of 1841 was won by the Conservatives with Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister. Although he had opposed income tax, an empty Exchequer and a growing deficit gave rise to the surprise return of the tax in his 1842 Budget. Peel sought only to tax those with incomes above £150, and he reduced customs duties on 750 articles out of a total number taxed of 1,200. The less wealthy benefited, and trade revived as a consequence. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis2.htm

 

So the concept of taxing the rich to benefit the poor was in fact invented by the Conservatives, some 60 years before the Labour party was even born. Socialists generally forget about this very important fact, so if you believe in the principle (as I do), then you are very much a traditional Conservative.

 

As to the current shower of ****e, they have been wasting (sorry, that's spending to you or you would probably call it investing) billions of taxpayers money and borrowed monies. They had the perfect opportunity to save for a rainy day, but they didn't. This means that Government debt will be 400% more than it was in 1997 by the year 2012.

 

Nice one G Brown!

 

Go Labour! Socialism Rocks!

[1976_Child]

Source?

 

I'm a socialist - I voted for this party because it was the best on offer.

 

Anything was preferable to the previous shower of ****e, that's for sure. You bet your sweet life we would have been in this mess had the Conservatives been returned, just as other economies, most of them 'conservative' are.

 

Are you a proper old fashioned socialist of the immediate post-war era or a modern-day lay-about nuLabour kind?

 

The first kind would NEVER allow fit young men to lie around on benefits. They believed in hard work and sweat, not hand outs. To them the idea of the welfare state was a safety net, not a career choice. They also had very puritanical attitudes to debt and the 'buy now, pay later' society.

 

Nothing needs to be said about the modern day 'socialist'. They believe that an ever shrinking private sector should continually feed, house and provide health care for a growing base of indolent, lazy slobs who didn't bother in school and feel that the world owes them a living.

 

I suspect that you are a proper socialist of the first kind, and I can totally respect that. I prefer a more decentralized local form of government and as such could never support a political ideology which continual seeks to accrue more and more power and control into the center.

[bungle]

This government is pretty damned crap, but they are still better than the f*cking Tories.

[1976_Child]

This government is pretty damned crap, but they are still better than the f*cking Tories.

 

this government is not just pretty damned crap they are the worst most hideously corrupt, incompetent, spiteful, vindictive, sinister utterly treacherous shower of sh!te that has ever been in power in this country at any time since the dawn of time.

 

The Damian McBride affair optimizes the New Labour project. Frankly, I wish there was an alternative to the Tories but realistically there isn't, so I must be honest: I would rather Cameron was in power than the current fascist, greedy, corrupt swine. He certainly could be no worse. Perhaps not a whole bunch better, but it would not be possible to be worse.

[Mr Tickle]

With a user name of "1976 Child" I am assuming you are actually in your 30's and not of lesser years of which you appear to be portraying?

 

If so Tory boy what was your mummy & daddy doing in the recessions during the Conservative Government? I am sure a nice little job a million miles away from the working class?

 

F u c k off with you lisp like permutations and remove your head from your ass!

[TheCholulaKid]

sorry, then who should we blame for the mess the country is in? Obviously in your fantasy make-believe world the government of the day (or in Labour's case, 12 years) are not in any way responsible for the policy decisions they make?

 

Yeah. That's right. Blame it on the Tories. They are the real culprits. Have you not realised yet that the Tories lost power in 1997????

 

(I'm no Tory apologist by the way, but to even try and blame them for this mess is just mentally ill)

 

Look around you, mate. That's who you should be blaming. The vast majority of people who think about their bank balances first.

 

The sad fact is that the reason ANY government gets in to power is because the people who vote them in believe that they'll be better off financially for it.

 

If you read my post properly (which I'm sure you did) you'll notice that I didn't absolve Labour of any blame I just said blaming them entirely is blinkered.

[1976_Child]

With a user name of "1976 Child" I am assuming you are actually in your 30's and not of lesser years of which you appear to be portraying?

 

If so Tory boy what was your mummy & daddy doing in the recessions during the Conservative Government? I am sure a nice little job a million miles away from the working class?

 

F u c k off with you lisp like permutations and remove your head from your ass!

 

My Daddy was fighting the IRA in Belfast and my Mummy was struggling to earn a decent wage as a junior nurse to keep me and my brother fed during the late 70s/ early 80s.

 

Its just too ****ing easy to have a pop isn't it matey...

 

****.

 

Further Edit:

 

No doubt I shouldn't re-respond to your cretinous post but **** you any way. My parents worked their ****ing hides off for me. No ****ing 'Tory Boy silver spoon' for me. So **** you. Idiot.

Edited 24 April, 2009 by 1976_Child