Almost £4b more in cuts coming in the budget.

[I1L2T3 10]

They can't win in your eyes, if they cut spending to save money you moan, if they don't save money you moan. What exactly do you want them to do, spend less and save or spend more and increase the deficit.

 

I don't know where this idea of saving money has come from. British governments have rarely done it or planned for it. Just seems like a convenient stick to beat Brown with.

[ricgem2002 11]

I'm getting 3% from Santander and 4.5% from AIB. With inflation running at zero or thereabouts that's rather a good return.

yes I see that im allright jack mentality oozing out of you lady

[foxy lady 10]

yes I see that im allright jack mentality oozing out of you lady

 

I'm doing OK thanks. It is even better knowing it clearly chokes you off.:hihi:

[I1L2T3 10]

We have a reduced (and reducing) deficit, therefore spare capacity to borrow for emergency coping.

He's planned for it by getting a lid on the deficit bootstrapped by the previous administration to cope with the 2008 crisis.

 

He's not put money aside because (i) there isn't any to be saved whilst the country still has a deficit and (ii) he has done the lid thing whilst cushioning the country socio-economic base (such as e.g. spending that £27bn): we haven't had "austerity", by any objective measure.

 

If you have difficulty comprehending what "austerity" really is, ask the Greeks: in the GDP/debt ratio stakes, the UK and Greece started more or less peg level in 2008. Compare and contrast in 2016. Now they are a complete mess, I'll grant you that.

By all accounts, much more of a clue than Brown and Darling.

 

For a start, he seems to understand that, on the one hand, magic money trees don't actually exist and, on the other hand, public spending cannot be cut severely overnight if the country is achieve and husband any measure of economic growth (precisely why he hasn't cut public spending severely overnight, such that the deficit is taking an age longer to bring down).

 

Thanks for the effort in posting but you failed in the first sentence.

 

We have a reduced deficit compared to the one caused by emergency spending in 2009-10.

 

But our deficit immediately prior to the 2008 crash was 40bn. It is almost double that now, 88bn in 2014-15.

 

That, categorically, is not a better position to be in. Then you have to add on the unburst property bubble, the record levels of consumer debt, the facts that we have limited leverage with QE and with interest rates, the issues in other economies, and that Osborne has let the banks off the hook and we have a pretty toxic brew.

 

We are in a worse state to weather what is coming. Most of it was manageable but it is probably too late.

[foxy lady 10]

Thanks for the effort in posting but you failed in the first sentence.

 

We have a reduced deficit compared to the one caused by emergency spending in 2009-10.

 

But our deficit immediately prior to the 2008 crash was 40bn. It is almost double that now, 88bn in 2014-15.

 

That, categorically, is not a better position to be in. Then you have to add on the unburst property bubble, the record levels of consumer debt, the facts that we have limited leverage with QE and with interest rates, the issues in other economies, and that Osborne has let the banks off the hook and we have a pretty toxic brew.

 

We are in a worse state to weather what is coming. Most of it was manageable but it is probably too late.

 

Have you noticed when the emergency crews turn out to a car crash? It takes them rather longer to clear up the mess than it took some idiot to cause it.

 

The first £30 billion we collect in taxes now is used to pay the interest on the debts. So that is 3 times what it was before Gordon Brown crashed the country.

Edited March 18, 2016 by foxy lady

[Bargepole23 337]

I'm getting 3% from Santander and 4.5% from AIB. With inflation running at zero or thereabouts that's rather a good return.

 

Which AIB account is it, if you don't mind me asking? I can only have two Santander 123's, and would be nice to put something into a 4.5% account.

[sutty27 10]

Thanks for the effort in posting but you failed in the first sentence.

 

We have a reduced deficit compared to the one caused by emergency spending in 2009-10.

 

But our deficit immediately prior to the 2008 crash was 40bn. It is almost double that now, 88bn in 2014-15.

 

That, categorically, is not a better position to be in. Then you have to add on the unburst property bubble, the record levels of consumer debt, the facts that we have limited leverage with QE and with interest rates, the issues in other economies, and that Osborne has let the banks off the hook and we have a pretty toxic brew.

 

We are in a worse state to weather what is coming. Most of it was manageable but it is probably too late.

 

That's half the deficit they inherited from labour, In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was in balance, no deficit and 13 year later they left a deficit of £156 Billion.

[I1L2T3 10]

Have you noticed when the emergency crews turn out to a car crash? It takes them rather longer to clear up the mess than it took some idiot to cause it.

 

The first £30 billion we collect in taxes now is used to pay the interest on the debts. So that is 3 times what it was before Gordon Brown crashed the country.

 

How much is the interest on all the debt Osborne has added?

 

---------- Post added 18-03-2016 at 13:21 ----------

 

That's half the deficit they inherited from labour, In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was in balance, no deficit and 13 year later they left a deficit of £156 Billion.

 

The deficit went from 40bn to 160bn in under 2 years due to the crisis.

 

Osborne took over in 2010 pledging to eliminate the deficit by 2015. In 2014-15 he borrowed 88bn

 

Our current level of borrowing is higher than in 2008 at a point where we are supposed to be in surplus. In 2014-15 Osbone borrowed £1350 for every person in the country when he was supposed to be borrowing nothing.

 

Quite a mess.

[sgtkate 10]

That's half the deficit they inherited from labour, In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was in balance, no deficit and 13 year later they left a deficit of £156 Billion.

 

Both sides can use figures to show they are right. Labour can argue debt is higher, and the Tories can argue deficit is lower. Both are correct.

[ricgem2002 11]

That's half the deficit they inherited from labour, In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was in balance, no deficit and 13 year later they left a deficit of £156 Billion.

this says you are wrong In an analysis published by the Treasury in 1999, Labour characterised its inheritance from the Conservatives as follows:

"On arrival in office in 1997 the Government was faced with a large structural fiscal deficit, low net investment, rising public debt and falling public sector net worth. Urgent action was needed. This situation had come about in part as a result of a lack of clear and transparent fiscal objectives, together with fiscal reporting that did not permit full and effective public and Parliamentary scrutiny. The Government therefore took steps to implement a new framework for fiscal policy".4

[nightrider 13]

this says you are wrong In an analysis published by the Treasury in 1999, Labour characterised its inheritance from the Conservatives as follows:

"On arrival in office in 1997 the Government was faced with a large structural fiscal deficit, low net investment, rising public debt and falling public sector net worth. Urgent action was needed. This situation had come about in part as a result of a lack of clear and transparent fiscal objectives, together with fiscal reporting that did not permit full and effective public and Parliamentary scrutiny. The Government therefore took steps to implement a new framework for fiscal policy".4

 

This graph shows we moved from deficit to surplus around 97-98:

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

 

so it does seem (if the graph is right - google images seems to show many graphs all showing this behaviour though) the deficit went to zero around then, followed by a few years of surplus and then a skyrocketing deficit (this is as a fraction of GDP, not absolute). Lots of interesting information here too:

 

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-big-is-the-problem

 

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/whats-the-best-way-to-reduce-the-deficit

Edited March 18, 2016 by nightrider

[L00b 441]

Thanks for the effort in posting but you failed in the first sentence.

Did I now?

 

Then how come you immediately follow the above with:

We have a reduced deficit compared to the one caused by emergency spending in 2009-10.

Now isn't that exactly what I said in my first sentence?

 

Now about:

That, categorically, is not a better position to be in. Then you have to add on the unburst property bubble, the record levels of consumer debt, the facts that we have limited leverage with QE and with interest rates, the issues in other economies, and that Osborne has let the banks off the hook and we have a pretty toxic brew.

 

We are in a worse state to weather what is coming. Most of it was manageable but it is probably too late.

and:

How much is the interest on all the debt Osborne has added?

Personally, I'd have rather had Osbourne get the shock paddles out and run proper austerity, scorched earth and starving people in the street and all, to reset the economical and financial counters soonest on a clean base, rather than the soft landing and gradual take-off approach he's adopted, and the reason for which the UK has been dragging this deficit and interest on it like a ball and chain...but also the reason for which the UK is bouncing back better and faster than the rest. His policy has been, from day one and still, cashflow husbanding and management. Mine would have been bankruptcy and phoenixing in 2010.

 

But then, I was ready and prepared for it (full-on "I'm alright Jack" mode...or maybe schadenfreude, I'm not sure which - bite me either way, see if I care). And I'd have slept at night. Like a baby, because I'm way too cynical for my own good, and I certainly can be callous that way when the circumstances call for it.

 

Would you have slept at night? Honest answer, or don't bother.

 

Beyond that, I put above what I'd have done, were I in Osbourne's shoes. Now, what would you have done in Osbourne's shoes?

 

"la critique est aisée, mais l'art est difficile" Philippe Néricault, XVIIIth century. [ND: the criticism is easy, the art is difficult]

Edited March 18, 2016 by L00b