Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Eeternaloptimist
01 Mar 11 23:33
Joined:
Date Joined: 28 Jun 10
| Topic/replies: 38,236 | Blogger: Eeternaloptimist's blog
Anybody any idea? Obviously not the left because they never have.

Just to remind people this was at a time when the economy had been growing since the mid 90's, when the bubbles were being furiously blown up by Gormless Clown, when he was busy letting millions flood into the country and when he was busy hiking taxes and inventing countless new ones.

So how much do you think he borrowed at a time when his old mucka Keynes suggested that you should be paying your debts off?

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 156
By:
wykhamist2
When: 01 Mar 11 23:41
Its not only the debt. You also have take into account PFI, which is not part of the figures. Also they let public sector salaries get way too high at the top which is not something you can cut quickly.

Labour really had a scorched earth policy. Cutting bits and bobs off the budget now really won't fix the problem.
By:
Eeternaloptimist
When: 01 Mar 11 23:49
Agree with all that. For the record the figure for net borrowing in that period was just shy of £200 billion. Obviously if all the fiddles were added in it would balloon. I just find it staggering that at a time when an economy was growing for about 8 years, when you have put various taxes up and invented new ones and all the other wheezes he came out with that he could have been consistently borrowing such large amounts of money.

Totally and utterly fiscally incontinent and incompetent. The frightening thing is that his bag man has just been promoted to Shadow Chancellor. The same man who ran for the leadership on the Viv Nicholson ticket of spend, spend, spend.
By:
Whippet
When: 02 Mar 11 00:06
Well over £1 trillion.
By:
mr winkle
When: 02 Mar 11 00:49
£70, from me
By:
cheese
When: 02 Mar 11 01:28
Horrible waste of money, all that expenditure on schools and hospitals...if only it hadn't been "wasted"....
By:
sideline
When: 02 Mar 11 07:29
Brown and Blair used, spent, wasted, handed-out, squandered more tax payers money, in their twelve years in power, than all the governments of these Islands U.K /G.B (call it what you want) collectively spent since 1605 and that includes the cost of two World war's and all the wars since 1605. Britain finished paying the cost of W.W.2 in 1996. we Brits as a country were war debt free in 1997. Now look at us, we are now paying for Blair and Browns War onSad the people of this Country.
Brown and Blair should be brought to answer for their corruptions off power.

Rot in hell
By:
ribber
When: 02 Mar 11 08:23
Well, since the Tories pledged to match Labour spending in every one of these years (and seem content to let almost all Labour's PFI contracts stand), they must have a rough idea.
The Libdems wanted to spend more, so ask them what they would have borrowed, then knock 10% off.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 09:07
Think the Tories pledged to match spending because they realised how utterly stupid the electorate is.  What can they do with the general peabrains at the ballot box?
By:
ClayDavis
When: 02 Mar 11 09:27
I think Britain had the second lowest Budget Deficit of the G8 going into the financial crisis. I stand corrected on this one. But I'm pretty sure this is correct
By:
ClayDavis
When: 02 Mar 11 09:31
The right wingers constantly go on about PFI contracts and future pensions. They haven't a clue what our debt would be if these were included into the UK'S debt. P.S I'll give them a clue. It would still be lower than Japan's debt. If you add Bank bailouts, PFI and future pensions, we would still have lower debt as % of GDP than America.
They don't like facts getting in the way of a good rant
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 09:32
Ribber 08.23 - spot on.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 09:58
"The right wingers constantly go on about PFI contracts and future pensions. They haven't a clue what our debt would be if these were included into the UK'S debt. P.S I'll give them a clue. It would still be lower than Japan's debt. If you add Bank bailouts, PFI and future pensions, we would still have lower debt as % of GDP than America."

LMAO  Laugh  Lets have your figures for this then or are you just talking bollox?
By:
ClayDavis
When: 02 Mar 11 10:05
off the top of my head - according to IFS - if u include PFI and pensions our debt would be 100% of GDP - if you include bank bailouts and bank guarantees it would 175% of GDP.
I think Japan's debt is something like 108% of GDP just now.
Italy's is fairly horrific also.
America's is 72% of GDP but again if u added everything into the equation it would be nearly 200%
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 10:13
source?
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 10:17
According to False Economy, 6p in the £ of spending is going on debt repayment now, compared to 8p in 1996. It is lower than most years since WW2.

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

Anyone care to debunk their figures?
By:
Doob
When: 02 Mar 11 10:26
Do we all just google everything, find a website that shows figures that we like and believe it as gospel?
Does anyone on here know anything about economics? Because I don't.
By:
Dr Crippen
When: 02 Mar 11 10:29
Of course the lower debt repayment is due to lower interest rates.
Brown always stressed that the time to borrow was when interest rates were low.
By:
ClayDavis
When: 02 Mar 11 10:32
Java - if u read my reply I said IFS.
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 10:36
Doob - how about debunking them rather than bitching?

Afaik, False Economy are quoting the IFS and National Office of Statistics.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 10:38
So where are the figures you are referring to Clay?  Or are you just making them up and saying "IFS" to justify them?
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 10:39
golfjudge - so debt repayment has gone down 25% according to your site.   How much have interest rates dropped since 1996?
By:
Doob
When: 02 Mar 11 10:43
golfjudge, it was not a post just about you.
It's a very complicated subject and statistics can easily be skewed to miss out important information (such as PFI).

I personally don't understand economics and it annoys me when other people who blatantly don't understand it either present these websites as definite proof that we are rich/massively in debt!
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 10:46
Java - what difference does that make? The govt's argument is that 'we can't carry on like this'. Well if these stats are true and I await someone debunking them, history shows that unless the cost of borrowing rises, we can.

The interest rate levels are what determine people's borrowing. My debt repayments are bigger in cash terms now than they were in 1996, but I'm far better off. It doesn't mean I was irresponsible to take out a mortgage.
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 10:50
Doob - that site is saying neither of those things. It is saying that the govt's approach is wrong, and using historical analysis to justify their argument.

I agree with them, but then I would because I largely agree with Keynesian economics, and have never bought into neo-liberalism/Thatcherism/Reaganomics/voodoo economics.

The experiment is about to start. March 31st, when those local govt budgets get butchered. We'll see who's right.
By:
Doob
When: 02 Mar 11 10:53
And anyway False Economy is a left wing website, it's like a right winger using something from The Taxpayers Alliance to justify cutting spending!
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 10:54
To repeat, if you disagree, debunk them. Show us where these figures are false.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:02
Jeez GolfJudge.  Think about it like this - someone takes out 5 mortgages at 1% floating and can just about afford to repay them.  What happens to that person if rates rise 5%?

Do you see why we are saying we can't go on like this!???
By:
Doob
When: 02 Mar 11 11:02
I cannot debunk figures if I don't know where they got them from. I can't find anywhere on that site where it links or refers to official figures on debt.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:02
"The interest rate levels are what determine people's borrowing"

So your argument is that the government should spend MORE because interest rates are currently so low??  Laugh
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:04
"The experiment is about to start. March 31st, when those local govt budgets get butchered. We'll see who's right. "

As I always say (which the lefties never have an answer for) lets get the local govt to state which services/salaries they are KEEPING before they bleat about the libraries/daycare centres they have decided to close.  Lets see what those councils are prioritising eh?
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 11:06
Jeez GolfJudge.  Think about it like this - someone takes out 5 mortgages at 1% floating and can just about afford to repay them.  What happens to that person if rates rise 5%?

Do you see why we are saying we can't go on like this!???


But that isn't what happened. And if it was, why were Dave and Gideon happy to go along with it till 2007?

If you want to find out Annual Debt Repayment as a % of GDP, I'm quite sure the government publishes them, along with the IFS and NSO. By all means come back and debunk FE's figures.

What these figures suggest was that, after 17 years of a Tory govt, they felt it was sustainable for 8% of public spending to go on debt repayment. Was this the golden Tory economic legacy?
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:07
"why were Dave and Gideon happy to go along with it till 2007? "

Because the British electorate are amongst the stupidest in the world (just behind the Greeks)_
By:
Tucho
When: 02 Mar 11 11:22
i like how anybody who isn't a right wing extremist must be an idiot
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:24
I've had a quick look at your left wing site golfjudge and surely the below statement they make is garbage:

"Yes, it's costing more to pay back our debt and it's going up.
But it's lower than most years since the second world war. Just 6p in every pound of spending went on paying off debt last year, compared to 8p in 1996."

On a personal level - lets say I earn £5k a month and spend everything, if I take out a credit card running up a debt of 10k, and pay back £500 a month, then I am using 10% of my total expediture on debt repayments.

In year 2 things are a bit tighter, and I reduce to minimum repayment of £250 a month.

Wow - my % of spend on debt repayments have reduced from 10% to 5%.  I must be doing better according to this website. 

Total rubbish.
By:
madasahatter
When: 02 Mar 11 11:29
According to False Economy, 6p in the £ of spending is going on debt repayment now, compared to 8p in 1996. It is lower than most years since WW2.

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

Anyone care to debunk their figures?


I am really begining to despair - sigh!!

The pressing problem for this country is not debt it is the structural current account deficit.  Trawling over the entrails of recent economic numbers is just analysis being used as ground bait for fishermen.  The burning issue today is a plan to get us out of the structural deficit.
By:
ribber
When: 02 Mar 11 11:36
"why were Dave and Gideon happy to go along with it till 2007? "

Because the British electorate are amongst the stupidest in the world (just behind the Greeks)_


So an electorate believes what a dishonest party tells them and its their fault?

BTW Bertie Wooster & Gussie Fink-Nottle (mendaciously apparently) pledged to match Labour spending all the way to Nov. 2008, some way into the recession.
By:
golfjudge
When: 02 Mar 11 11:38
On a personal level - lets say I earn £5k a month and spend everything, if I take out a credit card running up a debt of 10k, and pay back £500 a month, then I am using 10% of my total expediture on debt repayments.

In year 2 things are a bit tighter, and I reduce to minimum repayment of £250 a month.


As I'm sure you're aware, individual finances are wholly different to national finances, because individuals tend to have a very close idea of income, which remains steady. The govt's tax take rises and falls sharply depending on wider economic performance that is basically impossible to predict.

For a govt, a deficit can increase or decrease markedly without anyone predicting it, due to outside factors like finding NSO, the creation of the internet, or indeed fallout from credit default swaps.

Wow - my % of spend on debt repayments have reduced from 10% to 5%.  I must be doing better according to this website.

Not a case of saying 'we're doing better'. Its saying that if it was sustainable then, its sustainable now. That doesn't mean you don't pay off more when meaningful growth arrives and tax take increases.

If your new debt schedule was indeed irresponsible and unsustainable, your lender wouldn't have it, and the costs of your borrowing would increase. Like Greece. That doesn't apply to the UK, hence the longer maturity and lower cost of our debt.
By:
pedrobob
When: 02 Mar 11 11:48
pretty obvious what the Blair/Brown plan was all along.

Get into power.
Bankrupt the country.
Mass unemployment.
Empty the food shelves on the supermarket.
People revolution.

Voila. Communist state.

Dirty scheming Reds.
By:
Java
When: 02 Mar 11 11:56
I have no idea from your post what you mean or what your point is. Plain
Page 1 of 4  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com