The politicians of today are an insult to you and me

[TJC1]

I see it.

They're not the actual figures and they're rather misleading.

 

I think they may have converted all the older figures into 2013-14 equivalents. So they don't actually mean the government spent £738.7 billion in 2010-11, they mean that if you adjust the actual figure for that year to account for inflation, it would be equivalent to that in 2013-2014 £.

 

I can't figure out what figure they're using for inflation. There are several inflation measures as I'm sure you know.

Still even using these figures the spending pattern from 2010 to 2014 is pretty flat. Perhaps an overall drop of 1% over 4 years. Hardly devastating.

 

I can't work out what they mean by "Real terms figures based on ONS GDP data as of 10 October 2014." If real terms means accounting for inflation, why base it on GDP data. It's quite confusing.

 

Have they included the bank bailout money? I can't tell what's going on. I'll try to find a government page with the raw figures in it.

 

Its confusing the issue. If I had a few hours I could look into real terms figures.

[unbeliever]

I think I've sussed it.

 

To correct older years' spending to 2013-2014 money, they've used a "GDP Deflator" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator). This is kind of a cost of living adjustment, close to an alternative measure of inflation, different from the CPI and RPI usually used for this.

So it is honest, but it's hard to interpret clearly.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:38 ----------

 

Its confusing the issue. If I had a few hours I could look into real terms figures.

 

I can't accept this. Surely if spending has been cut only slightly, or not at all when one corrects for inflation; then all this talk of drastic cuts is bull.

 

It's certainly very clear that in cash terms, spending has risen every year. Whether this constitutes a rise or fall in "real terms" depends very much on whether you think "real terms" means as a percentage of GDP or corrected for inflation, and furthermore on which inflation measure you use.

 

Have a look at this document.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/446716/50600_PESA_2015_PRINT.pdf

There are a few interesting tables starting on page 18 which make the ambiguity very clear.

Edited August 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[TJC1]

I think I've sussed it.

 

To correct older years' spending to 2013-2014 money, they've used a "GDP Deflator" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator). This is kind of a cost of living adjustment, close to an alternative measure of inflation, different from the CPI and RPI usually used for this.

So it is honest, but it's hard to interpret clearly.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:38 ----------

 

 

I can't accept this. Surely if spending has been cut only slightly, or not at all when one corrects for inflation; then all this talk of drastic cuts is bull.

 

It's certainly very clear that in cash terms, spending has risen every year. Whether this constitutes a rise or fall in "real terms" depends very much on whether you think "real terms" means as a percentage of GDP or corrected for inflation, and furthermore on which inflation measure you use.

 

Have a look at this document.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/446716/50600_PESA_2015_PRINT.pdf

There are a few interesting tables starting on page 18 which make the ambiguity very clear.

 

And I found this:

As of April 2013 the ONS uses 2009 as the base year for GDP (ie GDP at constant prices). This means that the individual components of GDP that are aggregated together are done so using the prices relating to 2009. It is often helpful to change the reference year so that another point is referenced as 100. For the purposes of the GDP deflator series prices are shown relating to the last full financial year.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:50 ----------

 

I think I've sussed it.

 

To correct older years' spending to 2013-2014 money, they've used a "GDP Deflator" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP_deflator). This is kind of a cost of living adjustment, close to an alternative measure of inflation, different from the CPI and RPI usually used for this.

So it is honest, but it's hard to interpret clearly.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:38 ----------

 

 

I can't accept this. Surely if spending has been cut only slightly, or not at all when one corrects for inflation; then all this talk of drastic cuts is bull.

 

It's certainly very clear that in cash terms, spending has risen every year. Whether this constitutes a rise or fall in "real terms" depends very much on whether you think "real terms" means as a percentage of GDP or corrected for inflation, and furthermore on which inflation measure you use.

 

Have a look at this document.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/446716/50600_PESA_2015_PRINT.pdf

There are a few interesting tables starting on page 18 which make the ambiguity very clear.

 

I mean the two data sets.

[unbeliever]

And I found this:

As of April 2013 the ONS uses 2009 as the base year for GDP (ie GDP at constant prices). This means that the individual components of GDP that are aggregated together are done so using the prices relating to 2009. It is often helpful to change the reference year so that another point is referenced as 100. For the purposes of the GDP deflator series prices are shown relating to the last full financial year.

 

Yes. That seems to agree.

 

So has public spending gone up, down or been constant since 2010?

 

It's clear that it's gone up in cash. As to whether it's gone up or down in terms of its spending power, it's clearly close to flat; but may have gone up or down a little.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:53 ----------

 

 

I mean the two data sets.

 

Sorry. Misunderstood.

[TJC1]

Yes. That seems to agree.

 

So has public spending gone up, down or been constant since 2010?

 

It's clear that it's gone up in cash. As to whether it's gone up or down in terms of its spending power, it's clearly close to flat; but may have gone up or down a little.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 13:53 ----------

 

 

Sorry. Misunderstood.

 

We both agree overall spending is rising. But in real terms its not.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 15:46 ----------

 

And as a percentage of GDP its falling rapidly.

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 15:47 ----------

 

A cuts a cut. If applied to a deparment it means jobs and service losses.

No other way to sugar coat it.

[unbeliever]

We both agree overall spending is rising. But in real terms its not.

 

A cuts a cut. If applied to a deparment it means jobs and service losses.

No other way to sugar coat it.

 

It's also not falling.

In order to constitute a "cut" surely it would have to fall.

 

Ergo the hysteria over drastic cuts is, as I originally stated, imaginary.

[TJC1]

It's also not falling.

In order to constitute a "cut" surely it would have to fall.

 

Ergo the hysteria over drastic cuts is, as I originally stated, imaginary.

 

cuts are real. You tried and failed to convince anyone cuts are anything but real and happening right now!

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 20:01 ----------

 

1500 jobs to go in police force latest news//// how much more evidence does one need?

[unbeliever]

cuts are real. You tried and failed to convince anyone cuts are anything but real and happening right now!

 

---------- Post added 13-08-2015 at 20:01 ----------

 

1500 jobs to go in police force latest news//// how much more evidence does one need?

 

There always have been, and always will be, decisions to fund one thing better at the expense of another. This is nothing new. It happened under Labour as well even though they borrowed money left, right and centre which we now have to struggle to pay back.

But it cannot be true that there are more losers than winners if real terms spending is close to flat. That would surely be impossible.

 

Police funding comes from local government. Perhaps you should ask them why they have money for six figure executive salaries, lavish hospitality and self-promoting advertising but cannot keep police numbers up.

Edited August 13, 2015 by unbeliever

[Vague_Boy]

And as a percentage of GDP its falling rapidly.

 

Still higher that it was during the Tony Blair decade [LINK]

 

Some might think it a tad disingenuous to compare the percentage of public spending to GDP over a period of crisis (see the period 2008-2012 in the above link) with a period of relative stability.

 

True the projected percentage for 2015-2016 (42.2%) looks weak when compared to say 51.20% in 1982-83. Under Mrs. Thatcher.

 

So your point that the Boy Cameron should try to be more like Mrs. Thatcher as regards public spending is well taken.

[unbeliever]

Still higher that it was during the Tony Blair decade [LINK]

 

Some might think it a tad disingenuous to compare the percentage of public spending to GDP over a period of crisis (see the period 2008-2012 in the above link) with a period of relative stability.

 

True the projected percentage for 2015-2016 (42.2%) looks weak when compared to say 51.20% in 1982-83. Under Mrs. Thatcher.

 

So your point that the Boy Cameron should try to be more like Mrs. Thatcher as regards public spending is well taken.

 

That's a rather excellent point.

There are 2 obvious ways to greatly increase spending as a fraction of GDP:

1. Greatly increase spending.

2. Greatly reduce GDP.

Perhaps it was Labour's decision to try to get everybody to measure spending by percentage of GDP that made them think it was a good idea to wipe 6% off UK GDP in just over a year. Maybe they got bored with borrowing to try and achieve 1, so they switched to 2.

 

It obviously makes sense to measure public spending in inflation corrected cash. I don't know why we're discussing anything else.