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

[sutty27]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Guderian]

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

 

Isn't that the very definition of a Tory though?

 

It's rather simplistic but those who have and want to keep are Tory.

Those who do not have or who do have but also have a social conscience tend not to be Tory.

[sgtkate]

Isn't that the very definition of a Tory though?

 

It's rather simplistic but those who have and want to keep are Tory.

Those who do not have or who do have but also have a social conscience tend not to be Tory.

 

That's a bit over-simplified, and I'm definitely not a Tory. I just think it's 2 different ways of thinking. I doubt there are really that many people who don't want a fairer society they just have a massive difference in opinion as to how we get there.

 

Labour - companies and rich people can afford to pay more and they should. Believe that the poorest should get more financial support to improve 'fairness'.

 

Tories - companies create wealth and therefore should be taxed less to encourage growth. Poor people are scum who should starve responsible for themselves and if made to sort themselves will improve fairness as those who work get the benefit.

 

Very rough ideologies I'd say. Of course there are those who vote Labour who are selfish and base it on the amount of benefits they get. Then there are Tories who do the same with minimising taxes and maximising profit.

 

Neither are necessarily wrong as long as they take into account all different circumstances and situations and I actually think both sides are often too hung up on following an ideology rather than doing the 'right thing'. If we could prove increasing taxes on companies would generate more taxes paid would Osborne support that? I highly doubt it. Equally if Labour's policies could be shown to increase the numbers of people on benefits without good reason would that change Corbyn? Unlikely.

Edited March 18, 2016 by sgtkate

[Berberis]

There are also those who vote Tory based on the amount of benefits they get - i.e., many pensioners, the age group that supports the Tories most strongly. I don't recall any plans to revisit the "triple lock" in the Budget, though I suppose that time may come.

 

Not saying they don't deserve it, of course, quite the reverse. Just pointing out that the state pension is (a) a welfare benefit, and (b) costs more than tax credits, child benefit, disability allowances, JSA, etc. put together (according to figures compiled from DWP data by John Hills in his book "Good Times, Bad Times").

 

I'm guessing that many people don't think of the pension as a "welfare benefit", but that is exactly what it is.

 

Has Labour ever reduced the benefits bill for pensioners? From what I can remember, It was Labour who introduced the the Free TV license, Winter fuel allowances and dare I say it, the free bus pass. Was it not Labour who pegged pensions to the RPI? (I may be confusing that one).

 

I think the propensity of the old to vote Tory is due to how people change their political opinions with age. The Young are generally more liberal while the old are more conservative.

[hyper]

Those who do not have or who do have but also have a social conscience tend not to be Tory.

Ahem ...

I see the rich leftists who have money telling everyone that everything should be shared whilst living in castles and the poor leftists as those who never had the chance/ability/drive carrying a chip telling others who have worked to share what they've worked for.

 

The right wing might sell their grannies, but at least they'll admit to it