Budget 2015

[cityfanlee23]

Reread your post, and tell me it makes any sense. Clearly English composition isn't your strength.

 

Lets make this easier for you.

 

Funnily enough I was thinking about this today,

I can remember when I was in school 14 years ago as if it was yesterday, Year 5,  (14 years ago I was in year 5 in school, I was 10 years old)

My teacher started talking about politics and wanted us to do creative things within the class using leaders (I remember my "Team" done campaign about "William Hogg"

I also distinctly remember my teacher literally brainwashing every single student in that class that labour were the the best party to vote for, obviously as time went on and I started really following politics and how we run our country at about 16 (6 years later. 10+6 = 16)  did I realise she was talking absolute rubbish, but that she'd managed to convince us all for about 6 years that Labour were the best party to vote for   (6 years between year 5 aged 10, until year 11, aged 16)

 

Just shows you how naive we can be, If i was given a vote then I'd have voted for the instigators of our current crisis without any knowledge whatsoever!

 

Problem is half of the voters that vote in this country also don't have a clue what they are voting for, they simply choose a name and tick a box and don't know the implications. Madness really! Politics need to be taught in all schools.

 

Hopefully you understand now... 

[cityfanlee23]

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk

Credible.

I really cannot take you seriously at all now.

Discussion over.

I like this part:

A quick look at the economic evidence reveals that only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher as a percentage of GDP than it was when they came to power, and all of the others have lowered it as a percentage of GDP.

On the two occasions that Labour oversaw increases in the national debt as a percentage of GDP there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with global fallout from the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the last few years of the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (they left an 11% increase)

He goes from talking about raw monetary figures when slating Osborne to twisting it round to national debt as a % of gdp for looking at Labour's record. However he looks even more stupid now that we find out today that national debt as a % of gdp will be lower than in 2010. He excuses Labour's failures because of a mess in the world economy, well the same certainly should apply to the Tories this time round

[cityfanlee23]

I like this part:

A quick look at the economic evidence reveals that only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher as a percentage of GDP than it was when they came to power, and all of the others have lowered it as a percentage of GDP.

On the two occasions that Labour oversaw increases in the national debt as a percentage of GDP there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with global fallout from the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the last few years of the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (they left an 11% increase)

He goes from talking about raw monetary figures when slating Osborne to twisting it round to national debt as a % of gdp for looking at Labour's record. However he looks even more stupid now that we find out today that national debt as a % of gdp will be lower than in 2010. He excuses Labour's failures because of a mess in the world economy, well the same certainly should apply to the Tories this time round

This.

Tories, given 5 years to solve a 13 year mess.

[Carl the Llama]

This.

Tories, given 5 years to solve a 13 year mess.

You keep mentioning this "13 year mess" regarding Labour finances, yet from 2001-2007 they oversaw the single greatest period of UK GDP expansion in history to date.  Then the financial crisis kicked in and the UK's economy dropped like every other major economy.  So really the tories have had 5 years to solve a 3-year crisis which they have managed.  Hold whatever opinion you like about the 'mess' of labour's social and foreign policies during those 13 years, those are generally subjective matters, but implying that they spent 13 years dwindling the economy away is disingenuous at best.

[MooseBreath]

You keep mentioning this "13 year mess" regarding Labour finances, yet from 2001-2007 they oversaw the single greatest period of UK GDP expansion in history to date. Then the financial crisis kicked in and the UK's economy dropped like every other major economy. So really the tories have had 5 years to solve a 3-year crisis which they have managed. Hold whatever opinion you like about the 'mess' of labour's social and foreign policies during those 13 years, those are generally subjective matters, but implying that they spent 13 years dwindling the economy away is disingenuous at best.

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the gdp expansion under labour was predominantly debt fuelled, and also that the position they had the economy in at the time of going into the crisis was reckless at best.

[Webbo]

You keep mentioning this "13 year mess" regarding Labour finances, yet from 2001-2007 they oversaw the single greatest period of UK GDP expansion in history to date.  Then the financial crisis kicked in and the UK's economy dropped like every other major economy.  So really the tories have had 5 years to solve a 3-year crisis which they have managed.  Hold whatever opinion you like about the 'mess' of labour's social and foreign policies during those 13 years, those are generally subjective matters, but implying that they spent 13 years dwindling the economy away is disingenuous at best.

The increase in GDP was down to a huge increases in population and govt spending paid for by borrowing. Apart from banking, which Labour blame for the crisis, you couldn't say any of our businesses were world beaters.

[leicsmac]

The increase in GDP was down to a huge increases in population and govt spending paid for by borrowing. Apart from banking, which Labour blame for the crisis, you couldn't say any of our businesses were world beaters.

 

I'd argue banking isn't either, given how much of a monumental cockup they made of it in the late 2000's. The Swiss never seem to have that kind of trouble.

 

Of course it was their American counterparts that really got the ball rolling and caught all the rest of us up in the rush.

[SMX11]

Labour years were just fuelled by government spending. Creating excessive public sector jobs that create no wealth and then wonder why we have no money.

[leicsmac]

Labour years were just fuelled by government spending. Creating excessive public sector jobs that create no wealth and then wonder why we have no money.

 

Again with the "creating wealth" spiel. Does every job - civil service or otherwise - simply have to make money for someone or something, rather than benefitting in some other way?

 

Don't get me wrong - Labour should have known that at some point the worm was going to turn and prepared adequately for it - but I honestly don't see the reasoning behind having profit as the motivation for every single job.

[Carl the Llama]

I think you could make a pretty good argument that the gdp expansion under labour was predominantly debt fuelled, and also that the position they had the economy in at the time of going into the crisis was reckless at best.

You could make that argument(and indeed Webbo and SMX11 below you have followed your lead on this), but it would ignore the statistics that say debt as a % of GDP actually fell during the first half of Labour's incumbency, where Brown achieved a year-on year budget surplus, before rising slightly between 2002-2007 (though still remaining a generous handful of PP below the level they inherited it at) when he had the temerity to run a bell curve of initially increasing budget deficits that never quite matched the heights of the Lamont deficits.  Then 2007 came around again and then under Brown & Darling the deficit skyrocketed as GDP plummeted.  So again yes, Labour presided over a disastrous period for the UK economy, but it was only disastrous during the financial crisis years where they definitely dropped the ball (though how much is hard to gauge when you look at the effect of the crisis on the other major economies).

 

Ergo 3 years of mess, not 13.

 

I am not a Labourite, I am not a Tory, I just really dislike seeing the whole 'us vs them' battle going on with blind disregard for the economic indicators concerning the time period in question, especially when this information is all readily available online for free.

[leicsmac]

You could make that argument(and indeed Webbo and SMX11 below you have followed your lead on this), but it would ignore the statistics that say debt as a % of GDP actually fell during the first half of Labour's incumbency, where Brown achieved a year-on year budget surplus, before rising slightly between 2002-2007 (though still remaining a generous handful of PP below the level they inherited it at) when he had the temerity to run a bell curve of initially increasing budget deficits that never quite matched the heights of the Lamont deficits.  Then 2007 came around again and then under Brown & Darling the deficit skyrocketed as GDP plummeted.  So again yes, Labour presided over a disastrous period for the UK economy, but it was only disastrous during the financial crisis years where they definitely dropped the ball (though how much is hard to gauge when you look at the effect of the crisis on the other major economies).

 

Ergo 3 years of mess, not 13.

 

I am not a Labourite, I am not a Tory, I just really dislike seeing the whole 'us vs them' battle going on with blind disregard for the economic indicators concerning the time period in question, especially when this information is all readily available online for free.

 

 

This. Especially the bold part. Things are never black and white.

 

Though if you think the polarisation of politics is bad here in the UK, you should take a look at some of the nutters Stateside.

[Alf Bentley]

About time that I bored people with my graph again (sorry to those who've seen it). See link at bottom for graph showing all UK deficit figures 1979-2012 (official figures from ONS).

 

This shows:

- UK has run a deficit every year since 1979, except 1988-89 (Thatcher) and 1998-2001 (Blair)

- The deficit that Labour ran BEFORE the financial crash was a bit lower than during the Major Govt, but a bit higher than during the Thatcher Govt

- The deficit only mushroomed from 2008, with the global financial crash, and broadly similar figures apply to most other western economies, due to bank bail-outs etc. 

 

The idea that our economic mess was/is all or mainly down to Labour profligacy is a lie spread by the Tories and their supporters for party political reasons. Note that Lee quotes no sources for the figures that he bandies about.

 

That's not to say that Labour has nothing to answer for. On the contrary.....

- In office, they supported the deregulation of financial markets that caused the global crisis (though the Tories would have done the same or more - and more regulation wouldn't necessarily have saved us (see Europe))

- They ran a deficit during an economic boom (though they'd argue that investment in public services under the Tories had been inadequate - remember 2-year NHS waiting lists and schools with crowded classes and leaking roofs?)

- They put large amounts of spending off balance-sheet through PFI schemes for hospital building etc, thereby creating debt for future generations (though the Tories are doing the same now)

 

It might be better if the budget was balanced over the long-term (deficit sometimes, surplus others), but a small deficit is not disastrous - though the current deficit needs to come down. The decision to aim for a near-unachievable surplus within 3-4 years is an ideological decision - and a pretty extreme one, as the figures for the Thatcher era show (deficit 9 years out of 11). There are also alternative means of reducing the deficit (tax rises, higher tax yield through a proper crackdown on evasion or by carefully stimulating growth and spending).

 

Think about it. The Tories plan to cut the deficit over the next 3-4 years by almost as much as they have over the past 5 years. Even assuming an increase in tax yield through higher growth/employment and a reduction in tax evasion (a generous assumption), most of that would have to come from cuts - and cuts ADDITIONAL to those already imposed. So, this would all be ADDITIONAL to food banks, bedroom tax, Americans grumbling about our inadequate defence forces, the NHS creaking at the seams despite being ringfenced (itself inadequate due to our aging population), school class numbers rising again etc.

 

I'm surprised and glad that Osborne has taken the country back from the cliff he'd taken it to with his Autumn Statement, but he's still got us on a slightly smaller cliff with his deficit & austerity plans. The "easiest" cuts have been made, yet he plans to make nearly as many additional cuts. How? It can't all come from cutting "red tape" and tackling welfare "scroungers" or he'd have already done that, surely? Cut council funding any more and social care for the elderly will be decimated, sending a flood of old people into NHS hospitals. Cut the NHS and there'll be a massive crisis. Cut school funding with a booming population and you're creating an under-educated generation and potentially massive social problems. Could we cut defence more (nukes aside) and hope to fulfil our international obligations, maintain our alliance with the US and deal with major threats like ISIS? Any party planning an ideological shift to budget surpluses and further massive cuts - certainly the Tories, but Labour too to a lesser extent - has a lot of explaining to do. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

[Carl the Llama]

Another handy graph (you'll have to mentally juxtapose the incumbent parties onto this one yourself though unfortunately):

Again, official ONS figures.

 

Note how under the tories we saw steady year-on-year jumps before the last couple of years of their incumbency where Clarke arrested the profligacy, managing to start a downward trend which Brown continued with before commencing a period of marginal increases in the debt/GDP ratio until you-know-what happened and the shit hit the proverbial fan.  When you compare this graph with the one Alf provided it tells a completely different story of the UK's economic management over the years to the one that some of the Tories on here ardently believe.

[ramboacdc]

Another handy graph (you'll have to mentally juxtapose the incumbent parties onto this one yourself though unfortunately):

Again, official ONS figures.

 

i am shite with numbers when it comes to debt and deficit etc. but if the deficit is down but borrowing is up doesn't that mean that the debt amount is increasing but the repayment level is increasing faster than before. so we are paying more back than before, bringing the  deficit  down, but the number we are borrowing has increased? 

ergo we are infact worse off?

 

like i said, sorry if that makes absolutely no sense i am just trying to get my head round it all. 

[Rincewind]

We're all in it together.

[purpleronnie]

We're clearly worse off and that's set to continue under the Tories, It was strange to hear so many promises but no mention where the cuts would come from (like we don't know  ), have to say unlike his last budget this had more holes than swiss cheese.  It was clearly after the disaffected older vote that could win them power again.

 

The best thing about the speech was his suit, pretty dapper I thought.

[Dr The Singh]

We're clearly worse off and that's set to continue under the Tories, It was strange to hear so many promises but no mention where the cuts would come from (like we don't know  ), have to say unlike his last budget this had more holes than swiss cheese.  It was clearly after the disaffected older vote that could win them power again.

 

The best thing about the speech was his suit, pretty dapper I thought.

His suit was shit!!  Where was the waistcoat?????   

[Benji]

Alf, fair assessment and criticism on both sides but the graph you refer to just magnifies the point for me. Look at that deficit sway 2007-2009: it's staggering!

Regardless of how much the crisis is blamed on Labour or just the general economy, the simple fact is that the deficit rose from c. 36.4m in 2007 to 156.3m in 2009, a figure that dwarfs anything seen in the rest of that graph.

So I find statements like "the coalition has increased debt more than all Labour Government's combined" as very disingenuous. They adopted a deficit more than three times the average, of course debt has shot up! All the current Government could have done (be it the coalition or had Labour won a majority) would be to reduce that deficit and show progress, which has been the case. Whether that progress is big enough is a separate debate.

[cityfanlee23]

About time that I bored people with my graph again (sorry to those who've seen it). See link at bottom for graph showing all UK deficit figures 1979-2012 (official figures from ONS).

 

This shows:

- UK has run a deficit every year since 1979, except 1988-89 (Thatcher) and 1998-2001 (Blair)

- The deficit that Labour ran BEFORE the financial crash was a bit lower than during the Major Govt, but a bit higher than during the Thatcher Govt

- The deficit only mushroomed from 2008, with the global financial crash, and broadly similar figures apply to most other western economies, due to bank bail-outs etc. 

 

The idea that our economic mess was/is all or mainly down to Labour profligacy is a lie spread by the Tories and their supporters for party political reasons. Note that Lee quotes no sources for the figures that he bandies about.

 

That's not to say that Labour has nothing to answer for. On the contrary.....

- In office, they supported the deregulation of financial markets that caused the global crisis (though the Tories would have done the same or more - and more regulation wouldn't necessarily have saved us (see Europe))

- They ran a deficit during an economic boom (though they'd argue that investment in public services under the Tories had been inadequate - remember 2-year NHS waiting lists and schools with crowded classes and leaking roofs?)

- They put large amounts of spending off balance-sheet through PFI schemes for hospital building etc, thereby creating debt for future generations (though the Tories are doing the same now)

 

It might be better if the budget was balanced over the long-term (deficit sometimes, surplus others), but a small deficit is not disastrous - though the current deficit needs to come down. The decision to aim for a near-unachievable surplus within 3-4 years is an ideological decision - and a pretty extreme one, as the figures for the Thatcher era show (deficit 9 years out of 11). There are also alternative means of reducing the deficit (tax rises, higher tax yield through a proper crackdown on evasion or by carefully stimulating growth and spending).

 

Think about it. The Tories plan to cut the deficit over the next 3-4 years by almost as much as they have over the past 5 years. Even assuming an increase in tax yield through higher growth/employment and a reduction in tax evasion (a generous assumption), most of that would have to come from cuts - and cuts ADDITIONAL to those already imposed. So, this would all be ADDITIONAL to food banks, bedroom tax, Americans grumbling about our inadequate defence forces, the NHS creaking at the seams despite being ringfenced (itself inadequate due to our aging population), school class numbers rising again etc.

 

I'm surprised and glad that Osborne has taken the country back from the cliff he'd taken it to with his Autumn Statement, but he's still got us on a slightly smaller cliff with his deficit & austerity plans. The "easiest" cuts have been made, yet he plans to make nearly as many additional cuts. How? It can't all come from cutting "red tape" and tackling welfare "scroungers" or he'd have already done that, surely? Cut council funding any more and social care for the elderly will be decimated, sending a flood of old people into NHS hospitals. Cut the NHS and there'll be a massive crisis. Cut school funding with a booming population and you're creating an under-educated generation and potentially massive social problems. Could we cut defence more (nukes aside) and hope to fulfil our international obligations, maintain our alliance with the US and deal with major threats like ISIS? Any party planning an ideological shift to budget surpluses and further massive cuts - certainly the Tories, but Labour too to a lesser extent - has a lot of explaining to do. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

 

 

Clearly you didnt bother to watch the budget or you'd have seen the figures I have "bandied about" I watched the budget, I've even linked it...  The source is the OBR which I've also looked at. Check yourself.

 

Not had chance to read all the posts in full since yesterday, but I'll  have alook soon, just saw my name skimming through.

[Carl the Llama]

i am shite with numbers when it comes to debt and deficit etc. but if the deficit is down but borrowing is up doesn't that mean that the debt amount is increasing but the repayment level is increasing faster than before. so we are paying more back than before, bringing the  deficit  down, but the number we are borrowing has increased? 

ergo we are infact worse off?

 

like i said, sorry if that makes absolutely no sense i am just trying to get my head round it all. 

I'll admit I'm a bit rusty on the finer details but I'll do my best to get everything right, first of all it depends what you mean by "the deficit is down.:

 

If you mean that the deficit for that year is lower than the deficit the previous year then yes, you're still worse off because a deficit is still a deficit (money spent/borrowed > money earned).

 

But if you mean actually reducing the overall deficit (so running a surplus) then you have reduced the amount of money owed and are better off.  Say one year the deficit is £1k and you borrow £500.  For that year to be a surplus you would by definition have earned more than you borrowed/spent, say £750, so you are now only £750 in debt (1000+500-750=750)

Lastly, if you mean reducing the debt as a % of GDP then yes it's certainly possible in theory to decrease that stat while increasing your net debt if you oversee a sufficiently large jump in GDP.  Has it happened before?  I couldn't actually tell you right now - I'll have a proper look around for any examples when I get back from work tonight.

[Guest MattP]

So she convinced you at 16 that you should vote Labour and then for 6 years brainwashed you and your friends they were the best. And then at a spritely 22 you left Year 5? Stupid Labour government really ****ed up the education system. Thank **** for the Tories! 

 

Mate I don't think you're right. 

 

Timeline:

Year 5 (10 years old): Teacher brainwashes students.

Year 11 (16 years old): Student follows politics and realises he has been brainwashed.

 

Oh dear When you try and make someone look a tit Spherry you should read what they write properly first. (although in fairness you got 3 rep points for that so you're not alone)

 

 

Again with the "creating wealth" spiel. Does every job - civil service or otherwise - simply have to make money for someone or something, rather than benefitting in some other way?

 

Don't get me wrong - Labour should have known that at some point the worm was going to turn and prepared adequately for it - but I honestly don't see the reasoning behind having profit as the motivation for every single job.

 

Every job doesn't create wealth at all, if it did your neighbours to the North wouldn't be eating grass on a daily basis.

 

We have a debt of 1,400 billion, I think people are probably right to question if the jobs we are creating for the state are going to be totally neccessary. You can't keep squeezing the private sector and productive side of the economy to engorage in a bloated public sector - it just doesn't work no matter how nice it look to you.

 

We're all in it together.

 

Sorry Ken but posts like this really piss me off, coming from someone who has retired before the official age and only takes off the state it's as astounding attitude to have.

 

If only we could all have contributed as much to the recovery as you have, if people in my generation don't save ot put money away into a provate pension they'll be working until the day they drop I'd imagine, absolute best case scenario will be working until 68 and they'll be no loophole around then to avoid it.

 

You're certainly right though with your sarcasm - we aren't all in in together, some people haven't contributed a thing.

[Guest MattP]

We're clearly worse off and that's set to continue under the Tories, It was strange to hear so many promises but no mention where the cuts would come from (like we don't know  ), have to say unlike his last budget this had more holes than swiss cheese.  It was clearly after the disaffected older vote that could win them power again.

 

The best thing about the speech was his suit, pretty dapper I thought.

 

How any sane person can seriously claim we are worse off is unbelievable to be honest and must be so far detached from the real World it's barely worth arguing with them. We now actually have an end to this mess in sight, I personally don't think George will be able to pull off what he says he can by 2019 regarding the deficit but at least we have some sort of plan and are heading in the right direction regarding trying to get it back on an ever keel.

 

We have record unemployment and are the fastest growing Western economy - if that's worse off than 5 years ago then - Your mask is slipping from what you say you are.

 

What's your plan Ron for getting the deficit back to zero and paying off the countries debt? I'd absolutely love to hear it.

[cityfanlee23]

How any sane person can seriously claim we are worse off is unbelievable to be honest and must be so far detached from the real World it's barely worth arguing with them. We now actually have an end to this mess in sight, I personally don't think George will be able to pull off what he says he can by 2019 regarding the deficit but at least we have some sort of plan and are heading in the right direction regarding trying to get it back on an ever keel.

 

We have record unemployment and are the fastest growing Western economy - if that's worse off than 5 years ago then - Your mask is slipping from what you say you are.

 

What's your plan Ron for getting the deficit back to zero and paying off the countries debt? I'd absolutely love to hear it.

 

 

Under the Labour government we would be following the French system, a nation we are now growing 7x faster than.... 

Says it all really.

[MooseBreath]

Five years ago it was "these cuts will ruin us all, austerity don't work omg evil tories".

Then the economy started growing, the number of people in work exploded, and wages began to tot up some very decent growth ahead of inflation which was on top of tax reductions for the majority.

Now it's "these cuts will ruin us all, austerity don't work omg evil tories"

Let's hope history keeps repeating.