Dear oh dear Ed Milliband, what a joke of a man !!!

[scaramanga]

Utter crap and factually wrong. The deficit has been added to in the last year by 10 per cent.

Second point is also wrong,the debt came about because we had to bail out the banks to the point of 1.4 trillion. Same happened in the States,do you also think that Bush is a 'trot' as well ?

Have a look at the stats from the ONS - the deficit has been reduced every year by this government. If this year does end up being an increase (based on incomplete figures it doesn't look like it will) then it's an outlier and still well below previous deficits. Are you sure you're not talking about borrowing increasing by 10%? If so, that was all capital expenditure and doesn't count towards the deficit at it's a one-off expense - a little trick devised by your lot so that they could employ a load of hole diggers and fillers to bump their election hopes.

And it's more than a little disingenuous to blame the financial crisis for the national debt. Your lot inherited a solid economy on the upslope of a boom cycle, yet by 2001 they were outspending a booming economy - well before any financial crisis.

Just think about that for a second. We had one of the best boom economies in history and they managed to outspend it.

 

[scaramanga]

You know what I agree with almost all of this. However the Government promised to clear the deficit in this parliament. Clear it. They have not even got close. They knew they would not even get close.

The Labour party needs to be braver,needs to be stronger. At the moment it is not the answer,but it should be.

No they didn't, please stop making things up to suit your own narrative.

The manifesto from 2010 is freely available to download if you want to check it. The Conservatives pledged to reduce the bulk of the structural deficit in this parliament. There's a lot of interpretation available there obviously as it's a manifesto from the opposition - a notoriously inaccurate basis.

Depending on which figures you choose to believe, the government is on track to remove just over or just under half of the structural deficit - ONS projects just under. That to me is a very impressive achievement - especially when you consider that they've been hamstrung by the Student Party and have faced unions with ideas above their stations who believe everyone else should do their bit but not them.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

No they didn't, please stop making things up to suit your own narrative.

The manifesto from 2010 is freely available to download if you want to check it. The Conservatives pledged to reduce the bulk of the structural deficit in this parliament. There's a lot of interpretation available there obviously as it's a manifesto from the opposition - a notoriously inaccurate basis.

Depending on which figures you choose to believe, the government is on track to remove just over or just under half of the structural deficit - ONS projects just under. That to me is a very impressive achievement - especially when you consider that they've been hamstrung by the Student Party and have faced unions with ideas above their stations who believe everyone else should do their bit but not them.

The chancellor is on course to miss his deficit-cutting target this year, according to the latest figures, giving him a headache in the run up to the 2015 election when the economy takes centre stage.

Weak tax receipts pushed borrowing to £11.6bn in August excluding bank bailouts, £700m more than a year earlier according to the Office for National Statistics. Borrowing in the fiscal year so far, from April to August, was £45.5bn, £2.6bn higher than the same period last year.


When the coalition came to power George Osborne promised to eliminate the “structural current deficit” by 2015-16. That’s what the deficit would be if the economy was working normally, with capital spending on schools, hospitals and so on stripped out.

This is not the same definition the Conservatives are talking about in the video. Treasury figures show the government only managed to reduce the structural current deficit by 13.2 per cent between 2009/10 and 2011/12.

Since making that promise in 2010 the Chancellor has admitted he will miss the 2015/16 target, and he now says the structural current deficit will be in balance by 2017/18.

 

[scaramanga]

The chancellor is on course to miss his deficit-cutting target this year, according to the latest figures, giving him a headache in the run up to the 2015 election when the economy takes centre stage.

Weak tax receipts pushed borrowing to £11.6bn in August excluding bank bailouts, £700m more than a year earlier according to the Office for National Statistics. Borrowing in the fiscal year so far, from April to August, was £45.5bn, £2.6bn higher than the same period last year.


When the coalition came to power George Osborne promised to eliminate the “structural current deficit” by 2015-16. That’s what the deficit would be if the economy was working normally, with capital spending on schools, hospitals and so on stripped out.

This is not the same definition the Conservatives are talking about in the video. Treasury figures show the government only managed to reduce the structural current deficit by 13.2 per cent between 2009/10 and 2011/12.

Since making that promise in 2010 the Chancellor has admitted he will miss the 2015/16 target, and he now says the structural current deficit will be in balance by 2017/18.

Please just download the manifesto yourself - it's a small pdf. Then tell me in as unbiased a manner as you can whether you think your last couple of posts accurately reflect the promises made.

I don't know what your source is there but the author is choosing an unusual interpretation of the pledges.

The author has also conflated borrowing with the deficit - they're not one and the same. They can increase and decrease independently. If you'd like me to put together a quick guide on debt/deficit/structural deficit/borrowing then I should have a spare half hour tomorrow to do so.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Please just download the manifesto yourself - it's a small pdf. Then tell me in as unbiased a manner as you can whether you think your last couple of posts accurately reflect the promises made.

I don't know what your source is there but the author is choosing an unusual interpretation of the pledges.

The author has also conflated borrowing with the deficit - they're not one and the same. They can increase and decrease independently. If you'd like me to put together a quick guide on debt/deficit/structural deficit/borrowing then I should have a spare half hour tomorrow to do so.

He actually said it during his first year in power,not in the manifesto. After all the reorganization of the NHS is also not in that manifesto.

My sources here were Channel Four News. I am more than alright with my knowledge of economics.

 

[Bullet]

This thread and particularly the last 10 posts demonstrate why the population are confused by and disinterested in politics.

You two [[at least claim to]] know an awful lot about politics and are intelligent people, yet you can't even agree on the facts and figures regarding debt, deficit, borrowing, pledges, promises etc. let alone sensibly debate issues without name calling and one-upmanship.

Sometimes I'll watch a political TV show or read articles online, but it seems almost impossible to trust anyone or nail down the facts and thus find out exactly what is going on, let alone consider what is best for the country and consider the 1,001 related issues that would be affected.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

This thread and particularly the last 10 posts demonstrate why the population are confused by and disinterested in politics.

You two [[at least claim to]] know an awful lot about politics and are intelligent people, yet you can't even agree on the facts and figures regarding debt, deficit, borrowing, pledges, promises etc. let alone sensibly debate issues without name calling and one-upmanship.

Sometimes I'll watch a political TV show or read articles online, but it seems almost impossible to trust anyone or nail down the facts and thus find out exactly what is going on, let alone consider what is best for the country and consider the 1,001 related issues that would be affected.

I think this is fair.

 

[AuroRaman]

This thread and particularly the last 10 posts demonstrate why the population are confused by and disinterested in politics.

You two [[at least claim to]] know an awful lot about politics and are intelligent people, yet you can't even agree on the facts and figures regarding debt, deficit, borrowing, pledges, promises etc. let alone sensibly debate issues without name calling and one-upmanship.

Sometimes I'll watch a political TV show or read articles online, but it seems almost impossible to trust anyone or nail down the facts and thus find out exactly what is going on, let alone consider what is best for the country and consider the 1,001 related issues that would be affected.

Brilliant.

 

[camspur]

Here's the BBC's take on debt and deficit figures http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

Although from February this year it does try to clear up the confusion between Debt and Deficit.

It clearly shows the Deficit coming down whilst debt is going up.


Here's a breakdown of income and expenditure year by year that made up the Deficits http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

 

[scaramanga]

He actually said it during his first year in power,not in the manifesto. After all the reorganization of the NHS is also not in that manifesto.

My sources here were Channel Four News. I am more than alright with my knowledge of economics.

In which case you should be more careful of your sources. Was the mistake made by Channel 4 News themselves?

I suspect they're just quoting someone from the shadow cabinet, displaying that they still don't understand the varying forms of debt and how they interact. Not really a surprise if that's the case.

 

[scaramanga]

This thread and particularly the last 10 posts demonstrate why the population are confused by and disinterested in politics.

You two [[at least claim to]] know an awful lot about politics and are intelligent people, yet you can't even agree on the facts and figures regarding debt, deficit, borrowing, pledges, promises etc. let alone sensibly debate issues without name calling and one-upmanship.

Sometimes I'll watch a political TV show or read articles online, but it seems almost impossible to trust anyone or nail down the facts and thus find out exactly what is going on, let alone consider what is best for the country and consider the 1,001 related issues that would be affected.

I think that's a pretty fair point.

I also think that the language used is intentionally impenetrable. The fact is that none of the parties want to say just how fvcked the economy really is - and it will get even more fvcked when the Euro tanks during the next 18 months.

The reality is that we need to cut far more than we have, far faster than we have if we're ever to balance the books. So far, despite all the cries from the gangsters union leaders, most people aren't actually seeing the effect of the cuts in their day to day lives. If the government does what it has to, we probably all will feel it. We also, unfortunately, may need to rely on a short housing boom to increase consumer confidence in the market and boost construction again. That's not a desirable basis for building an economy but the options are few and far between right now.

Nobody wants to say any of that though as the polls show. In the contradictory manner that only the public en masse can display, polls show that the country almost unanimously believes that cuts are necessary but wouldn't vote for a party that admits that cuts of the magnitude I'm talking about (especially in the rampantly overpriced healthcare sector) are required.

 

[scaramanga]

Here's the BBC's take on debt and deficit figures http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

Although from February this year it does try to clear up the confusion between Debt and Deficit.

It clearly shows the Deficit coming down whilst debt is going up.


Here's a breakdown of income and expenditure year by year that made up the Deficits http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

That's a good summary for anyone feeling confused by the (intentionally) difficult concepts used when discussing this.

 

[camspur]

I think that's a pretty fair point.

I also think that the language used is intentionally impenetrable. The fact is that none of the parties want to say just how fvcked the economy really is - and it will get even more fvcked when the Euro tanks during the next 18 months.

The Euro has lost 10% of it's value in the last 12 months and Germany's economy is now starting to feel the effects of the bail out it had to give to Greece. If the amount the EU asks for to cover it's budget continues to be based on GDP expect the UK to have to pay more each year to keep it afloat.

The reality is that we need to cut far more than we have, far faster than we have if we're ever to balance the books. So far, despite all the cries from the gangsters union leaders, most people aren't actually seeing the effect of the cuts in their day to day lives. If the government does what it has to, we probably all will feel it. We also, unfortunately, may need to rely on a short housing boom to increase consumer confidence in the market and boost construction again. That's not a desirable basis for building an economy but the options are few and far between right now.

Nobody wants to say any of that though as the polls show. In the contradictory manner that only the public en masse can display, polls show that the country almost unanimously believes that cuts are necessary but wouldn't vote for a party that admits that cuts of the magnitude I'm talking about (especially in the rampantly overpriced healthcare sector) are required.

I believe if one(any) party came out and told the truth and how they would fix it then people would vote for it, unfortunately neither of the big two will do that as their centrist ideologies won't allow them to. If the Tories returned to their roots they would win by a landslide but UKIP are going to take their votes (as well as Labour's and the LibDems) because they are stirring up the patriotic Brits in to voting for them on the basis of "out of Europe out of debt" which isn't quite true.

 

[scaramanga]

The Euro has lost 10% of it's value in the last 12 months and Germany's economy is now starting to feel the effects of the bail out it had to give to Greece. If the amount the EU asks for to cover it's budget continues to be based on GDP expect the UK to have to pay more each year to keep it afloat.



I believe if one(any) party came out and told the truth and how they would fix it then people would vote for it, unfortunately neither of the big two will do that as their centrist ideologies won't allow them to. If the Tories returned to their roots they would win by a landslide but UKIP are going to take their votes (as well as Labour's and the LibDems) because they are stirring up the patriotic Brits in to voting for them on the basis of "out of Europe out of debt" which isn't quite true.

Although if Germany keeps having to bail out irresponsible governments it may become "out of Europe, in much less debt"!!

 

[camspur]

Thing is, with a deficit of £100 billion saving £10 million by leaving the EU isn't going to amount to much.

 

[scaramanga]

Thing is, with a deficit of £100 billion saving £10 million by leaving the EU isn't going to amount to much.

If the Euro continues as it is, it'll be a lot more than £10M

 

[camspur]

If the Euro continues as it is, it'll be a lot more than £10M

I don't disagree but the saving is only 1/100th of the total deficit, there would need to be cuts made elsewhere to clear that.

Leaving the EU is not Jack's magic bean.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't disagree but the saving is only 1/100th of the total deficit, there would need to be cuts made elsewhere to clear that.

Leaving the EU is not Jack's magic bean.

I agree. In fact, things have fallen very well for Cameron's plans to renegotiate our membership terms.

With the Euro falling through the floor and not looking like recovering any time soon, only Germany and the UK will have half-decent economies. Germany will be very keen to not have the entire Eurozone propped up on their shoulders - you can see how desperate they're getting from the thinly veiled threats issued last week. There's no way German business would accept an EU without the UK, we're their largest export market by a distance - they know and we know they're resorting to threats they cannot possibly carry out.

Come next summer, assuming the public vote with their heads, we'll be in a very good position to continue EU membership on our terms.

 

[camspur]

I agree. In fact, things have fallen very well for Cameron's plans to renegotiate our membership terms.

With the Euro falling through the floor and not looking like recovering any time soon, only Germany and the UK will have half-decent economies. Germany will be very keen to not have the entire Eurozone propped up on their shoulders - you can see how desperate they're getting from the thinly veiled threats issued last week. There's no way German business would accept an EU without the UK, we're their largest export market by a distance - they know and we know they're resorting to threats they cannot possibly carry out.

Come next summer, assuming the public vote with their heads, we'll be in a very good position to continue EU membership on our terms.

Unfortunately that won't happen. Both Labour and UKIP will attack the Tories from opposite angles and get the flip-flop votes eating in to any Tory majority we could hope for.

As for Germany, they're too arrogant to think that we could possibly pull out of such a beneficial union we have with the EU.

 

[milo]

Unfortunately that won't happen. Both Labour and UKIP will attack the Tories from opposite angles and get the flip-flop votes eating in to any Tory majority we could hope for.

As for Germany, they're too arrogant to think that we could possibly pull out of such a beneficial union we have with the EU.

This is the last time I'll link to this (the last time it rather got lost in the squabbling), it is highly speculative but you might find this an interesting read.

http://www.therestlessrealist.com/2014/10/could-ukip-come-second-in-2015.html?m=1