Huge national debt, it`s all a myth!

[Filo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/historic-government-spending-area#start-of-comments

[Dagenham Rover]

Or to put it simpler







and as many economists say the debt willl be halved by 2015 by doing nothing and carrying on exactly as was

Its all designed to stop the working classes infiltrating the universities or should I say the upper classes looking after themselves again !!

[Filo]

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Or to put it simpler







and as many economists say the debt willl be halved by 2015 by doing nothing and carrying on exactly as was

Its all designed to stop the working classes infiltrating the universities or should I say the upper classes looking after themselves again !!

The Figures don`t lie, but the ConDems do!

[Dagenham Rover]

Oh and see the little peak at 2010 you can thank the banking industry for that, not the previous government

[Filo]

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Oh and see the little peak at 2010 you can thank the banking industry for that, not the previous government

Demonstrated in this graph below, if you click on the white circle when Brown became PM you will see that it was then that the global banking crisis began, also if you note that when he left office the GDP was already on it`s way down! the ConDems are conning the country!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending

[Dagenham Rover]

Filo wrote:

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Oh and see the little peak at 2010 you can thank the banking industry for that, not the previous government

Demonstrated in this graph below, if you click on the white circle when Brown became PM you will see that it was then that the global banking crisis began, also if you note that when he left office the GDP was already on it`s way down! the ConDems are conning the country!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending

I like that graph makes it all stand out a bit more

[hoolahoop]

Filo wrote:

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Oh and see the little peak at 2010 you can thank the banking industry for that, not the previous government

Demonstrated in this graph below, if you click on the white circle when Brown became PM you will see that it was then that the global banking crisis began, also if you note that when he left office the GDP was already on it`s way down! the ConDems are conning the country!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending

So the rise from c.37% to c.45~% in the last 15 years is a good sign is it ?
Perhaps I'm reading the graph incorrectly but an increase of some 20%+ seems fairly significant to me and btw the gradient is a fairly steady one.
Perhaps we should all bury our heads in the sand , vainly attempt to fly and spend , spend .......SPEND ?

[Dagenham Rover]

hoolahoop wrote:

Filo wrote:

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Oh and see the little peak at 2010 you can thank the banking industry for that, not the previous government

Demonstrated in this graph below, if you click on the white circle when Brown became PM you will see that it was then that the global banking crisis began, also if you note that when he left office the GDP was already on it`s way down! the ConDems are conning the country!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/15/comprehensive-spending-review-2010-public-spending

So the rise from c.37% to c.45~% in the last 15 years is a good sign is it ?
Perhaps I'm reading the graph incorrectly but an increase of some 20%+ seems fairly significant to me and btw the gradient is a fairly steady one.
Perhaps we should all bury our heads in the sand , vainly attempt to fly and spend , spend .......SPEND ?

I'm not actually saying that at all and I tend not to agree with the economists who say do nothing.
What I do believe is yes some cuts should be made but not on the sweeping scales this government is conning people to believe is required and as a rough assesment looking at those graphs datewise wars (and banks   ) increase public borrowing

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Somebody needs to tell Labour aswell, remember they acknowledge that the national debt is there and isn't sustainable, they just differ in there timing of reducing it.  Geez why do people have to create a story just to slag off a political party, it's pretty tiresome really when the argument doesn't really hold that true?

This threat basically says two wrongs make a right, just because it was bigger before doesn't mean it's a positive thing.

Is it really a surprise debt was high in relation to GDP right after major world wars or do we forget this fact.  The site you took the graphs from actually explains that most of our previous debts stem from major wars.  Now we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're not major wars, the actual source of spending is far different now.

Anyone else spot the correlation here?



We could always put it in actual monetary terms aswell

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Somebody needs to tell Labour aswell, remember they acknowledge that the national debt is there and isn't sustainable, they just differ in there timing of reducing it.  Geez why do people have to create a story just to slag off a political party, it's pretty tiresome really when the argument doesn't really hold that true?

The story and the issue are not made up. There is a vitally important political division here over how you deal with the deficit. There are genuine differences if opinion and there will be genuine differences in who shoulders the burden. That is a topic worthy of discussion, regardless of how Osbourne, Clegg and Cameron would like to insist that, in the words of their idol, There Is No Alternative.

The issue is the SPEED at which the deficit is cut. This is NOT an academic debate. Getting thus right will be crucial to the wellbeing of 10s of millions of us. Cut too fast and we wi have economic slugishness for 20 years with the attendant loss of jobs and living standards (see Japan). Cut too slowly and the debt will spiral out if control, promising future inflation and economic difficulty.

The question is as simple as that.

My take is that the current plans are a manically dangerous gamble on the fast side. The only times in the last century that Governments did anything like that, in 1930 and 1980, we ended up with a lost generation and economic devastation. There are alternatives that seem to me to carry far less risk.

There is nothing more important facing us at the moment, and to suggest that people are just arguing for the sake of it is to utterly misunderstand the gravity of the situation.

The decisions taken over the next 2 years will affect the society that we have in 2025 when my kids come of age. I do not want them to inherit the fractured and fractious society that we were left with 15 yearsafter the last manic gamble on fundamentalist slashing of public spending. You are too young to remember how f**ked the country was by the early 90s. Believe me, the country we live in today is unrecognisable from that one.

[Savvy]

In a nutshell! End of chat!

[Glyn_Wigley]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Anyone else spot the correlation here?



We could always put it in actual monetary terms aswell

If you're talking about a correleation between the two graphs, then no, because one's as a percentage of GDP and the other is in £bill and therefore unrepresentative in real terms.

[Glyn_Wigley]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The question is as simple as that.

I'd say the question is much, MUCH simpler:

Which of these cuts WOULDN'T the Tories be making if they didn't have a deficit to blame?

Plus...I've not heard anything from them about which cuts they'll reverse once the deficit's been addressed. Coincidence? the cynical bas**rd inside me says that the Tories will expect the public to have forgotten what was cut and why by the time the National Debt is back down to 37/38% of GDP. (In that same way everybody forgot why VAT was put up to 17.5% by Norman Lamont and not reduced after the reason for it going up wrnt away...). They're using the deficit as a figleaf to excuse exactly what they would have done anyway.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Anyone else spot the correlation here?



We could always put it in actual monetary terms aswell

If you're talking about a correleation between the two graphs, then no, because one's as a percentage of GDP and the other is in £bill and therefore unrepresentative in real terms.

Appologies I should have made it clear, I added a bit in after.  I meant to relate the defence graph to the initial percentage GDP graph in the earlier post.

[BobG]

There's nothing so dangerous as a good man who does nothing. Or words to that effect anyway. We are all, all of us, to blame for this frightening, scary, malicious and lying attack on the great majority of this population. We have allowed that dogmatic (in every sense), bigotted and spiteful party back into power. Anyone over 40 who voted Tory shuld now not just be deeply ashamed of themselves, they should commit hari kari. Tonight. We knew what was coming. We knew how they feather the nests of their own kind. A better argument for Communism I have never heard than that speech today. And, as I've said before, Karl Marx was right: capitalism does contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It's called greed. Greed, arrogance and abuse of power. I wish I could shoot the lot of 'em. Were they born without a conscience?

BobG

PS Of course our dear Chancellor doesn't havwe to worry. All his wealth is tidily hidden away in nice, big, fat, multi million pound trust fund. No taxes there then eh George? You cheating w**ker. We are all in this together? You lying bas**rd.

[hoolahoop]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Anyone else spot the correlation here?



We could always put it in actual monetary terms aswell

If you're talking about a correleation between the two graphs, then no, because one's as a percentage of GDP and the other is in £bill and therefore unrepresentative in real terms.

Jeez has inflation been that much since 2000. Play with the figures as you will, seek to deny blindly of course you can but the problem is still there and bfyp being an economist realises and recognises the problem.
This is not totally theb fault of the last Labour Govt. of course and like Billy, I agree that the cuts are above what is required.
We may be wrong but should they succeed in these economic plans , then we won't see another Labour Govt. for a generation.

[Savvy]

BobG wrote:

There's nothing so dangerous as a good man who does nothing. Or words to that effect anyway. We are all, all of us, to blame for this frightening, scary, malicious and lying attack on the great majority of this population. We have allowed that dogmatic (in every sense), bigotted and spiteful party back into power. Anyone over 40 who voted Tory shuld now not just be deeply ashamed of themselves, they should commit hari kari. Tonight. We knew what was coming. We knew how they feather the nests of their own kind. A better argument for Communism I have never heard than that speech today. And, as I've said before, Karl Marx was right: capitalism does contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It's called greed. Greed, arrogance and abuse of power. I wish I could shoot the lot of 'em. Were they born without a conscience?

BobG

PS Of course our dear Chancellor doesn't havwe to worry. All his wealth is tidily hidden away in nice, big, fat, multi million pound trust fund. No taxes there then eh George? You cheating wonker. We are all in this together? You lying bas**rd.

My take on it Bob for what its worth is this.

Let's have a public inquiry into how this deficit has managed to manifest its self on the country.  Let's get some of the leading thinkers, the usual candidates such as the Adam Smith Institute smattered with a few leading theorists/economists and see who's bullshitting who.

If its found that the last government are responsible, then the cabinet ministers should be debarred from holding public office at local or national level for life.

If however, its found that its all smoke and mirrors or a rouse to bull up this Con/Dem alliance, then they should be forced to call another general election with immediate effect!

Of course it won't happen.....it would cost too much now or wouldn't be economically viable!

[BobG]

If you have the Adam Smith Institute involved in that then you'd have to have the Fabian Society as well!

Still, I take comfort from some words of Josef Goebbels: \"You can fool all of the people only some of the time\". Thank God for that then!

Cheers

BobG

[NorthNorfolkRover]

In a globalised world the international money markets are different to the past.the debt is manageable now because interest rates are at a historic all time low.we lose our aaa credit rating and the debt interest increase would exceed what we spend entirely on local government.