What Is The End Game, Mr Cameron?

a reply to: stumason

First off thanks for correcting me about what I referred to as the deficit, what I meant to say was pay the debt, never mind balance the deficit. I say that we can hardly pay the debt because of its relation to the deficit. The money is borrowed in the first place as the tax revenue doesn't cover public spending. So clearly we have a problem.
Just because its been relatively worse in the past as high as 250% you say, doesn't mean its not an issue today.
Heres some qoutes from the Telegraph on the subject
Just how big is britians debt mountain?

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has changed the way it measures our public finances, throwing fresh light on the precise state of the nation's coffers. The latest revisions help bring the UK in line with European accounting standards, but they don't make great reading for the Chancellor. According to the figures, Britain's debt mountain is £127 billion bigger that we first thought. To provide some context, that's more than the government's annual budget for education and housing put together.

The countries total debt is now a staggering 1.4 Trillion! Seven years ago it was almost one third of that at approx 500 Billion. This year saw borrowing of 45 billion to cover public spending a rise of 6% on last year. Despite forecasts to the contrary.

The Treasury has borrowed £45.4bn so far this fiscal year, 6pc higher compared with the same period last year. But back in March, the OBR was forecasting an overall fall in borrowing in 2014/15. So what's changed?

Now, as far as "paying it off", as long as the budget gets into a surplus then it will simply be a matter of time.

That's the thing, how is the budget going to get into surplus? Because of the improving economy? Well that would help but as far as I can see its not improving anytime soon.

A 'taxless recovery'? One of the main reasons we're having so much trouble reducing the deficit is due to poor tax receipts. Tax revenues are up on last year and the government is cutting back on spending, but this isn't having a major dent on the public finances (red line above). One of the reasons, say many economists, is that Britain is undergoing a "jobs rich, but tax poor" recovery. The economy may have created 774,000 new jobs in the past 12 months but many of them have been in low-paid sectors. The result is that wage stagnation is keeping income tax low. Income tax receipts have fallen by 0.8pc against their forecast of a 6.5pc rise for the year, say the OBR. Strong employment but low wages means more workers entering the labour force now earn the new tax-free allowance of £10,000 before they start paying income tax. Lagging wage growth also means that more and more of us are being pulled back into lower income tax brackets, also hurting the Exchequer. All in all, it is probaby these "structural" trends in wages and incomes that should be of more concern to the government than our growing debt mountain.

Apart from the financial sector just about every other industry has been in decline for years and years, through successive governments. Thats the problem the UK has 'shut shop' practically, unable to compete against China and the rest? Or sold out in favour of cheaper goods from abroad?
I trained and grew up in a Engineering/manufacturing town where back in the day and for the most part, the majority were employed and had no problems finding alternative work should they lose there jobs. These days the so called 'working' class people are lucky to get a part time job at Tesco's or the Pound shop and still rely on 'tax credits' to make up the short fall in their income. Its sad really.

a reply to: surfer_soul
I don't think the debt levels are that big a problem for us at moment as less thana third is foreign owned. About the same as is owned by the bank of England. A country that has its own currency can deal with fairly staggering sounding debt levels with little problem.
However you are absolutely right about the supposed recovery. Too many poor paid jobs being created that are not going too boost demand or tax receipts. We need a real focus on getting skilled well paid jobs created.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: surfer_soul
I don't think the debt levels are that big a problem for us at moment as less thana third is foreign owned. About the same as is owned by the bank of England. A country that has its own currency can deal with fairly staggering sounding debt levels with little problem.
However you are absolutely right about the supposed recovery. Too many poor paid jobs being created that are not going too boost demand or tax receipts. We need a real focus on getting skilled well paid jobs created.

Absolutely correct. The problem for nations is when the structural debt raises to over 90% (immediately post crash we were around 98%). History shows us that nations fail over that level of structural debt as it becomes impossible to keep servicing your debts and social issues start to kick off. That is why the Tories were so hell bent on reducing the structural debt levels (hence all the cuts). They have had a modicum of success in this regard and as such we are literally currently one of a only a handful of nations throughout history to not collapse after exceeding this 90% level.

This is the main reason that Labour are currently totally unelectable, for me. They don't even seem to realise the significance of the structural debt levels. To give this a bit of perspective, it is like a chef not realising he / she needs ingredients to be able to cook. Not perhaps the best of analogies but it really is that stark.

Economics and finance really are like watching paint dry for the vast majority of people and in good times, shouldn't be the "be all and end all" for political discourse. However, when things have turned as bleak as they did here post 2008, the economy is really the only thing that is important until we can get an even keel again (don't believe the spin, we really are not there yet). It really should never be forgotten that we, as a nation, were 1/2 an hour from having no cash for the cash machines. Think about that for a minute......and then realise that Labour still mainly think they were in the right. The proposals that they have formulated post 2008 would increase rather than decrease the structural debt levels, which shows a staggering level of incompetence.

originally posted by: stumason
originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
A healthy economy, while not indicative of a "healthy nation"...

Sorry, I was under the impression that your earlier posts were saying exactly that. I thought were using a purely fiscal argument as a means to state the nations return to well-being. But you're not? So what is the reason for your reference to our supposed current economic rise?

...is absolutely required for either to be true.

I disagree. Do you think that isolated tribes of the Amazon never feel content? That they live miserable lives because of their ignorance of economics? Maybe they do, but from what I've that doesn't seem to be the case. While this is an extreme example, if you do think that they can be happy without money, then you need to find a different basis for your argument.

...that would be It is simply impossible for the people to be happy and content with their lot if their is mass unemployment...

While undoubtedly unemployment will affect the economy, it isn't specifically represented in any figures that would be used to illustrate a healthy economy. If you were to round up all the peasants in to camps and left them to starve to death, there wouldn't be much representation in any economic metrics, except of course their contribution to an average via a head count. Again, an extreme example, but one that illustrates the limited scope of your argument. You can 'prove' just about anything with statistics - it depends on which other statistics you choose to omit.

And I am not "financially comfortable" - stretched to the hilt as it happens - but I don't have my vision clouded by pinko ideals

Pinko ideals? I'm sorry, am I being un-English by your noble standards?

I am a pragmatic sort and deal with facts and the facts say the economy is looking up

And these 'facts' have been personally deduced by your observations of the areas they claim to represent? Because if not, then your merely showing how strong your faith in somebody else's words are.

It is totally impossible for the Government to do anything if it has no money and the economy is in the sink.

There's a pretty good argument to suggest that with amount of debt that we have, that we don't really have any money and are only granted the use of other people's money. Either we have to pay the money back or we don't.

Everything I said in my post doesn't need "proving" - they are the simple facts of the matter.

How were these facts proven to you? And could you now prove them to me?

Odd, there I was thinking you wanted things to be "proved", but here you are discussing your personal opinion as if it were fact,

'I don't really have much faith in...'; '...I'm pretty sure...'; 'I personally believe...' - Hard for me to understand where I've tried to pass my opinion off as fact. Hard for me to believe that you'd interpret it that way.

while casually dismissing my extensive post...

An extensive post of somebody else's words that you've simply taken the time to understand.

...with a one line quip while patting yourself on the back for your wit

I didn't think it was particularly witty, nor did pat myself on the back - It was simple light mockery in order to make a point.

There appears to be more debt in the world than there is money, which means that this debt can't be repaid with money. Your belief in this system is based on the words of economists and politicians.

originally posted by: Flavian
Absolutely correct. The problem for nations is when the structural debt raises to over 90% (immediately post crash we were around 98%). History shows us that nations fail over that level of structural debt as it becomes impossible to keep servicing your debts and social issues start to kick off. That is why the Tories were so hell bent on reducing the structural debt levels (hence all the cuts). They have had a modicum of success in this regard and as such we are literally currently one of a only a handful of nations throughout history to not collapse after exceeding this 90% level.

Incorrect. The reason for the cuts was to reduce the size of the state which is an ideological stance. "Reducing the debt" , comparing the UK to Greece (totally ridicuous to anyone who knows about economics) and equating UK debt with domestic debt was all a clever way of getting the economically ignorant voters to back their stance.

This is the main reason that Labour are currently totally unelectable, for me. They don't even seem to realise the significance of the structural debt levels. To give this a bit of perspective, it is like a chef not realising he / she needs ingredients to be able to cook. Not perhaps the best of analogies but it really is that stark.

Lest people forget in July 2010 when the UK economy was GROWING !!!! Osborne went on record stating that this showed his policies were working (go on take a look in the archives). This means that any reversal since then cannot be due to the previous administration. However, as we all know the state of the economy does not switch in a week , it takes months for the effect of policy decision to kick in. The policy decision taken by Gordon Brown in order to prevent an economic collapse caused by the banks resulted in GROWTH through Q3-2009 to Q2-2010. Brown's policy was working. More growth, higher tax receipts pay off the extra borrowing necessary to prop up the banks. Whether you believe that that should have been done is arguable. But, even the Tories at the time agreed and it does not detract from the fact that that was the main reason for the high structural deficit.

Economics and finance really are like watching paint dry for the vast majority of people and in good times, shouldn't be the "be all and end all" for political discourse.

Very true which is why most people can have the wool pulled over their eyes by simplisitic economic analogies....like cooking.....Greek cooking!

However, when things have turned as bleak as they did here post 2008, the economy is really the only thing that is important until we can get an even keel again (don't believe the spin, we really are not there yet). It really should never be forgotten that we, as a nation, were 1/2 an hour from having no cash for the cash machines. Think about that for a minute......and then realise that Labour still mainly think they were in the right. The proposals that they have formulated post 2008 would increase rather than decrease the structural debt levels, which shows a staggering level of incompetence.

Well thank God Gordon Brown prevented the cash flow crisis from occurring. At that time western leaders were panicking about the collapse of western economies (NB this proves Labour/Brown did not cause the problem !!!!!). It was he who went round the world and told them what to do, they listened and the collapse was halted. Even the Tories at the time agreed that the right thing had been done (they don't like to admit that now though). Reminder again, the policies followed by Brown through 2008 to 2009 resulted in a reversal of the decline so that the UK economy was GROWING WHEN THE TORIES TOOK OVER

If that growth had continued, there would have been no need for any of the cuts. People would be in better paid jobs and the last 4 years would have been totally unneccessary. But no, Osborne fooled you all into an ideological crusade against the state.

One last thing, there is absolutely no economic advantage in privatising East Coast Railways when you look at the amount of money that they are pumping into the UK coffers compared to the hundreds of millions sucked out by the preceding private companies. This sell off is the most blatant example of mindless ideology over reason I have ever seen. Wake up to what the Tories really are before they bleed the country dry and sell everything off to the unaccountable offshore rich.

a reply to: Flavian
Sorry but there is no such thing as structural debt (how could there be?) structural deficit maybe depending on your point of view. Debt levels of 90% plus (even much higher) make no difference if managed correctly.
I think the current government have done far more harm than good in terms of promoting economic recovery and the failure to increase tax receipts is the biggest evidence of this. Bringing down unemployment on the back of zero hour contracts and minimum wage jobs is no accomplishment.

a reply to: Flavian

a reply to: Flavian
Sorry but there is no such thing as structural debt (how could there be?) structural deficit maybe depending on your point of view. Debt levels of 90% plus (even much higher) make no difference if managed correctly.
I think the current government have done far more harm than good in terms of promoting economic recovery and the failure to increase tax receipts is the biggest evidence of this. Bringing down unemployment on the back of zero hour contracts and minimum wage jobs is no accomplishment.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Flavian
Sorry but there is no such thing as structural debt (how could there be?) structural deficit maybe depending on your point of view. Debt levels of 90% plus (even much higher) make no difference if managed correctly.
I think the current government have done far more harm than good in terms of promoting economic recovery and the failure to increase tax receipts is the biggest evidence of this. Bringing down unemployment on the back of zero hour contracts and minimum wage jobs is no accomplishment.

You forgot everyone who is sanction from collecting unemployment benefit or disability benefit are not classed as unemployed for the length of time they are sanctioned until the time they re-qualify again. ..so that's 2 million off the books...once again the figures are cooked and the Sheeple fall for it. Also 16-18 year old's are not counted in the unemployment figures.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Solo, I've already pointed out that your "2 million" people figure is bogus - you're misrepresenting the facts. It is 2 million sanctions in 4 years, and many of those people sanctioned get done several times each.

a reply to: stumason
I was going to state the same but couldn't be arsed as Solo doesn't seem to accept that reality, be funny to see how his brave new Scotland will deal with those who can't be arsed attending JobCentrePlus interviews on time, or applying for jobs, after any Scottish independence.
There are lazy bastards in this country, not all of course, but many, and I guess Solo would like to just pay them to be lazy lol

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Solo, I've already pointed out that your "2 million" people figure is bogus - you're misrepresenting the facts. It is 2 million sanctions in 4 years, and many of those people sanctioned get done several times each.

Whatever...
Still 2.000.000 removals from the unemployment register whatever way you look at it. If anyone here likes to misrepresent FACT it's you. You have a masters in it.

I could and probably should have pulled you on many misrepresentations you have made in this here Forum.

I'm actually starting to believe you are some sort of Government shill as you seem to spout their propaganda as Fact when in FACT it's quite clear you are quoting right wing pish from The Daily Mail/Der Sturmer and the BBC/Volksempfänger

You dont know and have no way of knowing if the 2 million figure is 250,000 people done 8 times, 5,00,000 people done 4 times, 1 million people done twice or 2 million done once...It's the biggest benefit fraud, massage of figures and Lie of all time... and that's a FACT.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: stumason
I was going to state the same but couldn't be arsed as Solo doesn't seem to accept that reality, be funny to see how his brave new Scotland will deal with those who can't be arsed attending JobCentrePlus interviews on time, or applying for jobs, after any Scottish independence.
There are lazy bastards in this country, not all of course, but many, and I guess Solo would like to just pay them to be lazy lol

#Who I wonder gave you a star for that rant? This isn't a thread about(insert swear word of choice here)Scottish Independence! Also I think you will find your so called 'lazy bastards' are few and far between actually.

It will be comical to see a government that is dependent on consumption try to grow or even sustain itself when people realize that all they have to do is have a large group of people work for free for say a quarter. The loss of revenue will be like what is happening with the gas prices. Complete pandemonium.

a reply to: lonesomerimbaud


humansarefree.com...

Found the above on Rense.com. Perhaps this answers your question

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Oh do please "pull me up". In fact, I invite you to every time you try this tired old "shill" nonsense, Solo. It's tiring because it is your default position when called out on your ranting, shortly before you stomp off in a huff and not actually reply when called out, such as your assertion that a £1000 a week wage isn't enough to live on earlier in this thread - you neatly just ignore it and come back with another nonsensical rant instead.

Funny thing is, it was left wing outlets such as the Guardian that I pulled the info on the 2 million sanctions that stated that many people are sanctioned more than once, not the BBC or Daily Mail, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

a reply to: stumason

I would agree that the sanctions have a relatively small impact on unemployment figures.. There are multiple sanctions and are generally short term so have little affect on overall trends.
However that said the unemployment figures are massively manipulated with true unemployment up to twice as high.
I will say this is not an anti Tory thing. (spits to remove bad taste from mouth) as all governments have massaged the figures over the last thirty years.

a reply to: stumason
Ok...Here we go, Call out number one on your pro Government Propaganda here.

Solo, I've already pointed out that your "2 million" people figure is bogus - you're misrepresenting the facts. It is 2 million sanctions in 4 years, and many of those people sanctioned get done several times each.

2.25 million sanctions in under 2.5 years, not the 4 years you would have everyone believe.

JSA Benefit sanction sky rocket under the coalition

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It was you who said "2 million sanctions since the Government came to power", Solo. I hadn't even looked up the figures as I was bouncing it straight back to you for your misrepresentation of what the numbers meant.

Having done some digging (and it is actually quite hard to get up to date figures), it seems that there were 2,257,000 from May 2010 to October 2012 and there were a subsequent 900,000 in the year to September 2013, so that would be a total of just over 3 million - roughly one million sanctions a year on average.

Now, compare this to how many sanctions were done under Labour in the last few years of their tenure - up to 500,000 a year by 2010. Considering unemployment sky rocketed between 2008-2012, it isn't entirely unreasonable the numbers of sanctions goes up as the number of claimants goes up.

When you look a the percentage of claimants sanctioned, it has only really gone up around 2% - from 2.6% of claimants under Labour to just shy of 4.5% under the coalition. Flip it around and we see that 95% of claimants are not sanctioned. In reality, the number of claimants sanctioned is really quite small and backs up what I was saying, that they don't affect 2 million people (or whatever number you want to choose) but a much smaller number.

Some figures from an obviously hostile source, so you can't complain of bias.

I don't remember you complaining at all about sanctions under Labour though, Solo, which then calls into question whether you opinions aren't slightly clouded by political prejudice.