[sidicks]

Originally Posted by sempersi

A couple of thoughts.

UK national debt as a proportion of GDP:


1979 - 43.61%

Interesting choiice of date - would you expect the ratio to be high or low following / during a recession....?

Originally Posted by sempersi

1997 - 41.92%

Again an interesting choice of date - the government had got the economy into a good shape and debt was on the decrease. The Government's spending plans reduced debt to under 30% of GDP in the following years, before Labour went on their spending spree....

Originally Posted by sempersi

2008 - 36.25%

So effectively the Labour government increased debt from 30% to 36% following a period of record growth and tax receipts.

Of course, for a direct comparison with the earlier numbers you'd need to adjust for the money hidden off balance sheet via PFI etc. That would get you to a number closer to 50%

Best not to talk about the increase in unfunded public sector pension liabilities over the period - that's an extra few hundred billion....

Originally Posted by sempersi

2012 - 85%
Something went very wrong.

Indeed - who'd have thought that during a recession debt would goes up as tax receipts go down and hence the economy moves into deficit. If only we'd have saved some money during the boom, rather than spent it, borrowed some more then spent that so borrowed some more off balance sheet....etc

Originally Posted by sempersi

It seems it is the public sector and tax payers that are paying for it, rather than those financial institutions that triggered and exacerbated the problem.

As you can see from (your) spending data above - Despite record growth (fuelled by cheap credit which was supplied by the banks and used and abused by the public) and record tax income, the Labour government effectively increased debt from 30% of GDP to 50% of GDP.

That's what has caused our problem, and hence the need for public sector cuts.

When the inevitable recession came - caused by the banks (due to individuals, countries and companies borrowing more than they could afford) - the country was poorly placed to deal with it.

[sharger]

Or you could say that you are hiding behind that to push through your own agenda/ideology of shrinking the state. You do not want to have to pay for society as you can afford to take an alternative approach, benefit from an alternative approach financially... Private health care etc..

So you keep on telling yourself that however most of society do not agree... What they do agree with however is that the banks raped our country and then asked us to pay for the abortion.... So they can rape it again

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by sharger

Or you could say that you are hiding behind that to push through your own agenda/ideology of shrinking the state.

Always good to 'hide behind' facts...maybe you should try it?!

Originally Posted by sharger

You do not want to have to pay for society as you can afford to take an alternative approach, benefit from an alternative approach financially... Private health care etc..

Untrue. As I've stated many times, welfare, education, NHS etc are all important and need to be funded by the private sector through taxes.

Do you honestly think that the country can continue to spend far more than it earns and there not be economic consequences???

Originally Posted by sharger

So you keep on telling yourself that however most of society do not agree...

'Most of society' are net receivers so aren't contributing to the country, which is half of the problem.

Originally Posted by sharger

What they do agree with however is that the banks raped our country and then asked us to pay for the abortion.... So they can rape it again

And yet all the evidence suggest something different, but if you want to believe that, that's fine:

Increase in published debt by Labour £300bn+
Increase in PFI by Labour £150bn+
Increase in unfunded public sector pensions liabilities £500bn+
Increase in unfunded state pension liabilities £1.5 trillion+

Amount spent on debt interest every year (published debt only) £45bn+

Current cost of bank bailout £60bn...

Hmm, I wonder which of the above is causing our current problems....

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

How much was spent bailing out the banking sector?

the amount spent bailing out the banking sector is only a small part of the appalling effects of the banking crisis.Its the billions the NL government had to spend to offset the worst effects of the recession that really counts ie trying to prevent a massive drop in house prices , keeping people in jobs , trying to prevent businesses going bust etc.THAT was the real price of the banks naked greed and incompetence.
People the length and breadth of this land will not forget what these clowns have done to us.Its a pity this government doesnt have the guts to bring them to account.Some should be serving prison sentences or lose all their assets

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

the amount spent bailing out the banking sector is only a small part of the appalling effects of the banking crisis.Its the billions the NL government had to spend to offset the worst effects of the recession that really counts ie trying to prevent a massive drop in house prices , keeping people in jobs , trying to prevent businesses going bust etc.THAT was the real price of the banks naked greed and incompetence.
People the length and breadth of this land will not forget what these clowns have done to us.Its a pity this government doesnt have the guts to bring them to account.Some should be serving prison sentences or lose all their assets

Could you go into a little more depth here, I've not heard this before but I'm interested to see if it has any legs.

What money did new labour spend, or shall we say forced to add to the deficit to:
1) prevent a massive drop in house prices ,
2) keeping people in jobs ,
3) trying to prevent businesses going bust

(BTW I've a different view against 1) as I think house prices need to drop massively before the housing market can become a market again, but that's for another time).

As for bringing people to account, I'm not sure if technically anyone broke any laws, for anyone who did then they should be hounded to the fullest extent.

I'd imagine we're talking some retrospective law changes here, and arresting/charging/punishing people based on these.
That is a very dangerous and immoral action for any government to take, certainly not something a western democracy would be expected to do, maybe a fascist regime.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Could you go into a little more depth here, I've not heard this before but I'm interested to see if it has any legs.

What money did new labour spend, or shall we say forced to add to the deficit to:
1) prevent a massive drop in house prices ,
2) keeping people in jobs ,
3) trying to prevent businesses going bust

You're asking him to back up his random statements - that would be a first!!

It would appear that they spent hundreds of billions to 'stave off a crisis' before the crisis happened..


It's a good job Gordon Brown abolished 'boom and bust' (so we didn't need to save money during the good times) otherwise we'd be in real problems now.......

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Could you go into a little more depth here, I've not heard this before but I'm interested to see if it has any legs.

What money did new labour spend, or shall we say forced to add to the deficit to:
1) prevent a massive drop in house prices ,
2) keeping people in jobs ,
3) trying to prevent businesses going bust

(BTW I've a different view against 1) as I think house prices need to drop massively before the housing market can become a market again, but that's for another time).

As for bringing people to account, I'm not sure if technically anyone broke any laws, for anyone who did then they should be hounded to the fullest extent.

I'd imagine we're talking some retrospective law changes here, and arresting/charging/punishing people based on these.
That is a very dangerous and immoral action for any government to take, certainly not something a western democracy would be expected to do, maybe a fascist regime.

i am not going to go trawling around looking for figures as it has been given sufficient air time in the past .Suffice to say that the coalitoon have been spreading a myth that NL were responsible for Britains debt when in fact it was global financial crisis which resulted ina recession and , therefore, a calamitous collapse in revenue.
At the start of the crisis Britains debt was the second lowest of the G& countries and lower than even the Tories managed.On can then go on about what caused this crisis but I would suggest the credit crunch was a massive reason.Banks run out of money, refuse to lend, people cant borrow=recession.People lose their jobs, governement loses revenue, zero growth = double dip recession
I will aslo draw attention to this article about a well known economist- Ben Broadbent, who claimed that "But the debt that's caused the problems hasn't been the debt of households. It really has been down to silly bets by Britain's banks (and other parts of the financial system), which were NOT bets on UK residential property. Most of them weren't even in the UK" I wouldnt myself use the adjective silly ,more like criminal, but never mind .BBC News - The truth about UK debt

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i am not going to go trawling around looking for figures as it has been given sufficient air time in the past .

'Trawling around'? Surely these obvious 'facts' woulld be readily accessible....

The fact is that the main 'air time' this has been given is the repeated false and misleading claims you continue to make.

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Suffice to say that the coalitoon have been spreading a myth that NL were responsible for Britains debt

Are you disputing the government's own statistics that shows published debt increase by around £300bn before the crisis?

Are you disputing the government's own statistics that show off-balance sheet PFI debt will cost over £300bn in future repayments?

Are you disputing ONS statisitics that estimate the increase in the liability for public sector final salary pensions of more than £500bn?

If so, where is your evidence for disputing these 'facts'??

Originally Posted by la gran siete

when in fact it was global financial crisis which resulted ina recession and , therefore, a calamitous collapse in revenue.

During a revenue, revenues would be expected to fall, thats why you are meant to save money (and pay down debt) during the good times....

Originally Posted by la gran siete

At the start of the crisis Britains debt was the second lowest of the G& countries and lower than even the Tories managed.

Again, you are stretching the truth (at best)
1) You are quoting debt as a percentage of GDP not total debt. Total debt rose significantly (by around £300bn pre crisis)

2) Debt as a percentage of GDP was below 30% at the start of the 2000s, as the previous government had got the economy in a strong position and were paying down debt (Labour followed the Tory spending plans for the first few years).

Originally Posted by la gran siete

On can then go on about what caused this crisis but I would suggest the credit crunch was a massive reason.Banks run out of money, refuse to lend, people cant borrow=recession.People lose their jobs, governement loses revenue, zero growth = double dip recession

I will aslo draw attention to this article about a well known economist- Ben Broadbent, who claimed that "But the debt that's caused the problems hasn't been the debt of households. It really has been down to silly bets by Britain's banks (and other parts of the financial system), which were NOT bets on UK residential property. Most of them weren't even in the UK" I wouldnt myself use the adjective silly ,more like criminal, but never mind .BBC News - The truth about UK debt

As Flanders states:
Some will say he's too cavalier about the distributional aspect of household debt ( he does raise this as a concern). To state the obvious, the households with the increased debt are not, in many cases, the households with the more valuable assets.

It seems implausibe that the huge increase in consumer debt which created the boom in the 2000's is not going to have a significant negative impact on growth following the crisis.

Interestingly "For what it's worth, Broadbent supported Mr Osborne's broad strategy on the deficit before joining the MPC".

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

i am not going to go trawling around looking for figures as it has been given sufficient air time in the past .Suffice to say that the coalitoon have been spreading a myth that NL were responsible for Britains debt when in fact it was global financial crisis which resulted ina recession and , therefore, a calamitous collapse in revenue.
At the start of the crisis Britains debt was the second lowest of the G& countries and lower than even the Tories managed.On can then go on about what caused this crisis but I would suggest the credit crunch was a massive reason.Banks run out of money, refuse to lend, people cant borrow=recession.People lose their jobs, governement loses revenue, zero growth = double dip recession
I will aslo draw attention to this article about a well known economist- Ben Broadbent, who claimed that "But the debt that's caused the problems hasn't been the debt of households. It really has been down to silly bets by Britain's banks (and other parts of the financial system), which were NOT bets on UK residential property. Most of them weren't even in the UK" I wouldnt myself use the adjective silly ,more like criminal, but never mind .BBC News - The truth about UK debt

Come on I asked for a bit of common curtsey of giving me something that supports the view that the government actually spend substantial amounts of money on those 3 areas.

The alternative view held, and the one that has been given some supporting outside information is the one that the public sector spending got too large, too great even in the boomiest of boom times. So simply when the boom times stopped the money stopped flowing in, but the governments spending on what had become everyday things was so great that it in a few short years nearly bankrupted the country.

The follow up argument is that the banking crisis may have caused the end to the boom, but the government finances were in such a perils shape that any shock at all from anywhere would have had similar results. Banks obviously had their own issues, they received some bailout money (as interest paying loans + with strings).

One of those strings was to de-risk their balance book and keep more money in reserve so that if this banking crisis happened agains they wouldn't need government intervention. Which is great except it it meant that banks had to either reduce their loan books and hold more cash or lend to businesses, the government give them conditional bailout and so businesses weren't lent to.

This is the narrative I've come to believe because it is the one which despite the media witch hunt going on against banks, this has some supporting information.

If your saying that that the huge doubling of debt wasn't because of continued government overspending and a refusal to reduce this when tax income collapsed. But instead because the government had to step in use the money to save businesses, individuals and mortgages with actual cash then that is a completely different narrative and would change my view of things. All I ask is for some supporting information for the above.