By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Well, the money markets didn't like the mini budget. I met Liz Truss in a hotel in Monmouth a few years ago. She said her solution to pensioner poverty would be to feed them on Pedigree Chum. Not only would this save a lot of money, it would give them shiny coats and a nice cold nose.
Gordon brown played his part by borrowing unnecessarily in the good times. Then when the 2008 crisis hit he had no headroom. When they left office, the deficit for 2010 was 178 billion. After some progress from Cameron and osborne, Johnson and now even more spectacularly kwarteng and truss have done even more damage. I would say Gordon brown is more like our mark Hughes. His impact is still felt
The deficit was that size because of the action taken to prevent systemic collapse of the banking system and that would have happened regardless of the party of government, as we saw with the pandemic intervention. That said austerity was completely pointless unless you think performative cruelty is good policy.
🚨NEW🚨 On the @bankofengland intervention: Am told the BoE were responding to a “run dynamic” on pension funds - a wholesale equivalent of the run which destroyed Northern Rock. Had they not intervened, there would have been mass insolvencies of pension funds by THIS AFTERNOON.
Thank God that the Bank of England is independent. Who brought this about ? Oh, yes - the much maligned Gordon Brown. People were critical of the Blair/Brown years. Well, they look like giants now compared to the half-witted crooked morons “running” the country now.
The deficit was that size because of the action taken to prevent systemic collapse of the banking system and that would have happened regardless of the party of government, as we saw with the pandemic intervention. That said austerity was completely pointless unless you think performative cruelty is good policy.
Can you explain what you mean by it was because of the bank bailouts?
They cost ÂŁ30bn. There were promises to cover more cash if system collapsed but it never happened so after share sales it cost ÂŁ30bn
About 1.25% of our current deficit (not sure what Jimmy R is talking about in his posts - those figures are our deficit - it’s a fact it’s £2.4 trillion last check)
Furlough was ÂŁ70bn so more than double the banking crisis costs
And energy bills this winter expected ÂŁ130bn so 4 and a bit times the banking costs
You might need to revisit your assumptions Kensal
Combined the bank bailouts, energy bailouts and furlough amount to around 9.5% of our debt. It’s Truss’ fault, it’s Boris, it’s May, it’s Cameron, it’s Clegg it’s Brown and it’s Blair. It’s the country as a whole to get that much debt and to have a country that ungrateful and unsatisfied as we have
Gordon brown played his part by borrowing unnecessarily in the good times. Then when the 2008 crisis hit he had no headroom. When they left office, the deficit for 2010 was 178 billion. After some progress from Cameron and osborne, Johnson and now even more spectacularly kwarteng and truss have done even more damage. I would say Gordon brown is more like our mark Hughes. His impact is still felt
In 2007 national debt was 35% of GDP well under half of what it is now? I wouldn't usually go to wikipedia for data, but i don't have all day to trawl through through the OBR's/IFS's archives
Genuinely, i'm perplexed at where this this perception that ' Gordon brown played his part by borrowing unnecessarily in the good times.'
Please show me the evidence? I'd love you to change my mind.
Or just explain why it is you think that a chalenclor from 15 years ago when govt debt was less that half what it is now is in anyway responsible for the current government announcing they are going to borrow loads of money, and potentially causing an economic catastrophe is responsible for the current mini crisis
Really, genuinely - I'd love to understand why you think something which simply isn't supported by the data? Have you just been looking at the nominal amount in pounds as opposed to the real figures adjusted for inflation?
Can you explain what you mean by it was because of the bank bailouts?
They cost ÂŁ30bn. There were promises to cover more cash if system collapsed but it never happened so after share sales it cost ÂŁ30bn
About 1.25% of our current deficit (not sure what Jimmy R is talking about in his posts - those figures are our deficit - it’s a fact it’s £2.4 trillion last check)
Furlough was ÂŁ70bn so more than double the banking crisis costs
And energy bills this winter expected ÂŁ130bn so 4 and a bit times the banking costs
You might need to revisit your assumptions Kensal
Combined the bank bailouts, energy bailouts and furlough amount to around 9.5% of our debt. It’s Truss’ fault, it’s Boris, it’s May, it’s Cameron, it’s Clegg it’s Brown and it’s Blair. It’s the country as a whole to get that much debt and to have a country that ungrateful and unsatisfied as we have
[Post edited 28 Sep 2022 16:19]
About 1.25% of our current deficit - what are you talking about debt or deficit?
You have a budget deficit or a Balance of Payments deficit
Debt is Debt. If you have a ÂŁ10 debt, you don't have a ÂŁ10 deficit
Deficit or surplus has to have a starting point usually 0, 100 or the year/month/week before
About 1.25% of our current deficit - what are you talking about debt or deficit?
You have a budget deficit or a Balance of Payments deficit
Debt is Debt. If you have a ÂŁ10 debt, you don't have a ÂŁ10 deficit
Deficit or surplus has to have a starting point usually 0, 100 or the year/month/week before
[Post edited 28 Sep 2022 16:29]
I should have said debt. I think you knew that though. So it is correct bank bailouts cost is 1.25 % of our debt
Talking of deficits though the UK has a 6% current account deficit, 7% fiscal deficit, inflation double digits and interest rates at 2%
So are you arguing that Labour would have had severe austerity so we wouldn't have those deficits?
Or how much bigger can you say our growth would have been compared to equivalent size economies than it was
Otherwise how wouldn’t we be in this same mess now? Do you have a credible answer there?
Unless you can say with Labour we would have had severe austerity, high interest rates or growth significantly in excess of other developed economies then we need to look long term for how we ended up in this mess
Again would direct you to the Ray Dalio video so you Can understand the nature of credit cycles and why things compound and suddenly seem much worse
Can you explain what you mean by it was because of the bank bailouts?
They cost ÂŁ30bn. There were promises to cover more cash if system collapsed but it never happened so after share sales it cost ÂŁ30bn
About 1.25% of our current deficit (not sure what Jimmy R is talking about in his posts - those figures are our deficit - it’s a fact it’s £2.4 trillion last check)
Furlough was ÂŁ70bn so more than double the banking crisis costs
And energy bills this winter expected ÂŁ130bn so 4 and a bit times the banking costs
You might need to revisit your assumptions Kensal
Combined the bank bailouts, energy bailouts and furlough amount to around 9.5% of our debt. It’s Truss’ fault, it’s Boris, it’s May, it’s Cameron, it’s Clegg it’s Brown and it’s Blair. It’s the country as a whole to get that much debt and to have a country that ungrateful and unsatisfied as we have
[Post edited 28 Sep 2022 16:19]
Do you ever bother to check anything or do you just invent random figures and present them as fact? Just because you think something doesn't make it true
This puts it at ÂŁ955bn The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of ÂŁ955bn to ÂŁ512bn, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the government to support banks has risen by ÂŁ7bn [to a total of ÂŁ124bn] since December 2009. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12
Do you ever bother to check anything or do you just invent random figures and present them as fact? Just because you think something doesn't make it true
This puts it at ÂŁ955bn The scale of the support currently provided to UK banks has fallen from a peak of ÂŁ955bn to ÂŁ512bn, but the amount of cash currently borrowed by the government to support banks has risen by ÂŁ7bn [to a total of ÂŁ124bn] since December 2009. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/12
Quick correction. Easy mistake for you to make but your sources put out of date, don’t take into account funds recouped and those which were promises to cover but never needed to carry out;
Incorrect, the total government spend was £137 billion. Most of this has been paid back and around £27 billion is still outstanding. Around £1 trillion worth of financial guarantees were provided to investors–but these were promises designed to restore confidence in the banks, not cash for spending.
Quick correction. Easy mistake for you to make but your sources put out of date, don’t take into account funds recouped and those which were promises to cover but never needed to carry out;
Incorrect, the total government spend was £137 billion. Most of this has been paid back and around £27 billion is still outstanding. Around £1 trillion worth of financial guarantees were provided to investors–but these were promises designed to restore confidence in the banks, not cash for spending.
Perhaps don’t be so snarky when you are provably wrong
so then why the f"ck did you just say 30bn then?
The Pound on 16:11 - Sep 28 by Sakura Can you explain what you mean by it was because of the bank bailouts? They cost ÂŁ30bn. There were promises to cover more cash if system collapsed but it never happened so after share sales it cost ÂŁ30bn
I'm out. this is like talking to a child - However much it was, its was a lot more than 30bn
I should have said debt. I think you knew that though. So it is correct bank bailouts cost is 1.25 % of our debt
Talking of deficits though the UK has a 6% current account deficit, 7% fiscal deficit, inflation double digits and interest rates at 2%
So are you arguing that Labour would have had severe austerity so we wouldn't have those deficits?
Or how much bigger can you say our growth would have been compared to equivalent size economies than it was
Otherwise how wouldn’t we be in this same mess now? Do you have a credible answer there?
Unless you can say with Labour we would have had severe austerity, high interest rates or growth significantly in excess of other developed economies then we need to look long term for how we ended up in this mess
Again would direct you to the Ray Dalio video so you Can understand the nature of credit cycles and why things compound and suddenly seem much worse
didn't say a word of this you did
Sorry to be the one to break it you but there's going to be: rainy days, dark nights and full moons. Sometimes all at once
The Pound on 16:11 - Sep 28 by Sakura Can you explain what you mean by it was because of the bank bailouts? They cost ÂŁ30bn. There were promises to cover more cash if system collapsed but it never happened so after share sales it cost ÂŁ30bn
I'm out. this is like talking to a child - However much it was, its was a lot more than 30bn
Full Fact’s website reports that they were paid £1.1 million by Facebook and £206,500 by Google in 2019, plus a monthly payment of £7,300 worth of free advertising by the search giant. The funding by big-tech in 2019 makes up roughly 70% of their declared funding for the year. The editorial team say donations or payments for their services, which include automated fact-checking for Google, in no way compromise their editorial impartiality.
Quick correction. Easy mistake for you to make but your sources put out of date, don’t take into account funds recouped and those which were promises to cover but never needed to carry out;
Incorrect, the total government spend was £137 billion. Most of this has been paid back and around £27 billion is still outstanding. Around £1 trillion worth of financial guarantees were provided to investors–but these were promises designed to restore confidence in the banks, not cash for spending.
As always, it's get to a point where it just goes around in circles. Neither side yielding (and understandably so). Everyone has had their say so maybe lets call it a day?
Gordon brown played his part by borrowing unnecessarily in the good times. Then when the 2008 crisis hit he had no headroom. When they left office, the deficit for 2010 was 178 billion. After some progress from Cameron and osborne, Johnson and now even more spectacularly kwarteng and truss have done even more damage. I would say Gordon brown is more like our mark Hughes. His impact is still felt
Although Brown had to rescue the banks, that contributed to the deficit...
Please, per Northern's request, let's keep this about the economy and also keep it civil. This is a general comment, not aimed at you, Plasma.
Also, and I have said it before, how come no one ever posts while waving a LibDem flag? Just an observation.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
Why didn’t you comment on them? Any issues with Reuters?
Wikipedia quotes the same figure as well if it helps.
I apologies for rounding up it’s clearly upset you. I shouldnt have underreported for the figure I should have highlighted even more how wrong you were and used the full figure
If you don’t like the three sources provided more up to date then please let us know your sources. Imagine you at least can acknowledge your misunderstanding of promises to cover costs to restore confidence and actual money spent
As always, it's get to a point where it just goes around in circles. Neither side yielding (and understandably so). Everyone has had their say so maybe lets call it a day?
A bit like this?
Brian is finding it educational and so have I, to be honest.
Things have got a little tetchy at times though.
Play nicely, people!
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
For those late to the thread, here's a quick summary thus far:
In the global race to the bottom, the UK have raced into an impressive lead and with a 'they shall not pass' attitude, experts are predicting: it'll all be over by Christmas.
Unlike England's world Cup chances, which will be over by St. Nicholas' Day.
Oh, and it's all your fault!
'Always In Motion' by John Honney available on amazon.co.uk
Why didn’t you comment on them? Any issues with Reuters?
Wikipedia quotes the same figure as well if it helps.
I apologies for rounding up it’s clearly upset you. I shouldnt have underreported for the figure I should have highlighted even more how wrong you were and used the full figure
If you don’t like the three sources provided more up to date then please let us know your sources. Imagine you at least can acknowledge your misunderstanding of promises to cover costs to restore confidence and actual money spent
LONDON (Reuters) - The British government said on Wednesday it faces an almost 27 billion pound loss from rescuing failed banks during the 2007-2009 financial crisis The Office for Budget Responsibility, Britain’s independent budget watchdog, said it has increased its forecast for potential taxpayer losses by more than 9 billion pounds since March. Britain’s government spent more than 136.6 billion pounds rescuing some of Britain’s biggest high street lenders, including Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock, at the height of the financial crisis.
I knew you didn’t understand the difference between debt and deficit- a loss much closer to a deficit
This article states this was the cost of bailing out high street lenders. So it doesn’t not include the cost of the QE/asset buying program that has been going on/discussed today
Quite how a disastrous budget designed to promote growth has actually done the exact opposite and is the fault of the chancellor from 15 years ago is a still mystery to me at least
LONDON (Reuters) - The British government said on Wednesday it faces an almost 27 billion pound loss from rescuing failed banks during the 2007-2009 financial crisis The Office for Budget Responsibility, Britain’s independent budget watchdog, said it has increased its forecast for potential taxpayer losses by more than 9 billion pounds since March. Britain’s government spent more than 136.6 billion pounds rescuing some of Britain’s biggest high street lenders, including Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock, at the height of the financial crisis.
I knew you didn’t understand the difference between debt and deficit- a loss much closer to a deficit
This article states this was the cost of bailing out high street lenders. So it doesn’t not include the cost of the QE/asset buying program that has been going on/discussed today
Quite how a disastrous budget designed to promote growth has actually done the exact opposite and is the fault of the chancellor from 15 years ago is a still mystery to me at least
Yes fella that was our banking crisis.
Bank bailouts cost was obviously around the crisis which really went off in 2008. You know we were talking about that period which is why you quoted articles from 2008 and 2009
The cost for that was ÂŁ27bn. A fraction of our furlough and energy bailouts. The other 90% of our debt elsewhere but planet Hollywood has the answer why the government shouldn't have cut spending but money markets would still be okay with continuing to fund our defict and debt
Today was the Bank of England announcing purchases of long dated government bonds. It's literally nothing to do with QE from today which was actually as has been pointed out by other posters was to protect our pension scheme
Feels you are a long way off the mark here.
The energy bailouts are ÂŁ130bn expected. The 45p to 40p top rate of tax cut is ÂŁ2bn expected
So if the energy bailout is 65 times more expensive than the tax cut for top rate I find it bizarre you focus there
Also it is an issue in the context of our ÂŁ2.4 trillion of debt they are worried about and that has been a long running thing. It is the climax of our debt cycle so the chain of that is considered
Again unless any poster has endorsed severe austerity in prior years to prevent such an enormous amount of debt or someway we would have rapidly out grown all other developed nations then it isnt credible for the British public not to share the blame
How do you people get through your day while being so dishonest, even to yourselves?
Labour MP says something clearly racist = Misjudged and unfortunate
Conservative MP says something that gets deliberately misinterpreted by people highly attuned to racism = Dog whistling
Perhaps you can give some examples to properly describe what you mean, because from where I'm sitting it just seems like you're deflecting and making excuses. I thought the good Libs of LFW didn't like racists?
[Post edited 28 Sep 2022 15:12]
Or perhaps you could give Clive some respect when he asks that it stays on topic instead of continually stirring the pot as you often do
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
