Britain faces up to 10 years in debt.

Rochdale_Pioneers

nobby24 wrote: »

Just a UK problem then is it?

It took a global collapse of banking to pitch us into recession. Every single year we'd get to budget time and the right would wail about how it was all about to end in tears, then the numbers would be published and prove them wrong year after year after year.

If on the other hand you want to look at how an inept chancellor and irresponsible policies can pitch the UK (and just the UK) into a recession, look at Lawson's budget of 88, the huge bubble it directly blew, and the fallout when this popped.

davetrousers

prowla wrote: »

he has now saddled our children (and their children too, probably) with a huge debt.

Over 10 years?

Blimey your brood reproduce quickly!

Cannon_Fodder

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

then the numbers would be published and prove them wrong year after year after year.

I don't think this years numbers will prove anyone wrong...apart from himself.

Darling defends 'bad news' Budget
Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 14:06 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7291841.stm

"Borrowing next year will rise to £43bn, some 2.9% of national income. It will fall to 1.3% by 2012/13."

Actual speech;
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/budget/article3537030.ece

"So borrowing next year, which peaked at 7.8 per cent of national income by 1993, equivalent to £110 billion today, next year (2009) will rise to £43 billion, some 2.9 per cent of national income, less at its peak than the average level of borrowing between 1979 and 1997.
Because of the decisions taken in this Budget it will fall to 2.5 per cent, then 2 per cent, then 1.6 per cent and then 1.3 per cent by 2012/13, supporting stability and resilience in the economy. That is £38 billion and then £32 billion, £27 billion and £23 billion by 2012/13.
Even taking into account the turbulence in financial markets and the support we are providing to the economy now, the current balance this year is in line with my forecast at Pre-Budget Report at minus £8 billion.
Next year it will be minus £10 billion, then minus £4 billion, returning to a surplus in 2010 of £4 billion, then £11 billion and then £18 billion by 2012/3"


Its looking like DOUBLE. In one year...

...and none of the "minus" years ahead, because debt interest will wipe out the possibility.


Getting it right, largely through a fluke of global economic conditions, has no value, if you don't take advantage of it and then fail to see the end coming - in July 2008 denying a recession was coming = screwing up...

"This pool's been open nearly 40 years, and, in all that time I only slipped up once, to my mind. I was engaged in a particularly tricky word puzzle and 40 people had broken in and were in the pool, playing around, ducking, bombing and doing all manner of prohibited activities, and eventually someone was killed. ... I've been working here for 18 years, and in 1975 no one died. In 1976, no one died. In 1977, no one died. In 1978, no one died. In 1979, no-one died. In 1980... someone died. In 1981, no one died. In 1982 there was the incident with the pigeon. In 1983, no one died. In 1984, no one died. In 1985, no one died. In 1986... I mean, I could go on."


Chancellor dismisses recession talk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/03/oil.recession
"But the chancellor denied the British economy was heading for recession. "The economy will continue to grow," he said"


When the ONS was preparing the Q2 GDP that showed ZERO% growth, he had NO inside info to give him the heads up...?????

Rochdale_Pioneers

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I don't think this years numbers will prove anyone wrong...apart from himself.

yep, they got their figures wrong. As did the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, the Banks etc etc

ruggedtoast

handful wrote: »

Don't you just hate the way those tory newspapers exaggerate how bad things are?;)

Like this well known tory read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/22/budget-deficit-record

UK budget deficit hits record £90bn

The deterioration in the public finances is unprecedented and is due not just to the current recession but to the credit crunch which began in autumn 2007

Cannon_Fodder

Borrowing hit £90Bn in 2008/09, revised from £43Bn.

Forecast of £118Bn for 2009/10 has just been revised to £175Bn.....with another £173Bn in 2010/2011. 12.4% of GDP.

Makes £384Bn in two years = MORE THAN ALL BORROWING EVER, BY EVERY GOVERNMENT, since the BoE was created over 300 years ago...

£606Bn in 4 years...

Borrowing to be 79% of GDP by 2015...

Its all very well saying other forecasters got it wrong too, but they are not IN the Treasury, with the Office of National Statistics at its beck and call...

Yoshua

Reading a lot about the Great depression lately.

Just after World War 1 they called it the great war (still do) but the then the 2nd world war was even worse.

I wonder if this will be called the 2nd Great Depression?

I think we are just like 1929 NOW when everyone is talking like its over we are at the bottom.............

julieq

You can't live in a tulip, it's difficult to live in a south sea bubble, and viable tech stocks were always viable, the problem was that people were gambling brainlessly en masse on who would be google, amazon and ebay in the internet world and most bets were losing. On the other hand there is value in having somewhere to live, it's not just an asset class.

All "toxic" debt is not valueless. Bad debt is mixed with good debt in proportions that are difficult to work out. Using the word "toxic" is essentially hyperbole anyway, it's designed to create a particular response in a reader (like, and just about as meaningless as, the idea of de-toxing). The idea that there's a slow poison in the banking system is much more compelling than the idea that a proportion of their mortgage lending was made to people who won't pay it back and they've confused the situation by mixing all the lending together and selling it on.

There's a lot of journalistic sensationalism about, and the words that get used tell you a lot about the truth of things. If journalists are resorting to meaningless verbiage rather than numbers (or indeed absolute numbers with no reference point) then it means that the numbers aren't scary enough. It's never as bad as journalists say, that is true about everything, journalism thrives on creating worry so people read newspaper articles and post links to them on internet forums. You can go right back through the last 20 or 30 years and find countless examples of apocalpytic scenarios that never ever come to fruition.

Anyway the next wave will be optimism stories in the press. You read it here first! I know journalists, and this is the angle they're looking for now. But they're torn, because what they really want is Gordon Brown to resign first.

amcluesent

IMHO there a 'nod and a wink' agreement in the West that a good dollop of inflation would be very helpful all round. Of course it's been done very discretely, a creeping default if you like. No-one will be losing any sleep that it's the oil sheiks and red China who will take a bath as a result! Bad luck if you've been 'prudent' and have saved, there's too few of you voting to count

All the UK politicians are complicit in deluding the voters until after the next election, when 'suddenly' the issues of public debt, elder care on the NHS, unfunded pensions, energy famine, over-population, the islamist fifth-column, 9,000,000 idle on benefits, etc. will be revealed.

The 'long emergency' has been evident for 10-15 years to anyone who cared to look.

StevieJ

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

If on the other hand you want to look at how an inept chancellor and irresponsible policies can pitch the UK (and just the UK) into a recession, look at Lawson's budget of 88, the huge bubble it directly blew, and the fallout when this popped.

Can you imagine having Lawson or Major as Chancellor over the past ten years :eek: We wouldn't have been devalued against the Euro we would be in it
Note Lawson (if my memory serves me right) in the late 80's shadowed the DM as a precursor to joining ERM I believe, then omitted to tell Maggie he was doing it :rolleyes:
It would not have got past Sabretooth with his charts :rotfl: