Government borrowing less than forecast

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

Does Gordon Brown care what voters think? News to me.

I like Alistair Darling, comes across as a decent bloke, but he clearly doesn't see eye to eye on Brown with regards to fiscal policy.

No but his fellow MP's may do.

nearlynew

They are all a buch of lying thieves.

Why anybody takes any notice of them is beyond me.

Blacklight

People keep banding about this £200bn figure saying that each taxpayer now has to pay £6k blah, blah, blah...

If we're actually at £135bn and the EU says we should have a deficit of no more than (how much? 3% of GDP? I can't remember) what is the amount we need to pay back in reality?

[edit] Nevermind, I worked it out. At £132bn we need to pay back £52.5bn. Well Brown has just managed to find £46bn so we just need him to repeat that and we're all in the clear.

Gets my vote!

aelitaman

Blacklight wrote: »

People keep banding about this £200bn figure saying that each taxpayer now has to pay £6k blah, blah, blah...

If we're actually at £135bn and the EU says we should have a deficit of no more than (how much? 3% of GDP? I can't remember) what is the amount we need to pay back in reality?

[edit] Nevermind, I worked it out. At £132bn we need to pay back £52.5bn. Well Brown has just managed to find £46bn so we just need him to repeat that and we're all in the clear.

Gets my vote!

132bill is part of the year we have sometime to go yet. Current view seems to be that the borrowing for the govts financial year will be 157bill.

So EU wants us to get to 3% of GDP and the 157 bill is 12%. So we need to cut 157bill to 157 / 12 x 3 = 39.25 bill. Which is a cut of 117.75 billion to get back to a deficit (i.e not the massive pile of debt we have and that will still be growing) of 3% of GDP. If we get some growth this may help to reduce the size of this but not by a massive amount.

For your information 117.75 billion is a massive amout.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Excellent news.

132 billion is massively better than the 200 billion figure so many on here throw around.

That's a third of the deficit figures discussed on here gone before a single cut or efficiency saving is made.;)

And of course whatever the final amount is, as long as it's less than forecast, it's another nail in the coffin for the crash, lower borrowing than forecast, markets will react positively, rates will remain lower, less job cuts needed, etc etc etc....

Excellent news indeed...... ? A perverse view.

the Office for National Statistics released data showing that the Treasury needed to borrow £12.4bn to balance the books in February - the biggest February deficit on record

Less encouraging news for the government came from separate data from the Bank of England showing that lending to businesses fell more sharply in January than at any time since records began a decade ago.
Fuelling growing concerns about the sustainability of the UK's economic recovery, Threadneedle Street said net lending fell by £6.5bn – double the rate of decline in December. Lending in the first month of 2010 was almost 10% lower than a year earlier, despite government attempts to persuade banks to increase the flow of credit to companies.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir is right. These are still serious sums of money.

We need a 'Martin' type person drop-shipped into every LG/Central department. There must be loads of things they can cut back on.

I believe the chancellor's office has some seriously nice furniture which would zip outta ebay in days. Replace with IKEA value range and you're sorted.

Here's another. Put your hand up (internet style) if you haven't heard about global warming / taxing your car / smoking can harm you ?
If the answer is less than 5 people, well we scan scrap those boring ads filling up out radio and telly. I'm pretty sure they could halve the £540m advertising spend and we wouldn't notice.

C'mon boffins....sort it out!

JP45

The question is what will the government do with this unexpected windfall?

The following item from the FT sets out the options:

But what should Mr Darling do with his minor windfall next Wednesday, just about six weeks before the election? Should he

• Bank the windfall, announcing slightly lower borrowing for 2009-10 and subsequent years because higher revenues this year provides base for subsequent revenue growth.
• Use the windfall to spend money on the government’s priorities on jobs, growth and high-tech industries
• Use the windfall for a naked pre-election lollipop to voters

The three are not mutually exclusive and I am far from sure which would play best with voters. So we will probably get a mixture. There is no doubt that the first is the most responsible. Had we known a year ago that borrowing would be “only” say £165bn in 2009-10, not £175bn, we would have said the number is terrible and shows the government needs to get its fiscal house in order. That has not changed just because the Treasury forecast an even worse outcome.

Personally, I'd bank most of the windfall and use the rest for jobs, growth etc, but I fear that Brown and Chancellor-in-waiting Balls will force Darling to opt for the third - a naked pre-election lollipop for voters.

I just hope that if that happens, voters will have the sense to see it for what it is.
.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

How come Blair didn't dump Brown after 97

Because as you are probably aware. There was an agreement from the very start of setting up New Labour.

There have been numerous documentaries on it, and neither Brown or Blair have denied it.

treliac

Masomnia wrote: »

Alistair Darling - good egg.

Shame he won't be Chancellor after 6th May.

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's been widely reported that Ed Balls will be the Chancellor if Labour win.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If there was aver a slap in the face for labour voters, that's surely got to be it!

What a horrible, slimey, scheming bloke to have as chancellor. Especially taking over a decent one.

And even more reason not to contemplate a further term for the current mob.

doire_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Excellent news.

132 billion is massively better than the 200 billion figure so many on here throw around.

That's a third of the deficit figures discussed on here gone before a single cut or efficiency saving is made.;)

And of course whatever the final amount is, as long as it's less than forecast, it's another nail in the coffin for the crash, lower borrowing than forecast, markets will react positively, rates will remain lower, less job cuts needed, etc etc etc....

A dose of reality just talked about on the ITV 10pm news.. The situation is still dire and this revision will make little difference