Cameron: "Years of Pain Ahead"

Alan_Cross

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7144906.ece

Looks like hes not on message with Mr Clegg.

Don't worry, Clegg will soon find a way of being 'on' any message Cameron wants to send.

Poodles like their leashes.

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

Looks like Davey lad is trying to play down the perfectly responsible future growth forecasts for next year

let's paint a worse picture than it really is, then a few months later when the growth forcasts are reviewed again - claim it was all down to the current governments 'hard' work. DC should be a magician.

Spartacus_Mills

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7144906.ece

Looks like hes not on message with Mr Clegg.

No contradiction here. They are perfectly on message with what they are trying to present to the people.

The situation is dire and something needs to be done about it. All parties accepted this before the election.

Cameron is right to highlight the wildly optimistic forecasts. At the time they are released many pundits, including the IFS, stated these were over optimistic as did the opposition.

As for the debt, there is no problem at all having debt as long as you can manage to pay it back. Most of us have debt at some time in our lives. My mortgage is 98GBP a month. Perfectly manageable for me. If it was 9800GBP a month it would not be. I am not scared of the government having a manageable debt. The problem is, even in the good years, Labour ran up a national debt (after all they had abolished Tory boom and bust :rotfl:) instead of paying some of the debt off which, to Gordon Browns credit, they did in their first couple of years in power.

IveSeenTheLight

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

No contradiction here. They are perfectly on message with what they are trying to present to the people.

The situation is dire and something needs to be done about it. All parties accepted this before the election.

Cameron is right to highlight the wildly optimistic forecasts. At the time they are released many pundits, including the IFS, stated these were over optimistic as did the opposition.

As for the debt, there is no problem at all having debt as long as you can manage to pay it back. Most of us have debt at some time in our lives. My mortgage is 98GBP a month. Perfectly manageable for me. If it was 9800GBP a month it would not be. I am not scared of the government having a manageable debt. The problem is, even in the good years, Labour ran up a national debt (after all they had abolished Tory boom and bust :rotfl:) instead of paying some of the debt off which, to Gordon Browns credit, they did in their first couple of years in power.

Your right in that many people have manageable debt.
In our cases it's amortgage which we generally take over 25 years to spread the payments, but what we achieve out of that is a further 25 - 50 years of not having to pay for accomodation.

Its paying for something now which will benefit us in the future

Is this the same for the government debt? I don't think so, in fact it would appear to be very much the opposite.

The £156 million defecit is spent on what out of the govt budget.
My guess a huge proportion will be servicing the interest on the debt.

Time to get it down and if possible erradicated where possible.

If there are long term strategies out there e.g. building nuclear power buildings, which costs now, but reduces the cost for everyone in the future, then these need to be explored.

Otherwise, cut back and live within your means.

angrypirate

From http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/06/prime-ministers-speech-on-the-economy-51435

But the truth about that economic growth – and the tragedy – was that it was based on things that could never go on forever.
Their economy was based on a boom in financial services, which at its peak accounted for a quarter of all corporation tax receipts.
But this was unsustainable because the success of financial services was partly an illusion, conjured from years of low interest rates, cheap money and a bubble in the price of assets like houses

.

Looks like this may disappoint some of our bulls

donaldtramp

To give you an idea of the truly mind boggling debt we have built up in public sector spending and the public sector's bullet proof "magical" pensions.
Have a read at the article below which helps show the difference between Millions, Billions and Trillions.

A) How many days is 1 Million seconds?

Have a think...




It's Around 11 and 1/2 days.

How many days is 1 TRILLION seconds?
(FYI The public sector pension deficit is approaching £1 Trillion)


The answer is.......


31,709 YEARS


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/trillion-dollar-rescue-plan

This simple analogy helps show the scale of our problems very nicely.

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Cameron is right to highlight the wildly optimistic forecasts. At the time they are released many pundits, including the IFS, stated these were over optimistic as did the opposition.

.

Not sure where you get wildly optimistic from my guess would be those forecasts would be pessimistic, unless of course Georgie boy totally messes up the economy :eek:

There is also a choice of glasses when it comes to the outlook for Britain. The OECD's financial conditions index measures whether such conditions are conducive to economic growth on the basis of changes in real interest rates, bond spreads, credit conditions, exchange rates and wealth. The index for Britain, which stands at more than five, compared with a minus number of almost that much in the autumn and winter of 2008-9, is stronger than elsewhere, partly because of sterling's depreciation. Each point on the index is consistent with an increase in GDP of between 0.5 and 1 percentage points after 12 to 18 months. Taking the mid-point of that range would give a growth rate of 3.75%. It could even be higher.
This is the Bank of England's private response when accused of presenting over-optimistic growth forecasts, which are for growth to pick up to about 3% next year and maintain that rate in 2012.
You have to ask what would happen in normal circumstances with a Bank rate of 0.5% alongside a substantial fall in the pound. Normally, with such a stimulus, the economy would be booming like billyo, so 3% is, if anything, restrained and allows for quite a lot of pain in the form of tax rises and spending cuts.
There is a bit of that in the OECD report. Indeed, it spells out the possibility of something like a golden scenario for Britain. "The normalisation of financial conditions could underpin a stronger rebound in household consumption which, together with an even swifter recovery in exports, could spur investment and raise growth further," it says.

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/001169.html#more

Wheezy_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

No contradiction here. They are perfectly on message with what they are trying to present to the people.

Not really.

Cameron's shower of pain or Clegg's sensitive cuts?

Clegg’s words are a dire warning to Cameron that not everyone in the country is willing to be so uncompromising. What happens if Clegg isn’t prepared to go as far as Cameron would like? If a division opens up within the coalition then Cameron is in serious trouble. The PM’s choice of a Lib Dem for chief secretary to the Treasury – a key role in deciding how to cut departmental spending – has already proved disastrous with David Laws resigning over expenses. Putting a Lib Dem in the role was a clever way of sharing the inevitable public backlash over cuts between the Tories and the Lib Dems. A political generation in the wilderness is the alternative. But appointing a Lib Dem as key executioner could be disastrous in a coalition where Clegg’s side aren’t prepared to swing the axe as ruthlessly as Cameron would like.

The Lib Dems – long in opposition to immediate spending cuts – soon found the political motivation to toe the Tory line when their chances of joining the government depended on it.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/comment/morning-line/content.aspx?ID=404694

Spartacus_Mills

Wheezy wrote: »

Not really.

Yes really, there is no contradiction here. Just classic good cop bad cop. Saying the same thing in a different manner while people run around like headless chickens looking for division in the coalition.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your right in that many people have manageable debt.
In our cases it's amortgage which we generally take over 25 years to spread the payments, but what we achieve out of that is a further 25 - 50 years of not having to pay for accomodation.

A mortgage is dependant on an income stream over 25 years to repay the debt. The income stream is in no way guaranteed.

The Tawainese factory in China where suicides have been rife recently. Has awarded there employees an 70% payrise. Which takes there monthly pay to around £200.

At a point there has to be divergence of global pay. The extremes between economies will diminish.

At the G20 it was Canada, Brazil, India and China which opposed the unilateral banking levy. Why? Because these are the economies which are growing, becoming wealthier, and don't have the baggage of to contend with.