UK public borrowing higher than expected in April

Mr_Mumble

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am really having to try hard not to say [STRIKE]I told you so[/STRIKE].

A higher deficit thanks to yet more unsustainable hikes in spending.. is this really what you've been telling us? Or, is the claim that Labour would have given us "higher growth"? Wishing for "higher growth" doesn't make it so. Labour have been saying they'd increase spending on low productivity institutions such as the NHS.

press_association_quote wrote:

Spending in April was 5% higher than a year ago at £54.1 billion. This was mainly caused by a 26% rise in interest payments to £1 billion

A rise of £200m in interest payments isn't the main cause of a £2.6bn rise in spending :wall: .

Thrugelmir

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

A rise of £200m in interest payments isn't the main cause of a £2.6bn rise in spending :wall: .

An outgoing that will continue to increase as the debt owes does. Along with with higher interest rates if the international money markets lose confidence with the UK's ability to rectify the situation.

chewmylegoff

LauraW10 wrote: »

Me too...

Useless Tories

if the tories are useless, then how do you describe a party that gets us into a situation where we have a £175bn deficit.

"spiffing"

"jolly good, what?"

no, didn't think so. how about catastrophically inept.

wait, don't tell me: "blah blah blah it started in america blah blah blah global problem blah blah blah not the only country in trouble blah blah blah wasn't labour's fault".

chucky

i love these threads, criticise the Tories or Lib Dems and it ends up being Labours fault and an anti-Labour thread...

they won't be able to use that excuse for ever - well you can use that excuse for as long as you like but it's even starting to make Osborne more stupid than he is.

the current government will end up being no better than the last lot.

mbga9pgf

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if the tories are useless, then how do you describe a party that gets us into a situation where we have a £175bn deficit.

"spiffing"

"jolly good, what?"

no, didn't think so. how about catastrophically inept.

wait, don't tell me: "blah blah blah it started in america blah blah blah global problem blah blah blah not the only country in trouble blah blah blah wasn't labour's fault".

LauraW10 - typical labour hag.

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

i love these threads, criticise the Tories or Lib Dems and it ends up being Labours fault and an anti-Labour thread...

they won't be able to use that excuse for ever - well you can use that excuse for as long as you like but it's even starting to make Osborne more stupid than he is.

the current government will end up being no better than the last lot.

They can stop using the Labour defence when they get the deficit down to where it was when they handed the reins over to the Labour party.

Till then, Socialists need to !!!!!! and eat some humble pie.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

They can stop using the Labour defence when they get the deficit down to where it was when they handed the reins over to the Labour party.

Till then, Socialists need to !!!!!! and eat some humble pie.

have a read of these two posts and educate yourself a bit instead of making the usual Tory are our "heroes" and the Tories will "save the world" posts...

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It will however expose the folly of;

1) The pensioner triple lock guarantee.

2) "Protecting" health service spending.

3) Hugely increasing overseas aid & planning to legislate to do guarantee it. As it happens the UK is fairly generous already.

4) The fact that nothing as yet seems to have been done to increase ecenomic activity and employment. That could mean anything from scrapping the minimum wage, reducing H & S legislation, and funding small employer apprenticeship schemes without masses of paperwork.

In the case of number 3, Parliament seems increasing to want to pass laws that inevitably will mean future judicial scrutiny and then hold their hands up and say - "we didn't mean that".

You once wrote that Labour once built the Humber bridge to win a by-election, this time the tories will be building bridges all over Africa just to prove they are not the nasty party anymore (and help the Lib Dems retain a few seats).

In the case of number 4, it does seem that the current government have set tough departmental budgets (which is to be admired) but are just sitting on their hands waiting for things to improve.

What we really need is some radical reform - the 21st century equivalent of 1980's Union legislation and privatisation.
I wouldn't have been thinking that 18 months ago.


Current policy does smack of hoping for the best.

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

I was specifically talking about improving the business environment.
To be specific it could include (and an obvious problem is the European part of some of the below).

1) scrapping some H & S legislation

2) Scrapping the working time directive

3) Not bringing in things like the driver CPC which is due from next year.

4) Scrapping the minimum wage (particularly under 18's and perhaps higher)

5) Extending VAT exemption for small businesses.

6) Reducing "green" legislation.

7) changing some employment law, which in certain areas is weighted too favourably towards employees (and lawyers).

What exactly about wanting the above is supporting the "Nanny state" ?

Lots of talk from the government about the above - very little action however.

Anyone who thinks we will cut the deficit in the long term without economic growth is deluded.

Kohoutek

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

It will however expose the folly of;

1) The pensioner triple lock guarantee.

2) "Protecting" health service spending.

3) Hugely increasing overseas aid & planning to legislate to do guarantee it. As it happens the UK is fairly generous already.

4) The fact that nothing as yet seems to have been done to increase ecenomic activity and employment. That could mean anything from scrapping the minimum wage, reducing H & S legislation, and funding small employer apprenticeship schemes without masses of paperwork.

5) Pretending we're still a first or second rate military power.

Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the taxpayer as much as £1bn if it continues into the autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data gathered by the Guardian.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

the current government will end up being no better than the last lot.

I for one sincerely hope that the coalition does achieve something in the next 4 years. Judgement can be passed then.

At the current time being there's bigger issues than politics at stake .

Sir_Humphrey

Re Kennyboy66.

I think we need to concentrate on the demand side rather than the supply side reforms you suggest. Doing things such as cut the minimum wage would just reduce demand. Assuming that cutting HSE and red tape would help is questionable; industrial accidents are very expensive. Regarding red tape; one person's profit is another person's loss. Companies make money printing signs and selling safety equipment.

For those who need an explanation. This is largely down to inadequate growth. Looking at spending levels misses the point; if you get low growth and higher unemployment than is otherwise the case, then spending increases happen (due to benefit payments) and tax take decreases (less private income and spending = less tax). This results in an increase in the deficit. Most spending is not discretionary.

As I have said before, this is why you cannot cut your way out of a deficit unless there is strong growth in the international economy.