Not Paying Down Deficit-Cons Think Voters Cant Understand Sums

moneyinmypocket

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Lets not panic the troops eh? Best they dont know, what they don't know won't hurt them, after all many of them are seniors after all and easily pacified - Not!

I think someone needs to take thier pills

Generali

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Where did you hear that the deficit has gone down?

The ONS. The people who keep track of the deficit.

Where did you hear it went up?

DecentLivingWage

The ONS! Here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/u-k-budget-deficit-widens-as-weak-economy-weighs-on-profits.html

Cameron was reprimanded for misleading the markets and the voters... according to some of the many many other statements saying the deficit had gone up - shall I post them?:)

DecentLivingWage

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Staying focused on thread then, others may be interested to read what Mr Dilnot said to Cameron about how not to be misleading in how he presents his deficit claims - I actually respect voters/forumites of every view and think they have a right to know

Cameron's Deficit Claim investigated

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/01/david-cameron-told-off-for-misleading-debt-claim_n_2598341.html

grizzly1911

I don't mind you ranting on but can you compare apples with apples not pairs.

The deficit has gone down. Like you overspending a bit less each year

The debt has gone up. Like you adding your annual over spend to a rolling loan each year.

Until the deficit is reduced turned into an abundance, however small, the debt is not going to reduce.

From the article you posted.

"Chair of the UK Statistics Authority Andrew Dilnot confirmed today that public sector net debt has risen from £811 billion in 2010 when the coalition took office to £1.1 trillion at the end of last
year."

ash28

Masomnia wrote: »

Deficit in financial year to April 2010, £155billion; deficit in financial year to April 2012, £121billion.

This year has been a bit more than it was to the same point last, but thing would have to get significantly worse before we get back to how it was when they took over.

It won't get significantly worse yet....the nationalisation of Royal Mail Pensions - reduces the deficit by £28bn. Though the future liabilities are around £38bn (could be more) and get put under the heading of UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/budget-2012-can-royal-mail-s-pension-assets-be-called-a-windfall/a576428

Then we have the transfer of APF - Asset Purchase Facitly, or QE, from the BoE to the Treasury.....in the past the Treasury paid interest to the BoE (which stayed on the BoE's books, about £35bn by March this year), now that interest is going to the Treasury to help reduce the deficit...this will be a short term gain - what happens when QE starts to be wound up or interest rates rise is anyone's guess. The treasury will receive the money quarterly and received the first tranche on the 13th Jan 2013 - about £11bn

However, it added that it also made it likely that the government would have to make return payments to the APF in the future when, for example, the interest rate increases. The government had already agreed that it would meet any future losses in full.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2012/11/treasurys-qe-cash-grab-will-cut-borrowing/

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/chx_letter_091112.pdf

So to clarify, the BoE prints money, loans it to the government at interest and now those interest payments go back to the government and will count against the debt.

You couldn't make it up.

And the government is ensuring £billions more in debt to be paid for in the future.

StevieJ

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I don't mind you ranting on but can you compare apples with apples not pairs.

The deficit has gone down. Like you overspending a bit less each year
"

What if the deficit goes up year on year, does that count as an increase or do we always have to refer to the deficit figure they inherited?

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

What if the deficit goes up year on year, does that count as an increase or do we always have to refer to the deficit figure they inherited?

I guess it depends on the point you want to make.



Perhaps your point is that the Government this year is crapper than last and here is a number to prove it: the deficit is worse....blah.

Perhaps your point is that Tories are crapper than Labour so the deficit is higher under the current Government than it was under Lab....ah, erm. Hang on a sec, that doesn't work. Maybe we'll try a different track because poor people are poorer with a rich person thingamy.

Dagnamits.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

I guess it depends on the point you want to make.



Perhaps your point is that the Government this year is crapper than last and here is a number to prove it: the deficit is worse....blah.

Perhaps your point is that Tories are crapper than Labour so the deficit is higher under the current Government than it was under Lab....ah, erm. Hang on a sec, that doesn't work. Maybe we'll try a different track because poor people are poorer with a rich person thingamy.

Dagnamits.

My point is about current direction, which to me is the important thing.

grizzly1911

StevieJ wrote: »

What if the deficit goes up year on year, does that count as an increase or do we always have to refer to the deficit figure they inherited?

Doesn't really matter who is overspending or underspending annually, one is a deficit the other is a surplus the principle is the same.

It is the difference between deficit and debt that is issue.

The OP was referring to the deficit increasing which at the current time it isn't. I appreciate that some creative bookkeeping is going on but the ONS are happy to have these included in the figures..