The Times - Labour Plans Pension Raid

jamesd

Around then the plan to finally pay off the borrowing for the Napoleonic War, the South Sea Bubble cleanup and the First World War, via redeeming Consols was announced, though I'm not sure that's what the speech was referring to.

coastline

Pensions minister expects a cut in tax relief regardless whos in power...

http://citywire.co.uk/money/higher-rate-pension-tax-relief-for-the-axe-after-election-warns-webb/a790935

redux

jamesd wrote: »

Around then the plan to finally pay off the borrowing for the Napoleonic War, the South Sea Bubble cleanup and the First World War, via redeeming Consols was announced, though I'm not sure that's what the speech was referring to.

Was that mentioned in a party political broadcast in January 2013, the cause of the first time Cameron was reprimanded for use of the phrase?

Not very likely.

A Spectator blog page from that time is headlined.

David Cameron rebuked for telling porkies about the national debt.

The Spectator isn't run by Labour Party activists either. I haven't checked the affiliations of the article author, but he does happen to be the editor, and also a columnist at the Telegraph, another non Labour Party mouthpiece.

robin61

Cyberman60 wrote: »

They won't get in. The majority of UK citizens are not that stupid !! :beer:

Well lets hope so but I think they might just scrape through with the help of others especially after Clegg's betrayal over the boundary changes. What a nightmare for prudent hard working people that will be.

robin61

wessy53 wrote: »

Spendthrift on things like the NHS, Education & Policing all things this government said would not be affected by austerity cuts. (wrong / lies you choose)

Funny that Osborne ridiculed Darlings plan to half the deficit, Insisting he would reduce it altogether by 2015 all at the cost to the most vulnerable.
Yet now he along with your good self applaud the fact that he failed miserably and achieved exactly what most people advised in the first place a slower paced reduction. Labours job is to oppose things that the government get wrong is it not.

I guess austerity is fine has long as it doesn't impact on those that wont feel the pain. People perhaps that can afford to plan for retirement and invest perhaps.

Of course it would have been better if Labour's deficit had been reduced more quickly. After seeing Labour oppose virtually every measure to reduce the deficit I have every confidence that it would have continued to increase every month as it did when Labour were last in power.

coastline

redux wrote: »

He has used the phrase paying down the debt.

That choice of phrase, as if the words deficit and debt are interchangeable, is misleading. This government has borrowed more money than all previous governments put together, as the total debt has doubled.

One doesn't have to be a Labour party member or even voter in order to point this out, or that high management charges can have had much greater effect on pension funds than the change of dividend taxation.

The UK Statistics Authority, which has rebuked Cameron on the first point more than once, is an official watchdog, not part of the Labour Party.

' However, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot, pointed out that, while the deficit has fallen since the coalition came to power in 2010, debt has risen.

Sir Andrew noted that he had to issue a similar clarification in February 2013 after Mr Cameron remarked in a party political broadcast that the Government was "paying down Britain's debts". '

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2779516/Cameron-rebuked-debt-claims.html

It is one thing to mainly talk about the deficit reducing, relying on some people not distinguishing the total debt and its rate of change, but Cameron has said the debt is reducing. Despite being officially criticised on the point, he has repeated it. This is intentional.

After telling the general public to pay their debts off a few years ago they now hope the reverse will happen to keep things moving along.

http://www.marketmoving.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Household-Debt-OBR.jpg

http://www.marketmoving.info/household-debt-set-increase-sharply-uk/

robin61

Spidernick wrote: »

The problem is that most of the general public seem to equate 'deficit' with 'debt' and don't realise that the latter continues to rise year on year. When Cameron said 'We are paying down Britain's debts' that was a downright lie.

Be as blinkered as you like (and I am confident that you will continue to be so), but the fact is that Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit by the end of this parliament and has now had to backtrack on this. Even someone as biased as you has to admit that this is a failure.

Yes you have to deal with the deficit before you can pay off the debt. People will have to decide whether they think Labour would have reduced the deficit they left behind them faster than the Coalition have done and who they trust with the economy and their pensions more. I've not seen anything positive from Labour on pensions which are very important to me as I come up to retirement.

redux

robin61 wrote: »

Of course it would have been better if Labour's deficit had been reduced more quickly. After seeing Labour oppose virtually every measure to reduce the deficit I have every confidence that it would have continued to increase every month as it did when Labour were last in power.

For most of the life of this government the cuts have been less than Labour proposed at the last election.

That might be something that both government and opposition might find it convenient to let us forget, but all we can really conclude is that the policies of these parties are fairly close together, and all governments respond pragmatically to how things are going, causing greater variations than the previous differences between parties.

Linton

robin61 wrote: »

Of course it would have been better if Labour's deficit had been reduced more quickly. After seeing Labour oppose virtually every measure to reduce the deficit I have every confidence that it would have continued to increase every month as it did when Labour were last in power.

The public sector net debt was reduced in absolute terms during the years 1997-2001 and until the crash the public sector net debt was a lower % of GDP than under much of Major's time. See here.

coastline

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Wrong !! Always TRUST Labour to ruin the economy and leave massive debts, while fiddling unnecessary with things that have worked superbly for years (ie: final salary pensions) until they fail .

The level of debt would have been the same as the Tories backed Labours spending plans from 2007 to 2010...both would have landed us with a £100bn a year budget deficit..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0

No government has tried to run a budget surplus just balance it....when a recession comes along the national debt booms.

https://nickthornsby.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/deficit.png

Here's the national debt in 1992 recession...no labour government for years.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1992_1997UKb_14c1li111mcn_G0t