Starmer’s chronicles

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Been saying this for years

welcome to Eldorado

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<cough cough>

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/u...ficit_analysis



The deficit as % of GDP was reducing until the gambling banks decision to blow up the World’s economies…

That is because GDP was going up, because the housing bubble was about to burst.
The average deficit for the 6 years prior to 2008, was £42bn(total of £254bn).
Debt as a % of GDP, went from 27% for 2001/02 to 34% for 2007/08.It was also 34% for 1998/99, but the total debt was £194.6bn lower.
Without the post-2010 reduction in the deficit, there wouldn't have been the money available for covid, energy costs, and cost of living.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

welcome to Eldorado

Sorry being really stupid, this comment is lost on me

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Itshim

Sorry being really stupid, this comment is lost on me

a mythical city of gold

I thought it was a soap opera ....

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

I thought it was a soap opera ....

Lol. Cancel culture, too many attractive happy people in it!

Originally Posted by nomadking

That is because GDP was going up, because the housing bubble was about to burst.
The average deficit for the 6 years prior to 2008, was £42bn(total of £254bn).
Debt as a % of GDP, went from 27% for 2001/02 to 34% for 2007/08.It was also 34% for 1998/99, but the total debt was £194.6bn lower.
Without the post-2010 reduction in the deficit, there wouldn't have been the money available for covid, energy costs, and cost of living.

Ah, back to your old tendency to Gish gallop, I see…

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah, back to your old tendency to Gish gallop, I see…

I'm just quoting facts. Love to know how adding debt amounting to 10% of GDP each year was sustainable. Labour added over £250bn to the debt in the 6 years before 2008.

Without austerity where would the money have come from for energy cost subsidies, cost of living payments, and Labour's spending?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Ah, back to your old tendency to Gish gallop, I see…

Point scoring aside. The economy, and the country are F—-cked, in a bad way.

Labour, as usual, have spent big…..giving the doctors the big pay rise because not doing so would cost more Money…….

Only for the doctors to then ask for truck loads more money…brilliant.

Chancellor crying, PM getting banged in the back door by the French dwarf whilst lavishly fellating him.

It’s embarrassing, wholly embarrassing. We look as weak as pish.

The country is ungovernable. People don't want cuts, or tax raises, or infrastructure built near them. Something has to give eventually.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<cough cough>

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/u...ficit_analysis



The deficit as % of GDP was reducing until the gambling banks decision to blow up the World’s economies…

My post was correct. As was pointed out in your link:

The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. In the subsequent recovery the deficit has steadily declined, down to £1.9 billion in 2018.

What happened after the austerity years is a different matter, and we have had Covid and the Ukraine war since then.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

The country is ungovernable. People don't want cuts, or tax raises, or infrastructure built near them. Something has to give eventually.

We've basically stagnated since the Global Financial Crisis. Interesting article in the FT saying it's the root of our problems. We had hoped that an economy based on the City of London would continue to keep us growing but the bubble burst in 2008 and we've not found a way to fill that gap.

Indubitably, a serious government would be devoting vast intellectual resources to the question of how to raise the growth rate. None has, including this one. A starting point, in my view, must be recognition that the Thatcher experiment failed: it did not transform the underlying performance of the economy for the better. This must now be admitted. Too much of the post-Thatcher performance was unsustainable. This was, in good part, because it was the fruit of a global credit bubble, in which the UK was a leading actor.

My hope is to devote future columns to how a new growth strategy might work. But, before that, it is crucial to recognise the political responses we have been seeing since 2010. By and large, these have fallen into two categories: charlatanism and timidity. The charlatans pretend that something simple — Brexit or huge unfunded tax cuts — will deliver. The timid have been relatively responsible. But they have been unwilling to admit the scale of the economic and political challenges they confront and then make hard choices.

Keir Starmer is not a charlatan. But he has not been prepared to take on the burden of leadership that current conditions require. I sympathise. But his timidity will not work.

https://www.ft.com/content/259dacdb-...d-1f079731e100

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My post was correct. As was pointed out in your link:

The budget deficit skyrocketed to £50 billion in 2009 and £103 billion in 2010. In the subsequent recovery the deficit has steadily declined, down to £1.9 billion in 2018.

What happened after the austerity years is a different matter, and we have had Covid and the Ukraine war since then.

So, you blame Labour for the initial effects of the Global Financial Crisis, but the Conservatives get a free pass for the effects of COVID and the Ukraine War…

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, you blame Labour for the initial effects of the Global Financial Crisis, but the Conservatives get a free pass for the effects of COVID and the Ukraine War…

That's an accurate summary.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So, you blame Labour for the initial effects of the Global Financial Crisis, but the Conservatives get a free pass for the effects of COVID and the Ukraine War…

Deficit figures: 2001/02 £5.5bn, 2002/03 £34.1bn, 2003/04 £41.7bn, 2004/05 £49.1bn, 2005/06 £44.2bn, 2006/07 £39.9bn, 2007/08 £45bn.
All before 2008 crash.
If the 2009/10 deficit of £157.7bn was purely down to the crash, then the deficit would've quickly dropped dramatically back to around £40+bn without austerity. It didn't, so there was massive Labour inbuilt excess spending.