oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 12, 2023 12:12:50 GMT
Yes, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 12, 2023 15:33:11 GMT
I think you'll find that if you speak to any of your old friends in the City that the BoE is not exactly held in high esteem at the moment. Their forecasts over the last years have been woeful.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 12, 2023 18:16:05 GMT
I think you'll find that if you speak to any of your old friends in the City that the BoE is not exactly held in high esteem at the moment. Their forecasts over the last years have been woeful. Perhaps. But what's that got to do with the actual cost of UK government debt? Could you explain |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 12, 2023 19:43:32 GMT
I think you'll find that if you speak to any of your old friends in the City that the BoE is not exactly held in high esteem at the moment. Their forecasts over the last years have been woeful. Perhaps. But what's that got to do with the actual cost of UK government debt? Could you explain Government debt has been going up since the days of the Blair government. There are probably many reasons why the yields are going up. It's never down to one single thing. The extended QE from the BoE is probably a big factor in this. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 12, 2023 19:50:04 GMT
Perhaps. But what's that got to do with the actual cost of UK government debt? Could you explain Government debt has been going up since the days of the Blair government. There are probably many reasons why the yields are going up. It's never down to one single thing. The extended QE from the BoE is probably a big factor in this. Oh god. As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 1997 and 2008? As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 2010 and 2016... |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 13, 2023 10:02:37 GMT
Government debt has been going up since the days of the Blair government. There are probably many reasons why the yields are going up. It's never down to one single thing. The extended QE from the BoE is probably a big factor in this. Oh god. As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 1997 and 2008? As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 2010 and 2016... Oh God, you don't understand do you! Between 1997 and 2008, how much government debt was 'kept off the books' by Brown? No point quoting figures when they are taken out of context! The economy is not black & white. Remember when the Tories took over in 2010 and the famous note left by Bryant? It said something like, "good luck. There's nothing left" because Labour had maxed out on borrowing at that point! |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166 
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 13, 2023 10:58:50 GMT
Oh god. As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 1997 and 2008? As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 2010 and 2016... Oh God, you don't understand do you! Between 1997 and 2008, how much government debt was 'kept off the books' by Brown? No point quoting figures when they are taken out of context! The economy is not black & white. Remember when the Tories took over in 2010 and the famous note left by Bryant? It said something like, "good luck. There's nothing left" because Labour had maxed out on borrowing at that point! Nobby, that note was a joke but held up by the Tories to be fact. There is a tradition of ministers leaving notes to their successors. UK National debt, on and off balance sheet, has rocketed both numerically and as a % of GDP in the last 13 years irrespective of Covid. That said, has anyone found out where the £37bln spent on the failed track and trace went....., |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 13, 2023 15:26:15 GMT
Oh god. As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 1997 and 2008? As a % of GDP, how much did government debt increase between 2010 and 2016... Oh God, you don't understand do you! Between 1997 and 2008, how much government debt was 'kept off the books' by Brown? No point quoting figures when they are taken out of context! The economy is not black & white. Remember when the Tories took over in 2010 and the famous note left by Bryant? It said something like, "good luck. There's nothing left" because Labour had maxed out on borrowing at that point! How much debt was kept off the books? Value and source information please. Bluster and stuttering outrage doesn't count |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 14, 2023 6:33:48 GMT
Oh God, you don't understand do you! Between 1997 and 2008, how much government debt was 'kept off the books' by Brown? No point quoting figures when they are taken out of context! The economy is not black & white. Remember when the Tories took over in 2010 and the famous note left by Bryant? It said something like, "good luck. There's nothing left" because Labour had maxed out on borrowing at that point! How much debt was kept off the books? Value and source information please. Bluster and stuttering outrage doesn't count Do you really expect me to know every device used by Labour to keep things off the books? I can point you in the direction of PFI though. Who knows the true cost of that scandal but I'm pretty sure we are talking about 10's of billion, and the cost of that PFI is still being carried today. As for 'bluster and stuttering outrage' I'll leave that stuff to you. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 14, 2023 8:55:07 GMT
How much debt was kept off the books? Value and source information please. Bluster and stuttering outrage doesn't count Do you really expect me to know every device used by Labour to keep things off the books? I can point you in the direction of PFI though. Who knows the true cost of that scandal but I'm pretty sure we are talking about 10's of billion, and the cost of that PFI is still being carried today. As for 'bluster and stuttering outrage' I'll leave that stuff to you. That's what I thought. You claim that Brown kept a load of debt "off the books" without any credible evidence that this was true, other than more idle speculation. Par for the course. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 14, 2023 9:52:57 GMT
Do you really expect me to know every device used by Labour to keep things off the books? I can point you in the direction of PFI though. Who knows the true cost of that scandal but I'm pretty sure we are talking about 10's of billion, and the cost of that PFI is still being carried today. As for 'bluster and stuttering outrage' I'll leave that stuff to you. That's what I thought. You claim that Brown kept a load of debt "off the books" without any credible evidence that this was true, other than more idle speculation. Par for the course. You are aware that not everything is black & white. The government never did publish a complete list of "things we kept off the books". I did give you PFI, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Or do you consider PFI to me mere "idle speculation" ? "A few months before the general election which brought New Labour to power, Geoffrey Robinson had David Davis to dinner in his flat overlooking Hyde Park. The flat had been the scene of much recent political activity, used as a den by Gordon Brown who would invite his allies around and plot his personal strategy, pausing only to watch the football and eat pizzas. But that night the Labour guests had cleared off, and the then Tory Europe Minister was treated to the disorientating experience of being served supper by the butler of a Labour MP. As the conversation turned to the inevitable Labour victory, Mr Robinson said how much he was looking forward to turning the government spending tap on again, putting an end to what he saw as the years of Tory parsimony. Mr Davis was bewildered. ‘You can’t do that,’ he replied. ‘You’ve promised to keep within our spending plans.’ The future Paymaster-General smiled broadly. ‘We’re going to do it as capital,’ he said. ‘And then put it on as PFI.’ Davis was understandably baffled. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was a controversial, but little-used mechanism established by Norman Lamont to privatise specific construction projects. But it meant something much more to New Labour. Officially, the scheme could be a beacon for the Third Way: a means of injecting the ethos of the private sector into the sluggish public sector, and an opportunity to get projects completed quickly and efficiently. Unofficially — and this is what Mr Brown grasped from the off, and what Mr Robinson was hinting at — PFI was an incredibly convenient way of concealing the true extent of public debt. Rather than pay upfront, the government promised to make fixed payments in each project over a period of about 30 years — keeping the whole thing off the books. PFI was a wizard’s cloak of invisibility which could be thrown around expensive new projects. Eleven years later, the bulge under that cloak is impossible to ignore. As the Labour party gathers in Manchester, agonising over the gathering mutiny in its ranks, it should also confront a much more depressing reality: HMS Labour is sailing towards a financial storm, whoever it chooses as its captain. The sheer weight of debt makes it virtually impossible to change course. ‘What we urgently need to do is help people by cutting taxes,’ one Cabinet member told The Spectator. ‘Why can’t we? Debt.’ Just how much debt the nation is burdened by can only be established by looking at all 630 major PFI projects and assembling the full, grotesque reality that a Conservative government would have to confront." How did Brown cook the books |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 14, 2023 10:16:43 GMT
That's what I thought. You claim that Brown kept a load of debt "off the books" without any credible evidence that this was true, other than more idle speculation. Par for the course. You are aware that not everything is black & white. The government never did publish a complete list of "things we kept off the books". I did give you PFI, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Or do you consider PFI to me mere "idle speculation" ? "A few months before the general election which brought New Labour to power, Geoffrey Robinson had David Davis to dinner in his flat overlooking Hyde Park. The flat had been the scene of much recent political activity, used as a den by Gordon Brown who would invite his allies around and plot his personal strategy, pausing only to watch the football and eat pizzas. But that night the Labour guests had cleared off, and the then Tory Europe Minister was treated to the disorientating experience of being served supper by the butler of a Labour MP. As the conversation turned to the inevitable Labour victory, Mr Robinson said how much he was looking forward to turning the government spending tap on again, putting an end to what he saw as the years of Tory parsimony. Mr Davis was bewildered. ‘You can’t do that,’ he replied. ‘You’ve promised to keep within our spending plans.’ The future Paymaster-General smiled broadly. ‘We’re going to do it as capital,’ he said. ‘And then put it on as PFI.’ Davis was understandably baffled. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was a controversial, but little-used mechanism established by Norman Lamont to privatise specific construction projects. But it meant something much more to New Labour. Officially, the scheme could be a beacon for the Third Way: a means of injecting the ethos of the private sector into the sluggish public sector, and an opportunity to get projects completed quickly and efficiently. Unofficially — and this is what Mr Brown grasped from the off, and what Mr Robinson was hinting at — PFI was an incredibly convenient way of concealing the true extent of public debt. Rather than pay upfront, the government promised to make fixed payments in each project over a period of about 30 years — keeping the whole thing off the books. PFI was a wizard’s cloak of invisibility which could be thrown around expensive new projects. Eleven years later, the bulge under that cloak is impossible to ignore. As the Labour party gathers in Manchester, agonising over the gathering mutiny in its ranks, it should also confront a much more depressing reality: HMS Labour is sailing towards a financial storm, whoever it chooses as its captain. The sheer weight of debt makes it virtually impossible to change course. ‘What we urgently need to do is help people by cutting taxes,’ one Cabinet member told The Spectator. ‘Why can’t we? Debt.’ Just how much debt the nation is burdened by can only be established by looking at all 630 major PFI projects and assembling the full, grotesque reality that a Conservative government would have to confront." How did Brown cook the booksAnecdotal stories, with no quoted facts or evidence. But let me humour you. Let's pretend that Brown did do that. And as a result debt to GDP ratio was circa 48% as it was around the end of 2007 before the financial crisis hit and as the Spectator article suggests. Did then, when they came to power in 2010, Osborne and Cameron write that "off the books debt" onto the books to declare their view of the national debt? Did they? Yes or no. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 14, 2023 12:59:15 GMT
You are aware that not everything is black & white. The government never did publish a complete list of "things we kept off the books". I did give you PFI, which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Or do you consider PFI to me mere "idle speculation" ? "A few months before the general election which brought New Labour to power, Geoffrey Robinson had David Davis to dinner in his flat overlooking Hyde Park. The flat had been the scene of much recent political activity, used as a den by Gordon Brown who would invite his allies around and plot his personal strategy, pausing only to watch the football and eat pizzas. But that night the Labour guests had cleared off, and the then Tory Europe Minister was treated to the disorientating experience of being served supper by the butler of a Labour MP. As the conversation turned to the inevitable Labour victory, Mr Robinson said how much he was looking forward to turning the government spending tap on again, putting an end to what he saw as the years of Tory parsimony. Mr Davis was bewildered. ‘You can’t do that,’ he replied. ‘You’ve promised to keep within our spending plans.’ The future Paymaster-General smiled broadly. ‘We’re going to do it as capital,’ he said. ‘And then put it on as PFI.’ Davis was understandably baffled. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was a controversial, but little-used mechanism established by Norman Lamont to privatise specific construction projects. But it meant something much more to New Labour. Officially, the scheme could be a beacon for the Third Way: a means of injecting the ethos of the private sector into the sluggish public sector, and an opportunity to get projects completed quickly and efficiently. Unofficially — and this is what Mr Brown grasped from the off, and what Mr Robinson was hinting at — PFI was an incredibly convenient way of concealing the true extent of public debt. Rather than pay upfront, the government promised to make fixed payments in each project over a period of about 30 years — keeping the whole thing off the books. PFI was a wizard’s cloak of invisibility which could be thrown around expensive new projects. Eleven years later, the bulge under that cloak is impossible to ignore. As the Labour party gathers in Manchester, agonising over the gathering mutiny in its ranks, it should also confront a much more depressing reality: HMS Labour is sailing towards a financial storm, whoever it chooses as its captain. The sheer weight of debt makes it virtually impossible to change course. ‘What we urgently need to do is help people by cutting taxes,’ one Cabinet member told The Spectator. ‘Why can’t we? Debt.’ Just how much debt the nation is burdened by can only be established by looking at all 630 major PFI projects and assembling the full, grotesque reality that a Conservative government would have to confront." How did Brown cook the booksAnecdotal stories, with no quoted facts or evidence. But let me humour you. Let's pretend that Brown did do that. And as a result debt to GDP ratio was circa 48% as it was around the end of 2007 before the financial crisis hit and as the Spectator article suggests. Did then, when they came to power in 2010, Osborne and Cameron write that "off the books debt" onto the books to declare their view of the national debt? Did they? Yes or no. No need to humour me Oldie. It's a fact that Labour cooked the books with PFI. It's no secret. It's still being paid off now. The Tories couldn't put it "back on the books". Do you really think these things are that simple? Did you really spend 25 rip-roaring years in the City? Your black & white view of things is quite frankly disturbing. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 14, 2023 13:34:25 GMT
Anecdotal stories, with no quoted facts or evidence. But let me humour you. Let's pretend that Brown did do that. And as a result debt to GDP ratio was circa 48% as it was around the end of 2007 before the financial crisis hit and as the Spectator article suggests. Did then, when they came to power in 2010, Osborne and Cameron write that "off the books debt" onto the books to declare their view of the national debt? Did they? Yes or no. No need to humour me Oldie. It's a fact that Labour cooked the books with PFI. It's no secret. It's still being paid off now. The Tories couldn't put it "back on the books". Do you really think these things are that simple? Did you really spend 25 rip-roaring years in the City? Your black & white view of things is quite frankly disturbing. Good That's what I thought you would say. So If the debt to GDP ratio was 48% in 2007, and it went up roughly ten points because of bank bail outs etc by 2010, how come the ratio went to 87% by 2016, after six years of austerity and a policy of debt reduction? |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 14, 2023 14:01:54 GMT
No need to humour me Oldie. It's a fact that Labour cooked the books with PFI. It's no secret. It's still being paid off now. The Tories couldn't put it "back on the books". Do you really think these things are that simple? Did you really spend 25 rip-roaring years in the City? Your black & white view of things is quite frankly disturbing. Good That's what I thought you would say. So If the debt to GDP ratio was 48% in 2007, and it went up roughly ten points because of bank bail outs etc by 2010, how come the ratio went to 87% by 2016, after six years of austerity and a policy of debt reduction? Jesus christ Oldie. Do you really expect the complications surrounding government expenditure, debt and the way the economy works to be explained in a sentence? Who says your figures are correct anyway? |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 14, 2023 14:37:59 GMT
Good That's what I thought you would say. So If the debt to GDP ratio was 48% in 2007, and it went up roughly ten points because of bank bail outs etc by 2010, how come the ratio went to 87% by 2016, after six years of austerity and a policy of debt reduction? Jesus christ Oldie. Do you really expect the complications surrounding government expenditure, debt and the way the economy works to be explained in a sentence? Who says your figures are correct anyway? The Spectator article you quoted and the ONS for 2016 |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 15, 2023 7:06:01 GMT
That's funnny. You said the Spectator article was "Anecdotal stories, with no quoted facts or evidence", and now you are using it? Make your mind up.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by oldie on Jul 15, 2023 7:47:05 GMT
That's funnny. You said the Spectator article was "Anecdotal stories, with no quoted facts or evidence", and now you are using it? Make your mind up. So, Why did the national debt nearly double as a % of gdp under Cameron and Osborne when their whole election rhetoric in 2010 was debt reduction? A stance you, personally, were very vocal in supporting as I recall. Some of us told you this would happen. Some of us quoted economic theory such as the John Maynard Keynes proposition that when private sector demand falters public sector spending should fill the void. I recall your puerile respond, "but he is dead". Anyway it's all history now, the point is made so I will leave it there. |
|
