Lets get this "Cutting the deficit in half by 2014" right..

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Odo_de_StAmand, Mar 28, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am sick of this being misrepresented by Labour, talking about halving the deficit, and ignoring the doubling (again) of the accumulated debt.

    Under Darling's plan's the deficit will be reduced to £74bn in four years time, even if we have spectacular growth.

    This IS NOT a reduction in the amount we will owe, it is just a reduction in the rate of increase of indebtedness.

    On the Treasuary's figures the debt will be hitting £1,406bn by 2014/15, that is £57,000 for every British household, and up from £350bn when Labour came into power in 1997.

    It is possible that this will mean the interest alone will be costing £60 per week per family by then. Not Government spending, just the interest. FFS!!!


    Be honest - how many here know's this subtle difference between deficit and debt?

    Odo
     
  2. The Deficit is best described as the Chief Engineer of the Titanic telling the Captain that they have managed to halve the amount of water flooding in, but the ship will still sink - it will just take longer!

    Ive said it before, but Labour is the ultimate political party. If you say enough negative things about your opponent, then people will start to believe them.
     
  3. ZNL's figures are misleading (what a surprise) :roll:

    If it was only £1.4 trillion I'd pay it off myself.

    If you include PFI's, public sector pensions and everything else ZNL deliberately excluded the real figure is £3.1 trillion.

    Bill Cash speaking in the Commons:

    Hansard 25th March 2010
     
  4. Trouble is, while we can see what is meant by "halving the deficit" why arent the Tories sticking huge flags in this and making the voting public aware?
     
  5. Because most of the greedy bastards in westminster have got a clue what to do plus the fact they are too greedy to really make the swingeing changes that are needed, they all seem to be doing the Nero waltz FIDLLING WHILE BRITAIN BURNS :evil: :evil: :evil:
     
  6. Because they plan to do nothing different.
     
  7. Just this once Parapauk, I find myself in agreement with you.

    (I'll try not to make a habit of it)
     
  8. Have they actually said that?

    On one hand you have Gordon who is saying that everything is fine, spending will continue and everyone will have more money.

    On the other you have Dave and George who are saying that the party is coming to an end and there will have to be cuts.

    Who are the majority of the population more likely to vote for?
     
  9. Overseas aid budget to be increased from 9 Billion to 13 billion... nice to see they have their priorities right.
     
  10. Labour is planning to cut the deficit by a little over half by 2014, and the Conservatives want to remove 'the bulk' of it - Ken Clarke refused to be drawn on whether that meant something closer to 50.1% of it or 99.9%. Given their reluctance to attack Labour, you can bet it's the former.
     
  11. It will allow the Indians to launch another probe to the moon and no doubt allow the somali's to launch a few real warships to attack the oil tankers & container ships properly, without having to worry about the "security" forces!
    oh and most importantly allow all the corrupt, idle heads of state & their hangers on to top up their SWISS ACCOUNTS! FFS what a total waste of money! The only bigger waste is what they pay & fiddle for themselves and their pet pc, diversity & human rights schemes!
    To paraphrase an old quote, WHO WILL RID US OF THESE TURBULENT POLITICIANS :twisted: :twisted:
     
  12. udipur

    udipur LE Book Reviewer

    The Conservatives will not announce what they have to do any more than Labour will.

    We have seen the current government increase the public sector workforce by over 500,000. That means that there are a lot of folk out there who would be either out of work or in other jobs without Labour. They might have to be in jobs with performance measurement and self achieved pension plans as opposed to the ridiculously protective and uncompetitive public sector deals.

    About 20% of the UK workforce directly works for the government agencies. About another 5-8% work providing work to this sector. A vast amount of this work has not produced results and its productivity has actually diminished over the past decade.

    So some strong minded fellow stands up and says we are going to slash lots of programmes and that means you, the voter, is likely to be in the firing line. Or you get a wishy washy spin doctor like Darling proclaiming some tosh about investment (we now spend more than half the GDP on the public sector) restoring our fragile economy.

    We didn't really have that strong an economy anyway as it was primarily built on debt, salaries didn't markedly rise to reflect the so called prosperity we apparently enjoyed and a lot of the spending was fuelled by releasing property equity.

    No politician is going to stand on a platform of consigning the country to years of misery to get out of this pickle - or they will end up in the Opposition and watch it happen in a more calamitous and longer reaching fashion.
     
  13. mercurydancer

    mercurydancer LE Book Reviewer

    The simple reason why the tories arent making much noise about the amount is that they are going to be saddled with the 170 billion deficit within the next few weeks. If there is a realistic solution to this Ive yet to hear it. Cutting back on social services may make a dent in this, but military and NHS essential services are cut to the bone. The operative word is essential. Military and NHS senior management arent going to make themselves the subect of financial cutbacks, as they decide who is to go. Turkeys and Christmas situation.