As I said I can't be arsed to look up the last ONS report.
But I will point out that the government selling its Lloyds shares doesn't get rid of debt it merely moves it off the government books.
Which thus destroys your entire argument.
And I doubt even you would deny that the government has borrowed over £100bn each year since 2010.
Well the sale of shares does reduce debt. The government borrowed £58 bn to invest in equity of the intervened banks. Assuming Lloyds will sell at 75 pence per share (it should do better) it will both pay down the money originally borrowed and the 14 pence per share should reduce overall debt further (although much of this has already been 'banked').
You are right that the net liabilities of the intervened bank groups will be transferred out of the public sector and into the private sector as soon as the ONS deems that the government no longer 'controls' each bank, so this won't reduce overall UK debt but it does reduce government risk and debt.
The trajectory of current deficit borrowing is downward and accelerating with the growth of the economy. But some line items of expenses cannot feasibly be axed: social benefits for example. The strategy is to hold benefit rises for the least vulnerable to a 1% rise for a three year period so that they increase in value by less than inflation and decrease in volume due to lesser unemployment and dependency. This is a gradual process and will take years to work its way through to contributing to deficit reduction. It is easy to stop building a warship; less so to stop paying benefits to a handicapped dependent.
Criticising the government because they are "still borrowing" is unjusfified when they inherited an economy in which one in every 4 pounds spent had to be borrowed. Even using the OBR's over-pessimistic March EFO figures this ration will be down to £1 in £7.50 this year and is currently running at nearly £1 in £10 (34.6 psnd ex/ 268.6 total exp).
It is taking time, ar, but there is no doubt that real progress is being made.
Avery LP - Last week just after Ed's disastrous speech you predicted that the Labour/Conservative lead crossover was imminent.....how nearer are we now to your prediction? Oh, and you said there wouldn't be a post conference bounce for Labour......still think that?
Avery LP - Last week just after Ed's disastrous speech you predicted that the Labour/Conservative lead crossover was imminent.....how nearer are we now to your prediction? Oh, and you said there wouldn't be a post conference bounce for Labour......still think that?
My prediction and money is on it happening by year end.
And as for the 11 point lead you are falling into exactly the same bull trap set for you last week.
Avery LP - Last week just after Ed's disastrous speech you predicted that the Labour/Conservative lead crossover was imminent.....how nearer are we now to your prediction? Oh, and you said there wouldn't be a post conference bounce for Labour......still think that?
My prediction and money is on it happening by year end.
And as for the 11 point lead you are falling into exactly the same bull trap set for you last week.
Silly Red Rag!
Is that the bull trap you set until you realised that you were talking about the wrong poll and it was in fact a poll from a different polling company?
I again present Avery LP's bull trap, of what he thought was, a Yougov 10% Labour lead.....that was in fact a TNS/BRMB poll which is not comparable to Yougov.
@another_richard - Thanks for that. Too much to discuss at this late hour, but I thought your suggestion upthread for controlling management pay was intriguing. Robert S slightly missed the point, I think - I agree with you that shareholders (who are the ultimate employers, after all) don't have effective control of executive pay.
Thanks.
I haven't thought these ideas fully through and I don't have the knowledge to formulate details.
But I think this is an issue which is going to become increasingly prominent.
While globalisation has brought downward pressure on employee earnings, at least in the western world, it has been used to justify increased executive earnings - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or they'll all move overseas".
This is then used as an excuse to increase executive earnings in the public services - "we have to pay our top people the going rate or the'll all move to the private sector".
The consequece is an executive class which is increasingly separated from its employees, its shareholders and its ultimate customers. Something which is not healthy for those organisations or for society as a whole.
When people cease participating in wealth creation and become dependent on others creating wealth for them then the premiums paid to those responsible for creating and distributing that wealth will rise.
A pension fund manager (whose shareholder power is greatest) is far more interested in the returns on his investments than in the fairness of rewards paid to those who deliver his returns. Executive pay is insignificant when measured against the value to his fund and its pensioners of increases in returns.
I'm sick and tired of police chiefs getting involved in politics. Someone ought to tell them that their job is simply to enforce laws as laid down by Parliament. If they want to stand for election, they can resign and do so in 2015.
I again present Avery LP's bull trap, of what he thought was, a Yougov 10% Labour lead.....that was in fact a TNS/BRMB poll which is not comparable to Yougov.
I again present Avery LP's bull trap, of what he thought was, a of 10% Labour lead.....that was in fact a TNS/BRMB poll which is not comparable to Yougov.
I'm sick and tired of police chiefs getting involved in politics. Someone ought to tell them that their job is simply to enforce laws as laid down by Parliament. If they want to stand for election, they can resign and do so in 2015.
The irony of this story is that for a guy who isn't meant to like Larry the cat because he gets covered in cat hairs... David Cameron really needs to let Larry have a completely free run close to him for that to happen. Not long ago I read a story about a group of folk visiting No10 one evening, Larry the cat was found lounging in David Cameron's chair! A photo was takenL
Comments
•Ted Cruz 20% (12%) {7%}
•Rand Paul 17% (16%) {14%} [17%] (10%) {5%} [7%] (4%)
•Chris Christie 14% (13%) {15%} [15%] (13%) {14%} [14%] (21%)
•Jeb Bush 11% (13%) {15%} [12%] (13%) {14%} [12%] (17%)
•Paul Ryan 10% (13%) {9%} [12%] (15%) {16%} [12%] (7%)
•Marco Rubio 10% (10%) {16%} [21%] (22%) {21%} [18%](10%)
•Bobby Jindal 4% (4%) {3%} [4%] (4%) {3%} (3%)
•Rick Santorum 3% (4%) {5%} [5%] [4%] (12%)
•Scott Walker 3%
•Someone else/Not sure 9% (13%) {15%} [10%] (8%) {7%} [7%] (10%)
You are right that the net liabilities of the intervened bank groups will be transferred out of the public sector and into the private sector as soon as the ONS deems that the government no longer 'controls' each bank, so this won't reduce overall UK debt but it does reduce government risk and debt.
The trajectory of current deficit borrowing is downward and accelerating with the growth of the economy. But some line items of expenses cannot feasibly be axed: social benefits for example. The strategy is to hold benefit rises for the least vulnerable to a 1% rise for a three year period so that they increase in value by less than inflation and decrease in volume due to lesser unemployment and dependency. This is a gradual process and will take years to work its way through to contributing to deficit reduction. It is easy to stop building a warship; less so to stop paying benefits to a handicapped dependent.
Criticising the government because they are "still borrowing" is unjusfified when they inherited an economy in which one in every 4 pounds spent had to be borrowed. Even using the OBR's over-pessimistic March EFO figures this ration will be down to £1 in £7.50 this year and is currently running at nearly £1 in £10 (34.6 psnd ex/ 268.6 total exp).
It is taking time, ar, but there is no doubt that real progress is being made.
And as for the 11 point lead you are falling into exactly the same bull trap set for you last week.
Silly Red Rag!
I can set everyone's mind at rest in the #SaveLarry campaign. He and I get on purr-fectly well. The kids love him too
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news-and-events/labour-lead-conservative-party-by-ten-points
A child like mistake.
A pension fund manager (whose shareholder power is greatest) is far more interested in the returns on his investments than in the fairness of rewards paid to those who deliver his returns. Executive pay is insignificant when measured against the value to his fund and its pensioners of increases in returns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24320717
You haven't "arrived" without one of those.
Not long ago I read a story about a group of folk visiting No10 one evening, Larry the cat was found lounging in David Cameron's chair! A photo was takenL
I