AIBU to think Burnham’s words may haunt his premiership?

I think there were less pensioners as a proportion of the population

Ask Cameron and Osborne why they cut defence spending and armed forces numbers to ribbons.

Largely due to global influences outside their control.
The parliament from 2010 to 2015 was certainly dominated by the fiscal consolidation, more widely known as "austerity".
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) had opened up a budget deficit – that is the difference between total government spending and total government revenues – that was at a record high for the UK since 1946–7 and the focus on getting it down involved cuts to public spending on a scale that had not been delivered in recent decades. By 2019, the current budget – that is the gap between total government revenues and non-investment spending – had, just about, been returned to surplus.
While the deficit did fall from 2010 to 2018 it was more painful and more protracted than originally planned.
It was blown off course by events.
The record on restoring growth has been even worse. The UK’s economy grew slowly throughout the 2010s, and has struggled to weather the shocks of the 2020s.
Productivity and national income per capita have been virtually stagnant, with serious implications for wages and living standards.

That’s a travesty of the Cameron administration. Virtually every economist agrees that austerity was completely the wrong approach and damaged the economy. The irony is that the debt continued to grow. God only knows what happened to all the money.

That debt image that’s on many threads needs to be updated to show record borrowing.

It’s had a fancy creative makeover. Colours and everything.

Oh yeh nice, but no Starmer and Burnham visage.

It’s not creative @AccidentallyWesAnderson. Facts are so inconvenient, aren’t they? Yes, I know you hate it Eastern for the same reason as your friend presumably.

https://business.leeds.ac.uk/research-aire/dir-record/research-blog/2393/in-the-struggle-to-get-britain-working-the-long-shadow-of-austerity-could-be-part-of-the-problem

No Truss visage either, fortunately for you.

Still higher now. All that debt servicing, record highs. Going to be an issue.

Yup and Ms Reeves scuppered any possible economic growth with her NI increases and other constraints she put on small businesses.
So those trying to grow a business are now having to pay out to support those who wants to sit on their scrawny ar$e$.
So much for "not taxing working people"🙄

As Martin Sorrell recently pointed out, we have a £1.3tn budget and we only need to trim about £25bn (<2pc) to restore headroom and reassure the markets.

Any serious businessperson would solve the puzzle and find the savings in about an hour. It’s remarkable that Labour are even considering higher taxes.

Exactly.
No-one on Labour's front bench has any idea about running a business.
The elected Labour Cabinet consists largely of career politicians, lawyers, trade union officials, and public sector workers, with virtually none holding a direct track record of starting or managing a private enterprise.
Policies that increase financial burdens on employers—such as changes to National Insurance contributions and increases to the minimum wage—are viewed by critics as a "jobs tax" that discourages hiring. (Cheers, Rachel !)
Major labour reforms, such as the Employment Rights Bill, add 'red tape' and make it harder for companies to operate flexibly. .
A focus on funding public services through higher taxation risks slowing private-sector investment and driving wealth or businesses out of the country. (Which we have already seen)

I'd like to see if that chart is updated anywhere.

God only knows what happened to all the money.

I asked Google AI

AI Overview✅
Austerity did not create a pot of "saved" money; instead, spending cuts reduced the government's budget deficit.📉

Where the Reductions Went
- Deficit Reduction: Lower public spending narrowed the gap between government tax revenues and spending.

- Debt Interest: Borrowing needs slowed, but money still went toward servicing existing national debt interest payments.

- Protected Budgets: Savings from non-ringfenced departments helped absorb pressures in protected areas like healthcare and pensions.

⚠️ Real-World Impacts of Cuts
- Local Government: Councils faced the deepest reductions, slashing non-statutory local services.

- Public Services: Welfare payments, social care, and housing subsidies experienced severe real-terms declines.

- Investment Stagnation: Capital infrastructure spending slowed significantly across the decade.

Didn't most of the money from quantitative easing go into inflation of house prices?

AI:

How the Cash Moves Through the Economy
- Portfolio Rebalancing:
Investors swap safe bonds for cash.
Cash shifts into riskier assets like stocks or corporate bonds.
Asset prices rise, boosting confidence and wealth.

- Lower Borrowing Costs:
High bond demand drops yields.
Mortgage and business loan rates fall.
Spending and investment increase.

The only thing Labour know about running - is the country down. They aren't business orientated, hence no idea about growth. It's going to be interesting to see what Healy rustles up.

Well it's got to be one or the other, hasn't it? Either wages are increased at the employer's expense, or they remain low and have to be topped up by UC at the tax payers expense. Same with rent. Either its capped and landlords take less profit, or the tax payer goes on subsidising them. The low paid worker under the current system is just the medium by which the tax payer subsidises businesses, who frankly, if they can't afford to pay staff a living wage are not really viable anyway.

I agree totally.
If I think about The Budget I break out in a cold sweat, so I try not to do it !

When he was appointed I thought great. After my moment of madness, I realised what a snake Healy is. He's got to now be prepared to stand by forthcoming decisions, given his previous resignation.

"who frankly, if they can't afford to pay staff a living wage are not really viable anyway."
It depends what you define as a "living wage"
I'd be curious to know what your business experience is for you to make that statement.?

A "trade unionist"!!?! Quelle horreur!!!

Too right. One of the most destructive variables to hit an economy.

It went on servicing debt racked up by previous governments. Austerity succeeded in matching day to day spending on everything but debt interest to what was coming in through taxes. Debt continued to rise because of paying the interest on previous debt.

Arguably more could have been done to increase growth rather than reduce spending but you are not correct if you are saying that virtually every economist disagrees with reducing the size of the state.

We didn't really have austerity, austerity was what the Greeks had imposed on them by the EU, the ECB and the IMF, whose economists also thought it was a good idea.

You are missing a key point with your last sentence.

If these "non viable with a living wage" companies don't exist, then the goods and services that people buy and pay VAT on won't exist, the income tax and NI won't exist, the Corporation tax on profits won't exist, so not only will the tax take be lowered, but those people employed by them will be claiming unemployment benefits. A multiple hit to the economy.

I mean by 'living wage' what living wage means. The wage calculated by the Living Wage Foundation to cover living costs. Its £13.85. A little higher for London, and higher than NMW. Its the amount good employers should budget for if they don't want to burden the tax payer with topping up their staff wages through benefits.
I have some experience, yes.

@5128gap " I have some experience, yes."
Well I'm sure we'd all like to know what your experiences were/are in the private sector ?