UK National Debt; ours, our childrens, or grandchildrens?

[Isitmebut]

Although the title may sound alarmist, just looking at the National debt figures over the past 25-30 years, they show that no matter how detailed a government may try to plan several years forward - as they do when formulating their national tax and spend policies – when ours or anyone else’s economy has an unexpected slump/recession, ALL PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS CHANGE.

As a basic example, with a sharp fall in employment, tax revenues fall dramatically, unemployment benefits increase sharply, while the governments planned expenditure if left unchecked, increases our annual budget deficit, and increases the accumulation (of those deficits) = National Debt.

The FACT is that recessions (or ‘rainy days’ as politicians would rather call them, than use the ‘r’ word) have the ability to dramatically INCREASE the National Debt, as the recent figures provided in a newspaper shows;

In 1991/2 as the UK entered recession, the National Debt was £190 billion.

In 1996/7 at that General Election, as we were coming out of the recession and the nation was budgeted to balance our tax receipts/expenditure within a few years, the National Debt figure was £403 billion.

In 2009/10 at the last General Election, over two-years into the great recession and running a £157 billion annual budget deficit, the ND figure was £1,073 trillion.

The current National Debt figure (in full) is approaching £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) and the UK has an additional UNFUNDED State Pension liability of over £1.0 trillion not included within the National Debt figure, that comes out of annual budgets on demand, when drawn down.
www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Clearly while the UK continues to run an annual budget deficit (currently around £91 billion), despite aided by 300-year record low interest rates, the taxpayer is still being charged annually on that National Debt £££interest of £36 billion (which is more than our Defence Budget).

What can future UK generations expect from the State now, never mind in the future if we CONTINUE to run annual deficit economies, when interest rates over the next 10-15 years funding our national debt are GUARANTEED to go up and future UK economic policies and recessions could derail the current UK recovery - and within a few years we could mirror the current slump in Europe.

As after the 2015 General Election there is likely to be another Coalition of whatever permutation, ALL POLITICAL PARTIES need to inform the electorate beforehand with detail of their budget deficit plans without double speak – and if the UK under their watch will be piling up yet more National Debt rather than going into a Surplus with the option of finally paying down the National Debt – we owe it to future generations to DEMAND that political leaders provide a full disclose on what they want to spend that clearly earmarked ADDITIONAL taxpayer debt, on.

But, we can't have an economics discussion and just focus on the debt. The Tories do that all the time. It's nonsense. You need to talk about growth, spending, trade, tax, expanding the economy, saving, government debt and so on. That's one of the reasons why Osborne is such a crap chancellor. All he does is bash a small proportion of welfare spending, ie benefits, which in the grand scheme amount to pretty much bugger all of overall costs.

Indeed national debt interest is huge. But, so too is the budget and tax receipts. They could be bigger, if the government didn't allow Tom, Dick, his corporation and his accountant to avoid contributing.

DoraGora ..... are you saying that Labour in 2010 had the correct economic strategy of (as far as I ever saw) leaving things as they were, and nothing Osborne has done as Chancellor in lowering taxes rather than raising them, STIMULATED business confidence and resulted in economic growth we have seen?

Clearly tax receipts from the 1.75 million employed since 2010 are lower than they could be, as wage growth here (and elsewhere in Europe) are pants, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't that so after any recession?

And how much lower would the Budget Deficit be if the Coalition had NOT lowered the start rate of tax, gave tax breaks to small to medium sized businesses, reversed Labour's NI increases (but offering NI cuts to those employing younger workers), increased the state pension formula etc etc?

Levels of Productivity are still too low and the BoE don't know why, but it shows that the economy is still fragile and susceptible to shocks, so how can any government dictate pay has to go higher if jobs will be lost doing so?

As for "growth", any fool of a government can produce growth, the question is, is that growth sustainable.

Look at the current GDP definition;

Gross Domestic Product – Basic Definition.
www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).

If a government (Public Sector) tomorrow spent ££billions and hired a million new workers, highly paid or not, and they both consumed and put a bit extra on their credit cards - looking at the GDP definition, would that NOT produce "growth"????

The problem is that growth is NOT sustainable, unless you bring the Private Sector along in a balanced recovery, that pays for 100% of those salaries rather than increase National Debt, agreed or not?

The problem of the Budget Deficit is, as I see it, is ADD UP the more taxes on the rich, currently paying far more than they were under the last Labour government - and how much does that reduce the £91 billion annual deficit by, an annual £6, 8 billion or more - how much?

As I opened with, economic growth can not be guaranteed (who expected the 2007/8 recession), if it could be the 500 million plus currently without it in the EU would be far happier bunnies - so a government running an economy assuming it is guaranteed, is exactly the danger for our future generations I'm going on about.

Alternatively, should the UK borrow more not covered by extra taxes, and if so what for?

I hear a lot about only balancing the current budget deficit spending, but still borrowing to invest from the majority of political parties, yet based on the CURRENT figures, looking to REDUCE the budget deficit spending to a surplus by 2019/20, the annual interest per year on the budget deficit in that year, will be around £60 billion, coming out of the government total spending pie.

To put that in pie perspective, the UK government (not including local authorities) THIS YEAR will spend around £58 billion on Welfare and £42 billion on Education.

If political parties looking to increase the budget deficit as a policy want ‘to borrow more to invest’ - when we were sold that ‘prudent’ pup before and I struggle to see where that money went – it has to be a rather fantastic investment to make all our lives better, if it means paying in 2019/20 MORE to government bond investors in interest, than the current £60 billion projected.

The Conservatives, and I believe is the only party wanting to do so, wants the UK to have a budget SURPLUS by the end of the next parliament to start PAYING OFF our current £1.5 trillion of National Debt, or be in a position to fund new spending without borrowing.

So when I hear a lot from political parties (friend and foe) repeating an OBR comment, that based on the Autumn Statement with various tax etc giveaways that future Conservative spending cuts will be taking the UK back to 1930’s levels, it MUST be true mustn’t it, and what would that mean????

Firstly prior to this parliament, when a Chancellor gave a Spring Budget, an Autumn Statement or indeed election promises, the UK Treasury, under their control, could tell the plebs what they (the government) wanted us to hear.

The UK Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was formed in 2010 to be an independent body to keep government economic etc forecasting ‘true’, rather than rely on the figures from a UK Treasury – so if a government is tricksy in projecting ‘jam tomorrow’, all the numbers are crunched by the OBR and future consequences laid out for all citizens to see.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

It is important to understand that any government has to plan for the parliament ahead, they (and the OBR when forecasting) can only do so by making numerous annual economic assumptions.

So in 2014/15, they both have to realistically forecast, based on CURRENT data, our annual GDP, inflation rate, interest rates, currency rates, UK business investment, employment rate, tax receipts etc etc etc – for several years ahead.

So the OBR, when crunching THEIR numbers, has spat out the other end, that IF the present government is in place and IF all those assumptions are correct, based on the money left after projects underwritten, tax cuts etc - government spending ‘will be back to 1930’s levels’.

But WHAT IF on a ‘glass is half full’ basis, all the measures to boost the private sector by the coalition provides more growth, more tax receipts as Productivity increases – conversely WHAT IF a ‘glass half empty’ coalition takes over from 2015 and all the current and future growth goes out the window – what could we afford to spend then WITHOUT borrowing more?

The UK is already seeing the May political fear factor effect, slowing down home prices and GDP, as only the brave or foolhardy can invest in the UK’s future at this moment in time, when they don’t know what policies and taxes wait on the other side of the General Election.

Finally on the 1930’s comparison, it is as a percentage of national income, that no one could argue (national income) is much, much, higher NOW than back then, and so we don’t have to stretch our imaginations any further, as a percentage of income it will be similar to the UK in the year 2000.

Towards the end of the 1930s government expenditure was artificially high as the country had begun to rearm.

Pretty much the same in 2010 then, years after needed when our troops went into Afghanistan and needed more helicopters, better vehicle protection against road side bombs and bullet proof vests - but to paraphrase Dr Reid, 'they may not have to fire a shot'.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11985266

"Ministry of Defence staff allowed a "dangerous culture of optimism" to grow, helping to create a £36bn gap in spending plans, MPs have said."

^"The Commons Public Accounts Committee said there had not been a
"realistic assessment of the resources available" when Labour was in power."^

"A £5.2bn contract to build two aircraft carriers was cited as an example."

"The Tories have called Labour's defence spending a "mess", while Labour has acknowledged "mistakes" were made."

"The committee has previously suggested the total overspend on procurement under could be as high as £36bn."

The SNP representing over 5 million from Scotland, Plaid Cymru representing over 3 million in Wales, call reducing a huge annual UK overspend, so even STARTING to pay down the current £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion and rising) of National Debt, “austerity”.
www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

So Is there a case for “alternative austerity” and what exactly does in mean for the total 64 million ‘many’, as its failure GUARANTEES that the spending cuts, tax rises and low economic/job growth possibilities now, IS passed on to our future generations to solve.

What seriously worries me, especially from an SNP only recently threatening to renege on its portion of UK debt, still with an independence ‘never-endum’ agenda , is the TALK, the THEORY, the ASSUMPTIONS, that somehow government(?) can spend taxpayers money more wisely to GROW THEMSELVES and ‘create’ sustainable growth, than the Private Sector CURRENTLY DOING SO, in the UK that is – having rebalanced the economy from a top heavy State, always needing a boom to fund it.

Spending as a share of GDP; if GDP is heavily reliant on top heavy State spending, by definition it is unsustainable, which is WHY we had the 2010 £157 billion overspend. The FACT the UK lost around 7% of GDP output around 2008, if occurred again, when already running a big annual deficit and then £2 trillion(?) in debt, sends us (and future generations) how far down Shit Creek?

’We would like growth’: I keep hearing the wish, yet NO POLICIES, when the prospect of an independent Scotland under the SNP, was to sent most medium to large companies across the border, and a Labour Party government ACROSS that border with their ‘attack and tax’ business policies, would ensure the jobs and wealth creators carried on going. How can any administration offer a sustainable economy and pay off National debt, built on unfunded government spending???

’What current Deficit & National Debt?’: this selective memory, where we hear ‘we will get the deficit/debt down’ lip service from those not making eye contact, can only be that, as whether now or in 5-years time, if we keep over spending, TAXES HAVE TO GO UP, as we cannot INFLATE our way our of debt.

Ed Balls on the Andrew Marr programme today was asked doesn’t it mean you have to raise taxes from 2015, and he refused to give a straight answer and an SNP arguably to the left of Labour, would have no problem soaking England in higher taxes for all.

”SNP wants extra £180bn as price of Labour coalition”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/snp-wants-extra-180bn-as-price-of-labour-coalition-10039863.html

”The Scottish National Party would demand an extra £180bn of state spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May’s general election ends in a hung parliament.”

”In a speech in London, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, called for “an alternative to austerity” as she stepped up her party’s pitch to disillusioned former Labour voters. She described the Coalition’s "austerity economics" as "morally unjustifiable and economically unsustainable".”

”She argued that boosting spending by government departments by 0.5 per cent in real terms each year would reduce debt as a share of Gross Domestic Product over four years, while allowing £180bn to be invested in infrastructure, skills and education by 2020. She also said the £100bn that could be saved by scrapping the Trident nuclear weapons system should be invested in public services.”

”Top economist warns Labour will borrow extra £170 billion”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11341489/Top-economist-warns-Labour-will-borrow-extra-170-billion.html

”The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Ed Miliband's public spending plans could leave the Treasury unable to intervene in the event of another banking crisis”

Is this a SNP’s £180 billion on top of a Labour £170 billion, on the Road to (stagnant, socialist) France, next stop Greece?

In the last quarter just published, the German economy the Conservatives aspire to grew by a GDP 0.7%, the French fat state, high taxes country model, only grew by 0.1% in the same period – so that French model and 11% near record unemployment is NOT WORKING FOR THEIR PEOPLE, read the papers, so why does the UK up to our ears in debt due to a similar experiment, have to retry that FAILED experiment in search of Ball-sian ‘growf’???

During the Miliband economic plan, I have just heard Ed Balls say that Labour "will balance the UK books" over the next parliament, without borrowing more - so HOW can the current approx £90 billion budget deficit be balance over the next 5-years if NOT via huge tax RISES to all - which was obviously their 2010 plan, yet telling us they'd solve 'the cost of living crisis' a different way.

Since when, never mind in the worst recession in 80-years, when the vast majority of companies were struggling, were TAX RISES going to put more food on the kitchen table? We'd have a food bank on EVERY street corner by now under THAT 2010 master plan.

Governments both labour and conservatives have had global problems which haven't always meant they can do what they wanted to do.

It is my firm belief though that blind eye given to tax evasion by corporations and individuals, a corrupt banking system, the privatization of national services to send profits overseas and no appetite by either party to sort it out, has left us all the poorer.

BreakingDad77 .... with what they inherited from the Conservatives in 1997 and Labour parliamentary majorities of something like 166 to 66 seats over possibly the BEST decade in a century 'to do what they want to do', what was stopping Labour - and many policies surely it was more of a relevant question WHY did you do what you did?

Tax evasion or avoidance is an international problem, and that can only be sorted by international transparency, which is being sorted both internationally and HERE, as the two links below show - but don't forget many FTSE companies are foreign owned (with more British companies owning foreign ones), the figure that comes to mind is 58%, but having a 'senior moment', I can't remember if the FTSE is 58% British or foreign owned, but fink (lol) the former.

“Noose tightens around global tax evasion as OECD countries sign new agreement”
www.cityam.com/1414597567/noose-tightens-around-global-tax-evasion-oecd-countries-sign-new-agreement

"The OECD just took a step closer to fighting tax evasion on a global scale, with 51 territories agreeing to create “information exchanges” that will help track culprits down."

"The first signatories to the dull-sounding "multilateral competent authority agreement" – which include the UK and Ireland – will launch their information exchanges by September 2017. Others will follow in 2018."

May 2014: “HMRC crackdown yields record £23.9bn in additional tax”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27576626

”The government has raised a record £23.9bn in additional tax for the year to the end of March as a result of a crackdown on tax avoidance.”

”HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said it had secured the money - the highest amount since records began - as a result of its investigations.”

”The figure is almost £1bn higher than the target set by Chancellor George Osborne in the Autumn Statement.”

”The extra money raised is in addition to regular tax receipts.”

”HMRC credited "increased activity" on unpaid tax for the figure.”

"HMRC will pursue those seeking to avoid their responsibilities and will collect the taxes that are due," said Treasury minister David Gauke.”

"The government is determined to tackle the minority that seek to avoid paying the taxes they owe," he added.”

Its progress but the horse has kinda bolted and we just catching some tail hair as the gate shuts. After the HSBC and HBOS whistleblowers they are going to be working overtime to launder their money.

People like Lord Green, Phillip Green, and to some extent Richard Branson were/are all held up as scions of business and we have welfare cheats go to jail for less - what does that say about our society today.

BreakingDad77 .... the HSBC 'whistleblower' passed the files to the HMRC Tax Dodger Squad in 2008, we still don't have the full details, I believe out of several thousand accounts, around 1,000 need investigation, so how can the 'orse have already bolted - but do remember there is a BIG difference between legal tax avoidance/planning and evasion, even if Mr Miliband chooses not to for political soundbites.

The problem with governments that spend too much time micro managing, be it red tape or taxation, from Hedge funds to £10 hedge trimmers, is that it makes more companies/citizens from all income groups LOOK for tax shelters where they can.

Not-a-lot-of-people-know-this, but the UK Tolleys Tax guide is around 16,220 pages long, having DOUBLED in size from 1997 to 2011, no wonder with such complicated tax matters, people need accountants to begin with, then to try limit their tax exposure as a natural progression.

Those of us of a certain age prick our ears up when we hear “any time, any place, any where” as we get a vision of a scantily dressed girl, delivering Martini’s on a very nice day, in a very nice place, wearing roller skates – something for everybody. lol

Now for me at least, that memory is ruined by visions of Mr Miliband gloating as if outside some college debating hall, telling us that he is ready NOW for the leadership debates and accusing the P.M. of ‘cowering’ and ‘unable to defend his 5-year record’, when he (and his party) has been in denial over the same period, of their whole 13-years in power and the legacy they handed to the Conservative led coalition, far removed (read ‘worse’) than the one they inherited in 1997.

Who is the public school educated ‘Flashman’ style bully needing a good slap, now?

But the good news for us citizens now, is taking away the one-on-one Miliband vs Cameron soundbites e.g. ‘Conservative spending cuts back to 1930’s levels’, we now won’t hear, WE CAN GET DOWN TO THE LABOUR POLICY DETAIL.

Labour have said that they will CONTIUE to run a Budget deficit economy up until 2020 (and therefore beyond), increasing the annual interest charge on the therefore accumulating Nation Debt beyond the current IFS projected £60 billion – as they want to continue BORROWING TO INVEST.

Bearing in mind that during their LAST administration Labour’s definition of investment and sustainable ‘growf’ was to throw many tens of billions of taxpayers at newly formed government quangos - and sustainable private sector economic growth is already spreading across the UK – now is the time to tell us EXACTLY what they will INVESTING IN, resulting in the passing of extra debt and future debt reducing taxes on to our children and grandchildren.

Labour is one of several parties TALKING about anti business, pro spending shed loads more on noble subjects, calling it ‘new politics’ - neither accepting our current budget/debt problems, or that if we have not got a strong private sector driven economy growing well over 2% a year, DEBT will end up paying for social ‘causes’ - until the money runs out, having first paid penal interest rates to borrow, probably then taking similar ££££ of our current NHS budget, just to pay the interest.

www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Far too many people think that politicians of all political parties are not HONEST with them, so can NOT be trusted, so why vote?

But do voters REALLY want to know the truth, the national challenges ahead, especially when a state is running a huge annual government budget overspend?

Coming up to the general election of 2010, the government was ‘full of’ the cuts, spending, and new taxes direction, but found wanting on most of the detail.

So whether looking at individual party manifestos, listening to TV interviews, or TV debates – with a UK economy without already budgeted for ‘austerity’, the (2010) political honesty bar was set too low, so the policy ‘detail’ by all political parties too large to be explained away by soundbites, for us to arrive at an INFORMED ballot box decision.

A perfect example of own policy ‘double speak’ and withholding details is looking at Labour’s 2010 chancellor’s assessment of what was required (and how long it would take below), and having to listen to the Labour opposition oppose nearly EVERY CUT since 2010.

March 2010; ”Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

”Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.”

And listening to Ed Balls the other day ranting about HIS version of the £70 billion of Conservative cuts, but after 5-years of leaving office, still not detailing his own new financial cuts, spending, taxes & ‘investment’, guaranteeing the UK will be borrowing more than we earn AFTER 2020 - rather than go into a (Conservative) budget SURPLUS only their sustainable growth could achieve, and have the OPTION to begin to pay off the National debt.

So the big question is that as Labour has a firm policy to borrow more for investment, we need to know from a Labour Party that sees the growf in fat, inefficient government as ‘an investment’, WHAT IS IT FOR, HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

April 2014; ”Ed Miliband risks losing next election and Unite support, says Len McCluskey”
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/ed-miliband-election-unite-financial-support-len-mccluskey
“Labour is at a crossroads and may lose union's financial backing if it offers 'pale shade of austerity', general secretary warns”

”Top economist warns Labour will borrow extra £170 billion ”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11341489/Top-economist-warns-Labour-will-borrow-extra-170-billion.html
”The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Ed Miliband's public spending plans could leave the Treasury unable to intervene in the event of another banking crisis”

”SNP wants extra £180bn as price of Labour coalition”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/snp-wants-extra-180bn-as-price-of-labour-coalition-10039863.html
”The Scottish National Party would demand an extra £180bn of state spending as the price of supporting a minority Labour government if May’s general election ends in a hung parliament.”

The danger is that Labour cannot specify new Labour government ‘investment’ (with accruing interest) made on behalf of ALL taxpayers, as this policy is to appease the Unite trade union is the public sector anti austerity “voice of the workers” who would have withdrawn their financial support - and they don’t know how much more money (on top of the allocated English ‘Mansion Tax’) they need to promise Scotland for 2020 votes.

In other words, some non English voter elected trade union barons and an SNP with a few million Scottish voters, will dictate to Mr Miliband and Mr Balls what they spent all current taxpayers money on - and the future National Debt consequences, passed on to our grandchildren, for them to take the tough decisions to sort.

STILL no detail on how much they will borrow for 'investment' to increase National Debt into the 2020 parliament, or what it will be invested in.

“Ed Miliband unveils Labour's five key election pledges”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31885907

”AnalysisBy Chris Mason, BBC political correspondent”
”This was a pre-election rally heavy on rhetoric and slogans rather than new policy announcements.”

If they saw they won't borrow more and still want to invest, from where will the money come if not extra taxation?

Your posts are too long and ranty. This subject interests me, but I feel I'm being shouted at.

I agree with Breaking.

You're also missing the fact that our current world economic model is actually founded on the expectation of debt. In macro terms, "money" no longer exists; the word is used to mean "debt". Maintaining an adequate debt, while still being able to service it, is the trick our governments are finding difficult.

There are alternatives. They are, however, radical. It's interesting that the Bank Of England is cautiously implementing principles of 'positive money'. Carney has initiated a lot of think tanks on this - personally, I wish him well and hope he succeeds in loosening the stranglehold this debt-based paradigm has over all modern governments.

"I'm being shouted at" ..... oh dear I am sorry if requesting information on policies I'm being told will benefit everyone by Mr Miliband is "too long and ranty"; I feel I'm have political red smoke blown up my rear end with your reply.

Debt benefits is relative to how much you have; as on CURRENT spending and debt reduction plans we will have a £40 billion interest charge from the 2015/6 fiscal year and £60 billion by 2019/20 - so if that debt service charge on say a Labour increase of our National Debt of £2 trillion by 2020 is substantially HIGHER than that, especially the prospects of much higher interest rates - so it has to be an 'investment' with massive bells and whistles attached, to justify that interest charge alone.

The problem with previous Labour "investment" is that history shows that much of it went on the public sector and was wasted e.g. quangos, and frankly one wonders what Mr Miliband is promising and to who e.g. Mr McClusky in order for him to donate at least £1.5 million this year on behalf of Unite, having insisted he won't support an 'austerity lite' Labour Party.

Maybe you can explain what this means from the card?

1. "Strong Economic Foundation” “Balance the books and cut the deficit every year.”

How does a government BALANCE THE BOOKS, until that government is no longer running an annual deficit?

Should this be "we will get one of those 'round to its" so require a mandate to 'blow the bloody doors off', as to get elected, we'd rather our grandchildren take the hit from our current spending, than those that screwed the economic pooch?

In the main a government reduces government debt from a combination of three ways;economic growth, spending cuts and tax rises.

A government therefore needs to have sustainable private sector growth and 'balance' the other two, with tax givaways that also promotes private sector growth and consumption, but must not forget to also encourage savings.

All very delicate on what a government is trying to achieve over a parliament or two theory, often on a 'suck it and see' basis, maybe needing a budget time adjustment every year or so,

Arguably Labour had 'the wrong kind of growf', but not open to debate is recessions happen and can knock economic growth sideways, or DOWN around 7% in 2008/9, from which that lost GDP output only recently recovered.

The POINT being, if the UK wants to go on a continued National Debt adventure over and above the current £1.5 trillion and accumulating every years budget deficit until the books balance - bearing in mind it was £403 bil in 1996/7 and £1.1 trillion in 2009/10 after the mainly 'good times' - a government has the be guaranteed to GROW an economy above trend (say GDP over 3% a year) and not have another financial/economic shock around the corner.

Looking at the world at the moment, which government CAN guarantee perpetual stonking growth when even China's off the boil, especially a UK one that 'doesn't play well' with businesses and sees them and anyone with cash as a cash cow, so will reduce tax receipts/consumption, so will then raise taxes to compensate in a vicious circle. IMO.

lol. You're funny, isitmebut.

The UK has one of the least regulated business environments and lowest tax regimes in the West.

Poor UK businesses are doing just fine, thanks.

Perhaps you should concentrate on the state of the public's finances (not state finances) instead.

In some ways, England is starting to resemble the third world with it's enormous wealth disparity, poverty and low-paid work.

blacksunday …. Thank for that last post, as it proves my point conclusively, that NO government should ask for a mandate to CONTINUE to increase Nation Debt over a decade past the worst of a recession – especially one who wants to borrow to ‘invest’ in stuff unspecified, when their record shows their taxpayer priority is in fat, inefficient, government.

Also that it is in the DNA of socialism that EVERY business must be as robust as a FTSE 250 company, and with the economic head-up-bumism certainty that “poor businesses are doing fine”, they are ripe for ever more regulation and red tape and ever higher taxation, right?

FYI changing an economy around is like turning around a supertanker, but it takes years for policies to fully work, and while you CORRECTLY report on the health of most businesses NOW, that was not the case in 2010, when still suffering economically from the recession, THIS was a sign for businesses scared to invest and hire, of what was to come from the NEXT 5- years of a Labour government.

“Labour's planned National Insurance increase will cost jobs, Alistair Darling admits”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7539343/Labours-planned-National-Insurance-increase-will-cost-jobs-Alistair-Darling-admits.html

“In his evidence, Mr Darling defended his plans to increase national insurance, saying it was necessary to raise extra money to reduce Government borrowing, which will be £167 billion this year.”

We have already discussed elsewhere the huge regulatory costs of Brown’s 1997 newly formed FSA and Brown’s early 80 tax rises to all, on businesses, as cited in this link where 2-YEARS before the financial crash, UK Manufacturing clearly already suffering and needing help from a strong Sterling, lost 1 million jobs – and from 1997 to 2010, manufacturing fell from a previously constant 22-23% of our economy, to around 12%.
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

Next you will tell me that every high street shop was fine from the recession and when Labour left power and was also talking about increasing the Minimum Wage back then, which the Low Pay Commission sets.

How many small to medium sized businesses were struggling then (and now), how many ‘poor but fine’ high street shops were lost across the UK paying the existing Minimum Wage, 30,000, 50,000, 60,000 or more, as well as medium to large sized high street shop names – how much help were Labour giving them, while pumping tens of £billions into fat government?

Factoring in the costs to the public finances of a recession via the economic automatic stabilizers; IF businesses WERE ‘doing fine’, how do you account for a honking great 2010 budget deficit of £157 billion, far larger than any other country in Europe, if businesses WERE supporting by way of investment, new jobs and tax revenue, the 2010 fat Labour State??????
www.investopedia.com/terms/a/automaticstabilizer.asp

As to the ‘inequality’ banner the Labour Party hoists that apparently must stop the Conservatives being in power at ALL costs, after 13-years in power and THEIR ANTI-PROGRESSIVE POLICIES on education, immigration, housing, pensions, higher taxes for all and anti business/growth/jobs - I cannot think of an administration given so long in power with a HUGE majority in parliament and new tax receipts (of speculation) to implement those policies, reverse the prospects of the poor of THIS country.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245080/Embarrassment-Brown-major-report-reveals-inequality-increased-Labour.html

The problem being that their record shows a Labour Party squanders the proceeds from their high taxes on fat, inefficient, government rather than offer policies to lift the poor out of reliance on the State, which kinda brings us back full circle; WHAT IS LABOUR GOING TO SPEND THEIR PERPETUALLY GROWING NATIONAL DEBT ON?

Re the Paxman interview; I though that the man was meant to be bright.

When he asked Cameron how much National Debt has accumulated under the Coalition, he did not seem to understand that the National Debt is an accumulation of annual government budget deficits/overspends.

The Conservative led coalition inherited the £150 odd billion deficit/overspend from Labour, and to STOP the National Debt rising from 2010, the Coalition would have had to CUT government spending by £157 billion ANNUALLY from the first day of their administration - and WHO in this land wanted that, politicians or citizens alike???????

If Paxman would have read the post above, he might have asked Mr Miliband why his party went into £30 billion a year plus overspends from 2002, despite record tax receipts from the proceeds of a (hopefully) once in a decade huge financial bubble - and passed such economic incompetence to Cameron in 2010, without ANY attempt to cut that £157 billion overspend themselves.

Good grief. I hope you're paid by the word.

Blacksunday (sister of ttosca) …. I could swear on my children’s lives that I am not being paid by ANYONE and have no other political agenda other that to expose Labour’s electoral deceit that affects all our futures, CAN YOU?

In 2010, the Labour government had just ONE minister with the personal and financial integrity to be trusted by the electorate to do the right thing in even BEGINNING to understand and start fixing the UK’s debt problems, and that was Alistair Darling, who was to say the following in August 2010;

“Alistair Darling attacks Gordon Brown's election failures”

www.scotsman.com/news/alistair-darling-attacks-gordon-brown-s-election-failures-1-821511

”In a pointed reference to Mr Brown's mantra of "investment over cuts", he will use the same phrase to illustrate how he believes the party lost the support of the electorate. He will say: "Labour lost because we failed to persuade the country that we had a plan for the future. What is important now for our party is we take stock and be honest about what went wrong.”

"By failing to talk openly about the deficit, and our tough plans to halve it within four years, we vacated the crucial space to make the case for the positive role government can play.

"You will only convince people you've got the answers if they believe you know what the question is in the first place. You can't have political credibility without economic credibility."

”In the run-up to the final budget before the election, Mr Brown tried to sack Mr Darling and replace him with current leadership candidate Ed Balls after he refused to co-operate with him in setting out a "giveaway" package of measures designed to lure voters back to Labour.”

”The ex-chancellor later revealed that a frank assessment of the poor state of the UK's economy given in an interview had led to the "forces of hell" being unleashed by Downing Street.”

And here we have proof in the words of the chief ‘attack dog’, Mr Balls, or why electoral honesty is to be avoided at all costs to Labour’s political integrity, and having decided in 2010 to OPPOSE every spending cut, the sheer hypocrisy in now blaming the Coalition for not entirely cutting Labour’s £157 billion 2010 deficit,

June 2010; ”Balls accuses Darling of costing Labour the (2010) election”

”Ed Balls today lays bare his differences with Alistair Darling accusing him of costing Labour the chance of winning the general election with his stubborn refusal to rule out raising VAT.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7825548/Balls-accuses-Darling-of-costing-Labour-the-election.html

”And amid Labour fears that the party leadership is not doing enough to counter the Coalition’s economic plans which include public service cuts and a possible increase in VAT, Mr Balls urges Mr Darling, the shadow chancellor, to start opposing Tory economic policy “tooth and nail”.

”He says: “I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign.”

So fast forward to 2015 we have Shadow Chancellor Balls, with a strategy of disingenuously ruling out VAT or any tax rises this side of the election for electoral gain, in fact giving no credible Labour deficit or spending reductions, or tax rise plans, at all - having fought every coalition policy for 5-years, "tooth and nail".

I reiterate Alistair Darling’s quote on the Parliamentary Labour Party;
” You can't have political credibility without economic credibility."