Why the government is lying

[OhBuggerandArse]

Good blog post by Johann Hari here, on the myth that the cuts are needed because of our debt.

Here's a taster, but it's worth reading the lot, it's not long:

Let?s start with a fact that should be on billboards across the land. As a proportion of GDP, Britain?s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years. Read that sentence again. Check it on any graph by any historian. Since 1750, there have only been two brief 30-year periods when our debt has been lower than it is now. If we are ?bust? today, as George Osborne has claimed, then we have almost always been bust. We were bust when we pioneered the Industrial Revolution. We were bust when we ruled a quarter of the world. We were bust when we beat the Nazis. We were bust when we built the NHS. Or is it George Osborne?s economics that are bust?

'it's worth reading the lot'

(All together now)
Ooooh noooooo it isn't!!!!!!!!!

Thanks OBA for the link. Yet another fantastic Myth Busting article from Hari and I really do adore this man. He is very good at spotting that the Emperor is really rather naked.

Ah. That would be the Tory apologist speaking. Correction: for those of you who are interested in the unnecessary catastrophe the government is creating in the name of financial prudence, it's worth reading. Those of you who just want to carry on cheerleading for the Bullingdon boys despite all evidence showing how profoundly mistaken and misguided they are needn't bother.

(Sorry, Tiger, that wasn't (obviously) for you...)

Thanks for linking to this.

If the events picked out of the last 250 years are the Industrial Revolution and WWII, is that truly representative? And 'two brief 30 year periods'.... 60 years since 1945... is hardly a blink of the eye either. I think the problem faced today concerns not so much the size of the debt as what the debt is spent upon. If a nation is making the capital investment required for a wholesale industrial revolution, to fight a global war or rebuild a shattered infrastructure for the future those are, arguably, legitimate reasons to borrow.

Commercial growth potential in the past was significantly higher than it is now... Over the last 250 years growth was stellar, fuelled by the invention of mechanisation, steam power, the railway, the internal combustion engine, television, silicone chips and the internet revolution. Someone aged 70 today has seen a massive change in available technology since they were born. But over the last 10 years, there haven't been similarly big quantum leaps in technology. Things have flattened out. If a nation is borrowing massively just to keep normality ticking over with no prospect of serious growth in sight, there are less reasons to compare with 'the last 250 years'.

You may write me off too as a 'Tory apologist'... but I've seen this assessment before and I think that there is a big flaw in the argument.

'fewer' reasons... where's my grammar? :)

I posted on this on the TUC thread. Let's be clear the real lie is that Osborne actually plans to pay off our National Debt. In fact during the term of this parliament he's unlikely to decrease the National Debt by much at all.

Memo to Johann Hari: this government isn't planning to "pay off our debt rapidly"

Hari is no economist - does the left actually have a decent one?

Call me crazy, but regardless the fact that we have been operating with massive debt for hundreds of years, would it not still be better to have less debt?

we've always had lots of debt so it's ok.

That's weird.

I had lots of debt for years. I coped. I lived. I was really rather happy when I had no more debt. I don't imagine I would have said nah, I've always had debt and still managed, I'll just keep it as it it thanks.

So yes, we may well have always had this level of debt. There's actually nothing wrong with someone coming along and saying you know what, this debt is actually bloody massive and we need to do something about it.

God, it stuck in my throat to type anything that could be viewed as supporting the tories

Hectate, if it's any consolation Labour would have done exactly the same albeit at a slightly slower rate. So in effect you haven't so much as supported the Tories but in fact supported common sense.

It makes me laugh when those who are crying about cuts and trying to defend our debt are using the argument "Well our mate Japan & USA owe more than we do" or "Well we used to owe more after WW2 and we did ok then". Neither of which take into account the simple truth which is when you borrow money, at some point you must pay it back.

Hari states;

"As a proportion of GDP, Britain?s national debt has been higher than it is now for 200 of the past 250 years.... Cameron claims that, despite these facts, they need to cut our debt by slashing our spending because the bond markets demand it."

The response -

" .....spot the problem? Yep, it's the idea that the government is planning ? or even suggesting ? that we pay off our debt rapidly. The essential difference between the coalition's fiscal plans and Labour's is nothing to do with debt at all. It's to do with the deficit, aka borrowing. It is the deficit that one side hopes to reduce quicker than the other. As for the debt ? the sum total of all our borrowing that we have yet to pay off ? that would rise by most measures, whichever party was in power"

The response goes on -

"But let us be charitable, and imagine that Hari meant to refer to the deficit. Yet a historical overview of that conjures an even less heartening picture. Fact is that, as a proportion of GDP, the deficit is at its highest level on Treasury records......This is what worries the international markets: the constant borrowing on top of borrowing on top of borrowing. The very fact that last week's Budget contained higher borrowing forecasts was enough to provoke grim warnings from the credit rating agencies."

It also slates Osborne for talking about 'paying off the nations credit card' which is also very misleading.

Sorry - Niceguy - but my point is we are not paying it back

What both the Coalition plans to do and what Labour would have tried to do is reduce the deficit.

The differences in their plans being ones of timing and method.

The National Debt, quite frankly, is our children's problem....

Let's hope all the last government's 'investment' in education pays off.

One more time -

"Fact is that, as a proportion of GDP, the deficit is at its highest level on Treasury records...."

The National Debt, quite frankly, is our children's problem....

And our grandkids and quite possibly our great grandkids.

I often wonder how our kids will react when they come of age and we hand them a multi-trillion pound debt and tell them they must pay more out in taxes to pay it off AND support more of us as we grow older and for longer.

Us: "Here you go son, here's £4 trillion pounds of debt for you to pay off...cheers!"

Son: "OMFG! What did you spend it all on?"

Us: "Erm well....we gave a lot of it to poor people"

Son: "Oh ok....did it work?"

Us: "Erm.....not really there's still a lot of poor you need to support! Oh and we gave a lot of people final salary pensions so they can enjoy their retirement after working very very hard!"

Son: "Oh right....how did you think you would pay for those pensions?"

Us: "Erm....well I thought you would!"

Son: "Right but when I retire, I will get a good pension yes?"

Us: "No."

Son: "But this makes no sense? I'm up to my eyeballs in debt thanks to my student loans, now you expect me to pay all this off too?"

Us: "Well yes. We dumbed down education whilst making it more expensive in the hope you'd be too thick to notice! Anyway, I'm off to play golf now! Bye!"

The cuts are necessary and well overdue. I pay my council tax to ensure my rubbish is collected and other essential services are provided. Poor children finger painting Nelson Mandela is not essential. Surestart is a complete waste of money. Councils will now have to justify where their money is going, and about time.

Sure start is mis-directed at the moment, there was a minister due to meet the mummies of Mossley Hill in Liverpool and he didn't turn up so they interviewed the mums protesting, everyone of them white, educated, well spoken and perfectly capable of managing their own lives.

One boden clad woman complained that she needed SS because she had twins, imagine !

Surestart is not a complete waste of money. I'm sure for some families it's been a total lifeline. But it's a good example of something which we must ask ourselves...."Is this something the govt should be providing and is it value for money?"

Given we all managed fine before Surestart and the cupboards are bare, it's hard to justify them. As much as I personally would like to see them stay.

Thanks OBA for the link.

Nothing to do with being a Tory apologist - it's about common sense. Although sadly common sense isn't that common anymore.
You have to Stop relying on the state for everything - wake up and start paying your own way. I'm of the opinion that only the very intelligent should go to university - not every thicko in the country who go just to waste a few years & come out with some ridiculous 'degree' that isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I'm no Tory apologist but I do believe the structural deficit needs to be tackled. The demographics are quite alarming. We cannot afford to simply increase spending on everything year on year and hope it will all be OK. It's certainly about common sense in my book.

I agree with carminaburana, although I wouldn't use the word thicko.

We need to change the way we do things.

Yup, I agree Carmina. I'd love to support myself and my family more. Unfortunately it would seem I (and other taxpayers like me) are continually asked to pay more & more in tax to other "less fortunate" or whatever hair brained scheme we've no input into.

I don't mind paying a fair share of tax to support those who are in temporary need or too ill to look after themselves but I see so much wastage and so much tax being paid and so little in return that you have to question if more tax is the answer.

If someone said "Look, if we introduced a tax rate of 50% then every school will be great, NHS will be world class and no child will go to bed hungry." then I'd jump at it. But as it stands, I guess no matter if the tax is raised to 50% or 75%, all we'll see is another cry of "Tax the rich!!!"

(disclaimer: I am not rich in anyway shape or form)

yes Hari is his own man. Not all the political columnists are. (Is Rupert M still ringing in?)

I think Camerons policies are to a large extent Idiological. (Not many people survive Eton as non Tories)

Is she visit every Sure Start he closes; and talk to the mums. Be brave Dave; and stop hiding from the people whose lives you are ruining.

But Gabby, which councils are closing SureStart? As far as I can see it's mainly councils who oppose the government and are trying to make a political point. I think it's shameful. My own council is (sadly!) Conservative and is not closing a single Sure Start. And, off the top of my head, I can't think of any that are in the Tory areas, so they're not even saving their own bacon.