Public borrowing still soaring as April figures cast light on those 'cuts'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-borrowing-figure-blow-for-government-2288307.html

Public borrowing figure blow for Government as spending keeps rising..


The Government's deficit reduction plans were dealt a blow today after official figures revealed that last month's borrowing figures were the highest ever recorded for the month of April. Public borrowing, excluding financial interventions such as bank bail-outs, hit £10 billion, compared with £7.3 billion the previous year, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The figure, which is higher than City expectations of £6.5 billion, will cast doubt on whether the Government can meet its target of bringing the deficit down to £122 billion this financial year. The ONS said tax receipts fell year on year, which had been boosted to the tune of £3.5 billion a year earlier by the tax on bankers' bonuses. However, there was some good news for the Government as borrowing figures for the year to March 2011 were revised downwards to £139.4 billion, from £141.1 billion. This was mainly caused by tax receipts being boosted after VAT was hiked to 20% from 17.5% previously, said the ONS. But the higher-than-expected borrowing in April pushed the Government's debt to a record £910.1 billion, or 60.1% of GDP.

..despite those 'cuts'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8544028/Overseas-aid-We-borrow-to-give-to-the-world.html


I am sure we were all overjoyed to hear David Cameron boasting to the G8 meeting that Britain now contributes more of its GDP to overseas aid than any other country in the world. This was in the week when we also learned that, despite the latest tax rises, the £10 billion the Government had to borrow last month was the highest ever April figure on record.

Our revised borrowing figure for last year was just below £140 billion, which means that the Government has been spending nearly £3 billion a week more than its income – and, despite those famous “cuts”, its spending continues to rise. It’s good to know, though, that it only takes us 22 days to borrow the £8.5 billion we hand out each year in international aid, enabling our Prime Minister to boast that we are the most generous country in the world.

Right so lets get onto it, there really are no cuts - spending is rising and even the measly attempts to get the deficit down aren't working (whether or not they were supposed to work is another deal altogether) so please can the BBC, both sides of the media and everyone in general please stop complaining about these non-existant cuts which if you were to believe the media you'd assume the Pinochet regime had just won the election when in reality we are still on the road to financial ruin with debts of £7.9tn (Taxpayers alliance fig.) and rising.

Now I remember Labour supporters such as Catz, Oli +others arguing with Conservatives such as jam666, Jordy +others about these 'cuts' with the Labour side saying how draconian these cuts were and the Conservative side saying how they needed to be done (which they do) - but now that we've established that public spending is rising as opposed to being cut, isn't it time the two sides come together or even swap parties? the Labour supporters can now vote Conservative knowing they're doing exactly what the previous government did and the Conservatives well, they can either continue to pretend or can vote for a party which will cut.

The Conservatives *and now Liberal Democrats* are relying on support by making out as though tough decisions are being made by the mess left behind by Labour (even though they supported Labours spending plans upto 2008).. meanwhile Labour are courting their support by also making out that cuts are occuring, but that they are severe and are hurting the little guy - both stances are clearly false and now that you've seen the figures and facts i'd be interested to see what views everyone holds from both sides now with this news.

I support cuts in public spending which is out of control, i've been calling for them for years - but i'm afraid they're not happening, so whatever side of the fence you sit on - for gods sakes lets stop the pretence and wake ourselves up.

Thoughts? is the government handling the economy and debt well?

[dbgtz]

There are cuts, cuts to stuff we actually use. But they just decide to give more to other countries. No our country can't handle debt and as long as old men (who do not even connect or listen to the public whilst continuing to buttlick other countries) continue to run the country, then to be quite honest it's not going to get any better.

[Conservative,]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/562900/facepalm.jpg

And to think I thought they might actually do something useful... :l Ugh why can't they have common sense and put the people of Britain first for once? Cut ALL aid until we're out of debt.

[alexxxxx]

just because public debt is rising doesn't mean there haven't been cuts, it means that tax receipts haven't been entirely what was expected, which appears to be what it says here. and some cost cutting measures don't save money in the short-run (you can't make people redundant without paying them money, often a year or more of their salary up front).

[Chippiewill]

"Britain now contributes more of its GDP to overseas aid than any other country in the world ... the £10 billion the Government had to borrow last month"
What is this I don't even.#

This is basically like a poor person taking out a massive loan for a sports car that doesn't work properly.

[Technologic]

I'm quite sure the government know what they're doing better than any of us

[Recursion]

I'm quite sure the government know what they're doing better than any of us

Agreed.

Although, whilst I think intercontinental relationships are good, we could stop giving money to countries like India who have more of a space program than the people who're funding them (i.e. us.)

[Catzsy]

No-one is saying that there should not be some cuts but it is the way they are being done - hitting the less advantaged harder than anything else. Considering the conservatives are supposed to be the party of business
I am amazed that they have withdrawn a 35 ml grant to Lotus to get the Lotus Esprit marketed again in favour of Toyota for their Espace. Lotus have now to make 100 redundant. I also saw Peter Hitchens on 'Question Time' the other night and I can now see who writes your scripts almost word for word including if you believe in helping Afghanistan 'you should join up'. LOL Maybe you should try writing them yourself?

[Jordy]

No-one is saying that there should not be some cuts but it is the way they are being done - hitting the less advantaged harder than anything else. Considering the conservatives are supposed to be the party of business
I am amazed that they have withdrawn a 35 ml grant to Lotus to get the Lotus Esprit marketed again in favour of Toyota for their Espace. Lotus have now to make 100 redundant. I also saw Peter Hitchens on 'Question Time' the other night and I can now see who writes your scripts almost word for word including if you believe in helping Afghanistan 'you should join up'. LOL Maybe you should try writing them yourself?How would you propose carrying out the much needed cuts then?

I can't find any information on this Lotus grant but what the government have done doesn't sound unreasonable. A 35 million pound grant for a measly 100 jobs is very unsustainable, it's like the government paying £350k to hold down each workers jobs. Instead Lotus should be more innovative to try compete with other car manufacturers and get loans from banks if they need cash. Admittedly getting loans isn't that easy atm but Lotus isn't what you'd call a Small Business. Toyota also manufacture cars in this country (Much more than Lotus) seeing as they were forced to open factories in Europe thanks to EU Import restrictions, for instance the Toyota plant near me in Derby employees 3,800 people. Neither Lotus or Toyota is a UK car firm anyway, Malaysian and Japanese respectively.

[FlyingJesus]

Just out of curiosity, how does spending more than we're saving mean that cuts haven't happened? I'm not waving any banners against cuts because it frankly means very little to me personally and I'm selfish like that, but I don't think you can really suggest that there are no cuts just because the government's dishing out more money elsewhere. It's like if I sold my car for £400 and bought some shoes for £600, it doesn't mean I've still got my car

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm quite sure the government know what they're doing better than any of us

Like the last government which raised public spending by 50% and thus ran up debts of £7.9tn?


No-one is saying that there should not be some cuts but it is the way they are being done - hitting the less advantaged harder than anything else.

So you would agree with the likes of people such as myself, UKIP, Nigel Farage, Peter Hitchens, Simon Heffer and others that we should be cutting foreign aid, the European Union and so forth? If so, why will you not vote for this?

If the above is not the case, what do you propose to cut instead?


Considering the conservatives are supposed to be the party of business
I am amazed that they have withdrawn a 35 ml grant to Lotus to get the Lotus Esprit marketed again in favour of Toyota for their Espace.

And how many jobs do you think have been lost/not grown around the country as a consquence to the government raising this £35m to bail out a mere 100 jobs which are proving to be unproductive anyway? a good read on government subsidies would do some good, along with a look at the 1970s.

Where do you think this money comes from? it comes from individuals, individuals who know how to invest - unlike the state.


I also saw Peter Hitchens on 'Question Time' the other night and I can now see who writes your scripts almost word for word including if you believe in helping Afghanistan 'you should join up'. LOL Maybe you should try writing them yourself?

Well its true i'm afraid and many conservatives/libertarians raise the point along with the likes of George Galloway that people such as yourself and that young man on Question Time are all for sending our military around the world (it was Libya actually, not Afghanistan) to police the world at great human and financial cost, but you yourself simply refuse to sign up to enforce this 'moral obligation' you state we, the west, have.

Even when I was left wing like yourself back around 2003 opposing the Iraq war I asked myself why it was that the children of the politicians are rarely ever the ones to sign up and take part in these wars, which is a point Michael Moore raises in Farenheit 9/11. After all, would you want your children to sacrafice themselves in Libya or Afghanistan in a fruitless battle of which this country has little or no interest in?

Would appreciate replies to both parts.


Just out of curiosity, how does spending more than we're saving mean that cuts haven't happened? I'm not waving any banners against cuts because it frankly means very little to me personally and I'm selfish like that, but I don't think you can really suggest that there are no cuts just because the government's dishing out more money elsewhere. It's like if I sold my car for £400 and bought some shoes for £600, it doesn't mean I've still got my car

Because government spending is rising, just last months figures showed that the government spent something around £10bn more this April than April 2011.. i'm all for cuts across the board, but its a myth they are occuring.

[FlyingJesus]

You don't seem to understand how this works Dan. Spending can rise, yet certain cuts have still happened and it isn't a myth when the figures have been released and confirmed by the government themselves. What kind of logic are you trying to apply here? I'll try an example that might be easier for you personally this time as you didn't seem to get my last one:

Let's say you currently spend £20 a month on crap indie CDs and £10 a month on haircuts. Now, let's say you were to stop buying so much music and that figure was down to just £5 a month, but instead of saving that money you decided you could afford to go to a more upmarket hairdresser and spent £60 a month on your haircuts. In the new spending schemes you'd be paying out £65 instead of £30 a month, but the cuts (look I put it in bold red so you can't miss it) you'd made on CD expenditure would still be very real. What you are attempting to suggest is that an overall increase in spending negates the fact that cuts (there's that word again) have happened

[-:Undertaker:-]

You don't seem to understand how this works Dan. Spending can rise, yet certain cuts have still happened and it isn't a myth when the figures have been released and confirmed by the government themselves. What kind of logic are you trying to apply here? I'll try an example that might be easier for you personally this time as you didn't seem to get my last one:

Let's say you currently spend £20 a month on crap indie CDs and £10 a month on haircuts. Now, let's say you were to stop buying so much music and that figure was down to just £5 a month, but instead of saving that money you decided you could afford to go to a more upmarket hairdresser and spent £60 a month on your haircuts. In the new spending schemes you'd be paying out £65 instead of £30 a month, but the cuts (look I put it in bold red so you can't miss it) you'd made on CD expenditure would still be very real. What you are attempting to suggest is that an overall increase in spending negates the fact that cuts (there's that word again) have happened

Because of the fact that the government has admitted that its aim is not to get the debt itself down, but the deficit which it is struggling/failing to do- as I stated before, the opposite is happening. In any case that the government is diverting more money to paying the debts, it is not worth the effort due to the fact that the more it continues to borrow the higher its interest payments are climbing (of which they are) therefore its self-defeating. The example you give suggests that they may be moving funding around, thats true as foreign aid and so forth are outgrowing other parts in terms of funding - but as I point out, there is no effort being made to cut the deficit and the debt.

The only way they can get the debt down is either by defaulting or by cutting along with encouraging growth both of which go hand in hand. This government is continuing to overspend even by its own aim (to rid the deficit) and judging by its success in that (unsuccessful) it won't even manage that. By 2015 unless something drastic changes from now to then, the debt will be higher than it was in May 2010. Therefore, you have no 'cuts'. We'd have to get spending down to what we can afford firstly (meaning hefty cuts), then we would have to cut even futher in order to pay off the debts should we choose to do that instead of a default on the debts - this is not happening.

More figures; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8423832/Cuts-What-cuts-Spending-is-rising.html


Next year, the OBR projects that spending will rise to £710 billion while receipts will be £588 billion. The fact that Mr Osborne predicts that annual spending is due to rise over the next four years by £50 billion and our national debt by another £300 billion seems to be one of the best-kept secrets in British politics.

[FlyingJesus]

Cuts in one area + overspending in another = cuts + spending

Does not equal no cuts

[-:Undertaker:-]

Cuts in one area + overspending in another = cuts + spending

Does not equal no cuts

I'm not saying flat out that there haven't been budget cuts in parts of departments, that happened even under Labour yet we don't class that as 'cutting' in terms of how goverment spends as its simply moving government spending around (in the instance of university fees) as government continued to spend more and run up more debts just as this government is and is forecast to continue to do so using their own figures which exclude PFI schemes and so forth.

The figures show that our spending is increasing not decreasing and our debt is to continue to grow.. so what are these 'cuts' to public spending we keep hearing about? they simply do not exist, Britain is still on the road to going bankrupt. When I talk about cuts, I talk about government spending and whether or not this is being cut as is claimed but of which is not happening (see figures I quoted).

[Firehorse]

Our government is stupid, no matter who is in the hotseat.

We give billions to the European Union in Carbon Taxes, seriously wtf. Paying tax for something we manage to keep low in comparison very well anyway and for every coal power station that is shut down in the uk, 100 new ones are built in china.
We give billions in aid to china, when they have now got a stronger economy than we do. (Our money?)
We give billions in aid to india, when most of that money doesn't end up where it's supposed to and the money should be used to take people out of poverty in our own country first. Certainly?
£1bn of aid gets sent to india every year, even though india spends £20bn per year on defence.
The cuts are only small things that will save little money but affect our every day lives so that we can feel like good is being done, even though it isn't. Such as reducing rubbish removals.

The entire european union is a money drain too, all they do for us is let people into the country and impose laws which we otherwise wouldn't have to deal with, such as the law where it is now illegal to provide chinese herbs in capsules - you have to taste them if you take them now thanks to the backhands of cash being passed from the pharmaceutical companies to the corrupt politicians.

The entire thing is bollocks really. If we stopped giving aid to countries that are richer than us anyway but only have poverty because they're too corrupt to manage their own population propperly then our financial crisis would pretty much be solved. If Britain was a person I'd call them a right idiot.

[Chippiewill]

Oh wonderful, we're now giving £814m away because we're not giving enough away already...


UK Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged £814m to help vaccinate children around the world against preventable diseases like pneumonia.

He made the announcement at a summit in London where countries were being asked to give an extra £2.3bn ($3.7bn) by 2015 for child vaccines.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13744922

If we're having to borrow money it's not going to be helpful in the long run to give more away MATH MAKES SENSE.