okocha wrote:PS: Just going to ask Sluffy if he thinks this whole conversation should be moved to a more appropriate thread and, if so, would kindly oblige.
As requested.
See from post 86 onwards.
Who are you voting for?
okocha wrote:PS: Just going to ask Sluffy if he thinks this whole conversation should be moved to a more appropriate thread and, if so, would kindly oblige.
Sluffy wrote:karlypants wrote:Whitesince63 wrote:Do you seriously need me to explain?karlypants wrote:63, what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for????
Yes. That is why I am asking!!!
My memory obviously needs jogging!
There were no lockdowns under Blair/Brown.
W63 has probably seen some shit posted on the social media he follows and once again believed it and repeated it without even thinking.
Whitesince63 wrote: The OBR report released yesterday clearly indicated a shortfall of no more than £9b less than half that indicated by Reeves.
Karly, my point as you very well know was about Labour governments generally but thank God there wasn’t a virus under Brown because just like under a Starmer one the outcome would still have been much worse I’m sure. In fact I’m certain that Starmer went to bed every night thanking his lucky stars that he wasn’t in charge but could just sit on the sidelines with zero responsibility whilst criticising and regularly voting against anything the government did.karlypants wrote:
Yes. That is why I am asking!!!
My memory obviously needs jogging!
So, just like I said, no £22b black hole and at worst a series of unquantified costs which weren’t confirmed related mainly to public sector pay awards which were still under negotiation but which as we now know were agreed by Labour with their capitulation to the tune of circa £9b so not a black hole.Sluffy wrote:
Well if you actually read it, rather than believing what you read on the social media you follow, it doesn't say that at all!
What it says is that what it was told for the Conservative Budget of March 2024 it showed a black hole of £9.5 billion - however it was never informed by the governments of further pressures on spending that they would have to fund AFTER the budget (an amount stated to be a further £7 billion) which the OBR would have added to their stated £9,5 billion.
"Had we known that information we would have had a materially different view about the level of public spending this year," OBR head Richard Hughes told BBC News.
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Review_of_the_March_2024_forecast_for_DELs.pdf
Was there really a £22 billion black hole that Labour inherited from the Conservative government?
The answer seems to be 'something in that region'.
The numbers stack up like this...
For the last Tory budget in March of this year, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) reported the black hole based on what it had been told at the time by the Treasury, to be £9.5 billion.
HOWEVER at that time it was not made aware of the Tory government future spending commitments, which the OBR now say this -
Nonetheless, it said forecasts in March would have been "materially different" if it had known about ALL the previous government's spending plans.
Reeves said the £22bn came from the £9.5bn of spending plans reported by the OBR, another £7bn before the March Budget, and a further £5.6bn between March and the end of July including public sector pay awards made by Labour.
So in simple terms there was a known black hole of £9.5 billion in March 2024, the Conservative government had committed another undisclosed amount of £7 billion spending that had not been reported to the OBR for their March budget and a further £5.6 billion after the March budget that also included the cost of settling all the public sector pay disputes the Labour government inherited (which the Tory government had made NO provision for).
More detailed explanations here -
Was there a £22bn ‘black hole’ in the UK’s public finances?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o
Where does the £22bn claim come from?
The £21.9bn figure was in an audit published by the Treasury at the end of July, external – just a few weeks after Labour came to power.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/672215794da1c0d41942a95d/OBR_review_response_WEB.pdf#page=9
The document looked at areas of public spending which are set to go over budget this year, including:
-Public sector pay rises
- Overspending on certain projects, such as supporting the asylum system
- Unforeseen costs, such as inflation being higher than expected
- Military assistance to Ukraine.
At the time, the OBR wrote that it had not been made aware of the extent of overspends, external and said it would investigate.
https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Letter-from-Richard-Hughes-to-the-Treasury-Select-Committee-on-the-OBR-review-of-the-March-2024-forecast-for-departmental-expenditure-limits.pdf
Whitesince63 wrote:Karly, my point as you very well know was about Labour governments generally but thank God there wasn’t a virus under Brown because just like under a Starmer one the outcome would still have been much worse I’m sure. In fact I’m certain that Starmer went to bed every night thanking his lucky stars that he wasn’t in charge but could just sit on the sidelines with zero responsibility whilst criticising and regularly voting against anything the government did.karlypants wrote:
Yes. That is why I am asking!!!
My memory obviously needs jogging!
karlypants wrote:
63, that unfortunately isn’t the answer I was asking.
My question in reply to you was… what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for?
Please answer my question.
Whitesince63 wrote:So, just like I said, no £22b black hole and at worst a series of unquantified costs which weren’t confirmed related mainly to public sector pay awards which were still under negotiation but which as we now know were agreed by Labour with their capitulation to the tune of circa £9b so not a black hole.
This government is already a disaster and despite the largest borrowing since the 60s Labour still can’t confirm that there won’t be a need for more if their estimations don’t bring in the taxes they’ve budgeted for, which all know they won’t. Let’s wait and see shall we but I don’t expect this first woman chancellor to be still in post for much more than a year as things disintegrate around her.
Get ready for financial carnage because their union “friends” haven’t even got started on their demands yet and the blocks to all the changes this lot want to make will be just as strong for them as they were for the Tory’s. Once again I’ll repeat that even the worst Tory government is better than a Lie bore one.
Norpig wrote:karlypants wrote:
63, that unfortunately isn’t the answer I was asking.
My question in reply to you was… what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for?
Please answer my question.
I did but please don’t get like Sluffy and make an argument just for the sake of trying to appear clever.karlypants wrote:
63, that unfortunately isn’t the answer I was asking.
My question in reply to you was… what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for?
Please answer my question.
Whitesince63 wrote:I did but please don’t get like Sluffy and make an argument just for the sake of trying to appear clever.karlypants wrote:
63, that unfortunately isn’t the answer I was asking.
My question in reply to you was… what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for?
Please answer my question.
I just love this site, populated by seemingly sensible and intelligent people but who for some reason can’t see the wood for the trees. Sluffy, there was no black hole and certainly not one of £22b which the OBR have already confirmed as you yourself have posted.Sluffy wrote:
He's also refused to answer my question of why would the Labour party inflict a £40bn tax raid on the country if there wasn't a black hole in the economy and the NHS was on the verge of collapse. What benefit would they get from doing that?
He also won't say who he's voted for in the Tory leadership - although his choice is between the mentalist Badenoch and the extremely dodgy Jenrick!
Whitesince63 wrote:I did but please don’t get like Sluffy and make an argument just for the sake of trying to appear clever.karlypants wrote:
63, that unfortunately isn’t the answer I was asking.
My question in reply to you was… what stupid lockdowns did the Blair/Brown era call for?
Please answer my question.
Whitesince63 wrote:I just love this site, populated by seemingly sensible and intelligent people but who for some reason can’t see the wood for the trees. Sluffy, there was no black hole and certainly not one of £22b which the OBR have already confirmed as you yourself have posted.Sluffy wrote:
He's also refused to answer my question of why would the Labour party inflict a £40bn tax raid on the country if there wasn't a black hole in the economy and the NHS was on the verge of collapse. What benefit would they get from doing that?
He also won't say who he's voted for in the Tory leadership - although his choice is between the mentalist Badenoch and the extremely dodgy Jenrick!
Mind you this Labour government and Reeves in particular are on a different planet so maybe that explains the “black hole” vision. You can already see that the markets and real experts agree with me when I say how completely naive and catastrophic this budget was. You like to criticise Liz Truss but this will be far more damaging believe me.
You and the other myopics and refusers on here can try to deny it but you know in yourselves how damaging this one budget will be. The simple fact is that the totally inexperienced Reeve has no idea of what the unintended consequences of her actions will be on the economy. Nobody, including the OBR believes that she won’t be back looking for even more borrowing when the plans fail, which we know they will.
You didn’t vote Sluffy so you really should have no say in any of it but at least those of us who did can have an opinion and state it.if we got it wrong that’s tough but at least we voted on what we were told. The fact that from Labour it was a pack of lies and deceit is becoming all too clear now and all those times Sunak was derided for saying it are now being seen to be true. As for Kemi or Jenrick, what could that possibly have to do with you. If I was the racist you say I am though maybe you’d know?
I gave you the bloody answer but you’re either struggling to understand English or you’re just trying to be intentionally argumentative but just to try again, I was referring to Labour government actions generally not specifically just Blair/Brown. There were no lockdowns under the B’s, ok?karlypants wrote:
I just want the bloody answer to the question.
If you can’t come up with it then why bloody say it then?
Whitesince63 wrote:I gave you the bloody answer but you’re either struggling to understand English or you’re just trying to be intentionally argumentative but just to try again, I was referring to Labour government actions generally not specifically just Blair/Brown. There were no lockdowns under the B’s, ok?karlypants wrote:
I just want the bloody answer to the question.
If you can’t come up with it then why bloody say it then?
Whitesince63 wrote:Crikey Sluffy, now you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel believing anything the IMF says. When have they ever been right about anything, they’re a joke? No Sluffy I look at the real experts, the markets who know for a fact that Reeves budget won’t work and she’ll be forced into more borrowing. They’re expecting interest rates higher and for longer so great help for those with loans and mortgages. Look at the billions wiped off stocks and shares in the last week and the millions removed from fund managers. You hammered Liz Truss when she promised spending without the funds to pay for it but now you think it’s different for Reeves. Double standards there Sluffy.
Whitesince63 wrote:You hammered Liz Truss when she promised spending without the funds to pay for it but now you think it’s different for Reeves. Double standards there Sluffy.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum