[ALANM]

Government support for Britain's banks has reached a staggering £850bn and the eventual cost to taxpayers will not be known for years

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-1833830.html

UK National Debt - how Britain owes over £900 billion... Right now, that debt is growing violently. The Government forecasts it will soar to an eye-watering £1.1 trillion by 2011.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Am I missing something or do government plans for decades of austerity with a series of tax rises and spending cuts amount to an admission that the £850bn given to the banks has vanished into a giant black hole never to be seen again? And, by the way, who decided that responsibility for paying it back should fall to the ordinary citizens of this country rather than the banks themselves?

[Pices-55]

Originally Posted by ALANM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-1833830.html



http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Am I missing something or do government plans for decades of austerity with a series of tax rises and spending cuts amount to an admission that the £850bn given to the banks has vanished into a giant black hole never to be seen again? And, by the way, who decided that responsibility for paying it back should fall to the ordinary citizens of this country rather than the banks themselves?

Surely that would be the Labour government, you know the one that keeps on saying the Tories were wrong to oppose the bailout, of course I am sure that some package was nessecary to stop the banks from complete failure but it should have been more measured.
There are still many people in the know who say that some banks should have been allowed to fail.

[Moony]

Dont we own shares in these banks - that can, upon their recovery - be sold at a profit.

[mad_dude]

Dont we own shares in these banks - that can, upon their recovery - be sold at a profit.
Today 12:49

It would be much better in the long term, upon recovery for these banks to remain nationalised with profits used to finance public services.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

It would be much better in the long term, upon recovery for these banks to remain nationalised with profits used to finance public services.

Or that

[Magnamundian]

Originally Posted by Pices-55

[/i][/b]

Surely that would be the Labour government, you know the one that keeps on saying the Tories were wrong to oppose the bailout, of course I am sure that some package was nessecary to stop the banks from complete failure but it should have been more measured.
There are still many people in the know who say that some banks should have been allowed to fail.

Safeguards are in place to recompense bank customers if the bank fails, remember what happened with the Icelandic banks?

Makes you wonder if the government would have been better off allowing the banks to fail and bailing out the customers instead (i.e. refunding them their lost money and allowing them to deposit it in another bank, thus helping those banks that hadn't yet 'bombed' to balance their books).

Was saving the BANKS the right thing to do...

[Soundburst]

So The debt isn't mainly due to 900bn of over spending by Labour as we were told?

850 of the 900 was actually spent keeping banks afloat?

[Coen]

Originally Posted by ALANM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-1833830.html



http://www.debtbombshell.com/

Am I missing something or do government plans for decades of austerity with a series of tax rises and spending cuts amount to an admission that the £850bn given to the banks has vanished into a giant black hole never to be seen again? And, by the way, who decided that responsibility for paying it back should fall to the ordinary citizens of this country rather than the banks themselves?

Most of the £850bn figure quoted for support provided to the banks hasn't actually resulted in debt or a cost to the taxpayer (yet) as it takes the form of guarantees, indemnities and insurance issued to banks.

According to http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk...national-debt/ only around £120bn of the cost of the bank bailout has actually resulted in increased national debt so far.

The guarantees, indemnities and insurance may or may not result in the government having to actually pay out - which is why the actual cost won't be known for years - but they are possible future liabilities, not actual costs.

[jmclaugh]

According to the ONS public sector net debt at the end of 2009-10 was £893b, excluding the cost of financial intervention the figure is £772 so the additional debt generated by borrowing to bail out the banks is £120b and was incurred in 2008.

£770b of the £850b in that report is in indemnifying losses from loans and underwriting insurance cover which are potential costs if it all went pear shaped and is not actual debt.

[SuperTed187]

Originally Posted by Pices-55

[/i][/b]

Surely that would be the Labour government, you know the one that keeps on saying the Tories were wrong to oppose the bailout, of course I am sure that some package was nessecary to stop the banks from complete failure but it should have been more measured.
There are still many people in the know who say that some banks should have been allowed to fail.

I somehow doubt that they threw several times more money than was necessary into these companies

[Connor Williams]

------------------------

[Pices-55]

Originally Posted by SuperTed187

I somehow doubt that they threw several times more money than was necessary into these companies

Well they threw several times more money than was nessecary into everything else, hence why there is so much waste in the public sector.

[Phil 2804]

The cost of the bank bailout isn't actually officially recorded on the national debt as much of it is provided in the form of guarantees rather than hard cash.

Labour added £200 billion to the debt in the boom years leading up to 2008 which added to other reckless policies such as changing the tax rules on pension funds, pulling the 10p rate away without warning etc is frankly unforgiveable.

[Soundburst]

Originally Posted by Pices-55

Well they threw several times more money than was nessecary into everything else, hence why there is so much waste in the public sector.

I do suggest you think for yourself instead of quoting what the Daily Mail and The Sun tells you.

This "waste" you speak of in the public sector? . . .this "awk we'll easily save 1 in every 100 pounds we spend"?. . . .it wasn't just cutting down the amount of Water Cooler refills per week in public offices. . .it was entire sectors losing their jobs.

It's not "waste". . . .it's peoples livelihoods.

[mad_dude]

Originally Posted by Soundburst

I do suggest you think for yourself instead of quoting what the Daily Mail and The Sun tells you.

This "waste" you speak of in the public sector? . . .this "awk we'll easily save 1 in every 100 pounds we spend"?. . . .it wasn't just cutting down the amount of Water Cooler refills per week in public offices. . .it was entire sectors losing their jobs.

It's not "waste". . . .it's peoples livelihoods.

Since it is the private sector responcible for most of our debt one has to wonder wheather the waste waste was in the public sector or private sector.

[Relugus]

Originally Posted by Phil 2804

The cost of the bank bailout isn't actually officially recorded on the national debt as much of it is provided in the form of guarantees rather than hard cash.

Labour added £200 billion to the debt in the boom years leading up to 2008 which added to other reckless policies such as changing the tax rules on pension funds, pulling the 10p rate away without warning etc is frankly unforgiveable.

And of course Blair's vanity invasion of Iraq, the corporate welfare Olympics project, etc.
Scrapping all PFIs would save alot of money, but because that's corporate welfare we must not touch that.

The banks will never pay back what they owe, it will conveniently be "forgotten". Fact is, if it's a given that we will be paid back, why the need for such austerity if they are sure some income will be coming into the government coffers from the banks.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

Since it is the private sector responcible for most of our debt one has to wonder wheather the waste waste was in the public sector or private sector.

But it isn't.

There is no doubt waste in all sectors but that isn't really the point which is we have a public sector we can only afford by borrowing £1 in very £4 spent on it.

[Relugus]

One of the reasons our public sector is so big is because our banks don't support the private sector, they think creating jobs is the government's job.

[Pices-55]

Originally Posted by Soundburst

I do suggest you think for yourself instead of quoting what the Daily Mail and The Sun tells you.

This "waste" you speak of in the public sector? . . .this "awk we'll easily save 1 in every 100 pounds we spend"?. . . .it wasn't just cutting down the amount of Water Cooler refills per week in public offices. . .it was entire sectors losing their jobs.

It's not "waste". . . .it's peoples livelihoods.

I suggest you try not telling others what to think, I do not read any newspapers at all, and I am frankly tired of people such as yourself trying to perpetuate the myth that that if people disagree with you their source for opinion must be that of Tory right wing press.

My opinions are that of my own, made with my own free will from what I see, I have my own will and it not changed or swayed by the media or people such as yourself who trot out a party line even though that party has been booted out and discredited upon the policies they hold.

The public sector will have to be trimmed, jobs will have to go and it is unfortunate, however these are jobs that are unessecary and unaffordable, many of them jobs which should not have been created in the first place.
The private sector needs to be invested in by lower taxes etc and given the means to grow and mop up the jobs lost from the public sector, this country needs more wealth creation to get the economy moving again, keeping people employed at the expense of the taxpayer will not work, it will hold us back and keep us in a worsening debt crisis.

[Relugus]

Originally Posted by Pices-55

I suggest you try not telling others what to think, I do not read any newspapers at all, and I am frankly tired of people such as yourself trying to perpetuate the myth that that if people disagree with you their source for opinion must be that of Tory right wing press.

My opinions are that of my own, made with my own free will from what I see, I have my own will and it not changed or swayed by the media or people such as yourself who trot out a party line even though that party has been booted out and discredited upon the policies they hold.

The public sector will have to be trimmed, jobs will have to go and it is unfortunate, however these are jobs that are unessecary and unaffordable, many of them jobs which should not have been created in the first place.
The private sector needs to be invested in by lower taxes etc and given the means to grow and mop up the jobs lost from the public sector, this country needs more wealth creation to get the economy moving again, keeping people employed at the expense of the taxpayer will not work, it will hold us back and keep us in a worsening debt crisis.

The banks won't invest in the private sector, though. Besides, most of the jobs will be given to foreigners (offshoring) and immigrants. The City cares not a fig about British people and thinks its the governments job to create jobs.

Wealth creation? No, what the country needs is innovation and to start making things of value to the world. Sectors such as the video-game industry and tech/green should get priority.

House prices and the cost of living need to come down.

[mad_dude]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

But it isn't.

There is no doubt waste in all sectors but that isn't really the point which is we have a public sector we can only afford by borrowing £1 in very £4 spent on it.

I asked you for a source for this before and you havent provided it.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

I asked you for a source for this before and you havent provided it.

Did you? I don't recall.

Anyway government expenditure last year was around £620b and the buget deficit was £156b. Is that what you were after?

[Jayceef1]

Originally Posted by mad_dude

I asked you for a source for this before and you havent provided it.

Here's one

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/i/pix/2...DM_468x593.jpg

[humptymcnumpty]

Just means that we will be paying for it 3 times over. Once when we bailed them out. Twice with the cuts and tax increases. Third when the tories give the money that we put in in the first place to all their rich freinds in the city. They don't call them the CONDEMS for nothing. Or was this the plan all along. After all the debacle was in the main caused by right wing thinking banking people on both sides of the Atlantic. Which resulted in a right wing government in Britain So who do you think is going to benefit when our money is recouped form the banks. US. I don't think so. Those of us with not so short memories know that the tories have got form on this. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want but.........

[Pices-55]

Originally Posted by humptymcnumpty

Just means that we will be paying for it 3 times over. Once when we bailed them out. Twice with the cuts and tax increases. Third when the tories give the money that we put in in the first place to all their rich freinds in the city. They don't call them the CONDEMS for nothing. Or was this the plan all along. After all the debacle was in the main caused by right wing thinking banking people on both sides of the Atlantic. Which resulted in a right wing government in Britain So who do you think is going to benefit when our money is recouped form the banks. US. I don't think so. Those of us with not so short memories know that the tories have got form on this. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want but.........

I would just simply call it tripe.