Comments on: The BBC discusses whether the UK can go bust

By: april ryan

april ryan — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:39:45 +0000

John you talk a lot of sense but I have to say I am feeling as let down by the Conservatives as I am by this profligate government.
The borrowing we are taking on is mortgaging the country to the hilt. Not just for the term of this government but for several governmental terms to come. Whoever takes over this level of debt will have their hands completely tied and will be unable to steer any other course other than upping taxes to pay off this mega debt (and that, of course, is if the country does not go bankrupt in the meantime.)
This is unconstitutional and I do not believe that Gordon has either a mandate to borrow on this level or the backing of the people of this country. For goodness sake Conservatives put up a fight and make yourselves a credible opposition.

By: jim

jim — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:23:44 +0000

But it has already happened, that is why the BoE is printing money. If they could borrow it they would, but they can’t. I don’t think any of us want to face this issue, but we have to be realistic. Britain is already bankrupt, when foreign debt holders put two and two together, we are going to go the route of Iceland. I’m sure you’ve noticed that Germany has had two failed bund auctions in recent weeks. Who would lend to Brown?

By: Amanda

Amanda — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:55:39 +0000

I have now got to the stage when I am waking during the night worrying about the country’s finanical situation – I surely cannot be alone. It’s like being tied to a railwaytrack unable to move with the train coming full pelt. Is there no way we can call a vote of no confidence in this Government? Is there no democratic way to rid ourselves of their incompetence? Everything they do makes matters worse.

The only light to this dark cloud is the reeducation of the ‘lost generation’ of Labour educated children as they have to cope with the realities of socialism. Hopefully, this will be a life lesson they will never forget.

By: mike stallard

mike stallard — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 08:17:36 +0000

If you live in No 10 safely cocooned from parliament and the media, behind the wall of the BBC, then you are free to indulge in really slovenly thinking. You can make up figures. You can order things that either you have no intention of carrying through or things that you really do not understand.
The danger comes when you come to believe your own lies.
And that leaves you open to really big mistakes, like borrowing madly and running your credit rating into the ground.
Queensland did this recently and was downgraded from triple A. The government immediately resigned and called a fresh election.
Allow me to remind you that what we need desperately is a vast cut in taxes, a vast cut in State interference and therefore State employees, some sensible encouragement of earning money abroad and, as you so rightly say, some way of getting the banks to reform themselves professionally.
I do not think that our 19th century legacy is going to prevent our going bust otherwise.
But then, I have often been wrong before.

By: Steve Tierney

Steve Tierney — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 03:55:03 +0000

Lots of sensible people are very worried about bankruptcy of the UK, as it happens John.

Your usually astute voice is making too light of the issue, but I suppose it depends how you define bankruptcy.

If bankruptcy means “nobody has any money left” then that cant really happen, because we can always print more. By this argument, Zimbabwe are still fine. They’ve got loads of their own money. Mountains of the stuff. They need it to buy the smallest thing. (Where there are even small things available to buy.)

If bankruptcy means that we owe more than we can hope to earn, that can’t happen either. If you are prepared to recruit enough generations into the repayment then you can borrow against future citizen’s hard work forever.

If bankruptcy means that nobody will lend us money any more by buying our gilts and that the government is then forced to print money and buy its own gilts via puppet banks and other smoke-and-mirror methods, just in order to fund its own institutions, I’d call that bankrupt.

But they wouldn’t do that, surely? Fund government operations directly with printed money? In order to do that they’d need to change old laws which required them to publish the amount they were “printing” (or “easing” if you prefer). They’d also need to relax the rules around how gilts are auctioned. Plus they’d have to hide the banks accumulation of gilts buy ‘buying them back’ so that the banks quantity of government gilts would appear static. That sort of ‘money go round’ must surely be science-fiction. It couldn’t happen here. I feel better now I’ve debunked such… uh … impossible nonsense.

Reply: far from making light of it, I have been consistently warning the government that they are taking far too much financial risk and asking them to back off before things get even worse. Please read what I said carefully – it is not as you think. I also need to speak responsibly in a time of great danger.

By: mad tony

mad tony — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:07:12 +0000

In wartime, eg Falklands the expression “if they are to be believed” is used by the BBC, Perhaps, they need to put government figurse in context, because clearly we cannot believe politicians, bankers, hedge fund managers and journalists. Also to what extent are interviewees allowed to rant incorrect figures?

By: brian kelly

brian kelly — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:02:40 +0000

One of the many truly horrific nightmares Gordon Brown has is the day the of the opening, and forensic examination, of the books by [we sincerely hope] a conservative party after the next general election.

By: THE ESSEX BOYS

THE ESSEX BOYS — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:47:47 +0000

As we mentioned last week..time to dig out and dust off The James Report?

By: THE ESSEX BOYS

THE ESSEX BOYS — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:39:59 +0000

Brian – we had exactly the same thought!

Ros Altman’s a terrific lady and, we’ve always assumed, a woman scorned by Labour having been a Brown adviser originally and seeing just what unfairness and ineptitude went oninside the tent!

Since then she has fought a bonny fight for disenfranchised pensioners and her views should always be heeded.

By: THE ESSEX BOYS

THE ESSEX BOYS — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:30:17 +0000

We agree that this is a very clear way that voters would readily understand – 1997 v 2009

Returning to the UK in 1997 this particular writer was surprised that the UK finances were in such good shape after a severe recession (here and overseas) and given the apparent thirst to throw out the Conservatives.
I wrote to William Hague (and subsequently to Michael Howard several times) to suggest he point that out in no uncertain trems but the Blair spin steamroller was in full throttle.
Since then no Leader of the Opposition has fought his corner to defend 1992 -97 but in the current climate we agree that a clear concise people-friendly chart of headline figures, as suggested here by Alan, would be extremely effective.