Jeff Randall's done a bit of looking at the numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/8007556/The-Coalition-is-spending-even-more-than-tax-and-waste-Labour.html

In brief, spending in real terms is currently higher than it was in 2005, and the dead weren't piled in the streets, hospitals and schools were open etc.

They'll soon be here to tell up it's all nonsense and conlib will ruin the country in weeks

I don't really understand but the gist seems to be that the government are going to spend more not less – so why are they talking about spending cuts?

Can someone please explain in simple terms.

So what you are saying tron, is that the Tories are lying……..there won't be any spending cuts just "spending plans".

Well it won't be the first time.

In the 1980s Thatcher promised to cut public spending. She didn't – government spending went up.

.

Jeff Randall's done a bit of looking at the numbers

Apparently Jeff Randall is going to be a bit busy churning out stuff for his foreign unelected tax-dodging media baron boss :

"Due to his expanded commitments at Sky News, Jeff Randall's contribution to 'The Daily Telegraph' will now be monthly. His next column will appear in October"

Will you be able to hang on 'til then tron ?

But hey, I'm sure the Telegraph will still be able to find plenty of trade union bashing writers to satisfy your hatred for organised labour…….so I reckon you should carry on reading the Telegraph mate.

dangerousbeans – Member
I don't really understand but the gist seems to be that the government are going to spend more not less – so why are they talking about spending cuts?

Can someone please explain in simple terms.

It's because a lot of what they are "spending" is to repay the current debt.

Ah. There he is

In brief, spending in real terms is currently higher than it was in 2005

Inflation.

3% a year average since then???. Anyone work out what that is compounded – more than 15% more thats for sure so with costs being higher spending must be higher to buy the same stuff.

No need to work it our TJ – it's right there in the article

Let's compare £652 billion in 2010 money with £493 billion in 2005 money. That is, adjust the former for five years of inflation. Which is bigger?

According to my friends in the economics team at Deutsche Bank, £652 billion today would have been worth about £561 billion in 2005.

You get the drift. The Coalition is spending more in real terms than Mr Brown, the darling of Labour's tax-and-waste brigade, did in an election year.

Ta Druidh.

Is this the pre spending cuts spending? Of course the tories cuts have not actually happened yet – they are still to come.

Spending review in Oct, cuts to start next spring.

Didn't read it all did you teej?

I suggest you read it fully and properly.

Didn't read any of it. Fairly obvious I would have thought.

I will tho

Unreadable pejorative and biased language and my point about the cuts have not been made yet stands. No one knows at ehr momnet what the spending review due in Oct will say. i bet theose figures get revised downwards. – and the " office for budget responsibility" is a propaganda organ not independednt

But yes 0- druidh is right in part paying back the debt. The rest of it will be paying the extra benefits.

Given it is a column, Randall's motives should be clear. He's got some numbers but he's completely missing the point. The unions, and others, are complaining because thousands of people are going to lose their jobs.

What annoys me most when people talk about budgets and spending over the past few years, is the fact nobody refers to the huge fall in tax revenues. If govt spending had dropped at similar rates we'd still be in a deep recession. See below:

(top line spending, bottom receipts – 97/98 to 09/10 all figures in real terms)

"What we do want to emphasise is that all our findings are very uncertain, that's simply inevitable," said Sir Alan, a respected economist, former adviser to the Treasury, and former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee.

However, there is much to set the OBR apart from other forecasters, not least its access to Treasury information, unprecedented independence, and bearing on future Government policy.

Nevertheless, the OBR forecasts are forecasts like any others: estimates, subject to revision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7827650/Office-of-Budget-Responsibility-forecast-is-the-best-shot-at-an-impossible-task.html

so its a guestimate from a body that clearly is not independent but was created to provide a propaganda smokescreen. RIiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

I'm not sure the OBR represents unprecedented independence, how are they more independent than IPPR, PWC, Goldman Sachs, OECD and all the others?

I read it, albeit quite quickly, but if he's right then the condems aren't about reducing the public sector? Infact they intend on doing the exact opposite…

Now, if you're tory then surely this is at odds with your political ideals? Or does it mean that the pricipals and philosphy of the liberals are having a greater impact, than the weighting of their party, in the coaltion?

Or,

Does it show that the Telegraph is the daily mail of the middle class?

TheFunkyMonkey – Member

Didn't read it all did you teej?

TheFunkyMonkey – Member

I suggest you read it fully and properly.

Here you are Funky Monkey, have a read of this other article in the Telegraph by Jeff Randall………the man who tells it as it is :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2927187/Passionless-Davis-should-try-Orgasmic-Chocolates.html

You'll note this is what he said about David Cameron, quote :

"I wouldn't trust him with my daughter's pocket money"

And :

"Watching Cameron pledge to make Britain "the best place in the world to do business" reminded me just how slippery he was during his seven-year spell as communications director of Carlton, the television company."

So whaddya reckon Funky Monkey………has this geezer Jeff Randall got David Cameron well sussed out or what ?

Can you guys not read, it is there in black and white. The Government interest bill is forecast to increase signficantly, more money spent on interest means less money for services, hence the need for cuts. It is not that complicated.

Regarding the OBR is has unprecedented independence for a body with access to the whole gamut of the Treasury's information. The E&Y ITEM club does use the Treasury model but only has access to public information.

Mefty -= I suggest you look at the numbers – the proposed cuts are far greater than the interest payments – and this

hence the need for cuts

has no logic to it. It could equally well be tax rises.

At least the public at large are not buying this con according to the recent times poll. Its good to see that the UK public are smart enough to see thru the rhetoric.

The OBR is not independent at all – its a propaganda organ. Are you that naive or do you think we are. They blew the lie of their independence right from the start.

mefty – Member

Can you guys not read, it is there in black and white……… hence the need for cuts. It is not that complicated.

Hence the need for cuts ? What cuts ?…..haven't you read the article ?

"The unions are squealing, but the so-called spending cuts are nothing of the sort, says Jeff Randall. "

There it is in black and white the sub-headline at the top of the article : the so-called spending cuts are nothing of the sort

So no spending cuts then.

And there's more stuff further in the article btw :

"If government spending is set to increase, how can Labour and its friends talk about the dismantling of welfare provision and wholesale destruction of public services? "

Which also sounds like no cuts to me.

So the Tory government, the unions, and the Labour Party are all lying…..there will be no cuts in public services or welfare provisions.

Well according to Jeff Randall anyway.

Mefty -= I suggest you look at the numbers – the proposed cuts are far greater than the interest payments – and this

I relooked at the numbers. Resource Departmental Expenditure
Limits in total are approximately £340 bn. Of which £156 bn is in protected departments (see Table 2.2 Red Book)leaving £184 bn of expenditure exposed to cuts – 25% thereof £46 billion. Interest (see Table C13 Red Book)in 2010-11 £43.3 bn rising to £66 bn by 2015-2016 and an increase in interest from 2009-2010 of £35.6 bn.

So the proposed cuts are not greater than the interest payments, in fact by 2015-2016 when all the cuts have come in they are less than 75% of the interest payments.