The Labour Party Left The Uk With £7.9 Trillion In Debt.

[Milton]

This paper presents calculations of the UK's real national debt and for the first time charts its growth over the last decade.

The real national debt extends far beyond the Government's formal measurements. It also includes substantial liabilities in relation to unfunded public sector pensions, unfunded state pensions, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), Network Rail, nuclear decommissioning and a number of other items.

At the end of 2009-10, the real national debt stood at £7.9 trillion, over £300,000 for every single household in Britain.

During the last decade the debt has more than tripled, soaring from 230 per cent of GDP (£2.3 trillion) up to 560 per cent of GDP (£7.9 trillion)

The official national debt – the one quoted by the Chancellor in his budget – hugely understates taxpayer liabilities; it now constitutes barely one-tenth of our real national debt.

It should also be noted that our figures may be underestimates. In addition to the debts we have examined, the public sector has a wide range of possible contingent liabilities – estimated to be as high as £543 billion.

realdebt-1.pdf

realdebt-1.pdf

Edited February 3, 2011 by Dan1

[Si1]

Those that have to be paid - basic national infrastructure - will be because they have to

Those that don't will be defaulted on by inflation. This is how it works.

[ken_ichikawa]

Quick turn the printers on!

[Britney's Piers]

Those that have to be paid - basic national infrastructure - will be because they have to

Those that don't will be defaulted on by inflation. This is how it works.

100% Guaranteed

Protect yourself

[Milton]

Quite seriously considering buying beans. Lots and lots of beans.......

[Does anyone know a source for bulk buying of tinned food, or those U.S. MRE rations which last for decades?]

Edited February 3, 2011 by Dan1

[Byron]

And who is going to pay it?

Not us, not our children.

Those that will pay have not been born yet.

p.s. Don't tell any immigrants!

[General Congreve]

I already know all this, but still a great topic post, fills me with joy knowing what this means. Same story with the EU and the US. Bring on the capital flight.

Edited February 4, 2011 by General Congreve

[caparn]

£7.7 trillion, chicken feed, I wonder if my 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollars might solve this country's problems?

Edited February 4, 2011 by caparn

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Those that have to be paid - basic national infrastructure - will be because they have to

Those that don't will be defaulted on by inflation. This is how it works.

Sigh... you can't inflate away state pension liabilities... unless you plan to euthanise everyone at 65.

The olde folks still need feeding clothing and housing.

[General Congreve]

Sigh... you can't inflate away state pension liabilities... unless you plan to euthanise everyone at 65.

The olde folks still need feeding clothing and housing.

I know, we'll scrap the nuclear power decommissioning, that'll keep the pension payments going for another year or two, just long enough for a meltdown to kill half the UK population, problem solved.

Truth is, pensions are the biggest liability and probably the easiest one to drastically cut. When the USSR collapsed due to its debts, it was the old people who really got hit hardest, the pension just stopped. At least they still had their free government flat to live in, we don't have such a universal system here, the fallout could be worse for many old people here if the sh1t really hits the fan.

[ken_ichikawa]

I know, we'll scrap the nuclear power decommissioning, that'll keep the pension payments going for another year or two, just long enough for a meltdown to kill half the UK population, problem solved.

Truth is, pensions are the biggest liability and probably the easiest one to drastically cut. When the USSR collapsed due to its debts, it was the old people who really got hit hardest, the pension just stopped. At least they still had their free government flat to live in, we don't have such a universal system here, the fallout could be worse for many old people here if the sh1t really hits the fan.

I've been and met people like this in Russia. The government paid their pensions alright, nominally, except when it came to revalue the rouble to the new rouble the pensions were worthless. Its strange because you see lots of old people lurking near bins fighting over tin cans you chuck in the bins and small shanty towns from people who had sold their flats when the USSR collasped (but before the hyperinflation kicked in).

TBH I think we are going to have to go through such a destruction before we can reach the reset button. Too many promises which cannot be fulfilled were made. Today Russia is doing a lot better than it used to be rather than sustaining the living dead corpse of the old economic system. Tough but such things are good for PM holders.

[ken_ichikawa]

Sigh... you can't inflate away state pension liabilities... unless you plan to euthanise everyone at 65.

The olde folks still need feeding clothing and housing.

Yes you can, it just requires unpleasant decisions. However the fact that the old people are the least able to fight back makes it easier. You introduce a policy against young men and they can fight back easily witholding their labour calling general strikes even plotting violent revolutions.

China, S Korea and Japan did exactly that, which explains their massive saving rates. Also why you see shanty towns all over China Korea and Japan filled with old people. There are Shanty towns all over Korea on the edges of the big cities. I stayed in a Korean shanty in 2009 and got totally wasted on Soju.

[mikthe20]

Yes you can, it just requires unpleasant decisions. However the fact that the old people are the least able to fight back makes it easier. You introduce a policy against young men and they can fight back easily witholding their labour calling general strikes even plotting violent revolutions.

China, S Korea and Japan did exactly that, which explains their massive saving rates. Also why you see shanty towns all over China Korea and Japan filled with old people. There are Shanty towns all over Korea on the edges of the big cities. I stayed in a Korean shanty in 2009 and got totally wasted on Soju.

You introduce a policy against old people and they can fight back easily withholding their vote.

Edited February 5, 2011 by mikthe20

[57percent]

I wouldn't include state pensions. Although you know you have to pay them, they're not much different to future benefit payments which you wouldn't count as debt. You could argue that people have paid their NI as a pension contribution, but I don't think this is the case, it's all just general tax.

Also, the RBS/Lloyds debt. No way all of that should be included. It's possible (if a bit unlikely) that they'll actually be a profit coming back to the govt.

I would include public sector and local govt pensions. Presuming this is an NPV. Different to the state pensions in that they're really part of the wages for the work already done.

But surprised the 'Other' is only 0.4tr

[ken_ichikawa]

You introduce a policy against old people and they can fight back easily withholding their vote.

Sham elections happen ever 5 years. I.e. they can protest every 5 years.

While rioting and general insurrection can occur any time. The HK riot occured with barely any premedidation, it was when they started kicking the crap out of the protestors it infuriated others. And turned into a 3 day decontruction of Kowloon. The riot was promptly crushed and the ringleaders murdered (they were found hanged in their apartments).

One year later there was massive premeditation people went home prepared home made pineapples (grenades) and they had another go in 1967. Backed by the leftists.

The rioteers managed to execute several police officers, police responded by on street executions of civilians.

Whats more dangerous?

Votes which are meaningless especially when you can steal elections or large mobs of angry real people with rope and lamp posts?

Edited February 5, 2011 by ken_ichikawa

[ken_ichikawa]

But surprised the 'Other' is only 0.4tr

Typo, they mean 4tr not .4 trillion. Or a speck of dust on the photocopiers or scanners.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

You introduce a policy against old people and they can fight back easily withholding their vote.

Or voting for one of the pro-pensioner parties currently rocketing in popularity. Mark my works, after the next election, the party that wins win have the word "pensioner" in it's name.

You could argue that people have paid their NI as a pension contribution, but I don't think this is the case, it's all just general tax.

I'm pretty sure the pensioners will explain to you that the first option is the correct one. And if the government disagree, they'll vote in a government that agrees with them. With the over 60s about to make up more than 50% of the voting age population, you need to accept that they are going to get to decide who gets the money and who lives in poverty.

[Milton]

More people should actually read this .pdf.

PFI:

Private Finance Initiative

As things stand, the ONS only includes PFI contracts in their measure of public sector debt if they are deemed to be so-called finance lease liabilities (i.e. if they are deemed to be primarily a means of financing the acquisition of a capital asset whose ownership risks reside with the public sector rather than the private sector operator).

That only applies to a very small number of PFI contracts, with the public sector's total finance lease liabilities put at just £5.2 billion at the end of 2009.31

In contrast, the Treasury's estimated capital value of the various facilities built or being built under PFI contracts now stands at £56.5 billion.

And if those facilities had been built under the traditional approach, directly funded by Government borrowing, all of that would appear in the official measure of Government debt. Moreover, because PFI projects are funded by privately raised money, which is always more expensive than gilt funding, it is likely that the overall cost is actually somewhat higher than implied by the £56.5 billion estimated value of the facilities themselves.

Ideally, we wish our real debt figure to include the liability in respect of the capital facility, but to exclude the liability in respect of future services.

Unfortunately, PFI contracts are paid for via a unitary charge – that is, a charge that doesn't distinguish between the cost of the capital facility and the cost of future related services.

So we can't properly identify the element of our PFI liability that is real debt in the sense we have defined it.

That is why for our main estimate we include just the liability in respect of the capital value of the facilities.

It will understate the true liability because it excludes the cost of finance, but it's the closest we can get.

For reference we have also calculated the capitalised value of the unitary payments (see Table 3 at the end of the report).

Our data on PFI capital values and future payments is sourced from HM Treasury.32 For each year we have identified the capital values and future payments associated with projects that had reached financial close by that year-end. Future payments for each of those projects have been discounted using the average market yield on long maturity index-linked gilts for the relevant year.33 The outstanding liability in respect of capital facilities has been calculated to reflect the proportion of each project's total service payments already made in previous years.

Table 2: PFI Liabilities in £billion

[1] First Column: Liability in respect of capital facilities

[2] Second Column: Total liability including service element

2000-01  :    12.4	69.22001-02  :    13.9	72.82002-03  :    16.9	85.72003-04  :    21.0	102.72004-05  :    23.2	117.02005-06  :    27.6	143.92006-07  :    32.7	156.42007-08  :    39.9	180.72008-09  :    40.2	193.12009-10  :    42.8	207.6

As can be seen, in 2009-10, the total liability in respect of the unitary payments amounted to some £200 billion – five times the liability in respect of the capital facilities.

And that total has tripled over the last decade.

So although we do not include those higher numbers in our debt total, PFI has nevertheless imposed a substantial contractual commitment on future taxpayers.

Finally, as already mentioned, a small element of the PFI liability is already included in the official figures for public sector debt. To avoid double counting we have excluded that element from our overall PFI total included in the real national debt.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Dan1

[Milton]

New Labour were/are a party of 'Economic Fascists'

In the sense that the most notable characteristic of a FASCIST ideology is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population. []

The preferred class lives in relative comfort, while the oppressed class lives in a Fascist state.

Labour's Fascist State.

[i.E the Transfer of Debt, onto future generations could unarguably be described, as Economic Fascism. ]

Obviously not a 'socialist' or 'democratic' act.

[some of you seem to think it would have been as obvious as people wearing black shirts marching down the street?!!]

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to CORPORATIST perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy

Fascists tend to support a "third position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.

One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic TRIPARTISM involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy.

Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy.

[The disastrous TRIPARTITE system Labour created is an example of Corporatist Fascism]

The Disastrous Way Brown Mis-used PFI is a perfect example.

Example:

On Gordon Browns orders, the government, up to 2007 signed more than 750 public sector deals with private companies using PFI.

Including:

64 out of 68 hospitals in Browns first 8 years as chancellor. As were 230 new schools, 185 new hospitals, health centres, 43 roads and bridges

Debt acrued by 2007, owed by government to private companies was in excess of £55Billion. [All basically hidden]

By the time Brown stopped being Chancellor he had lumbered £54billion in debt just for the cost of buildings onto the taxpayer.

[in reality, to repay that debt will be closer to £160Billion]

Governments can always borrow money more cheaply than private companies.

But Brown chose not to do this, as It was PFI which enabled Brown to keep public borrowing below 40% of GDP. An accounting Fiddle. Which enabled him to keep public spending off the governments 'current account' books.

Allowing him to fool the public, and pretend he was a financial wizard

The bankers who financed these deals walked away with absurd profits.

One group of Bankers/Finaciers walked away from one PFI deal with 662% profit. The equity in the rebuilding of the M40 has been sold at least five times. With different building contractors making huge profits. One company sold a prison for six times what it had paid. Etc, Etc....

If Brown was in business he would have been bankrupt in months. The only people who made money out of this were the bankers and financiers. The taxpayer has been royally screwed.

Many roads and bridges which were owned, ALREADY paid for by the taxpayer, prior to Browns stint as chancellor were then sold off to private companies, on the quiet, who now charge us for using them.

Point being Brown, as chancellor, using PFI has spent all the money, was selling off the family silver, on purpose, knew what he was doing, and it still has not even begun to be repaid.

The taxpayer got royally screwed.Instead of accepting a little pain around 2003, and a correction, he stuck the knife into us even further.

[instead of admitting to the bubble, he moved the housing inflation figures from RPI to CPI.]

People forget what PFI was intended for:

Big, capital projects with a relatively high level of uncertainty and risk - such that it would be unacceptable to leave the taxpayer with the bag if things went sour.

The epitome of PFI was the Channel Tunnel. [under the Tories 1987-1993] A risky venture, as the scale of engineering work was in uncharted territory, with enormous cost. The govt of the time set it up as a PFI scheme - so that the private sector, in the form of Euro Tunnel, would finance and oversee the construction. Investors were attracted as the venture looked attractive at the time.

As it was, the project went massively over budget and was completed late. Euro Tunnel collapsed and the investors took a massive haircut on their investment. However, taxpayers were protected from the spiralling costs, which was one of the key drivers for selecting PFI for this project.

For more conventional infrastructure and state operations, PFI is less suitable due to the higher costs and lower control, which are not outweighed by the risks of the projects. E.g. building a school or hospital is not a high risk project - projects on this scale can be managed fairly easily and the costs predicted accurately.

The problem has been a breathtaking level of misuse of PFI for low-risk projects, which can be more cheaply and more effectively provided by conventional government procurement. And, most galling of all, the bailing out of bust PFI private sector firms because their projects collapsed due to financial mismanagement. Not only had the tax payer paid a high price so that the private sector could take the project risks, Gordon simply took the risk back when things went bad - completely undermining the whole point of PFI.

PFI was just a massive hire purchase scheme which allowed brown to keep public spending, mainly infastructure off the books. AKA Fraud.

And acrue debt, to be passed onto the next governmnet. And future generations. It makes you think, it must have been Labours plan all along.

Brown just let it continue......[PFI was never intended to be used in this way.]

It is a sign of [Economic] Fascism when government and business are merged in such a way. [brown also left us with trillions of debt in unfunded public sector pension obligations]

There are also many other examples, such as the destruction of civil liberties, massive increased surveillance of our society that took place under Labour, which could justifiably be construed as 'Fascist' in intent.

You could of course argue, that is was never their intention, rather, Lies, Deceit, Incompetence and Theft, is what fuelled the Labour Government for 13 years.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Dan1

[Milton]

www.taxpayersalliance.com

The Real National Debt: A Decade of Reckless Growth

By Mike Denham

The unchecked growth of Britain's National Debt places an increasing burden on Britain's taxpayers and poses a serious risk to our future prosperity.

According to a recent report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), on current policies by 2040 our public debt will exceed 500 per cent of GDP, higher than any other major economy they studied.

Debt of that magnitude would be way beyond previous experience and would exact a heavy price, "driving down capital accumulation, productivity growth and long-term potential growth"

But what if our real National Debt had already grown to the level projected by the BIS? What if the problem had already arrived, and was here with us today?

This paper presents calculations of the UK's real national debt and for the first time charts its growth over the last decade.

The picture that emerges is highly troubling and underscores the urgency of current attempts at closing the deficit.

The real national debt extends far beyond the Government's formal measurements.

It also includes substantial liabilities in relation to unfunded public sector pensions, unfunded state pensions, the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), Network Rail, nuclear decommissioning and a number of other items.

Moreover, since 2007 there have been considerable additional liabilities arising from the bank bail-outs.

Drawing on a wide range of official sources and independent analyses we have calculated the real national debt for every year since 2000-01:

 At the end of 2009-10, the real national debt stood at £7.9 trillion, over £300,000 for every single household in Britain.

 During the last decade the debt has more than tripled, soaring from 230 per cent of GDP (£2.3 trillion) up to 560 per cent of GDP (£7.9 trillion).

This already exceeds the BIS projection for 2050.

 The official national debt – the one quoted by the Chancellor in his budget – hugely understates taxpayer liabilities; it now constitutes barely one-tenth of our real national debt.

 Relative to GDP this is by far the biggest national debt we have ever had since records began.

 It should also be noted that our figures may be underestimates. In addition to the debts we have examined, the public sector has a wide range of possible contingent liabilities – estimated to be as high as £543 billion. We have not been able to include them because information on their extent is worryingly sketchy.

Summary

Our measure of the real national debt is gross debt (total debt) valued at market prices (the market value of the debt). It includes the following items (totals relate to 2009-10):

 The official public sector debt quoted in the budget – £890 billion (£0.89 trillion)

 Unfunded public sector pensions – estimated at £1,283 billion2 (£1.28 trillion)

 Unfunded state pensions – estimated at £2,717 billion3 (£2.7 trillion)

 RBS/Lloyds debt – £2,585 billion (£2.6 trillion)

 Other – including the Local Government Pension deficit, PFI, and nuclear decommissioning – £398 billion (£0.4 trillion)

At March 2010, we calculate the total debt stood at £7,873 billion. (£7.9 trillion)

Over the whole decade, our total debt soared by an astonishing £5,600 billion (£5.6 trillion) – nearly four times current GDP.

But only £600 billion (£0.6 trillion) of that was accounted for by growth in the official national debt.

Of the rest, roughly half is attributable to the RBS and Lloyds bailouts.

The bailouts moved both banks into the public sector, which meant that suddenly their liabilities became taxpayers' liabilities. At a stroke well over £3,000 billion (£3 trillion) was added to the national debt, although a reduction of the liabilities on the banks' balance sheets subsequently brought it down to £2,600 billion (£2.6 trillion) at December 2009.

But even if we set RBS and Lloyds aside as being in some sense a temporary and reversible liability, the published £600 billion (£0.6 trillion) growth in official debt comes nowhere near the true overall growth in the government's debts. In particular, it pales against the £2,200 billion (£2.2 trillion) hike in the public sector's unfunded pension liabilities.

Detailed figures on all the components of debt are set out in Table 3, at the end of the report. In summary, they are as follows:

Real National Debt [£Billion.]

2000-01 2,289

2005-06 3,617

2006-07 3,844

2007-08 4,276

2008-09 8,114

2009-10 7,873

Real National Debt as % of GDP

2000-01 = 231%

2005-06 = 285%

2006-07 = 286%

2007-08 = 302%

2008-09 = 566%

2009-10 = 560%

Edited March 6, 2011 by Dan1

[Injin]

Completly inevitable under ponzi finance fiat currncy money as debt regime.

Nowt much to do with labour, a lot to do with John Maynard keynes.

[Scott Sando]

Sigh... you can't inflate away state pension liabilities... unless you plan to euthanise everyone at 65.

The olde folks still need feeding clothing and housing.

Don't speak too soon

The Coalition government's plans for the NHS are revealed in the Health and Social Care Bill now before Parliament.

We, the electorate however have not had a chance to say yea or nay to these drastic changes as neither the Tories or LibDems saw fit to put them in their manifestoes.

Even after the election, their Coalition Programme, published on May 20th 2010, foresaw a gradual evolution of existing structures for the NHS, rather than drastic upheaval, but by the time of The White Paper in July 2010, there had been a significant change of plan.

All of England's 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) will be abolished, as well as 10 strategic health authorities (SHAs). GPs will instead be responsible for buying-in services for patients, overseen by a new commissioning board. The bulk of the £100 billion budget will therefore be in the hands of GPs.

Our current NHS hospitals will become Foundation Trusts and will have to compete for business with the third sector (charities) and private companies. It has been stated categorically that NHS hospitals will have to survive in the competitive market or they will be allowed to fail and will then be taken over by private interests.

Wait A Minute, That Rings A Bell

Just by pure coincidence, a number of Conservative Party donors have got close ties to the healthcare industry. John Nash for one, then chairman of Care UK, which provides GP surgeries, walk-in centres and other specialist services. He and his wife donated £203,500 to the Tories over the last 5 years.

Of this £21,000 went directly to Andrew Lansley to fund his office before the Tories got into power.

Nash is also the founder of a City Firm, Sovereign Capital, which coincidentally runs a number of private healthcare firms. The co-founder Ryan Robson, another major Tory donor has given the party £252,429.45. £50,000 of this got Robson, a managing partner of Sovereign Capital, into the Tory “Leader's Group” which quietly provides cash for access.

Another Tory donor with a financial interest in healthcare is Dolar Popat, who gave £209,000 to the party coffers. He became a Peer shortly after Mr Cameron took office. Dolar Popat founded and runs TLC Group which provides nursing and care homes for the elderly.

Philip Scott, of the Priory Group, most of who's income comes from NHS and local council referrals, donated a mere £20,000. The Priory Group runs hospitals, clinics and special schools.

Your Health Is Of "No Clinical Value"

The major effort to cut the NHS bill by £20 billion is leading to the rationing of healthcare which can only result in unnecessary deaths and greatly increased suffering for many people. Yet in his wisdom, Mr Cameron tells us that his “health reforms” are not about cutting services and damaging the wellbeing of the British people, but about “choice”.

This “choice” means that the NHS will no longer be allowed to carry out 57 different surgical procedures. A government directive has stated:

operations which will only be carried out in exceptional circumstances include, removing tonsils, varicose veins, hysterectomies, fitting grommets, removing skin lesions, haemorrhoid surgery, wisdom teeth extraction, cataracts and joint replacements.

It has been stated that even operations with an 80% success rate will be categorised as of “no clinical value” and stopped. These types of surgery are classed as “elective”, even though they may mean an enormous difference to the quality of life a person may have and can mean that without surgery, a condition will then deteriorate and could become acute or even fatal.

Don't imagine that this policy is hypothetical and may never happen, because it is already being implemented in selected areas which include Bury, Oldham, Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale.

Another area of healthcare which is undoubtedly leading to untimely deaths is the practice of passive euthenasia. Since 1993 in the Bland ruling, assisted suicides which involve omissions, ie the removal of life-saving care are not illegal. This is a very distressing subject, which many of us may not want to even consider, but this is happening now in the UK.

Barrister, Jamie Bogle has said the following about the current BMA guidelines: “In fact the guidelines do not refer only to patients who are dying ... It may also refer to a serious long-term chronic state.

The problem here is that we are talking about withdrawing food and fluids and because in the very narrow circumstances of persistent vegetative state, that has been re-defined as treatment, what these guidelines will do is widen it right out into a whole range of conditions, many of them, non-terminal, in which we will be talking about intentionally terminating a patient's life by dehydration. That must be wrong.”

You might want to read the above again and bear in mind that here in England and Wales, nutrition and even water, if they have to be given medically, are categorised as “treatment” and can be withdrawn in certain circumstances. There is every indication that this is an increasing practice in our hospitals.

Don't Mention The War

Palliative care, often called “comfort care” is carried out by first sedating the patient. This is known as TS, (Terminal Sedation). It is also known as total sedation or palliative sedation, but regardless of it's name it's purpose is “to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness)”.

Nutrients and fluids are then withdrawn and the patient is allowed to starve and dehydrate. This approach has been adopted in many UK NHS Hospitals.

During the 1930's, Nazi Germany instigated a programme of euthenasia known as Aktion T4, named after Tiergartenstrasse 4, the street address of the headquarters of the Gemeinnutzige Stiftung fur Heilund Anstaltspflege, translated literally as the inocuous sounding “Charitable Foundation for Cure and Institutional Care.”

NICE.

To reassure the German people about T4, the government carried out a campaign of propaganda to change public opinion to be in favour of euthanasia. Leaflets were produced, posters and short films pointing out the costs of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane until gradually the practice became more and more widespread. Recent research based on files recovered after 1990, give a figure of at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people, who were killed by medication, starvation or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

Is it possible that we are seeing the surreptitious beginnings of such a policy here in the UK?

[Olebrum]

Completly inevitable under ponzi finance fiat currncy money as debt regime.

Nowt much to do with labour, a lot to do with John Maynard keynes.

Tory sock puppets say different, get on message please.

[Milton]

During the last decade the debt has more than tripled, soaring from 230 per cent of GDP (£2.3 trillion) up to 560 per cent of GDP (£7.9 trillion)

Over the whole decade, our total debt soared by an astonishing £5,600 billion (£5.6 trillion) – nearly four times current GDP.

Nowt much to do with labour,

Tory sock puppets say different, get on message please.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Dan1

[Injin]

look, the labour party are utter scum, but they never caused the current crisis - this is a mutil generational financial economic system coming unglued at the seams.

To try and claim it just rocked up out of a clear blue sky because someone with a red tie on got in control of the inevitable exponential debt pyramid scam that's taken 80 odd years to get to this point is retarded. Utterly numb.