Are the Government measures adequate? - Frank Field MP
- Primary Navigation
- Secondary Navigation [section related information]
- Main Site Content
- Footer with further Navigational links
- View Sitemap
- View Homepage
- Contact Frank
10:48 | Thursday 18 March 2010
Are the Government measures adequate?
The House of Commons yesterday debated the Government's Fiscal Responsibility Bill. The Bill's aim is to cut the size of the Government debt over four years.
I probably sounded the most grave warnings of anyone in the debate. I am not against the Bill, but I think it is too little and far too late. I've been on about this issue following the 2008 Pre Budget Report.
The one action I greatly regret in my thirty years here was not to press the Government on what they would do on day two after invading Iraq, which I supported. I thought there were enough brown-nosers in this place without me joining them asking such an easy question.
I believed it was inconceivable that the Government hadn't thought out a plan once Saddam Hussein was toppled. We all know that such an obvious question had not been answered.
So the main point of my contribution yesterday was to make a plea for the Government to have plans for a whole series of days two. As long-term interest rates begin to rise, (which they will as the Government tries to float a record amount of debt each year for goodness knows how many years) what actions will the Government take to stop this move triggering a full-blown crisis?
With long-term interest rates rising, we may have our credit rating threatened. What actions have the Government got up its sleeve to prevent this happening?
And then, heaven forbid, what actions are the Government planning for the worst possible scenario - of one week the Government Debt Office reporting it simply cannot sell the Government debt. At that point the Pound would collapse.
I didn't expect answers to these questions as they would simply as the answers would simply add to the panic. But the Government now needs a counter-crisis strategy and, for all our sakes, I hope it is being formulated.
Date added: Wednesday 6th January 2010





Comments
You're completely factually wrong. One has to question you as to if that is deliberate.The Bill's aim is to cut the size of the Government debt over four years.There is a deliberate attempt going on to con the electorate. This is an example. DEBT is not the same as DEFICIT.Deficit is just how much bigger the published debt will be in a year. So currently the bond borrowing figure is nearly 900 billion. The deficit is 175 bn.So next year the debt will be 1075 billion. Even when the deficit is halved, the debt is still increasing. Don't forget too that 'debt figure' being bandied about isn't the true debt figure. It doesn't include civil service pensions as it should do under international standards. It doesn't include the state pension or state second pension. I suspect the reason is that governments intend to default in some ways. Raising the retirement age is just a partial default on the contracts made for the money handed over.The actual liability issue is 7-8 trillion. The government has an income of 0.5 trillion.16 times mortgage, when the interest rate is inflation linked for most of it.It's bust. That's the reality. The consequences are dire for the publicNick
Report this post - Anonymous