egafd.com

So the circa 1000 billion that the UK banks needed to bail them out came from underneath the mattress at No. 11 did it from Darling's piggie bank?
My point is that a large quantity of the debt which needs to be serviced is linked to this bailout and this bailout figure, miniscule compared to the US bailout is part of a global banking crisis. I accept that both Tories and Labour have been lax in monitoring the City in recent decades and this mess has been coming for a long, long time. Blathering on about "structural" debt does not invalidate that.
Im sorry but I cant explain it any more simply for you. Nor can I spend any more time trying, given that there is clearly nothing which will change your mind.
Cheerio!

Hi
You appear to have shot yourself in the foot.
In one of your postings above, you state
"The government owns stakes in the banks, this is not a debt, it's an asset"
Setting aside the naivety of this comment -
In your next post you provide a link to the following:
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-ec ... onal-debt/

I suspect you are a lot more competent at providing inks than actually reading them yourself. This is the exact quote from the report you linked to.

"Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS and other banks"

Item 2 above was due to the global banking crisis. Item 1 above is due to the results of that global banking crisis with the resulting credit crunch and huge upsurge in unemployment.

I would like to personally thank you for coming up with such a succinct quote supporting my view that unlike what you say i.e. the deficit is structural due to the government throwing money at what you would probably refer to as "fucking disabled, workshy cunts" but is in fact very much down to the global banking collapse and the resulting fallout.

If you can find any other quotes, supporting my argument, please let me know, lol!

ha ha. You get completely contradicted by the document you post a link to which clearly states that the National Debt, yes debt, not assets, is increased sharply by the bank bailouts and then sound as if you have swallowed a statistics book, lol!!
Take a pill, for heaven's sake.
You also fail to grasp that the result of the banking system crash was the credit crunch. This has resulted in an enormous increase in unemployment, short term working etc etc as well as a fall in tax receipts obviously. Now although this might not appear as the results of financial sector intervention, it is caused by the banking sector collapse.
In short a crash in tax receipts, together with a surge in unemployment benefits paid out, can, believe it or not, result in a large public deficit!

To quote again from the excellent link you provided (you really should read it, you know, my little potty mouthed chum),
"The Nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley and Government purchase of shares in major banks like HBOS will cause even more borrowing. It is estimated National debt will could rise close to 100% of GDP by 2012

It is way above the government?s sustainable investment rule of 40% maximum. However, the debt is different in the sense that the government has a reasonable chance of getting, at least, some of its money back."

Do you see the use of the word, debt in the above as opposed to asset?? Read it twice if you dont notice first time through.

Calm down, dear, calm down
I was only quoting from the document that you provided the link to.
Any complaints and insults send off to the writer of the document you linked to. You really really should have read it first, possum.
You did see they were using the word "debt" didnt you? Or do you want me to go through and embolden it for you?