So we've a money tree in Garden of No.10

They are actually "underspent" accounts. So, the department gets enough to do their job. Should they not spend it all by the end of the year (presumably April), that is called an 'underspend'. That is what they are taking it back. Same with Scotland and Wales share of the budget.

I think you will find lots of departments buying things they don't really need or don't need straight away, next March.

GrannyGravy13

I would much rather the Government used this money to support Ukraine with arms and training their armed forces with the end game of containment of hostilities in Ukraine and the eventual end of the war.

The alternative of this war spreading is too horrendous to consider.

The problem is that it makes it very difficult for departments to budget GrannyGravy.

I keep wondering just what will be turned up, money-wise, when the government is ousted.

I just wonder how there are so many underspent accounts when many departments health, social care, education are struggling to find enough money.
I want money to go to Ukraine for the sake of all of us worldwide. Russia must not be successful or the consequences could be dire.

However I do not trust this Tory government with allocating money. I doubt it will impinge on the rich in society.

Underspending in one year, if carried over to the next, allows for spending on more expensive items or planning for extra staff, etc., at a time of need. Panic, because it has been/may be taken away, is not planning.

This has nothing to do with whether Ukraine get the backing they need and we need them to have. It has a great deal more to do with the lack of government planning - for anything other than returning themselves to power.

MaizieD

Bea65

MaizieD Sky news..not good with links
Also onGMTV a former MP who now sits in House of Lords was asked where would Boris find this Billion Pounds and he responded something like well..the Government has an underfunded account ..said there are a few underfunded accounts but would not name them...

It's because no politician dares tell the truth, which is that the government can create as much money as it pleases. If they did tell the truth it would put paid to austerity, taxing the already poor, being 'economical' with benefits, cutting public services etc. etc.

I have tried to explain this on many occasions... ?

(And no, so long as there is something to spend the money on, *it doesn't lead to inflation*)

Can I ask Maisie D, if HMG can create as much money as it likes, is this in effect Quantitive Easing, and does it lead to a devaluation of the currency?

I've been following and agreeing with your arguments (over a number of discussions around this) but still would appreciate it if you could put me straight on these two points.

TIA

DaisyAnne

They are actually "underspent" accounts. So, the department gets enough to do their job. Should they not spend it all by the end of the year (presumably April), that is called an 'underspend'. That is what they are taking it back. Same with Scotland and Wales share of the budget.

I think you will find lots of departments buying things they don't really need or don't need straight away, next March.

Thank you, DaisyAnne. That is a good, clear and concise explanation.

If only Johnson were able to express himself in such a way!

Thank you Oldnproud.

There is a magic money tree. As long as there’s enough resources I.e. raw materials & labour the Bank of England can create currency to be spent into existence in the economy, when authorised by the treasury to do so. This is how all government spending is done ….with new money…created by a few keystrokes on a computer at the Bank of England.

Creating money to spend into the economy is not the same as Quantitive easing. It’s simply the way the monetary system operates when a central bank creates a fiat currency.
There no such thing as tax payers money. That’s a myth perpetuated by the government , that government spending is the same as that as a household. This is it the case.
Households can’t create currency. They would be locked up!
Household are currency users. Central banks like the Bank of England are currency issuers. Big difference. A central Bank cannot go bankrupt . A householders can.

Thanks, fluffy01. In getting my head round this, I'll also re-read the link posted earlier by MaisieD.

On another thread, I think.

fluffy01

Creating money to spend into the economy is not the same as Quantitive easing. It’s simply the way the monetary system operates when a central bank creates a fiat currency.
There no such thing as tax payers money. That’s a myth perpetuated by the government , that government spending is the same as that as a household. This is it the case.
Households can’t create currency. They would be locked up!
Household are currency users. Central banks like the Bank of England are currency issuers. Big difference. A central Bank cannot go bankrupt . A householders can.

Wahay! Another person who understands.

We also need people to understand the value of our currency depends on the strength of our economy. That requires everyone to be doing well.

Johnson and his supporters continue to put giving the super-rich what they want so they can hang on their coattails above caring for the country's working economy. Johnson and his fellow travellers will no doubt come out of this well. The country's economy may not do so.

DaisyAnne

We also need people to understand the value of our currency depends on the strength of our economy. That requires everyone to be doing well.

Johnson and his supporters continue to put giving the super-rich what they want so they can hang on their coattails above caring for the country's working economy. Johnson and his fellow travellers will no doubt come out of this well. The country's economy may not do so.

Wouldn't it be an idea to actually teach the basics of how the economy works whilst at school? MSE Martin Lewis has campaigned for the introduction of the financial facts of life, so to speak, to be taught. The macro picture could be included so that the man/woman in the street has a grasp of the basics. It wouldn't be so easy then to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Are there really people who believe that Ukraine can defeat Russia? Oh, yes, and Unicorns really exist at the end of the rainbow.

This war has been raging for over six years now (not the hundred plus days so beloved by soundbites). The best that can really be expected is a divided Ukraine - and an assurance that the non-Russian bit will NOT join NATO.

I seem to be in a minority who is astonished as to how many millions (billions) of pounds can be found to pay arms manufacturers (or are they all donating these to Ukraine out of the goodness of their hearts), whilst we have increasing need of food banks, are more and more people are homeless, etc. etc.

Am I being totally cynical in wondering how many government ministers have shares in those arms manufacturing companies.

Ukraine has been a godsend for Johnson - somewhere he can run off to whenever events at home get to difficult. He sees himself cast in that role as triumphant war leader. Do not think that the Ukrainians are taken in by this role play - probably laughing at him behind his back.