Osbourne's Excuses

[I1L2T3]

Did they? Not from what I understand of their issues. They heaped tax cuts and spent heavily until they had no money. Now they are imposing the mother of all austerity drives, but only because the IMF told them too.

 

You understand wrong. In 2007 before the crisis Ireland had a deficit of only 1% of GDP. In 2006 it ran a surplus. It went pear-shaped in 2008 and after when they decided to underwrite all the toxic debts of the banks - ooops

[I1L2T3]

The government has spent the year fighting to make sure we weren't sucked into the European debt crisis.

 

Of course, but what have they done to try and promote growth?

 

Are you another person who thinks a flatlining economy is the price we had to pay?

[spooky3]

Of course, but what have they done to try and promote growth?

 

Are you another person who thinks a flatlining economy is the price we had to pay?

 

Are you deluded enough to believe Labour who say that all those public sector workers they took on should keep their job because they will be paying taxes... er, taxes from wages payed by everybody else's taxes...

[I1L2T3]

Are you deluded enough to believe Labour who say that all those public sector workers they took on should keep their job because they will be paying taxes... er, taxes from wages payed by everybody else's taxes...

 

Don't be daft. Read my posts. I agree we need to make cuts.

[spooky3]

Don't be daft. Read my posts. I agree we need to make cuts.

 

Well, from all those cut's, is there not now a surplus? Add a loan after proving a plan as working is good providence, no?

[JFKvsNixon]

Of course, but what have they done to try and promote growth?

 

Are you another person who thinks a flatlining economy is the price we had to pay?

 

No I think that a flatlining economy was the price we pay for rising commodity prices coupled with the ever deepening EU sovereign debt crisis.

[I1L2T3]

Well, from all those cut's, is there not now a surplus? Add a loan after proving a plan as working is good providence, no?

 

No there is no surplus becuase the cuts are being executed without any growth strategy in place. That means unemployment will rise, tax receipts will fall and benefits payments will increase. We will end up in way more debt than when we started - remember Osborne's plans were predicted on 2.8% growth. Quarter after quarter it has been clear that wasn't going to happen.

 

He deserves a smidgeon of credit for actually starting to address the need for the government to do something about growth. But it's way too late.

[I1L2T3]

No I think that a flatlining economy was the price we pay for rising commodity prices coupled with the ever deepening EU sovereign debt crisis.

 

So you don't think Osborne could have done anything at all? Couldn't he have spoken to the pension funds earlier to get the finance to bring forward infrastructure projects? The finance was always there.

 

Couldn't he have introduced credit easing earlier. It's been clear for a long time Project Merlin was failing badly?

 

Couldn't he have used our super low borrowing rates to borrow to bring forward infrastructure projects?

 

You cannot deny that Osborne has introduced a significant shift in strategy. From believing in the power of the markets to deliver automatic growth to a strategy where he realises the government needs to take the lead.

 

And you cannot deny that this revised strategy is starting now. It wasn't there before.

[L00b]

Above all they should be joined-up and coordinated between government departments to ensure that services continue to be delivered effectively.

I won't argue with that, eminently sensible.

 

Admittedly, however, the Gvt hasn't really had long enough to come up with that, considering the scale of the exercise. It sounds like an excuse, possibly/probably is one (though, hand on heart, I really don't care for the colour/political persuasion of the UK Gvt) but one can't deny that planning and coordinating the trimming of £bns and 000,000s of positions, within the timescale imparted, is not a trivial exercise.

 

The government is doing nothing to promote growth yet. It could have been doing so by now but it is only just coming up with the ideas. You can't gloss over the fact that growth was supposed to magically spring from the private sector and it didn't. Monumental blunder warned against repeatedly. An experiment that just didn't work.

Again, I won't argue...with the non-struck out bits

 

However, to qualify it as an "experiment" is wrong, IMHO. That (more-) growth was supposed to come from the private sector was a logical, non-interventionist and cautious approach, based on avoiding taking on more debt. Can't fault that, especially when the strategy is reducing debt first and foremost. It's just not panning out as well (or, at least, as fast) as envisaged. In the absence of a working crystal ball at No.10 or No.11, or at the OBR, you can't qualify it as a "monumental blunder".

 

As for the shift in strategy...only idiots never change their mind. At least there is adaptation, not the previous "head-in-the-sand-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" we saw with the previous bunch

[I1L2T3]

I won't argue with that, eminently sensible.

 

Admittedly, however, the Gvt hasn't really had long enough to come up with that, considering the scale of the exercise. It sounds like an excuse, possibly/probably is one (though, hand on heart, I really don't care for the colour/political persuasion of the UK Gvt) but one can't deny that planning and coordinating the trimming of £bns and 000,000s of positions, within the timescale imparted, is not a trivial exercise.

 

I'm not arguing with the non-struck out bits.

 

However, to qualify it as an "experiment" is wrong, IMHO. That (more-) growth was supposed to come from the private sector was a logical, non-interventionist and cautious approach, based on avoiding taking on more debt. Can't fault that, especially when the strategy is reducing debt first and foremost, it's just not panning out as well (or, at least, as fast) as envisaged. In the absence of a crystal ball at No.10 or No.11, you can't qualify it as a 'monumental blunder'.

 

As for the shift in strategy...only idiots never change their mind

 

Indiscriminate cuts were always going to cause problems.

 

I think it was wrong to rely on the private sector delivering growth. There was no evidence it would happen and we shouldn't forget that the financial crisis never really ended. It wasn't cautious. It was high risk. The other big mistake Osborne made was to project and foster an atmosphere of doom and austerity - he needed that to justify the scale of the cuts but the downside was destruction of business and consumer confidence.