The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Manlinose]

 

His plan changed in 2012 when the full facts were known that it was even worse than imagined so he revised it to a 50/50 likelihood by 2018.

 

 

Do you really think it took Mr. Osborne 2 years to find out the state of the Country's finances?

 

What on earth was he doing all that time?

 

Maybe his plan changed because he knew he couldn't get his fellow cabinet ministers to agree to and/or produce the level of cuts required - remember he was relying on Lib Dem support

[I1L2T3]

Do you really think it took Mr. Osborne 2 years to find out the state of the Country's finances?

 

What on earth was he doing all that time?

 

Maybe his plan changed because he knew he couldn't get his fellow cabinet ministers to agree to and/or produce the level of cuts required - remember he was relying on Lib Dem support

 

He knew the state of the economy before he made his plan. If people are now saying he didn't then that makes his plan even more irresponsible.

 

It took him two years to realise that the cuts and reduced investment reduced the level of demand within the economy leading to stagnant GDP and tax revenues being less than expected.

 

Let's not shy back from the truth here, and that is Osborne experimented with our economy, introducing a concept called 'expansionary fiscal contraction'. The idea was that when the state began to be pared back (his cuts) private enterprise would somehow magically fill the gaps left by reduced state expenditure.

 

It did not happen. It was never going to happen. He took away the elements of government expenditure (investment) that could have made it happen.

 

It's a remarkable failure and act of ideologically-driven stupidity that history will judge very badly.

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

I think deeper and faster cuts would've helped him meet the target. Had Labour been in charge, the deficit and debt would be much bigger right now. I remember Ed Balls warning of 3 million unemployed and rising deficit if Osborne stuck to his plan. Economics is not an exact science but who was closer to the truth with hindsight? The electorate could see it too, hence the Tory majority.

 

What you say could be right in a way. Basically he cut through 2010-2011-2012 and a little bit into 2013.

 

But then Osborne deviated from his plan so we'll never know if Balls would have been right because Osborne took his foot off the accelerator with the cuts, pumped up certain sectors of the economy and started getting ready for the 2015 election. His preparation for the election included a new commitment to eliminate the deficit (which he will most likely miss again) and irresponsible spending pledges such as the taxpayer stumping up £60bn to cover the cost of extending right to buy.

 

It's all just made up on the back of a fag packet month on month.

 

His failures will come back to haunt him soon enough and will most likely stop him ever being PM.

[WiseOwl182]

He knew the state of the economy before he made his plan. If people are now saying he didn't then that makes his plan even more irresponsible.

 

It took him two years to realise that the cuts and reduced investment reduced the level of demand within the economy leading to stagnant GDP and tax revenues being less than expected.

 

Let's not shy back from the truth here, and that is Osborne experimented with our economy, introducing a concept called 'expansionary fiscal contraction'. The idea was that when the state began to be pared back (his cuts) private enterprise would somehow magically fill the gaps left by reduced state expenditure.

 

It did not happen. It was never going to happen. He took away the elements of government expenditure (investment) that could have made it happen.

 

It's a remarkable failure and act of ideologically-driven stupidity that history will judge very badly.

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2015 at 19:42 ----------

 

 

What you say could be right in a way. Basically he cut through 2010-2011-2012 and a little bit into 2013.

 

But then Osborne deviated from his plan so we'll never know if Balls would have been right because Osborne took his foot off the accelerator with the cuts, pumped up certain sectors of the economy and started getting ready for the 2015 election. His preparation for the election included a new commitment to eliminate the deficit (which he will most likely miss again) and irresponsible spending pledges such as the taxpayer stumping up £60bn to cover the cost of extending right to buy.

 

It's all just made up on the back of a fag packet month on month.

 

His failures will come back to haunt him soon enough and will most likely stop him ever being PM.

 

 

I disagree, and thankfully so does the electorate. The economy is better now than in 2010, however you look at it. I'm willing to bet it will be better still in 2020. Labour left it worse in 2010 than how they picked it up in 1997. That's the crux of it and always has been; Labour leave the economy worse than what they inherited and the Tories clean up the mess.

[I1L2T3]

I disagree, and thankfully so does the electorate. The economy is better now than in 2010, however you look at it. I'm willing to bet it will be better still in 2020. Labour left it worse in 2010 than how they picked it up in 1997. That's the crux of it and always has been; Labour leave the economy worse than what they inherited and the Tories clean up the mess.

 

The economy is not better however you look at it. Osborne has doubled our debt.

 

The economy is still on life support with ZIRP; the economy is at risk of deflation; millions of families are dependent on housing benefit; millions are fed by food banks; job security has never been worse; we have a housing crisis; we have a personal debt crisis; we have the uncertainty over EU exit; real wages are still much lower than in 2007

 

Our economy is a basket case artificially (and deliberately by Osborne 2012-15) pumped up by consumer debt

[Eric Arthur]

Eric, wriggle all you want but the fact is his target was 2015. He missed his target.

 

Rubbish. He moved the target in light of new information. Only a belligerent idiot would have ignored it.

 

This all happened in 2012.

 

You should have been paying more attention.

 

It's ancient history.

 

Let it go.

 

Gordon's not coming back.

[WiseOwl182]

The economy is not better however you look at it. Osborne has doubled our debt.

 

The economy is still on life support with ZIRP; the economy is at risk of deflation; millions of families are dependent on housing benefit; millions are fed by food banks; job security has never been worse; we have a housing crisis; we have a personal debt crisis; we have the uncertainty over EU exit; real wages are still much lower than in 2007

 

Our economy is a basket case artificially (and deliberately by Osborne 2012-15) pumped up by consumer debt

 

Employment at record highs, growth outpacing most of the G7, wage increases above inflation, deficit halved, hardly a basket case.

[I1L2T3]

Rubbish. He moved the target in light of new information. Only a belligerent idiot would have ignored it.

 

This all happened in 2012.

 

You should have been paying more attention.

 

It's ancient history.

 

Let it go.

 

Gordon's not coming back.

 

New information?

 

What was the new information? Let's examine it.

 

---------- Post added 26-09-2015 at 22:58 ----------

 

Employment at record highs, growth outpacing most of the G7, wage increases above inflation, deficit halved, hardly a basket case.

 

New job growth dominated by part-time low wage jobs, many of which taken by immigrants; growth fueled by consumer debt; wage rises above inflation not hard when inflation is zero; deficit should have been eliminated in 2015

 

Definitely a basket case

[Eric Arthur]

New information?

 

What was the new information? Let's examine it.

 

No, let's see your it's the same plan in 2015 as 2010 first.

[I1L2T3]

No, let's see your it's the same plan in 2015 as 2010 first.

 

I never said it was. I'm arguing that the plan he set out in 2010 was a failure. I think his current plan will fail too because he's the chancellor who can't stop borrowing and can't stop spending.

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/bj05dh5ji14wzomggq5cmu8drowdam

 

http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/u2bv1ypinau9qz6yxb769kkfbg4hoo

 

His borrowing doubled our debt. Maybe he'll go for the triple

[Vague_Boy]

You have a flimsy grasp on the reasons for failure.

 

During the 2010 General Election I remember reading this article in the Telegraph:

General Election 2010: multi-billion black holes in all three parties' spending plans

 

The bit that caught my eye was:

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies criticised Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for not being frank with the public about the drastic measures needed to repair the government’s finances.

 

The institute claimed that the parties have black holes of up to £52 billion in the economic plans they have published as part of the election campaign.

 

A government run by any of the main parties would find it impossible to cut public services as sharply as they have proposed and would have to raise billions more in taxes, it claimed.

 

The IFS said it was “striking” how reticent the main parties had been in explaining the “defining task of the next administration”. The economists warned that none of the parties had come “anywhere close” to identifying how their spending plans might be achieved.

 

Basically it was General Election time. We, the voters, were being told what we wanted to hear. "We can make it all better again".

 

All 3 parties are criticized but the end result of a Conservative/LibDem coalition turned out to vindicate the doubts of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The plans were not detailed enough, the figures didn't add up and the claims being made were fraudulent.

 

Basically the coalition wimped out. In 2009 the IF warned that "two parliaments of pain" were required to fix the economy.

 

What we're getting is two parliaments of p**s weak fudging.