Osbourne Announces Benefit Changes for manifesto
Discussion
Gargamel said:
Fittster said:
Yes because focusing on George's record will do wonders from the conservatives.
"Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Trying to balance achieving economic growth, and reducing the deficit has proved to be beyond the powers of Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and arguably the US too. "Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
Fittster said:
He's made the situation worse so I don't see how it can be judged as a qualified success.
We have the highest economic growth in the Western Economies. Unemployment has fallen substantially, the deficit is reducing, our total Debt remains below 80% of GDP If you had said this is where we would be in 2014 during the last election campaign they would have had a landslide. To achieve this kind of stability after a shaky start and hampered by a coalition partner that does not get it. I think is a decent achievement.
Additional Personal tax allowances for everyone have lifted to £10,000 tax free
I think he has done a good job, but I recognise not everyone agrees.
Gargamel said:
Fittster said:
Yes because focusing on George's record will do wonders from the conservatives.
"Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Trying to balance achieving economic growth, and reducing the deficit has proved to be beyond the powers of Germany, Italy, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and arguably the US too. "Let's just remind ourselves of the facts. Back in June 2010 the OBR forecast that real GDP would grow by a cumulative 8.2% in between 2010 and 2013. In fact, it grew by only 3.1%. Partly because of this, the deficit is much larger now than expected. In 2010, the OBR forecast that PSNB in 2014-15 would be £37bn, or 2.1% of GDP. It now expects it to be £83.9bn, or 5.5% of GDP."
Now if Osbourne thinks the deficit is important he's record at closing it is so bad he should ask himself if he's in the right job.
Don't you think that a qualified success is better than the alternatives ?
So now the Cons are going to add the 'success' of the UK economy v that of the German one to the reasons to vote for them.If they might have had a chance before that idea would probably remove all hope for them.
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/germany
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/uk
www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/balance-of-trade
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 30th September 13:38
XJ Flyer said:
Yes we know Calais is full of Germans fleeing to Britain to escape their collapsing economy which is worse than that of Greece's
So now the Cons are going to add the 'success' of the UK economy v that of the German one to the reasons to vote for them.If they might have had a chance before that idea would probably remove all hope for them.
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/germany
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/uk
www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/balance-of-trade
Yes or no, is the UK growing its economy at a faster rate than Germany ? So now the Cons are going to add the 'success' of the UK economy v that of the German one to the reasons to vote for them.If they might have had a chance before that idea would probably remove all hope for them.
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/germany
http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/uk
www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/balance-of-trade
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 30th September 13:38
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So why do think that answer would/should be met any differently than if I said that to any other type of service provider or retailer when they raise their prices.It goes along the lines of we're not a charity in all cases.But for some reason the Cons seem to think that employed Labour is different in that regard than self employed or shop keepers etc etc.Not suprising for a Party that idolises the mindset of a shopkeeper's daughter. XJ Flyer said:
So why do think that answer would/should be met by any differently than if I said that to any other type of service provider or retailer when they raise their prices.It goes along the lines of we're not a charity in all cases.But for some reson the Cons seem to think that employed Labour is different in that regard than self employed or shop keepers etc etc.Not suprising for a Party that idolises the mindset of a shopkeeper's daughter.
Can anybody translate this, please?Rovinghawk said:
XJ Flyer said:
So why do think that answer would/should be met by any differently than if I said that to any other type of service provider or retailer when they raise their prices.It goes along the lines of we're not a charity in all cases.But for some reson the Cons seem to think that employed Labour is different in that regard than self employed or shop keepers etc etc.Not suprising for a Party that idolises the mindset of a shopkeeper's daughter.
Can anybody translate this, please?anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you reduce the increases to less than inflation and/or real world cost of living increases that's a pay cut.We have been here before in the late 1970's and trust me it was bad times for all concerned ending up with 3 million unemployed.If it is about doing what's needed that is trade barriers to stop jobs being exported to cheap labour countries and decent wages to allow people to spend the money needed to create more demand for labour in the domestic economy.
Cutting incomes does exactly the opposite but as usual 'doing the right' thing' in this case actually means yet more of the same old cheap labour Con agenda to benefit a few at the top.
Rovinghawk said:
XJ Flyer said:
Midwives like anyone else don't provide their services on the basis of being a charity.If you don't want to pay the rate they charge for their services you don't get the service.
So going back to Tonker's unanswered question, what is their rate?XJ Flyer said:
If it is about doing what's needed that is trade barriers to stop jobs being exported to cheap labour countries and decent wages to allow people to spend the money needed to create more demand for labour in the domestic economy.
Can you give an example of when protectionism has ever worked? Would it work now, in an increasingly global economy?98elise said:
jshell said:
Hoofy said:
JagLover said:
Hoofy said:
I'm in two minds. Interesting point made on LBC last night - it's not weighted by area. Someone could happily live on £23k up north but a similar family in South London could be in serious trouble.
The state should not be paying for people to live in the centre of one of the most expensive cities on earth.Without the benefits system wages for low skilled work in central London would have had to rise far more.
If you don't subsidise service works the pay will rise to make sure they can fill positions. Sunsidising with benefits simply passes a part of the cost onto the tax payer (so everyone) rather than the consumer.
98elise said:
Thats how most workers do it, so why are "service workers" special. I've commuted in for the past 20 years because I can't afford to live in London.
If you don't subsidise service works the pay will rise to make sure they can fill positions. Sunsidising with benefits simply passes a part of the cost onto the tax payer (so everyone) rather than the consumer.
What about those who can't afford to travel in from a place they can afford to live - we're always hearing from commuters such as yourself how much the price of a season ticket costs.If you don't subsidise service works the pay will rise to make sure they can fill positions. Sunsidising with benefits simply passes a part of the cost onto the tax payer (so everyone) rather than the consumer.
What about people who work anti-social hours not serviced by public transport from the shires?
Poor ghettos in cities populated by the rich
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because they know you're wrong on that point."governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints"
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
Hackney said:
Tell me how the public sector caused the "macroshift in world economics"
Yet they are forced (by those who did) to pay the costs of it.
No, they benefited significantly in the past from above inflation pay increases and now (like everyone else) need to share in the costs.Yet they are forced (by those who did) to pay the costs of it.
The costs of the public sector is unsustainable and needs to be addressed.
Fittster said:
Because they know you're wrong on that point.
"governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints"
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
And?"governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints"
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
Have you seen the extent of the borrowing requirement in the next few years? That's not just new borrowing, that's refinancing existing debt that has matured. Who is going to purchase this (and at what price) if they think the government hasn't got spending / inflation under control...?
Fittster said:
Because they know you're wrong on that point.
"governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints"
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
We already pay £43bn a year in interest on our debt, and we have borrowed around 80 of our annual production in the economy. How much debt is enough ? "governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints"
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
We could in theory nationalise our debts and write them off. QE on a very large scale - but
1. Our currency would tank - Global Commodities - eg oil are hard, sterling is soft - so price increases everywhere
2. Massive inflation spike
3. Interest rates would need to be around 10 - 15%
4. Lack of Moral Hazard
5. Debt markets would be closed to us for quite a long time
6. It is surely a technical default.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff