Hoping for the best and planning for the worst

Vast improvement on the prior offering Nick.

Generally pays to read the contents first and report on it after.

The contents certainly do offer more to the Chancellor than to the opposition and indicate steady hand on the tiller.

The last paragraph is very relevant and precisely why I expect lots from 2 Eds on Plan B and equally strident No Plan B from the chancellor. Both are very much "they would say that wouldn't they " territory, no real surprise or relevance.

Isn't this stating the obvious?

You always hope for the best and plan for the worst unless you name is Gordon Brown, who claimed to have abolished the worst.

As a result we were caught with our pants down with projections of ever higher tax receipts from an unsustainable property and banking boom... and we had acquired the government spending to match these higher tax receipts.

No greater argument exists for the removal of newlabour from office thatn their failure to understand basic economics; that booms don't last forever. All apologists on these posts and their new leaders continue to make the same mistake - the assertion that actually the labour party was being terribly careful before the crash. The truth of the matter is they had the flimsiest assumptions, the shakiest foundations and the greatest hubris about it as ever has been witnessed. We are living with the consequences.

It's grim up north London...

George Osborne would be beyond stupid not to have contingencies for the economy, whether we call that a plan B or not. Flexibility based on the facts should be the way to approach it, sadly it appears that Osborne has at least one eye on the main finish post - the 2015 election, and this colours every decision that it made.

It is also right that Osborne cannot say there is a plan B because this would end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. But this again is his own fault as rather than having a pragmatic approach, he is trying to make a political stance or the "tough" chancellor rather than pursuing sound economic policy.
https://bit.ly/exEiRS

So no firm advice one way or the other then Nick?

Smells like fence sitting.

Have Balls and Miliband got a Plan B if the public fail to believe their deficit denial policy?

GO would be silly to have a Plan B - with all the leaks it would soon be known by the opposition.

The need for a Plan B is obvious. The details of Plan B are also obvious, so why bother to plan for it?

"hoping for the best and planning for the worst"

Hope? HOPE??? This is the economy, peple's lives etc etc. There should be no 'hope' there should be planning, alternative options, all scenarios carefully scrutinised and occasional adjustments along the way. To inflict a financial policy then close your eyes to what follows is asking for trouble. Osborne needs to be far less gung-ho and much more sensible in his approach.

Has the BBC got a Plan B if their predictions of a double dip reecession and a flu pandemic fail to materialise?

maybe the lib should have joined labour ru nthe counry in to the ground for 6 months had a new election got the Hier to Thatcher in and the whole country would have seen what was required , were as now to many are living in the cloud cookoo land that new labour invented for them.

they should be tried for treason

Maybe plan B should include how instead of RBS having a £2Bn bonus pot, that the £2Bn be paid back against the £60+Bn of public money lent to prop up their balance sheet. When any business goes through hard times it always looks to chase it debtors first. If welfare and public services are to suffer why not the banks that borrowed money from us? Getting a little sick of being told how we must not be bank bashers, when the public are being bashed every day

This should be headlined political class wake up to reality: nobody dead.

The Chancellor has set up his plan for budget reductions. It will have to do as the alternative is even more debt. If the economy is in such a poor way that it needs an injection of funds then the plan will have to be amended leading to a slower pay down of the deficit. This has a downside as well as it would push us closer to a sterling crisis.

The simple truth is that the only real alternative to paying down the deficit over the next four years is to pay it down even quicker.

What is needed now is a plan for growth which will only come from reforming the banks and rebalancing the real economy. That is the quick and cheap way out of our current difficulties which is why there is no sign of anyonw putting it forward as yet.

Mind you it's a sad indictment of the dependency culture encouraged by Labour.

"What are the Government going to do for us? How are they going to help us? When's the Government going to sort it all out for us?"

Simple fact is that the single biggest influence over your life is you. A tax cut or tax rise of 1p isn't as big a factor as increasing your income by 5%. Simple as that.

Government policy can make it a bit easier (Conservative policies) or a bit harder (Labour policies) for an individual to do well but at the end of the day it's the individual that makes the difference.

Mr Osborne and Co do have thier very own personal contingencies! And we all know it! If roles were reversed my very own personal contingency plan would be to offer an appropriate ultimatum to all those UK citizens with do$h $tashed off$hore, bring it all back under the GB tax jurisdiction or face being expelled and de-citizensised aka removal of passport with birth records destroyed and all fixed UK assets taken over by the state!

'On the other hand it advises that given the potential downsides ministers should have a Plan B up their sleeves:'

Why 'on the other hand' ? It's not as if there's a contradiction between the two, and in any case the coaliton will already have got a plan B and probably several other contingecy plans as well, it's just that they prefer not to talk about these for the same reason political parties prefer not to speculate about losing elections.

#13 you related to stalin ?

I agree entirely with AndyC555 - the dependency culture is the real problem and the most difficult to overcome since it was deliberately created by Labour to trap their supporters into continuing to do so and has become an ingrained habit that is harder for many to break than giving up smoking (another blight on the economy and the welfare state too).

However, of course there's a "plan B" and probably C, D and E too - anything else would be foolhardy, but admitting to it would show weakness that would be utterly self defeating. Ed Balls knows this perfectly well, of course, but he, like so many others, is simply playing the political game and damn the country and its people - but then that's what politicians do...

@ 9 - IR35 Survivor:

Does you keyboard not have a Shift key or a full-stop? You come across as a professional individual, the IR35 tag suggests that you're actually a contractor, yet your grammar and spelling makes my 3 year old nephew look like an Oxford graduate in comparison.

As for the drivvel you've posted by way of commentary it is, frankly and IMHO, nonsense. Time to stop blaming Labour for the collapse of the worlds financial system and for the stark choice they faced of "let the banks collapse and the entire economy with it" or "bail the banks out" thereby causing a massive increase in borrowing to fund it. Time now to focus on "Call Me Dave" and his baby faced sidekick as they slam the UK economy into full reverse and plunge us headlong into a second and entirely unecessary recession with yet more of the misery that will cause to millions of hard working families. You cannot blame Labour for that, not even the most supportive bloggers of this sham of a government on this site would attempt that (except maybe you, and of course our good mate RockRobin7, but he does seem to work for the Conservative Party Headquarters with the bilge he write - at least he can spell and punctuate though!).

"It's grim up north London" - rr7 @ 2

Wouldn't say that, Robin. We have a radical Bolivian poet (and her partner) coming round for supper tonight. Looking forward to it, should be a very vibrant and progressive evening.

As to this government and the economy, well it doesn’t look good.

In truth, the charge of “no plan for growth” is harsh – with monetary policy in the hands of the Bank, it leaves fiscal stimulus (cut taxes and/or boost spending) as the only serious tool in Osborne’s box, a tool somewhat blunted by the crisis level deficit he inherited. Perhaps he does have another tool – Osborne – but it’s not immediately obvious that he has; or IF he has, what it might be or how serious it is.

So, the Coalition had better just cross their fingers and hope for the best on the economy. Pretty much the default for most British governments, let’s face it.

Their watch, however, and the economy going bad on them is their responsibility. It’s unfair on them, but it’s only fair. They did, after all, sell the nonsensical “Labour’s mess” line for all they were worth in order to get elected. They know full well (since they’re not stupid) that the root causes of our fiscal crisis aren’t substantially to do with the previous government, but this didn’t stop them peddling the Tory Story, did it? No, they preferred the simplistic lie ... happened on Labour’s watch, ergo “Labour’s mess” ... to the more complex and thoughtful truth (Labour significantly to blame, but certainly not substantially).

Flip side now, I’m afraid. By banging on about how it was Labour’s mess, they forfeit the right to say it is Labour’s mess. It’s the Coalition’s mess. Let’s see if they can clear it up – re-election is not out of the question if they can.

5. At 12:37pm on 02 Feb 2011, MaggieL wrote:
Have Balls and Miliband got a Plan B if the public fail to believe their deficit denial policy?

==================

I have the distinct impression it wouldn't matter if they did have a plan B, C or even D (though by my reckoning their current plan could be said to be plan C already) - since clearly you would dismiss what it contained because of who came up with it.

Deficit denial is a party political sound bite of no relevance to any factual debate.
Even the IFS report has it in black and white that deficit reduction was explicitly contained within the Labour 2010 budget.

The fundamental difference between political parties has been over timing and speed of cutting it and what underlying policy and principles leading to it being cut should be.

Why Plan B?
I would like to know the full extent of Plan A.
Thirteen years of N.Labour have left me a bit allergic to spin.
GO, when he speaks, usually sounds a lot more solid, meaningful than Dave.
He could do the Coalition a lot of good by stating what he thinks neeeds to be fixed.
GO should be doing a lot more PR; not spin, just good, honest PR.
If GO is thinking 'just cuts to fix the debt+deficit' then we really are still in BIG trouble.

You say Nick, "were the chancellor to say he had a Plan B up his sleeve it could trigger the very crisis of confidence the IFS say he should avoid."

While it certainly would trigger a political crisis, possibly bringing Ed Balls his first Tory Chancellor's scalp, the possibility of a policy change would reduce the despair and fear of many people. Far from triggering an economic crisis, this would boost confidence and help recovery.

How much would scrapping the IFS save ? Osborne hasn't made any plans to deal with the situation if the world falls apart ! What will happen if the Australian cyclone hits us next week ? Give us a break, it sounds just like a sportsman taking part in a contest but making plans for losing before he starts. If you plan for failure, the chances are you will. Maybe the two Eds , who have a history of failure, plan this way, but then they are no longer in a position to do so.

13# (15#)

It would probably be an infringment of the poor dears' human rights.... Bang would go Anthony Charles Lynton Blair: The only Labour PM to secure more than one consecutive election victory and he'd be declared persona non grata. Hows that for gratitude, eh?

Mind you, at least it would be a way of finally getting rid of Geoffrey Robinson MP.

Vote for RedRobb, I say.

This is only a problem for Osborne if he takes seriously what the IFS has to say. If I were him, I would not. The so called left thinking fairness agenda, is ever present in the IFS reports. This means it effects any forecasts they are likely to give on the economy.

Economic matters have no politics, it is advice given to solve economic problems. Solving these problems, in turn, means living standards rise for all. The report says very little of any interest or importance, it is traditional fence sitting. This means they know what must be done, but are not prepared to say so.

16. At 1:11pm on 02 Feb 2011, Quin wrote:

"I agree entirely with AndyC555 - the dependency culture is the real problem"

Can't argue with that - the financial sector's culture of dependency on bailouts and taxpayer supported bonuses must be dealt with.

I also agree with Andy's brilliant observation that we all just need to take responsibility and increase our personal income by 5%.

Apparently its 'simple as that'...

17. At 1:12pm on 02 Feb 2011, Bryn The Cat

Only one v in drivel , and you forgot the r on the first your (amongst several other grammatical and spelling errors).

1. At 12:21pm on 02 Feb 2011, Whistling Neil wrote:
Vast improvement on the prior offering Nick.

"Generally pays to read the contents first and report on it after.
The contents certainly do offer more to the Chancellor than to the opposition and indicate steady hand on the tiller.
The last paragraph is very relevant and precisely why I expect lots from 2 Eds on Plan B and equally strident No Plan B from the chancellor. Both are very much "they would say that wouldn't they " territory, no real surprise or relevance."

The IFS report shows nothing of the kind however much you want it to.

It points out the uncertainty in economic prediction,the need to proceed by trial and error.This is more to do with attitude of mind than a set of thought out proposals.If things go wrong does Mr.Osborne have the courage to change course?

He did it enough when he was in opposition veering in all sorts of directions until it became a joke.Problem is government`s have to set a course,appear confident it`s the right one until the very second when it isn`t.As Hamlet said before the fatal duel,"The readiness is all."

"Wouldn't say that, Robin. We have a radical Bolivian poet (and her partner) coming round for supper tonight. Looking forward to it, should be a very vibrant and progressive evening."
-----------------------------------------

Especially if she brings along some of her country's finest marching powder. Makes for a very "progressive" evening... Not so sure about vibrant though... (so I'm told).

"to the more complex and thoughtful truth (Labour significantly to blame, but certainly not substantially)."

"Complex and more thoughtful truth" I'm taking to be a euphemism for "spin like bejesus until the plebs think that we didnt do it".

I've heard it called "being economical with the truth", I've heard it called "untruths", I've heard it called "misleading the house". Hell, you could even call it by its proper name which is bulls...., but "complex and thoughtful truth" (in other words its such a big whopping porky that it took us all week to think of it and construct lie upon lie upon lie so that it eventually becomes the truth to the casual observer/typical UK voter)... thats a new one.

The words "truth" and "Labour" are mutually exclusive mate. Just like Tory and Progressive. If Labour told me it was raining, I'd have to go and stand outside and make sure I got wet before I believed them.

18 saga

In truth, the charge of “no plan for growth” is harsh – with monetary policy in the hands of the Bank, it leaves fiscal stimulus (cut taxes and/or boost spending) as the only serious tool in Osborne’s box, a tool somewhat blunted by the crisis level deficit he inherited.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A fair assessment and there is already upward pressure on interest rates to bring inflation back under control. This would strengthen sterling and make manufactured exports less competitive, which looks like the only driver of growth at the moment.

#17 but my maths is much better than your Ed balls and Brown all put together.

And as point out by 16/12 the dependacy culture is the major part that can be laid at Brown's feet.

My english was done under a labour HMG when teacher could do anything rather than teacher, my maths was helped by my father whom was taugh when there were standards to be adhered to unlike since 97 when the chase for stats for the case.


As you can see my english is another labour failure,

But my maths is good which means i can run my life in an orderly fashion , pay my bill and understand the value of money.

17. At 1:12pm on 02 Feb 2011, Bryn The Cat wrote:

Time to stop blaming Labour for the collapse of the worlds financial system and for the stark choice they faced of "let the banks collapse and the entire economy with it" or "bail the banks out" thereby causing a massive increase in borrowing to fund it.

==========================================

No one is blaming labour for the worlds financial system. People are blaming them for bloating the UKs spend so we were already spending more than we raised in taxes in the good times before the banks needed saving. Was this spendaholic attitude a global issue? Did other world leaders tell us to spend, spend, spend?

As to it being time to stop blaming labour - thats rich coming from someone who supports a party who were still blaming thatcher over 10 years after she'd left power. Personally, I think we should keep mentioning labours failings because there as still far too many people who believe the garbage being put out by people such as yourself painting them as beyond blame.

I know you'd simply like to put the UKs deficit and the banking collapse together, stick the wood global in there and hey presto - labour are whiter than white, but that's just typical manipulative labour spin isn't it.

#18 there goes one of saga silly posts.

ALl labour have done is avoid having to deal with the mess that they create in governement, wether is was a spending and tax binge and failure to see the nuclear bomb about to be dropped in the financial markets , it was thier watch when it went wrong , what were they doing ?

Bryn The Cat 17

Well I have to say, IR35s posts makes a heck of a lot more sense than your posts do.

What a unpleasant person you are.

sagamix...

What exactly are you saying? As usual your thoughts are as clear as mud.

You appear to now accept there was indeed a mess and as it was on newlabour's watch it was newlabour's mess. You forget we were promised that there would never be a mess again and yet we were drivena t full speed ahead (after burners attached) into the biggest mess anyone alive has ever seen. On your watch.

Given that the labour party's answer is currently to tread more slowly clearing up this mess, they can hardly complain when the coalition finds itself still in this mess. We all know who took us there.

Perhaps you should be addressing your thoguhts to the UK manufacturing numbers, the ones that just expanded at the fastest rate for 19 years in January.. despite the coalition cuts, despite the axing of the Sheffield Forgemaster loan and despite all the protesting from the left that coalition policies wouldn't work/would drive us back into recession.

Recoveries take time but I don't want to be part of one anymore where the economy isn't allowed to grow without the heavy hand of the state getting involved at every juncture. They can build roads and bridges, not give loans to steel companies. Although of course I forgot, the latest demented twitterings from Frau Eagle of the Labour party are that HS2 cannot be afforded. Bit of a twisted world the labour party lives in...we do want to spend, we can't afford to spend. Oh, Me!

Do enjoy your evening with your Bolivian chums. I'm sure it must be fun chatting about what you would like to do while having no influence whatsoever.

It's grim up north London

"Can't argue with that - the financial sector's culture of dependency on bailouts and taxpayer supported bonuses must be dealt with."

Haw, haw, haw.... That must have taken all weekend to come up with. You ought to think of auditioning for that Sunday Night Show that no-ones watching...

"25. At 1:35pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
16. At 1:11pm on 02 Feb 2011, Quin wrote:

"I agree entirely with AndyC555 - the dependency culture is the real problem"

Can't argue with that - the financial sector's culture of dependency on bailouts and taxpayer supported bonuses must be dealt with.

I also agree with Andy's brilliant observation that we all just need to take responsibility and increase our personal income by 5%.

Apparently its 'simple as that'..."


I didn't say increasing your income by 5% would be simple. I said that it's a simple fact that doing so has more impact on your income than a 1% rise or fall in income tax.

It's not simple to increase your income by 5%. It will probably require determination and hard work.

I take it by the tone of your reply that that is something you're not in agrement with.

Well, you just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for you. Everything for you.

Fubar @ 28

The thing is, Fubar, the Tory lie which is peddled on this site relentlessly by JRP, Robin et al (whoever he is) is that Labour created the mess we're in by increasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues. They say that it was a reckless and politically-driven choice. Of course, it wasn't - it was economic necessity. No government can slash spending in response to a sudden and unforeseen recession. Why do you think the Thatcher government increased spending when Britain was hit by a recession in the early nineties? For ideological reasons? They increased spending year on year, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP, because for all their ideological posturing, they had no choice. That's why the "Labour mess" argument has no credibility.

Bryn The Cat 17

'Time to stop blaming Labour for the collapse of the worlds financial system'

No one has even started to do that. The case against Labour is that they left the economy in a far worse state than they inherited after 13 years in government. When you look at the UKs performance relative to our major competitors the position is even more damning.

If its time for anything its time for lefty apologists to cease their pitfull attempts to cover up for Labours failure.

31. At 1:58pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:

As to it being time to stop blaming labour - thats rich coming from someone who supports a party who were still blaming thatcher over 10 years after she'd left power.

---------------------

I blame Thatcher for New Labour...

35. At 2:12pm on 02 Feb 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

"Can't argue with that - the financial sector's culture of dependency on bailouts and taxpayer supported bonuses must be dealt with."

Haw, haw, haw.... That must have taken all weekend to come up with. You ought to think of auditioning for that Sunday Night Show that no-ones watching...

-----------------------------

I'm surprised you find it so funny. There maybe some dark irony to bankers being bailed out by taxpayers, but I hardly think its a joke

"there goes one of saga silly posts." - ir35 @ 32

Hurt.

Also disagree and dispute. The countering of the Tory Story ... "cleaning up Labour's mess" ... is just about the least silly thing I can imagine.

If I wanted to be silly, I'd start up with the culinary analogies - deficit is a Greek salad and Labour are the feta cheese, type stuff - and I'm not doing that.

For "Silly", look no further than Robin, Fubar, Andy at 34/35/36. Haven't even cleared yet, any of them, and still they look sadly lacking in good sense and insight.

36. At 2:13pm on 02 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

Well, you just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for you. Everything for you.

---------------------------------

No, I run my own business. I am fully aware that there are plenty of hard working people out there trying to make do the best they can despite loss of income. I see plenty of hard work and determination but struggle to find anyone with an increase in real income.

Perhaps a step outside into the real world would help you?

17. At 1:12pm on 02 Feb 2011, Bryn The Cat wrote:

As for the drivvel you've posted by way of commentary it is, frankly and IMHO, nonsense. Time to stop blaming Labour for the collapse of the worlds financial system and for the stark choice they faced of "let the banks collapse and the entire economy with it" or "bail the banks out" thereby causing a massive increase in borrowing to fund it. Time now to focus on "Call Me Dave" and his baby faced sidekick as they slam the UK economy into full reverse and plunge us headlong into a second and entirely unecessary recession with yet more of the misery that will cause to millions of hard working families. You cannot blame Labour for that, not even the most supportive bloggers of this sham of a government on this site would attempt that (except maybe you, and of course our good mate RockRobin7, but he does seem to work for the Conservative Party Headquarters with the bilge he write - at least he can spell and punctuate though!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now all the posters know, of necessity, that you are an expert on drivel.

Thank you, Bryn.

pdavies35 37

'Labour created the mess we're in by increasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues'

That's not the main case against them. Leaving aside (for now) their failings in relation to how the money was spent, the main case against them is the reckless levels of public spending pre crash which only made sense if you believed the boom was going to last forever.

"A fair assessment" - AS71 @ 29

Thank you. Non-tribal is the new black. Hands across the water etc etc.

(Robin, CC gates are not locked, they're never locked. Stop skulking in the bushes - that is skulking, what you're doing in there, isn't it? - and come inside. There's an open fire, a man-sized pot, and we're waiting.)

#31 they are still blaming her 20 years after she left office.

they should have been blaming Callagahn and Wilson et al for the mess
they created and she had to do something about.

How selective the view of history is from the left. I blame Labour fo rthe Hostroy lessons in schools, part of thier dumbing down so that nobody can tell the difference between cause and effect.

Which is why they got into such mess over bady-P and ED balls was quick to blame Sharon Sixsmith when he shoudl have taken the can for that one.

Yet he has form for it not being his fault, was he not Brown underline and the Treasury for a long time during this massive tax and spending spree to create a dependancy culture.

At 1:35pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
16. At 1:11pm on 02 Feb 2011, Quin wrote:

"I agree entirely with AndyC555 - the dependency culture is the real problem"

Can't argue with that - the financial sector's culture of dependency on bailouts and taxpayer supported bonuses must be dealt with.

I also agree with Andy's brilliant observation that we all just need to take responsibility and increase our personal income by 5%.

Apparently its 'simple as that'...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't agree more. Isn't it nice to see a softer more cuddly side to Andy! 5% pay increases all round - would be nice and I can almost guarantee support from the unions on this.
Just think of all the extra tax receipts that would result. After all Andy is always telling us that the bankers bonuses mean lots of lovely taxes.
If that's what less dependency on government results in, perhaps we should give it a go!

#33 thansk for the support, I have been through the Family Courts of Labours idea of Truth, Justice and Eqaulity Model , so it going to take a lot more than a personal insultive post on this blog to upset me.

Does not even measure.

But the Family Courts and CAFCA-SS are another labour failure and legacy that needs sorting out. Bryn the Cat Care to comment on that area of labour policy.

By many calculations seveeral £10's of Billions have been wasted in this area. There is your starter have a pop then if you dare

"37. At 2:18pm on 02 Feb 2011, pdavies65 wrote:

Fubar @ 28

The thing is, Fubar, the Tory lie which is peddled on this site relentlessly by JRP, Robin et al (whoever he is) is that Labour created the mess we're in by increasing spending in the face of falling tax revenues. They say that it was a reckless and politically-driven choice. Of course, it wasn't - it was economic necessity. No government can slash spending in response to a sudden and unforeseen recession. Why do you think the Thatcher government increased spending when Britain was hit by a recession in the early nineties? For ideological reasons? They increased spending year on year, in real terms and as a percentage of GDP, because for all their ideological posturing, they had no choice. That's why the "Labour mess" argument has no credibility."

Taking aside the Keynsian response to the falling tax revenues - I acknowledge the validity of pump priming as a viable exercise - the problem was, there was no damned water to prime the blasted pump with thanks to Brown. Now, between 2000 and 2003 when there was a slight downturn in the technological sector following the bursting of the technology & comms bubble, this principle appeared to work. Public sector projects kept the technological side of the house going for two to three years. I'm not saying Keynes doesnt have its place, it does. But its not the only game and like most disciplines, you cant just cherry pick the bits that suit you and damn the rest. You embrace the lot or not at all.

You'll argue against it being a politically driven choice. Of course you would, you're from the left. What else would I expect you to say?

You'd argue that making entire regions public sector work dependent to buy their votes en bloc, such as the North East was never politically driven. I'd say otherwise.

The "Labour Mess" angle has no credibility with you because you're denying that they had anything to do with anything that went wrong. Pure denial and refusal to accept responsibility for bad tactical, strategic and political decisions. Until the left can accept responsibility for making some very key mistakes, I wouldnt put them in charge of a whelk stall, let alone the economy.

It wasnt just falling tax revenues. It was doing away with a perfectly good regulatory system. It was failure to even attempt to THINK about regulating the shadow banking system or addressing the risk to the retail banking sector. It was a vindictive, not fit for purpose, overcomplicated taxation system which shafted everyone else with the exception of Private Equity. It was failure to address an unsustainable buy to let boom. It was the raping of private sector pensions. It was the addiction to, and pathetically poor management of PFI projects. It was the open door immigration policy which stifled any kind of wage inflation, whilst allowing social unrest to foment. It was the complete failure to even attempt to rebalance the economy away from the financial and service sectors, instead thinking that the city bucking bronco could be ridden ad infinitum and that its tax harvest would fund their pet projects in perpetuity.

The sins are not just singular, they are legion.

The great fish-memoried unwashed and the likes of you will forgive them anything. Wanton financial sector incompetance, dereliction of duty, lawbreaking, malfeasance in public office, illegal wars, complicity in torture... it doesnt matter. The left's politics of hate leaves its own legacy, as much as you might like to deny it.

When trying to defend them, I would suggest you use the word "credibility" a bit more advisably than you have been doing. It might fool the mouth-breathing choirs in the frozen northern wastes, but is an increasingly blunt weapon against anyone else. I find that Labour saying anyone else isnt credible is nothing short of laughable.

40#

You plainly dont do irony yourself, do you 3B?

"42. At 2:35pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
36. At 2:13pm on 02 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

Well, you just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for you. Everything for you.

---------------------------------

No, I run my own business. I am fully aware that there are plenty of hard working people out there trying to make do the best they can despite loss of income. I see plenty of hard work and determination but struggle to find anyone with an increase in real income.

Perhaps a step outside into the real world would help you?"


You run one business, I work for a firm that advises several hundred businesses.

Quite a few have seen increases in their income.

Of my clients who believe they can do better, some do, some don't.

My clients who believe they can't do better are nearly always correct.

That's the real world.

41#

its all just propaganda to you, innit Saga? All just propaganda....

Still sounds like the good old boys are in denial.

There is not an economic collapse. There is not an economic collapse. There is not...

It's just the snow, really it is.

If they say it often enough it might make it true.

S Croft @ 24

Couple of odd ones here, Susan:

"The so called left thinking fairness agenda is ever present in the IFS reports."

Didn't the Coalition place the F word at the very centre of their message? Given this, isn't it "fair" that they be judged by it?

"Economic matters have no politics"

Tremendous statement. So, if all things economic and financial have nothing to do with politics, what on earth does? Is politics relevant only to, say, taste in music? (the Bryan Adams litmus test and such like). Be a lot easier, I guess, if so. Nick and his ilk out of a job, though.

47 - And I've already pointed out that 3B mis-read my post and put him right.

Not surprised to find you lagging behind in the conversation. That must happen to you a lot.

45 - "come inside. There's an open fire, a man-sized pot, and we're waiting."

Only if you're going to climb into the pot and move it over the fire.

jobs @ 38 wrote:
The case against Labour is that they left the economy in a far worse state than they inherited after 13 years in government.

>>

If that's the case against Labour, it's a weak one. Labour left office while the economy was still reeling from a major global recession; the Tories hung on for several years after the recession of the early nineties, so of course the economy was healthier by the time they finally went. If you're trying to argue that the Tories have a better track record for economic management, you'll need to do better than that. Of the 18 years they were in power, 1979 to 1997, the UK recorded a budged surplus in only three (88,89,90). Three out of eighteen compares rather poorly with four out of ten for Labour (98,99,00,01).

The point is not to exonerate Labour but to expose the ridiculousness of the Conservatives' claim to be better at managing the economy. In particular, the view that Labour governments tend to run up huge deficits which the Tories then have to 'clear up' has no basis in fact, but it's often trotted out by the Unthinking Right.

"(Robin, CC gates are not locked, they're never locked. Stop skulking in the bushes - that is skulking, what you're doing in there, isn't it? - and come inside. There's an open fire, a man-sized pot, and we're waiting.)"

I would worry about that man-sized pot if I were you Robin. Dunno if cannibalism has taken hold at Campo Correcto yet. They're either going to try and turn you or eat you.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

43#

Purely about cramming in as many lazy sterotypes and SWP banner slogans into one paragraph as he possibly could. He wants to be Denis Skinner's speech writer & bag carrier when he grows up.

27

Only time will tell if the Chancellor needs to re-evaluate and make a course correction and if he does how he addresses it. He may pursue a similar route to previous politicians - deny anything was wrong or change is required and make it anyway - or do this Chancellor is not for turning even in the face of evidence indicating a turn is required.

I have heard since I posted the media interviews with the IFS head, suggesting that he believes giving a broad framework of conditions under which a "plan B" would be considered could be useful. Interesting to see whether this changes the Chancellors tack in future days/weeks.

The report as you say indicates the fragility (and perhaps futility) of purely economic forecasts and where there are some areas that assumptions made could be better quantified.
I am sure you are, from your particular position, heartened by the passage on how cuts to government spending have been accounted for in overall economic analysis i.e. 1:1 which ignores perhaps where multipliers exist or unforseen consequences may occur (hypothetical X less government spend on programme A leads to more than 1X additional spend elsewhere over the budget period). This is a very valid and useful point to have drawn out.

However I think you mistake me for someone seeking to acquire every piece of data and independent comment to bolster a predefined position supporting one side or another. I don't, I speak (or should that be write) as I find and the comments are just my opinion. If you bothered to read a comment I left on the prior less balanced blog from NR you will find some points from the IFS I found interesting which could be used by either political sides planks for their own purpose.

I have to say the general quality of your argumentations appears somewhat diminished since your return from your time away. Yours used to be one of the more coherent left of centre views regularly expressed here along with PDs.
I did wonder if you were a different person using the same sign in to be honest such is the difference.

No17 Bryn,
I rather suspect that a number of contributors on here feel that there is more than one RockingRobin writing the drivel to which you refer.However, he should not be discouraged. He is a superb recruitment agent for the anti-Tory vote.
He seems to be doing a good job, with his opponents enjoying a 11% lead in a recent poll and his darling Tories witnessing an unprecedented loss in support for a new government

39. At 2:20pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
31. At 1:58pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:

As to it being time to stop blaming labour - thats rich coming from someone who supports a party who were still blaming thatcher over 10 years after she'd left power.

---------------------

I blame Thatcher for New Labour...

---------------------

I blame old labour for Thatcher ;-)

#41 what were they doing for 13 years other than tax and spend profligately , and no not say GO wanted light regulation.

Light may have meant the right regulation too, were as heavy may also mean wrong.

But they were in psot for 13 years and had inherrited a good foundation , which took 18 years to produce from the last labour foul-up

its like dajavou or groundhog day on a longer time scale ?

jobs @ 44

But on the last but one thread, jrp was specifically arguing that Labour lost the last election because they made a political choice not to slash spending in response to falling tax revenues. I agree it's not a convincing line.

It goes without saying that, with hindsight, reducing spending levels before the crash would have improved the UK's economic position. However, a Conservative supporter could never describe Labour's spending levels pre-crash as "reckless" - their party had pledged to match them, after Tory strategists blamed their 2005 election defeat on Labour's more generous spending plans.

The best thing for both parties would be to show a little humility (as Brown didn't) and learn some lessons about the unpredictability of the economic landscape. Brown's hubris was claiming to have abolished boom and bust; Osborne's is claiming his policy is the only option, come what may.

Fubar @ 49

Your comment is rubbish but I enjoyed this sentence enormously:

"The great fish-memoried unwashed and the likes of you will forgive them anything."

Sorry I am late with my comment but I was listening to Yvette Cooper on the Daily Politics show and fell asleep.
Any news on what labour would do.
The truth is the labour front bench were so bullied by Brown that they can't think for themselves.

I don’t mind your message of personal responsibility, Andy (at various), it’s a bit Ra Ra but none the worse for that. If you’re not content with your lot in life, DO something about it - raise yourself up, don’t just look to bring others down. Not always easy, I know, but much more productive than moaning. I mean, you did it. You've told us so (quite rightly) many times. Came from very little and now look ... you’re a tax advisor.

So, yes, avoid at all costs the Politics of Envy - like most vices, understandable but unhealthy.

The message needs to be consistent, however, and this is where you fall down. To my mind you do, anyway. Like, whenever we’re discussing “Alarm Clock” Britain’s view of people receiving more on state benefit than they themselves are getting from working, what do we find you preaching? Do we hear you telling those people to stop moping around and pull a finger out (both of them, preferably), try to get on and earn a pay rise, instead of asking for others’ benefits to be cut? No we do not.

63. At 3:09pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:
39. At 2:20pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
31. At 1:58pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:

As to it being time to stop blaming labour - thats rich coming from someone who supports a party who were still blaming thatcher over 10 years after she'd left power.
---------------------
I blame Thatcher for New Labour...
---------------------
I blame old labour for Thatcher ;-)
=======================================================================

And I blame Lola for absolutely everything ...

Now there's a thing! ;-)

sagamix 54

Didn't the Coalition place the F word at the very centre of their message? Given this, isn't it "fair" that they be judged by it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Most probably they did, which would make them as daft as Brown and Balls in some ways on economic issues. No worries, if the Coalition follow the fairness agenda, they will be judged by it, and pretty quickly. It will get them into economic difficulties in no time, it already is. A 50p tax is for spite not for growth.

Economics has nothing to do with politics, it is as I have said, problem solving to bring economies back to health by the best method possible. It is when politics enters into these decisions that problems begin. Such as the fairness agenda, there is no such thing, no more boom and bust etc.

Just because some top economists chose to change the rules, to get themselves rewarded by various political bodies, does not change the principle that politics is not economics.

@pdavies65 - 37

"no government can slash spending in a response to a sudden and unforeseen recession"

-most private sector firms that survived well did, ours within 3 months
-boom years but no surplus! No planning for the inevitable bust
-labour failed to build a robust stable economy

Face it, Labour stubbornly tried to weather the storm, hoping it would go away, while not hacking off their supporters by cutting their wages, pensions, jobs, and benefits for 2 years! Meanwhile the rest of the public sector had pay, travel, and hiring freezes along with redundancies in early months of the recession…

They continue to sabotage consumer and investment confidence [and recovery] with partisan economic politics [which at best is speculation with a poor track record] proving once again how irresponsible they are... good of the party not the country...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#57 pd65

The argument, or at least my argument, is:

1) From 2001-2007 Labour ran a budget deficit during a global asset boom. This was a mistake.
2) Other countries made much more progress in reducing their net debt than the UK under Labour did. This was a failure of Labour.
3) Even with the benefit of hindsight Labour still insist that they made no economic mistakes (other than banking regulation), and that their levels of spending and taxation were right. Therefore they seem to support running budget deficits during times of both boom and bust

Therefore Labour have learnt almost nothing. Until they do they should not be returned to office.

(of course there are other economic issues than purely the budget deficit)

51. At 2:54pm on 02 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

"42. At 2:35pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
36. At 2:13pm on 02 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

Well, you just sit there and wait for the Government to do something for you. Everything for you.

---------------------------------

No, I run my own business. I am fully aware that there are plenty of hard working people out there trying to make do the best they can despite loss of income. I see plenty of hard work and determination but struggle to find anyone with an increase in real income.

Perhaps a step outside into the real world would help you?"


"You run one business, I work for a firm that advises several hundred businesses."

So, advising others is your thing. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

"Quite a few have seen increases in their income."

A few companies may be doing well as is always the case. Doesn't alter the fact that most are not.

"Of my clients who believe they can do better, some do, some don't."

I hope your clients aren't paying for pearls of wisdom like that...

My clients who believe they can't do better are nearly always correct.

Maybe they are realistic? A positive attitude may be important, but you also need to view the evidence around you objectively.

That's the real world.

---------------------------------------------

50. At 2:54pm on 02 Feb 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

40#

You plainly dont do irony yourself, do you 3B?

-----------------------------

Oh, silly me! You were just pretending.

How clever you are Fubar!

63. At 3:09pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:

39. At 2:20pm on 02 Feb 2011, 3B wrote:
31. At 1:58pm on 02 Feb 2011, sweetAnybody wrote:

As to it being time to stop blaming labour - thats rich coming from someone who supports a party who were still blaming thatcher over 10 years after she'd left power.

---------------------

I blame Thatcher for New Labour...

---------------------

I blame old labour for Thatcher ;-)

----------------------

Precisely!

Oh come on, let’s stop dancing around this issue of Labour’s culpability for the crisis and let’s talk turkey. In fact, how about we forget the food angle – it adds little – and we imagine instead the fiscal deficit as a trifle? Right, so then the jelly is a sly mix of East West trade imbalance and cheap money, the blancmange is the complacency of Central Bankers and Regulators, those dollops of double cream are actually the Thatcher Reagan reforms of the 1980s (in cream form), and the sundry scattered hundreds & thousands are all the little bankers who misbehaved (!) in the chase for bonus. And what’s this on top? Is it a cherry or is it Gordon Brown? Well it’s both. Giant figure of British politics though he was, Gordon is - in this context - just the cherry atop our trifle. You okay with that, Robin? Andy? You’re able to think of Gordon Brown as a cherry in your trifle? Good. And now the key question: if you remove the cherry (from a trifle), what are you left with? Is it still a trifle? Course it is.

It kinda makes me worried that there seems to be no plan B. How about tightening up on all the tax that's never paid by big business and stopping huge amounts of cash vanishing into offshore accounts, that might be useful. Let's face it, it was pure unadulterated greed by the banks and certain people employed by them that caused this crisis and unless something is done to rein them in then it will happen again in the future.Anyway the less regulation of the banks the happier they will be and at the moment I would imagine there are quite a few bonussed up happy bankers about. As for the rest of us, well times are tough. Also it's interesting that the police are now unearthing obscure laws when dealing with people who demonstrate against tax avoidance, mind you when the plod cull starts maybe they wont be too happy about it happening either.
I see Cambo's still banging on about "we're all in it together" well to paraphrase George Orwell some of us are in it more than others, funny that. It's also interesting that Citizens Advice debt advisers are being phased out, which seems strange as I thought that Citizens Advice were going to made more use of in our new all singing all dancing Big Society.

65 @ 65

"jrp was specifically arguing that Labour lost the last election because they made a political choice not to slash spending in response to falling tax revenues."

Yes - great pal though he is, that was quite an exotic contribution from the Perry, I have to say. Think his glasses must have been in for repair and thus some trouble hitting the right keys in the right order. Let's hope it was a one-off.

The Tories must surely have a 'Plan B', though I understand why they wouldn't want to advertise this (wanting to appear "confident and decisive", etc).

The big issue for the economy as I see it is the issue of job creation. The private sector - as even a monkey could have predicted - has pulled up its proverbial drawbridge and cut back on employment, rather than "taking up the challenge" as Dave and Gideon had hoped. "Hard times are ahead: so let's cut spending and reduce risks". Makes sense.

The changes to employment law (e.g. 2 year 'grace' period for unfair dismissals), spiraling unemployment and general pummeling of people's wage packets is creating an environment that's ripe for big businesses wanting cheap-as-chips labour... but where are they?? The current situation also does nothing for the highly skilled (and recently unemployed) in search of jobs that actually make use of their expertise and experience.

So where are all the new jobs - be they on minimum wage or consultancy fees - going to come from? China??

If employment doesn't pick up, then we're going to be lumbered with tax losses and a mass of people claiming additional benefits, coupled with an increasing cost of living.

And that particular picture is very bleak indeed. Not just for those who will bear the brunt of hardship, but for the Tory's plans of spinning the blame onto Labour's lap. So they MUST have a Plan B... and I'd put money on this coming into effect post-April, as the next quarter is already shaping up to show further decline in economic growth...

At which point, the message of "keep calm and carry on" may well become one of "**** calm and get angry".

35 Andy

Just driven around the 300 odd acre Pfizer site in Sandwich, with the message "It's not simple to increase your income by 5%. It will probably require determination and hard work." It's fair to say Andy, I got mixed feedback until I was finally run off the site in all these peple in white coats...sorry but not my best day out!

On a purely political point, the Labour politicians who really matter for the next few years are those who are working within the Coalition Government, that is, Field, Hutton, Milburn and one or two others and certainly not the two Eds.

We'll never get away from 'tribal', especially in politics but at least the coalition should, in theory, ameliorate the worst excesses of political tribalism and thus ensure some progessive policies that enjoy a broad consensus, see the light of day.

Interestingly, if successful over time, the coalition political environment may show the nakedly tribal politicians in a rather unflattering light, they may seem to be out-of-touch with the political zeitgeist here in our England.

68 - "So, yes, avoid at all costs the Politics of Envy - like most vices, understandable but unhealthy.

The message needs to be consistent, however, and this is where you fall down."

Ah, yes, the politics of envy, those that cannot resist childish 'posh' and 'toff' insults. Glad you think such things should be avoided.

And my message is a model of consistency, one that you could learn from, and I don't mind if you do.

In case anyone else couldn't understand what on earth the rest of your message was about (and I had to read it three times to work it out) you seem to be saying that people who think it's wrong that benefits recipients used to be able to get up to £2,000 a week in housing benefits ought not to be campaiging to have the amount reduced but ought instead be urging everyone who works to earn £2,000 a week more.

You miss the point. It's not easy to earn £2,000 a week. It shouldn't be easy to get £2,000 a week in benefits.

As with many of your outlandish ideas, it's one that only works if you believe that by saying something you can make it true. "Everyone should earn £2,000 a week" is a line that belongs with "I have abolished boom and bust".

70 Susan

It's fair to say that the 50p Tax hike was not stalling the recovery. Perhaps it's also fair to say that the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% has stalled the recovery. It was always dangerous to increase the level of VAT until the recovery was well under way, if at all. Plan B, easy reduce the level of VAT back down to 17.5% with immediate effect and keep it there.

74
"You run one business, I work for a firm that advises several hundred businesses."

So, advising others is your thing. Somehow that doesn't surprise me."


Thank you. The clarity and accuracy of my comments does shine through doesn't it.




""Of my clients who believe they can do better, some do, some don't."

I hope your clients aren't paying for pearls of wisdom like that...""

No, that's a freebie for the likes of you. You only get the good stuff if you pay. I'd have thought a businessman such as you would have realised that.

70. At 3:38pm on 02 Feb 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:

"Economics has nothing to do with politics, it is as I have said, problem solving to bring economies back to health by the best method possible."

----------

^ Oh, come on Susan! That's like saying "war has nothing do with politics...it is problem solving to bring countries back to democracy by the best method possible". Well maybe. Sort of.

Economics as a profession or discipline has little to do with politics, granted. But economic decision-making at national level has EVERYTHING to do with politics. I mean, are you saying that economic decisions made by government aren't - in some instances - motivated by the impact of policies on voters or party donors? Hogwash.

nemo@71 wrote:
@pdavies65 - 37

"no government can slash spending in a response to a sudden and unforeseen recession"

-most private sector firms that survived well did, ours within 3 months

>>

That's a false parallel: a private sector firm can cut expenditure to balance its books (eg by immediately sacking some of its workforce) and the negative effects are external. A government is responsible for the entire economy and reducing public spending means giving back to us, the taxpayers, less of the money they took from us in the first place. That's why spending cuts take money out of the economy. Different kettle of fish completely, isn't it?

Politicians working together - check.

The widly dysfunctional MoD being sorted out - check.

The education system here in England being remodelled - check.

The health system here in England being reformed - check.

Co-ops, Credit Unions, Building Societies and Partnerships (ala John Lewis) being promoted through new legislation - check. BTW, the lack of political will to do this really did indicate that the Labour Government had completely lost the plot.

The tri-partitite system being recast with more power going back to the BoE - check.

However, there is always more in the pipeline, for example:

Recasting the horrendously complicated tax system - maybe to a simple flat-rate proportional system for personal income, which would include scrapping the fabrication of so-called National Insurance (which just encourages dishonest Government).

Giving England its political freedom i.e. its own Parliament.

Promoting SME's in England by simply removing the barriers.

Nevertheless, given the rotten hand that they were dealt by the outgoing Government, namely, a kind of fiscal scorched earth policy, it seems to me that the Coalition is doing reasonably well ... so far.

PS: news just in... "The prime minister has chosen a senior executive at BBC News [Craig Oliver] to replace Andy Coulson as Director of Government Communications."

So that's one less 'loony leftie' at the Beeb! Oh wait... err.

Here Jobs (44), I think I have a way to place us somewhere between the two prop points on the deficit, between “Ed Balls is God” and outright, reprehensible clowniness.

The crisis-level deficit is due to the global financial crash, the numbers tell us this – neither the deficit (2.8% of GDP) nor the debt (43%) were an enormous worry prior to that (and both parties agreed).

But there’s more to it than this. The crisis here is due to, yes, the global financial crash, but also the fact that our economy was more exposed than most to its impact.

One needs both of these factors to explain where we are today. No crash, no problem. Immune to the crash, no problem.

Labour culpability?

For the crash itself, very little.

For the higher-than-the-average susceptibility (to the crash effects) of the UK economy, a fair degree. Blame shared with the previous Conservative administration (79/97) under which so many of the seeds were sown for the type of economy we have (reliant on property and financial services, on credit and consumer spending), and with the previous Labour administration (74/79) who opened the door for Thatcher, and with Heath (70/74) who ushered in Wilson, and of course with Wilson himself, who ushered in Heath. Etc.

So, zero(ish) blame for the crash and, say, a quarter of the blame for the impact thereof on us. If we say 50/50 for the split of the two main factors (seems not unreasonable), this gives us ... multiplying through ... New Labour 12.5% to blame for the fiscal crisis. Can round that down if we wish but we don’t have to.

"81. At 4:09pm on 02 Feb 2011, mrnaughty2 wrote:
35 Andy

Just driven around the 300 odd acre Pfizer site in Sandwich, with the message "It's not simple to increase your income by 5%. It will probably require determination and hard work." It's fair to say Andy, I got mixed feedback until I was finally run off the site in all these peple in white coats...sorry but not my best day out!"

Is that what passes for humour with you? Using the job losses as a poor background for a rather contrived and very weak joke?

JH66

But you presumably concede that the Tories also ran a budget deficit for all but three of their eighteen years in power. Which doesn't exonerate Labour (as I've alread said) but does expose the "keep Labour out, for the sake of the economy" argument as partisan nonsense.

#77 I think prune stone more like

71. At 3:39pm on 02 Feb 2011, nemo wrote:

@pdavies65 - 37

"no government can slash spending in a response to a sudden and unforeseen recession"

-most private sector firms that survived well did, ours within 3 months
-boom years but no surplus! No planning for the inevitable bust
-labour failed to build a robust stable economy

Face it, Labour stubbornly tried to weather the storm, hoping it would go away, while not hacking off their supporters by cutting their wages, pensions, jobs, and benefits for 2 years! Meanwhile the rest of the public sector had pay, travel, and hiring freezes along with redundancies in early months of the recession…

=========================

I like your comment because it very much is precisely what private companies of all types do, they expect a recession and plan accordingly as every decently run company did. It is also wrong to assume in the rational company way that an economy should be run along the same principle - start cutting as income declines.

You have to consider this is a chicken and egg question?
If you expect a downturn in trade then you reduce stocks, cut expenditure and all those things which affect your suppliers.
Of course, your customers are also thinking these same things - so they cut their spend with you.
So did you plan to cut based on an expectation of reduction in orders - thus self fulfilling the prophesy you made or was it in response to a real decline in business.
I'll share a comment which very big FMCG customer made when we reviewed business - they did the cuts etc. however on an item level average month by month they saw no change in consumption by the public over the whole recession. The stock levels and orders in the system varied massively as their stockists and supply chains reduced stocks, corrected imbalances yet at the core - nothing actually changed. Another customer cut workers and then proceeded to run the entire recession on overtime because they expected a downturn in business that never actually arrived eventually they gave up and rehired (OTs expensive). So perception matters.

At that time it was the only prudent individual decision companies could make, to cut - however it does not neccesarily follow that it did not cause a deeper recession than might otherwise have been warranted in the "real" economy.

For a government immediate cutting could have compounded this effect.
Broadly if you accept the premise that all private sector employed felt gloomy and cut expenditure (just in case worst happens) then the recession reflected this - also accept that public sector employees were not concerned for their futures and so kept on spending (as they felt safe) - therefore if the immediate response of government to financial downturn was to hack into the public sector everyone would have felt worse - and the resulting recession would have been even worse (think Ireland which is in a dreadful state).

This builds the background to the deficit cuts policies - Plan A is that as the private sector recovers confidence the growth generated will more than offset the "recession" in the public sector who will now fear for their jobs etc just as the private sector has done.

It is certainly a close call on whether this or other timings will work out right - unfortunately for everyone (or fortunately perhaps) until it has already happened no one will really know the answer. Though it won't stop everyone guessing.

#78 and for 13 years GB did what nothing other than IR35 to bash the working class contractors with. Figures from 1999

70,000 contractors were allegally taking HMRC for £350m in TAX/NI

One Investament bank with 751 Directors votes £4billion out as divs thus
avoiding £1billion in TAX/NI

so the super hero el Gordo with the brains of the universe went after which group.


I'll give you glue it was not the Bankers

Sagamix 68

No, this is where your message for Labour falls down. For people to improve their lives, they must be given the tools to do so. The most criminal thing that Labour did, was destroy education. They did this to the extent, that a lot of children leaving school do not have the basic skills in key subjects now. The best way out of a poor background is through education, the Labour party have taken away that chance for many of this generation.

It is also important that children are given a good example of the work ethic. Labour allowed families to be caught in the benefits trap instead of encouraging them to work. Immigration was allowed to increase massively, so that they would do the jobs our people would not do. Increasing benefits continually, made it better to be on benefits than to work. Many of the young through these measures never had a job through the Labour years and probably never will.

Good housing is also a problem for improvement in life chances, Labour built less houses than under the Conservatives, though the money was there to do so.

Young women by Labours policies had children they could not afford, often by different fathers, knowing that they would be housed and the state would pay for their children. Often, therefore, there are no stable male figures in the household, which particularly effects the life chances of boys.

Labour destroyed family values by making it more financially rewarding to live apart rather than together. Poor parenting was not discouraged by proper policies by the Labour administration.

These are the issues that blight childrens life chances and aspiration.

83. At 4:25pm on 02 Feb 2011, AndyC555 wrote:

"...you seem to be saying that people who think it's wrong that benefits recipients used to be able to get up to £2,000 a week in housing benefits..."

----------

^ Oh, Andy, Andy, Andy...I'm honestly surprised by this comment. Surely you of all right-wing bloggers know better than to trawl up the "undeserving poor earning thousands in their mansion houses" rubbish? That's no better than saying "all Tories are toffs!" No?

Did they replace your copy of the Financial Times with the Daily Mail this morning, by any chance?

#88 why was the MOD dyfunctional, being ask to to many things by Blair and then being underfunded by Brown. Another policy failure by new labour.

With MOD procurement even in the best of management its a difficult task as they are long projects challenging technology and have to be inservice for 25-40 in a hostile environemnt etc.

But with the Hydra of Bliar/brown pulling it all over the palce its was to much,

For ten years the carriaers where waiting to get the go ahead but it was only done to show PM GB was defence aware after all his problem with the Helcopter programmes he had made a mess of. (excepting MK3 chinnook)

andy @ 83

"In case anyone else couldn't understand what on earth the rest of your message was about (and I had to read it three times to work it out) you seem to be saying that people who think it's wrong that benefits recipients used to be able to get up to £2,000 a week in housing benefits ought not to be campaiging to have the amount reduced but ought instead be urging everyone who works to earn £2,000 a week more."

Yes, sorry Andy, it wasn't very well written. Needed a fourth (!) reading in fact, by the looks of it, since no this isn't what I mean.

What I mean is that the message - your message - of looking to better onself, rather than bring down others to your level, should be a universal one. So for example, on the "benefits trap", I'd expect you to be in the camp (CC) which argues for increasing the rewards of lower-paid work rather than for decreasing benefits. And it's not always obvious that this is where we find you.

The view that the government is hoping for the best and planning for the worst probably sums up the views of the nation who are thinking the same.

As individuals we all have opportunities for reducing our unnecessary expenditure or for increasing our income.The same is true of government. The only difference is a difference of scale with individuals looking after their own financial arrangement and the government looking after the nation's overall expenditure.

There have been many TV programmes devoted to helping families reduce their expenditure by choosing cheaper brands at the supermarket, switching fuel suppliers,switching to metered water, turning off electrical appliances, walking instead of using the car where possible etc. Similarly, the government will look at cheaper more economic ways of working which in some cases may incur redundancies.Providing the same services at a lower cost should have been good practice in government but as each day goes by we learn more that this clearly was not the case.

By reducing our expenditure and finding ways to increase our income even in little ways like growing your own food, selling unwanted items on Ebay, giving up or reducing smoking, taking a part-time job etc we can live roughly the same lifestyle without too much impact from the austere financial climate so long as we can maintain a liftstyle of thrift by eliminating unnecessary waste.

We all hope the things will get better but by being prepared for the worst and having plans to deal with it, things will be a lot better than if we had no plans at all.Just as the government may need Plans B,C,D etc, we probably will too.