Autumn budget statement - The end of the line for Cameron/Osborne?

[Pubey]

I have an "A" level in Economics and a BA(Hons)in Politics.Does that count as knowing anything about Economics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=626ZAxjH5Gw#t=0m48s

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=626ZAxjH5Gw#t=0m48s

Ha! My M.A. is in TESOL not communications!.:raspberry:

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ha! My M.A. is in TESOL not communications!.:raspberry:

But aren't all your 'qualifications' from no mark polys?

 

[Cricko]

Can we keep off the personal slagging off please chaps and keep on topic.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But aren't all your 'qualifications' from no mark polys?

No the M.A. was from The Institute of Education,UCL.:raspberry:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The significance of this Autumn budget is that GO has admitted that the Government will miss its own debt target for 2015.While the deficit target has been reduced,the books will not be balanced by 2015,as promised.
It's also been announced that the economy will have negative growth in Q4.That will very likely lead to the Government losing its Triple A credit rating in the early months of next year(as France and the US have already done).
The economic consequences of that probably won't be too great(ie the Government should still be able to borrow money cheaply).The political consequences could be disastrous.Yet another nail in the Government's coffin for economic competence, in a year when growth is certain to be low and yet more cuts will come into force.

Ah right, you are suggesting that Osborne has done a good job in keeping a triple A rating this long whereas our contemporaries have noticeably failed to do so.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort as my quote above shows.

Incidentally,I note according to today's Sunday Times, that GO was only able to claim that borrowing will fall in the current tax year "by including the 4G proceeds in his sums,even though the auction will not be completed until February".

Not only that but: "without the 3.5 billion pounds ,public sector net borrowing would,in fact,rise by 2 billion pounds this year." No wonder Ed Balls coudn't believe what he was hearing.

Added to that, "there are reasons to fear that the 4G proceeds could be significantly lower than the treasury estimate".
Whereas GO estimated the 4G proceeds at 3.5 billion. "Analysts,however,have warned that the proceeds could amount to only 2 billion pounds."

Dodgy,creative accountancy indeed.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No not really. Surely as an English teacher you would know that 'Your' would convey this, rather than the hyphenated 'You're'. So I can't see that you would possibly make such a rudimentary mistake, especially when you are so knowledgeable about all matters, and your skills are sought from Ramallah to Rangoon.

Do you really think I don't know the difference between the second person singular/plural possessive adjective "your" and the copula?

As a number cruncher, I'm astonished that you don't have any valid economic arguments to contribute to this thread and instead restrict yourself instead to just petty grammatical nitpicking.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think he's an English teacher in the sense that his nationality is English.

In lingustics, there's a useful distinction between Non-native speakers of English(NNS)and Native-speakers(NS).So in a sense, you're partly right,I'm a native speaker Teacher of English.
Interestingly,there's a wealth of research literature on the problems faced by NNS Teachers of English.See Peter Medgyes The schizophrenic teacher for a good overview of this.


http://teachesl.pbworks.com/f/The+schizophrenic+teacher(2).pdf

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's official.Compassionate Conservatism is now dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/...nt-compassionate-conservatism-officially-dead

 

[markw]

It's official.Compassionate Conservatism is now dead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/09/autumn-statement-compassionate-conservatism-of

that link is busted...

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

that link is busted...

Just fixed it.:smile:

 

[Neil_F]

It's official.Compassionate Conservatism is now dead.

I like the fact that you consider the comment section of the Guardian to be the official record...

What exactly is the problem with increasing benefits by 1%? If public sector wage increases will average 1% and the private sector will average close to 0% then how can you justify a 3% increase in benefits?

This is basic stuff: the last government engineered a situation whereby people earned more money by staying at home rather than going out to work. That is insane and I don't blame people for doing that at all. Why would you voluntarily take a pay cut? There are some people who suggest this was a delibarate ploy to build a client base of voters who became dependent on the state. Personally I don't think the government was that competent and they just didn't realise what they were doing.

If benefits increase in value relative to employment then you disincentivise working. That is not a healthy position to take for either the economy or the people in question.

You cannot determine policy by intentions; you have to consider the outcomes as well. Here, you want to increase benefits by more than 1% because that is the compassionate thing to do. How that impacts the economic incentives of employment does not seem to enter your mind at any point, instead you would rather believe that wicked posh people are engaging in some kind of Bullingdon revenge act against the poor.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What exactly is the problem with increasing benefits by 1%?

Any fool can see that if the Government is raising benefits by 1% for the next three years(at a time when inflation is between 2/3 %)then benefits are being cut in real terms.This hasn't happened since the early 80's under Thatcher.The civilised norm is to raise benefits roughly in line with inflation.
As is being done for pensioners, who rightly get a 2.5% increase,which is in line with inflation(but that particular demographic mostly vote Tory of course).
How about picking up on the creative accountancy issues in the autumn statement that I mentioned in post 46 ?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Any fool can see that if the Government is raising benefits by 1% for the next three years(at a time when inflation is between 2/3 %)then benefits are being cut in real terms.This hasn't happened since the early 80's under Thatcher.The civilised norm is to raise benefits roughly in line with inflation.
As is being done for pensioners, who rightly get a 2.5% increase,which is in line with inflation(but that particular demographic mostly vote Tory of course).
How about picking up on the creative accountancy issues in the autumn statement that I mentioned in post 46 ?

If inflation is 0.67% and the Government is raising benefits by 1% that's an increase in real terms.

The bigger issue is where the assumption that the starting position is the correct one came from.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

If inflation is 0.67% and the Government is raising benefits by 1% that's an increase in real terms.

Are you forecasting that inflation will remain at 0.67(or less than 1%)over the next three years?:unsure:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Are you forecasting that inflation will remain at 0.67(or less than 1%)over the next three years?:unsure:

No, I was quoting some fool who said inflation would be 2/3%.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No, I was quoting some fool who said inflation would be 2/3%.

Inflation in the UK is currently 2.6%(in October).
Next figures for Q4 are released on the 18th December.
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-inflation-rate

 

[Neil_F]

Any fool can see that if the Government is raising benefits by 1% for the next three years(at a time when inflation is between 2/3 %)then benefits are being cut in real terms.

I don't disagree that it is a cut in real terms, just as a 0% increase in the private sector is an even bigger real terms cut. That was not my point at all though.

This hasn't happened since the early 80's under Thatcher.The civilised norm is to raise benefits roughly in line with inflation.

I'll take your word for it on when it last happened, but again you are considering only intention. You think it is "civilised" to increase benefits by inflation but you ignore the fact that, relative to those in employment, the value of benefits increases. There are therefore fewer economic incentives to find a job and therefore you force people to stay on benefits. Why do you think it is fair to pay people to remain poor?

As is being done for pensioners, who rightly get a 2.5% increase,which is in line with inflation(but that particular demographic mostly vote Tory of course).

I'm not sure on the breakdown, though most probably do vote Tory. The more important point is pensioners do vote. Cameron also boxed himself in with a pledge to protect pensioners. Personally I think that is wrong.

How about picking up on the creative accountancy issues in the autumn statement that I mentioned in post 46 ?

Very happy to, and I look forward to you responding to the actual point I made as well. I agree with the analysis you posted earlier about 4G. Borrowing is falling because of a projected income event that hasn't yet happened. It is certainly one of many sleights of hand that happen in government accounting and projected borrowing would have risen without it. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't care much about projected figures. They are never right (nor can they ever be) so what is the point in arguing about them?

Would I have done it? No. Do I care all that much? No.

 

[Jam_Man]

Im just happy Yorkshire is on this thread.

Moderating a thread where I havent a ****ing clue what people are saying would be a pain in the backside.:smile:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why do you think it is fair to pay people to remain poor?

The welfare state wasn't founded "to pay people to remain poor" as you put it.It was founded to provide a safety net that would hopefully help people to escape poverty or at least alleviate their conditions.
GO's real term cuts in benefits,while a clever political ploy,will cause hardship for hundreds of thousands,if not millions.