The Conservatives had a 5 year rolling plan to get rid of the deficit. This is because of what. In what Harold Macmillian is supposed to have said 'Events dear boy events' - that can derail any plan.
All things being equal had Labour won then they would not have been halfway.
Well we did not go into recession. While cuts would have had some effect, since Government actions are included in GDP - we also had a sovereign debt crisis.
Well given all other issues in the last 5 years including a reassessment of the depth and length of the last recession are you surprised?
The Tories made out that cuts would lead to growth in every single quarter from when they got in and they were wrong. They never caveated that by saying "oh it depends if the Eurozone stays in recovery too" and when Labour blamed America for causing the 2008 crash the Tories never accepted it.
It's £1,000 in interest so with present low interest rates the amount of savings could be pretty significant.
It means having £80-100,000 in cash savings so I can't see the limit affecting many people.
The big saving with this measure is that banks won't have to deduct interest on most savings accounts. This is a reduction in admin for the banks and HMRC.
The Tories made out that cuts would lead to growth in every single quarter from when they got in and they were wrong. They never caveated that by saying "oh it depends if the Eurozone stays in recovery too" and when Labour blamed America for causing the 2008 crash the Tories never accepted it.
Well Gordon Brown claimed to have led the world from the abyss - nobody including Labour knew that there was a sovereign debt crisis brewing in Europe so nobody's predictions from 2010 of what they would do included it.
And while America had it's problems the largest Financial Market in the world was under the auspices of one Gordon Brown (i.e. the UK) and the way that was managed and regulated has nothing to do with America or the Federal Bank.
Just as Osbourne would have to admit that cuts would hit GDP - that would not account for the total amount of the post 2010 election drop (although even Labour admitted that a hike in NI would)
Well Gordon Brown claimed to have led the world from the abyss - nobody including Labour knew that there was a sovereign debt crisis brewing in Europe so nobody's predictions from 2010 of what they would do included it.
And while America had it's problems the largest Financial Market in the world was under the auspices of one Gordon Brown (i.e. the UK) and the way that was managed and regulated has nothing to do with America or the Federal Bank.
Just as Osbourne would have to admit that cuts would hit GDP - that would not account for the total amount of the post 2010 election drop (although even Labour admitted that a hike in NI would)
Don't revise things. Brown blamed the US banks for causing the world wide crash and the Tories wouldn't accept it but they expect us to accept that its all becuase of the Eurozone countries going back into recession that we had a flatlined economy from 2010-2013!
On Brown's comments about "saving the world...", he was going to say that they had saved the worlds banking system after the G20 Meeting in London in 2009 but the Tory MP's jeered/laughed as soon as he uttered the first few words and then the speaker got up to interupt and bring things to order. Brown should have repeated and completed the point though.
The collapse of the American banking system was not a choice made by the Labour government. You are 100% bang on the money, nail on the head correct about that.
BUT, running a deficit during a boom WAS a choice made by the Labour government, and it was a choice they made against a backdrop of growing concerns about growing national and personal debt pricking the bubble hence my use of the Costa Concordia analogy with how their risky strategy exposed us to the tsunami of sh!t that headed our way when things went t!ts up.
If austerity has been a choice why is it that it was the only game in town being preached by all parties 5 years ago?
The top 5 people responsible for the financial crisis were (in order)
1. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the US Federal Reserve
2. Mervyn King Governor of the Bank of England
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gordon Brown
5. George W Bush
The top 5 people responsible for the financial crisis were (in order)
1. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the US Federal Reserve
2. Mervyn King Governor of the Bank of England
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gordon Brown
5. George W Bush
The top 5 people responsible for the financial crisis were (in order)
1. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the US Federal Reserve
2. Mervyn King Governor of the Bank of England
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gordon Brown
5. George W Bush
You cannot seriously believe that?
A global financial crash brought on by irresponsible lending of major banks and yet none of the 'top 5' are banks?
Are you sure you're not trying to seem like you've got some idea by adding Gordon Brown and Alan Greenspan and then just randomly listing other people you've heard of?
The top 5 people responsible for the financial crisis were (in order)
1. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the US Federal Reserve
2. Mervyn King Governor of the Bank of England
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gordon Brown
5. George W Bush
Not sure that Mervyn deserves his No2 slot - responsibility for regulating the banks was taken away from him by Gordon. I can see why the rest are there but feel that you should also include Jimmy Carter because he introduced the whole sorry scheme.
A short extract from the Philip Collins piece in The Times this morning:
"Mr Osborne understandably forgot
to mention his failures on
Wednesday so it is only fair that I
make good the omission. Besides, he
is a politician who is best understood
by the story he strings together from
his defeats. Mr Osborne did not say
that, on his original plans, the deficit
should have disappeared by now. He
forgot to admit that he was
reinstating a target he had
abandoned because, now he had
some assets to sell, he could see a
way to hit it.
Mr Osborne did not chant, as he
incited his pantomime audience to
sing along, two important facts about
the meagre recovery: “Productivity
Down! Immigration Up!” It must
have slipped his mind that the deficit
in the balance of payments is the
worst in peace time since 1830.
Cutting the data to suit himself, he
failed to point out that the bottom
40 per cent of the income scale has
taken the same share of the burden
of austerity as the top 60 per cent.
Mr Osborne was the chancellor
who believed in all manner of
impossible things before breakfast.
The sums Mr Osborne did in 2010
added up only if each of the
following three years saw the largest
rise in business investment on record
and the best year for export growth
since the nightmare year of 1974.
Instead, we got a recovery based on
household debt, consumer spending
and government schemes to
stimulate the housing market, a glass
menagerie of a recovery, both
precious and fragile at the same time.
Mr Osborne must be tempted to
head to the Foreign Office after the
election and let Sajid Javid clear up
the mess that is accumulating.
That’s the bitter fruit of victory.
For the moment, through the smoke,
a grinning Mr Osborne is visible in
the mirrors. After declaring Alistair
Darling’s plan for deficit reduction
would turn London into Athens, Mr
Osborne has actually carried it out
by accident. Labour has been right
on the deficit all along and Ed Balls
is right now. The implied cuts to the
police, defence and border control in
Mr Osborne’s revised projections are
too severe. Already, by the end of
2015, they will have been cut by
30 per cent. To try the same again
will mark the outer limit of public
acceptance of austerity and Mr
Osborne, if he is still in situ, will
revert once again to Labour
spending plans. "
A short extract from the Philip Collins piece in The Times this morning:
"Mr Osborne understandably forgot
to mention his failures on
Wednesday so it is only fair that I
make good the omission. Besides, he
is a politician who is best understood
by the story he strings together from
his defeats. Mr Osborne did not say
that, on his original plans, the deficit
should have disappeared by now. He
forgot to admit that he was
reinstating a target he had
abandoned because, now he had
some assets to sell, he could see a
way to hit it.
Mr Osborne did not chant, as he
incited his pantomime audience to
sing along, two important facts about
the meagre recovery: “Productivity
Down! Immigration Up!” It must
have slipped his mind that the deficit
in the balance of payments is the
worst in peace time since 1830.
Cutting the data to suit himself, he
failed to point out that the bottom
40 per cent of the income scale has
taken the same share of the burden
of austerity as the top 60 per cent.
Mr Osborne was the chancellor
who believed in all manner of
impossible things before breakfast.
The sums Mr Osborne did in 2010
added up only if each of the
following three years saw the largest
rise in business investment on record
and the best year for export growth
since the nightmare year of 1974.
Instead, we got a recovery based on
household debt, consumer spending
and government schemes to
stimulate the housing market, a glass
menagerie of a recovery, both
precious and fragile at the same time.
Mr Osborne must be tempted to
head to the Foreign Office after the
election and let Sajid Javid clear up
the mess that is accumulating.
That’s the bitter fruit of victory.
For the moment, through the smoke,
a grinning Mr Osborne is visible in
the mirrors. After declaring Alistair
Darling’s plan for deficit reduction
would turn London into Athens, Mr
Osborne has actually carried it out
by accident. Labour has been right
on the deficit all along and Ed Balls
is right now. The implied cuts to the
police, defence and border control in
Mr Osborne’s revised projections are
too severe. Already, by the end of
2015, they will have been cut by
30 per cent. To try the same again
will mark the outer limit of public
acceptance of austerity and Mr
Osborne, if he is still in situ, will
revert once again to Labour
spending plans. "
Comments
The Tories made out that cuts would lead to growth in every single quarter from when they got in and they were wrong. They never caveated that by saying "oh it depends if the Eurozone stays in recovery too" and when Labour blamed America for causing the 2008 crash the Tories never accepted it.
It means having £80-100,000 in cash savings so I can't see the limit affecting many people.
The big saving with this measure is that banks won't have to deduct interest on most savings accounts. This is a reduction in admin for the banks and HMRC.
Well Gordon Brown claimed to have led the world from the abyss - nobody including Labour knew that there was a sovereign debt crisis brewing in Europe so nobody's predictions from 2010 of what they would do included it.
And while America had it's problems the largest Financial Market in the world was under the auspices of one Gordon Brown (i.e. the UK) and the way that was managed and regulated has nothing to do with America or the Federal Bank.
Just as Osbourne would have to admit that cuts would hit GDP - that would not account for the total amount of the post 2010 election drop (although even Labour admitted that a hike in NI would)
Don't revise things. Brown blamed the US banks for causing the world wide crash and the Tories wouldn't accept it but they expect us to accept that its all becuase of the Eurozone countries going back into recession that we had a flatlined economy from 2010-2013!
On Brown's comments about "saving the world...", he was going to say that they had saved the worlds banking system after the G20 Meeting in London in 2009 but the Tory MP's jeered/laughed as soon as he uttered the first few words and then the speaker got up to interupt and bring things to order. Brown should have repeated and completed the point though.
The top 5 people responsible for the financial crisis were (in order)
1. Alan Greenspan Chairman of the US Federal Reserve
2. Mervyn King Governor of the Bank of England
3. Bill Clinton
4. Gordon Brown
5. George W Bush
Interesting.
Who decided the order?
It was an article in the Guardian a couple of years ago
It listed the top 25 people responsible for the crash
You cannot seriously believe that?
A global financial crash brought on by irresponsible lending of major banks and yet none of the 'top 5' are banks?
Are you sure you're not trying to seem like you've got some idea by adding Gordon Brown and Alan Greenspan and then just randomly listing other people you've heard of?
Not sure that Mervyn deserves his No2 slot - responsibility for regulating the banks was taken away from him by Gordon. I can see why the rest are there but feel that you should also include Jimmy Carter because he introduced the whole sorry scheme.
This will be a help to the vast majority of savers who could only dream of earning more than that in interest.
Well done on that one George.
"Mr Osborne understandably forgot
to mention his failures on
Wednesday so it is only fair that I
make good the omission. Besides, he
is a politician who is best understood
by the story he strings together from
his defeats. Mr Osborne did not say
that, on his original plans, the deficit
should have disappeared by now. He
forgot to admit that he was
reinstating a target he had
abandoned because, now he had
some assets to sell, he could see a
way to hit it.
Mr Osborne did not chant, as he
incited his pantomime audience to
sing along, two important facts about
the meagre recovery: “Productivity
Down! Immigration Up!” It must
have slipped his mind that the deficit
in the balance of payments is the
worst in peace time since 1830.
Cutting the data to suit himself, he
failed to point out that the bottom
40 per cent of the income scale has
taken the same share of the burden
of austerity as the top 60 per cent.
Mr Osborne was the chancellor
who believed in all manner of
impossible things before breakfast.
The sums Mr Osborne did in 2010
added up only if each of the
following three years saw the largest
rise in business investment on record
and the best year for export growth
since the nightmare year of 1974.
Instead, we got a recovery based on
household debt, consumer spending
and government schemes to
stimulate the housing market, a glass
menagerie of a recovery, both
precious and fragile at the same time.
Mr Osborne must be tempted to
head to the Foreign Office after the
election and let Sajid Javid clear up
the mess that is accumulating.
That’s the bitter fruit of victory.
For the moment, through the smoke,
a grinning Mr Osborne is visible in
the mirrors. After declaring Alistair
Darling’s plan for deficit reduction
would turn London into Athens, Mr
Osborne has actually carried it out
by accident. Labour has been right
on the deficit all along and Ed Balls
is right now. The implied cuts to the
police, defence and border control in
Mr Osborne’s revised projections are
too severe. Already, by the end of
2015, they will have been cut by
30 per cent. To try the same again
will mark the outer limit of public
acceptance of austerity and Mr
Osborne, if he is still in situ, will
revert once again to Labour
spending plans. "
is that his comeback song? - its crap!