The chancellor will announce later that he will attempt to bind future governments to maintaining a budget surplus when the economy is growing.
In his annual Mansion House speech on Wednesday, George Osborne will outline his plan to ensure governments run a surplus in "normal" times.
So we have a situation where a government who could barely muster a majority, dictating to future governments who may well win by a landslide.
When I read the news story earlier it occurred to me that it is a law that is impossible not to break. The Tories will break it if they carry on the way they are. So I have to ask myself what their obsession is with making laws with no point. Just as a side note, if the banks go under again this piece of crap legislation will prevent any further bail outs. Brilliant Osballs! What a genius.
What is this "it" you keep alluding to that you say others aren't getting?
Why pass a law to force yourself to so something you already intend to do? That was my first reaction to the news that the chancellor plans to legislate to oblige him to run a budget surplus in "normal times" - in other words to raise more in tax than he spends when the economy's not in recession.
So, is this announcement pure politics? After all, George Osborne knows that the first rule of political strategy is to "define your opponent before they can define themselves".
By announcing this now but delaying a vote on it until the Autumn he is ensuring that the argument about spending will dominate the Labour leadership campaign and that the new Labour leader will have to decide whether to vote for or against balancing the books.
Why pass a law to force yourself to so something you already intend to do? That was my first reaction to the news that the chancellor plans to legislate to oblige him to run a budget surplus in "normal times" - in other words to raise more in tax than he spends when the economy's not in recession.
So, is this announcement pure politics?
From a law perspective it's simply cutting up the credit card - so the next guy in has to apply for a new one. .
Big win in the last election was on "how can you trust Labour when they did that to the economy five years ago?"
If the new Labour leader agrees "no more credit card" then In five years time the message will be "How can you trust Andy when he clearly lied to you in the last election when he knew Labour were in the wrong and admitted it as soon as the election was over, what's he hiding this time?"
And of course If the new Labour says "I want my credit card" then it's another Tory win on Labour will blow the budget again.
It is a nonsense and at best a waste of future government's parliamentary time.
If you don't want to do something, you're the government - don't do it. Why any government feels they need to pass a law to mandate themselves doing something seems incredibly insecure.
No parliament can bind another, that's true. But equally should every parliament have to waste time undoing whatever it is the last government, for whatever reason, forbade it from doing? It seems like a waste of time.
I never said he did or didn't but I'm not sure that Keynes proposed this law as a blunt instrument... If he did by all means showy me....
Well personally I would suggest that the Keynesian theory (which Osborne is trying to implement into Law) is somewhat more coherent than that proposed by a professor of Children's literature - but thats just me.
Nope, I also read it along with people pleading with Osborne to exclude infrastructure borrowing so they also think George is going to make a mess of things
Because when the law was repealed (changed) to raise more money, tax reduced from 50% to 45% the Socialists could bleat on about "tax cuts for millionaires"
Very true. The 50p tax rate was nothing more than a shallow political stunt in Labour's war on aspiration.Effective economic policy was to maximise revenue by cutting the rate as the Tories did
It's like telling the average person who has a job and is "running a surplus" they aren't allowed to take out a mortgage and buy a house. If you can afford the interest of course you can afford a mortgage.
What if there is another financial market crash, or a world war breaks out that requires massive sudden spend. Would our governments be hamstrung by legislation by a previous government.
It's like telling the average person who has a job and is "running a surplus" they aren't allowed to take out a mortgage and buy a house. If you can afford the interest of course you can afford a mortgage.
What if there is another financial market crash, or a world war breaks out that requires massive sudden spend. Would our governments be hamstrung by legislation by a previous government.
World war aside (if it happened this law would be the least of our problems) ... In the case of a financial crash - No, because there would be no growth and therefore the rule wouldn't apply. If there was growth, it wouldn't be a crash.
It's like telling the average person who has a job and is "running a surplus" they aren't allowed to take out a mortgage and buy a house. If you can afford the interest of course you can afford a mortgage.
What if there is another financial market crash, or a world war breaks out that requires massive sudden spend. Would our governments be hamstrung by legislation by a previous government.
Or you are paying 10s of billions a year subsidising house rents yet won't borrow to build houses which would reduce that subsidy.
Penny wise, pound foolish is the motto of this government.
This is **** all to do with either getting on with the job they claim they were elected to do...and everything to do with George laying what he hopes will be a bear trap for his political opponents in 2020...when he fully expects to be leading the Tory Party.
Though if any Tory supporter on here can give a concrete and credible explanation how this will do anything for the UK economy and it's lousy productivity between now and then I'm sure we'd be willing to hear it...though not holding our breath meanwhile.
Odd you can't point out the bit in his speech which proves me wrong
Perhaps Nick Robinson can help -
Hardly!
As several posters have already pointed out running a current account surplus doesn't prevent you borrowing (we were still borrowing the last time we ran a surplus) - if you are unable to understand that I'm sorry but I cannot help.
As several posters have already pointed out running a current account surplus doesn't prevent you borrowing (we were still borrowing the last time we ran a surplus) - if you are unable to understand that I'm sorry but I cannot help.
You would think George is saying that - and as you rightly point out it doesn't require a law. However various commentators are saying that he is preventing borrowing during a surplus. There's nothing in Osborne's speech to say otherwise. Show me where he says we will borrow during a surplus - or is it like most pronouncements from Osborne, he has an idea and will fill in the detail later?
You would think George is saying that - and as you rightly point out it doesn't require a law. However various commentators are saying that he is preventing borrowing during a surplus. There's nothing in Osborne's speech to say otherwise. Show me where he says we will borrow during a surplus - or is it like most pronouncements from Osborne, he has an idea and will fill in the detail later?
Again - the speech and the proposal are about running a current account deficit not about spending priorities. Perhaps these 'various commentators' are simply like you and trying to play politics?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the nice Conservatives would spend some time in getting the economy growing rather than playing their endless political games?
Because that's all this stuff is about, making it hard for Labour.
Of course Labour play no political games whatsoever.....but a future government can just change the law.....simple as that....I think people especially on the left don't like it because it backs Labour into a corner....and they will have to say whether they would repeal the law if they came in. A political masterstroke.... and a no lose situation for the tories.....
This is **** all to do with either getting on with the job they claim they were elected to do...and everything to do with George laying what he hopes will be a bear trap for his political opponents in 2020...when he fully expects to be leading the Tory Party.
Though if any Tory supporter on here can give a concrete and credible explanation how this will do anything for the UK economy and it's lousy productivity between now and then I'm sure we'd be willing to hear it...though not holding our breath meanwhile.
It just makes future governments more responsible, if Labour did this in the so called boom years of the early 2000s we would be in a much better situation to deal with the crisis later in their governance.
Other policies to tackle the productivity and the UK economy are separate.....for example if we hadn't had so many foreign workers coming in and undercutting people that were already working here from the mid 2000s onwards, it would have helped a lot with productivity rates per person. Another is how the Northeast of England is producing more cars than the Whole of Italy is another and why the northern powerhouse idea is another such example....
Comments
When I read the news story earlier it occurred to me that it is a law that is impossible not to break. The Tories will break it if they carry on the way they are. So I have to ask myself what their obsession is with making laws with no point. Just as a side note, if the banks go under again this piece of crap legislation will prevent any further bail outs. Brilliant Osballs! What a genius.
It's 21: 39 , Buster.
Take a look out your window. It's night time.
There are lots of disabled people and carers who would strongly disagree.
Why pass a law to force yourself to so something you already intend to do? That was my first reaction to the news that the chancellor plans to legislate to oblige him to run a budget surplus in "normal times" - in other words to raise more in tax than he spends when the economy's not in recession.
So, is this announcement pure politics? After all, George Osborne knows that the first rule of political strategy is to "define your opponent before they can define themselves".
By announcing this now but delaying a vote on it until the Autumn he is ensuring that the argument about spending will dominate the Labour leadership campaign and that the new Labour leader will have to decide whether to vote for or against balancing the books.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33077057
It wasn't at 16.55 when you started this post, it was a very nice afternoon!
Time and tide waits for no man.
Time for a beer sat outside!
So are you off to bed now? ;-)
From a law perspective it's simply cutting up the credit card - so the next guy in has to apply for a new one. .
Big win in the last election was on "how can you trust Labour when they did that to the economy five years ago?"
If the new Labour leader agrees "no more credit card" then In five years time the message will be "How can you trust Andy when he clearly lied to you in the last election when he knew Labour were in the wrong and admitted it as soon as the election was over, what's he hiding this time?"
And of course If the new Labour says "I want my credit card" then it's another Tory win on Labour will blow the budget again.
That blew up in their faces - seems they never learn.
With any luck this bit of gamesmanship will end in tears for Cameron as well.
If you don't want to do something, you're the government - don't do it. Why any government feels they need to pass a law to mandate themselves doing something seems incredibly insecure.
No parliament can bind another, that's true. But equally should every parliament have to waste time undoing whatever it is the last government, for whatever reason, forbade it from doing? It seems like a waste of time.
Well personally I would suggest that the Keynesian theory (which Osborne is trying to implement into Law) is somewhat more coherent than that proposed by a professor of Children's literature - but thats just me.
I suggest you read it again.
Perhaps Nick Robinson can help -
However, don't allow all this politics to distract from an important economic debate about whether it is sensible prudence or ideological madness for a government to balance the books.
After all, many of us borrow to invest ie we have a mortgage to buy our houses and governments can borrow more easily and more cheaply than individuals so why shouldn't they do the same ie borrow, even in good times, to build houses, roads or hospitals?
What's more borrowing can, many economists argue, increase the rate of growth and, therefore, cut deficits and debt faster than aiming to do so by cutting spending.
Then again perhaps not.
So care to explain why Nick and numerous other people have the same question?
What if there is another financial market crash, or a world war breaks out that requires massive sudden spend. Would our governments be hamstrung by legislation by a previous government.
World war aside (if it happened this law would be the least of our problems) ... In the case of a financial crash - No, because there would be no growth and therefore the rule wouldn't apply. If there was growth, it wouldn't be a crash.
Or you are paying 10s of billions a year subsidising house rents yet won't borrow to build houses which would reduce that subsidy.
Penny wise, pound foolish is the motto of this government.
Though if any Tory supporter on here can give a concrete and credible explanation how this will do anything for the UK economy and it's lousy productivity between now and then I'm sure we'd be willing to hear it...though not holding our breath meanwhile.
Hardly!
As several posters have already pointed out running a current account surplus doesn't prevent you borrowing (we were still borrowing the last time we ran a surplus) - if you are unable to understand that I'm sorry but I cannot help.
You would think George is saying that - and as you rightly point out it doesn't require a law. However various commentators are saying that he is preventing borrowing during a surplus. There's nothing in Osborne's speech to say otherwise. Show me where he says we will borrow during a surplus - or is it like most pronouncements from Osborne, he has an idea and will fill in the detail later?
Again - the speech and the proposal are about running a current account deficit not about spending priorities. Perhaps these 'various commentators' are simply like you and trying to play politics?
Of course Labour play no political games whatsoever.....but a future government can just change the law.....simple as that....I think people especially on the left don't like it because it backs Labour into a corner....and they will have to say whether they would repeal the law if they came in. A political masterstroke.... and a no lose situation for the tories.....
It just makes future governments more responsible, if Labour did this in the so called boom years of the early 2000s we would be in a much better situation to deal with the crisis later in their governance.
Other policies to tackle the productivity and the UK economy are separate.....for example if we hadn't had so many foreign workers coming in and undercutting people that were already working here from the mid 2000s onwards, it would have helped a lot with productivity rates per person. Another is how the Northeast of England is producing more cars than the Whole of Italy is another and why the northern powerhouse idea is another such example....