主播大秀

Disheartening to see Cameron in PMQs today. He had no answers, but kept questioning Labour on what they would do.

Labour are obvisouly in a bit of transitional mess right now and cannot be, nor should be, relied on to provide guidance on recovery.

Cameron is in charge and yet he obvisouly has no clue what to do. While he dithers people lose their jobs, the UK loses world influence and we all lose money.

"If the numbers continue to look bleak both sides are going to have to give us more than soundbites."

Indeed they will Nicholas, indeed they will. I sincerely hope that you and your fellow journalists and political editors will hold their feet to the fire until they do just that, instead of the easy ride you've given them all for the last decade.

Labour must be in a prime position given that they have vociferously argued against the cuts on a too much too fast basis. Already Cameron is trying to say this was not a golden chalice he took on, but the electorate have short memories, they will start to recall a GFC well handled by Labour with growth still forecast and it only took 9 months for the tories to ruin that, and they took my job or my friends job, and they stopped my children getting an eductaion and taxed me but not the bankers and they are privatising the NHS and and and. Dangerous times for the coalition this, dangerous times for Cameron, the Tory right will start to bite if not careful and then what of the concessions to the libdems. If this is going to last 2-3 years, as per KC, then he needs to position himself lasting the distance, because no one likes "wait and see", will Clegg be able to stay on for 2-3 years of this? The local elections will be telling for them. As for labour, they can make sound bites happily, they are not the governing party. The electorate will just want to know that something different is on offer, the promise of going back to growth will be enough if all the pain of the cuts offers no improvement or a jobless recovery. Coalition needs a plan, quickly.

The cuts are now in progress. What Cameron, Clegg and Cable need to do is quickly implement a plan for export growth and inward investment. We need to get UK businesses focussing on high growth areas of Asia and South America. That needs UK embassies, Politicians, Union Boss and business leaders getting out there and positively promoting the UK. If businesses stick to traditional markets of Europe and US we will be stuck with slow grow, little job creation or wealth generation.

Can I suggest a solution - one which for ideological reasons the coalition will certainly reject, but which makes sound economic sense?

Most of our inflation comes from overseas, and most of our spending goes overseas - buying oil and power, importing food and consumer goods, etc. The biggest part of that expenditure is oil and power. Oil prices affect every part of the economy, so when oil goes up, our spending power goes down, and our economy suffers.

And yet we sit in the middle of ahalf a dozen seas and oceans, at the end of the jetstream, in a country bursting with rivers and hills. According to most environmental scientists, the UK is almost uniquely positioned to produce renewable energy from hydro and wind power. We are better placed that almost any country (except desert countries which could produce solar power). We could - and should - be investing in renewables.

If we did so, we would solve many problems at once.

- We would generate tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing turbines and hydro-electric plants
- We would improve our balance of trade deficit by selling our turbines overseas
- We would reduce dependency on imported power, which would help to solve the looming stagflation crisis, and would boost our spending power
- We would become a world-leader in renewable technology, leading to greater exports of hardware and knowhow
- We would meet our obligations under Kyoto and Copenhagen
- We would massively cut government spending on imported oil (which remains one of our largest spending committments, and which is growing every day)
- And we would stimulate economic growth, raise revenues, and hugely reduce spending which would help to solve the defecit

Unfortunately, taking this action requires somebody in government to accept that Keynsian economics can work in the right circumstances. But that's unlikely to happen, because the coalition - at least those in cabinet - seem uniquely blind to any solution other than "the market", no matter how sensible and workable that solution might be.

Yes Nick, the chicken or the egg, which comes first? George Osborne clearly feels it's the chicken - but how is he going to get his chicken in the first place if he hasn't got an egg, has dispensed with all semblance of eggs, and has no clue where to find one. Pretty much sums up the problem with our current Chancellor. He's utterly eggless.

How long can Cameron hark on about the Labour deficit? Its getting a bit tired now. He needs a new line pronto. In the early years of the Blair government, they were blaming the Tories for everything and anything and that did resonate up and down the country for a while. But in this instance, things are pretty different, Cameron needs to think again because dark clouds are gathering quickly and he hasn't got the luxury that Tony Blair had in the late nineties of economic growth. When the cuts will truly bite, then, the blame game will shift dramatically towards the coalition and Cameron wont have any place to hide. A plea of 'not me guv' will fall on deaf ears.

5#

It could be one way. Fuel inflation could be dealt with also by providing more strategic reserve storage to last say 90 days instead of the current 15. This would help ride out a lot of the seasonal fluctuations, provide some serious construction jobs, protect not only business but also the populace against yo-yo-ing fuel prices, but also in concert with a renewables and nuclear program be a key part of the national infrastructure going forward.

However... No-ones got the cojones to produce such a strategy. Renewables on their own cannot provide enough energy for the nations requirements. It has its place but it has to be co-ordinated and thought out and use other technologies as well.

As for Keynes... pump priming is all well and good, but when someone has cut off your water supply, you've got nothing left to prime your pump with... unless you make your own water (ie print boatloads of your own money). The principle is fine, so long as the rules are adhered to. Brown didnt.

Hence theres no water left.

Nick wrote "If the numbers continue to look bleak both sides are going to have to give us more than soundbites. "

Nick, we need a National Government to rescue the economy - cut the politics out and do what we need to do - fix the overhang of the credit bubble before it turns us into a third World country!

Ultimately this is all political posturing - both sides of the house appear to be lacking in the required detail to substantiate their policies on the economy. Labour believe that by cutting, too fast and too soon, you will stifle growth and raise unemployment - therefore relying on the assumption that maintaining (or increasing) borrowing will limit the damage, or indeed encourage growth. The tories believe, quite simply, that the levels of borrowing are unsustainable and put the UK at risk of insolvency. Forgive the 'jackanory tell me a basic story' but the reality is that both sides are dealing in unquantifiable economic conjecture - during the boom years Labour borrowed against future growth surges and increased tax returns, which naturally came undone with the crash - they would seek to use the same principle again, that through spending the economy will grow, the returns from which will justify the expenditure. The conjecture where this is concerned centres around figures that cannot be quantified - there is no way of calculating what return you will get from borrowing 拢XXXs at a rate of interest XX% to spend on X, Y and Z. Therefore the significant risk is that you increase the deficit, further jeapordising the treasury's ability to meet its debts, steadily sauntering towards insolvency.

The irony in this is that what cannot be quantified by Labour, cannot be quantified by Tory policy - if they are reckless in their cuts, they could push the economy further into recession undoing any positive steps towards decreasing the deficit and increasing unemployment in the meantime.

Catch 22?

I'm not convinced. The economic AND political battle that needs to be won here is how to demonstrate robust plans to support policy. For the Tories, they need to prove that cuts mean more than simply stripping the nation of investment - that they are cutting waste and excess whilst credibly introducing plans that are innovative, modern, and that save money whilst promoting growth and creating jobs. Labour, similarly, need to demonstrate direct effect of borrowing to invest, but investment in programs that are lean, mean, job creating, and growth promoting - sufficiently so that the sum total addresses the bloated deficit, rather than to feed it.

Perhaps the policies of both sides of the House are not mutually exlusive in their claim to be the right course of action, and it is therefore the way in which you delivery on that policy - but there is an awful lot of substantive planning and development that would be required to vindicate either course.

Russell@5

That would require a grown up energy strategy, it is a disgrace that the UK has so few facilities to manufacture renewable energy equipment.

I am not generally a fan of the Keynesian approach, however where long term strategic gain and energy independence can be achieved it is worth making the investment.


Nick@0
The recovery may well be jobless because of the short time and part time work practices since the start of the recession.

Correction: the government are not cutting the deficit - they are cutting public sector budgets not necessarily expenditure unless it represents transfer payments like housing benefits and even there there are consequences that run counter to reducing the deficit. Single factor thinking because of the effects on the economy are not properly assessed. Ireland have kindly, masochistically subjected themselves to the instructive experiment of applying Micawber moneynomics (running an economy like managing the housekeeping). The results suggest that Mr. Osborne's 'chicken' will starve.

5. At 2:55pm on 26 Jan 2011, Russell Jones wrote:

That's a nice plan in theory. However, you only need to look a the long running saga of the Severn barrage to see that the large infrastructure projects needed to provide this hydro/tidal power creation are going to be problematical not least with the conservationists/NIMBYs. You also need to take into account how little energy would be provided by such renewables and the grand scheme of things.

   _     _
   \`\ /`/
    \ V /               
    /. .\       
   =\ T /=                  
    / ^ \     
 {}/\\ //\
 __\ " " /__           
(____/^\____)

8. Fubar_Saunders
"No-ones got the cojones to produce such a strategy. Renewables on their own cannot provide enough energy for the nations requirements."

The Scottish Government has produced exactly such a strategy.

We already have installed capacity of 1.3 GW of hydro, and an estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind and 7.5 GW of tidal power (25% of the estimated total capacity for the EU) and up to 14 GW of wave power potential (10% of EU capacity). With renewables at 60 GW or more while existing capacity from all Scottish fuel sources is only 10.3 GW, that is more than enough to let you guys have a watt or two.

If you believe in taking it straight on the chin then the only ones to believe are Ken Clarke and Mervyn King.

After hearing Balls' view on inflation which has become his obvious way out after his spending and borrowing spree then the choice is a no brainer.

Those who haven't already braced themselves for hard times are only those who didn't take it all seriously in the first place.

There is no going back to the illusion we lived under that we could become wealthy not by working hard but by borrowing and gambling on rising house prices.

The unravelling of the huge debt run up under Brown and Balls is just starting so we have to trust that the government and the Bank of England can manage a way through without everything falling apart.

There are certainly no credible alternatives from anywhere else.

Perhaps sagamix and his labour apologist chums could summon up some advice from their Swedish buddies.. who have a lot to add to the general picture on economic recovery.

Sweden, where VAT is 25%; the total government tax take has been falling for ten years from 56% to 45% of GDP; where state-owned companies continue to be sold to the private sector; where public sector pensions have been slashed and replaced by private retirement schemes; where school vouchers improved choice and competition in education and where these reforms laid the foundations for real wage growth of 35% in a decade.

In fact.. the slowest periods of economic growth on record in Sweden were the two decades of the seventies nad eighties when Sweden fell from fourth highest GDP per capita in the world to 13th in those 20 years under socialist adminsitrations. Real wages grew by one percent in those 20 years.

And so back to Britain.. where the socialists call for higher taxation, more government spending and a return to the slowest productivity growth for four decades under Brown and Blair. They are under the delusion that this worked in Sweden whn it was the least successful of all their policies.

Economic growth in the UK will return, the private sector will grow, but not until the government steps out of the way, the banking system returns to normal and the private sector is allowed to get on with its job of creating wealth for all of us to enjoy.

It's grim up north London...

The test is time, we have up to four years to see whether gideon has got it right and then we will decide whether we should keep him on.

Of course, history is not on his side as they are pretty well replaying the early Thatcher years, " The pain is worth it", unemployment is a price worth paying. As long as it is not my job that goes of course.

The big society where volunteers can provide the services we used to be stupid enough to pay people for providing. Librarians, home helps, road sweepers, police, teachers.

I am waiting to see when accountants and tax advisors are asked to step down and then volunteer to do their job free of charge.

#8

You're absolutely right Fubar, we are out of money - except for the massive assets held in bank shares, which are worth a lot more now than at the time we bought them. The majority of our "deficit" is actually an asset in banking shares. We could liquidate some of those assets and invest the money in renewables.

I'm afraid I don't agree that renewables will fail to meet our needs. They'll meet our needs if we invest in them. But if we leave it to the market, which can currently make a faster buck by selling oil futures, then we'll never move into renewables. Markets chase money, they don't chase common sense.

But if we invested, this country can produce more than 200% of its consumption, allowing us to sell off the rest. I'm basing this on a report by leading climate scientists, but frustratingly I can't find the report - I really wanted to post the link, because it's interesting reading! But essentially the reports conclusion was that because of our geography and meteorological conditions, Britain and Scandanavia are incredibly well-placed to produce massively more energy than we consume. We just need to build turbines, hydro-electric, and high-altitude kites which capture the jetstream which blows at 250 miles per hour, 24/7/365, right overhead. These three elements - tidal, wind and jetstream - are available in unique quantities in the UK. Just the Servern Bore alone can be made to produce 35% of the UK's energy consumption, if we invest 拢100 billion in hydro. A lot of money, but less than we spend on oil.

I'll try to find the report and post a link.

This was the goose that laid the golden eggs.

                                  ___                         
                              ,-""   `.                       
                            ,'  _   e )`-._                   
                           /  ,' `-._<.===-'                  
                          /  /                                
                         /  ;                                 
             _          /   ;
(`._    _.-"" ""--..__,'    |
<_  `-""                     \ 
 <`-                          :                               
  (__   <__.                  ;                               
    `-.   '-.__.      _.'    /                                
       \      `-.__,-'    _,'                                 
        `._    ,    /__,-'                                    
           ""._\__,'< <____                                   
                | |  `----.`.                                 
                | |        \ `.                               
                ; |___      \-``                              
                \   --<                                       
                 `.`.<                                        
                   `-' 

But Farmer Brown let it gorge itself silly. Now it鈥檚 too ill to lay eggs, but Father Brown鈥檚 ex-farmhand Balls wants to continue overfeeding the goose and hopes that it will lay eggs again regardless.

Fortunately, Farmer Brown was 鈥榬etired鈥� and Farmer Osborne took over the farm. He wants to put the goose on a diet, but the goose is making such a lot of noise. Should he go back to Farmer Browns old ways for a quiet life, or continue on through the noise for the sake of the goose鈥檚 health?

We are governed by the Elite in our society.

Fubar #2 said:

"Indeed they will Nicholas, indeed they will. I sincerely hope that you and your fellow journalists and political editors will hold their feet to the fire until they do just that, instead of the easy ride you've given them all for the last decade."

Bit of a generalisation isn't it Fubar (unlike you, I know!) If not ,then I'm mightily impressed that you have managed to read every single piece of journalism relating to British politics in the last 10 years. What a well read fellow you are!

19. At 4:20pm on 26 Jan 2011, WunnyBabbit wrote:

But Farmer Brown let it gorge itself silly. Now it鈥檚 too ill to lay eggs, but Father Brown鈥檚 ex-farmhand Balls wants to continue overfeeding the goose and hopes that it will lay eggs again regardless.

Fortunately, Farmer Brown was 鈥榬etired鈥� and Farmer Osborne took over the farm. He wants to put the goose on a diet, but the goose is making such a lot of noise. Should he go back to Farmer Browns old ways for a quiet life, or continue on through the noise for the sake of the goose鈥檚 health?


######################

Farmer Osborne took over the farm and took an axe to the goose, that shut the goose up.

#19. At 4:20pm on 26 Jan 2011, WunnyBabbit

If you overfeed geese you can make foie gras which is much more valuable than eggs

If the numbers continue to look bleak both sides are going to have to give us more than soundbites.

And New Labour too Nick. Don't forget them.

Nick - The Clarke quote relating to hard times ahead and return to normality raises a number of interesting points.
It is extremely doubtful if the hard times will affect him or the 'Old Etonian Clowns'sitting round the cabinet table.
He probably thinks normality is ensuring opportunities for international cigarette salesmen to make fortunes are continued. A seat in the House of Lords for Thatcherite assassins, more and more support for EU fanatics,and playing his part in restoring the fortunes of 'socially useless' greedy bankers and their friends up to their necks in tax evasion. The list is endless.

20. At 4:37pm on 26 Jan 2011, fritz-gato wrote:
We are governed by the Elite in our society.

The adjective 'elite' implies that they're good at what they do. Should that not also apply to the noun?

#7.
"When the cuts will truly bite, then, the blame game will shift dramatically towards the coalition"


Mmmmm, I don't think so.

Dear Wunnybabbit,

Thanks for the enlightening view on the British economy. If only Osborne could draw text pictures as well as you. Soon we would be sailing into the seas of stable economic growth!

Really disheartening to see The Coalition Government and its shadow coming up with so little creativity during these times of financial austerity. It seems their only answers are spending cuts and vating, and if you'll pardon the observation - these petty solutions will take many years of austerity which I think you will agree, the public does not deserve.
As for me, I am so very pleased to see the EU, namely Algirdas 艩emeta, coming up with something seriously workable and that will place more of the financial burden on the cilprits that caused the problem.
European Tax Commissioner, Algirdas 艩emeta has raised (and appears to have the support of France and Germany) financial sector activities taxation.
Algirdas 艩emeta outlined the Commission's objectives:
1. to ensure that the financial sector is making a fair and substantial contribution to public finances;
2. to complement financial sector regulation in correcting undesirable behaviour (without undermining EU competitiveness) and
3. to avoid a patchwork of divergent national financial sector taxes which could create new obstacles to the Single Market. I guess he means things the divergent UK tax levy.
After a prelim analysis, the Commission set out an approach for the taxation of the financial sector in its Communication of October 2010.
1. Financial Activities Tax (FAT) - promising option for within in the EU. It could ensure that the financial sector is taxed fairly and generates much-needed revenues. Furthermore, it could ensure greater stability of financial markets by taxing profits and salaries (including bonuses) which could deter excessive risk-taking. A FAT is also being supported by the IMF.
2. The revenue of the FAT would depend on its design and how it interacts with the regulation of the financial sector. Even though revenue estimates should be interpreted cautiously, applied at a rate of 5%, the FAT could yield revenues of EUR 25B for the EU 27.
The likelihood of the burden falling on the consumer would be far less with FAT.
Prelim findings also show that the risk for competitiveness would be lower with an EU FAT than with an EU FTT as banking activities are harder to relocate than (electronic) transactions.
At global level, the Commission will work with the French Presidency of the G-20 in order to promote an agreement with the most relevant international partners. (I wonder if the EU sees the US as relevant.)
Algirdas 艩emeta: "I personally raised the issue with the US treasury in Washington in December, and found a readiness amongst my US counterparts to discuss further once they have seen the results of our forthcoming Impact Assessment." (I think this means never.)
Given the potentially high revenues that financial activities tax could generate, it appears to be an attractive funding solution at global level. If applied globally and at a rate of 0.1%, tax revenues are predicted to be around EUR 60B.
Where are we on the Impact Assessment? Algirdas 艩emeta:
"My Services have launched studies with different external institutions like the Bank for International Settlement, the European Central Bank, Financial Market Regulators and external academics. Internally, work on potential models to evaluate the influence of financial sector taxes on capital costs, growth and risk taking are ongoing."
The assessment will consider and if necessary take action of a financial activities tax at EU level only.
Where is the UK in all of this? Is the UK supportive?
If not, how will the Coalition Government explain such negativity to the taxpayer, the mules carrying the fiscal burden?

No16 RockingRobin,
Are you a recruiting agent for the anti-Tory vote?
He urges the government to 'step out of the way'and leave our economic destiny to the bankers.Are you suffering from a bout of amnesia.Can you not recall a short time ago when the world financial system was near to complete meltdown and a journey to the cash machine by millions of British citizens would have been a wasted journey.Every bank operating in the UK was saved by government intervention and are now living off the backs of taxpayers.
Don't be so ridiculous.

If you overfeed geese you can make foie gras which is much more valuable than eggs

You can only get the foie gras once per goose. You can get eggs for many years without killing the goose.

So, you want to see (16) the banking industry "return to normal", Robin, do you? If by this you mean structure it back to the core utility - supportive of growth and jobs - and free up financial/human capital for real-value-added activities (such as the provision of cutting edge, free-at-point-of-delivery public services), then I'm sitting in your canoe and I'm paddling.

Foie gras is ideologically suspect. Bet Osborne has it served up at Treasury meetings (instead of biscuits) when he and his team are deciding on welfare cuts. Wouldn't surprise me, anyway, if he does that.

You must remember these are the same people that facilitated the bank derivatives when told they would create the financial collapse. This is another initiative by the banks and big business to take control of everything. A government can only create jobs by spending. Demand creates jobs and giving greater tax breaks to business only results in greater profits. Purchases, daily purchases are 75% of the economy. Nothing is being done for those who lost their savings and retirements...the ones who actually make the economy work. Wrong direction, or better, continued wrong direction aimed at securing the wealth of the wealthy and has little to do with economics...unless you do not understand economics. This is all too corrupt to fix and will fall under its own weight.
The worst is yet to come when reality slaps them in the face and the people realize that they have been taken again. Looking forward to the recreation of the French Revolution in many places.

Everyone loves spending money, especially other people's. What they don't like is paying it back.

Basically, we are trying to find a way to either
1. Not pay.
2. Get some other generation to pay it.
3. Make paying it back fun.

Only number 2 had any chance, but we have already done that, and ran out of tricks. The way to stop this from happening again is simple. If you want it today, pay for it today. For example, how do you know that the people really want to go to war, when we are offering government borrowing to pay for it? If taxes went up by the commensurate rate required to fund the conflict, w.e would never have gone

Stupid Britain spent too much of our children's money on stuff we did not need, and now we seem to think that we do not have to pay it back. Government borrowing IS taxation, just taxation that gets applied at a later date. Today is that later date. The loan sharks are outside and they look mean.

I guess the renewables is a good idea, but we spent our money on an energy policy of aggressive war in oil rich nations. Duh.

33. At 5:32pm on 26 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
Foie gras is ideologically suspect. Bet Osborne has it served up at Treasury meetings (instead of biscuits) when he and his team are deciding on welfare cuts. Wouldn't surprise me, anyway, if he does that.

And when the unions are popping in for a chat (nine months, a year?), I bet he serves up beer and goose eggs.

#16 Rockrobin7

Here are the facts of who was in control.

1932 to 1976 Social Democrats who got (according to you) Sweden up to number 4 for GDP per capita at the start of the 70s and then saw it slip. The centre right won the elctions of 1976 and 1979 a period of decline (according to you) The Social Democrats were returned to power at near the start of the decade until 1991 when they lost power again only to regain power later in the 90's until 2006.

So Social Democrats were responsible for the initial high ranking. Both parties were in power in the period of decline and both have been involved in the period of recent improvement. So neither party can be solely blamed for the decline and neither can claim sole praise for any improvement.

If you are going to make assertions check your facts. And more importantly give the whole picture and not the bit that suits you.

I must admit I haven't fully checked your facts and the dates of who was in power I got from Wikipedia, so you may be able to provide some other sources that supports your view.

Sunday Times readers voted Ken Clarke the best post-WWII Chancellor, so we should listen to what he says, apart from the fact that he seems like a normal human being, as opposed to some of his peers.

Nevertheless, business people does not really take any notice of politicians rhetoric and instead watch like a hawk what these politicians actually do i.e. changes in legislation can make or break businesses.

In terms of promoting economic growth, so far, 'what they do' amounts to the proverbial hill of beans.

The forthcoming budget should be revolutionary in terms of getting Government out of the business lives of SME's and then maybe we might enter a new economic phase where 'anything is possible' and the 'cuts' will then fade in significance.

I wonder what grounds Ken Clarke has for thinking that it will only take two or three years to get back to normality. Perhaps you should ask him Nick.

The coalition has a plan for cuts over four years and has so strongly committed itself to the Osbourne doctrine that these are vital and urgent, that it will be difficult for the government to turn back. Even if they do turn back or are replaced as a government, it will take several years to recover the ground lost in the meantime.

Whatever else you may think of Gordon Brown, he did at least have the sense to realise that the world recession should be stopped as quickly as possible. Once unemployment has been allowed to reach high levels, it is extremely difficult to create the confidence necessary for business to invest and lift the economy out of its depressed state, as the undeveloped world knows only too well.

The chicken or the egg is a false analogy in this case i.e. cuts or growth.

What should have happened is that the two path were run in parallel, with equal emphasis, from the outset of the new Coalition Government.

Instead, the Coalition Government have urgently pursued the 'cuts' path, which has already caused some businesses to collapse through lack of consumer confidence and neglected the 'growth' path.

If they do not pick this one up now, things will get much, much worse.

Turbulent_Times is clearly right. Both sides believe you have to cut and both that you have to stimulate growth. The questions are about 'how much', 'how quickly' 'in what way' and so on. So how are all these soundbite debates helping anyone work out what should be done?

"7. At 3:23pm on 26 Jan 2011, deian ap rhisiart wrote:
How long can Cameron hark on about the Labour deficit?"

Dunno. Labour supporters are still droning on about Mrs Thatcher so I guess we have another 20 years or so.

RedandYellowandGreennotBlue @ 1

You say it was disheartening to see Cameron in PMQs today and he had no answers, but kept questioning Labour on what they would do.

I personally never watch that stuff, it just reminds me how juvenile the HoC is.

But to be open-minded about it, maybe Cameron is genuinely looking for some positive suggestions from the other side, which could be incorporated into Government plans.

It is just possible and given the serious situation, good ideas from anywhere should be welcomed.

38. JohnConstable wrote:

Sunday Times readers voted Ken Clarke the best post-WWII Chancellor, so we should listen to what he says, apart from the fact that he seems like a normal human being, as opposed to some of his peers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody should tell Cameron; quite why he gave Osborne the job in the first place is beyond me.
I won鈥檛 be holding my breath though; poor old Dave seems to be in denial about being PM these days & still thinks Labour are in power 鈥� Saints preserve us.

Now, where鈥檚 the BAT phone?

You might want to ask the RMT union what's their plan for growth, today they have turned down a 12% pay rise for drivers over 2 yrs at Arriva Trains Wales and called a strike on the day of the first rugby international of the 6 Nations, Friday 4th, while thinking they have got public support. Is this the start of the industrial action because if this is the case i suspect they will get little support when being offerd 12% over 2 yrs compared to most people on negative rises.

No45 Indy2010
It seems from what you say that Arriva are not prepared to pay the price for the labour that the union members are asking for.I was out shopping today, I made a similar decision on a number of occasions.
What is the problem?

Following PMQs today, I'm fully convinced that Cameron genuinely wants to know what Labour would do to stop themselves digging an ever-deepening economic whole. After all, the recovery has only taken a dip since the Tories got in. Labour are a cunning lot, Mr Cameron,and they just won't tell you. But they will show you when they get back in again!

Hands up anybody that has seen mass starvation starting in this country.Led by the media on certain sections of our over excitable public having gorged ourselves on things we could not afford.Egged on by the GOVERNMENT of the day.The 主播大秀 and other playing up to the then PMs ego.Kidded themselves that the fairytale would continue.Generations in this country have somehow swallowed the idea that nanny state will provide everything we want.This has played right into the polititians hands.Yes we will have to refrain from going into a tantrum because we may have to live in the real world.Instead think about the poor souls you see on you televisions.Most of them a couple of pence cut in their lives means a lingering death.How about getting our narrow minded selfish me out of our systems.Stop listening to our thick never lived in the real world polititians.Give thanks for what we have.

Nick "If the numbers continue to look bleak both sides are going to have to give us more than soundbites".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just political power play Nicky.
I guess the Labour party will have to come out with an alternative plan some time, after which they may actually get some credence as an opposition.

As it is they are stuck because 鈥� as you rightly point out 鈥� their own plans amounted to more of a depth of cuts than the ConDems.

I guess that鈥檚 why Cameron can continue to get away with asking Labour what they would do because an honest answer would be 鈥渏ust the same as you are doing鈥︹�ut our cuts are better than your cuts鈥�

Que Panto Dame 鈥淥h no they aren鈥檛 鈥� oh yes they are鈥� etc etc.

I am astonished that the chancellor can use the old "wrong kind of leaves on the line" excuse and not be taken to task by the media. The proposition is simply preposterous, after all these are three month figures and for the major part of this period there was no snow and no extreme weather. The only thing which is extreme here is the ConDem policy which suits nobody except the city who are the very people who led us to this disaster; albeit with the connivance of a weak Labour administration who for years have been terrified of being branded "anti business".
This is a government of the right and shows every sign of being a repeat of the Thatcher dictatorship in which the majority are sacrificed on the altar of lassaiz faire capitalism. Sure Labout screwed up but not in the way that the current administration would have us believe. If Labour had had the balls (no pun intended) to curb the financial sector we would not be where we are to-day. Equally though we should not forget that democratic socialist advances (minimum wage etc) were achievements of which Labour should be proud. I am not an economist but it seems self evident to me that there is no success to be found in simply shutting the economy down and hoping that,over time, the problem of the deficit will ease. to me no tax revenue equals more borrowing and more deficit.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how increasing unemployment and cutting real wages while commodity speculation drives up living costs is supposed to grow the economy.

Obviously, the answer is that it isn't supposed to grow the economy - not the economy most of us live in, anyway.

It's supposed to grow the economy for casino-speculators and other "investors" who need to be reassured that they can continue to leech money from the real economy.

Since this "investment" is purely parasitic and destroys jobs and opportunities rather than creating them, it should be taxed much more aggressively than it has been.

But since these "investors" are now the de facto dictators of government policy, and ordinary voters have absolutely no say in the economic decisions that can ruin their lives, this is unlikely to happen.

I wonder how many readers noticed that buried in Mervyn "You must be Joe" King's statement yesterday was the admission that the UK is now supposed to compete as an exporter with countries like India and China who literally pay their workers third world rates.

This is what we have to look forward to in the UK.

And of course, any alternative policy is inconceivable - such as the one taken in Iceland, which defaulted on its bank debts and is busy putting the perpetrators of the fiasco in jail.

How long before we follow Ireland and cut/abandon the minimum wage rate? People will not tolerate living on peanuts while the bankers dine out.

52. Colchie
There is no shortage of jacks on here who will tell you its ok and give explanations as to why its ok. Honestly, you wont believe what you read. Apathy, ignorance and selfishness is rife.
And these blogs prove it.

46 IPGABP1

No45 Indy2010
It seems from what you say that Arriva are not prepared to pay the price for the labour that the union members are asking for.I was out shopping today, I made a similar decision on a number of occasions.
What is the problem?

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

No problem.

Arriva need to find an alternative supplier of labour, one which offers the right price and reliability. Sack the strikers and hire people that want to work, a bit like you shopping at the shops you want to.

The market is a wonderful thing!

53 lefty11

52. Colchie
There is no shortage of jacks on here who will tell you its ok and give explanations as to why its ok. Honestly, you wont believe what you read. Apathy, ignorance and selfishness is rife.
And these blogs prove it.

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

Any floor on prices tends to produce excess supply - basic economics. If the good in question is labour then we call the excess supply "unemployment".

46. At 7:23pm on 26 Jan 2011, IPGABP1 wrote:

"No45 Indy2010
It seems from what you say that Arriva are not prepared to pay the price for the labour that the union members are asking for.I was out shopping today, I made a similar decision on a number of occasions.
What is the problem?"

The problem being that there are a lot of businesses in Cardiff that rely on the increased trade they get at International days to bolster their meagre take, a lot suffered in the run up to xmas from the snow and cancelled parties etc. now with rail strike there will be a lot less people in Cardiff that night than usual to the detriment of those businesses.

These drivers who are turning down a 12% pay deal get 拢35k for a 4 day week now, a lot more than the staff in the bars and restaurants and small traders who rely on these bumper business days.

Nick, the economy is completely imbalanced.

The public sector is far too big and the private sector not big enough.

It won't fix itself, we either re-balance it or we don鈥檛!

Not facing up to that reality and back tracking on cuts (just because they will hurt) will resolve nothing, and will just store up bigger problems for the future. And if fixing those problems means that we have to go into 'double dip' then so be it!

Ed Balls is a typical Labour politician. He doesn鈥檛 want to confront his own mistakes and he has no stomach for making unpopular decisions. By advocating a continuance of spending over cuts, all Balls is saying in reality, is that the solution to the problem is to carry on doing the same things that created it in the first place!

"You need to cut the deficit to get growth. No, you need growth to cut the deficit."

I don't see this as a chicken/egg situation, I see it as a bankruptcy or survival question.

Under labour's spending plan, our total accumulated debt by 2015 would have been around 拢2trillion (ie about 150% of GDP) and that's just the official debt not counting all the off-sheet real debt, and our interest payments would have grown to around 拢100billion (more than almost every government department's budget). That's clearly insane and would make our currency worthless, and lead to total economic collapse.

One thing that the 主播大秀 never seems to mention though is that even the tories aren't actually cutting spending; despite what you hear spun on the news, the total amount in cold hard cash that is getting spent on the public sector is still increasing every year, it's just that it's increasing slower than labour had said they'd increase spending.

So when labour say:
"you're cutting the budget for department x by 拢40billion"

what they actually mean is:
"last year department x got 拢50billion, and before the election we promised them 拢100billion next year if we got in again. Now the tories are only giving them 拢60billion instead of the 拢100billion we'd promised, therefore department x has had its budget cut by 拢40billion"

what the bbc/labour machine never mention is that those budgets aren't actually being cut at all; in the example above the department gets an increase of 拢10billion from the previous year, but labour and the 主播大秀 spin it as a cut.

Total spending is still actually increasing every year, even under the tories' "austerity" measures.

But you won't hear that mentioned on the 主播大秀. (John Redwood mentioned it, but obviously the 主播大秀 won't speak to him because he might inadvertantly spill the beans and tell the 主播大秀 audience the truth, that although there might be some individual departmental real budget cuts, the overall amount of spending is still increasing, and pretty much in real-terms too; it's a fact that takes most people by surprise because the propaganda by the 主播大秀 has been so brilliant in its obfuscation of the facts that virtually nobody knows about it, but the official ONS stats show it, as do all other stats that you look at (apart from ones on the 主播大秀 which never show it) - spending is going UP, it's not flat, or down, it's just that that fact is hidden/ignored/pushed-aside by the 主播大秀).

NR: Update 16:02: The Ken Clarke quote in full is "I think we face a difficult two or three years before we're back to normality. We've got to get people to understand that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great! Cuddly Ken in full-on numpty mode. Just what we needed!

33. At 5:32pm on 26 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
Foie gras is ideologically suspect. Bet Osborne has it served up at Treasury meetings (instead of biscuits) when he and his team are deciding on welfare cuts. Wouldn't surprise me, anyway, if he does that.
========================================================================
If that's the best of your ideological arguments or comments, Saga old son, then you are seriously losing your touch. Time for more oysters, I think!

WunnyBabbit 13 19 31

Great posts, you know how to make a point, and give a bit of fun along the way.

Sorry Snuff (60), afraid I don't approve of oysters either. Fine re taste & texture (especially with a splash of tabasco) but they have an unfortunate reactionary aura about them. If you were to tell me that George Osborne is partial to them, I wouldn't be all that surprised.

62. At 10:00am on 27 Jan 2011, sagamix wrote:
Sorry Snuff (60), afraid I don't approve of oysters either. Fine re taste & texture (especially with a splash of tabasco) but they have an unfortunate reactionary aura about them. If you were to tell me that George Osborne is partial to them, I wouldn't be all that surprised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your last visit to the restaurants of the north Kent coast not so happy, then? Sorry to hear that!

No idea of GO's culinary proclivities, myself. Any other posters help Saga?

Focusing on cutting the deficit has blinded the coalition to the fact that if you do make cuts you have to do so in a way that is not counter-productive. The high redundancy strategy is the wrong way to cut the deficit.We should have been reducing expenditure and working on ways to increase growth without incurring greater cost.

The coalition have to learn that being in charge is not the same as being in control.

At present the government does not have a cohesive plan because if they did they would have anticipated possible negative outcomes to their plans and would have put measures in place to deal with them.In that way, they could have a reasoned argument with the opposition not the typical Cameron-Miliband squabble we get in the Prime Minister's Question Time.It's like watching two kids arguing in a playground and they should both know better.

If I was David Cameron I would be reading Have Your Say topics like this to guage the public mood and to get ideas and possible practical solutions to his problems because often we hear a lot more common sense here than we do from politicians.

Then again we do this for free not for a 65 grand salary.Maybe reducing MPs' pay and expenses will bring not only a massive cut in the deficit but also a reality check and a return to the more selfless and practical common sense ways of the past.

Well, with all the gloom and doom, it's nice to hear some good news. Chinese based orange grower Asian Citrus have published 6 month accounts showing a 100% increase in profits over the previous year. 100%! Share price has risen 8% in a day on the news. 8%! It'd take you 3 years to get that return on money stuck in a bank.

The point is that it's possible for people here in the UK to invest in overseas companies, for their pensions and to make a little extra money on the side.

Too many gloom 'n' doom merchants around.

Remember, life's a game and whoever has the most money wins.

19 wunnybabbit

Like the picture. I assume you wrote the comment around it which is fine. The analogy is apt as the Goose that laid the golden eggs is a fairy story that unfortunately the Conservatives and New Labour believe is true.

Nick why the change in heart over sound bytes you let New Labour do it for decades. OR is it just thier is a change of HMG that the problem

Interesting to see what Peter Sissons thinks of the 主播大秀 machine particulary thier line on global warming and QT.

No56 Indy2000,
Do you think the German owners of Arriva will have the best interests of bartenders and waiting staff in the resaurants in Cardiff as one of their main objectives?

58 - bankrupt

Your figures are ridiculous. Try and do even just the easy math.

OBR (Office of Budget Responsibility) projects debt of 拢1284bn by end of parliament (2015) based on Tory tax/spending plans and hence deficit levels. If Labour did not achieve any reduction in deficit then debt would be increased by around 拢300bn to give a max of around 拢1600bn.

Actual Labour policy is to half deficit over 4 years - extrapolated to 5 years you will see maybe 拢60bn difference between the parties - Labour potential debt levels of 拢1350bn. What we dont know is which policy would support growth the most.

Maybe at 5.30am you were a little tired.

No54 AS71
'The market is a wonderful thing'
It must be marvellous, knowing that however 'socially useless', greedy, reckless, irresponsible and incompetent you may be, you can rely on taxpayers to bail you out.
Are you a banker?