Prime Minister warns of 'Years of pain ahead'

wymondham

kabayiri wrote: »

So far the pain has been completely uneven.

Ask anyone who worked in private sectors hit, who have had to take pay cuts. I know mine has been down for several years now.

Ask savers who receive minimal interest now.

It's more a case of spreading the pain out to other areas now.

I know, I'm all of the above!

Degenerate

JP45 wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of Cameron's claim that things are worse than expected, given the recent improvement in the budget deficit figures.

It's possible that he's basing it on a more gloomy set of growth forecasts. I seem to recall reading an article in the past couple of days which suggested that the new Office for Budget Responsibility is likely to adopt a lower set of growth forecasts for next year and beyond, more in line with those of indepedent forecasters.

If that is the case then I suppose it would provide some justification for Cameron's claim that the situation is worse than expected.

lostinrates wrote: »

Dave said today:

But what we didn't know for sure before is how much the interest on our debt is likely to rise in the years to come. We didn't know this because the last government refused to publish the information. Now we've got the figure, I can see why they tried to keep it secret. So what's the figure?

1. There is nothing new here. The information underlying these forecasts has always been in the public domain, for people to analyse and make their own forecasts till their heart's content. If they were economically competent, the Tories would already have their own figures and not claim not to have known. Was their entire election theme of the national debt based on guesswork?

2. To claim things are "worse than expected" based on a set of forecasts is utterly disingenuous. Only when real figures come out for comparison with previous forecasts can you justly making such claims. It's especially deceptive when you're in power and your own slash-and-burn policies may turn those forecasts into self-fulfilling prophesies.

Sapphire

thescouselander wrote: »

I have not adjusted my comments. Originally I was replying to:




So I did ask anyone - I asked my OH whose experience did not match the original supposition.



Furthermore my comments weren't just based on the experience of my OH. I cant think of anyone who I know working in the private sector who has been given a pay rise they are unhappy with. No one I know has been made redundant with the exception of one person who was working for the council (therefore public sector).

So no, based on the anecdotal evidence I have seen first hand I don't believe some of the nonsense posted on here re conditions in the private sector. My original point still stands, things are not universally bad across the private sector.

Rubbish! In my company there have been major redundancies twice during the past two years, and no pay rises since the banks went bust. It's unlikely that the company will survive.

I personally know of several other businesses where the same thing has happened. Things are very bad in many areas of the private sector.

Dream on.

jules888

My husband who is a civil engineer is on 3 pounds an hour less this year than he was in the first part of last year!So hes had a pay cut!

A._Badger

Sapphire wrote: »

Rubbish! In my company there have been major redundancies twice during the past two years, and no pay rises since the banks went bust. It's unlikely that the company will survive.

I personally know of several other businesses where the same thing has happened. Things are very bad in many areas of the private sector.

Dream on.

I avoid offering anecdotal evidence, but I've been shocked by how many people have quietly confided in me that they are in deep trouble, recently. Just today, someone I have always considered one of the brighter small businessmen I know told me that he and his wife have taken the decision to give it just six more months. If it hasn't improved by then they are selling out or closing down.

One small engineering company I know (yes, there are still a few left!) is hanging on by its fingernails.

And yet still, the Guardian is kept afloat by adverts for non-jobs - particularly in the local gummint sector.

Mr_Mumble

Degenerate wrote: »

£156B Actual deficit was lower than £163.4B predicted deficit

Adding a lower than expected deficit to our cumulative debt produces a lower than expected cumulative debt.

Therefore both measures came out lower than expected.

By saying things are "worse than expected" Cameron is lying, unless we are to believe that he actually had a way more optimistic view than Brown and Darling and expected a deficit lower than even the £156B figure.

These are past deficits. Future deficits are likely to be larger than estimated because of the fanciful 3%+ growth projections and higher inflation, those are the two key points of the original Sunday Times story.

You've set up a straw man argument by castigating Cameron for something he has not said. Cameron kept his 'worse than expected' comments to the increase in debt costs, he didn't talk about worse deficits in his prepared remarks.

Degenerate

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

These are past deficits. Future deficits are likely to be larger than estimated because of the fanciful 3%+ growth projections and higher inflation, those are the two key points of the original Sunday Times story.

You've set up a straw man argument by castigating Cameron for something he has not said. Cameron kept his 'worse than expected' comments to the increase in debt costs, he didn't talk about worse deficits in his prepared remarks.

I refer you to my comment above - The future interest burden was not some deadly secret, it's a forecast based on information that was publicly available, and subject to the usual caveats about any forecast.

Furthermore, having read the speech in full, I disagree that his "worse" comment was limited to that aspect:

Why we need to do this. Why the overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought. And why its potential consequences are therefore more critical than we feared.

The "overall scale of the problem" can only mean the size of the deficit and cumulative debt. He's shown himself a blatant liar within a month of taking office.

A._Badger

Degenerate wrote: »

He's shown himself a blatant liar within a month of taking office.

In which case he is following past precedent, isn't he?

Degenerate

A._Badger wrote: »

In which case he is following past precedent, isn't he?

No, I'd say he's blazing a trail with his "new politics" - it usually takes several years for a government to start pumping out such easily refutable fibs so brazenly.

A._Badger

Degenerate wrote: »

No, I'd say he's blazing a trail with his "new politics" - it usually takes several years for a government to start pumping out such easily refutable fibs so brazenly.

I'm sorry but that's just not triue. Cameron is a nasty piece of work, I grant you, but only the wilfully self-deluded would try to pretend that 'New' Labour wasn't built on spin and deceit, from the outset.

This tribal party politics just gets so wearisome.