Postpone some of the cuts?

StevieJ

That is what the well regarded NIESR thinks, what was that from the back, no money left,no alternative They also suggest raising the retirement age to 68 by 2020, that will go down well.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) is recommending that the Government delay its wide-ranging spending cuts.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Report-Warns-Of-Weak-Economic-skynews-671238247.html?x=0

Official press release.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/010211_92958.pdf

PasturesNew

They should set the retirement age at: "60 years of age with 30 years of working completed -or- 70". So between 60 and 70 you retire once you've done 30 years of full-time work.

shortchanged_2

That report is a tad over optimistic as well as there is unlikely to be any growth this year.

Anyway with regards to the cuts the tories are in too deep now to back down. It's all about sticking with saying they were right whether they were or not.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Agreed. The cuts have little to do with ecomonics and a lot to do with ideology. They won't back down under any circumstances as it would mean the end of Oik's career and the likely end of the Tories.

lemonjelly

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Agreed. The cuts have little to do with ecomonics and a lot to do with ideology. They won't back down under any circumstances as it would mean the end of Oik's career and the likely end of the Tories.

I agree with your first sentence.:cool:

I disagree with the second.:)

Spiv_2

What The IMF said a couple of days ago.

When I raised the issue with John Lipsky, the number two at the International Monetary Fund, he said he didn't want to jump to any conclusions about the GDP data. The Fund has endorsed the coalition's budget strategy before and still does. But the careful Mr Lipsky did seem to think it would be natural to adjust the fiscal strategy, if growth in 2011 appeared to be a lot weaker than previously thought. These were his exact words:
"The programme for this year and next year was deemed consistent with moderate growth. If those forecasts prove to be too optimistic, I'm sure there will be grounds to think about adjustments." (I asked, does that mean adjustments to fiscal policy?) ......"It seems to me anybody would be willing to re-consider and make adjustments if there was a need and the outlook was substantially different from what was anticipated."
You will be surprised to hear that the Chancellor didn't choose to share any back-up strategy with me when we spoke Friday afternoon. Let alone a Plan B. He said to abandon the government's plans now would be a disaster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._by_a_def.html

ILW

PasturesNew wrote: »

They should set the retirement age at: "60 years of age with 30 years of working completed -or- 70". So between 60 and 70 you retire once you've done 30 years of full-time work.

So you would have to fund around 50 years of non working out of contributions from 30 years of working. Doesn't add up.

Thrugelmir

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

The cuts have little to do with ecomonics and a lot to do with ideology.

Ideology doesn't help to raise money on the international money markets.

The UK has to borrow, at what interest cost?

A £120 million a day is a staggering figure. Which is going to increase in the years to come.

Wheezy_2

Spiv wrote: »

What The IMF said a couple of days ago.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._by_a_def.html

You will be surprised to hear that the Chancellor didn't choose to share any back-up strategy with me when we spoke Friday afternoon. Let alone a Plan B.

Maybe there isn't a plan B? Scary.

shortchanged_2

Wheezy wrote: »

Maybe there isn't a plan B? Scary.

Worringly I think you are right Wheezy.

Thrugelmir

Wheezy wrote: »

Maybe there isn't a plan B? Scary.

When you reach a bend when driving your car. What do you do? Steer accordingly.

If only it was simple to map out how the UK economy is going to be turned round over the next 10 years at the outset.