Cons Increase Deficit & National Debt Targets Missed

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

AIUI the solution offered by Labour was to borrow a teeny weeny little bit more money.

Because that would make a massive difference.

Apparently.:rotfl:

I am not sure about that, but what I do know is that the plans outlined by Labour at the last election to half the deficit over four years are going to look very prudent when compared to the reality of George's austerity package.

Britain’s Tory-led government, which set out in 2010 to implement tougher austerity plans than its Labour predecessor, would be set to break Labour’s own fiscal constraints had it not repealed the law after taking power.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010, one of the final pieces of legislation passed by Gordon Brown’s government before it lost power, was intended to show that Labour was serious about deficit reduction. It required whoever was in power to cut the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product in half by 2014 and ensure that debt was falling by 2016. Forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility this month showed the government on course to miss both targets.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/osborne-will-miss-labour-u-k-budget-deficit-target.html

StevieJ

Just out of interest how do we measure the performance of this govt if all we say is that it would have been worse under Labour?

StevieJ

grizzly1911 wrote: »

He also struggled on mass EU immigration but no doubt he will clarify it in his speech

Marr was too nice with him today.

I think they may be seeing that as the vote winner at the next election, although I struggle to see how they can get any compromise before the potential deluge from the East early next year.

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

Just out of interest how do we measure the performance of this govt if all we say is that it would have been worse under Labour?

The "geek" response would be FAIL...

...which seems apt. How else can we judge them?

I'm sick of politicians telling us the new Olympics will be £3.2bn, only for it to end up costing 3 times this, or the new air refuelling tanker program would be £1.5bn -> final cost £10.5bn.

You can only conclude they are either :
- incompetent with numbers
- intentionally optimistic, whilst secretly knowing the truth is much worse.

They are paid to manage the economy, which means getting the deficit and debt down. I won't thank them if they fail. Which they will.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Marr was too nice with him today.

Perhaps the BBC is realising at last that if it is to retain an ounce of credibility it has to lose this left-wing bias.

Even if it's journalists do hold such views it is their professional obligation to present news and current affairs in an impartial way, and not to try to crusade on behalf of those who believe that the only way is left.

Jennifer_Jane

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Perhaps the BBC is realising at last that if it is to retain an ounce of credibility it has to lose this left-wing bias.

Even if it's journalists do hold such views it is their professional obligation to present news and current affairs in an impartial way, and not to try to crusade on behalf of those who believe that the only way is left.

Following on from The Andrew Marr show, I also saw it this morning, and was glad that Andrew gave (well, was forced, perhaps) Cameron (or anyone he interviews), time to make his point, without the usual interruption before the point is made.

I respect that in him, and in Andrew Neill. Cannot bear the Paxo style where his ego is more important than what the elected legislators have to say.

I also thought that Cameron was dodging the AAA rating business, but thought it was just because he can't actually guarantee the rating - just work to protect it as much as he can. He's not in control of it.

Milliband on next week.