I'm curious George. What's in your box?

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

Osborne failed to hit his deficit targets in the last parliamentary term.

He has an opportunity to hit the targets in this parliamentary term.

He won't be forgiven twice.

It is time that political targets actually meant something, otherwise they will continue to make promises they don't actually believe in.

The problem with this is that no-one can predict economies but no-one elects a politician who won't make some promises.

So basically, with this thinking, you're guaranteed to continually 'fire' the guys who got it wrong by luck but keep those who got it right by luck.

It's probably more appropriate to evaluate how things have gone in context and if you broadly agree with the way the government have gone about dealing with changing situations and governing your country.

Targets are a fairly poor way to get elected and a fairly poor way to judge, just imo.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...

Targets are a fairly poor way to get elected and a fairly poor way to judge, just imo.

So if I'm a politician I can make any promises I want because there will always be some other contributory global factor to blame if these targets are not met?

I don't buy it. You get fired in business for not meeting targets. You learn to put forward realistic targets.

Osborne still has time to meet the targets. It's in his hands. Tackling the deficit is a matter of political will.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

So if I'm a politician I can make any promises I want because there will always be some other contributory global factor to blame if these targets are not met?

I don't buy it. You get fired in business for not meeting targets. You learn to put forward realistic targets.

Osborne still has time to meet the targets. It's in his hands. Tackling the deficit is a matter of political will.

Why did you quote just one part of my post that seems very controversial when isolated from the context?

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...
that seems very controversial
...

Like this you mean?

But seriously, I can see both sides.

I like the idea of clear targets, and they give a good guide to how a government is able to focus on the things of importance.

However, maybe clear targets are poor targets. Maybe he should have linked our deficit reduction against global or EU growth, for example. That would link in the external factors you mention.

He may well pull the rabbit out of the hat, in which case this is all moot.

Thrugelmir

lawriejones1 wrote: »

I want Osbourne to stop claiming to be tackling our debts and actually do something about generating growth.

Growth of what? Debt is a problem that needs to be addressed.

michaels

Sugar tax - sweet

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't buy it. You get fired in business for not meeting targets. You learn to put forward realistic targets.

Poor performance gets the sack. Not simply missing targets. If the reason behind the "miss" is outside direct control of the management. All companies constantly revise their objectives in order to adjust to a change in the weather.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Poor performance gets the sack. Not simply missing targets. If the reason behind the "miss" is outside direct control of the management. All companies constantly revise their objectives in order to adjust to a change in the weather.

Fair point

I have to confess. I thought George gave an impressive performance. He can't be accused on skimping on quantity!

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Poor performance gets the sack. Not simply missing targets. If the reason behind the "miss" is outside direct control of the management. All companies constantly revise their objectives in order to adjust to a change in the weather.

I don't think the electorate are sympathetic to politicians excuses of outside influences. Failure to deliver on promises and poor performance may as well be the same thing. If the target was a 'stretch' or dependent on something else it should have been made clear.

The idea that there won't be a deficit in 2020, for example, is so unlikely that it's a lie being told in 2016 rather than a promise we need to wait to find out if it's kept.

Mistermeaner

personally im OK with that; devil in detail but well done for leaving pensions alone, personal tax cuts (rise in 0% threshold and rise in 40% threshold) tally well with me.

Intrigued by the lifetime ISA.... something I will probably take up... Possibly the start of the phasing out in time of pensions....??? Just seen some detail on this - government puts in £1 for every £4 saved with £4000//annum limit until age 50.... I'm late 30's so potentially I can save £4,000 (+£1000 for government) for 10+ years = £50,000 in an isa at a cost to me of £40,000. Yes please.

Very smooth move I think on the oil & gas taxes (if I have understood correctly) - something the SNP would need to reverse if they want to wean themselves off westminster money?