Who does Gideon Osborne think he is kidding?

First topic message reminder :

This Tory-dominated government claims there is no alternative to austerity. Below, nine leading economists, including a Nobel Prizewinner and one of the Chancellor's own advisers, say that's wrong - and offer a different path:-

Cut VAT back to 17.5%
Christopher Pissarides
Agree financial transaction tax
Jeffrey Sachs
Reduce NI contributions
David Blanchflower
Print money for the public
Sushil Wadhwani
Start a national investment bank
Robert Skidelsky
Lift the cap on immigration
Jonathan Portes
Lend directly to small businesses
George Magnus
Launch a green new deal
Ann Pettifor
Set up a recovery fund
Christopher Allsopp

For the details of each of those suggestions, click on the links on this page:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/10/alternative-coalition

Unlucky Phil, better luck next time


UK Growth in 2012 under the Tories - 0.3%

French Growth in 2012 under the Socialists - 0.0%

UK 2013 predicted - 0.9%

French 2013 predicted - 0.3%


I think it's clear the Tories will always be more successful on the economy than Labour/Socialists

blueturando. Your obsession with the French sounds rather desperate. For a start, Hollande didn't come to power until nearly half way through last year, so much of what went on then is down to Sarkozy, another corrupt right-winger. Maybe you'd like us to draw parallels with the Tory government in Spain, which has just pushed unemployment above 27%?

Preliminary figures suggest that the UK economy grew by 0.3% in the first quarter of 2013. Unless the figures are adjusted down, it means the economy will be back to where it was six months ago and will have grown by just a paltry 0.4% in eighteen months, the slowest recovery from a recession in decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/25/eurozone-crisis-britain-triple-dip-recession

I think it's clear the Tories will always be more successful on the economy than Labour/Socialists

LOL. Now you really have drifted into the realms of fantasy! Would that be because of the near-bankruptcy they created in 1956, or the balance of payments crisis they left in 1964? Or maybe Barber's 'boom and bust', which left 13.4% inflation and a three-day working week in 1974? Or Thatcher's two recessions and Major's 'Black Wednesday'? Tories always do well out of recessions, because they've got the money to buy whatever they want when prices are forced down, so they don't care if people suffer. The only thing that is blindingly obvious is that the Tories always damage the economy, just as Osborne has been doing for the last three years.

So basically we are flatlining Ivan. Not bad all things considered. We could of course borrow more (that works). Regarding Hollande all you luvvies were glowing when he came into power, strangely those in France that paid tax are now living in England paying a lower rate, so let the fool continue with his policies we win. Mustn't forget we'd be out of the recession if your beloved Europeans had any money to buy our goods.

"Unlucky Phil, better luck next time"

There are few people who are luckier then me , bluey. I have the luxury of knowing that nothing even a Tory Government can do will have any appreciable impact upon my wellbeing - financial or otherwise.

The sadness I have is knowing the horrible effects of Cameron's Unholy Coalition on those thousands of people who cannot look after themselves and their families, and who see no possible hope on the horizon. I cannot begin to imagine how I would feel if I had ever been unemployed or could not pay my bills or give practical support to my kids if they needed it. And the most evil aspect of it all is that the Tory agenda is part of a deliberate and hate-filled campaign against the most vulnerable .

Those who support or excuse it all should feel deeply ashamed. But they don't , of course...

In the world of Economics, standing still actually results in a downward trend, due to the effect of Inflation, which has clearly exceeded anyone's powers to control. The Governor of The Bank of England has written so many letters of apology to The Treasury over the past three years, the Post Office almost broke even.

Why we don’t believe Osborne’s latest excuse against the Robin Hood Tax

Extracts from an article by Simon Chouffot:-

"Osborne has never been the Financial Transaction Tax’s biggest fan. As 11 European countries agreed a 0.01%-0.1% tax on shares, bonds and derivatives that will raise an estimated £30 billion each year, he made clear that Britain was folding its arms, stamping its foot and refusing to join in.

It’s one thing to dismiss billions in additional revenue, side with your City friends and plump instead for the harshest programme of austerity since WWII. But, clearly feeling his priorities were still not perverse enough, the Chancellor then launched a legal challenge against the European proposal, arguing it would be bad for his friends. Osborne protested that Europeans choosing to tax their financial institutions and their financial products may impact on other countries. Except that is precisely how our own stamp duty on shares works. Of the £3 billion it raises for the UK exchequer each year, about 40% of revenue comes from overseas.

Osborne’s opposition means the UK public will miss out on the benefits. Wild-eyed proclamations of the financial sector aside, this proposal is moderate. FTTs already exist around the world; collectively they raise £25 billion a year. They have been implemented by governments of all political hues and in key financial centres such as Hong Kong, South Africa and Brazil.

As this government goes into overdrive to weaken the proposal, it’s now more than ever they need reminding – the interests of the financial sector do not equate to the interests of society as a whole."

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/05/20/why-we-dont-believe-osbornes-latest-excuse-against-the-robinhood-tax/

The Treasury, Janus-like in facing both ways at the same time, is consulting internationally on ways to control Global Corporations from shifting their tax liabilities to the softest administration.

One might think that a good place to start would be with our EU neighbours. Well done, Gideon.

In September 2011 Lagarde backed Gideon's austerity measures. Now she changes her mind.
Gordon Brown was the right man for the top job as IMF boss instead of this bloody woman of power and now we see signs of her not being what she pretends to be if this report is anything to go by-----

International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Christine Lagarde has said a Paris court has named her as a key witness in an investigation into a controversial pay-off to an outspoken businessman arranged while she was France's finance minister.

The status of "assisting witness" means that Ms Lagarde could later be charged in the case. The court assigned her the status after two long days of questioning in the case.

The hearings centred on Ms Lagarde's role in a 400 million euro (£342 million) pay-off to a businessman when she was France's finance minister.

The payment was made to well-connected entrepreneur Bernard Tapie as part of a private arbitration process to settle a dispute with state-owned bank Credit Lyonnais over the botched sale of Adidas in the 1990s.

It is seen by many in France as an example of the cosy relationship between big money and big power in the country. MSN report (part)

"It is seen by many in France as an example of the cosy relationship between big money and big power in the country."

How fortunate we are to have no such problem here.

"How fortunate we are to have no such problem here."

What a blessing OW!!!!

Ed Balls The case against the "growth deniers"

Part oF Ed Balls speech at Bloomsberg in 2010----

"Moreover, even despite that loss of revenues, our low debt position, our low inflation and low interest rates meant that we were the only government in post-war British history which – faced with recession and deflation – had both the will and the means to fight it through a classic Keynesian response.

Everything we did was intended to pump money into the economy, protect jobs and support household finances: stopping the banks collapsing; subsidising mortgages; cutting VAT; funding new apprenticeships and job opportunities; giving people cash incentives to buy new cars; supporting viable businesses; postponing tax payments; bringing forward public spending; quantitative easing by the Bank of England.

And as a result, we came through that storm without seeing the spiralling rates of inflation, interest rates, unemployment and repossession which have accompanied previous British recessions.

Not only that, but our actions led the world to follow suit, stopped the collapse of the global banking system, and took us back from the brink of depression.

And the effects of our actions are clear to see from the data on jobs, growth and the public finances from the first half of this year, before George Osborne’s ‘Emergency Budget’:

- faster than expected economic growth in the second quarter of the year;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- unemployment falling not rising;
------------------------------------------

- and public borrowing now markedly lower than Alistair Darling forecast back in March.

But rather than continue with a strategy that was working, George Osborne is doing the exact opposite. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Desperation point for Gideon OW.

I'd be better pleased, Mel, if the Honourable Gentlemen would concentrate on the woeful state of the Country, instead of eagerly trying to score debating points off each other all the time.

Spending review: a £11.5bn sleight-of-hand from Osborne the axeman 
 
By Adam Bienkov    
 
Simply making cuts has never been Osborne's main aim at all. If he were really serious about cutting the deficit then he would have long ago given up his pledge to protect health and education spending.

And if he really cared about balancing the books then he wouldn’t have slashed all of the budgets that might otherwise have stimulated the economy.

Even his plans to increase capital spending are not what they seem. He may be doubling the budget, but that is only after he has first halved it. It's like a high street store raising all of its prices, shortly before announcing a sale.

After three years in the job, borrowing remains high, growth remains low, and spending cuts are set to extend well into the next parliament. Osborne has spent three years running, only to end up in the same spot.

As the Conservative party's chief election strategist, Osborne has always had two eyes firmly on political tactics, and just the occasional glance at economic strategy.

Colleagues describe him as obsessed with the 24-hour news cycle. Securing tomorrow's headlines has always come first. Restoring the economy has always come second.

Osborne long ago faced the choice of either saving the economy or saving his own political future. Today's spending review made it very clear what choice he has made. 
 
Edited for breach of copyright. Please ensure that quoted extracts from articles do not exceed 14-15 lines and that the source is provided like this:-
 
Source:-
http://news.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/spending-review-a-%C2%A3115bn-sleight-of-hand-from-osborne-the-axeman/
 
Ivan.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t137-copyright-concerns

So now we all know what the Tories' financial strategy will be going into the next General Election.

Unless they also continue their parallel programme of U-turns on policy matters.

Well strictly speaking, Gideon is in charge of Tory Party strategy, and is only being Chancellor when he can fit that in around the proper job.

Don't - I can't bear any more

Osborne plan to make home purchase easier for first-time buyers.

House prices are rising at their fastest rate for three years as the property market bubble returns. The average price rose by 0.8 per cent in July taking the annual rate of increase to 3.9 per cent, according to the …
Daily Mail · 02/08/2013

Someone, somewhere on television uses the phrase "lets look at the facts", so let us do just that.
 
The recession which followed on from the credit crunch, banking crisis and financial turmoil actualy hit the UK in September 2008.
The period of negative growth ( official recession ) lasted one year until the third quarter of 2009 when growth returned.
 
From the return of growth in the autumn of 2009 until the general election in May 2010 the rate of growth accelerated to 0.7% at the time of the election, on the election of the new government, growth then turned around and went back down again - to a double dip recession.
 
The present chancellor George Osborne believes he is a very successful treasury minister because he has engineered growth to the dizzy heights of 0.6% - almost what it was at the time of the general election in 2010.

Plan B seems to stand for Royal Baby.........

   

Dear Mr George Osborne,

I’m glad when I turn on the TV in the mornings, I hear news of the marvelous growth you’re creating for the UK. In fact, I hear in the last quarter – we’ve managed to up our economy by a staggering half a percentage point. Fantastic! Well done Mr Osborne! You’re the man we need to fix the economy and save British businesses! I’m sure the big wigs over at our banks and corporations will be thankful that we’re now finally ‘turning a corner’ in this big economic slump. Most importantly, I’d like to thank you on behalf of all of the investment bankers who’ve been rather worried the past few years about whether we’d see a return to pre-crisis numbers at all. No need to worry though, as you’ve got it sorted! Thanks to zero-hour contracts and an upping of government subsidies and tax reductions, we can look forward to another year of brilliant financial success in the world of spreadsheets and big businesses. Thank you Mr Osborne – we mere plebeians do not deserve your godly economic wonders.

I’m sure that’s the type of letter you’ve been hoping for from a few of your more well-off constituents. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, the recession began in 2004 with a wage depression – and has been getting worse year on year since. Any supposed ‘growth’ in the economy has stemmed from drops in wages, fictitious investment and rising profits for corporate conglomerates. You’ve commended growth in the service sector, but unfortunately we’re not seeing this growth on the streets of Britain. Our high streets are still deserted. Our young people still can’t find any jobs. We’re getting poorer and our wages are just getting lower. Can you explain where all of these issues fit into your marvelous recovery Mr Osborne? While your Conservative friends slash public sector jobs, freeze salaries, and cut welfare in a time when one food bank is opening every week, how is your party going to help the 5.6 million Britons living under poverty?

The crisis for rich people and the banks began with the stock market crash 5 years ago, however the crisis for everybody else is only beginning. This is the crisis of living standards Mr Osborne. We’re living in a time in which parents cannot feed their children, and you’re making cuts to the little support they already get? I understand that you may have difficulties relating to the way ordinary people live, however you must see sense in giving, not taking, in a time of dire need. Of course, there is always the possibility that you and your party have no intention of helping ordinary people. No intention of raising living standards. In fact, this generation of zero hour contracts works rather well for your business-owning friends. You see Mr Osborne, your opponents might brand this as wickedness, cruelness and a tragic lack of compassion. We need to help these mothers, fathers and pensioners freezing in their ill-heated houses, surely you can agree?

On behalf of the British people, I’d like to encourage your financial supremacy to consider the following points in your marvelous recovery plan:

Tackle the crisis of living standards. Instead of subsiding coal plants, lay aside a bit of wonga to provide essential support to everybody who needs it. If families have to rely on food banks to feed themselves, the government must play a role in making sure the children are fed properly.
Put an end to zero hour contracts. Perhaps make an exception for those in study, but otherwise – these contracts serve no benefit to the ordinary working people. They’re a tool for companies to bully their workers into doing exactly what they want them to do.
Re-evaluate the success of your recovery. The economy isn’t on the mend, it hasn’t been for some time now – at least for the vast majority of us. You’re not just refusing to deal with the problem, you’re refusing to acknowledge its existence. You’re using denial politics to disenfranchise ordinary working people across the country. This isn’t something a genuine government should be doing.
Chances are, Mr Osborne, that you’re going to ignore this letter. In fact, you’re probably not even going to read it. In the off-chance that you have actually just read this letter, I would like you to know that you haven’t ruined yourself beyond repair. Compassion is always around the corner and it is this compassion that needs to the motto of the government. In times of crisis, we need to help each other. It’s time for you to help us Mr Osborne.

Kind Regards,

- The British Majority

---

This article has been cross-posted from the Critical Proletariat. http://www.criticalproletariat.com

"The charge from our opponents that we will cut services becomes transparently false."
 
That’s what George Osborne said in September 2007, adding that a Tory government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years. “Under a Conservative government, there will be real increases in spending on public services, year after year”, said Osborne. How strange that we don’t hear much about that now, or Cameron’s remark in March 2008 that “Labour’s economic failure was the excessive bureaucratic interventionism of the past decade, too much regulation”.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
 
Writing for ‘The Guardian’, former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling has taken a look at Osborne’s performance in office:-
 
“In September George Osborne claimed to have slain the dragon of downturn. Many economists have their doubts. It was also bad politics. A dead dragon poses no political threat. So this week the beast has been resurrected: it's not over, after all. Osborne now promises another six or seven years of austerity. After that, he claims he will balance the books.

Consider the facts: in 2010 the economy was growing and we still had our triple-A rating – yet at the time Osborne claimed we were like Greece. More than that, he said he would balance the books by 2015. He is borrowing 68% more than he promised. He will borrow £96 billion in election year alone. The deficit, far from being eradicated, is still at £120 billion. Osborne's debt reduction target has been kicked into the far distance, and the effect of many of the cuts pencilled in for the next few years has yet to be felt.

It's worth remembering that in 1997 Britain's debt was the second highest in the G7. A decade on, it was the second lowest. This government is not on strong ground, either in blaming the crisis on the spending it supported in opposition, or on the credibility of its performance since the election.”



For the full article and reader comments:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/03/george-osborne-credibility-gap-failure

Hello Ivan,

Thanks for those links - good stuff that exposes the Tory lies and spin about recovery.

I just wondered who people would prefer to see as shadow chancellor - Ed Balls or Alistair Darling?

Investors in The City are now in broad agreement that "Austerity" didn't do a whole lot of good for the British economy.

A fulsome apology from Gideon Osborne can be only days away.

You think?

Ivan wrote:This Tory-dominated government claims there is no alternative to austerity. Below, nine leading economists, including a Nobel Prizewinner and one of the Chancellor's own advisers, say that's wrong - and offer a different path:-

Cut VAT back to 17.5% Christopher Pissarides

Is this such a good idea? Once again it is predicated on the 'Lenders will always lend' fallacy. It is a fallacy as Greece has found in the most horrible way. There is quite a good debate here. On the plus side it puts money where it will get spent though a consumer led boom is hardly a long term strategy to get out of the current problems as it has generally in the past only sucked in imports, but on the minus side it would add £12.5Bn to the current account deficit which is already colossal and will have a knock on effect on international confidence . France is now only rated AA by S&P. That puts up the cost of borrowing for the government which in turn increases the cost of debt repayment which in turn increases the deficit which drops us further in the mire.

I was interested to note that Steve Hughes points out what, to me, is blindingly obvious and that is "The UK is currently benefiting from a very low cost of borrowing, which some attribute to a timely and credible roadmap for reducing our deficit. Others argue it is because of a ‘safe haven’ status, generated by comparing the strength of the UK economy to those operating with the euro, and the continued impact of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme". We are reliant on external lenders thinking we are behaving responsibly. They can cut the rug from under us at any point.

Agree financial transaction tax Jeffrey Sachs
This is a nice idea but he holes the whole concept below the water line when he writes -
"As you know, we have a race to the bottom in the world tax system as the UK, US and others jostle to attract mobile capital. ... I understand that the UK position is that it will adopt the FTT if the US does so. The US urgently needs the revenues, the fairness and the efficiency of an FTT. May I kindly urge that you use your global influence within the G20 and bilaterally to ensure that the US signs up to the FTT, and so that the US, the UK, the EU as a whole and other regions avail themselves of this opportunity both to improve efficiency in the world financial markets and to raise revenues in an equitable manner."

Sadly, after Margaret Thatcher, this country was left with very little manufacturing industry. We are, whether we like it or not, somewhat dependent on invisible earnings. Without the US coming in on this those much loved financiers are going to up sticks and wander. Once again delivering a massive blow to the current account deficit. That we should never have allowed ourselves to be placed in such a position is another story. We are where we are.

Reduce NI contributions David Blanchflower
This piece is particularly unimpressive as a piece of economic help. The NI contribution is only mentioned right at the end with the following -
"Second, give a tax holiday for two years on employer and employee National Insurance contributions for anyone under the age of 25. This would stimulate the economy and price young people into work, and probably pay for itself."
This was clearly an after thought and the probably pay for itself rather damages the whole idea. He also suggests reversing the VAT rise which meets the same objections as above. What he did say, and which I entirely agree with is -
"It hasn't helped that you described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence, and thus consumer spending, to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly. My first piece of advice is to stop drawing false comparisons. It is time to talk the economy up rather than talk it into recession as you have been doing. Keynes was right: animal spirits matter, and you have lowered them. Stop it."

What I found less acceptable was -
"So I suggest you increase the number of university places by 100,000 at once - the universities have the capacity. You could even insist that the extra places be primarily in science and engineering, which would help future growth." which would simply add another 100,100 people with £27k debt to the unemployed list.

Print money for the public Sushil Wadhwani
"Now is therefore the time to try the other, more unconventional policy weapons you have at your disposal. " I doubt that this would enthuse lenders very much and I feel there have to be better ways of stimulating the economy than by simply handing out 'gift' certificates. He makes a very good point though in the comparison with Japan. Why can quantitative easing not fund something more useful? It did not work well for Japan as he rightly pointed out but, although the 'gift certificates' were spent in Japan it did not have the effect that he requires. It did not, of itself, have a significant effect on bringing the economy back up.
Hidden within the article is, however, something of real interest. "The economist Raghuram Rajan suggests that the International Monetary Fund should set up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to offer large lines of credit to countries such as Italy, which are plausibly solvent but are experiencing a speculative attack, and to permit banks to be recapitalised. This SPV would issue bonds." Those two words, speculative attack, drew my interest. He is requiring action to ameliorate the effects of speculators. Who are these speculators? Mainly they are the financiers to whom we place ourselves in hock which takes us back to the FTT above.

Start a national investment bank Robert Skidelsky
I enjoyed reading this. "I accept that, for reasons of politics and confidence, you cannot now abandon your commitment to your deficit-reduction programme. What we need, though, is to revive the conceptual distinction between current and capital spending. You should aim to achieve a balance of revenues and expenditure on current account, but augment capital expenditure. " This seems to me to be spot on. In other words lets not screw the deficit but get people working on useful things. "Therefore, the government has to provide the stimulus for new capital investment on a scale sufficient to overcome the cumulative forces of austerity. But, for the sake of the public accounts, and also to give confidence, it would be far better that the programme of public investment be entrusted to a separate, independent institution."

Was anyone aware of the Green Bank? I wasn't. Clearly from what he writes it wasn't really a bank at all! He went on to write "The difference between the total and the government contribution would be funded from the bond markets. This is the magic of leverage, of course: the magic that got such a black name as a cause of the crisis. But a national investment bank is an opportunity to turn that magic to a constructive end." A plan to make financiers useful! Whatever next...

As I see it this generates activity without the fiscal downside AND it looks a much better bet than say, quantitative easing.

Lift the cap on immigration Jonathan Portes
To be honest most of what this covers is really only going to have a marginal effect and the title is misleading. Without the word skilled which is what the article is about all you have is a leader for a UKIP, Tory rant. Lets have skilled migrants coming in. This should not be an issue but as a solution to the current crisis it is really a side issue.

Lend directly to small businesses George Magnus
Once again an economist is saying "We are in a classic deleveraging era, in which the debt burdens of the household, banking and government sectors have to decline." which means solve the current account deficit and NOT by borrowing!  He is also saying "Now, QE may gain far less traction." which seems to meet general agreement that if (a big if!) QE did work it won't continue to do so. He then goes on to redefine the role of the B0E by "The precise remit of the Bank is less important nowadays than the task of easing private-sector credit conditions and stimulating lending to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and creditworthy households. ". Personally I view this as a similar strategy to the NIB proposed above

Launch a green new deal Ann Pettifor
The 'green deal' is, like the reduce NI contributions above, a bit of a second thought. The 'big' idea here is "When the banking system is broken and the private sector stops spending, only the public sector and the central bank can intervene as spenders of last resort. This spending should be financed neither by taxation nor by borrowing from foreign capital markets, but by the Bank of England. Just as banks were bailed out by quantitative easing from the central bank, so the wider economy should also be bailed out by the central bank." When you read the article through she is really repeating and reinforcing what was pointed out in the NIB. An effectively cost neutral approach to promoting infrastructure projects, SMEs and personal finance

Her green deal is a bit of a throwaway at the end but it looks, nonetheless a sensible proposal for job creation and long term energy issues. "we need a programme to transform every building into a mini power station, to save on energy transmission leakages between power stations and buildings. These programmes will provide high-skilled jobs in energy analysis, design and hi-tech renewable alternatives. There will be jobs and profits in large-scale engineering projects, such as combined heat and power and offshore wind. Lower-skilled work will include loft lagging, draught stripping and fitting energy-efficient systems in all UK homes, offices and factories."

Set up a recovery fund Christopher Allsopp
I particularly liked this article for one main reason. He discusses credibility. A point I have repeatedly made and I make no apology for repeating myself, is the 'Lenders will always lend' fallacy. They will lend ONLY if we maintain credibility. Splurge does not do it. This issue he addresses "Few doubt the seriousness of your intent and the importance of "credibility" in what is an uncertain world. Yet there are two aspects to credibility. One, emphasised in the economics literature, is commitment to the medium-term objective. The other is a credible strategy for getting from point A to point B. The credibility that matters is a combination of both. It is usually taken for granted that austerity is the correct way to reduce budget deficits and lower national debt. But is it?"

The interesting thing is that he does not then go on to point out that austerity is wrong (in my terms that would mean running up the current account deficit further) but suggests that there are other strings to the bow the chancellor could use - in this case fiscal policy. His strategy to fund new projects is "My preference would be public investment for infrastructure, which is sorely needed and could be financed, currently, at negative real interest rates. How about a recovery fund, financed by index-linked gilts? ". I have personal doubts about gilts in preference to an NIB strategy but to be perfectly honest that is merely my gut feeling.

He finishes up "A strategy to use expansionary fiscal policy to maintain growth and then adjust policy to control deficits and government debt as the private sector revives would have greater credibility than your current course of action. Timing is everything. What we need is a chancellor whose commitment to fiscal sustainability in the medium term is without doubt - but whom we also trust is a competent steersman."

In Summary
Cut VAT unrealistic in the short term and would hit confidence so could be counterproductive  
financial transaction tax Hits several targets at once viz income raiser, speculators. Currently screwed by US intransigence       
Reduce NI contributions Not thought through   
Print money for the public Not clear it works   but effectively another vote for FTT    
Start a national investment bank May have no cost implications but potentially big impact on economy and growth    
Immigration a side issue
Lend directly to small businesses May have no cost implications but potentially big impact on economy and growth. Similar to NIB   
green deal Another public investment bank supporter similar to NIB. Neat energy idea at end   
Set up a recovery fund Investment in infrastructure projects funded by gilts  

Envoi
Thank you Ivan. These made a very interesting Sunday morning read. Out of the nine of them there are a couple of clear common themes. An investment bank seems to be very popular whether this is the BoE, NIB or some gilt based system (BoE again?) all of which are probably a better bet than another round of QE which seems to be arguable whether it works. The other is the FTT which looks like it would hit a number of important targets but I cannot see the US ever agreeing.

Christopher Allsopp starts off with "Britain's growth continues to disappoint, and the risks from the world economy (especially the eurozone) continue to mount. You have recently reiterated your commitment to your deficit-reduction plan in this parliament and to adopting "no plan B". " which is why we are going to simply have to hold our breath and hope until 2015. Whoever is chancellor then, maybe they will have listened.

It doesn't seem to matter how often people are asked to use the PM Personal message facility for direct dialogue.

George Osborne spends £10m of taxpayer cash on swanky new 'Big Brother' Treasury revamp
 
From an article by Vincent Moss:-
 
George Osborne has blown a cool £10.2 million revamping his Whitehall HQ using firms which supply the Big Brother house, Vivienne Westwood and the Queen Mary 2. He splashed taxpayers’ cash on interior designers specialising in expensive and quirky chairs, tables and desks.

Shadow cabinet office minister Michael Dugher, who uncovered the spending using parliamentary questions, accused Osborne of ignoring the needs of millions of people struggling to make ends meet while he gave his HQ an expensive makeover. Mr Dugher said: “Rather than tackle the cost-of-living crisis, Treasury ministers are living it up in luxury. Ministers have been shopping at exclusive interior designers to kit out their offices, while families are gathered around the kitchen table worrying about paying bills. This goes to show just how out of touch Cameron’s government is.”

One Treasury insider said: “I don’t see why we couldn’t have just bought new furniture from Ikea.”
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-spends-10m-taxpayer-2871076

Do stop me if you've heard this before; Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,

Today we hear the Chancellor's reedy voice congratulating himself upon having got away with it yet again.

How nice it would be to think he and his Bullingdon mates might get their come-uppance in 2015.

But no doubt he's planned for that too.

So the day after his 'Autumn' budget statement, there was I thinking it is winter what with Christmas being less than three weeks away.
 
He goes to a factory to show that he supports British manufacturing, which just happens to be owned by one of the Tory party's biggest donors.....
 
What a pity all the news is about the death of Nelson Mandela or the Storms.........Or could be seen as just lucky timing for him as no one has been able to really cover the effects of his statement on the ordinary family...
 
How ironic that on the day that it was reported that there would be a massive increase in the number of dementia sufferers that the government announced its plans to increase the pension age to 70, because we are living longer.......

Snapshot of a Tory Donor

Sir Anthony and his wife Lady Carole Bamford have homes in Chelsea, Barbados and France and a 1,500 acre estate near Stow-on-the Wold where Lady Bamford also runs Daylesford Organics.