Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
He should, shouldn't he?
hasn't he failed basically every test he set himself at the start of the coalition
as we teeter on the verge of a triple dip recession
“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.” - 2 February 2010
“I have argued it with my opponents in difficult economic times, when I warned them last autumn that the cupboard was bare and the discretionary borrowing had to stop – and now Britain faces the humiliating possibility of losing its international credit rating.” – 11 August 2009
“Of course the British government needs to be able to get its debt away, and by the way it’s not just in the City, you need to get it away around the world and that’s where a lot of international investors in British, in gilts, and indeed, as I’ve talked about actually in the Times today, you know, one of the things I’m very keen on doing, and that’s putting it mildly, is to preserve Britain’s international credit rating. You know it’s absolutely essential we don’t have the downgrade that hangs over the country at the moment.” – 8 October 2009
“What investor is going to come to the UK when they fear a downgrade of our credit-rating and a collapse of confidence?” – 27 February 2010
I think Labour would have done some things differently as much of the Tories austerity package has seemingly been directed at non-tory voters
also I don't think they'd have axed the UK Film Council or sold off BBC Shepherds Bush to make luxury flats or begun privatising the NHS through the back door to give 3 examples
much of Labour's campaigning over the past few years has seemingly been directed at tory voters.
You might be right about the (English) NHS, but they broke promises on education, so why not health?
It is all the same recession.....they MADE it look like it was coming out because of simplistic niave measurements and by shifting stuff around.
Luckily for them most people are quite willing to accept niave simplistic measurements, because their model of the world is not sophisticated enough to see past this, most people are quite willing to take 'Experts' in the media with qualifications from a system that is obviously at fault and not aware of the realities that it had 'stumbled' into
just over being a colossal cock? And not in a good way
Would've thought it'd be a bit of a worry in terms of interest rates for borrowing and international investment at the very least. Still, I guess you're the expert.
...frankly (and obviously) he should have resigned months/years ago.
Another good day of campaigning for the Labour party by the Tories then. Should buy Miliband a few more months before has to say anything of value.
Bearing in mind how tied up they are with the shit that was being pulled before the collapse.
How much the downgrading actually affects our ongoing borrowing rates will be interesting. If it does bog all, as I suspect it may well do, it seriously damages the Rating Agencies credibility.
but yes, he's a terrible economist and politician.
and all the canned goods we bought 5 years ago are probably way past their sell by - I'll vote `yes`.
that people/the market has to continue toi believe, contrary to reality)
However, everybody knows that with a store of food reserves these should be used up (oldest date first) and then replaced.... ;)
Sorry I didnt make that clear at the time. When needed if you come round mine, I will lend you some salt and pasta and lentils
and this is just how it will always be, no recovery. I don't think recovery will happen I think this is it.
Mebbes not: www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-05/why-the-new-normal-is-getting-old
Maybe other generations will in the future but I think, socially if not economically, things will get worse (or maybe plateau) rather than get better.
his problem was bragging so much about this wonderful AAA rating and how important it is and how amazing he is for keeping us there. So now Labour can leap on that, so it is his fault really. Plenty of other countries are AA+ or whatever we are now, we will likely go back to AAA one day so it doesn't mean we are on some inevitable downward spiral.
Because part of their whole austerity campaigning was bout how vitally important the AAA rating was to Britain. Labour, on the other hand, reckoned it wasn't as important as the people of this country not being crushed beneath austerity.
So basically he's proved to be a terrible chancellor and he should go. I'm sure there are plenty of other Tories who would make great chancellors. Why would they keep him in his job when he's shown once again that he's not good enough?
He's constantly made a rod for his own back by claiming justification for his economic policy through the maintenance of a AAA rating. He's made something which is largely arbitrary and cosmetic something sacred. I'm genuinely surprised at his naivety here.
Its come at time when, incidentally, I'm needing to change thousands of pounds into dollars. So, tremendous timing.
he believed that while the economic future isn't easy to predict, it was a measure that was wholly within his control - i.e. by sending the right signals to the ratings agencies, he could ensure that he kept our rating regardless of the underlying state of British finances and thus would always have that to hold onto under any Labour attack.
He was probably thinking strategically from a political point of view, not an economic one. I'd argue that the naivety though is less that he made a big deal of the credit rating, more that he believed he could pull the strings of the credit ratings agencies and that endless austerity would ensure our AAA rating regardless of what else happens within the economy, even after evidence from other nations that it wouldn't necessarily be the case.
Yet again, it's the danger of Cameron putting a friend who enjoys playing politics in number 11 rather than an economist.
Especially the last point.
These are not reasons to resign.
About time, too.
Really bad performance. Especially when he got pulled up on the way his Better Together campaign has been using AAA rating thing as a scare tactic.
Looking to Labour and suggesting that they'd be any better is a joke. Yeah they might not have been quite so AAA-centric with their rhetoric, but their underlying policies going into the last election were practically identical. And I've heard nothing to suggest that they've changed their mind since.
are having a hard time making No a positive choice, y'know?
iirc the US and France saw their sovereign borrowing costs drop after they were downgraded. Ratings agencies haven't had quite the same credibility since their risible performance in the run-up to 2008.
Depressingly, Moody's acknowledges that low growth is a key factor behind its decision to downgrade but calls for Osborne to carry on in the same vein - probably because the credit ratings agencies have been pushing austerity for years, they're still unwilling to join the dots and acknowledge that said austerity depresses economic growth. This basically gives Osborne enough ammo to say he doesn't need to change tack, and that doing so would cause further damage.