Brown re-jigs rules to help budget

[hyperD]

Changing the rules may be easier than more civil service job cuts
Chancellor Gordon Brown is planning to change the definition of the economic cycle to ensure avoiding breaching his "Golden Rule" on balancing the budget.
The Treasury now says that the budget gap should be measured over a nine-year period rather than over seven years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695823.stm

Oh well, when it doesn't work, just move the goalposts. Bastard.

[Lucifer Box]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4695823.stm

Oh well, when it doesn't work, just move the goalposts. Bastard.

The markets may punish that decision, at least in the short term. After all, if everything in hunky-dory why move the goalposts?

[Rebecca Loos]

because the definition of "hunky dory" depends on the spec. If the test fails the acceptance criteria, change the acceptance criteria.

[wendigo100]

The Chancellor's Golden Rule of balancing the books over the cycle 1999 to 2006 has no chance, so he is changing the cycle to make it look better.

Extending to 2008 is too risky, because likely deficits in those extra two years would make the balance even worse.

So he has extended it the other way, by saying that it actually started in 1997. This beefs up the balance of the current cycle with surplus nicked off the end of a previous cycle.

It is a complete fiddle, and I would expect nothing less from New Labour in general, and the Chancellor in particular.

[allanh1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4699407.stm

todays brown woes...

here come the tax hikes, followed by recession!!!!

[wendigo100]

I have now decided that the current cycle is seven years after all - from 1987 to 1989, then 1997 to 2001, then 2006.

[AtW]

Why are you complaining people -- this cheat will allow Brown to avoid having to raise taxes next year, or at least raise them by not as much. If anything you should be happy

[wendigo100]

Why are you complaining people -- this cheat will allow Brown to avoid having to raise taxes next year, or at least raise them by not as much. If anything you should be happy

Taxes will have to rise anyway.

The Chancellor can fiddle the figures all he likes but we are still left with one simple fact - UK plc is losing money hand over fist, which has to be paid back.

[AtW]

Taxes will have to rise anyway.

Under NL - yes, but Cons will have to embark on a more serious cost-cutting program that will hopefully get rid of major tax money wasters like EDS.

Brown's biggest sin in my view is that he kept public borrowing stable, but he induced people into taking on loads of debt against inflated house prices.

[hyperD]

Under NL - yes, but Cons will have to embark on a more serious cost-cutting program that will hopefully get rid of major tax money wasters like EDS.

Hopefully Alex, the Cons will reduce public spending, cull the public servants and their demons and maybe not raise taxes at all.