Reply to: Osbourne ****s up his calculations!

[Doggy Styles]

My point was that saving £10Bn instead of saving £13Bn was of relatively minor import. The fact that he is making savings at all rather than continuing to run up debt is the main underlying principle.

Hear hear.

[shaunbhoy]

If your reaction is to ignore the point and criticise the reporter, you will be far from understanding.

My point was that saving £10Bn instead of saving £13Bn was of relatively minor import. The fact that he is making savings at all rather than continuing to run up debt is the main underlying principle.

[TheFaQQer]

Dave's being a bit too loyal to his Oxford chum, and should quickly move to put someone of substance like Hague or even Davies in that position.

I thought that the shadow chancellor was actually chosen by Lord Ashcroft, so CMD has no real say despite being the party leader.

[TheFaQQer]

ASo what if the figures might be slightly out, the point is that they will still make a considerable contribution?

I'm not sure that £3 billion out on a £10 billion saving is "slightly out".

[TheFaQQer]

I'm only 36 but I can clearly remember my brother having to study for his exams with light from candles, I can remember the 3 day week and rubbish not being collected for months.

What a memory you have - I can barely remember what I did last week, let alone what happened when I was 18 months old!

[Tarquin Farquhar]

A damning indictment of proposed Tory policy by the Grauniad. What a surprise. The bottom line is that all of these figures are slightly subjective, but the underlying principle is that it is a genuine attempt to make savings, a trend that any future government must be following. So what if the figures might be slightly out, the point is that they will still make a considerable contribution?

It looked to me like a damning indictment of proposed Tory policy by the very think tank whose figures Osbourne used and got wrong.

Of course the Guardian reported it. If your reaction is to ignore the point and criticise the reporter, you will be far from understanding.

[shaunbhoy]

A damning indictment of proposed Tory policy by the Grauniad. What a surprise. The bottom line is that all of these figures are slightly subjective, but the underlying principle is that it is a genuine attempt to make savings, a trend that any future government must be following. So what if the figures might be slightly out, the point is that they will still make a considerable contribution?

[Tarquin Farquhar]

I've seen over the period of this government that whenever the opposition comes up with a number it is attacked by the government. The more vociferous the attack the more accurate the number turns out to be. I would, using this, therefore infer that the tories are probably the most correct.

In this case I doubt it. Osbourne's calculation assumes that those people who can't retire for another year will instead work for another year, so putting more money into the economy. I think that if they do so (and not all of them will find the work to be available), it will be at the cost of someone else who will therefore not be able to get that job. No net gain there, IOW. But fully 80% of the presumed gain comes from this.

[sweetandsour]

3 day week - Wasn't that under the Conservative government of 70-74 (Barber boom, miners strike etc)??

Correct.

It would be wise at this moment in time for the politicians to remind themselves of how badly everything can go wrong if inflation starts to take hold.

In response to an incomes policy set by the government, industrial action by the coal-miners resulted in a shortage of electricity and therefore the three-day week was one of the measures implemented to conserve electricity.

The conservative party lost both general elections in 1974 and never forgave the coal-miners. We all know how that ended up.

[threaded]

I've seen over the period of this government that whenever the opposition comes up with a number it is attacked by the government. The more vociferous the attack the more accurate the number turns out to be. I would, using this, therefore infer that the tories are probably the most correct.

[hyperD]

Although St Vincent is oft wheeled out on the BBC to provide the "alternative view" to a liebour policy, in a half hearted gesture at complying with its rules on impartiality, he is not without his cockups of gargantuan proportion.

Having said that, Ozzie is definitely not on the ball although his sentiments are sometimes in the right place.

The elephant in the room is that there is absolutely no way we can support the size of the public sector and welfare in its current form.

[BrilloPad]

Ok, Osborne is a lightweight, all parties should agree that for the good of the country Vince Cable should be chancellor regardless who wins the election.

WHS

[AtW]

it was Harold Wilson's Labour government that ended the three day week.

Was it the unions that were responsible for strikes etc and ultimately 3 day week?

If so, then by any chance, did the same unions support Labour Govt that (once elected) "solved" the problem?

[NickFitz]

3 day week - Wasn't that under the Conservative government of 70-74 (Barber boom, miners strike etc)??

Indeed - from the start of 1974 to the 8th of March 1974. There had been a General Election in February, and it was Harold Wilson's Labour government that ended the three day week.

[centurian]

But even if Osborne becomes a light weight chancellor, so what if his cuts won't deliver as many savings? That's much better kind of mistake than having Brown and Co totally ****ing all up with huge debts that will be repaid for decades to come.

Saving less money than planned is nowhere as near as bad as spending more than planned.

Yeah, sad choice we've got. Osbourne's plans are a 5/10 at best, but that's still better than the 2/10 (at very best) that the Labour plan is.