George Osborne gets his sums wrong by £3bn and risks economic death spiral

It appears that Tory shadow Chancellor George Osborne's promise to save £13bn on pensions is wrong by £3bn - it would actually be £10bn. And it would take 5 years longer than he claimed it would to make the savings. So say the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose figures he used to make the claim. Whoops, not a reassuring start. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/09/george-osborne-budget-deficit

On top of which, David Blanchflower, former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee has said that Osborne's plans for huge cuts in spending while the economy is still very shaky could tip the UK economy into "a death spiral of decline that would be almost impossible to reverse for generation". That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Blanchflower is credited as "the man who saw the recession coming" in this favourable article about him in the right-wing Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6374879.ece

Would that mean less champers for these boys

http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/images/uploads/blog-bullingdon-cameron.jpg

Doubt it.

Particularly funny quote from the Tory spokeperson.

A spokesman for Osborne said the £13bn savings included inflationary rises between 2009 and 2020. He said that the difference between £10bn and £13bn was therefore "presentational" and not significant to the debate.

Presentational? Does that mean that £13bn looks better than £10bn?

oh dear, seems as though our politicians cant do their sums........ i dont have much faith in mr cameron either!

And as opinion polls are starting to show the Tory lead reducing by the week, perhaps more and more people will realise that voting for someone just because you want a change is no way to decide where to put your cross.

The grass is not always greener and if they can't get basic stuff like this right without the pressures of being in government, what a disaster they'll make of the economy.

I'm starting to think a hung parliament may be in the offing by the time we get to the election.

Would that mean less champers for these boys

 

http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/images/uploads/blog-bullingdon-cameron.jpg

 

Doubt it.

Is that Nick Griffin sat down in the middle?

It appears that Tory shadow Chancellor George Osborne's promise to save £13bn on pensions is wrong by £3bn - it would actually be £10bn. And it would take 5 years longer than he claimed it would to make the savings. So say the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, whose figures he used to make the claim. Whoops, not a reassuring start. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/09/george-osborne-budget-deficit

 

On top of which, David Blanchflower, former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee has said that Osborne's plans for huge cuts in spending while the economy is still very shaky could tip the UK economy into "a death spiral of decline that would be almost impossible to reverse for generation". That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Blanchflower is credited as "the man who saw the recession coming" in this favourable article about him in the right-wing Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6374879.ece

Interesting article!

I’ve been saying since this was announced that the sums didn’t add up on this and I’m still not convinced there will be this level of savings.

I stand by my original question that remains unanswered, if I get my £95 a week at 65 then I free up a job for someone who will in most cases be claiming more than this in Benefits.

The article briefly touches on this point in the following paragraph:

“Much of the gains from increasing the state pension age would come from the increased purchasing power of the over-65s. Only 20% of the savings come from restricting pension payments.”

That seems to indicate that only 20% of the savings will be from reduced Pension Payments (and I think that is wrong), but what it doesn’t seem to consider is the increased spending power of the person who replaces the person retiring.

I suspect people are starting to realise that the Tory party aren’t yet fit to be running the country!

Perhaps he means to plug the gap by getting Lord Ashcroft to pay UK tax :hihi:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=5519771

Is there any real surprise that George can't do his sums? It's all those years running round with Charlie and Bubbles!

I've been told he suffers from temporary memory loss after being hit on the head by a chandelier whilst trashing a restaurant with his Bullingdon club chums.

Would explain a lot, including his high pitched voice

There has been sharp criticism of Osborne's fitness in the Spectator for several months past. His saving grace is his boyish appearance which like Cameron's will appeal to the blue rinse mob, but that and the Cameroon croneyism is all he has going for him.

As Simon Heffer reminds us today in the Telegraph there is "A deep ignorance of economics within the party, and a fear of departing from gesture politics".