In his speech in Newcastle, the Governor of the Bank of England said that the current high levels of inflation were inevitable. It is a result of the re-balancing of the economy.
If this was inevitable, then the Government must have known and it is obvious that they have done nothing to mitigate it effects. Why not?
Why did the current Government not developed a proper plan to grow the economy?
What are the Government plans to minimize the detrimental effects of their re-balancing policy on the poorest people in our society, as well as the vast majority of the "squeezed middle"?
A Government is acting irresponsibly if they introduce massive cuts without also introducing an equally comprehensive growth development strategy.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Does the Coalition Government have a plan?
After reading (and listening) to the Chancellor's response to the news that the economy has shrunk by 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010, you have to ask whether he actually has a plan for growth. George Osbourne responded to the news by laying the blame on the severe weather, and how that affected people's purchasing over the Christmas period.
The problem is that the Office of National Statistics, who issued these figures, said that without the weather, GDP growth would have been 0% - a drop of 0.7% on the previous quarter and much less than the experts, including the Government, predicted.
What is really scary though, is that there is worse to come - the VAT increase only started in 2011, the major spending cuts have not happened yet, and the big redundancies are still to come.
The Governor of the Bank of England (Mervyn King) has said that the squeeze on UK take-home pay is necessary with inflation greater than 4% last year and not likely to decrease significantly in the near future.
Since coming to power in June 2010, the Coalition has presided over a steady decline in the economy, the Government has focussed on cutting the deficit by reducing expenditure on: college pupils whose family income is less than £30,000, benefits for disabled people, higher education students, housing benefits and of course increased VAT for everyone. At the same time they have removed funding from programmes that sought to develop regional businesses, and help the young and long term unemployed to get into the workforce.
The Government has announced that they want to re-balance the economy, to remove Britain's dependency on the financial services sector, but they do not have a growth plan to complement the deficit reduction plan.
It is not enough to cut spending and hope that the private sector will plug the gap - you do not run a nation's economy on "hope and a prayer".
The problem is that the Office of National Statistics, who issued these figures, said that without the weather, GDP growth would have been 0% - a drop of 0.7% on the previous quarter and much less than the experts, including the Government, predicted.
What is really scary though, is that there is worse to come - the VAT increase only started in 2011, the major spending cuts have not happened yet, and the big redundancies are still to come.
The Governor of the Bank of England (Mervyn King) has said that the squeeze on UK take-home pay is necessary with inflation greater than 4% last year and not likely to decrease significantly in the near future.
Since coming to power in June 2010, the Coalition has presided over a steady decline in the economy, the Government has focussed on cutting the deficit by reducing expenditure on: college pupils whose family income is less than £30,000, benefits for disabled people, higher education students, housing benefits and of course increased VAT for everyone. At the same time they have removed funding from programmes that sought to develop regional businesses, and help the young and long term unemployed to get into the workforce.
The Government has announced that they want to re-balance the economy, to remove Britain's dependency on the financial services sector, but they do not have a growth plan to complement the deficit reduction plan.
It is not enough to cut spending and hope that the private sector will plug the gap - you do not run a nation's economy on "hope and a prayer".
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Where is the Government's Growth Strategy?
Where is the Government's Growth Strategy?
The publication today of the national growth figures which showed that Britain's economy shrank by 0.5% in the last quarter makes it very clear that the Government does not have a growth strategy for the economy. The Conservatives, have been arguing for many years now that the British Government is too big, and should be reduced. Since becoming the senior party in the coalition government, they have implemented, with the support of the LibDems, major spending cuts in (almost) all areas of government expenditure.
The Coalition Government was formed as Britain was emerging from a major recession. Government income from private and corporation taxes had fallen significantly and expenditure had increased to support the banks, and the economy.
So when the Coalition Government took over, their priority was to reduce government expenditure. Everyone, including the Government acknowledged that this would slow the economy down, and therefore a growth strategy was needed.
Hence the question: Where is the Government's Growth Strategy?
The reality is that the Government has not announced a comprehensive growth strategy for Britain. The PM, Business Secretary, Foreign Secretary and a few assorted ministers have made some speeches about re-balancing the economy and they have been on some international trips to boost Britain's international trade. At home however, every initiative of the previous government to boost growth has been scrapped without a practical and effective replacement. The Government argues that the cancelled programmes were ineffective and wasteful, but given the absolute importance of growing the British economy, there have not proposed any replacement schemes.
This is irresponsible behaviour by the current Government and we are seeing the results in the weakening economy, growing unemployment, increased nervousness by both business and individuals with the poorest in society suffering the most.
According to the outgoing head of the CBI:
The publication today of the national growth figures which showed that Britain's economy shrank by 0.5% in the last quarter makes it very clear that the Government does not have a growth strategy for the economy. The Conservatives, have been arguing for many years now that the British Government is too big, and should be reduced. Since becoming the senior party in the coalition government, they have implemented, with the support of the LibDems, major spending cuts in (almost) all areas of government expenditure.
The Coalition Government was formed as Britain was emerging from a major recession. Government income from private and corporation taxes had fallen significantly and expenditure had increased to support the banks, and the economy.
So when the Coalition Government took over, their priority was to reduce government expenditure. Everyone, including the Government acknowledged that this would slow the economy down, and therefore a growth strategy was needed.
Hence the question: Where is the Government's Growth Strategy?
The reality is that the Government has not announced a comprehensive growth strategy for Britain. The PM, Business Secretary, Foreign Secretary and a few assorted ministers have made some speeches about re-balancing the economy and they have been on some international trips to boost Britain's international trade. At home however, every initiative of the previous government to boost growth has been scrapped without a practical and effective replacement. The Government argues that the cancelled programmes were ineffective and wasteful, but given the absolute importance of growing the British economy, there have not proposed any replacement schemes.
This is irresponsible behaviour by the current Government and we are seeing the results in the weakening economy, growing unemployment, increased nervousness by both business and individuals with the poorest in society suffering the most.
According to the outgoing head of the CBI:
"It's failed to articulate in big picture terms its vision of what the UK economy might become under its stewardship,"
The government has "taken a series of policy initiatives for political reasons, apparently careless of the damage they might do to business and to job creation"
"...to bring the public finances back to full health, they will have to be accompanied by increased output and employment - which bring with them higher tax revenues," he stressed.
"Public spending cuts and private sector growth are two sides of the same coin."It is clear that the cuts to public spending are idealogical in nature, and are not based on practical economics. Instead the Government is using the "state of the economy" as the excuse rather than the reason. It is clear that the Government's overall economic strategy is not appropriate to Britain today and the fact that the members of the Government do not see this says a lot about the people who make up the Government.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Banking sector - how good is it for the UK?
The Banking industry is going to distribute over £7bn of bonuses this year, while at the same time unemployment has risen, average income is remaining fairly static and inflation is 3.7%, the highest it has been for many years.
This suggests that the banking industry has been very successful over the last 2-3 years, and yet, just over 3 years ago, banks were close to folding and needed hundreds of billions of loans from the UK, US and other governments. The CEO of Barclays said in a Treasury Select Committee that banks should be allowed to fail.
The Deputy prime Minister, Nick Clegg wants business to contribute more to the nation than they currently do, and this is a good idea. It is obviously clear that banking has been a very successful industry, performing far better than the national average and greatly benefiting from the shoring up it received from the UK government.
Bankers are very keen to say that these high incomes are needed to attract the best to work in our banks, and it has obviously worked because the banks are doing so well. The problem is that the national economic problems that we currently have were, to a significant extent, caused by these very same banks - so the question I have is:
Has the UK really benefited so much from the banking industry?
The sector is very quick to remind everyone of the jobs it has created, but what about the damage the sector has caused? How many jobs-losses did the bank cause? How much extra benefits has the Government paid out as a result of these job losses. How much extra money did the Government borrow to keep the economy from crashing?
This would be a fascinating study to review. Let's hope someone does such a study one day.
This suggests that the banking industry has been very successful over the last 2-3 years, and yet, just over 3 years ago, banks were close to folding and needed hundreds of billions of loans from the UK, US and other governments. The CEO of Barclays said in a Treasury Select Committee that banks should be allowed to fail.
The Deputy prime Minister, Nick Clegg wants business to contribute more to the nation than they currently do, and this is a good idea. It is obviously clear that banking has been a very successful industry, performing far better than the national average and greatly benefiting from the shoring up it received from the UK government.
Bankers are very keen to say that these high incomes are needed to attract the best to work in our banks, and it has obviously worked because the banks are doing so well. The problem is that the national economic problems that we currently have were, to a significant extent, caused by these very same banks - so the question I have is:
Has the UK really benefited so much from the banking industry?
The sector is very quick to remind everyone of the jobs it has created, but what about the damage the sector has caused? How many jobs-losses did the bank cause? How much extra benefits has the Government paid out as a result of these job losses. How much extra money did the Government borrow to keep the economy from crashing?
This would be a fascinating study to review. Let's hope someone does such a study one day.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Health Care
The Government has been disingenuous when it says that health care funding was protected in the cuts. I say this because while it has protected NHS funding you have to realise that health care is more than just the NHS.
When the Government made cuts to local councils, this includes a sizeable part of the health care system. Local Government manages perhaps the most important elements of health care- the care of the elderly and disabled in the home or care homes. All of these services are managed by local government and we now know that local government has had its funding from central government cut by, on average, 8.5%, and these cuts have been front loaded.
What this means is that those hidden health services will not be there - people will not receive the support they need to stay at home . We are starting to see reports that patients who should be sent home are being kept in hospital because the local services are not there that the patients need in order to be dischanged from hospital.
When the Government made cuts to local councils, this includes a sizeable part of the health care system. Local Government manages perhaps the most important elements of health care- the care of the elderly and disabled in the home or care homes. All of these services are managed by local government and we now know that local government has had its funding from central government cut by, on average, 8.5%, and these cuts have been front loaded.
What this means is that those hidden health services will not be there - people will not receive the support they need to stay at home . We are starting to see reports that patients who should be sent home are being kept in hospital because the local services are not there that the patients need in order to be dischanged from hospital.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Control Orders - getting the balance right
Control Orders have come under close inspection at the moment with the decision of the Coalition Government to review their operation. While the Tories and the LibDems were in opposition, they were opposed to Control Orders on the grounds that they were erosion of civil liberties. Now that the two parties are in government, their view of control orders are slightly different.
The LibDems are still opposed to them and want them removed, while the Tories position seems to be that they should now be maintained, though refined so as to be less offensive.
Of course the problem is that there still are people who are too dangerous to be left roaming the streets of Britain, but for whom the Government is unable to prosecute because either the evidence does not exist, or if the evidence did exist, it was obtained from sensitive sources. The Government is in a bind here, it cannot prosecute and yet it it is not safe to let these people loose on the streets.
Of course this is the dilemma of modern society. How to manage the small but significant number of people who actively wish to do us harm, but have not yet done so. And of course the very success of the security services in finding these people actually work against them doing something about it through the court system.
If a serious terrorist plot was detected, and it was detected prior to the plan being executed, what you have then is often not suitable for prosecution in the courts where the significant test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is applied. If the evidence relies on "coded" emails and telephone calls, as well as plotters were undertaking "significant" but not illegal activities, how can a court "convict" some one beyond reasonable doubt. They cannot, and I hope they never will.
What then is the solution? A solution needs a couple of characteristics:
The LibDems are still opposed to them and want them removed, while the Tories position seems to be that they should now be maintained, though refined so as to be less offensive.
Of course the problem is that there still are people who are too dangerous to be left roaming the streets of Britain, but for whom the Government is unable to prosecute because either the evidence does not exist, or if the evidence did exist, it was obtained from sensitive sources. The Government is in a bind here, it cannot prosecute and yet it it is not safe to let these people loose on the streets.
Of course this is the dilemma of modern society. How to manage the small but significant number of people who actively wish to do us harm, but have not yet done so. And of course the very success of the security services in finding these people actually work against them doing something about it through the court system.
If a serious terrorist plot was detected, and it was detected prior to the plan being executed, what you have then is often not suitable for prosecution in the courts where the significant test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is applied. If the evidence relies on "coded" emails and telephone calls, as well as plotters were undertaking "significant" but not illegal activities, how can a court "convict" some one beyond reasonable doubt. They cannot, and I hope they never will.
What then is the solution? A solution needs a couple of characteristics:
- The authorities need to demonstrate (to a required standard, though not necessarily "beyond reasonable doubt") to an independent body, that the person(s) is a threat to the state and people of Britain.
- There needs to be a form of "review" / appeal.
- The restrictions must be of a form appropriate for the type of threat the person is to society
- The restrictions must be capable of protecting the public, but no more.
Control Orders (as currently implemented) are not a particularly desirable or useful. There have been examples of individuals absconding from supervision. The big question is: this type of situation is not unique to Britain. What do other countries do? How do they manage these people?
I would like to know the answer because, surely Britain is not unique in having people in their population who are a threat to Society, but for whom criminal prosecution is possible because sufficient evidence is not available.
Labour - The Path to 2015
The next general election is not due till 2015, assuming that the idea of fixed term parliaments gets through parliament, and I am sure it will. This will mean that Labour has 4 years to rebuild its electoral support and policy base - 4 years to convince Britons that Labour can be trusted as the next Government of Britain.
In the mean time, Labour is in opposition and has to act as an responsible opposition - call the Government to account for the actions it does (or does not do) in governing the country.
Labour achieved a lot in its 13 years in power, there is much to be proud of, but there were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of opportunities that were missed over this period. It is the nature of people that they remember the problems that Labour had, and accept (without further thought) the good outcomes as being what is expected. This is, of course, what the Coalition Government is doing as well - it is building its "big society" on the improvements that Labour achieved while it was in power.
Labour needs to do 4 things over the next 4 years, and it has to do these things at the same time:
Given the Coalition Government's policy of deficit reduction, it is even more vital for Labour to watch what is happening out in the constituencies - to make sure that the budget cuts are not hurting the poor and that all arms of government are delivering the best service possible.
Success in this role is usually seen in terms of U-turns by Government, ministers being forced to drop policies and even changes in ministers but this is not a victory. To quote the words of Winston Churchill, "Wars are not won by evacuations" (http://goo.gl/FB4iG) and elections are not won by showing how inept, unrealistic or uncaring the Government are. Elections are won by parties convincing the voting public that they have a disticnt vision, and that, as a party, they can be trusted to run the business of Britain.
Therefore the "policy revision" is an important process of the pathway to 2015 - Labour needs policies that are suitable and relevant to Britain of the 21st century - Britain of 2015, and not Britain of the past.
As well as having the right policies, Labour also needs to convince the public that they can trust Labour as government. This means that Labour has only 1-2 years to build the right shadow cabinet team, because they will need the following 2-3 years to build their reputation as being potential managers of Briatain.
Labour has a lot to be proud of, but there are a number of areas where Labour's record is not that good. One area, that is showing up now, is in the area of law and order and civil liberties. Here, Labour rightly stands accused of being too authoritarian, of giving the authorities too much power - powers like the "stop & search", control orders, CCTV coverage etc. Here Labour needs to learn its lessons, show the voters that it has learnt its lessons, move on to more sensible policies.
Other areas include immigration and housing where Labour lost touch with the ordinary person, In a number of areas, (including the deficit), Labour's record needs to be corrected. Too many of the people do not fully understand what happened and of course the current Government is exploiting this fact for ntheir own benefit. Too many people believe that the current spending cuts are "the cuts we had to have".
Most of all, Labour needs to build up trust - for all the Tories hot air, they have essentially done exactly what they said they were going to do (with some notable exceptions), and the Voters knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for Tory in 2010. The same cannot be said for the Liberal Democrats, but the polls show what happens when a party breaks trust with the electorate.
Therefore, if Labour wants to win in 2015, it has a long way to go in developing relevant policies, convincing the electorate that Labour can be trusted with power and finally, ensuring that the voters truly understand the legacy that Labour left the country while it was in power.
In the mean time, Labour is in opposition and has to act as an responsible opposition - call the Government to account for the actions it does (or does not do) in governing the country.
Labour achieved a lot in its 13 years in power, there is much to be proud of, but there were a lot of mistakes made and a lot of opportunities that were missed over this period. It is the nature of people that they remember the problems that Labour had, and accept (without further thought) the good outcomes as being what is expected. This is, of course, what the Coalition Government is doing as well - it is building its "big society" on the improvements that Labour achieved while it was in power.
Labour needs to do 4 things over the next 4 years, and it has to do these things at the same time:
- Remind the voters of the achievements of the last Labour Government,
- Hold the current Coalition Government to account for its activities in power,
- Put forward a vision for Britain for the next 5 years (2015-2020) that voters understand, and
- Convince the majority of Britains that Labour is ready for government, and can be trusted as the next government.
Given the Coalition Government's policy of deficit reduction, it is even more vital for Labour to watch what is happening out in the constituencies - to make sure that the budget cuts are not hurting the poor and that all arms of government are delivering the best service possible.
Success in this role is usually seen in terms of U-turns by Government, ministers being forced to drop policies and even changes in ministers but this is not a victory. To quote the words of Winston Churchill, "Wars are not won by evacuations" (http://goo.gl/FB4iG) and elections are not won by showing how inept, unrealistic or uncaring the Government are. Elections are won by parties convincing the voting public that they have a disticnt vision, and that, as a party, they can be trusted to run the business of Britain.
Therefore the "policy revision" is an important process of the pathway to 2015 - Labour needs policies that are suitable and relevant to Britain of the 21st century - Britain of 2015, and not Britain of the past.
As well as having the right policies, Labour also needs to convince the public that they can trust Labour as government. This means that Labour has only 1-2 years to build the right shadow cabinet team, because they will need the following 2-3 years to build their reputation as being potential managers of Briatain.
Labour has a lot to be proud of, but there are a number of areas where Labour's record is not that good. One area, that is showing up now, is in the area of law and order and civil liberties. Here, Labour rightly stands accused of being too authoritarian, of giving the authorities too much power - powers like the "stop & search", control orders, CCTV coverage etc. Here Labour needs to learn its lessons, show the voters that it has learnt its lessons, move on to more sensible policies.
Other areas include immigration and housing where Labour lost touch with the ordinary person, In a number of areas, (including the deficit), Labour's record needs to be corrected. Too many of the people do not fully understand what happened and of course the current Government is exploiting this fact for ntheir own benefit. Too many people believe that the current spending cuts are "the cuts we had to have".
Most of all, Labour needs to build up trust - for all the Tories hot air, they have essentially done exactly what they said they were going to do (with some notable exceptions), and the Voters knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for Tory in 2010. The same cannot be said for the Liberal Democrats, but the polls show what happens when a party breaks trust with the electorate.
Therefore, if Labour wants to win in 2015, it has a long way to go in developing relevant policies, convincing the electorate that Labour can be trusted with power and finally, ensuring that the voters truly understand the legacy that Labour left the country while it was in power.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Education Reform - careful thought is needed, not knee-jerk reactions
Education Secretary, Michael Gove (Telegraph 28-12-10) in an article for the Telegraph stated:
The answers to most of these questions however would suggest that something is not quite right and I will leave it to the Reader to work out what they are.
However it does suggest that reform to British education is needed. We know for instance, that the A-Level system needs reform. After all:
Some of what Mr Gove has said prior to him becoming Education Secretary was good - teachers (and head teachers) need more control of the classroom, and there needs to be less "interference" from central and local government. Schools need to be freed from the tyranny of the "league tables".
The problem is that his "reforms" do not address the fundamental problems with the English educational system, let alone the entire Britsih Education system.
I was in the Far East last month, to see what I could learn. In one Beijing school I was handed a thick book with screeds of Chinese characters and the odd paragraph in English. “Is this a textbook,” I asked? No, I was told, it was a compendium of research papers published in academic journals by people at the school. “Gosh,” I replied. “Your teachers must be well qualified if they are regularly publishing new work in university journals.”
The papers were not, I was told, the professional work of the teachers. They were the homework of the pupils. And lest you think the example was a one-off, I had exactly the same experience in a Singapore school just two days later.
Schools in the Far East are turning out students who are working at an altogether higher level than our own.Of course any sensible person would have examined this situation in a bit more detail. Is it really true that this was the homework of school pupils? Are these students representative of the whole schooling system in China? Are the results transferable to the UK?
The answers to most of these questions however would suggest that something is not quite right and I will leave it to the Reader to work out what they are.
However it does suggest that reform to British education is needed. We know for instance, that the A-Level system needs reform. After all:
- How can you say that a system that only provides relevant educational outcomes for less than 40% of the school-age population is satisfactory?
- How can you say that an educational system where the focus is on university entrance and does not provide a structured programme of study for all children to the age of 18 is satisfactory?
- How can you say that an educational system where teachers "teach" to the next exam rather than providing all students with a comporehensive education is satisfactory?
Some of what Mr Gove has said prior to him becoming Education Secretary was good - teachers (and head teachers) need more control of the classroom, and there needs to be less "interference" from central and local government. Schools need to be freed from the tyranny of the "league tables".
The problem is that his "reforms" do not address the fundamental problems with the English educational system, let alone the entire Britsih Education system.
Coalition Politics
The art of politics is fascinating to watch, but normally the detail is hidden behind party room doors. With the Coalition Government however, a lot more is seeping out into the public thanks to the exposé of the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers.
Over recent weeks we saw just how "worried" the Coalition leadership are of the Tory and LibDems party members. Take the recent proposal for an AV Referendum and review of "electoral boundaries". The leadership put the two measures in a single parliamentary bill to make sure that both parts were passed.
The Tories generally do not want the AV Referendum because they see it as being a threat to them electorally but they certainly do want the "electoral boundaries" as it will weaken Labour. Meanwhile the LibDems certainly want the AV Referendum and are prepared to go along with the review of "electoral boundaries". So while the backbenchers may be either luke-warm or against one of the proposals, no one is so opposed to individual items that they are prepared to rebel against the proposed bill as a whole.
It is clear in this case that the Leadership wanted to make sure that the Bill went through the House of Commons essentially as-is, without causing any serious rumblings from the backbench.
Then there was the 55% super-majority for fixed term parliaments - it is strange that the magic figure of 55% was such that no realistic group of parties could achieve this 55% figure, and therefore neither party in the coalition could make a deal to force a change in government.
And then of course there was the unedifying sight Vince Cable "bragging" about how he would "do in" Rupert Murdoch over BSkyB. This, of course, was a sack-able offence (even if it wasn't Murdoch who was involved) but that would have weakened the LibDems even more than they currently are so instead the control of TV was removed from "VC" and given to another minister.
The grumblings from LibDems ministers about their Tory colleagues were interesting to read, and probably many Tory backbenchers (and even ministers) agreed with some of the comments the Daily telegraph reported.
It will be fascinating to see how things have changed in 2 years time as the cuts start to work their way throughout the economy - the LibDems are on the defence at the moment, but will the Tories be so cocky in 2 years time.
May we live in interesting times...
Over recent weeks we saw just how "worried" the Coalition leadership are of the Tory and LibDems party members. Take the recent proposal for an AV Referendum and review of "electoral boundaries". The leadership put the two measures in a single parliamentary bill to make sure that both parts were passed.
The Tories generally do not want the AV Referendum because they see it as being a threat to them electorally but they certainly do want the "electoral boundaries" as it will weaken Labour. Meanwhile the LibDems certainly want the AV Referendum and are prepared to go along with the review of "electoral boundaries". So while the backbenchers may be either luke-warm or against one of the proposals, no one is so opposed to individual items that they are prepared to rebel against the proposed bill as a whole.
It is clear in this case that the Leadership wanted to make sure that the Bill went through the House of Commons essentially as-is, without causing any serious rumblings from the backbench.
Then there was the 55% super-majority for fixed term parliaments - it is strange that the magic figure of 55% was such that no realistic group of parties could achieve this 55% figure, and therefore neither party in the coalition could make a deal to force a change in government.
And then of course there was the unedifying sight Vince Cable "bragging" about how he would "do in" Rupert Murdoch over BSkyB. This, of course, was a sack-able offence (even if it wasn't Murdoch who was involved) but that would have weakened the LibDems even more than they currently are so instead the control of TV was removed from "VC" and given to another minister.
The grumblings from LibDems ministers about their Tory colleagues were interesting to read, and probably many Tory backbenchers (and even ministers) agreed with some of the comments the Daily telegraph reported.
It will be fascinating to see how things have changed in 2 years time as the cuts start to work their way throughout the economy - the LibDems are on the defence at the moment, but will the Tories be so cocky in 2 years time.
May we live in interesting times...
Monday, 3 January 2011
2011 and the Economy
Now is the time for when millions of Britons will be making resolutions for 2011 - to quit smoking, to run 20 mins each morning, to get to school on time, to work on the garden at least once each week and so on. Most of the resolutions will be broken by the end of the week or month.
What sort of resolution do we want the new Coalition Government to adopt for 2011?
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has reported that the Government's drive to reduce the Budget Deficit will cost the nation £1.5bn than originally proposed because of a higher than expected number of people who will lose their jobs as a result of the spending cuts
What sort of resolution do we want the new Coalition Government to adopt for 2011?
The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has reported that the Government's drive to reduce the Budget Deficit will cost the nation £1.5bn than originally proposed because of a higher than expected number of people who will lose their jobs as a result of the spending cuts
Common sense tells us that if a government reduces its spending dramatically (as the current Coalition Government is doing), then not only will jobs be lost in the public sector, but since a lot of the work of government is actually carried out by private contractors, then large number of jobs will go in the private sector as well. The irony of the situation is that the private sector is the exact same sector that the Government is relying on to grow, to make up for the jobs that will go in the public sector.
Of course it will also be harder for people who have lost their jobs to find new ones - so not only will the number of people unemployed rise, but of course, so will the bill for job-seekers allowance and other support benefits for people and families with low incomes.
Normally the economy needs to grow by between 1% - 2% each year in order to keep unemployment static. Therefore, if there is a weak economy, increasing unemployment and increasing need for the Government to borrow money - it is time for a rational and sensible government to re-think their strategy.
Some of the questions they need to ask are:
This is the New Year's resolution that I think the Government should adopt for 2011 - one that might actually be beneficial for Britain.
Of course it will also be harder for people who have lost their jobs to find new ones - so not only will the number of people unemployed rise, but of course, so will the bill for job-seekers allowance and other support benefits for people and families with low incomes.
Normally the economy needs to grow by between 1% - 2% each year in order to keep unemployment static. Therefore, if there is a weak economy, increasing unemployment and increasing need for the Government to borrow money - it is time for a rational and sensible government to re-think their strategy.
Some of the questions they need to ask are:
- How will the deficit change as a result of the Government's deficit reduction programme?
- Will there be the jobs in the private sector to cover the numbers lost because of the spending cuts?
- What does the Government need to do to make the economy grow?
This is the New Year's resolution that I think the Government should adopt for 2011 - one that might actually be beneficial for Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)