Top economists retract approval of Osborne after publicly supporting him two years ago

Out of 20 top economists who published a letter in support of George Osborne two years ago, only one was willing to reaffirm his approval of the chancellor

E-mail-sign-up Donate

 

.
Out of 20 top economists who published a letter in  support of George Osborne two years ago, only one was willing to reaffirm his approval of the chancellor’s economic policies.

osborne1In February 2010, a letter was published in the Sunday Times supporting Osborne’s deficit reduction strategy – a move that the chancellor hailed as a “really significant moment in the economic debate”.

The New Statesman however, has gone back to those 20 signatories and asked them to reaffirm their approval for Osborne, with the results being only one willing to do so.

The NS continues:

For this week’s issue of the New Statesman (out tomorrow), we asked the 20 whether they regretted signing the letter and what they would do to stimulate growth.

Of those who replied, only one, Albert Marcet of Barcelona Graduate School of Economics, was willing to repeat his endorsement of Osborne.

Nine urged the chancellor to abandon his opposition to fiscal stimulus and to promote growth through tax cuts and higher infrastructure spending, while others merely said “no comment” or were “on holiday”.

One of the signatories, Roger Bootle of Capital Economics, said:

If I were Chancellor at this point, I would alter the plan, I would stop the cuts to public investment and I might even seek to increase it.

The key thing is to try and get the private sector to spend its money and that may require a bit of government spending to prime the pump.

Shadow chief secretary Rachel Reeves MP told the Guardian:

“With a double dip recession made in Downing Street and the economy shrinking, not growing, since the spending review, it’s no surprise that even economists who once backed George Osborne are now calling for action to get the economy moving.

“Unlike George Osborne and David Cameron, they can see that the evidence now points to the need for a change of course. They know that without growth we can’t get the deficit down – George Osborne is already forecast to borrow £150bn more than planned.”

 


See also:

Double blow for Osborne: 52% want him sacked, and just 2% of Tories want him as leader 30 Jul 2012

CPAG: Osborne’s £3bn tax credit cuts “may have deepened the recession” 25 Jul 2012

Latest GDP numbers mean Britain’s economy has shrunk since general election 25 Jul 2012


 

The Guardian continued:

Osborne has already been forced to abandon plans to eradicate the structural part of the UK’s current budget deficit – the part that will remain even when the economy returns to full health – during the course of this parliament. Austerity measures will now continue for the first half of the next parliament as a result of the impact of slower growth on the public finances.

The chancellor has always maintained that his deficit-reduction plan is necessary to keep the support of the financial markets and the credit ratings agencies. He has insisted that a U-turn would only lead to higher interest rates and slower growth.

 


Sign-up to our weekly email • Donate to Left Foot Forward

18 Responses to “Top economists retract approval of Osborne after publicly supporting him two years ago”

  1. good old uncle jo

    “Nine urged the chancellor to abandon his opposition to fiscal stimulus”

    the chancellor is hardly opposed to fiscal stimulus. we have the biggest fiscal stimulus in the history of the country. plus the biggest monetary stimulus in the history of the country.

    maybe he should do a bigger stimulus but you can hardly say he is opposed to it. the fiscal stimulus and the resulting deficit is the most significant aspect of the UK’s prsent economy

  2. harrythehorse

    and why does rachel reeves want growth? it doesn’t benefit anyone. it just brings in workers from abroad and pushes up house prices. unemployment stays at 6 million whether the economy is growing or not. I’d prefer a poorly paid job and a house I can afford any day.

  3. Newsbot9

    Gee, it’s almost like there’s a housing shortage or something.

  4. Newsbot9

    So you don’t know what a stimulus is, and think that pork barrel spending and an expensive war on growth is “fiscal stimulus”. Of course you can say a man who has his foot firmly on the neck of demand is opposed to it!

    And yes, it is – in that borrowing costs are at a record low, and yet the Government refuses to pull up! We’ve plunged below Spain and Ireland, for **** sake!

  5. gt5g4

    our borrowing costs are low because the BoE has been printing money to buy government bonds – it’s not #real#

    below Spain !!!! they have 25% unemployment, nearly 50% amongst the young!

    you lefties are all as thick as each other. the labour party left this country on the brink of bankruptcy every time they’ve been in power. and their solution to the current problem? spend spend spend – what a surprise.

  6. kjhg

    supply and demand. labour let in 5 million but didn’t build the houses for them. not surprising as most labour mps are slum landlords anyway. look at the commie c#nt meacher for example.

  7. Newsbot9

    Almost completely irrelevant. Quite apart from your “Reds under the bed” fantasies, Thatcher ended council house building (and Labour didn’t fix this), even without a single immigrant we’d have a major housing shortage.

    You’re looking for excuses for racism as ever.

  8. Newsbot9

    Yes, our economy is really doing worse than Spain.

    Your ideological refusal to accept reality is downright sad, you refuse to see centralist Labour was running a slight deficit (unfortunate, but not critical) before the banker’s crisis.

    The reality is that your Tories are spending like water BECAUSE they’ve killed off growth.

  9. kjh

    most immigrants are the same race as me, you turd

  10. ijyg

    Labour were running a large deficit in a boom. Utter madness. and Spain is doing much worse than the UK. look at the unemployment figures and GDP per capita.

  11. Newsbot9

    Ah, self-hatred, always the worst.

  12. Newsbot9

    0.6% per year isn’t large. As I said, unfortunate but not crippling.

    And right, you want to use “GDP per capita” for economic trend analysis. LMAO.

  13. kjh

    GDP per capita is a reasonable metric and you can trend it. what’s your problem? what is your preferred economic indicator?

  14. kjgb

    the govt hasn’t ‘killed off the growth’. there haven’t been any cuts – yet. its all just left wing fantasy. ps the world’s biggest problem is your ludicrous anti-democratic socialist experiment of the Eurozone.

  15. Newsbot9

    Ah yes, you can’t understand what a five year old does – that if move some things from from A to B, there is less left in A. Your double-dip denial, and your condoning of the savage assault on the poor and disabled is literally sick.

    You’ll blame anything and everyone else rather than accept a single consequence of YOUR policies.
    And of course your far right view the protection of people’s rights via the EU as your biggest problem. You can’t STAND not being able to bash the blackies.

  16. gkjh

    the madness of the eurozone has nothing to do with people’s rights. that’s the EU you are thinking of.

    you have a sad obsession with race, an outdated and scientifically discredited way of looking at the world. try and see people as individuals, to do otherwise demeans them as it demeans yourself.

  17. Newsbot9

    Yes, you keep pretending that your racism is acceptable.

    And I am condemning you as an individual.

  18. Newsbot9

    More than one. Growth. Absolute poverty. Death statistics related to Government policy.

Leave a Reply