George Osborne’s declaration that his economic policy is “working” will have come as something of a shock to millions of families up and down the country.
George Osborne’s declaration that his economic policy is “working” will have come as something of a shock to millions of families up and down the country.
Here are five reasons why George Osborne is wrong:
1) Plan A has not brought the growth he promised
As Will Straw points out, Osborne promised growth of 6.9% over 3 years, but instead there has only been a miniscule 1.8%. Osborne is setting the bar incredibly low for what counts as an economic victory.
2) His government is worst in recorded history for living standards
As LFF editor James Bloodworth wrote last month, this government has seen 36 months of falling wages, which is more than under any Prime Minister on record. Prices have risen faster than wages in all but one month under this government.
3) Osborne won’t meet his deficit reduction plan
In 2010 Osborne declared that he would eliminate the structural deficit and make sure that debt is falling as a proportion of GDP. He won’t achieve either target in this parliament.
4) Long-term unemployment is highest since 1996
There are 915, 000 people in the UK who have been unemployed for longer than a year. This is 32, 000 more than last year. 474, 000 people have been out of work for more than two years.
5) The rise of foodbanks
The Coalition has presided over a staggering rise in the number of people using food banks. The number of people using food banks has jumped from 128, 697 in 2011-12 to 346,992 in 2012-13.
11 Responses to “Five reasons why George Osborne is wrong”
Hatstand
I don’t think the motivation was just to reward their friends through hatred of poor people. 45% is a reasonably sensible top rate tax that is still on the highish side by international comparison. The original hike by Labour from 40 to 50% was purely political and they knew it wouldn’t raise any money. If the point is to get the country growing again, this tax cut was sensible. If the aim is just to make annoyingly rich people poorer then fine. But it wouldn’t help in any way at all.
mactheanti
Labour actually reduced the national debt. It was 45% in 1997 and in 2008 just before the GLOBAL financial crisis and recession began Labour had reduced it to 32%.
Bill Cruickshank
“Now, after decades of relative peace and prosperity, our national debt is sky-rocketing once more. In 1997 Public Sector Net Debt stood at £352 billion. From there it took only 12 years to double, and the Government forecasts it will double again by 2014. Let’s hope we don’t need to finance a major defensive war any time soon.”
Taken from No-nonsense Economics
Somebody’s telling porkies?
henrytinsley
I really don’t see why 45% is so wonderful for the economy, and 50% was hardly an outrage by international standards,. It’s hardly a secret that Tory donors were pressing for a reduction in the top rate and this the lowest the government felt they could get away with.
Hatstand
All the records I can find show the debt increasing strongly from 2003, once Labour abandoned any pretence at prudence. They borrowed a lot during a boom so although the overall debt was still reasonably containable, it was going up fast. A bit like paying off your mortgage then borrowing £10k a month for living it up. It’s ok for a while but if you get used to that level of spending it becomes very difficult very quickly. Brown/Balls prudence!!