Neoliberalism has worked but only for a few, mainly because we as a society have not yet made the richest rich enough as yet, so that trickle down can start to work. Hence the need for bigger cuts and more of them along with the odd tax rise and increase in borrowing by another name. Once neoliberalism has achieved this we will all see what a great idea it was but as we were told at the election the job is not yet finished.

0.3% growth is not, under any definition, “fairly decent”. IF you aren’t going to actually say anything sensible and would prefer to spout your opinions on things you know little or nothing about you’d be better off posting on The Daily Mail, where people won’t know the difference.

However, I’m still going to reply to your comments.

The IMF agrees that austerity has stunted the UK economic growth. The US went in much lighter on the cuts, and has seen sustained growth ever since.

Labour’s “debt spurge” stopped the economy from collapsing entirely. Spending money to battle a nation out of a recession is literally the tried, tested and proven method. It’s simple minded to think cutting services and starving the economy of money is the solution.

‘We need growth before we can start to save. Simple fucking economics’.

Why do you put so much faith in politicians to deliver more growth, are they all that capable?
We have fairly decent growth, why the gluttony for even more, are the British really this entitled? We’re amongst the best off on the planet, this lust for ever more seems fairly undignified and spoilt.

As to Labours death throws debt splurge, well any tool could get a brief growth response from that, but the left always fails to factor in the fact Europe went down the pan from 2010 so of course we weren’t immune to this downward drag.
Spending money is the most simplistic unimaginative approach one could take. If I were so minded I could back that idea but it would render me a simple minded populist.

Yeah, there was no doubt some Tories would vote against this as well. Evne if it does get through, it may get stuck in the Lords.

llllllllllllllllll

To be sure, the Tories have an overall majority in parliament. But yeah, small ‘c’ conservatives, if they are paying attention, should recognise that Osborne’s Law is simply silly, against their interest (realistically Osborne isn’t going to get to run a surplus) and, party allegiance aside, vote against it.

Certainly few others should want to be associated with it.

Small ‘c’ conservatives also like to think (stretching credulity in my view, but whatever) of Osborne as pragmatic (https://theconversation.com/how-george-osborne-built-a-power-base-from-pragmatism-41704). He’s the chancellor who didn’t double down on austerity after 2012 in an attempt to push through his 2010 promise to pay off the deficit within 5 years. That somewhat generous reputation is now in tatters. Osborne’s first big announcement of the new parliament is to pass a law against pragmatism in the Treasury.

Steve Bell calls it right: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2015/jun/10/steve-bell-george-osborne-mansion-house-speech-cartoon

You mean a website called housepricecrash attracted people who predicted a crashes (in house prices or finance? or everything?) but most of you had no idea how or when or what would cause it? I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Confirmation bias is ace, isn’t it.