This slowdown is entirely of Osborne’s making
George Osborne may have been gloating yesterday after the IMF’s full-throated (but worried) endorsement, but he should wipe that smile off his face. The BBC reports today:
Retail sales dipped in May as a result of customers’ unwillingness to spend, say retailers. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) said May sales values, taking out the effects of closures and new stores, fell 2.1% compared with 2010. It said rises in previous months were a “distortion”, owing to a late Easter, an extra bank holiday and good weather.
You know those huge risks that the IMF was praying wouldn’t materialise? They are.
continue reading… »
Tories: little difference in ours & Labour’s plans
I pointed over the weekend that the Tories are increasingly sending out conflicting messages on whether their drastic action saved the economy, or whether Osborne’s cuts are similar to Labour’s plans.
More evidence of this comes today.
In reponse to Osborne’s IMF interview this morning, Fraser Nelson at the Spectator says:
Departmental spending is set in stone… So in total: cuts of 3.7% spread over four years. The government’s refusal to mention this figure has allowed Labour to make out that the cuts are deep and fast when in fact they average less than 1 per cent a year.
As Ben Chu at the Indy points out, the comparison is apples and oranges. Individual department budgets are still being cut massively.
But its interesting how Tories are trying to play down differences between ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’.
This is especially relevant since the IMF broadly came out for Osborne’s path of spending cuts. But buried further down the report was this huge caveat:
9. Risks and uncertainty around this central scenario are significant.
Large risks to growth and inflation arise from uncertainties surrounding euro-area sovereign turmoil, the housing market, the size of the output gap, and commodity prices. Indeed, unexpected spikes in commodity prices were a significant factor behind revisions to our 2011 inflation and growth forecasts since the 2010 Article IV consultation.Another risk is uncertainty surrounding the size of fiscal multipliers and the degree to which private demand and net exports will be vibrant enough to pick up the slack from fiscal consolidation. Uncertainties arising from key risks are further compounded by the unusually large disconnect between recent weak GDP outturns and other indicators that are stronger (e.g., rising employment, higher-than-forecast tax revenue, and stronger private sector surveys), making it all the more difficult to ascertain the economy’s near-term direction.
That even the IMF admits the risks are “large” here is quite important. Indeed, its had to reduce its own predictions for UK growth significantly.
But if Osborne is going to claim credit for his plans, can he at least tell us whether it’s significantly different from Labour’s plans?
Apparently, Purnell and Blears are Blue Labour’s leaders
Lord Maurice Glasman has had another go at explaining Blue Labour, to an Italian audience.
His analysis and discussion of the problems facing the Italian Left are very interesting. But the bits of relevance to British politics are more troubling:
continue reading… »
Audio: Galloway denies Tiananman Sq. massacre
June 4th was the anniversary of the Tianaman Square massacre in 1989.
So how does George Galloway discuss the issue on his radio show? By asking where the evidence is for the massacre!
Listen
He says:
It is a remarkable thing, that something we’ve been told for 20 years was a massacre, that not a single photograph of a single dead person has been aduced.
And yet there are some useful idiots who still think Galloway is a left-wing hero.
No, he’s just an apologist for dictatorships. Galloway previously defended the Iranian regime against democracy protestors too.
via @carlraincoat
An open letter to Prof Richard Dawkins on the £18k university
Dear Professor Dawkins,
I am saddened to hear of your involvement in the £18,000 a year “New College for the Humanities”.
I have always respected you as a public intellectual. But that you have allowed this position to be used to promote a private university – and so the principle of privatisation of universities – saddens me.
continue reading… »
Boris: ‘At last, an Oxbridge for my mates!’
London’s occasional Mayor Boris Johnson writes his weekly comment piece for the Telegraph today praising the idea of “a new Oxbridge for people who can’t get into Oxbridge“.
In the past, writes Boris, his mates had complained there was, “some kind of secret Pol Pot-style persecution of the children of the bourgeoisie” as they couldn’t get into Oxbridge.
I mean, just think of the people being massacred! Oh wait…
He goes on to say:
“Top dons to create new Oxbridge” was a headline to gladden the heart of many a grieving parent and frustrated academic. In fact, the whole thing is such unambiguously good news that I scarcely know where to begin.
He goes on to say that the newly created university will feature a “large proportion” of undergraduates who will get reduced fees or get full-scholarships, but its not explained who will fund this.
But at least Boris’ mates will no longer complain of “Pol-pot style persecution”! I’m sure the Cambodians will attest to how bad that was…
Survey ranks NHS #1 for efficiency, #2 overall
A major new report ranked the British NHS #1 for efficiency and effective care when compared to other developed countries.
The US report compares the quality and cost effectiveness of healthcare systems in seven major countries.
Overall, the NHS is ranked second.
The report also shows that the US is ranked last, even though it spends far more on healthcare.
via Richard Murphy, who adds:
But most of all what this report says is that the room for efficiency gains in the NHS looks to be incredibly small. Patient centred activity has already been reduced to save cost. Timeliness has been compromised a little to secure savings. Efficiency is already rated as the highest in these seven countries. That’s not surprising, the clear raw data shows that be the case. How, in that case, is the NHS going to deliver massive increases in efficiency in a system that is already operating at way above international standards?
We need to get real: the NHS is already delivering extraordinary value for money. Private sector alternatives are exceptionally expensive, as the US proves, with worse quality outcomes (as the table shows).
[Update, we reported earlier this was a new report but its from last year. Apologies for that]
On the subject of private involvement in the NHS, an article in the Daily Telegraph today by Max Pemberton shes more light.
The article says: ‘Private firms won’t offer the NHS value for money‘:
Strenuous efforts by academics such as Allyson Pollock, professor of public health research and policy at Queen Mary, University of London, to obtain the data relating to private-sector involvement has uncovered some horrendous examples of profligacy and waste.
It also provides the definitive answer that private-sector involvement haemorrhages cash out of the health-care system and does not improve patient care.
In a series of articles in the British Medical Journal, Professor Pollock has shown, for example, that £500?million of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on a flagship scheme to treat NHS patients in the private sector.
The whole article is an essential read for those advocating privatising the NHS further.
Five myths about the Royal Mail sell-off planned this week
contribution by Lindsay Mackie
On 9 June the Postal Services Bill will have its Third Reading in the House of Commons. It will then become law. The Bill will make it possible to sell off Royal Mail, its business, its large and valuable sorting offices in all our towns and cities, to whichever buyers come forward and to whoever is cleared by European Commission competition rules.
The rush to privatise Royal Mail – shamefully begun by the last Government – is based on a set of facts which turn out to be opinions and misinformation.
continue reading… »
The myth of Tory credibility on the economy (updated)
This article was first published at Guardian.co.uk. It’s been slightly updated here.
There is a view taken by some commentators that because the Tories are seen as credible on the economy – Labour has no choice but to accept defeat on the issue of cuts to public services.
It’s convenient for some, because they don’t care much about the impact of the cuts, but it’s not one backed up by public opinion. It’s a view shared across the political and media classes and is repeated ad nauseum without evidence.
But how credible is it?
continue reading… »
Govt research shows Future Jobs Fund a success
One of the first acts of the government last year was to get rid of the Future Jobs Fund. One year on, they’ve finally got round to doing some research about whether or not the Fund worked.
And guess what? “This study suggests that FJF has been successful in preparing customers for work and, for many participants their reported experiences had been to such a high standard, that they could not think of any improvements to the scheme.”
continue reading… »
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
» Laziness levels in Britain getting lazier, wails government
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments 24 Comments 16 Comments 16 Comments 83 Comments 203 Comments 85 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » JIm posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Katie posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » TimJ posted on How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists » Shatterface posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Cylux posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » nothingspecial posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Chaise Guevara posted on How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists » Patron Press - #P2 posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » karl meyer posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » BevR posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? |
