Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
For a long time Labour spokesmen, most specifically Ed Balls, has been citing the USA as an example of who we should emulate and not cut the UK deficit.
Chickens are coming home to roost in the USA now and shows what would be happening to the UK if we had followed Balls lead.
S&P have downgraded their long-term rating for the USA from stable to negative saying there is a one-in-three chance of a downgrade within two years.
It has been prompted by the lack of a clear strategy to deal with the country's ballooning debt problem, so they said.
S&P said: 'We believe there is a material risk that US policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the US fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer 'AAA' sovereigns.'
S&P said that in 2003-2008, the US's government deficit fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP. While this was already noticeably larger than that of most 'AAA' rated sovereigns, it ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.
The US Congress is forcing a package of cuts onto the Obama administration but this clearly shows that this is too little too late. The lack of enthusiasm for the cuts by Obama is throwing a question mark over their resolve.
Compare this to strengthened position of the UK in the bond markets thank to the early actions of the Conservative government.
Why does this matter?
It impacts on interest rates. Higher interest rates will damage any recovery and this is what happens when your rating gets reviewed downwards.
Stockmarkets in the USA and Europe have reacted with large falls today as a result of this. It follows a weakening of Ireland's rating as well.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
It's the old Reaganomics back again. Borrow a trillion dollars, have a party, when people ask for their money back, put your fingers in your ears and shout la la la. Brings to mind our last government, doesn't it?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Here are some comments from the S&P report.
"While thus far U.S. policymakers have been unable to agree on a fiscal consolidation strategy, the U.S.'s closest 'AAA' rated peers have already begun implementing theirs. The U.K., for example, suffered a recession almost twice as severe as that in the U.S. (U.K. GDP declined 4.9% in real terms in 2009, while the U.S.'s dropped 2.6%). In addition, the U.K.'s net general government indebtedness has risen in tandem with that of the U.S. since 2007. In June 2010, the U.K. began to implement a fiscal consolidation plan that we believe credibly sets the country's general government deficit on a medium-term downward path, retreating below 5% of GDP by 2013."
I trust that no-one on this forum, being more informed that the average person, will critisise the government for its deficit reduction programme any more. Game set and match to George Osborne.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#4
barry,this maybe so but dont forget that there is political turnmol in us goverment.obamas lot want reforms etc but the other lot are opossed against it.being smug over osboures achivements? may be an early sign over his incompetence in handling the situation.
and dont forget our rating was looked at not so long ago.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Our rating improved as a result of Osborne's emergency budget and 'real life' interest rates, paid by HMG, that previously were approaching junk levels reduced.
The US Congress has said that Obama should cut the deficit, something he should have started long ago, this is producing the political turmoil in the USA and the downgrading of their creditworthiness is the result.
I said on the forum during the US elections that Obama had two weaknesses, economic policy and foreign policy - we have seen the truth in that.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#6
Osborne's deficit plan will come under regular scrutiny by the IMF under plans drawn up to prevent systemically important countries triggering another financial crisis. The IMF have said that Britain is one of the countries that poses a risk to the world's economies.
The chancellor said the country's high public and household debts and the need to repair the finances of government-owned banks put it in the front line of countries due to be singled out by the IMF, though he welcomed the plan saying he was sure it would give the government's austerity measures a clean bill of health. Osborne said: "I fully expect Britain to be chosen given its high levels of government and private debt. The UK will be able to demonstrate that yes, it has a problem, but it has a credible solution."
The IMF recently criticised the US for its failure to agree cuts to its growing government debt. The document is credited with playing a key role in convincing the Obama administration to ditch its growth strategy in favour of deep reductions in spending.
President Barack Obama has put forward a plan to cut 8% of GDP by 2015/16, which is a similar target to Osborne's. Labour said the US plan differed because the administration waited until strong growth was under way before considering cuts, unlike Britain where the economy has contracted after being hit by early cuts.
Balls said: "George Osborne is once again playing fast and loose with international comparisons to score political points. As the IMF's report made it clear George Osborne is going much further and faster than any other major economy in the world. He is the one who is isolated.
"He is also forgetting that by taking a steadier approach to secure the US recovery President Obama now has a growing economy and falling unemployment which is crucial to getting the deficit down. But in Britain, by cutting too deep and too fast, George Osborne has delivered slow growth and higher unemployment, which is why he will now have to borrow £46bn more than he planned."
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
I have to laugh at Ball's brass neck. This is the man who was the architect of the banking disaster and the Labour government's appalling spendthrift years that has resulted in the UK having had the longest and deepest recession of any G20 nation.
I have said it before - Osborne if anything, can be critisised for not cutting enough. He is being too timid with his public spending reductions.
#8
Perhaps using a different word to "cuts" might help, certainly with things like the NHS reforms, which are long overdue but need especially sensitive PR because of the sentimental fluff about that institution - which incidentally I fully support, it's the management of it that appalls me. Words like restructure and reorganisation are a bit overworked, so perhaps softer words like shuffle, or refresh.....? By the way, Balls wasn't "the architect" of the disaster - the bankers needed no help with creating that edifice.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
Bern - he was the man behind the regulatory reforms that freed them to do their worse. He was also behind Brown when he went to the Mansion House to urge them on... So yes, we can pin the banking crisis on him.
I do agree with a lot of what you said though.
The NHS has a lot of great people working very hard often in difficult circumstances in a system that does not do them justice - or us either come to that. Sadly the NHS is such a 'holy grail' all we will ever see is tinkering because no government will dare to do what is really necessary to get us a world leading healthcare system.
That is to get rid of the NHS and replace it with an insurance based system similar to what they have on the continent (no, definately not the USA...)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
well have made plenty of criticism and praise of the n.h.s.
time for praise again, visited the k &c yesterday for a colonoscopy, declined the sedative as it puts one out of action for 24 hours.
the staff were brilliant talked me through the procedure whilst i watched bits and pieces being cut out on the screen.
know everything about my insides now.
when finished 2 charming nurses took me to a recovery section while they prepared the report.
as it would take 20 minutes and i did not need any recovery time they brought me a sandwich and coffee while i waited.
sent off an e mail to the hospital when i got back to thank them for the excellent service.
#11
That's good to hear Howard. There are some great people and services knocking about the NHS and they deserve their praise. Pity they are so random and pot-luck. It is, as it always is, the management that fails them.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#12
Have you noticed how neocons and neoliberals love to tell us that "doing nothing" on such and such an issue is not an option?
There's a contrived, neurotic urgency about the coalition's NHS reform. According to David Cameron "the risk" to the NHS is "doing nothing." The status quo is simply not an option, the government tells us. How many people have you seen marching for reform of the NHS?
Everyone I have met who has had treatment on the NHS in recent years has been very satisfied with the way they were treated ok Bern's mum being the very sad exemption.
When I had to have any treatment, I received super care in hospital and so does everyone else I meet.. Because most people are happy with the NHS the way it is, the neoliberals have to hype up its failings. Yet when things do go wrong they are invariably caused by the introduction of so-called "market principles" and privatisation into our health-care system.
The worst scandal to hit any hospital in recent years was the Mid-Staffordshire scandal, which occurred in an NHS foundation trust. The MRSA bug has been linked to falling hygiene standards, which many believe have been caused by the outsourcing of hospital cleaning and hospital grub has also gone downhill since catering was privatised.
If the coalition genuinely wanted to improve the NHS further it'd be kicking profiteering private companies out of it altogether, yet the government is arguing that we need even more private-sector involvement.
When the political hierarchy tells us that "doing nothing" is no option, what it is really saying is that the status quo is not in the economic interest of those who bankroll them.
"Doing nothing" about the NHS, means no bonanza for private health firms, which are desperate to take over the running of hospitals and doctors' surgeries.
So when you hear a Conned/Fibdem tell you that doing nothing is not an option, remember that while doing nothing is not in their interest, it's probably best for the likes of you and me. Conversely, when the elite are happy with the status quo, you can be pretty sure that it's ordinary people,like us, who are getting a raw deal.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#13
I disagree, Marek. I meet many people abused by the system in the NHS, and I also end up mopping up the tragedies and errors in a professional capacity as well as my own personal experience. The trouble is people don't understand what it is they need and think what they get is good enough. It isn't. The NHS system is rotten, poorly managed and failing, and to let it fail further would be madness and would let down all the good people trying hard to offer a decent service with warmth and skill - and there are many of them - who are not allowed to do so.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#14
Bern
I don't see how radical reforms and further privitisation will eradicate any future 'tragedies' or 'errors' in the NHS. I am often of the belief that the NHS is used as a political football by all politicians, knowing as they do, that many.me included, hold it close to our hearts and in high esteem and therefore feel reform,improvement is a vote catcher.
You don't need to be an expert to realise that better training,better pay and conditions and more staff would be a starter. Better use of drugs,no postcode lottery to coin a phrase,more well men and women clinics,cleaner hospitals and better grub thats what they should,if anything be concentrating on,not spin,not targets and certainly not privatisation.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#15
Targets were always a stupid idea, Marek, and buried the real aims of the service almost irretrievably.Better, not more, staff would be a good starting point - more and more money isn't the way forward, decent leadership and a proper strategy would help. The NHS is such a good principle, and one I endorse wholeheartedly, which is why it breaks my heart to see it mis-managed, mangled and neglected as it is.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
The fact is the NHS, the worlds largest employer other than China's Red Army, is too big and monolithic. It suffers from systemic failings.
Privatising it and seperating those who fund treatment from those who deliver it via an insurance based scheme is by far the best option to get better health care for everyone.
#17
I am yet to be convinced that the P word is the best way forward. With healthcare, accountability and control matter, and Private healthcare organisations have different drivers to publicly funded orgs, although partnership working is useful. But yes, it is clumsy and ineffective as it is and needs refreshing. The entire structure from how nurses and doctors are trained and managed through to the funding streams for drugs and products and hotel services need to be finetoothcombed and completely re-grouped. This is not the time to tweak and plug gaps.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#18
Part of the reason that healthcare is so expensive is that drug research and production is almost exclusively in the private sector worldwide.
As a result:
1. There is no incentive to research behavioural prophylactic strategies as implementation of these present no revenue streams to the researchers;
2. The drug giants can control prices at their whim and the NHS is at their mercy;
Another reason is that apart from prescription charges it is free at the point of use. If the prescription charge was changed to a GP consultation charge of say £10, people just looking for a dodgy sicknote might think twice.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
The NHS still on the news and like barryw says its unlikely o be radically changed by any government.
I share MAREK'S view on the creeping privatisation, and being the wrong way forward together with having to say iv used the NHS over the years both for my family and friends and had first class service.
That's not to say things cannot be improved, and the top heavy managers is maybe a way forward, and look at what is being offered, and how you deliver it.
to give you an insight into privatised world.
when visiting a hospital with patients suffering from serious illness's the food came round from the PRIVATE caterers.
they went around the ward, the meal included meat that needed cutting, when they got the last few tables they ran out of knives!!!!!!
so last few tables didn't get one!!! i did say, thayt geezer needs a knife to cut his meat, reply was "sorry we nowt to do with hospital so nothing i can do"
having asked if they could borrow some knives from the hospital.
this creeping privatisation usually means cutting corners, and this is just one very small example of how it DOESN'T work.
there is no doubt the NHS needs to return to the days of the matron, where everyone knew who was in charge, that would be a good start,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#20
No,it doesn't mean cutting corners,it means making the best possible use of resources. They are different things. And it is a fallacy to say the NHS is top heavy with managers - what it is, is awash with poor managers who need t be managed out. The Telegraph was noting yesterday that other sectrs are indeed shy of employing ex-public sector managers, and with good reason. Some eejit was saying that it was like discriminating on grounds of race or class - no it isn't. The public sector managers have demonstrated for all to see what talents and abilities that have and d not have.