Labour could end cuts next year and still meet deficit targets, says IFS

Ed Balls's less stringent plans mean a dramatic gap with the Tories.



It's often written that Labour and the Tories are committed to near-identical levels of austerity after the election. The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all argue that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have embraced the Osborneite consensus. Commentators question how a Labour-led government would survive while imposing further cuts.

But, as I've noted before, these points belie the fiscal chasm between the two parties. Unlike the Tories, Labour is not committed to achieving an absolute budget surplus by the end of the next parliament (pledging only to balance the current account deficit), has left room to borrow to invest and would impose some tax rises to reduce borrowing (Osborne has pledged to use cuts alone). Even after the Chancellor scaled back austerity in yesterday's Budget, Balls would still have around £39bn more to play with than Osborne by 2019-20.

The true scale of the gap between Labour and the Tories has been further revealed by the IFS, whose director Paul Johnson said at today's post-Budget briefing: "Our latest estimates suggest that Labour would be able to meet its fiscal targets with no cuts at all after 2015-16". Balls has pledged to match the coalition's spending plans in that financial year (which starts next month) but will be free to determine his own path after that point. Among other things, he hopes to increase the growth potential of the economy through new supply-side measures and greater infrastructure investment. Today's IFS assessment suggests that could mean an earlier than expected end to the cuts. Should Labour be denied a majority at the election and find itself required to win over left-leaning backbenchers and, potentially, the SNP, that wriggle room could prove valuable indeed.

The political question is the extent to which Labour is prepared to highlight this flexibility before the election. Mindful of its profligate image, the party is wary of explicitly declaring that it would spend more than the Tories. But some on the Labour left would like nothing more than to be able to promise an end to the cuts in just one year's time.

A spokesman for Balls told me: "We've been clear there will need to be sensible spending cuts and that we want to balance the books as soon as possible in the next parliament."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-could-end-cuts-next-year-and-still-meet-deficit-targets-says-ifs

The fact that the Institue of Fiscal Studies backs it is great news, and the fact they can see the difference between the policies.

People don't have to suffer the way they are, the Tories just want it that way, boot on neck.

risingsun wrote:The fact that the Institue of Fiscal Studies backs it is great news, and the fact they can see the difference between the policies.

People don't have to suffer the way they are, the Tories just want it that way, boot on neck.

You have to love the left for their delusions and she bases this off estimates off the position the Tories have brought about the economy.
The country would go into meltdown under Labour and the majority of the country knows this being they do not trust Labour with the economy

Didge, I think it would be more accurate to say that many folks dont trust them with ANYTHING, let alone te economy....

darknessss wrote:Didge, I think it would be more accurate to say that many folks dont trust them with ANYTHING, let alone te economy....

Not going to disagree with that Victor

Cheers mate

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:Didge, I think it would be more accurate to say that many folks dont trust them with ANYTHING, let alone te economy....

Not going to disagree with that Victor

Cheers mate

oh ... have a quick look at the thread i started in thinking deeply....


BUT read it carefully...dont make any "judgements " based on what you think i may be "implying"

look at the literal meaning of what I say.....

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Not going to disagree with that Victor

Cheers mate

oh ... have a quick look at the thread i started in thinking deeply....


BUT read it acrefull...dont make any "judgements " based on what you think i may be "implying"

look at the literal meaning of what I say.....

Already replied and have not judged, just think you are making your case off the wrong point in part of your thesis. The other part and case you are making is good in the first half of your thread.
Hence why interested to see what you make as arguments to base changing the law.
I will be fair here and be impartial to your points.

See you tomorrow

risingsun wrote:Ed Balls's less stringent plans mean a dramatic gap with the Tories.



It's often written that Labour and the Tories are committed to near-identical levels of austerity after the election. The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all argue that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have embraced the Osborneite consensus. Commentators question how a Labour-led government would survive while imposing further cuts.

But, as I've noted before, these points belie the fiscal chasm between the two parties. Unlike the Tories, Labour is not committed to achieving an absolute budget surplus by the end of the next parliament (pledging only to balance the current account deficit), has left room to borrow to invest and would impose some tax rises to reduce borrowing (Osborne has pledged to use cuts alone). Even after the Chancellor scaled back austerity in yesterday's Budget, Balls would still have around £39bn more to play with than Osborne by 2019-20.

The true scale of the gap between Labour and the Tories has been further revealed by the IFS, whose director Paul Johnson said at today's post-Budget briefing: "Our latest estimates suggest that Labour would be able to meet its fiscal targets with no cuts at all after 2015-16". Balls has pledged to match the coalition's spending plans in that financial year (which starts next month) but will be free to determine his own path after that point. Among other things, he hopes to increase the growth potential of the economy through new supply-side measures and greater infrastructure investment. Today's IFS assessment suggests that could mean an earlier than expected end to the cuts. Should Labour be denied a majority at the election and find itself required to win over left-leaning backbenchers and, potentially, the SNP, that wriggle room could prove valuable indeed.

The political question is the extent to which Labour is prepared to highlight this flexibility before the election. Mindful of its profligate image, the party is wary of explicitly declaring that it would spend more than the Tories. But some on the Labour left would like nothing more than to be able to promise an end to the cuts in just one year's time.

A spokesman for Balls told me: "We've been clear there will need to be sensible spending cuts and that we want to balance the books as soon as possible in the next parliament."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-could-end-cuts-next-year-and-still-meet-deficit-targets-says-ifs

Yep, the IFS say it and they are an independent group with no axe to grind one way or the other.
The deficit reduction that the Tories have achieved up to now is the same level as Alistair Darling said his plan would achieve but without the level of pain that this lot are handing out. Remember, Osborne said in 2010 that deficit would be gone by now - he has failed every fiscal target he has set for our economy and the cuts implemented so far will just get worse.
We had a recovery in 2010 until Osborne got his hands on the economy and trashed with his draconian austerity measures.

Boot the Tories out.

Irn Bru wrote:

risingsun wrote:Ed Balls's less stringent plans mean a dramatic gap with the Tories.



It's often written that Labour and the Tories are committed to near-identical levels of austerity after the election. The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all argue that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have embraced the Osborneite consensus. Commentators question how a Labour-led government would survive while imposing further cuts.

But, as I've noted before, these points belie the fiscal chasm between the two parties. Unlike the Tories, Labour is not committed to achieving an absolute budget surplus by the end of the next parliament (pledging only to balance the current account deficit), has left room to borrow to invest and would impose some tax rises to reduce borrowing (Osborne has pledged to use cuts alone). Even after the Chancellor scaled back austerity in yesterday's Budget, Balls would still have around £39bn more to play with than Osborne by 2019-20.

The true scale of the gap between Labour and the Tories has been further revealed by the IFS, whose director Paul Johnson said at today's post-Budget briefing: "Our latest estimates suggest that Labour would be able to meet its fiscal targets with no cuts at all after 2015-16". Balls has pledged to match the coalition's spending plans in that financial year (which starts next month) but will be free to determine his own path after that point. Among other things, he hopes to increase the growth potential of the economy through new supply-side measures and greater infrastructure investment. Today's IFS assessment suggests that could mean an earlier than expected end to the cuts. Should Labour be denied a majority at the election and find itself required to win over left-leaning backbenchers and, potentially, the SNP, that wriggle room could prove valuable indeed.

The political question is the extent to which Labour is prepared to highlight this flexibility before the election. Mindful of its profligate image, the party is wary of explicitly declaring that it would spend more than the Tories. But some on the Labour left would like nothing more than to be able to promise an end to the cuts in just one year's time.

A spokesman for Balls told me: "We've been clear there will need to be sensible spending cuts and that we want to balance the books as soon as possible in the next parliament."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-could-end-cuts-next-year-and-still-meet-deficit-targets-says-ifs

Yep, the IFS say it and they are an independent group with no axe to grind one way or the other.
The deficit reduction that the Tories have achieved up to now is the same level as Alistair Darling said his plan would achieve but without the level of pain that this lot are handing out. Remember, Osborne said in 2010 that deficit would be gone by now - he has failed every fiscal target he has set for our economy and the cuts implemented so far will just get worse.
We had a recovery in 2010 until Osborne got his hands on the economy and trashed with his draconian austerity measures.

Boot the Tories out.

A huge assumption based off what?
More assumptions on a what if?
Please Irn, and you expect people to buy that kind of rhetoric?
Face facts many people do not trust Labour with the economy and for good reasons why.
Some jokers claiming things is not evidence, it is nothing short of hearsay.
You do understand what hearsay is irn?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

risingsun wrote:Ed Balls's less stringent plans mean a dramatic gap with the Tories.



It's often written that Labour and the Tories are committed to near-identical levels of austerity after the election. The Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru all argue that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have embraced the Osborneite consensus. Commentators question how a Labour-led government would survive while imposing further cuts.

But, as I've noted before, these points belie the fiscal chasm between the two parties. Unlike the Tories, Labour is not committed to achieving an absolute budget surplus by the end of the next parliament (pledging only to balance the current account deficit), has left room to borrow to invest and would impose some tax rises to reduce borrowing (Osborne has pledged to use cuts alone). Even after the Chancellor scaled back austerity in yesterday's Budget, Balls would still have around £39bn more to play with than Osborne by 2019-20.

The true scale of the gap between Labour and the Tories has been further revealed by the IFS, whose director Paul Johnson said at today's post-Budget briefing: "Our latest estimates suggest that Labour would be able to meet its fiscal targets with no cuts at all after 2015-16". Balls has pledged to match the coalition's spending plans in that financial year (which starts next month) but will be free to determine his own path after that point. Among other things, he hopes to increase the growth potential of the economy through new supply-side measures and greater infrastructure investment. Today's IFS assessment suggests that could mean an earlier than expected end to the cuts. Should Labour be denied a majority at the election and find itself required to win over left-leaning backbenchers and, potentially, the SNP, that wriggle room could prove valuable indeed.

The political question is the extent to which Labour is prepared to highlight this flexibility before the election. Mindful of its profligate image, the party is wary of explicitly declaring that it would spend more than the Tories. But some on the Labour left would like nothing more than to be able to promise an end to the cuts in just one year's time.

A spokesman for Balls told me: "We've been clear there will need to be sensible spending cuts and that we want to balance the books as soon as possible in the next parliament."

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labour-could-end-cuts-next-year-and-still-meet-deficit-targets-says-ifs

Yep, the IFS say it and they are an independent group with no axe to grind one way or the other.
The deficit reduction that the Tories have achieved up to now is the same level as Alistair Darling said his plan would achieve but without the level of pain that this lot are handing out. Remember, Osborne said in 2010 that deficit would be gone by now - he has failed every fiscal target he has set for our economy and the cuts implemented so far will just get worse.
We had a recovery in 2010 until Osborne got his hands on the economy and trashed with his draconian austerity measures.

Boot the Tories out.

A huge assumption based off what?
More assumptions on a what if?
Please Irn, and you expect people to buy that kind of rhetoric?
Face facts many people do not trust Labour with the economy and for good reasons why.
Some jokers claiming things is not evidence, it is nothing short of hearsay.
You do understand what hearsay is irn?

Nothing is certain in politics so we draw our opinions on what's best for our economy from organisations who are bettered prepared than we are and the IFS is one of them. One thing is certain and that is that Osborne has missed all his fiscal targets so why should I trust him with another 5 years?

Get him out

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A huge assumption based off what?
More assumptions on a what if?
Please Irn, and you expect people to buy that kind of rhetoric?
Face facts many people do not trust Labour with the economy and for good reasons why.
Some jokers claiming things is not evidence, it is nothing short of hearsay.
You do understand what hearsay is irn?

Nothing is certain in politics so we draw our opinions on what's best for our economy from organisations who are bettered prepared than we are and the IFS is one of them. One thing is certain and that is that Osborne has missed all his fiscal targets so why should I trust him with another 5 years?

Get him out

Excellent point in that nothing is certain, but you and sassy just claimed that it was off a policy, so why is that?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A huge assumption based off what?
More assumptions on a what if?
Please Irn, and you expect people to buy that kind of rhetoric?
Face facts many people do not trust Labour with the economy and for good reasons why.
Some jokers claiming things is not evidence, it is nothing short of hearsay.
You do understand what hearsay is irn?

Nothing is certain in politics so we draw our opinions on what's best for our economy from organisations who are bettered prepared than we are and the IFS is one of them. One thing is certain and that is that Osborne has missed all his fiscal targets so why should I trust him with another 5 years?

Get him out

Excellent point in that nothing is certain, but you and sassy just claimed that it was off a policy, so why is that?

It's the results of a study by an independent organisation on what a party is proposing and surely even you must understand that based on a comparison between what two parties one looks better than the other to some people.

What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A huge assumption based off what?
More assumptions on a what if?
Please Irn, and you expect people to buy that kind of rhetoric?
Face facts many people do not trust Labour with the economy and for good reasons why.
Some jokers claiming things is not evidence, it is nothing short of hearsay.
You do understand what hearsay is irn?

Nothing is certain in politics so we draw our opinions on what's best for our economy from organisations who are bettered prepared than we are and the IFS is one of them. One thing is certain and that is that Osborne has missed all his fiscal targets so why should I trust him with another 5 years?

Get him out

The IFS have looked at the costing of the policies put forward by Balls, and actually said that he can achieve them WITHOUT making any cuts, the fact that he proposes making the cuts means that debt will be paid back faster. Now, even though the Tories hate , he's a bloody good economist, he taught it at Harvard, whereas we know Geore never had anything to do with economics before. George has missed all his targets while imposing terrible conditions on a very large proportion of the British publec. The IFS agree with Balls that he can reach his easily.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Excellent point in that nothing is certain, but you and sassy just claimed that it was off a policy, so why is that?

It's the results of a study by an independent organisation on what a party is proposing and surely even you must understand that based on a comparison between what two parties one looks better than the other to some people.

What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

A study is nothing more than speculations. That is not a fact, but both of you argue as if it is a fact.
Studies can  reach many conclusions, espcially in economics.
I base my vote on economics, better wealth means people have money to help, your way that just does not happen.
Until the world changes, they are the best options and the better chance I have of having the funds to help others.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Excellent point in that nothing is certain, but you and sassy just claimed that it was off a policy, so why is that?

It's the results of a study by an independent organisation on what a party is proposing and surely even you must understand that based on a comparison between what two parties one looks better than the other to some people.

What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

A study is nothing more than speculations. That is not a fact, but both of you argue as if it is a fact.
Studies can  reach many conclusions, espcially in economics.
I base my vote on economics, better wealth means people have money to help, your way that just does not happen.
Until the world changes, they are the best options and the better chance I have of having the funds to help others.

I never said the outcome would be a fact and if you care to read what I said you would see that.

So what do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A study is nothing more than speculations. That is not a fact, but both of you argue as if it is a fact.
Studies can  reach many conclusions, espcially in economics.
I base my vote on economics, better wealth means people have money to help, your way that just does not happen.
Until the world changes, they are the best options and the better chance I have of having the funds to help others.

I never said the outcome would be a fact and if you care to read what I said you would see that.

So what do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Why argue it then?
If it is not a fact, how on earth can you claim the labour party would do better?
Please explain that to me?
It seems your argument has no evidence other than facts surely?
I love toying with the left, they are so easy. 

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A study is nothing more than speculations. That is not a fact, but both of you argue as if it is a fact.
Studies can  reach many conclusions, espcially in economics.
I base my vote on economics, better wealth means people have money to help, your way that just does not happen.
Until the world changes, they are the best options and the better chance I have of having the funds to help others.

I never said the outcome would be a fact and if you care to read what I said you would see that.

So what do you base who you will vote for in an election?

The nearest we can get on making a decision is to look at results of experts who have studied the figures. They have come down 100% for Balls and rejected Osborne.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

A study is nothing more than speculations. That is not a fact, but both of you argue as if it is a fact.
Studies can  reach many conclusions, espcially in economics.
I base my vote on economics, better wealth means people have money to help, your way that just does not happen.
Until the world changes, they are the best options and the better chance I have of having the funds to help others.

I never said the outcome would be a fact and if you care to read what I said you would see that.

So what do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Why argue it then?
If it is not a fact, how on earth can you claim the labour party would do better?
Please explain that to me?
It seems your argument has no evidence other than facts surely?
I love toying with the left, they are so easy. 

You have obviously not been reading what I said. It's an opinion based on a study produced by an independent organisation who give their views on the differences between two partiess on the economy.

You're running round in circles now lol

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why argue it then?
If it is not a fact, how on earth can you claim the labour party would do better?
Please explain that to me?
It seems your argument has no evidence other than facts surely?
I love toying with the left, they are so easy. 

You have obviously not been reading what I said. It's an opinion based on a study produced by an independent organisation who give their views on the differences between two partiess on the economy.

You're running round in circles now lol

Its an opinion you based as fact, because you stated quite clearly to get the others out as they must be worse based off facts surely Irn?
So you admit these concepts on fiscal polices could be wrong then?
Even not expert then Irn?

IFS says coalition tax and benefit changes have hit poorest the most: Politics Live blog

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including George Osborne and Ed Balls’ post-budget interviews, and the IFS post-budget briefing

Osborne announces new criminal offences to tackle tax evasion
Lunchtime summary
IFS says coalition’s tax and benefit changes have hit the poorest the most

Afternoon summary

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that “the poorest have seen the biggest proportionate losses” from the tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition. (See 2.12pm.) In its post-budget briefing, it also revealed that the richest gained the most from the personal savings allowance introduced in the budget. (See 3.18pm.)

Ed Miliband has said that the IFS has confirmed that Tory cuts in the next parliament would be twice as deep as the ones in this parliament.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/mar/19/george-osbornes-post-budget-inteviews-politics-live-blog

Well we all know sassy can go off what other people say, but can she form her own opinion?
Answers on a postcard?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why argue it then?
If it is not a fact, how on earth can you claim the labour party would do better?
Please explain that to me?
It seems your argument has no evidence other than facts surely?
I love toying with the left, they are so easy. 

You have obviously not been reading what I said. It's an opinion based on a study produced by an independent organisation who give their views on the differences between two partiess on the economy.

You're running round in circles now lol

Its an opinion you based as fact, because you stated quite clearly to get the others out as they must be worse based off facts surely Irn?
So you admit these concepts on fiscal polices could be wrong then?
Even not expert then Irn?

I've just highlighted that bit. You obviously have not read a word I've said No based on the findings of a n independent group.

Your circles are getting smaller. What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Why are you arguing?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its an opinion you based as fact, because you stated quite clearly to get the others out as they must be worse based off facts surely Irn?
So you admit these concepts on fiscal polices could be wrong then?
Even not expert then Irn?

I've just highlighted that bit. You obviously have not read a word I've said No based on the findings of a n independent group.

Your circles are getting smaller. What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Why are you arguing?

I read every word you said.
So why get someone out based off something that is not fact?
Not arguing, just pointing out how you have no point

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Its an opinion you based as fact, because you stated quite clearly to get the others out as they must be worse based off facts surely Irn?
So you admit these concepts on fiscal polices could be wrong then?
Even not expert then Irn?

I've just highlighted that bit. You obviously have not read a word I've said No based on the findings of a n independent group.

Your circles are getting smaller. What do you base who you will vote for in an election?

Why are you arguing?

I read every word you said.
So why get someone out based off something that is not fact?
Not arguing, just pointing out how you have no point

No Didge, you have not made a single point anywhere in this discussion. But I see where you are coming from now and that is that you require absolute certainty in what will happen in future before deciding what decisions to make or who to vote for in an election.

You're no entrepreneur are you and reluctant to make decisions of anything really.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I read every word you said.
So why get someone out based off something that is not fact?
Not arguing, just pointing out how you have no point

No Didge, you have not made a single point anywhere in this discussion. But I see where you are coming from now and that is that you require absolute certainty in what will happen in future before deciding what decisions to make or who to vote for in an election.

You're no entrepreneur are you and reluctant to make decisions of anything really.

Incorrect again, both of you made factual claims Irn.
Now you poorly attempt to claim otherwise based off predictions.
I mean if we used your methodolgy here we would be backing the horses every week on who was going to win.
So basically I point out the flaw in your claim and you have not the ability to admit this.
Hey ho, I just enjoy watching the left struggle, in fact it is great fun

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I read every word you said.
So why get someone out based off something that is not fact?
Not arguing, just pointing out how you have no point

No Didge, you have not made a single point anywhere in this discussion. But I see where you are coming from now and that is that you require absolute certainty in what will happen in future before deciding what decisions to make or who to vote for in an election.

You're no entrepreneur are you and reluctant to make decisions of anything really.

Incorrect again, both of you made factual claims Irn.
Now you poorly attempt to claim otherwise based off predictions.
I mean if we used your methodolgy here we would be backing the horses every week on who was going to win.
So basically I point out the flaw in your claim and you have not the ability to admit this.
Hey ho, I just enjoy watching the left struggle, in fact it is great fun

No Didge, I made no factual claims, indeed I have gone to great lengths to tell you that nothing is certain and you even agreed with me but now you just ignore it  as if it never happened. Here’s what I said:

Nothing is certain in politics so we draw our opinions on what's best for our economy from organisations who are bettered prepared than we are

You on the other hand need to know with absolute certainty what will happen before you can make any decision it’s a wonder you can even get out the front door of your house due to your uncertainties or lack of facts. I suppose that explains why you won’t answer the question I have put to you several times but I’’ try again.

What do you base who you will vote for in an election? So  off you go

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee



Come on mate - the game's up lol