http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16452539
It has not been an easy last few days for Ed Miliband.
Amid growing concerns about his leadership from within Labour ranks, many believe that he should have acted more decisively and sacked shadow health minister Diane Abbott over the racist remarks she made on Twitter.
Then Miliband found himself embroiled in a Twitter row of his own; when he mistakenly referred to the late Bob Holness as the host of 'Blackbusters'.
All this adds to the increasing general malaise surrounding the Labour leadership, giving the impression of enormous weakness at the top. Former advisor, Lord Glasman has also weighed in, claiming that Miliband has 'no strategy' and 'no narrative'.
Miliband maintains that he does have a 'clear plan' for the direction in which he wants to take the Party and the country, and under different circumstances, he would have time to declare what that is.
However, these are not normal circumstances.
We are currently being governed by a Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition which has agreed to work together for five years but there are already signs that it could fall apart well before 2015. The Labour Opposition does not have the luxury of being able to wait another two or three years before it has to decide on what policies it will present to the electorate.
If things don't work out with Nick Clegg, Cameron can call an election at any time from now, and all the signs are that he will win a majority.
There appears to be no urgency on Miliband's part to communicate to the voters specifically what his 'clear plan' is.
Unless Labour starts to spell out its message very soon, especially on how to restore the Party's credibility on the economy, it could find itself in opposition for another five years, if not longer.
Saturday, 7 January 2012
PM Forced To Apologise for Balls Tourette's Jibe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16458524
What does it say about Britain in 2012 when the Prime Minister openly makes jokes about disabled people?
David Cameron was compelled to apologise this weekend after describing the antics in the House of Commons of Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as 'like having someone with Tourette's sitting opposite you'.
Of course it was the only thing the Prime Minister could do after such a highly-embarrassing gaffe. However, for him to make such comments completely beggars belief.
His remarks are so unbelievable for two reasons.
This is a man who has experience of caring for a severely disabled child himself. David Cameron went through the the very public loss of his first son, Ivan, who died three years ago aged 6, after suffering since birth from Ohtahara syndrome - a rare combination of epilepsy and cerebral palsy; a condition which meant he required round-the-clock care.
The PM of all people, should, therefore, have some empathy with those who live with disabilities and known better than to make such comments about Tourette's syndrome, a condition which is also highly debilitating and socially excluding.
Secondly, and much more disturbingly, even though we are well into the 21st Century, an enormous amount of prejudice and ignorance still exists in this country about disability. The PM's jibe at Ed Balls, only serves to illustrate just how widespread this is.
Mr Cameron's explanation that his remarks were 'off-the-cuff' will not wash with those who suffer with disabilities every day. It is just not good enough to say that he didn't give any thought beforehand how his remarks would be received.
We look to the PM to take the lead on such matters.
How will we ever rid this country of prejudice against disabled people if its leader sees fit to poke fun at them? They face enough obstacles in their daily lives without those who govern spreading the message to the nation that it is still acceptable to use those with disabilities as figures of ridicule.
It is a glaring example of just how totally out of touch the Prime Minister is with the lives of ordinary people.
What does it say about Britain in 2012 when the Prime Minister openly makes jokes about disabled people?
David Cameron was compelled to apologise this weekend after describing the antics in the House of Commons of Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls as 'like having someone with Tourette's sitting opposite you'.
Of course it was the only thing the Prime Minister could do after such a highly-embarrassing gaffe. However, for him to make such comments completely beggars belief.
His remarks are so unbelievable for two reasons.
This is a man who has experience of caring for a severely disabled child himself. David Cameron went through the the very public loss of his first son, Ivan, who died three years ago aged 6, after suffering since birth from Ohtahara syndrome - a rare combination of epilepsy and cerebral palsy; a condition which meant he required round-the-clock care.
The PM of all people, should, therefore, have some empathy with those who live with disabilities and known better than to make such comments about Tourette's syndrome, a condition which is also highly debilitating and socially excluding.
Secondly, and much more disturbingly, even though we are well into the 21st Century, an enormous amount of prejudice and ignorance still exists in this country about disability. The PM's jibe at Ed Balls, only serves to illustrate just how widespread this is.
Mr Cameron's explanation that his remarks were 'off-the-cuff' will not wash with those who suffer with disabilities every day. It is just not good enough to say that he didn't give any thought beforehand how his remarks would be received.
We look to the PM to take the lead on such matters.
How will we ever rid this country of prejudice against disabled people if its leader sees fit to poke fun at them? They face enough obstacles in their daily lives without those who govern spreading the message to the nation that it is still acceptable to use those with disabilities as figures of ridicule.
It is a glaring example of just how totally out of touch the Prime Minister is with the lives of ordinary people.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Diane Abbott Racism Row Exposes The Dangers Of Micro-Blogging
ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8996425/Diane-Abbott-forced-to-apologise-in-racism-row-after-claiming-White-people-love-playing-divide-and-rule.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott has caused uproar with a comment on Twitter that 'white people love to play divide and rule'.
Her tweet was in response to one made by a journalist criticising the media's over-use of the term 'black community' in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
Predictably, a number of Conservative MPs immediately called for Ed Miliband to sack her as Shadow Health Minister.
Tory backbencher Nadhim Zahawi quite rightly pointed out that if a white frontbencher or MP had made such sweeping generalisations about black people, they would have been sacked or forced to resign within the hour.
And can you imagine the furore if the same comment had been made about the Jews or Muslims?
Quite rightly, the Labour Leader immediately told Ms Abbott to apologise for her remarks.
The first female black MP, Diane Abbott has a very high profile within Westminster and nearly thirty years experience behind her on the backbenches. She has served all her constituents very well and is reknowned for her support for ethnic minorities.
Her latest remarks only serve to undermine all the good work she has done to promote better relations between the different ethnic groups in this country.
Given that she has not been a minister or shadow minister until now, one has to wonder whether Ms Abbott should have been kept away from the frontbench.
And crucially, this incident does raise a much wider issue.
It highlights the perils of politicians and other public figures using micro-blogging sites such as Twitter to communicate with the public. Ms Abbott should have definitely chosen her words more carefully and did have enough space to qualify her remarks by referring to 'some' white people rather than making a blanket generalisation about a whole ethnic group.
But given the fact that Twitter allows people to make only one short statement at a time, the question needs to be asked whether such new media is the most effective way for politicians to get their point across.
Anyone in public life - and especially politicians - has a responsibility to ensure that what they say or do cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context in any way.
Making such a sweeping statement about any ethnic group, is bound to be interpreted by some as racist, even if Ms Abbott did not intend it to be viewed in that way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16423278
Veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott has caused uproar with a comment on Twitter that 'white people love to play divide and rule'.
Her tweet was in response to one made by a journalist criticising the media's over-use of the term 'black community' in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence murder trial.
Predictably, a number of Conservative MPs immediately called for Ed Miliband to sack her as Shadow Health Minister.
Tory backbencher Nadhim Zahawi quite rightly pointed out that if a white frontbencher or MP had made such sweeping generalisations about black people, they would have been sacked or forced to resign within the hour.
And can you imagine the furore if the same comment had been made about the Jews or Muslims?
Quite rightly, the Labour Leader immediately told Ms Abbott to apologise for her remarks.
The first female black MP, Diane Abbott has a very high profile within Westminster and nearly thirty years experience behind her on the backbenches. She has served all her constituents very well and is reknowned for her support for ethnic minorities.
Her latest remarks only serve to undermine all the good work she has done to promote better relations between the different ethnic groups in this country.
Given that she has not been a minister or shadow minister until now, one has to wonder whether Ms Abbott should have been kept away from the frontbench.
And crucially, this incident does raise a much wider issue.
It highlights the perils of politicians and other public figures using micro-blogging sites such as Twitter to communicate with the public. Ms Abbott should have definitely chosen her words more carefully and did have enough space to qualify her remarks by referring to 'some' white people rather than making a blanket generalisation about a whole ethnic group.
But given the fact that Twitter allows people to make only one short statement at a time, the question needs to be asked whether such new media is the most effective way for politicians to get their point across.
Anyone in public life - and especially politicians - has a responsibility to ensure that what they say or do cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context in any way.
Making such a sweeping statement about any ethnic group, is bound to be interpreted by some as racist, even if Ms Abbott did not intend it to be viewed in that way.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Tebbit Wrong To Criticise The Ending of Double Jeopardy In The Wake Of Convictions In Stephen Lawrence Case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16411652
Former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has criticised the last Labour Government's ending of the Double Jeopardy rule following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
Lord Tebbit is of course no stranger to controversy.
As Employment Secretary during the recession of the early 1980s, he famously told the the unemployed to 'get on their bikes' and look for work.
However, his criticism of Labour's ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule - which prevented someone from being tried twice for the same offence - is most definitely misplaced.
Labour's decision to change the law was made in the light of huge advances in forensic science. In the Stephen Lawrence case, new techniques - not available at the time of his murder in 1993 - allowed scientists to re-examine clothes worn by Dobson and Norris - two of those long suspected of being involved in the horrendous racist attack on the 18-year old - and find previously undetectable evidence of Stephen's DNA on them. Dobson had of course, been tried previously and acquitted.
In my view, Labour was most definitely right to change the law of double jeopardy. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, it was very clear from the start who the suspects were and without an amendment to the law, Gary Dobson would still be a free man, having got away with one of the most notorious crimes of the twentieth century.
Thanks to the scrapping of this very old legal principle these two racist thugs are now where they belong - behind bars.
It is a crying shame that both Dobson and Norris, now in their thirties, had to be tried as the juveniles they were in April 1993 and received much shorter sentences than they would have been given had the crime been committed today. Norris must serve a minimum of 14 years and Dobson 15.
It is the fervent hope of most law-abiding, tolerant people in this country that the Attorney General will overturn these extremely lenient sentences and ensure these despicable individuals are never allowed to inflict such harm ever again.
Labour made the right decision here. If someone is acquitted of a very serious crime, especially murder, there is no question in my mind that if new and compelling evidence comes to light even many years later, that that person should face a second trial and be brought to justice.
Former Conservative Party Chairman Lord Tebbit has criticised the last Labour Government's ending of the Double Jeopardy rule following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
Lord Tebbit is of course no stranger to controversy.
As Employment Secretary during the recession of the early 1980s, he famously told the the unemployed to 'get on their bikes' and look for work.
However, his criticism of Labour's ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule - which prevented someone from being tried twice for the same offence - is most definitely misplaced.
Labour's decision to change the law was made in the light of huge advances in forensic science. In the Stephen Lawrence case, new techniques - not available at the time of his murder in 1993 - allowed scientists to re-examine clothes worn by Dobson and Norris - two of those long suspected of being involved in the horrendous racist attack on the 18-year old - and find previously undetectable evidence of Stephen's DNA on them. Dobson had of course, been tried previously and acquitted.
In my view, Labour was most definitely right to change the law of double jeopardy. In the case of Stephen Lawrence, it was very clear from the start who the suspects were and without an amendment to the law, Gary Dobson would still be a free man, having got away with one of the most notorious crimes of the twentieth century.
Thanks to the scrapping of this very old legal principle these two racist thugs are now where they belong - behind bars.
It is a crying shame that both Dobson and Norris, now in their thirties, had to be tried as the juveniles they were in April 1993 and received much shorter sentences than they would have been given had the crime been committed today. Norris must serve a minimum of 14 years and Dobson 15.
It is the fervent hope of most law-abiding, tolerant people in this country that the Attorney General will overturn these extremely lenient sentences and ensure these despicable individuals are never allowed to inflict such harm ever again.
Labour made the right decision here. If someone is acquitted of a very serious crime, especially murder, there is no question in my mind that if new and compelling evidence comes to light even many years later, that that person should face a second trial and be brought to justice.
Friday, 30 December 2011
Labour Ends Year Slipping In Polls Despite UK's Economic Woes. Is Miliband The Right Man To Lead Labour?
David Cameron has undoubtedly ended 2011 on a high with his personal poll ratings a good deal higher than either Ed Miliband's, Nick Clegg's or indeed his own party's.
The same can most definitely not be said for the Labour leader.
So much so, that there are some in the Labour Party who are now voicing concerns that Miliband does not have what it takes to bring Labour back into power in 2015.
I had my hopes raised after Labour's Annual Conference in September. Most Labour activists were happy with Miliband's Conference speech, despite the press branding it anti-business and one or two lone delegates in the audience booing Ed's support for Tony Blair.
However, I am now much more uneasy about Labour's chances at the next election.
With unemployment at its highest level in almost two decades, public spending cuts starting to bite, economic growth at a standstill and a double-dip recession all but inevitable, Labour should be riding high in the polls and in the minds of the electorate, at least starting to look like an alternative government.
Ed Miliband has said all the right things on many occasions; he was extremely effective in his condemnation of the hacking scandal and had initially set out his party's stall very well in support of the 'squeezed middle'.
But his message has clearly not got through well enough.
It is true that the mostly-Tory supporting press and media still promote the message that the last Labour government are to blame for the UK's current economic situation. And it is a stark reality that apart from one or two exceptions, without the support of the media it is virtually impossible for a party to win an election. However, as the UK gets closer to the next election it should be harder for the incumbent party to blame the previous administration for problems with the economy.
For the majority of the British electorate, PMQs is the only time they get involved in the political scene. With things looking so bleak for the Government, Ed Miliband has missed so many opportunities to nail David Cameron and it is starting to worry many in the Labour Party.
He started off so well.
Thinking back to their first encounter in October last year, Ed's performance was very strong. 'I ask the questions!' he declared, when the PM challenged him across the despatch box.
But the contrast with that performance and Miliband's woeful showing in the last PMQs before Christmas is, frankly, alarming. The Labour leader allowed the PM to completely run roughshod over him with a damning assessment of his first year and a half as leader and Miliband simply did not an answer for Cameron's sharp and quick broadsides. Calling him 'irresponsible, left-wing and weak' was really pathetic from the Prime Minister but Miliband was not able to fight back with any effectiveness whatsoever.
Right now, Ed is simply no match for the PM's brilliant put-downs. He simply wipes the floor with Miliband with his loud declarations that Labour left the country in the depths of bankruptcy. And with Cameron always having the last word, I cannot see what chance Miliband has of proving to the electorate that he is PM-material before any election campaign in 2015.
Before I was temporarily encouraged by Ed Miliband's Annual Conference speech in September, I had said previously that should Labour's poll ratings not improve by the time the Party meet in Manchester in 2012, he should stand down.
I am very firmly of that view now.
I am really not sure that Ed Miliband will convince me to change my mind unless he really ups his game. With the coalition so divided on Europe, Labour at the moment do not have a coherent message to take to the electorate, should the the government fall apart in the near future.
Some Labour activists have said that if Miliband was to come out in favour of holding a Referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU, this would greatly increase his popularity. But I doubt that alone would save him now. He simply does not have the charisma or gravitas it takes to win.
More importantly, if he can't capitalise on the Coalition's really unpopular economic strategy now, then what hope does he have of winning at the ballot box? I will not be at all surprised if someone does not mount a challenge to Ed's leadership in the not-too-distant-future.
The question is, who in the current Labour ranks is capable of filling his shoes and bringing Labour back into government?
That is a question that is impossible to answer right now.
The same can most definitely not be said for the Labour leader.
So much so, that there are some in the Labour Party who are now voicing concerns that Miliband does not have what it takes to bring Labour back into power in 2015.
I had my hopes raised after Labour's Annual Conference in September. Most Labour activists were happy with Miliband's Conference speech, despite the press branding it anti-business and one or two lone delegates in the audience booing Ed's support for Tony Blair.
However, I am now much more uneasy about Labour's chances at the next election.
With unemployment at its highest level in almost two decades, public spending cuts starting to bite, economic growth at a standstill and a double-dip recession all but inevitable, Labour should be riding high in the polls and in the minds of the electorate, at least starting to look like an alternative government.
Ed Miliband has said all the right things on many occasions; he was extremely effective in his condemnation of the hacking scandal and had initially set out his party's stall very well in support of the 'squeezed middle'.
But his message has clearly not got through well enough.
It is true that the mostly-Tory supporting press and media still promote the message that the last Labour government are to blame for the UK's current economic situation. And it is a stark reality that apart from one or two exceptions, without the support of the media it is virtually impossible for a party to win an election. However, as the UK gets closer to the next election it should be harder for the incumbent party to blame the previous administration for problems with the economy.
For the majority of the British electorate, PMQs is the only time they get involved in the political scene. With things looking so bleak for the Government, Ed Miliband has missed so many opportunities to nail David Cameron and it is starting to worry many in the Labour Party.
He started off so well.
Thinking back to their first encounter in October last year, Ed's performance was very strong. 'I ask the questions!' he declared, when the PM challenged him across the despatch box.
But the contrast with that performance and Miliband's woeful showing in the last PMQs before Christmas is, frankly, alarming. The Labour leader allowed the PM to completely run roughshod over him with a damning assessment of his first year and a half as leader and Miliband simply did not an answer for Cameron's sharp and quick broadsides. Calling him 'irresponsible, left-wing and weak' was really pathetic from the Prime Minister but Miliband was not able to fight back with any effectiveness whatsoever.
Right now, Ed is simply no match for the PM's brilliant put-downs. He simply wipes the floor with Miliband with his loud declarations that Labour left the country in the depths of bankruptcy. And with Cameron always having the last word, I cannot see what chance Miliband has of proving to the electorate that he is PM-material before any election campaign in 2015.
Before I was temporarily encouraged by Ed Miliband's Annual Conference speech in September, I had said previously that should Labour's poll ratings not improve by the time the Party meet in Manchester in 2012, he should stand down.
I am very firmly of that view now.
I am really not sure that Ed Miliband will convince me to change my mind unless he really ups his game. With the coalition so divided on Europe, Labour at the moment do not have a coherent message to take to the electorate, should the the government fall apart in the near future.
Some Labour activists have said that if Miliband was to come out in favour of holding a Referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU, this would greatly increase his popularity. But I doubt that alone would save him now. He simply does not have the charisma or gravitas it takes to win.
More importantly, if he can't capitalise on the Coalition's really unpopular economic strategy now, then what hope does he have of winning at the ballot box? I will not be at all surprised if someone does not mount a challenge to Ed's leadership in the not-too-distant-future.
The question is, who in the current Labour ranks is capable of filling his shoes and bringing Labour back into government?
That is a question that is impossible to answer right now.
Cameron Euro Treaty Veto Pleases Tory Eurosceptics But Leaves Britain Isolated In EU
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16126773
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's decision to veto the recent EU Treaty will have greatly pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party.
Although very much in favour of maintaining Britain's trading links within the EU, I have long had my doubts about European nations being too tightly bound together economically or politically.
And this has now been bourne out by the current crisis in the Eurozone.
I don't often find my self agreeing with Tory commentator Iain Dale, but in a recent interview he recalled how former PM John Major branded the Eurosceptic Tory wing as 'little Englanders' for not wanting to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They have turned out to be so right on this issue.
Thank goodness Gordon Brown had the sense not to bring Britain into the Eurozone during Labour's time in office. This was despite Tony Blair's enthusiasm for the project.
There were many aspects of the recent Treaty that I was extremely uneasy with. Most notably, the proposal that the budgets of individual member states should be ratified by the EU, so enthusiastically supported by Merkel and Sarkosy.
This was clearly a step too far and would have undermined the sovereignty of each nation beyond measure.
The decision to join the EU in 1975 was a controversial one and the calls for Britain to hold a referendum on whether we should stay in Europe are growing. Many are now suggesting that should Ed Miliband throw his and Labour's support behind holding a referendum on this issue, his popularity would increase overnight.http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-time-is-right-for-a-referendum/?utm_source=LunchtimeList&utm_campaign=cf1717ac0d-LunchtimeList_72311_22_2011&utm_medium=email
The bottom line is that most Britons have never wanted and do not want a United States of Europe. From this point of view, Cameron was right to use his veto. And the timing of the recent Summit has meant that the Prime Minister is ending 2011 on a high, with his personal ratings well above those of both Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even his own party.http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-ends-tough-poll-high-190450898.html
However my worry is, that by closing the door so firmly at this stage, Britain's negotiating power within the EU has now been severely weakened.
There is no doubt that the Prime Minister's decision to veto the recent EU Treaty will have greatly pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party.
Although very much in favour of maintaining Britain's trading links within the EU, I have long had my doubts about European nations being too tightly bound together economically or politically.
And this has now been bourne out by the current crisis in the Eurozone.
I don't often find my self agreeing with Tory commentator Iain Dale, but in a recent interview he recalled how former PM John Major branded the Eurosceptic Tory wing as 'little Englanders' for not wanting to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. They have turned out to be so right on this issue.
Thank goodness Gordon Brown had the sense not to bring Britain into the Eurozone during Labour's time in office. This was despite Tony Blair's enthusiasm for the project.
There were many aspects of the recent Treaty that I was extremely uneasy with. Most notably, the proposal that the budgets of individual member states should be ratified by the EU, so enthusiastically supported by Merkel and Sarkosy.
This was clearly a step too far and would have undermined the sovereignty of each nation beyond measure.
The decision to join the EU in 1975 was a controversial one and the calls for Britain to hold a referendum on whether we should stay in Europe are growing. Many are now suggesting that should Ed Miliband throw his and Labour's support behind holding a referendum on this issue, his popularity would increase overnight.http://labourlist.org/2011/12/the-time-is-right-for-a-referendum/?utm_source=LunchtimeList&utm_campaign=cf1717ac0d-LunchtimeList_72311_22_2011&utm_medium=email
The bottom line is that most Britons have never wanted and do not want a United States of Europe. From this point of view, Cameron was right to use his veto. And the timing of the recent Summit has meant that the Prime Minister is ending 2011 on a high, with his personal ratings well above those of both Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even his own party.http://news.yahoo.com/cameron-ends-tough-poll-high-190450898.html
However my worry is, that by closing the door so firmly at this stage, Britain's negotiating power within the EU has now been severely weakened.
Monday, 28 November 2011
Coalition Economic Strategy Under Fire After Osborne's Autumn Statement
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16120010
Chancellor George Osborne's Autumn Statement, as expected, received a scathing response from his Labour shadow, Ed Balls.
The Shadow Chancellor told the Commons that the Coalition's plan to reduce the deficit they inherited from Labour had failed 'colossally'.
And indeed Mr Osborne made no attempt to sugar-coat Britain's economic woes.
The UK was almost certainly heading towards another recession, he said, with the current crisis in the eurozone likely to have a severe knock-on effect on Britain's economy.
Not only did the Chancellor admit that the deficit would not now be eliminated before 2016/7 as opposed to before the next election in 2015 as repeatedly promised. He also predicted that growth for this year would be just 0.9%; significantly less than the 1.7% earlier predicted.
Unemployment is set to rise even further at least into the first quarter of 2012, with the public sector almost certainly the hardest hit.
Most damning of all, the coalition looks set to borrow a whopping £111bn more over the next five years than originally thought - what a stunning turn-around from a government who have made enormous political capital out of slating the previous Labour administration over how much money they borrowed from the public purse and repeatedly accusing them of leaving the country bankrupt.
What a contrast this year's Autumn statement has been with what the Chancellor declared in his first Budget last year. 'Today's the day that we pulled this country back from the brink!", I clearly remember him telling the House of Commons.
Now George Osborne has been well and truly forced to eat those words and admit that Britain's journey back to economic health will be a long and arduous one.
Chancellor George Osborne's Autumn Statement, as expected, received a scathing response from his Labour shadow, Ed Balls.
The Shadow Chancellor told the Commons that the Coalition's plan to reduce the deficit they inherited from Labour had failed 'colossally'.
And indeed Mr Osborne made no attempt to sugar-coat Britain's economic woes.
The UK was almost certainly heading towards another recession, he said, with the current crisis in the eurozone likely to have a severe knock-on effect on Britain's economy.
Not only did the Chancellor admit that the deficit would not now be eliminated before 2016/7 as opposed to before the next election in 2015 as repeatedly promised. He also predicted that growth for this year would be just 0.9%; significantly less than the 1.7% earlier predicted.
Unemployment is set to rise even further at least into the first quarter of 2012, with the public sector almost certainly the hardest hit.
Most damning of all, the coalition looks set to borrow a whopping £111bn more over the next five years than originally thought - what a stunning turn-around from a government who have made enormous political capital out of slating the previous Labour administration over how much money they borrowed from the public purse and repeatedly accusing them of leaving the country bankrupt.
What a contrast this year's Autumn statement has been with what the Chancellor declared in his first Budget last year. 'Today's the day that we pulled this country back from the brink!", I clearly remember him telling the House of Commons.
Now George Osborne has been well and truly forced to eat those words and admit that Britain's journey back to economic health will be a long and arduous one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)