'Genius' George! Stop digging the hole! @ No 10

"Did you hear the noise of digging?!" Arturo asked.

"What are you on about? No one digs up the roads at the weekend!" I replied.

"That's what you think! 'Genius Georgy' Osborne - him next door - is digging a hole large enough to swallow the whole country! Just read these." He indicated a series of articles.

Britain's credit rating downgraded from AAA to Aa1: The Government’s economic strategy has been dealt a serious blow after a leading credit ratings agency downgraded UK debt on its expectation that growth will "remain sluggish over the next few years".

That was one headline in the Telegraph. James Hurley wrote:

Moody’s announced on Friday night that it had cut the Government’s bond rating one notch from ‘Aaa’ – the highest possible level – to ‘Aa1’.

The move is a significant setback for Chancellor George Osborne, who has faced criticism that his strategy for dealing with UK’s huge debt burden is failing to deliver.

Hurley added the following comment:

Mr Osborne responded to the downgrade by insisting he would not change course on the Government’s austerity programme.

He called Moody’s decision a “stark reminder of the debt problems facing our country – and the clearest possible warning to anyone who thinks we can run away from dealing with those problems”.

“Far from weakening our resolve to deliver our economic recovery plan, this decision redoubles it.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9889410/Britains-credit-rating-downgraded-from-AAA-to-Aa1.html

Well, well, well!! There's a fine howdy-do! Just think about it, for a minute or two. Imagine a man observing a small hole that has appeared at one corner of his house. He decides to investigate. He digs up the earth in front, then starts digging down and under the wall. "Hey!! Don't do that, the house looks pretty unstable already", someone shouts from behind him. "It's fine", shouts the man, spade in hand. "I know exactly what I'm doing." He continues digging with zest! Crunch - Crunch - Bang! Down falls the side of the house!

That is basically the scenario the Telegraph article has reported. 'Genius Georgy' Osborne saw a hole in the UK economy, so he began digging! Various agencies shouted warnings. He replied he had a 'plan' and would not deviate from it. The hole got bigger - Osborne still stuck to his plan. The walls are now crumbling. Still he is digging!

Patrick Hennessy, also in the Telegraph, wrote:

Mr Osborne insisted that the Coalition will not change course on the economy, saying the downgrade made it all the more important to stick to attempts to cut Britain’s deficit.

He said: "I think we've got a very clear message, a loud and clear message that Britain cannot let up in dealing with its debts, dealing with its problems, cannot let up in making sure that Britain can pay its way in the world.

"Britain's got a debt problem. I agree with that. I've been telling the country for years that we've got a debt problem, we've got to deal with it.

"What do they also say? That if we abandon our commitment to deal with that debt problem, then our situation would get very much worse and I'm absolutely clear that we must not do that."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9889605/George-Osborne-no-let-up-in-plan-to-cut-deficit-after-AAA-downgrade.html

'Genius Georgy' Osborne is in trouble! That is plain for all to see. His Plan A is not working. The walls are really cracking around him. If he doesn't find a Plan A1 or Plan B, then no doubt Moody's will cut their rating still more. The UK will not be AAA or AA1 it will be in free-fall! When you're in a hole, 'Genius George', the sensible thing to do is STOP DIGGING!

Georgy has a Budget coming up! Will he be still digging? Wait for the next exciting instalment, folks!

Meanwhile - Arturo and I are fine dining tonight - left-overs from the caviar tea!

Bye

Where's the beef? @ No. 10

With all the horse-meat kerfuffle going on, Arturo and I have been busy examining every morsel of meat from both the No 11 and No 10 kitchens. Arturo swears he sniffed a whiff of horse-meat from the spaghetti bolognese leftovers put out for me by the cook!! But to cut to the chase, as they say! And I don't mean a steeplechase either! It isn't just beef that's occupied our minds, no siree!

On Valentine's Day, I perused the Guardian and spotted a letter from several academics. They had written about 'Child poverty measures'. What they wrote made both Arturo and me sit up. They wrote:

Tomorrow marks the end of the consultation period for the government's proposals to measure child poverty in a new way. Several of us, fellows of the British Academy, with colleagues, have responded, pointing out the ways in which the proposals are confused and would meet neither the government's objectives nor international standards.

We agree that as well as tracking how many children are in poverty as currently measured, it is helpful to track what is happening to the factors that lead to poverty and the barriers to children's life chances. But it does not make sense to combine all of these into a single measure. To do so would open up the government to the accusation that it aims to dilute the importance of income in monitoring the extent of "poverty" at precisely the time that its policies will be reducing the real incomes of poor families. We call on the government to reconsider its proposals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/child-poverty-government-measures

In the same edition of the Guardian, there was an article on the topic written by Amelia Gentleman. She wrote:

A consultation on how to measure child poverty more accurately that was launched last November, seeking input from charities and experts into "better measures of child poverty", comes to an end on Friday. The government believes that a wider definition of what constitutes poverty will give a better picture of what it means to "grow up experiencing deep disadvantage".

She quotes from the academics' letter and then goes on to add:

Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, the lead consultant on the UK's contribution to Unicef's Child Well-Being report, said he believed that the government was "trying to move the goalposts" at a time when child poverty was increasing rapidly.

He described the consultation document as the worst paper setting down government policy direction he had ever read, questioned whether it was written by civil servants and said it read more like it had been "plagiarised from a right-wing thinktank tract".

Further on, in her article, Amelia Gentleman writes:

In a speech to launch the consultation, Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, outlined his theory that other factors aside from money caused poverty, highlighting his concern about children growing up in "dysfunctional families".

He argued: "It cannot be right that experiences so vital to childhood, like seeing a parent go out to work or growing up in a stable family, are not reflected in our understanding of child poverty." He was critical of the Labour government's focus on "income as the significant cause and solution".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/14/child-poverty-ministers-downplaying-importance-income

"Ay! Ay!", Arturo said, "What's old 'Silent Man' Iain Duncan Smith up to? He may pretend he has one - but he's no 'bleeding heart' Tory! He cries crocodile tears!"

Arturo usually knows his onions! So I decided to look into the matter a bit more. I discovered that as far back as November 2012, Amelia Gentleman had been writing about this self-same issue. In the Guardian, at that time, she quoted several experts who had strong misgivings about the proposal to re-define 'child poverty'. She wrote:

Poverty-fighting charities have expressed unease about the government's argument that shortage of money is not the most significant cause of poverty, but the launch of the CSJ's research project is set to bolster the shift in thinking at the heart of government.

... Imran Hussain, head of policy at the Child Poverty Action Group, said he was not convinced that a better understanding of family breakdown was key to understanding poverty. "In other countries where you have less inequality, and decent benefits and good social protection, typically Scandinavian countries, then family breakdown doesn't lead to poverty."

... For Professor John Hills, an inequality expert at the LSE, it is simply a question of balance. "It is not that acute problems of addiction or family disruption are not major problems in people's lives and are not among the causes of people having low incomes; the problem is in suggesting that these are the main drivers."

He wondered if having a debate over poverty definitions would have a muddying effect, at a time when poverty levels are set to rise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/28/child-poverty-debate-conservatives-analysis

Now, we know that the Coalition is not quite as cohesive as it once pretended to be. The LibDems and the Tories are both aching to win the Eastleigh by-election. Maybe, just maybe, the issue of defining child poverty will widen the gap. Who knows? If it doesn't - questions will have to be asked about how effective their 'softening approach' is on the 'hard-hearted' Tories!! Arturo thinks there's more mileage in the topic. I'm sure he's right.

Another little detail has exercised my mind, this week. It's not that I'm jealous, you understand! But - how come that lazy so-and-so upstairs - Larry - was chosen to receive a cuddly toy tiger from the London Zoological Society? And how did I get to hear of it? On Twitter!!!

Photo: Larry the cat's new toy shows he supports the @ZSLLondonZoo campaign to support Sumatran tiger conservation http://ow.ly/hKPyQ

http://www.flickr.com/photos/number10gov/8475293281/in/set-72157632774162186

Arturo and I are off to sniff out whether it's beef or horse-meat for dinner tonight.

Bye

Debt & Deficit: Ignorance @ No. 10

"What price an Eton education now, mi old pal?" Arturo asked rather too gleefully, I thought. He gestured at a nearby laptop screen. It was 'The Green Benches' blog written by Dr Eoin Clarke. The particular blog post had the headline:

UK Statistics boss slams David Cameron's lies on the National Debt

'Lies'! I don't know whether that was the correct description of the Prime Minister's words. I rather think, as did Arturo, that it was just plain, old-fashioned ignorance! You must decide for yourself which is more apt. Of course, there is also the possibility that it might just be plain old politics!

So how did all this come about, you may ask? Well, Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent, of the Telegraph gave the basic details in an article headed:

David Cameron given a lecture on 'debt' and 'deficit' by top statistics official: David Cameron has been taught the difference between "debt" and "deficit" by Britain's top statistics official, after he was accused of confusing the two economic terms.

It seems that the circumstances were as follows:

The Prime Minister was issued with the explanation by the UK Statistics Authority, after he claimed in a Conservative Party political broadcast that "we are paying down Britain’s debts.”

Oh Dear! After all that expensive education! How the Eton masters must be holding their heads in despair! Won't do the recruitment figures much good, will it? They must be praying that the Eton educated 'Georgy' Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, does know how many pennies make a pound!

Besides the issue of definitions! What about the syntax? 'paying down' is not the sort of phraseology that my old English teacher would have countenanced! What do you think? Do you 'pay down' your debts? I just 'pay' my debts! Possibly, I am missing some fine innuendo here - is there some poetic meaning in 'paying down'?

Rowena Mason went on to elucidate the issue, in her article:

The definitions:

Public sector net debt

A measure of how much the UK public sector owes at a given time.

Public sector net borrowing

The difference between total accrued receipts and total accrued (current and capital) expenditure over a specified period; this measure is frequently used by commentators to summarise the extent of any public sector ‘deficit’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9842553/David-Cameron-given-a-lecture-on-debt-and-deficit-by-top-statistics-official.html

Now that is clear enough isn't it? Perhaps, however, you might like to read the whole letter that Andrew Dilnot, Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She had asked him to:

"bring some clarity to the situation and advise on how we can ensure that in the future debate on the national debt is accurate and based on the facts".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9842553/David-Cameron-given-a-lecture-on-debt-and-deficit-by-top-statistics-official.html

The whole letter can be found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123331735/Dilnot-to-Reeves

In relation to 'Boy David' Cameron's statement that "we are paying down Britain’s debts”, it is worth noting the following graph in the Annex to Mr Dilnot's letter:

:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/123331735/Dilnot-to-Reeves

Oh dear! It seems that the idea of 'paying DOWN' has gone somewhat awry! In the circumstances, I do rather like the final line in Mr Dilnot's letter:

I am copying this to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff at 10 Downing Street

A delicate touch, don't you think? Certainly it kept old Arturo cheerful for a whole day! He's been pawing his way through various Dictionaries of Economics with evident gusto!

As for me, I've been scouring round the upstairs kitchen whilst the PM is away in Africa. Came across several dainty morsels of discarded pizza. I hope they're more recent than the rowdy pizza-fest at Davos! Anyway, Arturo and I are going to eat them tonight!

Bye