IMF says no changes are required to UK economic policy

[Chris]

Chew on this, Eds.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that no changes are needed to UK economic policy. It said weak economic growth and rising inflation had been "unexpected", but said they were "largely temporary". It pointed to rising commodity prices and the increase in VAT as temporary problems for inflation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13668574

[Anonymouse]

Anyone who thinks the IMF is worth listening to should read Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine - they have a lot to answer for all over the world, as does the World Bank. We don't want shock therapy applied here in the UK again - just ask the miners.

[Chris]

for the benefit of the usual Left-leaning suspects, who have made a habit of posting extensively on Tory economic policy over the last few weeks but who now seem strangely quiet.

Also to add a little commentary from Newsnight's Paul Mason:

The IMF has spelled out a clear Plan B for George Osborne, should low growth and high-ish unemployment persist, but it is not the one he has been urged to adopt by Labour and is not needed yet.

...The government's special advisers were beaming from ear to ear and have a right to. The IMF has systematically gainsaid Labour and the economists who lined up over the weekend to call for a slowing down of austerity.

Emphasis added by me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13672752

In fact, *if* policy changes are required, the IMF would like to see the Coalition do what the Coalition has already indicated it would do if required - raise benefits/cut taxes for low-income earners, and apply more quantitive easing.

Most definitely *not* reducing the pace of public spending cuts as Labour has been demanding.

[Derek]

But, but, but it's the Tories, they are evil and eat babies.

Yep funny how Ed Balls isn't as mouthy today as he was on TV yesterday moaning away.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Derek

Yep funny how Ed Balls isn't as mouthy today as he was on TV yesterday moaning away.

Ask and you shall receive.

Posted, funnily enough it would appear, just as you posted.

Balls says plan not working.

[martyh]

So who to believe ,Ed Balls or a international financial institution that has their ear to most countries finances .....it's a toughie this one but i think i'll go with the IMF

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ask and you shall receive.

Posted, funnily enough it would appear, just as you posted.

Balls says plan not working.

"By cutting too far and too fast, I believe he is creating a vicious circle," Mr Balls told the GMB trade union's annual conference.

So, an audience that wanted to hear him attack the Government, rather than a journalist making him justify his position.

I'll be more interested in what Balls has to say when he has to say it in front of someone who might ask some difficult follow-up questions.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'll be more interested in what Balls has to say when he has to say it in front of someone who might ask some difficult follow-up questions.

Yes, you and I both.

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

So who to believe ,Ed Balls or a international financial institution that has their ear to most countries finances .....it's a toughie this one but i think i'll go with the IMF

Just for info Marty, here is a stunning example of the IMF's "ear to most countries finances" from 2007. They don't know as much about economies as you might like to think.

Joseph Stiglitz hit it pretty much on the head when he observed “When the IMF arrives in a country, they are interested in only one thing. How do we make sure the banks and financial institutions are paid?... It is the IMF that keeps the [financial] speculators in business. They’re not interested in development, or what helps a country to get out of poverty.�

Ireland, and its recent bail out, is proof positive of this.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Just for info Marty, here is a stunning example of the IMF's "ear to most countries finances" from 2007. They don't know as much about economies as you might like to think.

Joseph Stiglitz hit it pretty much on the head when he observed “When the IMF arrives in a country, they are interested in only one thing. How do we make sure the banks and financial institutions are paid?... It is the IMF that keeps the [financial] speculators in business. They’re not interested in development, or what helps a country to get out of poverty.�

Ireland, and its recent bail out, is proof positive of this.

So do we take the IMF's approval of our financial plans with cautious optimism and continue with the current plan ?

Incidently the article you linked is an oustanding example both of the gullibility of the IMF and the level of skill that Gordon Brown has in hogwashing people

I notice they covered their backs with this little gem

"Depending on evolving prospects for wage growth, some further tightening of monetary policy may be required."

seems they got that bit right

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

So do we take the IMF's approval of our financial plans with cautious optimism and continue with the current plan ?

The current "plan" which the coalition are employing is effectively an IMF "template" - they are hardly likely to be overly critical. However, as you point out below, they do use cautious terminology to cover their backs.

Originally Posted by martyh

Incidently the article you linked is an oustanding example both of the gullibility of the IMF and the level of skill that Gordon Brown has in hogwashing people

Which was my point.

Originally Posted by martyh

I notice they covered their backs with this little gem



seems they got that bit right

See above.

[Chris]

Ed balls just got Paxoed on Newsnight. Balls smirked a bit too much and made himself look and sound like David Brent.

[Pierre]

Just what has Ethan Hunt, and the whole "Impossible Missions" team got to do with this?

Next you'll be telling me that U.N.C.L.E have a new angle on the economy, And that SHADO will be influencing fiscal policy.

[Chris]

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

Ed balls just got Paxoed on Newsnight. Balls smirked a bit too much and made himself look and sound like David Brent.

IMHO David Brent would be a more credible chancellor....

Haven't seen it all yet but I hope Paxman reminded forgetful Ed of the major role he played in devising and implementing New Labour's very own version of Viv Nicholson's spending regime.

For anyone who's interested it's here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25

Amongst other things, Balls seems to be implying that the IMF had political motives for their statements - don't suppose his latest set of 'views' have any political 'colour' to them then....

[Chris]

He did seem to have Paxman reeling with open-mouthed amazement last night. Balls' counter-argument to the IMF statements being put to him was an exercise in simple contradiction. IIRC at one point he was simply deflecting the facts with repeated use of "Is it really?" Somehow channelling Ricky Gervais and Catherine Tate all at the same time. Utterly, utterly hopeless.

And I notice that the forum's usual Labour cheerleaders are still staying well away from this thread.