George osborne's task to bring stability gets graphically harder.
When it was pointed out, under the previous Labour government by Standard and Poors that the economy could be in for a rough ride, George Osborne called for a General election there and then.
Now that the IFS has intimated that the current austerity measures may have to be stretched out until 2017/2018 to get the economy back on track, I wonder if he'll be issuing the same demand?
The good news for the people whose paymaster is the DWP is that the £10bn George Osborne was reported to have been eying from the welfare budget was over estimated last week.
According to MSN News, the figure now stands at a paltry £8bn - there, 20% back in our pockets straight away. The fact that George Osborne was planning to take it without our consent in the first place is seemingly neither here nor there.
George Osborne was pissing into the wind with his '2015 target' for stability to replace austerity
The news is a far cry from The Chancellor's original forecast for the austerity measures to bring stability, even prosperity, by 2015. Something rattles in the back of my head, mm, the words election promises broken. Something like that.
The really bad news comes not in the assessment of the UK's economy as it stands, but what it means long term. Whilst the budget looked to address or at least prepare for external factors, the global economy and our trade into Europe is in greater decline than foreseen in April.
Over the next five or six years, the remainder of this term in Government office and practically all of the next, a further £11bn will have to be raised from taxes and budget cuts to turn this ship around. That's over and above the £8bn already earmarked.
In little over a week's time, we get the Autumn Statement. No doubt George Osborne's plans for tax cuts and the squeezing of the welfare budget will be made public then.
But expect strong resistance from Nick Clegg and Vince Cable to any harsh proposals to taxing the poor over the wealthy. It should be an interesting battle and it wouldn't surprise me if it marked the beginning of the end of the coalition.
Who do you think will secure that next term of office? And more to the point, who would want to given the financial hardships we face if the IFS research is accurate? Let's hear from yer!