Predictions, being "things that might happen in the future" are always susceptible, indeed dependant upon "things that happen", trying to deny that a prediction is any less true because "things happened" is a bit daft, even Nostradamus got some things right because some other things happened and he was full of horse.

He did reputedly get it right about predicting the time and death of Heny11 of france and there is a suit of Armour in the RA which is said to have been worn by him on that fateful day

you need to sort your Roman numerals out mate.

I do agree that predictions are not always based on experience and knowlege. In this case tvoc vainly stated that his predictions of 12 mths ago were more acurate than all the experts.

For his prediction to have almost come true has needed a Japanese Tsunami, huge rises in commodity prices and finally economic collapse in Euroland. My point is not to deny his prediction, but to point out that to have predicted this downward effect of these 3 great outside forces, required an equally great negative outlook rather than experience and knowledge. But you knew that anyway didn't you?

My gloomy (and it would appear thus far accurate) forecast was based on a combination of the measures the UK government were taking and the state of the world economy generally paying particular attention to our biggest export market.

Shoot the messenger all you like.

Meanwhile I await Gordon Brown's (sorry Gideon's) latest budget announcement with interest.

False premise, although I suspect you knew that, just as you knew you were quoting median not mean public/private sector salary averages upthread.

Two of the above events are predictable (as in possible to predict, rather than necessarily simple to predict), not bolts from the blue. Whether or not they're "outside forces" it's entirely possible and sensible to take them into account in economic forecasts, particularly given that they'd started happening (Greece, commodities) a lot longer than 12 months ago.

never could do them after Herny V ,but no I dont NEED to get them right becuase they are not important to me.

Then don't use them as not only are they incorrect they are mis-leading. Henry 11 has not lived yet, and may never live. What you are after is Henry II

meh

I was quoting from the ONS report as stated. Public sector salaries are now higher than in the private sector yet the public sector still get the gold plated pension deals which are far superior to the rest of the workers who have to pay for them.

Not a false premise at all.

You can argue to a degree all things are possible. But that is a pretty pathetic justification of a prediction.

Yes we knew 12 months ago of the bailout for Greece and Ireland and of a worsening economic situation. But what nobody predicted then was that the Euro politicians would be unable to agree any strategy at all for preventing the contagion spreading across the whole Euro zone. This failure to act to solve the problem has now reached the stage where it is likley that we will see the break up of the Euro zone and even a possible split in the whole EU. Just because we have witnessed this horror occurring in a sort of slow motion every night on TV over the last 6 months does not mean it has not had the same negative effect on growth as a "bolt from the blue" compared to 12 months ago.

What is the common denominator across these bankrupt countries is a ten year binge of state overspending with borrowed money that they are unable to pay back. In each case the public sector grew too large and the benefits awarded were too generous. Result austerity.

With the whole of Europe entering recession and possibly the USA too, to somehow imply that the UK should have avoided this downturn had we heeded some prediction of doom from a disciple of the Ed "utter" Balls school of overspending economics just beggars belief.

It's not an "everything is possible" argument, it's a "some things are predictable, and should have contingencies" argument. Of course, it's impossible to have contingencies when you're dogmatically deadset on a Plan A. There's also a notable lack of contingency in today's Autumn statement which, depressing though it was, understated the potentiality of the situation that THIS government's policies have got us into over the last year. (A ship with a hole in it on the sea of "externals". They're not responsible for the sea, but they can have the ship in a state to weather the storm.)

So the point isn't about avoiding a downturn, it's about minimizing the effect of the downturn. It's not about whether to reduce the deficit, but how and when to reduce the deficit. And your boys have done it the most knuckleheaded way imaginable, and it has of course failed. It's not a massive stretch to say Darling's plans would have led to lower unemployment, higher tax yield, less benefits payments, a healthier economy and less debt.

And to hear Osborne bllocking on about low bond yields and borrowing points being evidence we're a safe haven, as opposed to a flatlined economy where growth is so appalling that the markets have no expectation that the we'll be able to raise interest rates for years, but which happens to have no chance of default because we can print our own currency, just makes me want to put my foot through the television.

I thought you would have hated this mini-budget, given that it's very a much a Brown-style micro-managed tinkering around the edges. With the key differences that 1) we're not in a period of growth, and 2) the redistibutive measures that have been sneaked in are very much the other way: from poor to rich.

And as for the strikes that started off this thread: given a 16% pay cut against inflation over the next four years and 710,000 redundancies (to go where? the Private Sector? With these policies? Hahahahahaha), then you'd probably better get used to strikes. Until they start legislating to erode the right to them, which will almost certainly be next. On the bright side, the government will indeed be saving on pension payments, because less people will be getting them at all...

You're reading the original post totally wrong, it was Heny 11, nothing to do with Henry's at all, not sure what country Heny 11 was king of but I'm sure the point is a good one.

Look I may have got me roman numerals wrong,but if I typed HENY ,Iam having trouble with my keyboard and sometimes it misses out letters and I dont notice.Anyway Nostrodamus was predecting the death of the French king so it must have been Henri,and its the finest suit of armour in the RA

/b]
thats my name on the other forum,but if you look at the artwork on the Lionarmour its superb.The FIeldofclothofgold Armour is quite magnificent,but when the french king changed the rules he was unable to wear it,and he had to wear the one he had for a few years.so all the work by the great Armourer Von Sussenhoffer so Henry could show off it was not used