Coppola Comment

At Prime Minister's Questions the other day, Jeremy Corbyn produced a case study of a working single mother who would suffer a substantial real fall in income due to tax credit cuts despite the NLW and tax threshold rise. In response, David Cameron claimed the new National Living Wage and tax threshold rises would mean that working people on low incomes would be better off by 2020. Who is right? The National Living Wage will improve earned income for a high proportion of families. The Resolution Foundation estimated that : 4.5 million employees will see their hourly wage rise as a result of introduction of the NLW in 2016. Of those, 1.9 million earning less than the NLW are set to be brought up to at least that level, with a further 2.6 million gaining from spillovers.  By 2020, a total of 6 million employees – 23 per cent of all employees in Britain – are likely to have received some increase in their pay as a result, with 3.2 million being brought up to at least the NLW

No , says  The Times ' David Smith . He says that the notion that there was a pause in austerity is an "austerity myth". He points to this chart  from the Office for Budget Responsibility  that shows fiscal consolidation as a percentage of GDP (relative to the 2008 Budget) continuing on   throughout 2013 and 2014 and 2015: But the OBR's chart doesn't actually show what I would define as austerity. It shows the size of the government budget as a percentage of GDP relative to previous budgets. That's a good deal of moving parts. And that creates a good deal of ambiguity. Under such a definition, if the economy grows and government spending stays constant, there has been fiscal consolidation. In fact, if the size of the budget  grows  but the economy grows more, there has still been "fiscal consolidation".  What I am referring to when I claim that Osborne paused austerity in 2013 is the pause in the slashing back of government spending. Simply,