So from the article above we go from here:
[iHe said the OBR had made it clear that growth had been depressed by the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, instability in the eurozone and a sharp rise in oil prices between 2010 and 2011.
The watchdog, he added, was "absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible, in fact, quite the opposite".[/i
To this response from the OBR - a direct contradiction
[i"To summarise, we believe that fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the past couple of years."[/i
To here:
[iA Downing Street spokesman said the OBR had pinpointed "external inflation shocks, the eurozone and financial sector difficulties as the reasons why their forecasts have come in lower than expected".
"That is precisely the point the prime minister was underlining," he added. [/i
No he wasn't! While the OBR acknowledges several factors besides austerity measures have contributed to the state of the economy they are quite categorical that deficit reduction was a factor and Cameron was saying they said the exact opposite. That was his point.
So not only do we have Cameron telling porkies we have "A Downing Street spokesman" doing the same.
Who are these "Downing Street spokesmen" anyway? Civil servants? If so they ought not be defending government policy. That is up to the government not them. If they are civel servants then they have been politicised.
