Who is right about the British economy?

First topic message reminder :

As Lloyd Grossman would say "lets look at the evidence"

26th January 2010 - this was the date that the UK recession was finaly over, our growth returned back into the black again at 0.1% later revised upwards to 0.4%.

This was also a news story back in January 2010
--------------------------------------------------------

The begining of 2010 has seen some improvement in the uk housing market. People's confidence seems to have returned to pre uk recession levels.(Zoopla.co.uk)

In the second quarter of 2010 the economy of the United Kingdom was growing at 1.2%, the fastest rate of growth for nine years.

By July the new coalition government had been in power for a couple of months, the chancellor gave his first budget and the nation was put on alert for the waves of spending cuts and redundancies which were to follow soon.

Towards the end of 2010 UK growth began to go backwards again, and actualy went back into negative growth in the 4th quarter, perilously close to recession again.

So here we are in October 2011, 19 months after this government entered office and our growth figures are lower than what they were when they came to office in May 2010.

But not only is growth stagnant, unemployment is higher, inflation is higher, confidence is lower, no sign of a recovery in the housing market, and the promise that the private sector can take up the slack of the thousands made redundant hasent happened.

As we approach the 18 month mark, is time begining to run out for David Cameron and George Osborne. ?

So, record petrol and diesel prices. Nothing to do with the Tories - it's all about world raw material prices , it seems.

Then there's the financial crisis. Nothing to do wth the Tories - it's a global problem, apparently.

How strange, then, that when the last government was in power both these critical issues were firmly put at their door by Cameron and his compliant media poodles. No suggestion at that stage that the problems could be due to external influences. Does anyone know why this should be...?

Hiya Phil,


Seems to me, that G. Brown (just for a lark) should engineer a question at PMQ - I believe they are all rehearsed, then at the last moment demand an appology from Cameron for all the lies and untruths he was spreading at home and abroad!

I would rather enjoy the look on our leader's phizzog! methinks

Phil Hornby wrote:So, record petrol and diesel prices. Nothing to do with the Tories - it's all about world raw material prices , it seems.

Then there's the financial crisis. Nothing to do wth the Tories - it's a global problem, apparently.

How strange, then, that when the last government was in power both these critical issues were firmly put at their door by Cameron and his compliant media poodles. No suggestion at that stage that the problems could be due to external influences. Does anyone know why this should be...?

Hi Phil
its quite amazing how the last Government is blamed for just about everything...some Tories still even blame them for a world banking crisis as well..so why not added everything else as well...quite amazing if you ask me..

astra wrote:Hiya Phil,


Seems to me, that G. Brown (just for a lark) should engineer a question at PMQ - I believe they are all rehearsed, then at the last moment demand an appology from Cameron for all the lies and untruths he was spreading at home and abroad!

I would rather enjoy the look on our leader's phizzog! methinks

There's one thing you have forgotten in life. A lie is only a lie to the one who hears it. To the one who tells it, it is the truth.

There's one thing you have forgotten in life. A lie is only a lie to the one who hears it. To the one who tells it, it is the truth..
trevorw2539

The liar ALWAYS forgets that there ARE folk out there with long memories.

The main problem with telling lies is that you have to have such a good memory.

Astra, Oftenwrong. Thats why I always tell the - er. the - erm

I feel better now!


Someone else is having a Senior Moment

astra wrote:I feel better now!


Someone else is having a Senior Moment

We all have a good old Senior Moment astra, thank god... we do, makes us human

[ Headline - BBC - 15.03.12 ] PM praise for Obamas strength

[ other headlines - BBC - 15.03.12 ]

US retail sales jump in February -- US economy adds jobs in February -- US services see big expansion -- US GDP growth revised upwards -- US financial strains have eased.

Now compare the British economic outlook to that of the United States, perhaps Mr Cameron should have praised Mr Obamas handling of the economy, and congratulated the president on the fast improving outlook over in the US, thanks to the presidents policies.

The very same policies that have led to a real revival in US economic fortunes were proposed in 2010 by Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and endorsed by messers Clegg and Cable.

If this was a court case on the handling of the British economy, and if the ruling was based on evidence, then Cameron and Osborne would now be awaiting sentencing after an overwhelming verdict.

The coalition government have got it badly wrong

Not to minimise the enormous improvement in US finances, both Cameron and Obama are Politicians, and each understands the significance of a looming Presidential election, so they are "talking it up".

witchfinder wrote:[ Headline - BBC - 15.03.12 ] PM praise for Obamas strength

[ other headlines - BBC - 15.03.12 ]

US retail sales jump in February -- US economy adds jobs in February -- US services see big expansion -- US GDP growth revised upwards -- US financial strains have eased.

Now compare the British economic outlook to that of the United States, perhaps Mr Cameron should have praised Mr Obamas handling of the economy, and congratulated the president on the fast improving outlook over in the US, thanks to the presidents policies.

The very same policies that have led to a real revival in US economic fortunes were proposed in 2010 by Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and endorsed by messers Clegg and Cable.

If this was a court case on the handling of the British economy, and if the ruling was based on evidence, then Cameron and Osborne would now be awaiting sentencing after an overwhelming verdict.

The coalition government have got it badly wrong

Hi witchy
you are spot on with your post. while the US is bigger than us and diffrent in many way. they have taken the right road in my view.

(CNN) -- When I hear the word austerity, I immediately think of nuns -- plainly dressed, in austere living quarters, with stern expressions. It's an odd admission coming from a secular Jew who has never set foot in a Catholic school, but not a surprising one given that severe fiscal policies are being meted out on suffering nation-states like swift slaps of a ruler on a wrist.

It's as though profligate countries such as Greece, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States went on a decades-long bender and are just now being reined in by the moral fiscal authority. Never mind that in most civilized societies, we've long decided that spanking our children is an unacceptable form of punishment, not to mention ineffective. Spanking nation-states is becoming a global fad.

Yet not only are austerity plans failing to rescue wayward nations, they're causing even greater harm.
The United Kingdom was the first country laid across the lap of fiscal austerity. Conservatives in Britain argued that government deficits could be solved by slashing public spending quickly and severely. They got what they wanted, including a particularly drastic set of cuts affecting the country's poor and unemployed. But despite the cuts, Britain's economy has not recovered.

This week, Britain announced it was lowering its economic growth estimates yet again and the multinational Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects Britain will enter a recession next year. In other words, England was the pilot test for austerity measures, and the pilot test has failed.

Sally Kohn
England has been roiled by frequent protests against its austerity cuts. Starting Wednesday, 2 million public sector workers in Britain will strike in opposition to the failed austerity agenda, which has not created economic growth but has created enormous hardship for public sector workers already struggling in a down economy. As with the Occupy Wall Street protests in the United States, people around the globe are fed up with pro-big business government policies that systematically help the rich while hurting working families.

Sure, government spending is to some extent part of the problem. But the larger issue is the lack of revenue as governments around the globe have cut the taxes of big business and the rich, creating revenue holes that the recession only made worse. Now, at a moment when poor and working families are unquestionably bearing the brunt of the suffering, austerity measures further cripple the middle class while bolstering the 1%.

Consider, for instance, the Republican austerity plan for the United States economy, advanced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee. About two thirds of the "savings" he outlines comes from proposals to slash food stamps, Medicare and Social Security. But three fourths of that money would go not to paying down our government's deficit but to giving bigger and bigger tax breaks to the rich.

Similarly, politicians in Greece and Europe could have focused their ire much sooner on the banks that made risky loans in the first place, not just pleading with them to take a voluntary "haircut" but forcing a significant scalping, through loss write downs. The banks that made the bad bets and undercapitalized their risks were initially asked to take a 20% write down on losses. Finally, last month, German Chancellor Merkel extracted a 50% write down deal. But that still means the Eurozone is insulating the private banks and wealthy investors from the rest of their irresponsible lending. All along, Greece's middle class public sector workers have been forced to shoulder more than their fair share of the pain.
Walking off the job in Britain Massive worker walkout in Britain

In Greece, more than 30,000 public sector employees face termination. For remaining public sector workers, wages will be cut from 20% to 30%, salaries have been capped through 2014, pensions cut and employee out-of-pocket contributions increased and the retirement age increased. Taxes were raised, but mostly sales taxes that disproportionately affect poor people -- as opposed to raising taxes on the prosperous rich. And still Greece teeters on the edge.

The alleged "deficit crisis" is merely a fig leaf to cover the long-standing neoconservative agenda to gouge public sector unions and poverty alleviation programs and further game politics and the economy to help big business and the rich.


This was said live on CNN in October 2011? interesting yes?

“You have to be a total pleb if you think the last government created the deficit."

http://www.scoop.it/t/deficit-myth

Ivan wrote:“You have to be a total pleb if you think the last government created the deficit."

http://www.scoop.it/t/deficit-myth

No they did not Ivan...your quite right..the CNN report was interesting for what it said about the US is my view...but its quite wrong about the UK.

Who's right about the economy? Well Osborne certainly isn't, as more and more people are realising. Let Johann Hari explain:-

"In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That’s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic breakdown, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it “the paradox of thrift”: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.

Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending – and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled.

It is working now. Which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts."

http://johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics/

Brother Johann rather blotted his copybook at The Independent so as a freelance his words are perhaps subject to a recount. Nevertheless it's true that there is plenty of money about, but those who have it are hanging on to it.

Have you tried to get a mortgage this month? Forget it! (Unless you don't really need the money).

Ivan wrote:Who's right about the economy? Well Osborne certainly isn't, as more and more people are realising. Let Johann Hari explain:-

"In a recession, private individuals like you and me, perfectly sensibly, cut back our spending. We go out less, we buy less, we save more. This causes a huge fall in private demand, and with it a huge fall in economic activity. If, at the very same time, the government cuts back, then overall demand collapses, and a recession becomes a depression. That’s why the government has to do something counter-intuitive. It has to borrow and spend more, to apply jump-leads to the economy. This prevents economic collapse. Instead of spending a fortune on dealing with mass unemployment and economic breakdown, with all the misery that causes, it spends the money on restoring growth. Keynes called it “the paradox of thrift”: when the people spend less, the government has to spend more.

Wherever it has been tried, it has worked. The Great Crash of 1929 was followed by a US President, Hoover, who did everything Cameron demands. He cut spending and paid off the debt. The recession grew and grew. Then Roosevelt was elected and listened to Keynes. He ramped up spending – and unemployment fell, and the economy swelled.

It is working now. Which countries have come out of this recession fastest? They are the ones like South Korea, which have had by far the biggest stimulus packages, paid for with (yes) higher debt. Which countries have fallen furthest and shattered most severely? The ones that tried to pay down their debts immediately with huge cuts."

http://johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics/

An exceptional post Ivan. What's more its was dead right.... as you cannot cut anything without an income. something Cameron is only now finding out after two wasted economic years

Many people react to hard times by delaying payment of their bills.

Unfortunately this custom is reaching epic proportions in British commercial activity. Large firms are "informing" their suppliers that payment will be made after 60 days instead of the 30 days agreed. The smaller firm passes that message down to IT'S suppliers, who are unsurprisingly not in a position to provide an overdraft facility to their customers, so are forced into liquidation.

A firm and its staff no longer have an existence, because "big business" perceived a need to save money.

"Sir" John Hall here in the North used that ideology MANY times, in his own companies which supplied his own companies, but did not pay the small contractors for the above reasons. Much of the roof of St James park was er supplied free because of this.

FACT: Two out of three startup businesses fail within two years.
FACT: Four out of five startup businesses fail within five years.

oftenwrong wrote:Many people react to hard times by delaying payment of their bills.

Unfortunately this custom is reaching epic proportions in British commercial activity. Large firms are "informing" their suppliers that payment will be made after 60 days instead of the 30 days agreed. The smaller firm passes that message down to IT'S suppliers, who are unsurprisingly not in a position to provide an overdraft facility to their customers, so are forced into liquidation.

A firm and its staff no longer have an existence, because "big business" perceived a need to save money.

ow,

My experience over the past two years would bear out what you're saying here. Invoices I present for work done are taking ever longer to be met with payment - due to cashflow between companies in the chain. This, as you suggest, places some companies in a very perilous position - especially if banks will not extend capital in the form of overdrafts, etc. It does mean smaller companies, despite having work on their books, can grind to a halt....or at least be forced to ask staff to 'wait' for wages (which in turn may cause individuals personal financial difficulties). It's pretty tough for a lot of decent, hard working people at the moment.

sickchip wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:.

ow,

My experience over the past two years would bear out what you're saying here. Invoices I present for work done are taking ever longer to be met with payment - due to cashflow between companies in the chain. This, as you suggest, places some companies in a very perilous position - especially if banks will not extend capital in the form of overdrafts, etc. It does mean smaller companies, despite having work on their books, can grind to a halt....or at least be forced to ask staff to 'wait' for wages (which in turn may cause individuals personal financial difficulties). It's pretty tough for a lot of decent, hard working people at the moment.

The irritating aspect is that Government could so easily make it very expensive to delay payment of accounts, by imposing a statutory "late-payment" percentage which a small supplier could enforce legally. But "small businesses" don't contribute to Tory Party funds, do they?

The irritating aspect is that Government could so easily make it very expensive to delay payment of accounts, by imposing a statutory "late-payment" percentage which a small supplier could enforce legally.

This is certainly an idea worth considering. Adding an extra 5% or 10% on could spur companies to ensure payments are met within an agreed time from receipt of invoice.

One sometimes feels the larger companies delay payment as they can make substantial interest by 'sitting on the money'. The idea you present would negate that motive.

A printer I worked for in Scotland, 40 years ago, had just that on the back of all of her bills.
It was along the lines of - pay in 5 days and get a 5% reduction
After 1 month 10% will be added

I never saw any duels to the death on the foyer.

This might be one way out of our current predicament........but have the super rich really got any allegiance to this country. Would they want to help revive Britain? One would think it would be in their interests really!?

Anyway! Here's the solution I mention:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/31/how-to-kickstart-uk-economy

Anybody who might want to suggest it is unfair to expect wealthy individuals to put their hands in their pockets and bail us out, should consider the following info from this article:

Consider first that minuscule group in the stratosphere at the top, Britain's thousand richest. In 1997 they held assets of £99bn, but they took full advantage of New Labour's being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich" to nearly quadruple this to £336bn by 2010.

That's about a 240% increase.

How much has your salary/wage risen by during the same period? If we look at the minimum wage that was approx £5.50ph in 1998, and is now £6.04ph in 2012 - a 10% increase.

I'm suggesting the rich have, comparitively, done rather well since 1997 - and surely couldn't begrudge paying a little back into the system??

Chip "I'm suggesting the rich have, comparitively, done rather well since 1997 - and surely couldn't begrudge paying a little back into the system??"

Absolutely correct. Would it ever happen though??

Mel,

On the 'Blair' thread, when espousing his achievements, you state:

yes he did move the Labour Party to the centre of politics. The rich got richer and so did the poor ( as stated before) hence the divide did not change.

I think the above answers that point, and proves the divide did change:

Consider first that minuscule group in the stratosphere at the top, Britain's thousand richest. In 1997 they held assets of £99bn, but they took full advantage of New Labour's being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich" to nearly quadruple this to £336bn by 2010.

That's about a 240% increase.

How much has your salary/wage risen by during the same period? If we look at the minimum wage that was approx £5.50ph in 1998, and is now £6.04ph in 2012 - a 10% increase.

Yes Chip "On the 'Blair' thread, when espousing his achievements, you state:

If you care to return to that thread and read my last post to you I shall be obliged.

One point you missed Chip. The rich have got very much richer since 2010.

Mel wrote:One point you missed Chip. The rich have got very much richer since 2010.

That's surely a misprint? Should that not read 'The rich have got filthy rich since 2010'

Mel and Trevor,

Why, on earth, can you not recognise that under New Labour inequality increased faster than at any other time.

Consider first that minuscule group in the stratosphere at the top, Britain's thousand richest. In 1997 they held assets of £99bn, but they took full advantage of New Labour's being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich" to nearly quadruple this to £336bn by 2010.

Note: the above: 1997 - 2010

I suppose you'll be blind to the following statements too. Are you programmed not to recognise such information? Does it not compute?


Over the last 10 years, the assets of the richest 200 people in the UK have almost trebled. In 2003, when there were 21 billionaires on the list, the richest 200 were worth £102 billion. Today, there are 77 billionaires worth £288.5 billion. An individual entering the Rich List top 100 in 2003 required assets of just under £400 million. Today, £800 million is required. To enter the top 50 in 2003 required wealth of almost £600 million. Today, the level required for access is £1.4 billion.

This has been the remit of successive UK governments over the past three decades, and was the raison d’être of the 1997-2010 Labour government. It was former prime minister Tony Blair’s close adviser, Peter Mandelson, who said that the Labour Party was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. Labour was as good as its word and presided over more than a decade in which the gap between rich and poor exceeded that of Victorian-era Britain.
Now, while the billionaires and multimillionaires continue to suck up and squander wealth on a scale unparalleled in history, the political elite and media insist on austerity for the mass of the population for decades to come.

Even a 20 percent tax on the estimated £414 billion of the super-wealthy would match the entire current £83 billion austerity programme of the Conservative/Liberal government. However, the assorted multimillionaires in the Cabinet are having none of it.

Mel, Trevor - read the following and tell me New Labour are not guilty of engaging in a program of deliberately accelerating inequality.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XakEyP8bnvoJ:highpaycommission.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HPC-IR.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj_tko26nF3wNHe_N9dkikjxOJNIjaABJqQ174lRbFdf7K8ic_BRmB0MtBz1uXaqaRP38ULrxSKtVWyFXP8gtnuJygCpk-QTaLqmWib7kN_hprvaVFX2fj3FE-0j7Vsv71wdvPG&sig=AHIEtbSE5RmRwh2Zyti8QNI_k4ty9k3mEQ

Envy is a weak base upon which to build.

oftenwrong

Envy is a weak base upon which to build.

Consider first that minuscule group in the stratosphere at the top, Britain's thousand richest. In 1997 they held assets of £99bn, but they took full advantage of New Labour's being "intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich" to nearly quadruple this to £336bn by 2010.

That's about a 240% increase.

How much has your salary/wage risen by during the same period? If we look at the minimum wage that was approx £5.50ph in 1998, and is now £6.04ph in 2012 - a 10% increase.

What on earth has any of this got to do with envy? Do you think these accelerating levels of inequality are perfectly ok? If anybody raises questions about it, are you justified in saying it's merely the 'politics of envy'? A lame, and tired, response, ow - I would expect better insight, and judgement, from you........perhaps I've misunderstood your post?

It is about the unjustified greed of the rich and their abuse of their fellow man. And has absolutely nothing to do with envy.

Mel wrote:One point you missed Chip. The rich have got very much richer since 2010.

Well pointed out Mel.

Stox,

Mel wrote:
One point you missed Chip. The rich have got very much richer since 2010.

Well pointed out Mel.

Yes! They're simply carrying on what the Labour party were doing for 13yrs. So really you may as well just say the rich have got very much richer since 1997.

You have got it bad Chip. You are right that the rich got richer under NL, if according to your reports you are correct.

If as you say there are so many more billionairs, then perhaps the divide between the rich and the poor
did become wider and not surprising so. However the poor did became better off under NL if you prefer not to
accept the term "the poor got richer".

Since May 2010 the rich have become even richer under the Tory dominated Coalition, and the poor have poorer along with the middle classes. It's the same old story, crisis or not under Tory rule the rich never suffer, in fact they prosper. Strange that!!!!!!

The interesting thing is that "The Rich", if you ever get into conversation with one, feel that they have the same troubles as everyone else. I remember a titled lady shown in a TV programme calling on her tenants in order to collect their rent, explaining to the man who had damp walls that she "had precisely the same problem on a wall up at The House where the stable joined the kitchen."

In my own experience I rather pissed-off a gentleman with a villa near Marbella by laughing when he told me that he had "lost £40,000 on his aircraft shares" that day. At that juncture I would have earned such an amount after about three years working.

Roman Abramovich must get quite cross when one of his his multi-million-pound strikers suffers an injury. It's all relative.

Indeed OW, wealthy folk that I have conversed with, of which there have been many, have tended to plead poverty.

One elderly lady of some substance and wealth stated "I have just had to pay £30 to have my refridgerator repaired. When I replied perhaps a new one would have been a better option, she replied " good god my dear man I purchased it second hand and have only had it some 25yrs"

Very true, Mel. The Rich didn't get that way by spending money.

What I fail to understand OW is those who have no living kin, have millions and yet refuse to spend. After all they will not be able to take it with them when they pass on. So why not spend it on themselves or leave it to charity? Better still leave it to me to spread among my friends and family.
You included buddy.

Mel wrote:What I fail to understand OW is those who have no living kin, have millions and yet refuse to spend. After all they will not be able to take it with them when they pass on. So why not spend it on themselves or leave it to charity? Better still leave it to me to spread among my friends and family.
You included buddy.

Hello Mel
You know I do find this whole issue of Tories are pro rich and Labour are pro poor aguement rather sterile. as I am not Anti Rich people at all. However, what I am Anti is Rich people who believe its there duty to get out of paying there tax or supporting UK industry or even believe its there god given right to some how rule over everyone else just due to there personal wealth. so if a rich person pays his or her tax and looks after his or her workforce who am i to complain. the fact is some folks on here wish to turn this whole issue into who made the most people rich. well what does this matter if these people paying there way? should i care if they have one million pounds in the bank or not. just because i am a Labour supporter? No what I really care about the 70% of the people within the UK not some 30% of the Rich people. so Tony Blair had more rich people kicking around. well bully for Tony. did this stop him building new hospitals then? I think not. but if the Rich 30% really believe they would be better off in some other country then drop me a line and I will help them pack up and go.

You know many poor people would just love to be rich themselves and who can blame them. do I fill envy for the Rich 30%? No... I do not even think about them. as on paper i could be classed a Rich person. but does this change how i feel about poor people or what they need to live a good and fair life. No...its for this reason I agree with you Mel. as what is the point of have millions and yet refuse to spend? or your only real goal life is to worm your way out of paying you Tax.
so wether Tony had more rich people or not is not the real issue is it Mel. the real issue is what you do with it that matters. well it is for me anyway.