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. ?

If London is burning, the fire probably won't be put out, because Boris Johnson has been busy shutting fire stations, despite what he promised in last year's mayoral election.

I still can't fathom why tlttf (the man who urges us to vote for independent candidates, while he votes for UKIP and Tory scum like Johnson) hasn't rushed on here to complain about Johnson spending more than half a billion pounds on his vanity buses. You can just imagine how quickly he would have posted his poison if a Labour mayor had squandered so much money! "Weird world, innit."

Ivan wrote:....

If only Cameron had been in office for the credit crunch! Look at what he said in March 2008:-

“As a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say that a significant part of Labour’s economic failure has been the excessive bureaucratic interventionism of the past decade - too much tax, too much regulation, too little understanding of what our businesses need to compete in the modern world.”

A recent book suggests that the British Empire, and specifically the Royal Navy, was successful largely because heavy Domestic taxation underpinned its activity.  When Parliament replaced Charles I, it taxed effectively by introducing a land tax, the Dutch excise and efficient customs revenue collection*. By 1688 William of Orange had become King and was obliged to depend on Parliamentary support to continue his Glorious Revolution, which resulted in a much larger apparatus of the State that required increased taxation. The Bank of England was created in 1694, Union with Scotland in 1707 and victory against France in 1713 gave notice that Britain was fully capable of defending its interests abroad.  The complete opposite of a peace-loving low-tax regime.

Leviathan - The Rise of Britain as a World Power  
Author David Scott
Publisher Harper Press  530 pages
£26 or ebook £24


* The Dutch threat to commercial shipping and English trading opportunities demanded that foreign and economic policy in 1651-52 took preference over social and law reform. Although the 1651 Navigation Act was a positive response from a government and navy who eventually emerged victorious over the Dutch, the war proved to be prohibitive. Significantly, the Rump found its foreign campaigns a costly exercise, and it forced the continuation of the financially successful but unpopular excise taxation, indeed, even Sean Kelsey (1997) has conceded the Rump “was more ruthless than any king in its exaction of taxes from the nation.” Understandably, matters that were more urgent took priority over the implementation of policies of major reform, nevertheless, the Common’s found it more difficult to control domestic matters and military victories were simply not enough to sate the desire for revolutionary reform. Although the Rump’s foreign policy was successful, the taxation required to finance the campaigns increased the degree of resentment and frustration felt towards the government and initiated a wave of unpopularity directed primarily at those holding the reins of power.

http://allempires.com/article/index.php?q=oliver_cromwell_protectorate

"My gran could run the economy better than George Osborne", says Tory MP Brian Binley. 
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-blasted-brian-binley-2011480

When Gideon Osborne stands at the despatch-box, he is likely to be wearing more make-up than Brian Binley's Gran.  But what does that prove?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Osborne-wears-too-much-makeup/116680255034926

The reality about the "non-cuts" poor old Ed.


Where Ed Balls went wrong


Balls tackles too hard. It always has been his greatest weakness.

In today’s Observer, Andrew Rawnsley says that Ed Balls has become a victim of his own success. The Shadow Chancellor predicted the George Osborne ‘would smother growth by cutting too far, too fast…The coalition jeered that Mr Balls was a deficit-denier and an unreconstructed old Keynesian,’ says Rawnsley

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/where-ed-balls-went-wrong/

The Coalition jeered the shadow Chancellor?
Whoever heard of such a thing?

Here is what some foreigners are saying about your economy:

http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/insight/what-does-mark-carney-miss-about-canada

Cheeky lot, those Colonials.  

Curious Canadian. If WE don't believe what our newspapers say, you should certainly not believe local Canadian relaying of said reportage.

When pressed for a story - speculate!

oftenwrong wrote:Curious Canadian.  If WE don't believe what our newspapers say, you should certainly not believe local Canadian relaying of said reportage.

When pressed for a story - speculate!

The newspapers in this country are quite different than yours. We don't have any like your Sun, Daily Mail, etc. that specialize in cheesecake photography and fictional accounts of everything else. Our papers are also not as closely associated with class identities, class warfare and the like. We just don't know what to do with reportage from the U.K.. It is confusing to our naïve little brains and we still put the words NEWS and PAPER together in the same thought. Is this quaint colonialism, or what?

British newspapers are not produced primarily to be sold to the Public, Curious Cdn. They are written with the objective of selling a class of Readers to advertisers.

oftenwrong wrote:British newspapers are not produced primarily to be sold to the Public, Curious Cdn.  They are written with the objective of selling a class of Readers to advertisers.

Ahhh yes, ... the demographics of bird seed marketing ...

http://think-left.org/2013/07/18/who-caused-this-crisis-not-immigrants-not-unions-not-scroungers/

Just found this in my inbox., which seems to be an account of just what is wrong with the economy at present.
Don't usually think of posting anything with a declared political slant, but the argument seems convincing to me, and harmonises a bit with my wish for the facts to be clearly expressed.
I don't really understand enough about economics to be really critical of this kind of thing, so maybe some of you kind souls will comment?

I rhink you underestimate your abilities, boatlady. Many of us glaze over when presented with statistics, charts and pie-diagrams, but most of us know when we're being shafted, and the British electorate has been royally shafted by Tory ideology since 2010.

All their efforts have been devoted to widening the gap between Leaders and Led.

How have they been allowed to get away with that?

But, do you tend to agree with the premise that the austerity policies themselves are responsible for the slump - which is what I think it's saying?

I'm not sure if even they are responsible for your slump, take a look at an unregulated, out-of control banking industry that bet it all on weird derivatives. Combine that, with an Uberwealthy class of "capitalists" that sit on their piles of capital and don't invest a penny in your economy. Perhaps they are in bed with your Tories but they hold the real economic power, not your elected politicians.

Sadly, that may well be true -maybe a good government would be trying to take on those capitalist interests and legislating for a more equitable distribution of resources

".... "capitalists" that sit on their piles of capital and don't invest a penny in your economy. Perhaps they are in bed with your Tories but they hold the real economic power, not your elected politicians."

A global situation, n'est-ce pas · ?

oftenwrong wrote:".... "capitalists" that sit on their piles of capital and don't invest a penny in your economy. Perhaps they are in bed with your Tories but they hold the real economic power, not your elected politicians."

A global situation, n'est-ce pas · ?

Indeed it is and the ultimate outcome may be the destruction of the Middle Class and all of the things that go with the Middle Class, such as liberal democracy. I don't like conspiracy theories ... but hmmm.

Keynesian growth, and accompanying devaluation, isn't an option while the national debt is a massive black hole. Keeping interest rates down, and restricting the spending power of the majority is the only way to shift public debt onto private shoulders.

Debt is the problem

The huge losses incurred by the gamblers in the banks are a symptom of the 'mug' fall-guy nature of our spend to day and pay tomorrow culture.

Banks should be made to pay back out of the bonuses of those who lost the money, but we also depend on banks to keep the system lubricated, and the losses are too huge to fully understand.

Openness and transparency is all we can really ask for, and hope to achieve

Keynes warned that you pay down debt when times are good and run deficits to stimulate when they are not. It is way too easy for our politicians to bribe us with our own tax money and spend like times will always be good. It is our fault, really, for buying into the "good-times-never-end" philosophy of steady, inevitable progress.

Things were pretty bad for UK PLC in 1992, and it took more than three years to climb out of that depression, but it was made less painful by an inflation running at 12% to 15% which meant that old debt was settled with new money at a lower cost.

With the Bank of England printing money at 0.5% it might take twenty years to bail-out Coalition. Time to hibernate until it's over.

Something like
"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time"

Amazing resource, Wikipedia

When historians come to write about the phase of British Government which followed the Credit Crunch of 2008, how likely is it that they will refer to the "Fascist" coalition between the Tories and Led-Dems?

It's becoming increasingly difficult to miss the parallels with 1930's Germany and the rise of the Nazis.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to miss the parallels with 1930's Germany and the rise of the Nazis.

I prefer Japan, decades of stagnation.

QUOTE: "....Japan, decades of stagnation".

Unless speaking from the Chinese standpoint.

Don't know much about the history of Japan in that period, although I did read Empire of the Sun which gives what seems a believable account of Japanese treatment of foreign nationals during the conflict - maybe one of you gentlemen can recommend a book or something?

Pass. It's just too depressing. Sorry.

Tosh wrote:

It's becoming increasingly difficult to miss the parallels with 1930's Germany and the rise of the Nazis.

I prefer Japan, decades of stagnation.

How are your hari-kari skills holding up these days? It's a hard thing to practise.

Have to get it right first time

 
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTgInkFCUAAbeki.jpg

".... from the Government point of view, the policies are working."

Quod erat demonstrandum

The ordinary British People have effectively been occupied by a foreign power since May 2010.

Gideon Osborne has been careful not to use the words green shoots that got his predecessor Norman Lamont into trouble, but the present Chancellor is looking even more pleased with himself (if such a thing were possible) than before, at new evidence of increased business confidence.

This is hardly surprising, as a five-year recession has had the effect of driving weak-sister companies out of business. As in the 1995 Recovery, companies which have survived are the well-managed ones. Many have substantial reserves of cash which they were unwilling to risk during the period of uncertainty, but who are now dipping a toe into the investment pool.

Personal savers are spending more freely, because their money is actually losing value in a Bank vault.

It would be perverse to hope that the bad times get worse - for which The Tory-led Coalition would shoulder the blame - but British voters will behave in 2015 according to the feel-good factor prevailing at the time.

I tend to agree with Tosh - that stagnation is better than boom and bust - however capitalism is our world religion and we declare our belief in growth simultaneously with our contraction through debt.

And Japan is only stable due to the bushido of the unemployed and homeless who wear their only suit all the time, take their shoes off and leave them under the park bench every evening at nightfall, and cover themselves with newspapers, before travelling the offices and chasing the job adverts again, next day, with the same dedication that almost all Japanese uphold as principle.

There was once an English king who borrowed money to fund his armies, to expand his territories, and when he won lands in France, the money-lenders called in the loans. The army starved, the lands were lost, and the money-lenders then requested the British Crown Jewels instead. The king brought back what was left of his army, turned on the money-lenders, who were of a certain ethnicity, and expelled them all from Britain. This included a massacre of ethnically related men women and children in York, if I remember correctly from the telly programme I watched last year.

Once they had been expelled he didn't have a clue how to manage money at all - no-one did, and so he imported Spanish bank-tellers and it is their terminology which named the British banking system.

Debt is the problem, and some individuals have made off with proportionately vast sums that those left behind have no hope of covering. The British Cayman Islands will have emptied their coffers before Gideon's lackeys get anywhere near the missing tax loot.

The only ways to build a manufacturing base would be to increase taxation of the rich, subsidise development, and encourage creative competition to develop new inventions. That would be investing in research without selling to the highest bidder - who might buy out the good ideas just to ensure they never make it past the drawing board.

Socialist principles can't ignore the global capitalist money trade, but constructive skills development could be in-house if the political will was there to publish a platform for it.

Okay - and to look at ways to reduce debt - house-buying needs to be included. It seems that every buyer will promise the greater part of their life-time earnings to pay for a house which, if they're lucky, they might own outright when they retire. But once they start paying the mortgage they soon find it cheaper than rent for comparable accommodation.

Will it help if the Bank of England puts a lid on inflationary house prices?

http://www.independent.co.uk/property/bank-of-england-urged-to-cap-house-price-rises-at-5-over-fears-of-dangerous-debt-bubble-8812668.html

Perhaps - if they also put a cap on rental costs to match.

Come on Labour!! Or even Lib-Dems?? Where are the policies which might have a chance of righting the debt-berg without overturning the whole fragile balance in the economy?

.... or even build sufficient numbers of houses for people to live in. Or is that too obvious?

And a few privileged Labour, Liberals, UKIP and most rich people.

trevorw2539. Were there 19 millionaires in the last Labour cabinet? Did Labour cut 5,000 nurses, or did it increase the number by 85,000? Did Labour increase waiting times for treatment in the NHS, or did it reduce the delay from two years to four months? Did Labour preside over the slowest recovery for 100 years, or the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth for over 200 years?

The right-wing Press confidently forecast three years ago that banker-bashing would drive the wealth-creators to other Countries.
Evidently four individuals chose that course, but hundreds of Bankers and Hedge-fund Managers remain in London - where there is money still to be made.