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. ?

Quote- "Nothing deliberate ."

Pull the other one!!!!!!! Excuses excuses pha!!!!

The term "work".  Patty, you have my sincere sympathy as it must be very tiring
taking those few pieces of gold down for cash at the goldsmiths.

When you do finally wake up, do read my Meacher post above, there's a good patty boy.

patakace no lessons in grammar needed thanks, but boatlady did say earlier that there is a correct thread if you wish to discuss such things, so maybe you should take your posts there to discuss them.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t944-apostrophes-do-they-matter


links to the thread for discussing the finer points of grammar, spelling and syntax - please use it any time you want to nit-pick

Why do you keep picking on Stuart , Boatlady?
It is surely wrong to discriminate against the disadvantaged .
We Tories respect our opponents as befits a caring and kind group .

Well Ivan now you see what i'm up against, in the previous post by patakace, I have complained about them as abuse, but maybe I should have come to you first.

stuart torr wrote:Well Ivan now you see what i'm up against, in the previous post by patakace, I have complained about them as abuse, but maybe I should have come to you first.

Typical Perez whining .
Heal yourself first .
And do try and find ways of spotting light hearted / funny comments .
As I have already said , show me where you make any sort of original , constructive , information swapping posts.
I could drag out twenty or more abusive posts from you . Why not try using this site as a Forum for attempted intelligent conversation , chat and debate !!

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has launched a strong attack on austerity in the eurozone as he warned that he single-currency area was caught in a debt trap that could cost it a second lost decade.

Speaking in Dublin, Carney said the eurozone needed to ease its hardline budgetary policies and make rapid progress towards a fiscal union that would transfer resources from rich to poor countries.

Carney said the eurozone’s unemployment rate of 11.5% was more than double that of the UK, but its fiscal deficit – the gap between tax revenues and spending – was only half the size of the UK’s. The eurozone, he said, should be using a “constructive” fiscal policy to support demand and mitigate the “tail risks of stagnation”.

Larry Elliot The Guardian today

This Mark Carney has the right idea and it seems he is aware of the sitiuation here in the UK where the so called increased employment brings in no tax reveues due to cheap labour by way of contract employment, part time work and new self employment.
All forced upon those who were looking for a decent job and have been forced or railroaded into taking any old poorly paid work. All this simply assists the employer and in particular the large ones that Tories look after at the expense of the workforce. All clevery manufactured for Tory ideology and political gain under false pretences.

How many times must this bunch of clowns be told they are wrong before they admit their grievous mistakes?

Anyone might think they were deliberately creating an impoverished underclass for some reason of their own.

boatlady wrote:How many times must this bunch of clowns be told they are wrong before they admit their grievous mistakes?

Anyone might think they were deliberately creating an impoverished underclass for some reason of their own.

It's fear. The clowns are frightened of the masses in a similar way to a fear of heights, spiders, mice or poverty - especially poverty, which they seek to isolate in case it is contagious.

Very true OW, if poverty were contagious then they would lose their beautiful houses and all their chauffeur driven cars and servants, and they would have to live in downtrodden areas of the city where crime is high, employment low, then they would know how an awful lot of the people in britain feel.

The ten-point failure of the Tories’ long-term economic plan

From an article by John Healey MP:-

"Every economy grows again after recession, and in May 2010 the UK economy was recovering strongly after the sharpest, deepest recession in almost a century caused by the global banking crisis. The economy was growing quarter-on-quarter at a 4% annualised rate, and in George Osborne’s first Budget in June 2010 the British economy was forecast to grow at an average rate of 2.4% a year between 2010 and 2014. The policies brought in at that Budget choked off Britain’s economic recovery from recession. By the end of 2010 growth had fallen to zero and our average growth from 2011 to 2014 has been just 1.7% – the slowest recovery from recession in over a hundred years."

For the rest of the article:-
http://labourlist.org/2015/03/the-ten-point-failure-of-the-tories-long-term-economic-plan/

http://t.co/Q3WAQcIQpO

links to an opinion piece I found convincing

In fact the difference between Labour and Tories – especially on economic matters – is the biggest it has been in over a generation. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts.

To the naysayers who still maintain that Labour and Tories are ‘the same’, a bit more explanation is required. Last year Osborne said he would publish a ‘Budget Responsibility Charter’ and test whether Labour would vote for it. It put Labour in a lose-lose position: they would be painted as ‘profligate’ if they didn’t sign up, and painted as signing up to Tory austerity by the left if they did. Neither was true, since signing up was consistent with Labour’s initial plans. Labour decided to avoid Osborne’s trap and he didn’t bother publishing the Charter. It changed nothing.

Furthermore, the claim that Labour has signed up to Tory austerity until 2016 is untrue. As a matter of technicality, Labour cannot reverse plans already put in place for that fiscal year after being elected.

A Labour government would “threaten jobs and deter investment” in the UK, a coalition of more than 100 of the country’s most senior business figures warn.

In a letter to The Telegraph, senior executives from companies employing more than half-a-million people hail Conservative economic policies which they say show that “the UK is open for business”.

The letter, signed by 103 business leaders, praises David Cameron and George Osborne’s decision cut to Corporation Tax and warns that a “change in course” would “put the recovery at risk”.

What an absolute load of Bollix. Why on earth would the 103 big business leader want anything other than a rich friendly Government, they know full well that their already massively inflated income will be reduced if they have to pay a decent wage, whereas now most of them are getting away with employing people as self employed or on zero hours contracts all with less income than they need to live on.
All I keep hearing is that the economy would suffer if wages are raised. My argument is, if the working population are all earning a fair wage, they will in turn spend more of their disposable income at their local shops, whereby helping the economy, boosting manufacturing, lowering the burden of Tax Credits for the working poor and I'm sure many other benefits

"Business leaders support Tories" is about as newsworthy as "dog bites man". No doubt in further dramatic scoops the Telegraph will reveal that the TUC backs Labour and that Queen Anne's dead.

Is there any significance in the letter being printed on April 1?

So that's 103 votes for the Tories - not a majority yet

I don't doubt that any of the main Parties could summon written support from a hundred odds and sods if they chose to do so.

Notice how Cameron and Osborne now just refer to 'THE PLAN' not the Tories' plan but 'THE PLAN'.......It's almost as if they believe that every voter in Britain knows what 'THE PLAN' says. Of course the Tories are not going to tell the voter what 'THE PLAN' is for benefits cuts until everyone has voted for 'THE PLAN'!!!!!!!!!!

I don't doubt that any of the main Parties could summon written support from a hundred odds and sods if they chose to do so.

Hmm... I'm not sure if there are that many Liberal Democrats left?

Dead right - and this does go a long way to explaining the surge of popularity that has greeted a politician who seems to want to know what life is like for the 75% at the bottom of the economic triangle

But will the hard-working families notice which side their bread is really buttered? (or indeed, being discreetly scraped-off).

You mean the bread and circuses effect - works even on starving people when it's done right - and this government are skilled

It's become evident that the Governor of the Bank of England knows as much about the future movement of Global Economics as I do, which is approximately the square root of buggerall.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/economy/mark-carney-bank-of-england-governor-sweeps-prospect-of-interest-rate-rise-off-the-table/ar-BBorUkC?li=AA54rU

How the Tories claim to be ‘patriotic’ and love to wave the union flag around at their conferences....  

Foreign steel ordered for more navy support ships as British workers are sold down the river

Defence minister Philip Dunne has admitted that 44,000 tonnes of steel for the construction of refuelling tankers will be sourced by builder Daewoo from South Korea. Despite the Tories rejecting plans for at least one of the ships to be built in Britain, Mr Dunne blamed Daewoo for buying steel from South Korea.

In other news, nearly half the steel in Britain’s new nuclear plant is coming from abroad.

Tata is shedding 1,050 workers at its plants in Port Talbot, Corby and Hartlepool. That’s on top of the 1,200 posts it axed last year in Scunthorpe and Scotland - along with 2,200 staff fired at SSI’s foundry in Redcar, Teesside.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/foreign-steel-ordered-more-navy-7272971

US hikes duty on Chinese cold-rolled steel imports by 522%


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/us-hikes-duty-on-chinese-cold-rolled-steel-imports-by-522percent/ar-BBtbzjJ?li=BBoPMmp

Now why couldn't we have done that?

Because Mr C hopes the English workforce will emulate their Chinese counterparts and thus prefers not to upset the Chinese government (who may soon be sending over 'trainers')

The Daily Torygraph evidently wants to take Brexit and add knobs onto it.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/five-priority-tasks-that-should-be-on-the-new-chancellor%e2%80%99s-to-do-list/ar-BBulfv7?li=BBoPMmp&ocid=iehp

The disadvantaged of our Nation would become even more so if VAT were to be added to their principal expense, food.

ow,

I kind of hope they do stick vat on food, cut benefits even further, travel/flight costs increase, workers rights are annihilated, etc.

Why? Because it's beginning to seem like nothing will shake a dozy, cap doffing, docile, subservient electorate out of their lobotomised stupor............perhaps they need more pain and hurt before they wake up and do something about it? Just an idea.

The disadvantaged of our Nation would become even more so if VAT were to be added to their principal expense, food.

That idea is sickening. Just intolerable. It would certainly ruin Mrs May's very nice speech...

Don’t fall for Philip Hammond’s budget trickery. There is an alternative

Extracts from an article by Polly Toynbee:-

How perfectly their faces fit the parts they play, this pair of graveyard undertakers to public services. Chancellor and PM use their grim solemnity to persuade the nation that there is no alternative. It’s all a charade – and they are, of course, play-acting – but they do it alarmingly well. Polls show they still convince voters that this extreme punishment is a doleful necessary.

They plan to cut the size of the state permanently to 36% of GDP, from 45% in 2010. New faces in No 10 and 11 Downing Street are only casting changes for the same old script, ideologically identical. How far can they go? That’s the only question: with an 18-point poll lead they may imagine nothing can stop them squeezing the breath out of public services – except hubris.

Wherever you look – parks, pools, potholes – the fabric is wearing thin. But note the linguistic trickery from ministers such as David Gauke, chief secretary to the Treasury: “It’s not about the money”, he claims, but about “delivering in the most efficient way”. But “doing more for less” has run out of road. Now Theresa May demands her cabinet find a surprise extra £3.5bn cuts. Can they keep persuading voters all this is necessary, as the party plunges for its largely unspoken state-shrinking goal?

For the whole article:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/philip-hammond-budget

Amazing news is that British people have stopped putting their spare cash into bank savings accounts that LOSE Money due to inflation.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/household-savings-at-record-low-as-costs-rise/ar-BBz5U7f?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp

There you go! Another Great British institution destroyed by foreign ownership.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/passengers-still-without-bags-after-british-airways-it-meltdown/ar-BBBH05R?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=iehp

"Computer glitch responsible". Serves 'em right for firing their IT technicians and exporting the computing to India. Well, perhaps, and we'll soon enough know the real reason.

But the underlying fundamental, to which this is a cousin of airlines "bumping" passengers, is the un-natural expectation of Investors that companies can go on increasing profits/dividends year on year forever. All around we see evidence of cost-cutting, down-sizing, outsourcing and meaningless "service" promises - all driven by the bottom-line. Capitalism is in danger of eating itself.

Astonishingly, when British people don't earn enough to pay all the bills, they try and borrow.



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/photos/what-the-papers-say-a-look-at-todays-front-pages/ss-BBufa43?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=iehp#image=7

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/central-banks-raise-alarm-over-new-crash-after-steep-rise-in-lending/ar-BBDeNmv?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp

(Continuing the theme:) When will the Bank of England raise rates?

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/this-is-what-mark-carney-knows-but-dare-not-say-out-loud/ar-AApwbW5?li=BBx1bGE&ocid=iehp

"The BOE has become concerned that UK car finance has become unsustainable. Personal contract purchases — a type of rent-to-buy agreement — allow drivers to own cars while paying less than the total price of the car at the beginning of the contract. And that is creating a supply of high-quality used vehicles which is greater than the entire aggregate demand for new cars in Britain in some years.

As Morgan Stanley analyst Harald Hendrikse told Business Insider recently, "The mechanics of the situation are exactly the same" as the mortgage crisis. "We are repeating exactly the same problems in the US and the UK specifically that happened with the mortgage market in 2007," he said.

What has been the response of the finance sector? To bundle all those car loans together and sell them as asset-backed securities."

oftenwrong wrote:Astonishingly, when British people don't earn enough to pay all the bills, they try and borrow.



http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/photos/what-the-papers-say-a-look-at-todays-front-pages/ss-BBufa43?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=iehp#image=7

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/central-banks-raise-alarm-over-new-crash-after-steep-rise-in-lending/ar-BBDeNmv?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp

Isn't that what all governments do? And what will happen IF we finally Brexit. We entered the Common Market out of necessity in '73. We actually improved-by various means- our position economically, and now because OAP's don't want immigrants we are leaving. Perhaps that's an exaggerration. No country is going to trade with us to their detriment. We will find ourselves on a tightrope, with a 'man' about to use his shears on the other end. Few countries want to invest here. Banks and financial institutions are already looking for offices elsewhere, when the City is vital for our economy. Britain is in debt. It's nationals have borrowed, beyond their means, in many cases.

Can anyone lend me a quid?

I'm a political right winger, leaning to the left, and with liberal views. As with religion I'm a christian agnostic, with catholic tendencies, leaning to Mithraism and moving towards Hegel and Hume. Ooo I am confused.

The NHS is in desperate trouble. The Police Service is unable to deal with all it is required to do. The Prisons are overcrowded and dangerous places. The Fire Service is run down. The armed forces severely understrength IMO. The Customs Officers are severely stretched - to breaking point. The infrastructure of the country needs £B's spending on it. The rate at which pensioners are surviving is putting stress on public finances. And the Welfare service is chaotic. The poor are deprived.

Now what can the Labour Party do about it.

The 2017 Labour Manifesto claimed to balance itself, but when you look at the things left out of the balance sheet it was way out. Borrowing seemed the answer in many cases, adding to our already 'magnificent' debt.
Nationalisation was another often leaving the taxpayer to fund running costs, and leaving the country to the disastrous power of Trade Unions. Most of whom are interested only in the welfare of their members - and careless of the general public. The Southern Region strike proved that. The Coal strikes and Industrial strikes of the second half of last century proved it. IMO the Unions had a good part to play in the early 20th century.
Then it changed. Miners wanted exorbitant wage rises and put the public to inconvenience to get them. Once achieved they went back to work - and Joe public - in general - were left to pay the cost. Miners, whose job was no more vital than that of the agricultural worker, and less dangerous, cared nothing, and did nothing for them.

Ooops. No, I don't like the thought of Unions ruling the Labour Party - one reason I have never voted for Labour.

By the way, economically infrastructure projects are not always viable. Many factors have to be taken into account.

If you have a foolproof way of funding the country - let me know. I'll vote for you.

Don't reply immediately - wait till I find my tin hat.

trevorw2539 wrote:The NHS is in desperate trouble. The Police Service is unable to deal with all it is required to do. The Prisons are overcrowded and dangerous places. The Fire Service is run down. The armed forces severely under strength IMO. The Customs Officers are severely stretched - to breaking point. The infrastructure of the country needs £B's spending on it. The rate at which pensioners are surviving is putting stress on public finances. And the Welfare service is chaotic. The poor are deprived.

Can’t argue with any of that. But after more than seven years of the Tories in government, where are we supposed to put the blame?  

I know you’re an intelligent man, so I’m sure you can distinguish between two types of personal borrowing – that for a world cruise, or maybe for your daughter’s wedding, and a mortgage to purchase a house. In many instances, trying to equate personal finances with that of an economy is flawed, but in that aspect it’s correct – it depends what you do with the money once you’ve borrowed it.

One other similarity between a household economy and a national one is that if your expenditure is greater than your income, you can either spend less or try to find a way to earn more. But that’s where the similarity ends. If some private individuals cut back on their spending, it will have no noticeable effect on the economy, as others may well be prospering and spending more, but it certainly has an effect when a government is stupid enough to introduce austerity (why do so many politicians fail to learn from history?).

Austerity is a vicious downward spiral which shrinks an economy and makes people worse off so that they spend less and pay less tax. Then the people who make their livelihoods from the spending of others have less to spend themselves. Tories love it because it acts as a smokescreen for their ideological pursuit of shrinking the state, and it also allows them and their cronies to pick up ‘bargains’, such as when people have their homes repossessed because they can’t pay their mortgages.

The sensible alternative is for a government to borrow (and to some extent, print) money to invest in infrastructure projects and a massive house building scheme, maybe with a few more new towns in areas less populated that the south east. The investment creates more jobs, which leads to more tax revenue for the Treasury and more spending by individuals. Take a look at how ‘the multiplier effect’ works:-
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

Focusing on debt is going up a blind alley. Our national debt was over 200% of GDP both in 1815 and 1945, but the latter occasion didn’t stop a Labour government embarking on an ambitious plan to create the NHS, build new towns, and to nationalise the railways and coal mines. And, incidentally, the current Labour plan to renationalise the railways need not cost a penny; as each franchise expires, it could be taken back into public ownership.

Perhaps some strikes, such as the one on Southern Rail, are in the long-term interests of both the employees and the general public. There were 1,400 sexual assaults on women on British trains in the last financial year. The idea that the driver is the only person needed on a train is outrageous. I often travel by train in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and will be doing so again next month, and I notice that journeys are always cheaper in those countries than in the UK and that there is always a ticket inspector who doubles as a guard on their trains. Maybe the people who don’t care about the general public are the UK train operators, who take subsidies from the UK government and then aim to maximise their profits for their shareholders, rather than prioritise the safety of their passengers. If you can find a better last resort than strike action – which workers don’t like because they lose pay and it makes them unpopular – to deal with the arrogance and intransigence of some employers, I’m sure union leaders would be pleased to learn of it.

My own view is that one mistake made was when duties from North Sea Oil started to roll in. Unlike Norway, this was wasted rather than looking to the future. Norway put away large  reserves for the future, which have helped in the ups and downs of oil prices. No UK Government did this.

Regarding borrowing.

Yes, there is a difference in types of borrowing, but both have to be paid back. A loan to pay for a daughters wedding may seem to some to be a burden - to others,  a relief.  To can borrow, with no material gain to yourself. You can borrow to obtain a possession. But that possession will not be yours until you have paid the debt.
That applies in Government borrowing. It's unlikely, but if debtors require repayment? Nothing is yours/ours until it is paid for. As we have found out in the past when our debts to the US were called in after the Great Crash.
Fortunately, most of the UK debt is, like the US, owed to its own people.
I agree with you that the current austerity policy is 'over-the-top'.
I have no objection to infrastructure projects if they are to the benefit of the country. But if I spend £60B on an infrastructure project I want to know that the money will be of economic benefit. I need to know it will benefit the country when finished.. Will it pay for itself? I'm going to have to spend all that money. I may be able to take people of the unemployment register and avoid employment pay. But I have to pay the wages of the workers, and even if I gain from increased income tax, does it cover the total spent. Most large infrastructure projects are usually only economic when  unemployment is high. Particularly in the sphere of the project.
I wholeheartedly agree with a house building project but it will only help if it is large part social housing. Until the economy improves new houses for sale will have to be priced 'affordably'. You will also have to get people to be willing to move - and probably find a new job.
The Labour Party of the 1945 was enabled to great things with loans from the US and Canada.

Renationalising the Rail. Then the nation will be responsible for all the running costs and modernisation. As with all the other utilities. You may get a better service, but at a cost. I understood that the Southern Rail were keeping staff as onboard observers? At least they could walk the train for customers protection.

My only reply to the strikers - Luddites. No-one likes modernisation but it must come.

I considered voting Labour at the last election but could not equate Corbyns promises with reality. I agreed with many things but having read the Manifesto and the missing equations - I didn't. Plus I lived through the 'Rule of the Unions'. No thanks.

Hope this makes sense but I'm busy at the moment.

trevorw2539 wrote:Renationalising the Rail. Then the nation will be responsible for all the running costs and modernisation.
Hope this makes sense but I'm busy at the moment.

The nation is already responsible for the running costs of the Railway and modernisation.

Thatcher knew nobody would actually invest in a privatised railway, so cunningly created Railtrack to maintain the infrastructure at taxpayers' expense.  The train operators only have to pay for the actual train.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail

Then what happens to the money paid by the Franchisees to Network Rail for use of the rail network?

Network Rail is funded partly through a direct grant from the government (£3.8 billion in 2015/16) and partly by train operating companies paying access charges to use the rail network (£1.6 billion in 2015/16). In 2015/16, it spent £3.1 billion on renewals (renewing existing infrastructure back to how it was when new) and £3.2 billion on enhancements, with the rest spent on maintenance and other costs.[36]

Wiki.

Sorry if replies are delayed. Busy at the moment.