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. ?

According to today's Sunday Times the growth industry is Training.
Companies with government contracts to show the unemployed how to get a job are among the Nation's top earners.

Some of us very minor operators who can offer management training alongside other HR -related assistance, find that many employers would still prefer to continue having help and advice in resolving those all-too-regular 'errors' made with managing 'difficult' employees , rather than commission training to ensure that their managers don't run up against those tricky issues in the first place.

Strange, indeed - but the customer is always right, of course...

Pontius Pilate was among the first providers of "Guilt-free severance".

find that many employers would still prefer to continue having help and advice

Odd that!!

A number of training companys have started to teach people railway workings!

TOC's would rather EMPLOY private contractors to get trainees through exams than train "in house"
This so as no Train Operating Company can be seen as a nursery for new drivers, and fit for 'poaching' the new recruits.
Nothing like a poached nubile new recruit!!
Question!

How the ell can I train OW to drive a train iffin I don't own a 125/225/Pedalino?

Those correspondence courses used to be highly effective.

And what about those 'Teach Yourself' books of old? Yes, Teach Yourself Inter-City: Kings Cross to Edinburgh should do the trick...

'Teach Yourself' books

IT'S Worse, much worse than that Phil.


Some clown has taken to training drivers, with the Microsoft Train Driving Simulator software!!

Millions of working people in this country need state handouts to top up the meagre wages employers pay. It's not the workers fault they need housing benefit, tax credits, etc just to survive. In effect this is actually the state subsidising the profits, and lifestyles, of bosses who don't pay a living wage.....hence the employers/bosses are the real benefit scroungers costing the state untold billions. Its just politicians helping the already wealthy to help themselves to an ever bigger slice of the pie. It is an absurd, greedy, and illogical way to run an economy/society and is bound to fail.

Can anybody tell me what sort of capitalism the above describes? Seems a little odd for the state to be topping up the profits of private companies!!

astra wrote:

'Teach Yourself' books

IT'S Worse, much worse than that Phil.


Some clown has taken to training drivers, with the Microsoft Train Driving Simulator software!!

They clearly have ideas above their station....

Chip, every £ of tax payers support paid to the railways goes £ for £ to the profit of the 144 railway companies and their contractors. Look it up.

witchfinder wrote:Its always nice when major economies in the west see eye to eye on major issues, and its especialy good when two great nations have leaders singing from the same political or economic hymn sheet.

The present relationship between the United States and the UK is as warm as ever, but there is a fly in the ointment, Mr Obama and Mr Cameron may be good friends, but they are directly at odds and opposed to each other when it comes to the economy or economics.

Its a fact that Mr Obama has more in common with Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and David Miliband than he does with David Cameron or Georgie Porgie.

The UK economy saw unemployment rise yet again in December
The US economy saw unemployment fall in December from 8.7% to 8.5%

In December the US economy saw an increase of 28,000 jobs in manufacturing, 23,000 in retail and 23,000 in healthcare, whilst government jobs saw no change.

In the UK car sales fell by over 4% in 2011, house prices fell, profitability of British manufacturers fell to a record low in the 3rd quarter of 2011, denting any hopes of an economic revival.

Come back Alistair, all is forgiven

Do you think this is so Witchy.....Mr Obama and Mr Cameron may be good friends, but they are directly at odds and opposed to each other when it comes to the economy or economics.. The body language has never looked that close to me. sure they smile at each other and even say the odd nice thing about each other but I just have never quite been sold on this Witchy

sickchip wrote:Millions of working people in this country need state handouts to top up the meagre wages employers pay. It's not the workers fault they need housing benefit, tax credits, etc just to survive. In effect this is actually the state subsidising the profits, and lifestyles, of bosses who don't pay a living wage.....hence the employers/bosses are the real benefit scroungers costing the state untold billions. Its just politicians helping the already wealthy to help themselves to an ever bigger slice of the pie. It is an absurd, greedy, and illogical way to run an economy/society and is bound to fail.

Can anybody tell me what sort of capitalism the above describes? Seems a little odd for the state to be topping up the profits of private companies!!

I'll rephrase the last question:

When politicians use their position to assist in increasing the wealth of their friends and the rich, what sort of capitalism is that?

sickchip wrote:Millions of working people in this country need state handouts to top up the meagre wages employers pay. It's not the workers fault they need housing benefit, tax credits, etc just to survive. In effect this is actually the state subsidising the profits, and lifestyles, of bosses who don't pay a living wage.....hence the employers/bosses are the real benefit scroungers costing the state untold billions. Its just politicians helping the already wealthy to help themselves to an ever bigger slice of the pie. It is an absurd, greedy, and illogical way to run an economy/society and is bound to fail.

Can anybody tell me what sort of capitalism the above describes? Seems a little odd for the state to be topping up the profits of private companies!!

Currently "top up benefits" are being paid to those on low wages to assist with housing costs etc.... if they are removed and the employers are expected to increase wages to a "living wage" that cost would automatically be passed on to consumers which in effect would cause inflation to rise quite substantially, everything will automatically become expensive.

Currently "top up benefits" are being paid to those on low wages to assist with housing costs etc.... if they are removed and the employers are expected to increase wages to a "living wage" that cost would automatically be passed on to consumers which in effect would cause inflation to rise quite substantially, everything will automatically become expensive.

Not neccesarily.

Increase minimum wage to £10ph. To pay for this without seeing inflation rise -

Anybody earning £30k - £40k takes a £3k pay cut
Anybody earning £41k - £50k takes a £4k pay cut
Anybody earning £51k - £70k takes a £6k pay cut
...£71k - £100k an £8k pay cut
...£101k - £150k a £10k pay cut
...£150k plus takes a £15k pay cut.

Do this via income tax or actual wage cuts. We NEED to reduce the current levels of wage differentials. People need to cosy up a little more.....get a little more friendly.


Employers would need to accept pay cuts for higher paid employees. Their overall wage bill would then remain approx the same as before an increase in minimum wage.

But wait a moment...lo and behold! People like talking about greater levels of equality until they understand that they themselves may have to give up a few little luxuries.

that cost would automatically be passed on to consumers

No thoughts about cutting bonuses, dividends or more squarely sharing out profits!


That's not capitalism (small 'c' ) it is Greed (capital 'G' )

sickchip wrote:

Currently "top up benefits" are being paid to those on low wages to assist with housing costs etc.... if they are removed and the employers are expected to increase wages to a "living wage" that cost would automatically be passed on to consumers which in effect would cause inflation to rise quite substantially, everything will automatically become expensive.

Not neccesarily.

Increase minimum wage to £10ph. To pay for this without seeing inflation rise -

Anybody earning £30k - £40k takes a £3k pay cut
Anybody earning £41k - £50k takes a £4k pay cut
Anybody earning £51k - £70k takes a £6k pay cut
...£71k - £100k an £8k pay cut
...£101k - £150k a £10k pay cut
...£150k plus takes a £15k pay cut.

Do this via income tax or actual wage cuts. We NEED to reduce the current levels of wage differentials. People need to cosy up a little more.....get a little more friendly.


Employers would need to accept pay cuts for higher paid employees. Their overall wage bill would then remain approx the same as before an increase in minimum wage.

But wait a moment...lo and behold! People like talking about greater levels of equality until they understand that they themselves may have to give up a few little luxuries.

It's a lovely theory but it wouldn't happen for the very reason that you point out, people will not accept pay cuts to help others.

It's a lovely theory but it wouldn't happen for the very reason that you point out, people will not accept pay cuts to help others.

...and that says so much about the state we're in.

sickchip wrote:

It's a lovely theory but it wouldn't happen for the very reason that you point out, people will not accept pay cuts to help others.

...and that says so much about the state we're in.

It is a sad fact but this is how it is! A lot of people couldn't afford to take a pay cut as they have committed themselves to mortgages etc....

It is a sad fact but this is how it is! A lot of people couldn't afford to take a pay cut as they have committed themselves to mortgages etc....

They could always cut their cloth a little - buy cheaper groceries, cheaper holidays, switch the heating off, etc. It's not as though the cuts I'm suggesting would plunge them into poverty. But hey - why should they have to forgo their little luxuries for the benefit of society as a whole?

sickchip wrote:

It is a sad fact but this is how it is! A lot of people couldn't afford to take a pay cut as they have committed themselves to mortgages etc....

They could always cut their cloth a little - buy cheaper groceries, cheaper holidays, switch the heating off, etc. It's not as though the cuts I'm suggesting would plunge them into poverty. But hey - why should they have to forgo their little luxuries for the benefit of society as a whole?

Ok, trying contacting your mortgage provider and advising that you are agreeing to a 10% cut in salary, and enquiring if they could assist with this as it would be beneficial to society as a whole? Let me know if they agree and I will switch to whoever you are using.

The above discussion reflects the impact of Communism when it arrived in Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe following WW2. A lot of people initially welcomed the idea of sharing wealth equally - until they realised that some of THEIR possessions were to be shared with the really abject poor.

oftenwrong wrote:The above discussion reflects the impact of Communism when it arrived in Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe following WW2. A lot of people initially welcomed the idea of sharing wealth equally - until they realised that some of THEIR possessions were to be shared with the really abject poor.

Except nobody here, in this discussion, is suggesting sharing wealth equally.

"I would appreciate that primer course."

I suspect that the Primer course in British Economics is fully subscribed by Members of Parliament, our Financial Services Authority, and the Board of the Bank of England.

Signed on to the waiting list for the next course are most Finance Ministers of the Eurozone.

"Economics for Dummies" is in reprint.

sickchip wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:The above discussion reflects the impact of Communism when it arrived in Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe following WW2. A lot of people initially welcomed the idea of sharing wealth equally - until they realised that some of THEIR possessions were to be shared with the really abject poor.

Except nobody here is talking about sharing wealth equally.

100% true sickchip. as it would never work anyway,

As usual the subject changes to those that work, subsidising those that have no intention of working, those that add nothing to society believing that they can do as they like at a cost to others. Yep how come this sharing caring society is always reliant on the working man?

"those that work, subsidising those that have no intention of working"

The Civil Servants who authorise benefit payments are by definition among those that work so what is their incentive to subsidise those that have no intention of working?

oftenwrong wrote:"those that work, subsidising those that have no intention of working"

The Civil Servants who authorise benefit payments are by definition among those that work so what is their incentive to subsidise those that have no intention of working?

you're quite right there is no incentive at all. I also happen to believe that many people happen to seek to work and not stay at home. not that this is every reflected within the right wing media. as all they wish to find is the small group who do not wish too work. as it happens to make a far better story for the likes of the Daily Mail.

The comments of Unite general secretary Len McCluskey that "Ed Miliband did not consult with the trade union movement" in regard to agreeing with wage restraint has angered me.

The leader of the Labour Party "Ed Milliband" is an elected member of Parliament thanks to the people of Doncaster, it is they whom Mr Milliband is a servant of, NOT the Unite union.

I am afraid that Mr McCluskey needs reminding that without hundreds of thousands of middle class voters, there will never be a Labour government.
The days of Labour been elected by its core, traditional supporters are long gone, and commentators who keep harping back to those days of the 60s and 70s are living in the past.

The argument of Mr McCluskey is that it was not ordinary working class people who caused the hole in the nations finances, and I have to agree with him, I can understand his anger, but the hole in finances was created to save his members jobs, homes and livelyhoods, and to prevent depression and economic melt-down.

I am certainly not anti trade union, but I am wary of trade unions getting too mixed up in the political decisions of elected MPs and the elected government.

The argument of most trade unionists is that it was the bankers who caused the problem, therefore it is they who should put the problem right.
This argument is much easier said than done, the fact is that severe financial penalties against the banks in London will see the banks simply shift to Paris, Berlin or Cologne.

If the banks uproot and move out, the tax revenue stops and thousands of jobs go east to mainland Europe.

I am afraid that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were correct when they argued in favour of a Europe wide banking tax, something that the Conservatives were against, and still are; The principles of Len McCluskey are perhaps admirable, but unfortunately they are not practical.

I can't begin to comprehend why bankers can get rather large bonuses for under achieving, yet schoolteacher's will get the sack for the same thing. I think Cameron and his cohorts have double standards. All the teachers achieve is some dumb kids, the bankers bankrupt the country. It is true what they say, it's a mad mad world we live in.

Never mind Who is right - WHAT is right?

The three main political parties are sitting there wringing their hands.

This may be the time for THE PEOPLE to take charge.

Who else will rid us of inadequate government ?

jackthelad wrote:I can't begin to comprehend why bankers can get rather large bonuses for under achieving, yet schoolteacher's will get the sack for the same thing. I think Cameron and his cohorts have double standards. All the teachers achieve is some dumb kids, the bankers bankrupt the country. It is true what they say, it's a mad mad world we live in.

how very true a great deal of double standards jackthelad


Royal Bank of Scotland may pay nearer £1bn in bonuses than last year's £1.3bn, while Barclays may pay less that the £5bn-£6bn in total remuneration that its results from the first nine months of last year suggest are due to its investment bankers,"In 2009 the chancellor [George Osborne] said government should act in light of unacceptable bank bonuses stating that we could not wait for the 'promised land of a responsible bonus culture' But still no action as yet, just lots of hot air. good old Gideon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business

Meanwhile

The carnage in the high street and the intensification of the eurozone crisis will not have shown up in the latest data, but will do so over the coming months. On current trends, David Cameron will be the third Conservative prime minister in the past 30 years to preside over a nation that has 3 million people officially unemployed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business

We KNOW that Tory government is not good for us, but here we are again under their domination.

They're evidently cleverer than the average voter, but the average Capitalist is cleverer than yer average government.

Who is right about the economy? mmm

Well one things for sure, the ConLabLib coalition certainly aren't.

Extracts from an article by Polly Toynbee:-

"The Eds are right to make 2015 year zero. Only when seeing how bad the economy is, and which cuts have done most damage, can they choose priorities. With 3 million out of work, would raising public-sector pay come first? No: jobs and growth, an investment bank, work for the young, restoring worst cuts and building homes come first. Money washes around, from the Concorde-style HS2 to Boris's airport, bibles in schools, a yacht for the Queen, bank bonuses, a free schools bonanza and £3bn on NHS turmoil. From Trident, wars and whims, there is money.

While Goldman Sachs pays bonuses the size of Albania's GDP, this rich country has phenomenal untaxed wealth in property accumulated by the top 5%: shedloads more is sequestered abroad. Public appetite for fair tax collection and sharing of the burdens grows. To cut the benefit bill steeply, Labour should demand rich companies don't leave taxpayers to subsidise starvation wages with tax credits. If the TaxPayers' Alliance were not a Conservative Party front, it would support a living wage.

A firm baseline for the economy need not stop Labour opposing cuts. Costed promises can be made: why not earmark aircraft carriers for universal childcare, make a mansion tax build new homes, and super-tax companies who overpay directors for small business investment? There need be no contradiction between an economic policy voters trust, and an imaginative radicalism they would support."

For the full article:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/19/ed-miliband-cameron-economy

And what is your opinion Ivan?

blueturando wrote:And what is your opinion Ivan?

Well I agree with this myself

Payments hit £14bn despite the coalition's pledge to block "unacceptable bonuses".

We've already highlighted five stories that slipped under the radar this week as the phone hacking scandal gathered pace. Here's another one: figures from the ONS show that bank bonuses totalled £14bn this year, unchanged from the previous year and higher than the 2008-09 figure of £12 billion. Significantly, the bonus pool is now 58 per cent higher than in 2000-01. Banks and insurance companies paid 40 per cent of all bonuses despite employing only 4 per cent of the workforce.

It's further evidence of the gap between the Tories' tough rhetoric in opposition and their inaction in power. In 2009, George Osborne called for a ban on bonuses at banks that had received any sort of government guarantee. He told the Guardian:

It is totally unacceptable for bank bonuses to be paid on the back of taxpayer guarantees ... It must stop.

He later promised to block all cash bonuses over £2,000. Even the coalition agreement pledged to tackle "unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector". But the government allowed Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond to receive a bonus of £6.5m and Stephen Hester, head of the 83 per cent state-owned RBS, to receive a bonus of £2m.
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the.../2011/.

The worrying thing about the increased imbalance between Haves and Have-nots, both in the UK and in the US, is that the people in the top 10% of earners feel themselves entirely justified. It establishes the pecking-order, or bragging rights, when Rosencrantz only gets a $40million bonus whilst Guildenstern sails past with $50million.

oftenwrong wrote:The worrying thing about the increased imbalance between Haves and Have-nots, both in the UK and in the US, is that the people in the top 10% of earners feel themselves entirely justified. It establishes the pecking-order, or bragging rights, when Rosencrantz only gets a $40million bonus whilst Guildenstern sails past with $50million.

Well I believe people are starting to question all of this. it very long over due too. we live in very interesting times

When a Tory supporter like Fraser Nelson starts telling us that Osborne owes Alistair Darling "a generous apology", it certainly tells you who is wrong about the British economy:-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7600308/osborne-owes-darling-an-apology.thtml

So today it has been announced that allthough government borrowing is falling, actual national debt has gone over the £1 trillion mark for the first time in the countrys history.

But lets be clear here, allthough 1 trillion ponds sounds a lot, in real terms our total accumulated debt has been much higher, its rather like Bill owing Jack £100 in 1945 and Bill owing Jack the same amount in 2005, in 1945 this sum of money would be 20 weeks decent wages, today its not even 1 weeks decent wages.

Are the international markets worried about UK total debt going over the £1 trillion mark. ?

NO - because if they were, then our bond yields would rise and alarm bells would begin sounding.

The United Kingdom has a long track record of borrowing and raising debt, and then paying it back relatively quickly, another reason why there is no great concerns amongst the international markets.

One other thing to bare in mind concerning our total accumulated debt, as the national deficit narrows, the rising total debt will slow down and eventualy it will begin to fall; Think of the total accumulated debt as been like a funnel - the deficit is pouring into the funnel more debt, but the debt is also falling out of the bottom of the funnel at the same time ( the debt is constantly been paid back ).

Once the national deficit is repaired, there is nothing else to do, the accumulated debt will pay itself off rather like a mortgage or credit card, if theres no deficit - the debt will go down, if theres an emergency, an economic crisis or a recession, then the country can borrow and create a deficit for a period of time without any undue concerns.

Creating a deficit at a time of crisis is precisely what Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did, and if they had not borrowed money to save the banks and support the economy, then we would have endured a much longer, far deeper and substantialy more crippling recession or even a depression.

Creating the deficit to support the financial sector and the economy drew much praise for Gordon Brown from the worlds greatest economists and from economic commentators in such newspapers as the NYT and International Herald and Tribune, and from politicians everywhere.

Its actualy no great deal running up a deficit in times of emergency, and contrary to what the Conservatives and the Lib Dem apologists might tell us, its not true that we were ever heading the same way as either Greece, Spain or Ireland.

The only time in which international markets would show any concern would be if there is no credible plan to balance the books, the present governments plan is such a plan, as would an alternative plan to half the deficit before 2015.

The markets would be just as happy with a plan to half the deficit in 5 years as they are with the present plan which attempted to wipe out the deficit in the same period, this plan by the coalition has failed because it was too ambitious, and it has actualy done a lot of harm to the economy.

Without doubt. Most financial problems can be resolved given time, but there is a marked absence at the moment of anyone generating new wealth, which is obviously essential.

The usual engines of industry are sitting on their cash, waiting for a break in the general gloom and despondency before they make investment decisions, and the Banks are STILL "reinforcing their balance sheets", i.e. trying to look solvent.

Small miracle required please, Gideon/David/Nick.