Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery

The Cons are having a laugh if they expect anyone to believe that.

At that rate of growth,it will take us around 120 years to get back to where we were in 1972.That's assuming by some miracle you can get the trade figures back to where they were then in sustained equilibrium/slight surplus and assuming no more downward 'blips' ( crashes ).But then the Thatcherites amongst the Cons have never let the facts get in the way of their cheap labour and global free market ideology.

www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of...

www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-bal...

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 28th September 17:55

[turbobloke]

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery

The Cons are having a laugh if they expect anyone to believe that.

Vince aka Pod was harping on similar lines.

In March 2013 he was hanging off the IMF's coat-tails, claiming that the UK needed to borrow and spend more.

Fast forward one year to March/April this year when the IMF did a u-turn, admitting they got it wrong and had under-estimated UK growth, just as The Boy George stuck it to them in a speech pointing out that IMF criticism was misplaced while outlining a centre-right view of growth in a modern economy based on sound public finances, liberalised markets and tax reform.

Gideon ftw.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery

The Cons are having a laugh if they expect anyone to believe that.

Vince aka Pod was harping on similar lines.

In March 2013 he was hanging off the IMF's coat-tails, claiming that the UK needed to borrow and spend more.

Fast forward one year to March/April this year when the IMF did a u-turn, admitting they got it wrong and had under-estimated UK growth, just as The Boy George stuck it to them in a speech pointing out that IMF criticism was misplaced while outlining a centre-right view of growth in a modern economy based on sound public finances, liberalised markets and tax reform.

Gideon ftw.

Firstly those figures don't lie unlike the LabLibdemCon alliance.

The inconvenient fact for the socialist ideology is we can't borrow and spend our way out of the problem.While equally inconveniently for the Cons we can't cut our way out of it either without turning us back into a Victorian type of hell hole but which this time still wouldn't get the figures back on track.Because unlike then we've massacred our industrial wealth creating capabilities in favour of importing stuff which we can make for ourselves.

Firstly we need to re build our industries using every type of trick in the book.Contrary to the Cons idea of importing our way out of it the use of trade barriers kicking off a trade war when you're in a 3 billion trade deficit situation would be one of the most essential and beneficial ingredients of that.Together with running a Fordist economic system.In which consumerism feeds back into the economy in the form of demand for labour and higher wages to create yet more demand for domestically made products.Not a global free market one based on imports and cheap labour.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 28th September 18:26

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

At that rate of growth,it will take us around 120 years to get back to where we were in 1972.

Is that real GDP growth or nominal GDP growth...??

[turbobloke]

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery

The Cons are having a laugh if they expect anyone to believe that.

Vince aka Pod was harping on similar lines.

In March 2013 he was hanging off the IMF's coat-tails, claiming that the UK needed to borrow and spend more.

Fast forward one year to March/April this year when the IMF did a u-turn, admitting they got it wrong and had under-estimated UK growth, just as The Boy George stuck it to them in a speech pointing out that IMF criticism was misplaced while outlining a centre-right view of growth in a modern economy based on sound public finances, liberalised markets and tax reform.

Gideon ftw.

The inconvenient fact for the socialist ideology is we can't borrow and spend our way out of the problem. While equally inconveniently for the Cons we can't cut our way out of it either without turning us back into a Victorian type of hell hole but which this time still wouldn't get the figures back on track.

That imagery of Victorian hell hole conditions looks suspiciously like unfounded scaremongering. Even less Vince and more Osborne and the chances are we'd be seeing faster growth than the current rate - what are German and French growth rates like? If more public sector non-jobs disappeared even more quickly we'd be better placed. The public to private transfers that were started should have been bolder.

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

At that rate of growth,it will take us around 120 years to get back to where we were in 1972.

Is that real GDP growth or nominal GDP growth...??

It says 0.8 confirmed which means a 0.2 increase since the government started which I'm guessing means real enough.But if there is anything out there showing anything better you can bet the Cons would want to use it.However the inconvenient issue of having to pay the massive import bill relative to what we're getting back for exports is just another inconvenient fact.Which explains why the country is in the economic mess it is.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

The LibDems have provided dead weight that held back Conservative policies which even in dilute form have led to sustained economic recovery

The Cons are having a laugh if they expect anyone to believe that.

Vince aka Pod was harping on similar lines.

In March 2013 he was hanging off the IMF's coat-tails, claiming that the UK needed to borrow and spend more.

Fast forward one year to March/April this year when the IMF did a u-turn, admitting they got it wrong and had under-estimated UK growth, just as The Boy George stuck it to them in a speech pointing out that IMF criticism was misplaced while outlining a centre-right view of growth in a modern economy based on sound public finances, liberalised markets and tax reform.

Gideon ftw.

The inconvenient fact for the socialist ideology is we can't borrow and spend our way out of the problem. While equally inconveniently for the Cons we can't cut our way out of it either without turning us back into a Victorian type of hell hole but which this time still wouldn't get the figures back on track.

That imagery of Victorian hell hole conditions looks suspiciously like unfounded scaremongering. Even less Vince and more Osborne and the chances are we'd be seeing faster growth than the current rate - what are German and French growth rates like? If more public sector non-jobs disappeared even more quickly we'd be better placed. The public to private transfers that were started should have been bolder.

Private 'transfers' into what.You can't employ people in industry which no longer exists so I'm guessing that you really mean job cuts in the sense of those non jobs which were created to make the employment figures look better than they did during the Thatcher regime.

As for Osborne or Vince no as always in my case Kennedy IE match spending with domestic industrial output.Unless you're saying that he was a Socialist too.

http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 28th September 18:40

[DJRC]

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

'they got to influence some policy areas'. More half truths, the Lib-Dems have also introduced lower taxation levels via personal allowance before tax. They have also provided a very important brake upon the worst excesses of the Tories.

That seems to be a very vague and highly subjective claim...

I will leave you to debate that with Turbobloke then, its also his claim dressed up in different words but I do agree with him on this particular issue.
Or alternately you can ask some Tories for their POV on the matter, you will find its a fact that on balance the Lib-Dems moderated or halted many of the Tory policy proposals, thankfully.

Like?
As far as I can see the majority of the Tory party and the electorate don't seem to regard CMD as Tory! Just a random posh boy with no real Tory ideology. Or as the most cynical say no ideology at all.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

It says 0.8 confirmed which means a 0.2 increase since the government started which I'm guessing means real enough.But if there is anything out there showing anything better you can bet the Cons would want to use it.However the inconvenient issue of having to pay the massive import bill relative to what we're getting back for exports is just another inconvenient fact.Which explains why the country is in the economic mess it is.

that 0.8 is per quarter, not annual.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

It says 0.8 confirmed which means a 0.2 increase since the government started which I'm guessing means real enough.But if there is anything out there showing anything better you can bet the Cons would want to use it.However the inconvenient issue of having to pay the massive import bill relative to what we're getting back for exports is just another inconvenient fact.Which explains why the country is in the economic mess it is.

that 0.8 is per quarter, not annual.

Whatever the figure it is it isn't exactly 'sustained recovery' over the term of the government.So admittedly maybe not 120 years to get back to 1972.More like who knows it could be anywhere from more than that to less than that depending on how the line goes from this point.However by the shape of it from 2010-2013 things don't look good in that regard on the basis that the line can go down as well as up and is already tailing off at/slightly below the 3% mark from the end of 2013.

www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-kingdom-gdp...

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 28th September 19:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 28th September 20:09

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

Absolutely the 'one' they inherited from the Callaghan, Thatcherite and Blairite administrations.All of which bought into the EU and global free market dream of thinking we can import what we could/should be making for ourselves and borrow and print the money to pay for it all.All of which considered a price worth paying so long as domestic wage rates were kept low.

Oh, wait....

[turbobloke]

XJ Flyer said:

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

Absolutely the 'one' they inherited from the Callaghan, Thatcherite and Blairite administrations.All of which bought into the EU and global free market dream of thinking we can import what we could/should be making for ourselves and borrow and print the money to pay for it all.All of which considered a price worth paying so long as domestic wage rates were kept low.

The Golden Legacy applies to the Blair Brown inheritance, nothing else.

John Major’s two chancellors Lamont and Clarke took the country out of the deep recession of the early 1990s. By the time snake oil sales rose dramatically in 1997 employment was rising, growth was stable, and the deficit was well under control. Incapability Brown inherited what was without doubt the most benign economic picture for any government at any time in the last century. It took Gordo only 4 years to get back to exercising Labour's incompetent economic organ. What a wnaker.

[edh]

XJ Flyer said:

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

Absolutely the 'one' they inherited from the Callaghan, Thatcherite and Blairite administrations.All of which bought into the EU and global free market dream of thinking we can import what we could/should be making for ourselves and borrow and print the money to pay for it all.All of which considered a price worth paying so long as domestic wage rates were kept low.

Oh, wait....

yes, the one that was growing strongly that they killed stone dead..with doom, gloom and VAT rises

& with a current recovery that's so far off their "long term plan" it's laughable - how's that deficit reduction plan going again?

Osbourne has slyly lifted off the austerity drive in the last 2 years, whipped up some economic froth to inspire the "animal spirits" again & everything's just fine... Comparisons to Germany & France conveniently ignore how much longer it took us to reach our pre-crash GDP, and let's not even look at GDP per head...

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

Absolutely the 'one' they inherited from the Callaghan, Thatcherite and Blairite administrations.All of which bought into the EU and global free market dream of thinking we can import what we could/should be making for ourselves and borrow and print the money to pay for it all.All of which considered a price worth paying so long as domestic wage rates were kept low.

The Golden Legacy applies to the Blair Brown inheritance, nothing else.

John Major’s two chancellors Lamont and Clarke took the country out of the deep recession of the early 1990s. By the time snake oil sales rose dramatically in 1997 employment was rising, growth was stable, and the deficit was well under control. Incapability Brown inherited what was without doubt the most benign economic picture for any government at any time in the last century. It took Gordo only 4 years to get back to exercising Labour's incompetent economic organ. What a wnaker.

You seem to have selectively missed the crash of the early/mid 1980's and the fact that the economy went into melt down from the point when Heath took us into the EU and Callaghan then kept us in it in addition to adopting the idea of 'wage restraint',let alone the global free market economics of Thatcher and Blair added to that.

As opposed to the direction in which things were going up to 1972.

www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uplo...

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

As opposed to the direction in which things were going up to 1972.

What was inflation doing in the run up to 1972?

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

As opposed to the direction in which things were going up to 1972.

What was inflation doing in the run up to 1972?

Let's just say the single figure rate between 1969-72 was a lot better than the double figures inflation a few years later.Caused by EEC membership and following price harmonization and rip off fuel price increases even though we were self sufficient in oil.As for inflation it is the relationship between prices and incomes that matters.Heath's and Callaghan's etc ideas of meeting all that with wage restraint was the final nail.

[sidicks]

XJ Flyer said:

Let's just say the single figure rate between 1969-72 was a lot better than the double figures inflation a few years later.Caused by EEC membership and following price harmonization and rip off fuel price increases even though we were self sufficient in oil.As for inflation it is the relationship between prices and incomes that matters.Heath's and Callaghan's etc ideas of meeting all that with wage restraint was the final nail.

You seem to be obsessed with the GDP figure without taking into account the economic scenario in which it occurred.

[turbobloke]

XJ Flyer said:

turbobloke said:

XJ Flyer said:

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Whatever the figure it is the 0.2 increase since the government came to power which I'm referring to.

And this is despite that hugely robust and strong economy they inherited.

Oh, wait....

Absolutely the 'one' they inherited from the Callaghan, Thatcherite and Blairite administrations.All of which bought into the EU and global free market dream of thinking we can import what we could/should be making for ourselves and borrow and print the money to pay for it all.All of which considered a price worth paying so long as domestic wage rates were kept low.

The Golden Legacy applies to the Blair Brown inheritance, nothing else.

John Major’s two chancellors Lamont and Clarke took the country out of the deep recession of the early 1990s. By the time snake oil sales rose dramatically in 1997 employment was rising, growth was stable, and the deficit was well under control. Incapability Brown inherited what was without doubt the most benign economic picture for any government at any time in the last century. It took Gordo only 4 years to get back to exercising Labour's incompetent economic organ. What a wnaker.

You seem to have selectively missed the crash of the early/mid 1980's and the fact that the economy went into melt down from the point when Heath took us into the EU and Callaghan then kept us in it in addition to adopting the idea of 'wage restraint',let alone the global free market economics of Thatcher and Blair added to that.

The Golden Legacy relates to the position as at handover, 1997.

Nothing was missed, including WW2, but times had moved on.

[XJ Flyer]

sidicks said:

XJ Flyer said:

Let's just say the single figure rate between 1969-72 was a lot better than the double figures inflation a few years later.Caused by EEC membership and following price harmonization and rip off fuel price increases even though we were self sufficient in oil.As for inflation it is the relationship between prices and incomes that matters.Heath's and Callaghan's etc ideas of meeting all that with wage restraint was the final nail.

You seem to be obsessed with the GDP figure without taking into account the economic scenario in which it occurred.

It seems to be a reasonable pointer to that general economic situation.It is better to be obsessed with pointers like GDP,income levels relative to prices and trade figures because they have a lot more relevance to the health of the economy than the inflation rate in isolation.

The fact is the economic scenario in Fordist,pre EU,pre wage restraint and pre global free market Britain was a lot better than what we've got now after decades of post all the above.