villaajax Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 I see that it's that time of Friday night when our resident socialists start hallucinating... Indeed. GDP growth (quarter on quarter) in the three quarters at the end of the last administration (Q4 2009- Q2 2010) was about the same as the last three quarters (up to and including Q3 2013) - not 'stronger growth' just about 'the same'. Edit: All of which bearing in mind my post above. Oh sorry, current growth has been brought back to about the level that Labour left it going on for 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 (edited) I see that it's that time of Friday night when our resident socialists start hallucinating... Indeed. GDP growth (quarter on quarter) in the three quarters at the end of the last administration (Q4 2009- Q2 2010) was about the same as the last three quarters (up to and including Q3 2013) - not 'stronger growth' just about 'the same'. Edit: All of which bearing in mind my post above. Oh sorry, current growth has been brought back to about the level that Labour left it going on for 4 years ago. Its the cost that has come at over the last 3 and half years that concerns me. The rich have got richer and the rest of us are much worse off. And as for the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us well its been a case of f**k em we'll brand them as scroungers and lump them in with the tiny minority who are undeserving of any help. Oh and at the same time we'll save a few quid by decimating the public services the poorest are most reliant on. I also see its Friday night and our resident right wing nut jobs are out Edited December 7, 2013 by markavfc40 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Shrug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted December 6, 2013 Share Posted December 6, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486 Just goes to show that for all the silly rhetoric from political figures and their supporters the reality is that leaving the EU would certainly have a major negative impact on the UK economyHow did I miss this comedy gem for so long So a man who said back in 2002 he would have to reconsider Nissans future in the UK if we didn't adopt the euro ( that's 11 years btw) ... Now says he will reconsider if we pull out of the EU and suddenly he's the proof that we are doomed Well that's me convinced , I'd best vote NO to any withdrawal EDIT: Not really worth it as all can see what is going on here. Also interestingly Cameron often uses Nissan as a example of foreign investment - are we to assume that is no longer important? I will keep the fact that quotes from 2002 are to be treated as long held policies for another time - it will make comedy reading especially in respect of Osborne when he was calling for things like increased spending etc. - but I suppose that us not the same? Edited December 7, 2013 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 I think you have to start with what you know to be true and work from there. We know that wages are lower, less is being borrowed and prices have gone up: therefore it cannot be ordinary consumers who are creating growth by consuming more. We know that it is government policy to have higher than target inflation. We also know that companies across the globe are sitting on a cash mountain they have accumulated. The only place any growth can possibly come from is from those with money to spend. Therefore we have to conclude that the present growth in the economy is coming from the investment or re-stocking of big companies with surplus cash. If true, this most certainly will be temporary, and that no sustainable growth can occur until the vast majority of consumers have more to spend. This will not happen until wages rise and all the predictions say that this will not happen for several years. Conclusion: the present growth is temporary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Conclusion: the present growth is temporary. But that can't be true as Gordon ended boom and bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) Conclusion: the present growth is temporary. But that can't be true as Gordon ended boom and bust No government can stop themselves from inflating the housing market and Brown was as deluded as those who claimed the system was bullet-proof back in the late 1920s but it can't be denied that some Chancellors have better excuses for their delusions than others. Osborne has produced his housing boom in defiance of the strident chorus of Austrian School economists who he knows have been proven right. Some idiots at least have tenable excuses, some do not. Edited December 7, 2013 by MakemineVanilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) could someone explain how? i am a working person and i can't see where i have/will have lost £6k a year (in higher taxes i guess?) Edited December 7, 2013 by ender4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 It's prices going up quicker than wages are going up I believeDon't think its anything to do with taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 bit of both, fair old wack of tax on petrol price etc., as items go up, vat rises with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Petrol has gone down hasn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's come down slightly in the past few months but still up about 10p per litre on average since the tories got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 petrol £1.22 at the last election (higher than I'd thought) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 but it was more the cumulative affect on all our lives, our 'personal' petrol price has gone up, the price of goods has gone up. The price of driving to the stores to buy shit is higher, that shit costs more to make due to transport costs, the vat is then on a higher figure.... I'd say I'm paying more tax now than 3 years ago in total - happy to be corrected (but I'm not paying for it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's come down slightly in the past few months but still up about 10p per litre on average since the tories got in. In terms of the argument which is people are going to be £6k worse off .. And petrol being suggested as one if these factors , wouldn't you have to draw a comparison on how much it went up under the previous administration to see if people were better of back in the "good old days" ? Ok they had longer so it would be harsh to compare 13 year so let's just take the last 3 So Jan 2007 petrol 87.3p And Jan 2010 petrol £1.11 Somewhat more than 10p Did wages go up during this period to cover this increase ? Or were we all worse off ? ( this is a question btw ) And if petrol continues to go down in price , then wouldn't this £6k by 2015 prediction also be using old data and need to be revised each time a penny comes off a litre ? Can you actually pluck headline attention seeking figures like the £6k one Labour used and accept them though ? Labour used RPI to for their purposes ... It could be governments moving the goalposts but don't they use RPIJ now ? In which case working people would on average be £530 'better off' than the figures achieved by labour ( funny that sides use one that best supports their case !! ) We'd need an economics expert to explain the differences but RPIJ is believed to offer a more accurate picture ( something about a more accurate measure of inflation ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 MPs are getting an 11% payrise after the next election. Well deserved, I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Research by Ipsa found two-thirds of MPs believe they are underpaid, and the watchdog's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy says politicians' pay must "catch up" after years of being suppressed. Those 2/3rds should be named and shamed so we can vote them out of office next time around Trouble is their replacements will only have their snouts in the same trough 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 after years of being suppressed. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 it's chicken and egg should our current crop of poor quality shit stains get a pay rise of 11%? absolutely not is £64k enough to do that job competently, represent 50,000 people well, advance the country and not just be a party sleaze ball? clearly not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts