UK 2Q GDP surpasses all expectations - Fastest Pace In 4 Years

StevieJ

Chaos_A.D. wrote: »

What's the alternative, keep borrowing money that we can't afford and dress it up as 'recovery'?

As Really pointed out Labour were going to make substantial cuts any way but not until the recovery was firmly rooted, so what was your point again?

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Rather than following the Latvian precident where they made cuts on the same order as the conservatives are planning, the economy went into a tailspin, government debt is worse after 3 years of cuts than when they started,

Ours will be also, such was the scale of over spending relative to income, it is the spending before which is the killer.
I struggle with why people are now blaming cuts when the cuts are just a symptom of the problem. Without the excessive spending of 2002 onwards we would not have to cut so hard.

It came out that labour would now be looking at 20%+ cuts anyway had they won (but told no one), so I think the end result will be no different with either party.

Just that we are in better shape to get out than latvia. (EG we have financial services what are latvia famed for... 0 points at eurovision?)

Blacklight

"Today's figures show the private sector contributing all but 0.1% of the growth in the second quarter, and put beyond doubt that it was right to begin acting on the deficit now."

No doubt a proportion of it's fed from public sector spending but that's still remarkable growth. Looks like there could be some jobs out there very soon.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

As Really pointed out Labour were going to make substantial cuts any way but not until the recovery was firmly rooted, so what was your point again?

Unfortunately not, it was to start next financial year, the same as the torys in reality. All cuts at councils etc are happening next year so labour would have forced the same on the councils, just asking for 5% less in savings.

So in reality if next year is where the recovery is firmly rooted they have done the same.
But the libcons have done some cuts this year, but are those cuts going to drag GDP that far?

edit,

just to had this is not a pro con, lib rant at labour. The truth is the cuts were going to happen so I see the end game the same who ever got in.
I am just happier and I presume the markets are that the people who did get in said they were going to do it before.
Their would have been hell and shock had Labour got in the just a month or so later started cutting just had hard as the conservatives were going to do anyway.

In the current financial situation I think honesty is the best policy and the markets seem to react well to that, as they know the state of play no matter how the govenments pretend otherwise.

Blacklight

I can't believe we only have one thread on this. If if was -0.1% the place would be flooded with identical posts.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

In the current financial situation I think honesty is the best policy and the markets seem to react well to that, as they know the state of play no matter how the govenments pretend otherwise.

I thought the Tories backtracked on their cut threats when their poll rating took a dive, honesty and don't include the LibDems and honesty in the same sentence :eek:

StevieJ

Blacklight wrote: »

I can't believe we only have one thread on this. If if was -0.1% the place would be flooded with identical posts.

You mean like a sort of celebration, weird

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

Unfortunately not, it was to start next financial year, the same as the torys in reality. All cuts at councils etc are happening next year so labour would have forced the same on the councils, just asking for 5% less in savings.

So in reality if next year is where the recovery is firmly rooted they have done the same.
But the libcons have done some cuts this year, but are those cuts going to drag GDP that far?
.

I guess it depends on your viewpoint. How many of the labour "cuts" were real? 20% cuts over the lifetime of a parliament - 5 years - are less than 5%. But the cuts were compared to the original plans.

So, the effect of the "cuts" was, more or less, to keep spending growing in nominal terms, but to increase spending by roughly 3% less than inflation. The effect of the cuts would have started off as quite small, accelerating over time. So... people and the economy would have had time to adjust.

The lib conservative plans are basically to cut more deeply than the labour party, but also to frontload a lot of these cuts immediatly.

The spending "cuts" so far... roughly 10 billion, are insignificant on a macroeconomic level. 20 billion is also insignificant, we've reduced the projected deficit by more than that simply by growing a lot faster than forecast for the last two quarters.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought the Tories backtracked on their cut threats when their poll rating took a dive, honesty and don't include the LibDems and honesty in the same sentence :eek:

Did they? I was not aware the torys said they were not going to make cut.

But we all have to admit what Labour said they were going to do and what was actually planed were two very different things.:eek:

I don't want a debate on the ins and out of who did what, politics is messy. Lets just enjoy the good news on the economy and lets hope it continues.:beer:

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

I guess it depends on your viewpoint. How many of the labour "cuts" were real?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/spending-cuts-labour-balls

The coalition may be planning to cut all non-ring-fenced budgets by 25 per cent but it's worth remembering that Labour's cuts wouldn't have been much less savage. The Brown/Darling pledge to halve the deficit by 2014 would have seen cuts of 20 per cent to all non-protected departments.

from one of their own.

You could look that 25% is only 1% more per year over the period also.

There is no other way of dressing it up, cuts just as deep were coming no matter who got in.

PS the labour 20% was "real cuts"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14fcb3d0-7e29-11df-94a8-00144feabdc0.html

Labour had planned for 20 per cent real cuts over the next four years