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

tomterm8

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Setting objectives has a remarkable effect of concentrating minds. Once the remit is passed down the chain of command to individual budget holders. Amazing how much unneccessary spend accumalates over time as complancy sets in. I'm not using the word waste delibrately. As the good or service etc is required for a purpose. However obtaining that good or service at a better price or more competitive rate. This results in a cost saving. Not everything requires a cut.

You're confusing spending and output. If you could make the entire 25% saving, without impacting on output in any way, it would still have exactly the same economic effects at a macro level in the short time. In the long term, you would increase productivity and trend growth. In the short term, you would pretty much be guaranteed a recession.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

And the conservatives are planning cuts of between 5 and 25% more on top of the spending cuts labour announced,

They are asking for UP TO(it is discretionary to some departments) 25% in real terms compared to labours 20%. They are not asking for 25% more.:rotfl:

tomterm8 wrote: »

So they are reducing two taxes, and this means there plans for the entire tax take is lower than labours? Hmpfh.

The rises were less than labour were planing yes, sorry but it is true.

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

Don't do a graham on me steve.

The point is clear (as vat 20% for lab or con was mainstream anyway pre election) there is no evidence tax has been increased more than it would have been under labour.
It actually looks less after not increasing NI as much as was planed by the previous government.

Have you looked at the budget?

Jeeze...

pwc wrote:

The most signifi cant tax measures (with their impact
on Treasury revenues in 2013/14 shown in brackets)
were a VAT increase to 20% (+£13.5bn); a phased
increase in income tax personal allowances (-£3.9bn);
and a new Bank Levy (+£2.4bn). The net tax rise will be

around £8bn by 2014/15

pwc wrote:

The 2010 emergency Budget contained a large number
of tax and spending initiatives, which are projected
to deliver an additional fi scal consolidation of around

£40 billion by 2014/15,

'additional' being, in addition to the cuts labour already announced.

http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/emergency_budget_summary.pdf

Really2 wrote: »

They are asking for UP TO(it is discretionary to some departments) 25% in real terms compared to labours 20%. They are not asking for 25% more.:rotfl:



The rises were less than labour were planing yes, sorry but it is true.

No, they have asked all non protected departments to produce plans for cuts of either 25% or 40%. Do the maths. The labour cuts were for 20% in all departments, so the cuts to departments are expected to be between 5% and 20% more than the labourt cuts.

Really2

Just a question, it seems to me a fair few are happy to knock the current government.

But in reality they have been in power for a few months. Have they really done anything bad or that different from what others were planing?

Why not judge them on the future, as it seem those complaining are not judging the previous government on there past.;)

The fact is, the government has changed, but in all honesty I do not think they have done anything that did not need doing.

Anyone thinking it would have been different under labour I think are kidding themselves, had the government not acted on debt the markets may have instead.:eek:

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

I can't understand anyone defending labour and ignoring why we are here in the first place.

i don't think anyone is defending Labour - they're saying that Labour's choice for cuts may be a better choice than the current incumbents.

the current government want it all done up front probably killing growth - Labour were not looking to do it that quickly after growth had settled

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Have you looked at the budget?

Yes, so you are saying that because labour are not in power the tax increases are more than what labour had planed?

tomterm8 wrote: »

No, they have asked all non protected departments to produce plans for cuts of either 25% or 40%. Do the maths. The labour cuts were for 20% in all departments, so the cuts to departments are expected to be between 5% and 20% more than the labourt cuts.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

No they have asked for 25% I know becasue my wife may be one of those 25%

Who have been asked for 40% cuts?


But remind me again as you seem unwilling to do so why are we talking about these cuts.

Really2

chucky wrote: »

the current government want it all done up front probably killing growth - Labour were not looking to do it that quickly after growth had settled

Perhaps (but it looked like labour were not far from calling big cuts sooner than later), but labours plan would have been more detrimental to future growth.
Either way, it has to be cut, it is just a question which will look better after 5 years.

My guess is the end point will be not far off the same, but the private sector will be stronger under the current government than it would have been under labour.

nearlynew

These figures might be true or they might be lies, spin and bullsh1t.
(probably the latter)


Either way, I don't attach much importance to them.

StevieJ

What the economists say.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/23/uk-economic-growth-what-the-economists-say

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Who have been asked for 40% cuts?

The Treasury has been asking for a 40% cuts scenario. Presumably, this is to allow picking and choosing between govt programmes.