Osborne Loses It - Our Triple A Rating And Its Future

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

LOL!

Presumably the cluster fk that was Nationalisation, 168% tax rate, the IMF bail out and the Winter of Discontent was Thatchers fault too.

Idiot.

I think the chalice that Thatcher inherited was not quite as bad as some make out, especially if you throw in the dramatic increase in oil production.

By September 1978, economic growth had picked up and inflation was below 10%,

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Really?

NHS spending increased in real terms YoY under Thatcher.
Thatcher's Governments closed pits that were loss making in order to privatise an industry. Why should coal miners be subsidised by taxpayers in general? I work in a bank and I think banks should get the subsidy instead.

I thought they did? are we not losing money on the bail out investment

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought they did? are we not losing money on the bail out investment

I don't work in a subsidised bank nor have I ever.

Andy_L

coastline wrote: »

Just to let posters see the debt piling up...Tories rattled up 4 times the debt..

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Public Net Debt&year=1978_1997&sname=&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=79.18_86.88_98.20_113.80_125.20_132.50_143.80_157.20_162.70_167.80_167.40_153.90_152.20_151.30_166.10_202.60_249.80_290.00_322.10_348.00&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a[/IMG]


Labour rattled up 2 times the debt...its certainly not clear cut that one party is better than another..

[IMG]http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ukgs_line.php?title=Public Net Debt&year=1997_2010&sname=&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&spending0=348.00_352.90_351.60_345.40_312.40_315.50_347.10_382.80_424.00_463.00_500.00_525.00_616.90_759.50&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a[/IMG]

I like the way you've used different scales on both graphs making it difficult to meaningfully compare them. Good work - have you considered a career in journalism, advertising or politics?

angrypirate

coastline wrote: »

The Tories weren't voted in...they had to form a coalition.You would have thought it would have been a landslide victory.Their supporters from a decade ago deserted them....

They actually had more votes (by number and percentage) than labour in the 2005 election. However election boundaries favouring labour ensured that the Tories didnt have a seat majority

coastline

Andy_L wrote: »

I like the way you've used different scales on both graphs making it difficult to meaningfully compare them. Good work - have you considered a career in journalism, advertising or politics?

Do the maths then from those charts...they're a straight copy and paste btw.

1978...80-350 = 4 times
1997...350-720=2 times..;)

grizzly1911

Andy_L wrote: »

I like the way you've used different scales on both graphs making it difficult to meaningfully compare them. Good work - have you considered a career in journalism, advertising or politics?

Not difficult to work out the point.

First graph 19% pa and then latter 10%

Edit:-coastie beat me to it.

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Not difficult to work out the point.

First graph 19% pa and then latter 10%

Edit:-coastie beat me to it.

It's hardly a fair comparison though is it. Both datasets compares a recessionary environment against a growth environment.

Obviously, debt is going to rise in a recession. Infact, it's what people are moaning about....that it's nor rising fast enough (taking on debt to provide growth).

LauraW10

Fella wrote: »

Labour are resoundingly responsible for leaving the economy in a horrific state.

I read this from Martin Wolf of the FT and I thought of you (and all those who thanked your post)

The legacy is what it was when the government came into office. If things have ended up worse than expected, it is partly because the government failed to understand its inheritance. Again, the claim that events beyond government control are to blame for the disappointing outcomes is specious. This is not only because the UK economy has done badly in comparison with its peers, but because the government decided not to use available policy instruments. The UK economy is suffering the longest period below a pre-recession peak for a century.

Non, je ne regrette rien. This should be George Osborne’s motto. The chancellor of the exchequer cannot admit that his strategy bears blame for the absence of anything that looks like a recovery. He also insists that “it’s taking time, but the British economy is healing”. If disability is health, the chancellor can make this claim. Otherwise, he cannot. The strategy is transparent: define failure as success and, to the extent that this does not work, blame one’s inheritance and the external environment. Politically this works. Economically it is unconvincing.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb107fa2-3a5c-11e2-baac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EOH5RqoQ

LauraW10

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No economist will say this, not in reports anyhow.

There are plenty of them prepared to say the coalition is wrong. This is what Martin Wolf has to say:-

What will be done? Almost nothing, beyond postponing achievement of the fiscal targets further into the next parliament. What should be done is another matter. The government can and should reconsider fiscal, monetary, financial and structural policies, in order to accelerate the recovery.


First, the government could consider credibly temporary fiscal expansion. The obvious policy instruments for this are higher public investment and tax cuts, particularly cuts that are likely to be spent at once. Yes, this means more borrowing. But the government can reasonably argue that with such a weak economy, but cyclically-adjusted net borrowing forecast at only 3 per cent this year, it has given itself the room to delay tightening. This will lead to cries that credibility would be utterly destroyed. On the contrary, with the lowest long-term interest rates in UK history, it is the weakness of the economy that is, alas, all too credible. The case for temporary increases in borrowing is very strong. Moreover, the promise to tighten further in the next parliament is barely credible, since a parliament cannot bind its successor. But what the government can do is leave a strong economy. Nothing could do more to make consolidation credible.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb107fa2-3a5c-11e2-baac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EOH5RqoQ

The economy is far weaker than expected, while public finances are healing. This gives greater room for manoeuvre to the government’s attempts to accelerate the recovery. What should it do? The answer is: more than it is doing. It is easy to understand the political case for insisting that there are no alternatives. Yet there are. It should adopt them.