Cons Increase Deficit & National Debt Targets Missed

DecentLivingWage

Point is, The Recovery was already under way under Labour - they left growth at 4% -Osborne's economic blunders have snuffed out the sdparks of growth (Frightened Broke Voters dont spend!) and with unemployment rising everyone who IS in a job knows it could be them or their loved one next - so everyone clutches their wallets tighter and the vicious recession circle goes round again. Osborne is trapped in a whirlpool - and cant get the UK back in the game - hence Carney!!

Here's that Bloomberg link explaining it...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/osborne-will-miss-labour-u-k-budget-deficit-target.html

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then hardly surprising with the financial mess we now find ourselves in.

It's not just Gordon Brown. There are no qualification requirements for the position of Chancellor - they just need to be a politician.

To my mind it would be better for MP's in ministerial positions to have some sort of background in their department titles but that would leave Government rather lacking in choice. Being a politician seems to be a career choice of it's own and it's no surprise that politicians aren't putting up barriers to office based on aptitude for the job.

chewmylegoff

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Yes I agree, Im surprised too - does anyone know just what his economist credentials are for just such a crucially important position as Chancellor? I must say I was shocked he appointed Chloe Smith cos he thought she was an accountant(turned out she only Worked For an accountant.

name some chancellors who have "economist credentials". gordon brown did history at university and then worked as a journalist. alasdair darling was a solicitor before entering parliament. ken clarke a barrister. john major worked for a bank, but not as an economist. nigel lawson was in the navy and then worked as a journalist.

furthermore, name a health secretary who had experience of working in health, or an education secretary who worked as a teacher. etc etc etc.

osborne's lack of sector-specific experience is hardly shocking when compared to the experience of other politicians on either side of the house. personally i think this is one of the biggest problems with politics - politics shouldn't be a career that a university leaver embarks on without any real experience of the outside world, but it has become like that unfortunately.

Thrugelmir

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Osborne's economic blunders have snuffed out the sdparks of growth

What blunders?

chewmylegoff

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Point is, The Recovery was already under way under Labour - they left growth at 4% -Osborne's economic blunders have snuffed out the sdparks of growth (Frightened Broke Voters dont spend!) and with unemployment rising everyone who IS in a job knows it could be them or their loved one next - so everyone clutches their wallets tighter and the vicious recession circle goes round again. Osborne is trapped in a whirlpool - and cant get the UK back in the game - hence Carney!!

Here's that Bloomberg link explaining it...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/osborne-will-miss-labour-u-k-budget-deficit-target.html

i don't know why you keep spouting this nonsense that the economy was growing at 4% when labour left power.

the 4 quarters leading up to the 2010 general election and the condems taking power were as follows:

-0.2% Q3 2009
+0.4% Q4 2009
+0.4% Q1 2010
+0.6% Q2 2010

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

this equals an annual growth rate of 1.2%.

even if you annualise Q2 2010 (which is a stupid way to do it) you still only get 2.4% annualised growth.

so can you stop lying please?

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

name some chancellors who have "economist credentials". gordon brown did history at university and then worked as a journalist. alasdair darling was a solicitor before entering parliament. ken clarke a barrister. john major worked for a bank, but not as an economist. nigel lawson was in the navy and then worked as a journalist.

furthermore, name a health secretary who had experience of working in health, or an education secretary who worked as a teacher. etc etc etc.

osborne's lack of sector-specific experience is shocking when compared to the experience of other politicians on either side of the house. personally i think this is one of the biggest problems with politics - politics shouldn't be a career that a university leaver embarks on without any real experience of the outside world, but it has become like that unfortunately.

John Major worked in banking, Lord Lawson had a 1st in PPE, Baron Jenkins also did (read? I don't know the words for that stuff because I don't care about them) PPE. That's about the lot in my lifetime.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i don't know why you keep spouting this nonsense that the economy was growing at 4% when labour left power.

the 4 quarters leading up to the 2010 general election and the condems taking power were as follows:

-0.2% Q3 2009
+0.4% Q4 2009
+0.4% Q1 2010
+0.6% Q2 2010

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

this equals an annual growth rate of 1.2%.

even if you annualise Q2 2010 (which is a stupid way to do it) you still only get 2.4% annualised growth.

so can you stop lying please?

TBH if this idiot is going to be preaching this stuff then it's better for it to be here where the posters have 2 things going for them in relation to this:

- We are largely bright, independent thinkers that aren't sucked in by this stuff
- This is a small, closed board so any dullards that are sucked in are likely to be few in number

sheffield_lad

Decent living wage:

Oh dear another wasted oh better luck next time.

Maybe start the thread with 'hard working families' that will be a sure way to get decent debate lol

Back to the union mag my old mucker

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

TBH if this idiot is going to be preaching this stuff then it's better for it to be here where the posters have 2 things going for them in relation to this:

- We are largely bright, independent thinkers that aren't sucked in by this stuff
- This is a small, closed board so any dullards that are sucked in are likely to be few in number

You also tell when people are losing the rational argument. When it becomes about people, i.e. name calling. Not the policies. Debt reduction medicine is going to be painful. More than likely slow to take effect. So any real impact is going to take time to show significantly.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

this equals an annual growth rate of 1.2%.

At least it was growth of over 1% which probably means that we were holding our own allowing for margins of error.

When talking of anything +/-1%, without a trend, it really means zip either way.