Cons Increase Deficit & National Debt Targets Missed

kabayiri

Isn't it funny? We think changing parties will solve our ills. The democracy of choice.

And yet, the poor old Chinese get hardly no choice at all. So how is it working out for them? Oh, a paltry 2% a quarter growth in GDP!

Just shows how inept our lot are.

PaulF81

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

I refer you here :

(as to the last quarter and what growth would have been we will never know because Osborne choked it off but in total 3.75 - 4 % would not have seemed unreasonable aggregating the exciting looking third quarter - as to whether we annualise it, well 'you pays your money and you takes your choice' Fact is we would Kill for those growth figures now! The private sector jobs never came.... neither did BSkyB... to save his bacon...)

http://hhgrahamjones.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-tories-plan-has-failed-as-borrowing.html

Keep digging. Sure, we believe you.... :rotfl::rotfl:

PaulF81

kabayiri wrote: »

Isn't it funny? We think changing parties will solve our ills. The democracy of choice.

And yet, the poor old Chinese get hardly no choice at all. So how is it working out for them? Oh, a paltry 2% a quarter growth in GDP!

Just shows how inept our lot are.

What it shows is how a 5 year political cycle compares to a 10 year cycle.

Oh, and allowing unproductive people with a vested interest in milking the system will never vote the right way for the country as a whole. They just dont understand self sacrifice for the greater good.

BertieUK

I truly think that many suffer from what is known as "Oakley effect"

The link is entitled Why smart people can't take criticism Its quite a good read.

http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/why-smart-people-cant-take-criticism.html

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

Isn't it funny? We think changing parties will solve our ills. The democracy of choice.

And yet, the poor old Chinese get hardly no choice at all. So how is it working out for them? Oh, a paltry 2% a quarter growth in GDP!

Just shows how inept our lot are.

if they had had the privilege of democracy for the last 50 years then millions wouldn't have died of starvation and their GDP would be 2-3 times that of USA and their per capita income would equal or exceed ours.

Their growth rate would however, probably be lower

I wonder which they would have preferred if they had been given the choice?

BertieUK

CLAPTON wrote: »

if they had had the privilege of democracy for the last 50 years then millions wouldn't have died of starvation and their GDP would be 2-3 times that of USA and their per capita income would equal or excess ours.

Their growth rate would however, probably be lower

I wonder which they would have preferred if they had been given the choice?

These are the facts that most of us are totally unaware of, if it were not for considerate people like you, then it becomes a totally new view.

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

if they had had the privilege of democracy for the last 50 years then millions wouldn't have died of starvation and their GDP would be 2-3 times that of USA and their per capita income would equal or excess ours.

Their growth rate would however, probably be lower

I wonder which they would have preferred if they had been given the choice?

Thats the beauty of their system, they dont select people on the basis of popularity, they select people to lead who have that ability to do the best for the nation.

The important question you need to ask is "in 50 years, who will hold global hegemony"? having seen the extent of Chinas global resource holdings (much acquired whilst we have been squabbling about ooman rites in the middle east and 'fighting for democracy') I bet its not the West.

BobQ

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 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.

I agree in this world of professionl politicians its rather difficult.

Even when they have some relevant experience its ignored. Liam Fox a former GP became Defence Sec. Gillian Sheppard was an ex teacher and became Education Secretary as did Estelle Morris (who could not hack the job of SoS).

As to Chancellors, Norman Lamont studied economics at university, John Major (at O-level) and before that Oxbridge PPE graduates Norman Lamont (great success story!) and Roy Jenkins.

Of course its possible that the next Chancellor will be qualified in economics (William Hague, Philip Hammond, Yvette Cooper, Raechel Reeves , David Miliband or even Ed). Not sure if that is reason to hope!

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I don't recall IMF involvement ever being even vaguely talked about with a Conservative government in office.

Well if we are still blaming Labour for everything now, this happened 2.5 years into a Labour administration following a period of Tory stewardship.:D

BobQ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I don't know how you make that out. Not a stellar performance I agree, but trying to do something about the state education system, trying to do something about the out of control welfare system and the culture of dependency, trying to draw a halt to EU encroachment, & not escalating our foreign military adventures commitments. These are all really major issues facing the country, and at least steps have been taken in the right direction. Would Labour have taken up the same positions on these ? I don't think so. And because of their delusion that a return to growth could be achieved any time soon, they probably would have taken us into even more debt in order to fund more non-jobs and create the illusion that we were getting somewhere.

You may be right, we will never know. What we will also not know is whether we could have got the economy moving a little more quickly with a lmore constructive attempt to stimulate employment growth.