So the Tories didn't "snuff out" the recovery in 2010

Gangaweed

Its official. GDP growth accelerated after the coalition came to power: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/30/uk-economy-recession-ons-figures-growth-gdp

I look forward to all those Labour buffoons apologising for the lies they have been spreading over the last 5 years.

michaels

Robert Peston really narked me with his

Perhaps austerity didn't choke off UK recovery

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34402234

You can't read that headline without thinking it was perceived wisdom that 'Tory Austerity' had led to a slower recovery. Perceived wisdom perhaps at The Beeb, The Graudian and Millbank House but hardly universally accepted.

bigheadxx

Slower recovery is due to demographics, simple as that.

Spidernick

In the interests of balance, what about the continued lies from the Tory buffoons implying that Labour virtually bankrupted the country! It certainly helped them win the General Election and somehow I cannot see them apologising for this.

michaels

Spidernick wrote: »

In the interests of balance, what about the continued lies from the Tory buffoons implying that Labour virtually bankrupted the country! It certainly helped them win the General Election and somehow I cannot see them apologising for this.

Erm - but they did by running a budget deficit when the economy was performing above trend with a benefits structure that ensured any downturn in employment would have a huge negative impact on the budget balance. Any form of cyclical downturn (the banking crisis was just one possible cause) was bound to cause an unsustainable deficit.

Generali

Spidernick wrote: »

In the interests of balance, what about the continued lies from the Tory buffoons implying that Labour virtually bankrupted the country! It certainly helped them win the General Election and somehow I cannot see them apologising for this.

Running a deficit in the middle of a boom wasn't a great idea by Labour. They even changed their 'golden rule' in 2005 because a deficit was obviously required at that point in the cycle.

BobQ

I find it incredible that in latter end of 2015 we start revising our interpretation of growth in 2010. How long does it take to do the calculations. On that basis we should be sceptical about the data in the last two years as well. In fact is any growth calculation accurate?

It appears that they still agree that the economy was growing in 2010 at 1.5% and continued to grow in 2011 and 2.2% in 2011. The austerity measures take a while to work through so in 2012 growth reduced to 1.2%. This still looks like chocking off a recovery.

And clearly we can ignore 2013-2015 figures which will no doubt be corrected again the next 5 years.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

I find it incredible that in latter end of 2015 we start revising our interpretation of growth in 2010. How long does it take to do the calculations. On that basis we should be sceptical about the data in the last two years as well. In fact is any growth calculation accurate?

It appears that they still agree that the economy was growing in 2010 at 1.5% and continued to grow in 2011 and 2.2% in 2011. The austerity measures take a while to work through so in 2012 growth reduced to 1.2%. This still looks like chocking off a recovery.

And clearly we can ignore 2013-2015 figures which will no doubt be corrected again the next 5 years.

Don't worry, when labour get back in, in 2050, they can change the figures back again to something more suitable to your viewpoint.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

I find it incredible that in latter end of 2015 we start revising our interpretation of growth in 2010. How long does it take to do the calculations. On that basis we should be sceptical about the data in the last two years as well. In fact is any growth calculation accurate?

It appears that they still agree that the economy was growing in 2010 at 1.5% and continued to grow in 2011 and 2.2% in 2011. The austerity measures take a while to work through so in 2012 growth reduced to 1.2%. This still looks like chocking off a recovery.

And clearly we can ignore 2013-2015 figures which will no doubt be corrected again the next 5 years.

Without looking at the actual data release I suspect what has happened is that there has been a material change to the methodology. That sort of thing is quite wonkish and generally only of interest to sad beggars like me.:o

ukcarper

Spidernick wrote: »

In the interests of balance, what about the continued lies from the Tory buffoons implying that Labour virtually bankrupted the country! It certainly helped them win the General Election and somehow I cannot see them apologising for this.

michaels wrote: »

Erm - but they did by running a budget deficit when the economy was performing above trend with a benefits structure that ensured any downturn in employment would have a huge negative impact on the budget balance. Any form of cyclical downturn (the banking crisis was just one possible cause) was bound to cause an unsustainable deficit.

Let's not forget on 2007 Osborne promised to match Labour spending.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

Erm - but they did by running a budget deficit when the economy was performing above trend with a benefits structure that ensured any downturn in employment would have a huge negative impact on the budget balance. Any form of cyclical downturn (the banking crisis was just one possible cause) was bound to cause an unsustainable deficit.

Sorry, are you saying that you agree with those who claim that Labour virtually bankrupted the country? Were we another Greece in 2010 in your view? I sincerely hope not, as I generally respect what you write.