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

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think they we will stop using steel,

I think we can't produce steel profitably and so it's best to buy from people who can.
We need to produce goods and services that we can sell profitably.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

So you think they we will stop using steel,

About the same time we stop eating bananas, I expect.

Do you think the government should be subsidising UK banana plantations?

oatman

Well at least Labour are now heading in the right direction. It's leaders are Tom & Jerry.

oatman

antrobus wrote: »

About the same time we stop eating bananas, I expect.

Do you think the government should be subsidising UK banana plantations?

Haha, long way to go. They're 20 rupees for 6 where I am.

oatman

ukcarper wrote: »

Not as simple as that is it, the subsidy would reduce the price and the steel could sell and the cost of subsidy could be less than the loss in Tax + cost of benefits.

Who pays for the subsidy?

ukcarper

oatman wrote: »

Who pays for the subsidy?

The tax payer obviously but if that subsidy is less than loss of tax + benefits payable the cost to tax payer will be lower. I'm not for subsidising loss making companies for the long term but if above is true I can't see the problem in the short term

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

The tax payer obviously but if that subsidy is less than loss of tax + benefits payable the cost to tax payer will be lower. I'm not for subsidising loss making companies for the long term but if above is true I can't see the problem in the short term

how short is the short term?

michaels

ukcarper wrote: »

The tax payer obviously but if that subsidy is less than loss of tax + benefits payable the cost to tax payer will be lower. I'm not for subsidising loss making companies for the long term but if above is true I can't see the problem in the short term

There are all sorts of arguements against but to be fair we did effectively use huge temporary subsidies to keep the banks open when they were illiquid.....

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

There are all sorts of arguements against but to be fair we did effectively use huge temporary subsidies to keep the banks open when they were illiquid.....

no, we used huge temporary subsidies to depositors (i.e. people and companies with current a/cs and savings) so they didn't loose all their money : a side effect of this was to keep the banks open.

Voyager2002

Gangaweed wrote: »

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.

No. The point was that recovery could (and should) have come much earlier than this.

And if we really were 'back to normal' then why would Austerity be necessary?