You going to tell us why DaveO is wrong? How much has the economy grown since his post?

2011 Q4 to 2012 Q2 – -0.3, -0.2, -0.4. That's three in succession.

If you cannot look at those two graphs and see that for yourself, I suggest you nip along to Specsavers.

I merely wondered whether these are real jobs – ones that, for instance, do not depend on zero-hours contracts and only a few hours a week.

Do you understand the issue of underemployment? Do you understand that it is costing the country money, as many people who are in work, but on only limited or widely variable hours, need benefits to survive?

It is also why unemployment didn't rise to the levels expected by economists, because it acts as a mask to the full picture.

Mind, I note that today's figure – however much it has been manipulated – shows that unemployment is "at its lowest since 2009". In other words, the years since have seen unemployment rising and it's not even yet back to the level a year after the crash.

You carry on. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

I didn't say that did I?

I merely pointed out the consequence of it falling below 7% is (supposed to be) rising interest rates.

If the unemployment figures are flattered by things like workfare there is a certain irony there in that something Osborne does not want, rising interest rates, would come about because they moved heaven and earth to get the figures down by doing things like setting job centres targets for getting people off JSA and that takes the unemployment figures below 7%.

So on the one hand the government can point to the figures and say aren't we great (ignoring the debate about whether these jobs are paying a living wage) but on the other they are going to have to deal with home owners (and businesses) seeing the mortgage and lending rate rise.

Now given at least two opinion polls since November have said most people are not feeling the benefit of the recovery that feel-good factor Cameron wants to have by 2015 is going to take a big knock if we have add rising mortgage payments to ever increasing fuel bills.

It is also not what Osborne wants as the last thing he needs is business lending to become more expensive and demand hit because people have even less money in their pocket. Rising interest rates will also increase the value of the Pound so our exports will become more expensive. A devalued pound is what Osborne wants, not one rising in value.

The B of E have been caught out as they felt unemployment would hit 7% in 2016. Well into the next parliament so safely away from increased mortgage rates coming in before the next election. It could now do it in 2014 and so there is chance mortgages rates will rise before the election.

The B of E may deem inflation low enough and pay settlements low enough not to raise interest rates the minute unemployment dips below 7% but they can't hold off forever because again (ironically) increasing employment tightens the labour market forcing wages (and so inflation) up and low interest rates for a prolonged period like we have had risk creating a boom-bust scenario in the housing market.

All this is pretty much just common sense but you'd have to look at the bigger picture than just a set of unemployment statistics to see it.

What's that? I thought I could hear the faint tapping of a keyboard as someone was frantically searching Wikipedia.

Oh no, my mistake. Ajw has disappeared again.

Quote ="Mintball" So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive. Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."'" The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf

Quote ="Mintball" So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive. Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."'" The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf

Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.

Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.

As BobbyD has alluded to your statistics are incorrect.

The actual GDP figures for those quarters are as follows:

2011 Q4 -0.1%
2012 Q1 0%
2012 Q2 -0.5%

So there hasn't been 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Therefore no recession.

Quote ="BobbyD"The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf'" These will be those 'adjusted' figures, will they? And Ajw71 jumping up and down getting excited about a revised figure of 0% non-growth is desperation – and does not change his inability to read the charts I initially posted. Incidentally, austerity is popular in countries other than the UK, albeit not always to the same degree.

Quote ="BobbyD"The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf'" These will be those 'adjusted' figures, will they? And Ajw71 jumping up and down getting excited about a revised figure of 0% non-growth is desperation – and does not change his inability to read the charts I initially posted. Incidentally, austerity is popular in countries other than the UK, albeit not always to the same degree.

Quote ="BobbyD"Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.'" When lefties speak about the recession in 2008 under Labour they are quick to trot out 'oh it was a global crisis' and 'it was nothing to do with labour policies'. In other words they cite external factors. When lefties speak about growth from 2010 onwards they are quick to trot out 'it was all to do with the nasty government policies' and completely ignore the fact that there was and still is a 'Eurozone crisis' In other words they completely ignore external factors. It's totally see through. Thankfully most people realise this.

Quote ="BobbyD"Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.'" When lefties speak about the recession in 2008 under Labour they are quick to trot out 'oh it was a global crisis' and 'it was nothing to do with labour policies'. In other words they cite external factors. When lefties speak about growth from 2010 onwards they are quick to trot out 'it was all to do with the nasty government policies' and completely ignore the fact that there was and still is a 'Eurozone crisis' In other words they completely ignore external factors. It's totally see through. Thankfully most people realise this.

So you are finally admitting the fact that there has not been a recession since 2008/2009 then.....

Big Labour v Tory argument going on here, like most thing I suspect the truth lies beneath the 2.

0% growth is not desperation it is a fact - just admit you were wrong, I will not hold my breath.

Lets all be honest, there has been one long continuous depression since the worlds banks went arrse over tit in 2008 and as everyone who pays a mortgage, rent, utilities and food bills knows (I accept that AJW may not be in this category) very few people have improved their lot since that time and most have slipped backwards, its not a good track record to date and the first two quarters of 2014 will be VERY interesting because we all have to start "feeling good" in 2014 ready for the next General Election, it will probably have to come from bribes though.

And for the record, there was a recession in 2010, then there wasn't, it was all sleight of hand or just a bad dream.

I believe.

Do you still stand by your statement that the economy has grown by 1.9% since January?
Or will you admit you're wrong?

And to make sure that austerity works even more, [url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/government-under-fire-eu-funding-food-banksthe government has rejected the chance to get EU funding help for foodbanks[/url.

Oh, has he gone again? Or just logged in as someone else?

TBF, I don't think he does that.

It would take a degree of mental discipline.

Although he is sitting around, watching the forums, even as I post this.

Done his disappearing act again though hasn't he. Same as Lord Elpers after the Mitchell thing went south for him.

Yes it did grow based on some last minute spending by Brown and Ballsup (remember they boasted about leaving the cupboard bare?)

Had Brown not been thrown out by the voters and Darling had remained Chancellor then his plan to cut the deficit was similar to the Osborne one and so would have had the same result on growth given the same outside influences.

But it was almost certain Ballsup would have become Chancellor then he would have pursued his borrow policy and spend with the obvious result of an increased deficit, a fiscal crisis and a second major run on sterling in 2010.




It amuses me how all the lefties are in denial over the recovery and in denial over the mess they left behind them.




You conveniently are ignoring the three major outside factors that hit growth since 2010.

1. While Britain continued the grow modestly after 2010 the eurozone - which did have a serious fiscal crisis - sank back into recession. The eurozones woes, rather than Osborne's austerity, were one reason why Britain's recovery failed to take off. Its problems hit exports, oushed up bank funding costs and sapped the confidence of business in investing.

The growth figures were also dragged down by peculiarly British factors:
2. A plunge in North sea oil output
3. A sharp drop in financial services - a bigger pain for Britain than elsewhere.

David "Danny" Blanchflower (DDB), a British economist appointed by Labour to the BoE monetary policy committee (he left in 2009) and advisor to the discredited Labour economic record.

Whenever Blanchflower makes a prediction its a safe bet to expect the exact opposite to come true. This is the man that predicted the Tory economic policy would rise to 5 million perhaps 6 million. 100% WRONG - quite a margin for error!
AS someone once said "this notorious prediction has hung around Blanchflower's neck like a necklace of cat poo"

He then predicted unemployment would surge past 3 to 3.4 million in 2010. It peaked at 2.5 million.

He predicted 600-700,000 private sector jobs would be lost by the end of the parliament - WRONG

He predicted a long depression with zero growth and high umemployment - WRONG

He predicted a double-dip recession which he said was "100% certain" - WRONG

He predicted a triple-dip recession in March 2013 - WRONG

He predicted "Slasher Osborne is going to decimate public spending and it will do terible and irreversable damage to the British economy" - WRONG

He said "recovery what recovery?" in September 2013 - WRONG

He said "clearly we are not turning the corner and the misguided austerity policy of a reckless Chancellor with no training in economics unnecessarly inflicted that nasty wound on the Britsih people" Sept 2013 - WRONG

So I now understand why you have such strange views if you and your other left wing "muppets "believe the deranged predictions of this doom monger. Blanchflower and his lefty Keynesians have totally lost the intellectual debate on the British economy.

Nice intelligent contribution to this debate as usual. Nothing I have said on the Mitchell thread has gone South. As I have talready old you I will report on that thread.

Of course you will


I'm trying to contribute to the debate but dear old Ajw won't answer for some reason. Do you know why that is?
Or of course I could always revert to the right-wingers tactic of simply making things up? Maybe if I do that and then put the word "FACT" next to it? Or some other word? If I do that often enough I could even convince myself it might be true.