Who is panface?

And our great guy of a chancellor has decided that one part of the construction industry needs a Whopping 20% in VAT stuck on it (Static caravans).
To say they have no clue doesn't go anywhere near it!

1. So huge cuts in government spending have caused a modest reduction in construction activity. So what - that will be filled in the medium term. There are railroads and airports to build (government plans) and relaxed planning constraints (more private construction) on the way. You are still looking at things at a single point in time rather than the longer, probably beneficial effects of policy. The stats are always erroneous anyway and will be revised twice (probably upwards to say we are not technically in recession).

2. If you have redundant resources such as capital and labour they will find a niche to exploit. Too big a public sector sucks up resources and stifles the economy. To suggest you make people redundant en masse one day and they all find new jobs on equivalent salaries the next is silly. The process inevitably takes time. As to where new jobs come from that'll come down to insightful entrepreneurs and demand just like it has throughout history. One thing for sure is that no government will ever be able to predict where new economic growth will come from. They just need to create the conditions to permit it.

3. So, you say Thatcher created a service led economy which is only being pinned up at the moment by the service sector! Enough said.

4. I think your final point sums things up. It's some one else's money so people waste it. Could you imagine Lord Sugar, as one example, from the private sector paying?

Up until 2008 in the NHS it was 1/2 of an average of your last 3 years salary. But only if you'd served 40 years. Basically it was done on 80ths of your salary when you retired. In 2008 a new scheme was brought in that improved that to 60ths. But you would still have to serve over 30 years to get half pay and 40 years to get 2/3rds pay. How many people do you seriously think will serve 40 years in the NHS after 2008?
Plus these are people on relatively low pay anyway.

And here's another graphic:

This shows the economic growth in the UK, Eurozone and US. All were bumping along fairly closely until 2010, then look what happens to the UK growth.

The council I work at, I would suggest (having seen the pay scales for staff), has 8 or 9 people earning over 75K a year, those people would be the Chief Exec, and the Heads of the Directorates.

Is that local or county / metroplitan?

Let's see what the position is in, say, 5 years time.

Unitary Authority, Not that thats relevant. As a precentage of staff, those earning over your 75K figure, is miniscule.

Smoke, mirrors or simply bull[is[/ihit?

Just wondered how many that would equate to if multiplied by all the local authorities in the country. Seems to be quite alot.

AS someone who works in the construction industry I can say that without doubt the past twelve months have been dreadful. The residual contracts from the previous government have come to an end and nothing has replaced them.
This doesn't just affect roads and construction, but also quarrying. With housing also being in the dumps it's been no picnic.
There is some truth in that the problem was caused by Labour's deficit. But then they were caught out by the recession. Gus O'Donnell (former head of the Civil Service) has admitted that he (and the Civil Service) didn't see it coming. The Darling budget of 2010 was designed to deal with the deficit but also to try and maintain the fragile growth that was in the economy.
Osbourne's 2010 budget and the autumn statement wrecked all that and stopped growth dead - people stopped spending because they could see what was coming.
Putting up VAT to 20% was the final nail in the coffin of the economy.
I reckon for the first 18 months or so a new government can blame problems on the last lot, but then it's all down to them as their policies start to take effect.
It's clear that this problem is totally down to Cameron and Osbourne "too far and too fast" is absolutely right. Why did they do it this way? Nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics and election timing. Unfortunately they seem to have cocked up big style. They've painted themselves into a corner and it's hard to see how they can get out of the mess they've made without either a change of leadership or a general election.

[size=200SEEMS TO HAVE GOT THIS ONE AR[iS[/iE ABOUT FACE[/size

Great news Cronus - I'm sure you both must feel relieved that she got the right outcome. It is such a worry for so many of us.

When some Labour leaves you a note saying there is no money left, good luck, you know your going to have a job on your hands.

And they're not up to it either

And they've dealt with is so efficiently haven't they?

Seems from Newsnight that HMG's likely response is likely to be Plan A+ - ie harder cuts, more deregulation, etc. So tougher times ahead in the short to medium term.

Bless

It was a stupid thing to do, but I believe it was a joke between two friends (not politically) I don't think it was expected to be spread all over the press. After all when Maudling, picking up personal stuff from his former office in the Treasury, saw Callaghan, the new Chancellor looking through the mess the Home government left for the incoming 1964 Wilson government, he said "sorry to have left such a mess old cock" This didn't come out until 30 years after the event. This government are keen to seize on any pretext to smear their predessessors - like Pickles dredging up Prescott's expenses claims.
Presumably it flows from the tone set by the oily Cameron and the spineless Osbourne.

Which proves just how utterly clueless the idiot is and how much he doesn't give a damn about anyone but his mates.

Dally your a star.
Your abillity to argue/debate with so many left wing loonies all at the same time is remarkable

You have to hand it to Osborne and his circle for spin. We are back in recession and the line is "this shows just how important it is for us not to be distracted from our current credible strategy in the face of such tough economic environment".

However one cautionary note I would say is it may yet be that we aren't actually in recession and the final figures for last quarter are healthier than the first estimate released yesterday...bearing in mind they are making the estimate off 40% of the total evidence they use by the time the final estimate comes out. The indicators produced by private sector firms where they survey firms in different sectors and ask them what is happening to orders, employment etc, have been perking up a bit in the last quarter, not suggesting anything brilliant but suggesting things were slightly improving rather than worsening. Those are not official measures of course but they do indicate what the 'word on the street' is in industry and so you can usually see whether things are getting better or worse from them before the figures come out. I would be surprised if industry was being falsely confident so I wonder whether the revision will end up showing growth is flat or 0.1% growth rather than contraction.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-all-uk-citizens-please-send-this-chart-to-your-prime-minister-2012-4Cameron is not an idiot, so why does he sound like one?[/url

Except of course that the loonies are on the other side. The policies being tried by Osbourne are the exact same policies used in the thirties to combat that recession. They resulted in hunger marches and mass unemployment that was only cured by WWII. Why should things be any different today?