And Osborne is making such a good job of it Sal

Quite apart from anything else, this is historically incorrect. We had a massive debt after WWII. Do you know what we did? We went and borrowed and invested in building the NHS and education and loads of other things. And do you know what else we built with it? That's right – the prosperity of the 1950s.

These are matters of historic record.

And if one were to take the example of the private builder of fire engines that laid off half its staff a day or so after this coalition took office, then one has a perfect illustration of public sector cuts having a direct, negative consequence for the private sector.

Equally, of course, if those cuts were to be reversed, the company (that's the private company, remember) might gain contracts to build more fire engines. And ergo you have a little bit of growth, with more people employed, more people paying taxes and spending money in their local economy, and less money being spent on benefits. Ergo the deficit is decreased.



1) That was just two years after banks took us to the brink.

2) It was growth. We are now in a double dip recession. Caused by the imbecile in No11.

3) Anything over 0% is growth – and is a hell of a lot better than Osborne has managed.



2009 – will that be the year after the effing banks tried to screw the entire global economy, will it? Y'remember that little event, do you?

There was growth when this lot took office – even you have acknowledged that. And that was just two years after near total meltdown.

Well let's spell it out very simply, once again: A whole whopping four years later, we are in a double-dip recession. The deficit has increased. Borrowing is up.

It's not working. The imbecile's plans are not working, because you can not get growth out of austerity. Even the IMF, that bastion of leftie thinking, has said that, in 170 examples of austerity policies being enacted over 40 years, not a single one has created growth.

And on the basis of your comments here about how dreadful it all was in 2009, a mere year after the financial crisis began in earnest, then Osborne has had a full year longer than that – and that was building on the growth that he inherited – to improve things further. He has not. He has made things a lot, lot worse.

You'd think that this was rocket science, FFS.

Conversely, there are many who expose the myth that we need to drive down taxes for the super rich to remain.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-britains-biggest-taxpayers-8166703.htmlBritain's biggest taxpayers[/url

It will be interesting to see how this develops: [url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/11/private-city-in-honduras-will-have-minimal-taxes-government/Minimum-tax city to be built in Honduras[/url

Quite how you get the basic infrastructure for a whole city, within a budget of $15m is going to be a challenge all of its own and it will be very insteresting to see what happens when the fist inhabitants fall ill.

Capital builds that can the be sold to first time buyers desperate for a home is an easy way to make a start.
Just having a policy of slash and burn will do only one thing stop folks spending money and drive us into a recession and guess what has happened oh yeah we have done that twice.
I said this right at the outset and I stick by that.
Oh and I got a 'D' in economics which is a damn sight more that Osbourne got.

To expand on last night's post.

We have an economy that is largely based on the service industries, including finance and retail. That's why, in the case of the latter, quarterly retail figures have become so, so important for the wider national economy that they're now headline news.

Pretty much everyone now agrees that this aspect at least of neo-liberal ideology does not work. We need a more balanced economy, where we are also making more things and finding markets in which to sell them.

This is entirely possible – but it is not going to happen overnight.

So, unless we want the deficit to increase further, we have to look for growth in the economy now. And that, at its simplest, means people having money in their pockets and the confidence to spend it.

So for instance, if you did nothing more than stop the job cuts in the public sector and end the pay freeze that has been in place for some years already, you would see a change in those points.

Thus it is simple logic that, for instance, if you start a massive home building/renovation programme, putting more people in work, increasing business for construction suppliers etc, boosting employment, boosting business for non-construction related businesses (cafes, pubs etc) and so forth.

A suggestion that I heard a couple of months ago from, IIRC, Robert Skidelsky: a project to properly insulate all Britain's homes. It's easy and quick to train people to do such jobs, so you can get it up and running really quickly.

In the longer term, you improve the housing stock, you improve people's lives, you help the environment – and you help people save money.

And you boost the economy.

Interesting.

And a quote to end it from the lovely Owen Oyston, rapist.

He certainly used to live in a small 'castle' just outside of Lancaster.

I was in the sixth form with two of his daughters, one of whom saw no oddity in complaining to her fellow pupils that the family was poor. After all, she told us in all sincerity, "I don't have hot water in my bathroom!"

Do a little search on that youtubey thingy for wearetheintruders

They recently managed to gatecrash a little do, laid on by corporates to mark the retirement of Dave Hartnett of HMRC, in thanks for his services to tax avoidance. Comments at the end are very Mitchellesque

Hey Cod'ed, did you miss this one? I'm here to help. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19907058 I know how much you like to flag up immoral activity in public office.

Hey Cod'ed, did you miss this one? I'm here to help. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19907058 I know how much you like to flag up immoral activity in public office.

Quote ="Ajw71"Hey Cod'ed, did you miss this one? I'm here to help. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19907058 I know how much you like to flag up immoral activity in public office.'" That's OK Jimmy Savile was a tory

Quote ="Ajw71"Hey Cod'ed, did you miss this one? I'm here to help. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19907058 I know how much you like to flag up immoral activity in public office.'" That's OK Jimmy Savile was a tory

dead is stable.

still, in 13 years the last lot managed to spend up, leave us in the worst recession since god knows when and stick an extra half a million on the unemployment pile. but they stopped dogs killing foxes. excellent work.

Half term already? That went quick...

did it? what did you get up to? build a den or something?

. They did not cause Lehman Brothers to go tits up. Or any of the other banks. They did not cause the banks to screw up so badly that they needed bailing out.

Now, which part of this do you struggle to get your brain around?

And it is equally a fact that Labour, however much it might have been happy for the perception to be such, did not spend record amounts on the public services.

Still, you 'think' that a new product can be created, designed, built and markets found for it overnight.

if you can point out anywhere i said labour 'caused' the recession i'd be most grateful. clearly someone with your huge brain will have no trouble.

mind you, you think we should dole out money to stop people robbing us. so it may take a while.

Your previous post in this thread did it entirely adequately.

You blamed Labour for the unemployment and debt at the end of their time in power. Seen as though both of these were lower at the onset of the financial crisis than when Labour came to power the only way it makes sense to blame labour is if you blame them for the financial crisis which was the only thing causing them to rise. I think Mintball was giving you too much credit though, I think you just don't have a clue.

I think the "spend up, leaving us in the worst recession" might have been influential, just a thought...

Yeah it's called 'not fixing the roof when the sun was shining'.

did it? are you sure about that?

so who else was spending the money? pixies? does unemployment in a recession not count or something?

Yes.



So, the Labour government 'spent up' and 'left us' "in the worst recession since god knows when".

If you do not mean to link those things, then don't do so. There's a good chap.

The actions of the Labour government did not cause the recession.

The recession was caused by the financial crisis, which was also not caused by the Labour government.

Matters may well have been very much worse if Brown did not make the decision to bail out the banks. Some economists believe that we would have entered a depression rather than a recession.

Labour cannot be entirely blameless though - they were in power for several years during which they could have controlled the banks better than they did. Several prominent independent businessmen were talking about the impending doom of sub prime 2 years before it hit, the banks getting into the mess came as a complete shock to Brown et al.

So Labour where resposible for the free for all in the City that was brought in under Maggie?

All through Labour's tenure the banks kept telling them that greater regulation would be bad for the C ity/economy so Labour left them to it.

When the economy went tits up (due to the banks) the banks then said can we have some money. The govt asked why and they said if you don't bail us out the economy will be stuffed and besides, you should have regulated us more!

The govt was essentially put in a no win situation. Whichever party was in charge would have had exactly the same problems that Labour had to deal with. If you believe that the Tories with their laissez faire attitude would have done a better job you are sadly deluded.