I repeat, did you not see the bit where Carney said the UK shouldn't be patting itself on the back?
Have you not read the stats put forward above?

How can he admit that you were right when you were actually not just wrong but worryingly wrong.

1. The economy has shown two consecutive quarters in very low +ve growth. I have already shown you above how three very low +ve quarters were then followed by three quarters of -ve or zero.
Two quarters under 1% does NOT equal recovery. Look at the US (fourteen consecutive quarters of growth, all bigger than our piddling 0.7%) ... THEY are recovering.

2. Carney has talked about recovery but has not said the economy is in recovery. Also, predictions do not mean we are in recovery, most predictions since 2008 have been [uwrong[/u.
Successive significant upward trending over multiple quarters will tell us we are in recovery ... two quarters under 1% does not equal a recovery.

I agree with this. The problem is that generally speaking the overpaid executives and Board members are just managers and have no vision. One point in their defence is that the not the capital markets do not function as intended - they are now ends in themselves so companies have to appease them and so intelligent risk-taking is frowned upon if it results in a short terms dip in earnings.

Quite. If people want to go on believing that a bloke who said the words "this recovery" actually didn't say the economy is recovering then so be it.

See that barn door ten paces away ?

You missed that as well.

He couldn't hit a cow's a[ir[/ise with a banjo mate

There is one bit of good news ... the Purchasing Managers Index has jolted upwards a bit, and export orders are hitting UK manufacturers books as the Eurozone is starting to buy again.
Good for the economy (and in no way attributable to any action by HM Gov) ... but not yet a recovery.

Whoops more growth in the economy (thought there wasn't going to be any Dave O - do you want to admit you were wrong now?).

Very quiet on here again, surprise surprise.

Course not sunshine, course not

Have you answered the questions put to you yet? Can you answer them?
Have you retracted your comment on the Mitchell thread yet?

Which economy?

Only with this bunch of financial illiterates would more growth equal more debt. Currently standing at £2 worth of debt for every £1 of growth.

Morning everyone.
0.8% is being described as "accelerating" growth.
Compared with the 0.7%, reported in last quarter, it's better ... but only "accelerating" by 0.1%.

Meanwhile ...
Deficit elimination is now going to take nine years instead of the five that the coalition predicted.
Borrowing is skyrocketing in both empirical ££ and in %GDP. For a government so opposed to borrowing, who criticised Labour for increasing debt to bail out the banks, the coalition haven't reduced it, they've increased it by more than 50% ... and all to fund austerity rather than boost the economy.
Indeed, these tiny growth figures are occurring DESPITE Osborne's actions not because of them, he has actually retarded growth.
On the other hand, he's quite happy to plan for, say, HS2 where the bill will trouble a later chancellor rather then himself.
That's few billion more of debt that he's saddling future generations with.

So ...
Deficit - FAIL
Debt - FAIL
Economy - FAIL
Standards of living - FAIL
Household income - FAIL (except for the top 5-10% who are doing very nicely, thank you very much)
Poverty - FAIL
Full-time employment - FAIL
Housing - FAIL
Infrastructure investment - FAIL
Tax avoidance/evasion - FAIL

I may be wrong but I thought construction was being held as one of the poster boys helping to create this "boom" in the economy. Not according to Tata Steel who have just announced [url=http://www.shorpetelegraph.co.uk/Tata-Steel-statement-340-lost-jobs-Shorpe/story-20001627-detail/story.html500 job losses[/url, citing "The proposals come amid a prolonged downturn in demand for some of the key products made by the Shorpe-based business, including the UK market for construction steel, which is about half of 2007 levels."

340 of those jobs are to go at Shorpe, an employment blackspot to start with.

Meanwhile.....[url=http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/28/uk-retailers-sharp-slowdown-sales-cbiConsumer spending suffers a sharp slowdown[/url

Some bloody recovery this is

2007 would be the pinnacle of the high rise speculative office/apartment building boom, the start of 2008 saw wholesale cancellation of these projects including several large ones in this city in which I sit, one of which was a dick-waving project to compete with Manchester as to who could build the highest.

The current boom in house building is not going to demand steel in anything like the quantities that large industrial projects do although the national steel strike of the 1980s brought it home to everyone in the construction industry just how much dependance there was on the stuff.

There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis

There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" There wasn't any such school of thought. There was and still is a school of thought that rather than Labour's spending, it was in fact unfettered, gambling bankers who caused the global financial crash

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" There wasn't any such school of thought. There was and still is a school of thought that rather than Labour's spending, it was in fact unfettered, gambling bankers who caused the global financial crash

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" Not strictly true - where is the school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend etc etc etc, who said that ? And he hasn't admitted to overspending, in 2005 you would never have heard him say that they were overspending because at the time they weren't and no-one else thought they were. What he has done is the stupid thing that most humans do, he's using the benefit of hindsight to wish that things had been different whereas in truth if he'd known in 2005 that the worlds banks would collapse like a huge house of cards in such a spectacular fashion just three years later, then he'd be the first man ever to have existed who could truly see into the future, for no-one else predicted such a thing or started spending less to prepare for it.

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" Not strictly true - where is the school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend etc etc etc, who said that ? And he hasn't admitted to overspending, in 2005 you would never have heard him say that they were overspending because at the time they weren't and no-one else thought they were. What he has done is the stupid thing that most humans do, he's using the benefit of hindsight to wish that things had been different whereas in truth if he'd known in 2005 that the worlds banks would collapse like a huge house of cards in such a spectacular fashion just three years later, then he'd be the first man ever to have existed who could truly see into the future, for no-one else predicted such a thing or started spending less to prepare for it.

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" Tony Blairs a conservative like you and feel free to quote any poster that categorically stated Labour did not overspend? Jog on.

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" Tony Blairs a conservative like you and feel free to quote any poster that categorically stated Labour did not overspend? Jog on.

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" [iBlair added that the possible effect of the FSR "pales into insignificance compared with the impact of the financial crisis, frankly".[/i Thanks for that. Also there is a difference between "unnecessary" or "wasteful" spending and overspending. Answered the questions put to you yet?

Quote ="Ajw71"There used to be a school of thought on this forum that Labour did not overspend prior to the 2008 financial crash. Well today Tony Blair has admitted that Labour DID overspend. [i "The former PM told a Q&A forum at Queen Mary, University of London he "regretted" not following through on a 2005 plan to "weed out billions in unnecessary and wasteful spending"[/i www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55831/ ... 008-crisis'" [iBlair added that the possible effect of the FSR "pales into insignificance compared with the impact of the financial crisis, frankly".[/i Thanks for that. Also there is a difference between "unnecessary" or "wasteful" spending and overspending. Answered the questions put to you yet?

Just three examples I've found from a quick search.

If you are trying to argue spending 'wastefully' and 'unnecessarily' is not overspending you are coming from a very strange view of the English language.

...and your answers to the other salient points given to you above ?

No because you see the words "wasteful", "unnecessary" and "over" do not actually mean the same thing.

Plus the facts and figures are freely available and prove that they weren't. Unless you think the previous Tory government were overspending too.

A little example.

I believe govt spending is around £720 billion.
The government could slash that in half. By spending £360 billion there would be no deficit and a huge surplus (disregarding any effects of the cut).
I don't think anyone could accuse that government of "overspending".
But if the government was spending that £360 billion on gold plated BMW's for everyone in the country. That would be "wasteful" and "unnecessary" spending.

Do you see how different words have different meanings?

Answered the questions and points put to you yet? Ever going to?

Yes nice analogy but it would also be overspending too as that money did not need to be spent.

Labour did not cause the economic crash, they did however exacerbate its effects.

You haven't got a clue what you're on about



Ever going to answer the questions asked of you by various people?