| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A Record of Success?; Plan A in perspective | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 13 2014, 12:25 PM (274 Views) | |
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 12:25 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
GDP is @ pre-recession level. GDP per capita is well below pre-recession level. The numbers in work are higher than pre-recession level. Treasury receipts are no where near pre-recession level. Living Standards have fallen below pre-recession level. Wages/earnings are also far below pre-recession level in real terms. Investment spending is below pre-recession level. Borrowing is £bns higher than pre-recession level. The Welfare bill is massively above pre-recession level. The debt mountain is bigger, and still growing. Verdict .......... Success or Failure - You decide? Edited by Affa, Nov 13 2014, 12:26 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| AndyK | Nov 13 2014, 01:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
|
We must be doing well because the EU says we owe then £1.7bn for outperforming them. |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 13 2014, 01:39 PM Post #3 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
Overall I would rate the economic performance of the Coalition as a failure. All The Best |
|
|
|
| RoofGardener | Nov 13 2014, 01:52 PM Post #4 |
Lord of Plantpots
|
Ummm... how does THAT work ? It would suggest that each worker is somehow less productive than before, or is producing lower-valued goods ? |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 13 2014, 02:04 PM Post #5 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
Well, only 1 in 40 of the jobs created since the recession is a full time job. - News report from Tuesday or Wednesday this week. The rest are either part-time or zero-hour contract. So it is no surprise that we have more people in work but less GDP/Capita. That was always going to be the case when the welfare reforms were designed to shunt people into non-existent jobs just for the sake of making a headline number look good. And as In Work Benefits can be much higher than OOW benefits it is therefore no surprise that welfare spending has increased. The government has presided over a smoke-and-mirrors recovery that isn't a recovery at all. All The Best |
|
|
|
| AndyK | Nov 13 2014, 02:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
|
Or is doing non productive work, like MP or nurse. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 13 2014, 02:59 PM Post #7 |
Prudence and Thrift
|
Dreadful failure as we have continued to borrow to fuel current consumption and failed to address the necessary rebalancing of the economy. We cannot longer continue to consume more than we can afford. We need to save more and consume less. We need to produce more and consume less. We need to address the inheritance we bequeath our children and their children so we need to consume less. We have become addicted to the "live now someone else can pay later" way of life. We save little because savings have little value and there is always Nanny to lean on. We abuse our State services, particularly the NHS, because it is free, paid for who knows, and as a consequence not burning a hole in my pocket. If the State always provides and always will provide then why bother? As an aside I was talking to one of the UK's top young Surgeons the other day about medical records, data, and databases and suggested that it may be worth making the patient the holder of such electronic information in a Tab or Memory-stick or whatever. He retorted that they would either forget to bring such data or not turn up for the appointment. When pressed on this his admitted that he in his lofty position "Surgeon General" experienced around 10% no-shows mostly without an apology. I was shocked as I cannot contemplate even the possibility that I would not drag myself to such an appointment from a fear of shamed obligation. My long dead Victorian grandfather still haunts me which drives me to attend all appointments with anyone, high or low placed, at least 10 minutes early. Not turning up for a GP's appointment say is for me a mortal sin. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 13 2014, 03:06 PM Post #8 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Rubbish the DWP does not create jobs. The jobs would be satisfied by immigrants if not by locals fit and able to work and yes there is a NMW and Employment Laws. The truth is that there are insufficient skilled people among the unemployed to satisfy job demand and this has been true since before 2008 and there is a massive surfeit of unskilled labour chasing low paid jobs, such jobs for many attracting other State benefits. Per example if you have a partner and two kids on the NMW your final package will probably be higher than the national average wage. We will not see the quality of work in jobs hence wages increase dramatically unless first skills do so. This is not restricted to the UK but a problem for the EU and elsewhere so blaming it on Gov. welfare reforms is pure BS. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 13 2014, 03:22 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
|
Are BS, RJD. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 07:18 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Member
|
I can agree with that, do agree, but then I ask 'why'? Why would any party waste the potential for growth and a balanced economy and instead impose austerity such that living standards, wages (real term) are retrograded a decade or more. Include the influx of cheap labour and the outcome is clear. Is that a commendable administration, one that in essence has shifted the UK towards being a low wage economy. Perhaps it is a long term view, an attempt to reposition the UK where it can compete with emerging economies on other things besides services? |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 13 2014, 07:26 PM Post #11 |
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
Er ... I thought that was because we hadn't declared our black market, drugs, porn and slave labour industry but germany did ? |
|
|
|
| johnofgwent | Nov 13 2014, 07:29 PM Post #12 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
Go look up what Rothschild sais when the British government went to him to borrow the money to fight Napoleon. Ever since that day this country has retained its creditworthiness only through the willingness of the treasury to do EXACTLY what you are puzzling over. It REALLY IS that simple. |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Nov 13 2014, 07:31 PM Post #13 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
And nowhere did I say they did. Maybe if you try and actually understand what I wrote then your response may be worth considering. But when the opening sentence is evidence of such woeful misunderstanding then I have no desire to read the rest. All The Best |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 13 2014, 07:35 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
|
My knowledge only extends to that period being the first resort of the use of 'income tax', temporary as it was. Sharp wasn't high on economics as I recall. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 13 2014, 07:46 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
|
It doesn't work, and as an employer myself who likes to keep an eye on workforce trends I can tell you why, things like zero hours contracts and job sharing are a disaster for productivity because having three, four or five sharing a job that one person could do is a recipe for confusion and a lack of commitment. I look forward to a multi million pound public inquest in two or three years time that is tasked with looking at Britain's dire productivity, it will repeat what is in my first paragraph. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 14 2014, 12:40 PM Post #16 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Your implication is that the Gov. is responsible for the creation of these jobs when it is not. The Gov. can only influence the economic environment. Yes ZHC are not the best, but how many jobs (NMW+tax credits > JSA) do you intend to destroy by outlawing them? Or is it that dogma is more important than jobs? Even if we created 500,000 jobs requiring skills we could not fill them from local sources and would need to poach abroad. Get real PV, the failure of this Gov. is not the jobs it has no hand in creating, but the fact that the cost of the State is a burden that inhibits the creation of better paid ones. You must know by now what every Economist admits that the Employer's NI is paid by depressing employees wages. The failure of this Gov. to reduce barriers is due to it's timidity brought about by the screams from the left which are "borrow more to fuel even more consumption of products from elsewhere". The Brownian model of debt fuelled consumption. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 14 2014, 12:53 PM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
|
Do you think the current skills shortage has anything to do with the fact that the cost of further education is now out of the reach of millions? And before you big yourself up remember that as an apparently 71 year old former graduate you got your education completely free! File under blade runner.............. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 14 2014, 03:00 PM Post #18 |
|
Senior Member
|
What logic is this that determines putting people on employment contracts removes the 'job', the necessity to have a contract? |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 15 2014, 08:28 AM Post #19 |
Senior Member
|
Complete failure. |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 15 2014, 08:29 AM Post #20 |
|
Senior Member
|
File this propaganda in the recycle bin! |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 15 2014, 09:54 AM Post #21 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Irrelevant tosh, my comments are on the here and now and that is what we must address. Your only interest is in being a rude smart arse and IU can say you have succeeded. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 15 2014, 09:55 AM Post #22 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
No file in matters that hurt your head which seemingly is just about every issue under the Sun. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 15 2014, 01:16 PM Post #23 |
Once and future cynic
|
Nope because the comparison point is all wrong. Rather than take the reference as the top of an idiot inflated boom fuelled by reckless financial policy Labour were warned about, we should take the reference as being before that false boom - roughly 2002 with adjustment for inflation. And then you find we're not doing so bad in comparison  Verdict: jury still out |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 15 2014, 02:34 PM Post #24 |
|
Senior Member
|
The Government itself has celebrated the return to pre-recession GDP as a watershed mark indicating that a recovery has taken place (it believes). I took that same reference point ......... and there is 'No' 'RIGHT' reference point, all points are legitimate. I could just as readily used May 2010 as my reference, my own verdict would be the same. There is some sort of understanding that obtainung recovery from this crisis is somehow miraculous, that it could not, or would not, have taken place under any other Political arrangement/regime. That is quite clearly BS! I can for example make the case that what very little recovery there has been up to this latest government stimulus has been in spite of, not because of, government interventions. I could go further and say despite restraints on a recovery. To increase VAT by 14%, plus a 9% rise in NI on employees (not employers) the Treasury hasn't seen much benefit ....... and when cutting the deficit was the declared first priority, not raising revenues (by any and all methods) can only be described as abject failure. |
|
|
|
| Steve K | Nov 15 2014, 02:40 PM Post #25 |
|
Once and future cynic
|
Yes the government had to say that because of the widely used definition of a recession. But that graph I showed spoke volumes, we are back on track with the GDP per capita growth that pertained until 2003. You can clearly see the unsustainable bulge from 2003 to 2009 and that has fuelled the increase in debt. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 15 2014, 03:39 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
|
Without doubt that pre-recession economy was over reliant on the Financial Services Sector, for cheap money, and investment, allowing small businesses to be able to modernise and compete, to become 'serviceable' and sustained. Losing that advantage has hindered recovery, and as you correctly indicate made returning to those heights more difficult Add to that the the FS sector made much more contributions to the treasury pre-crisis, a significant amount. But your graph is for GDP per capita income, and with more people in work there should be a related rise in GDP 'to match' if efficiencies were maintained or improved (intensive growth). That isn't so. There has been a rise in GDP which is celebrated, but because it is derived from greater numbers, and when those numbers contribute less than previously (thus lowering the GDP per capita figure - I use 'diluted' per capita income here), the only verdict is that "there is no recovery" and all growth in GDP is generated from consumption = extensive growth. The very thing RJD condemns.
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 15 2014, 03:49 PM Post #27 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
What you are seeing is no more than a correction, but it is a pity we cannot correct Gov. spending to 2004/05 levels. It is very unlikely that the GDP per capita will grow quickly as the conditions for such do not exist. Not only do we not have the skilled labour required to satisfy such many if not most SMEs are reluctant to take a risk with additional staff. Wew have a massive surplus of unskilled labour and this by definition will not bring about productivity improvements or add much in the way of value. |
|
|
|
| Heinrich | Nov 15 2014, 06:52 PM Post #28 |
Regular Guy
|
Good governments all over the place employ millions. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 15 2014, 08:00 PM Post #29 |
|
Senior Member
|
I sort of put it down to these million+ more jobs supposedly created being far less productive than the previous average - it's why I used the term 'dilute'. Poor quality, poorly skilled. and poorly paid jobs ...... that contribute nothing to treasury, and more likely to require top-up benefits from government. Would it be fitting to call these 'none jobs'? |
|
|
|
| Lewis | Nov 15 2014, 10:44 PM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
|
More childish insults from the Tories chief propagandist. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Nov 15 2014, 11:02 PM Post #31 |
|
Senior Member
|
Once again your refusal to address some perfectly reasonable points speaks volumes. I am making a valid comparison with what is the present situation to the handed on a plate opportunities your generation was gifted with, and by the looks of the economy, squandered. So how would you fare today on that cliched council estate you grew up on? No night school, college or Uni for you, just a couple of zero hours jobs and some bog cleaning I expect.......... Edited by Tigger, Nov 15 2014, 11:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Heinrich | Nov 16 2014, 05:14 AM Post #32 |
|
Regular Guy
|
Under the Tories, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. It is reported by TheObserver that a landmark study of the coalition’s tax and welfare policies six months before the general election reveals how "money has been transferred from the poorest to the better off". Tories rob the poor to help the rich The study shows that "George Osborne has been engaged in a significant transfer of income from the least well-off half of the population to the more affluent in the past four years. Those with the lowest incomes have been hit hardest." I wager Warwickshire will return six Tory MPs at the general election in its six constituencies. Edited by Heinrich, Nov 16 2014, 05:17 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 16 2014, 02:16 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
|
Would that register as a Success with Osborne. From his and the Conservative pov the verdict of success or failure will rest on the result of the GE come May. Their main focus/effort has been largely towards that end, a second Term. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 18 2014, 08:30 AM Post #34 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Gave up when I came across the lie that Welfare Benefits are Earnings. As we have seen the "all in it together" was a stupid sound bite as in reality it is, quite rightly, those that have more who are contributing more. The inference that the poor are contributing to a reduction in our deficit is scurrilous, they are not contributing a Penny, what they have received or are receiving has changed in structure and it is those changes that you may claim were wrong headed. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 18 2014, 09:12 AM Post #35 |
|
Senior Member
|
Have you a context for that RJD because in some circumstances benefits are counted as earnings, in others they are not. (It is a complex area covering not only the Department of Work and Pensions, but the Ministry of Justice as well and possibly HMRC and local authorities.) |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 18 2014, 09:15 AM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
|
Really RJD, published yesterday:- http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7447 Table 1. Changes in spending and announced cuts for some major working-age benefits 
|
|
|
|
| RJD | Nov 18 2014, 04:54 PM Post #37 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
What conclusion have you drawn Mr Smurf? I see no reason from the data provided by you to change my claim which is supported by HMRC and ONS data. I have not denied that there has been changes in the structure of welfare payments, I welcome some if not most of these, but my point was that these are by definition "benefits" which are unearned income. You do not indicate what year these numbers are for are they forecast or actual and you also give only individual percentage changes which do not get to the core of the "absolute" matter. So your point is? |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Nov 18 2014, 05:14 PM Post #38 |
|
Senior Member
|
You really do need to go to Specsavers RJD |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Nov 18 2014, 07:05 PM Post #39 |
|
Deleted User
|
The UK 'recovery' means nothing unless the majority of UK citizens directly benefit from it. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Nov 18 2014, 07:16 PM Post #40 |
|
Senior Member
|
I agree. I also do not consider share dividends as earnings, along with, to use your word, other scurrilous methods 'employed' to extract and extort income. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
12:37 AM Jul 14