GO has confounded his critics (including Balls and the IMF and many on here)

That is one way of saying failed to meet his targets, blamed the EU then took the credit when the economy eventually picked up even though his policies did not hit what he said they would.
As i said earlier capitalism is boom and bust so we were never going to have recession for ever no matter how bad his policies were.

GO and his critics go on about sticking to Plan A and austerity when the reality is completely different. Step away from the rhetoric and he has shown a high level of flexibility (which neither he nor his critics admit). On more than one occassion he has pushed back the timetable for balancing the structural budget

That is another remarkably positive spin on his plan failed to achieve what he said it would but he will now claim it as a success despite this

There isn’t actually any real economic growth though is there? GO is just fuelling another debt-fuelled housing bubble in the South East, with his insane mortgage guarantees.

I note this morning that buy-to-let mortgage applications from landlords have rocketed. Always the sign of good times to come, eh?

Hands up if this is you.

I don’t want to brag, but getting made redundant in 2009 (a product of the economic crisis) has been the best thing happened to my career. My wages have gone up 50%. I understand I am probably in the minority and I don’t think this has anything to with the tory government. Rather just being in the right place at the right time, but it does make me feel good!! 😀

None of that is spin at all. I criticise and applaud GO when appropriate (and roughly equally). His critics stated repeatedly that the downturn would be more severe and more extended that it proved to be. They were wrong pure and simple. But you are correct and I agree he missed targets and made errors in forecasting/policy mix etc. This was partly his fault, partly the fault of the current economic elite (that misjudged the size of the negative fiscal multiplier by 2x!!!) and partly external events. In reverse, he has been helped by factors that are outside his control – not least that the ECB managed to (temporarily?) halt the implosion of the €.

It is churlish not to congratulate him for being flexible – even though sympathy is reduced when he himself pretends otherwise (that is spin!) – and that is what I am doing. But I have consistently said over several years that we credit politicians with too much credit and criticise them too often when the reality is that they are largely spectators reacting to events around them. GO’s performance has been mixed but I am pleased that he has achieved some success and hope (as noted before) that he is even better in managing recovery. But that will largely be down to you and me, not our elected “representatives.”

Boom and bust – economic cycles. What is the difference? Magnitude, that’s it. You cannot (by definition) eradicate economic cycles (that’s the beauty of economics – all these factors are inter-related – one reason why the € is fundamentally and fatally (IMO) flawed). Labour screwed up largely because they failed to understand the core element of the economic philosophy that they claim to adhere to (Keynesian economics). Balls admitted that himself – remarkable economic and political folly to believe that boom and bust can and had been eliminated. And they are suffering the consequences now (as are the rest of us).

Binners – the housing policy may well prove to be an error but that also needs to be balanced by the fact that business surveys from all sectors are running at record highs. That indicates that GDP “should” accelerate from here (hence the OECD’s upward revision of UK growth last week). Plus new orders are rising. So is not just the housing market.

His critics stated repeatedly that the downturn would be more severe and more extended that it proved to be

C’mon 2008 – 2013 is going a bit ….isn’t it? 😯

RIght, so the south-east/London is out of recession? Phew!

His critics stated repeatedly that the downturn would be more severe and more extended that it proved to be

Remind me of his forecast figures and the actual figures would you?
IT WAS.

Well it’s a good job that Ed Balls doesnt say that this is pointless since he is arguing much the same as me (edit: with regards to what Keynes actually believed in). And if you want Labour to return to power then you need to hope that he is not alone.

GO missed target and timetables – fact – but less than his critics argued – fact – but the job is only just started – fact – and the UK’s economic recovery – fact – is not built on sufficiently strong foundations for anyone to be complacent – fact – and the on-going squeeze in real wages and living standards could itself be the Tories Achilles Hell – fact.

…oh and did anyone mention the “fact” that debt levels remain severely elevated…..and what caused the crisis in the first place?????

So the next election battle lines are drawn. The Tories will win if economic recovery continues and broadens. Labour will win if this does not translate into pounds in pockets across the UK. At the moment, this is finely balanced and neither side can be complacent but the momentum is shifting in one direction.

🙄

You will call me impertinent next wont you as I insert a football playing the man analogy

as we were not interested in this…FACT

Sorry, dont understand a word of that.

Sure

Plenty of jobs and opportunities in engineering right now due to the lack of trained and skilled people caused by the demise of the UK’s manufacturing industry over the last 30 years

There is some truth in the lack of training investment in engineering over the years, but that’s the past the thing is right now there is a lot of opportunity. The UK still has a decent manufacturing industry, unfortunately it is mostly ignored by the media and politicians who don’t understand it.

There is some truth in the lack of training investment in engineering over the years, but that’s the past the thing is right now there is a lot of opportunity. The UK still has a decent manufacturing industry

The fact that something has happened automatically puts it into the past, so I’m not sure what the point of that comment is. The changes to our education system are political and deliberate to reflect a change in emphasis in the nations economic activity from manufacturing to other, mainly service orientated jobs. Therefore far fewer people training as engineers or even learning the basic skills like maths etc etc, which is hardly surprising as there are far fewer jobs in that sector. (NB: My school in Ipswich in the the 60’s/70’s expected about 90% of the school to work in engineering. At that time there were any number of large manufacturing companies in the town, Ransomes and Rapier, (walking dragline), Ransom Sims and Jefferies (Ploughs, lawn mowers etc) Cranes, (pipework fittings), Compair Reavel, (air compressors), Bull Motors (Electric Motors), Rola Celestion (loudspeakers), to name but a few. Only one remains, and that in a much smaller way than it used to be. Most of the site, now being a retail park and Industrial Estate.)

I think if by decent you mean high quality, I’d agree, but if you mean a decent proportion of the workforce are engineers I’d have to say you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Like I say when I was at school 90% of my peers trained to be in or around engineering as a career…….and yes the demise did mostly occur during “her” reign.

Two interesting articles in the New Statesmen today:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/pmqs-review-problem-miliband-numbers-are-moving-camerons-favour

In politics, trajectory is everything. The return of growth and falling unemployment means that Miliband now struggles to discomfort the PM.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/recovery-or-not-problem-labour-tories-have-framed-debate

The opposition should worry less about the growth rate and more about developing its own story about the economy…..

…Today nef is publishing research into how economic debates are framed on both sides of the political spectrum to win support for different policies. Our main finding? The coalition has an economic narrative that is the textbook definition of a powerful political story.They have developed a clear plot, with heroes and villains, and use simple, emotional language to make their point clear.

Repeated with remarkable discipline over several years, their austerity story has gained real traction with the British public. In fact, the polling data we analysed showed that month on month, no matter what people think about the coalition, they continue to believe spending cuts are necessary for the economy.

The story relies on a small set of frames to understand our economy. That austerity is the inevitable price we pay for decades of overspending. That spending cuts are the only medicine for our sick economy. That Britain is broke, hobbled by dangerous debts, and government spending is a bad habit we need to kick. It casts the coalition as its heroes, cleaning up the mess of the last Labour government. George Osborne faithfully retold it on Monday as he reminded us pre-crisis Britain was dependent on state spending and blamed falling living standards on his predecessors.

The government has successfully framed all economic debates on its own terms, but what is most powerful about their narrative is how resilient it is to different circumstances. If the economy is strong the medicine is working, if the economy is weak we need more medicine.

So as LW commentators are suggesting, time for Ed and his team to get their thinking hats on

I’ve had my biggest pay rise since 97!

(had to move to Germany for it though)

The government has successfully framed all economic debates on its own terms, but what is most powerful about their narrative is how resilient it is to different circumstances. If the economy is strong the medicine is working, if the economy is weak we need more medicine.

Easy to control the narrative when you’ve got almost all of the press parroting the same line though.

THM you dont half write some crap dressed up as facts.

I know AA and what makes it such fun 😉 is that publications as diverse as the FT and the New Statesman do the same! Makes for a good Econ set though and at least they can argue points rather than just being rude!! I am sure you find that too! !

I know AA and what makes it such fun is that publications as diverse as the FT and the New Statesman do the same! Makes for a good Econ set though and at least they can argue points rather than just being rude!! I am sure you find that too! !

All they have pointed out in that is how big the lie is.

Only 0.7% growth this year? Still 3.2% lower than in 2008.
The slowest economic recovery in 100 years, slower than the recovery from the great depression.
A mere 0.1% drop in the unemployment in the last three months.
The number of men working full time fell by 272,000 and those in part time work rose 281,000. Is this the point where right wingers usually say you should be lucky or grateful to have a job?

Unemployment among 16-24 year olds was up 34,000. This means the UK has an unemployment rate of 21% among young people, with 960,000 now jobless.

Wages have fallen for 36 of the 37 months of the shower of sh*t Government. This makes CMD’s Government the the worst performing Government in UK history on wages. No former Prime Minister in the history of our parliamentary democracy has seen wages drop for this length of time – not Thatcher, not Harold Wilson, not Ted Heath.

There has also been the rise of Zero Hours contracts, which mean working people are not guaranteed regular hours by their employer, or access to basic employment rights such as sick pay, paid annual leave or a notice period before dismissal.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, found more than 1 million UK workers is now on a Zero Hours contract. Such contracts could also be seen as part of the wider underemployment problem that has affected the UK economy in recent times, with large numbers of workers on part-time or casual contracts wanting to work more hours but being unable to do so.

The cost of living is currently rising at four times the rate of wages.

The UK Essentials Index shows that prices of the basic items that the poorest buy have risen 33% since 2007.

Statutory Homelessness (people without a home who are eligible for local authority support) rose 21% in the last year, while Rough Sleepers (those not eligible for support) rose 31% in England and 62% in London. The Bedroom Tax, where people receiving Housing Benefit have had their payments cut for having ‘spare rooms’ (while in most of the country, no appropriately sized housing exists) is also seeing many more lose their homes.

The number of people relying on food aid in order to eat rose by 300% between April 2012 and April 2013. In fact the numbers relying on food aid have shot up 200% in just three months. 150,000 people have joined the queues at food banks, on top of the half million people already there since 2010.

Mark Hoban, a Minister for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was asked to explain how an economic recovery could be under way whilst the numbers of those relying on Food Banks to eat was growing. Hoban’s response was “You’ll have to ask the Food Banks.”

The Food Banks were asked. Food Banks themselves (and Oxfam) report that the enormous spike in reliance on Food Banks is directly linked to government cuts.

So while CMD’s work experience boy tries claim that a recovery is underway, the question is, a recovery for who?

I know AA and what makes it such fun  is that publications as diverse as the FT and the New Statesman do the same! Makes for a good Econ set though and at least they can argue points rather than just being rude!! I am sure you find that too! !

Problem is you fail to separate the politics from the economics. Its lazy analysis and means you end up debating politics rather than the economics.

The Bedroom Tax, where people receiving Housing Benefit have had their payments cut for having ‘spare rooms’ (while in most of the country, no appropriately sized housing exists) is also seeing many more lose their homes.

some great ‘facts’ quoted in the above piece. the one quoted above especially stands out.. can you quote ONE example where a tenant has been evicted as a result of what you call the bedroom tax.

now i have some limited experience of this policy. my best mate lives in a council house he has two empty bedrooms and is be moaning the fact he has his housing benifit reduced. he refuses to move though as the properties available from the council are not as good as his and the privately available properties are too expensive. he know which side of the bread his jams on even if all his housing costs are no longer covered by the govt.

On the other flipside you move this lad out for an older single mum with three kids by three dads to move in. Manchester has lots of these.

I know AA (again!) but when the title suggests this is a thread debating the political context of current economic trends it’s an easy mistake to make! Apologies for the sloppiness. 😉 But debating economics without reference to politics is like recommending a MTB without discussing the style of riding/type of terrain to be ridden. Interesting (perhaps) but ultimately pointless.

The central point is that both economics and politics have entered a new and important phase (brought out in one of the NS articles, the FT and Stephanie Flanders on the BBC two days ago, oh and in the title of this thread!). Economic activity is recovering and broadening BUT as El-bent clearly points out is still at an early stage/sporadic (same point I made). But both the Tories and Labour recognise it and they themselves have shifted the terms of reference. Labour is now focused on “living standards” rather than growth per se (so as I pointed out earlier, they accept the change even if some here do not) but if polls/opinion are to be believed they are slipping. Hence my comments about thinking hats.

But from a non-political perspective, I expect this to be a weak, shallow and prolonged (in a bad way) recovery. There are strong domestic and international headwinds which GO has not even come close to tackling. So I agree with the FT, the new phase is all about can GO manage economic recovery successfully. Oops, that’s poltical again, sorry!

The nice weather will have had something to do with the minor recovery but normal business will resume in winter.The end.

One swallow doesn’t make a summer

Well I’ll join the steadily growing flock in saying I’m all right Jack.

Graduated in Process Enineering back in 2008, done alright for myself in the intervening years.

How is the national debt doing under the Tories?

I wonder where the national debt would be under labours policy?

Broadly the same given the similarities in policy responses?

in saying I’m all right Jack.

I see Thatcher’s force is strong in this one….

I wonder where the national debt would be under labours policy?

Not sure that really the point. The point is that they have been busy convincing the great unwashed that they are dealing with it and bringing it down, whilst predictably the policies they have been pursuing has in fact increased it dramatically. If this were done on the High Street the retailer would have trading standards all over them.

Regarding the OP, this in fact would be probably the biggest single reason (of many) why his thread title is utter twaddle

I’ve not had a pay rise in 5 years. Serves me right for doing something socially useful/positive I suppose.

Fees have gone down in the freelance work I do too.

I see Thatcher’s force is strong in this one….

I’d never vote Tory, and I doubt any of their policies have made an iota of difference to my work in the last few years, the only thing that’s helped is the £ loseing 25% of it’s value under the last few years of Labour making us a bit more competative.

Having said that I can’t feel inclined to vote for any of the curent parties, none of them have actualy said or done anything that would actualy significanly impact me since Labour landed me with £18k of student debt before I could vote. The Tories are in it even more for themselves than the other parties, and the Lib Dems have no poilicies they’re prepared to stick by.

thisisnotaspoon – thanks very much for your contribution to the debate. I feel all warm inside knowing you’re doing so well. A feeling I’m sure everyone else shares, I’m sure.

Promise me you won’t be wasting your time, keeping yourself awake at night, worrying about anyone else now, or how they’re doing ? 😀

Having said that I can’t feel inclined to vote for any of the curent parties, none of them have actualy said or done anything that would actualy significanly impact me

I think the fact that you only consider voting to be about what’s in it for you as an individual shows why someone mentioned the ‘T’ word in relation to you.

The point is that they have been busy convincing the great unwashed that they are dealing with it and bringing it down

I think you are confusing the national debt with the defecit. The defecit is decreasing, but we still need to borrow dollar to cover the defecit, thus the national debt is rising.

+1 for Binners.

I love you Binners

I wonder where the national debt would be under labours policy?

Not sure that really the point. The point is that they have been busy convincing the great unwashed that they are dealing with it and bringing it down

I don’t particularly like to defend the Govt., but they never said that. They said they’d bring the deficit down and we’ve done the debt vs deficit thing to death on other threads previously. Both parties were looking at National Debt peaking above £1.6Tn several years hence.

I think the fact that you only consider voting to be about what’s in it for you as an individual shows why someone mentioned the ‘T’ word in relation to you.

She’ll be smiling in her grave 😉

I think the fact that you only consider voting to be about what’s in it for you as an individual shows why someone mentioned the ‘T’ word in relation to you.

[devils advocate as clearly my dancing shoes weren’t loud enough on her grave]

It’s a democracy.

Why should ‘the poor’ get 2 votes?

[/devils advocate as clearly my dancing shoes weren’t loud enough on her grave]

Why should ‘the poor’ get 2 votes?

The alternate view is to see each vote as one for society rather than one for me or one for them etc….

The obvious answer is for individuals to get more votes dependent on your wealth. So the immediate family of the present cabinet, Lord Ashcroft, and Phillip Green, and the like would get a few hundred votes each, at least (we won’t mention the fact you don’t actually pay any tax – sssssssssssssssshhhhh – the plebs will never know).

At the other end of the spectrum; if you lose your job, then you’re clearly a scrounger, and a drain on ‘hard-working families’ and have therefore forfeited your democratic right. No votes for you.

People who work part time, or are on zero hours contract, so cannot guarantee they’re making a contribution to the tax base are allowed half a vote each

Actually…. I’d be amazed if a Tory Think Tank hasn’t come up with this as a serious policy. I fully expect it to be in place before the next election