Question. If labour were still in charge would we be in a worse state Greece & Italy

[NMH]

The change in government is healthy, because it often allows balance from opposing policies.
The change in government is unhealthy, because it often puts an end to long-term policies.

And sometimes neither apply.

The EEC is not proving to be of much benefit to us imho, but then it may not have harmed us much either.
But there are countries that may become long-term millstones around the collective neck.
Cut them loose just when it suits?
Someone lied, someone got taken in or didn't look closely enough, or people did not preside over them on behalf the whole as a union.

The only thing that seems certain about the future, is that it is uncertain.

 

[Simster]

If Labour had won the election Balls would be Chancellor and IMO Darling was the only one out of that shower competent enough and honest enough to deal with the problem. Balls and Brown are a disastrous pairing and as dishonest as you can possibly get without being Blair and Campbell. Can I opt for a Tory Government (in a majority) but Darling defecting and being re-appointed Chancellor?

Great quote on Twitter about Osborne: Remember your dad fixing the remote by rotating the batteries? The Govt's economic plans feel like that. Only without such long term vision.

If we're cherry picking administrations, I'd plump for a Liberal-led LibLab coalition with Darling as chancellor, and Brown and Balls nowhere to be seen.

Ultimately I can't support any government that deliberately implements policies that cause high unemployment; especially in times of economic strife. And that is precisely what this government is doing. George Osborn seems no more trustworthy than Ed Balls or Gordon Brown.

 

[beorhthelm]

Labour were pulling us out of this mess and Gordon Brown had the econmoic pedigree that europe respected and listened to.

i assume you jest? though to be fair, Darling's action was helpfull, the fact that he had a plan and acted upon it and brought others along, certainly did help back then. it didnt matter what the policy was, as long as there was one, much like the reaction yesturday to a concerted policy by the central banks. markets like decisiveness. his domestic policy (and that of Balls too) was the same as the Tories - "too far, too fast" is just arguing over the trajectory of cuts, the direction is the same.

 

[Buzzer]

If we're cherry picking administrations, I'd plump for a Liberal-led LibLab coalition with Darling as chancellor, and Brown and Balls nowhere to be seen.

Ultimately I can't support any government that deliberately implements policies that cause high unemployment; especially in times of economic strife. And that is precisely what this government is doing. George Osborn seems no more trustworthy than Ed Balls or Gordon Brown.

Nope. I cherry-picked first and I'm not having any socialists in this hypothetical Government. (Darling's not a real socialist anymore anyway. He's not even a proper Scotsman)

 

[Bold Seagull]

A darn sight more people than were listening to Gordon Brown before the UK election. This is what was happening and what was being said when Brown was PM:

BBC NEWS | Business | German ridicule for UK policies

Criticising the UK government's decision to cut VAT from 17.5% to 15%, Mr Steinbruck questioned how effective this will be. "Are you really going to buy a DVD player because it now costs £39.10 instead of £39.90?" he said. "All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off."

I didn't agree with Steinbruck then and I don't agree with him now. As an example a huge economic sector in the is country is the work people do to improve their own homes. This includes professions such as Architects, Engineers, Surveyors etc. to the contractors and tradesmen, to the suppliers and manufacturers. While a 2.5% increase or decrease in VAT has no real impact on a DVD player (a ridiculous example), to someone wishing to build a £50k extension or loft conversion, an additional £1250 is paid in VAT for a 2.5% increase.

The reality is 20% VAT has put a lot of people off doing major work, and it is no great surprise the government is to review relief on works to existing properties. We have a housing shortage, but also a huge number of existing stock that aren't being renovated because 20% VAT does not make it economically viable. So while the retail argument is one thing, VAT on professional services and construction is a huge factor and should never have been ignored so flippantly.

 

[Buzzer]

I didn't agree with Steinbruck then and I don't agree with him now.

Ah well. I'm sure Steinbruck can probably live with knowing that. His example was not ridiculous, by the way. The whole point of the cut was to stimulate retail spending not capital spending by those who are not VAT-registered (for VAT registered businesses it makes no difference and there is no saving). The CD is a very good example as it is part of the basket of goods and services that the RPI is measure on. It's also a far more typical good than the one you cite. I have audited Architects, Engineers and Surveyors accounts and the vast majority of their business is to VAT-registered businesses.

 

[Bold Seagull]

i assume you jest? though to be fair, Darling's action was helpfull, the fact that he had a plan and acted upon it and brought others along, certainly did help back then. it didnt matter what the policy was, as long as there was one, much like the reaction yesturday to a concerted policy by the central banks. markets like decisiveness. his domestic policy (and that of Balls too) was the same as the Tories - "too far, too fast" is just arguing over the trajectory of cuts, the direction is the same.

Firstly, as a Labour voter, they had become dysfunctional as a party or organisation (and probably still are), and so don't believe they would have done any better. That said, I disagree with your final point about trajectory. Confidence is built on the quarterly figures, and markets react incredibly swiftly to minor changes in predictions, or results. Therefore by cutting hard and fast, the impact has been severe, and could be 'talking' us into another recession that could have been avoided. It may well be that we do get to the same place, but because 'panic' sets in, it almost feels we are being talked into a recession when in fact the economy could be strong enough to see it avoided. It is a fine balance, and the same mistakes have been made in the past.

It's a bit like a wood burner, open all the vents up and your fuel will burn far to quickly with too much heat, cut them off too much and the fire goes out and you can't get it going again. The government has to have the air vent open the right amount, and currently it feels like they need to let some more air in...

 

[Buzzer]

It's a bit like a wood burner

Managing a UK economy is nothing like lighting a fire.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ah well. I'm sure Steinbruck can probably live with knowing that. His example was not ridiculous, by the way. The whole point of the cut was to stimulate retail spending not capital spending by those who are not VAT-registered (for VAT registered businesses it makes no difference and there is no saving). The CD is a very good example as it is part of the basket of goods and services that the RPI is measure on. It's also a far more typical good than the one you cite. I have audited Architects, Engineers and Surveyors accounts and the vast majority of their business is to VAT-registered businesses.

I wasn't talking about VAT registered businesses, I was talking about domestic clients undertaking private work. Approx. 1/3rd of Architects and Engineers are Sole Practitioners undertaking work for domestic clients. If you only concentrate on VAT effecting the retail sector and the RPI, then you are missing a much larger picture of what VAT effects, which is why the example of the DVD player is a poor one, maybe correct if specifically addressing retail impact, but not the wider spectrum of VAT applications.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Managing a UK economy is nothing like lighting a fire.

You don't read anything carefully do you. I said nothing about it being like lighting a fire. If you are in the auditing profession whether accountant or otherwise, you must surely live by the mantra of check, and check again!?

 

[Buzzer]

You don't read anything carefully do you. I said nothing about it being like lighting a fire. If you are in the auditing profession whether accountant or otherwise, you must surely live by the mantra of check, and check again!?

Okay. If you're going to be pedantic. Managing the UK economy is nothing like lighting a wood burner. Is that better?

 

[Buzzer]

I wasn't talking about VAT registered businesses, I was talking about domestic clients undertaking private work. Approx. 1/3rd of Architects and Engineers are Sole Practitioners undertaking work for domestic clients. If you only concentrate on VAT effecting the retail sector and the RPI, then you are missing a much larger picture of what VAT effects, which is why the example of the DVD player is a poor one, maybe correct if specifically addressing retail impact, but not the wider spectrum of VAT applications.

And I maintain that a significant proportion of their work is to VAT registered businesses. But assuming you are right, this huge economic sector that you cite is the non-VAT registered clients of the 1/3rd of Architects, Engineers and the like, that would need to spend about £40,000 to make any significant VAT savings. Certainly large enough to decide whether or not to commission the work. I don't mean to be rude but do you really think this is what Brown intended as the stimulus to kickstart spending? I'd say it's impact on the UK economy would barely be a rounding difference in the accounts of UK plc.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Wouldn't be any better off under Labour and probably a lot worse especially with Ed Balls controlling the purse strings. He was the architect of Gordon Brown's economic policies and failed to reign in the banks so the spend spend spend credit fuelled feel good factor under Labour could continue. Plus they would have implimented similar pension reforms. He just talks down the economy rather than talk it up and has no credibility in my eyes.

Labour may have continued some public spending in order to stimulate growth. However this would compromise the sort of austerity package imposed by the coalition, sending out the wrong signals to the world about our determination to control our debts. As a result the UK would have lost its AAA credit rating. The cost of our borrowing would have escalated maybe up to and beyond the critical 7% threshold which is crippling Greece and maybe Italy and Spain. We would have to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out creating an even more vicious spiral where our sovereign debt would become even mega. Servicing this debt would account for most of our wealth and therefore the cuts to pay it off under Labour would have to be even deeper. The pain could affect the UK for 25 years and turn us into a third world country (although we are not far off already).

It may not be a rosy picture whoever we have for a government but at least we dont have to go cap in hand to Sarkozy and Merkel. We may be broke but we do have our pride!

 

[fork me]

The lead question is a stupid one, and the answers stupider. The answer is obviously "no", for the simple reason that the economies of Greece and Italy have been weaker than ours for a huge number of years. I doubt that any government, no matter how incompetent could drag us from where we were at the election to this level Greece and Italy are at the mooment in such a short space of time.

Indeed, it was after a long period of Labour in government that we ended up at that point so much higher than Greece and Italy.

 

[Bold Seagull]

And I maintain that a significant proportion of their work is to VAT registered businesses. But assuming you are right, this huge economic sector that you cite is the non-VAT registered clients of the 1/3rd of Architects, Engineers and the like that would need to spend about £40,000 to make any significant VAT savings. Certainly large enough to decide whether or not to commission the work. I don't mean to be rude but do you really think this is what Brown intended as the stimulus to kickstart spending? I'd say it's impact on the UK economy would barely be a rounding difference in the accounts of UK plc.

I've not mentioned GB once, I was commenting on your post regarding Steinbruck's assertion of how changes in VAT don't effect the economy because of the tiny saving on the purchase of a DVD player doesn't impact on peoples spending. I don't think you've been rude in the slightest, but you tend to read into things that aren't there. What Brown intended is irrelevant. I'll put it to you that I am correct as why else would this government be looking to give relief to this sector reducing VAT to 5%?

 

[Gangsta]

Anyone thinking Ed Balls should be allowed anywhere near the treasury again needs their head looking at. If Labour had got in that moronic prick would have had far too much power and may have been Chancellor. If you could promise me Darling would have continued in the roll of 5 years I would be happy enough, but that was unlikely to have been the case. No more Balls-ups, a more grown-up approach to Government borrowing is required, its hurting but its necessary. If we hadn't the current plan in place the bond markets would have us by the goolies. If the US has lost 1 rating how many the UK? 5 to 6% bond yields = accelerated debt and no we wouldn't have the growth dreamt of by some types on here to fund it via higher taxes. This is fantasy - you cannot make growth by throwing money at public services, and certainly not against the background of low economic growth worldwide. Therefore the likely outcome is to increase the deficit and so again each years deficit increases as does the % of it which is just servicing the increased debt. This ever-decreasing cycle of spend and spend more has to end.

 

[Buzzer]

I'll put it to you that I am correct as why else would this government be looking to give relief to this sector reducing VAT to 5%?

Because it's such a small part of the economy that reducing the VAT in this sector by 75% makes little or no difference to the overall figures.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Because it's such a small part of the economy that reducing the VAT in this sector by 75% makes little or no difference to the overall figures.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the housing repair and maintenance sector alone in 2010 was £16 billion. Housing new build was about the same, non housing new build about £50 billion. The total for the construction sector was £100 billion. So 16% of the construction industry makes little or no difference to overall economic figures....Right oh then...

 

[Buzzer]

According to the Office for National Statistics, the housing repair and maintenance sector alone in 2010 was £16 billion. Housing new build was about the same, non housing new build about £50 billion. The total for the construction sector was £100 billion. So 16% of the construction industry makes little or no difference to overall economic figures....Right oh then...

So how much of that £16 billion was capital projects to non-VAT registered people? I'm sorry but blithely chucking that out without substantiating how much of it relates to capital purchases is meaningless. For every £40,000 loft conversion there must be at least 100 repair bills of less than £1000 where a VAT reduction will not make the slightest difference in deciding whether to have the remedial work or not.

The new build is irrelevant as it is usually zero-rated for private occupation. And the overall £100 billion figure you quote is for the entire industry and the vast majority of that was not private individuals commissioning the work but business to business.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

This mornings statement by the Govenor of the Bank of England said it all..

Basically

Greece will default 100%
Italy 40% chance

There is nothing they can do.

The banks need more money from the tax payer of each country. Yes I know we had lots of money from you already but we spunked that up on saving the banks so they could repay you back with the money they would get from you in the next Fiat currency rip off.

We are making plans for the collapse of the Euro. We don't know what to do but rest assured we will be ok even if you are not.

Other nations are now preparing for collapse - they are buying gold.

I know we told everyone we would get a big loan from China but when we asked they told us to f*** off and find another mug.

Gordon Brown was a twat, this Osbourne blokes a bigger twat but at least he's our twat.


I'm not going to say anything about a large European bank nearly going bust this week because if I deny it and it happens you will say I lied so its better that I tell you that I refuse to confirm or deny it and then if it happens I haven't lied and if it doesn't I can get away with it.

The European Central Bank is not bust they just have not got any more money to lend and they have run out of ink and gold trying to prop up the Euro.

Last one out please put up this Gone Bust sign.


I think thats what he said!