UK jobs market recovery 'to stall'

[drew]

You just don't get it do you. Does it never dawn on you the Tories would love to spend billions/trillions on health/education (in every govt department) as all political parties in the world would because they ultimately want our votes. But at some time there comes a point when economic nous says, no we must cut our cloth as we see it we can't afford this and we must put a limit on this, that is what the Tories (in my opinion) try to do. Labour and the left seem to think that this does not apply to them and can just blow it all on the credit card and that is why we are now £165,000,000,000 in debt.

An example of pulling the plug is what is/was happening in Greece now (junk ratings etc. difficult to get further credit, draconian cuts to public spendings an absolute necessity now). The markets/creditors would have no hesitation in sweeping the UK in with Greece if the new government didn't come up with a realistic plan to do something about the biggest peacetime debt ever, now.

The Uk economy is totally different to that of Greece. Reference to their austerity measures is merely scaremongering of the highest order.

As for the Tories spending money on health, they could have done that in their last government but didn't. If you think the Tory mantra is to spend on public services to win votes you are clearly delusional. The Tory philosophy is to to reduce public services and put money back into the pockets of their supporters so they can decide where to spend it, ie on private schools, private medical health etc etc.

There's far too much "blame" in this thread.

The way I see it the private sector's doing OK considering, while the public sector's grown disproportionately large under Labour's stewardship and the Coalition are simply applying some common sense and good housekeeping by shedding 600,000.

By and large those 600,000 were doing meaningless jobs. Where is your evidence that the most of the 600,000 are doing meaningless jobs. A few hearsay anecdotal posts or daily mail headlines. No doubt there are some doing meaningless jobs as there are in the private sector. As Tony Hayres once said to Alan Partridge "We don't owe you a living."

We can all name at least one person we know in the public sector with a micky mouse job, not working that hard. It's about time people started tooling themselves up with proper qualifications and doing a real job.

So who is to blame for the £1,500,000,000,000 (thanks Titanic) debt we as a country are in? Answer 13 years of New Labour

Who has to do something about it? Answer Tories

Nothing changes!

You seem to live a life of ignorance!

Well it seems to me to be a Tory Chancellor and PM so I would guess they would get any credit/discredit as to how it all ends up.

If it wasn't Labour's fault then whose is it that after their 13 years in (absolute i.e working majority) power and 13 Labour budgets we are £1,500,000,000,000 in debt?

It's so sad. One would hope as a Tory you might have some grasp of economics rather than spouting of statistics you now nothing about.

In 1997 the UK National Debt was £830m.

Absolute crap. Perhaps you will enlighten us to the source of this fiction. According to the Telegraph (a Tory rag mind!) the National Debt in 1997 was £350,000,000,000, ie 400 times higher than you suggest!

I make that (1997) £830,000,000 to (2010) £1,500,000,000,000

Quite a jump!

Sorry Simmo, showing your ignorance again.


Take out the world recession caused by the private sector finance industry, then in 2007 the 'record' national debt of about £500b was only 38% of GDP, ie less than the 43% that the then labour government inherited from the Tories in 1997. The subsequent recession had to be managed and most governements did follow Browns recommendations.

The fact is the Tories want to cut the deficit rapidly and whereas Labour and (pre-election) the Lib Dems, were proposing bringing under control over a longer period using the increase in the GDP to support that. We are faced now with possibility of double dip recession.

Not all EU Governments are using Osbornes slash and burn tactics and even the US have stated that governments should not risk undermining growth for the sake of reducing deficits. However, they all recognize the need to reduce the deficit, funnily enough, including the Labour party!!!

Just out of interest, and trying to put everything into context, have a look at the attached article.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The myth of record debt

 

[Titanic]

Sorry, in 1997 the GB National Debt was £830bn (not million). So it has risen in 13 years to an estimated £1,451bn in 2010

Source: UK Central Government and Local Authority Public Spending 2010 - Pie Charts Tables

 

[drew]

Sorry, in 1997 the GB National Debt was £830bn (not million). So it has risen in 13 years to an estimated £1,451bn in 2010

Source: UK Central Government and Local Authority Public Spending 2010 - Pie Charts Tables

Appreciate the correction. However, think the figure of £830b was the Gross Domestic Product whereas the net public debt, according to those charts was £348b.

 

[beorhthelm]

Absolute crap. Perhaps you will enlighten us to the source of this fiction. According to the Telegraph (a Tory rag mind!) the National Debt in 1997 was £350,000,000,000, ie 400 times higher than you suggest!
...
Just out of interest, and trying to put everything into context, have a look at the attached article.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The myth of record debt

i suspect the conflict of numbers is from confusion of the national debt (that owed by everyone in overdrafts credit cards, loans, HP, mortgages) and the Government deficit (the money the government has borrowed this fiscal year to pay for everything its spending on over abd above tax revenues).

i dont know what the government debt was in 1997, but while £830m sounds too low its a hell of alot closer to the £150billion is it now.

Incidently, the featured link is 2 years old, and the government debt is now double that discussed.

it should also be noted, again, that we dont yet know what the cuts will actually be as we await the end of the spending review in September. the immediate cuts made, of things like the ID database, some fringe projects and quangos have made a decent impression on the markets if thats their intent, with Sterling firming up nicely since the change of government.

 

[drew]

i suspect the conflict of numbers is from confusion of the national debt (that owed by everyone in overdrafts credit cards, loans, HP, mortgages) and the Government deficit (the money the government has borrowed this fiscal year to pay for everything its spending on over abd above tax revenues).

i dont know what the government debt was in 1997, but while £830m sounds too low its a hell of alot closer to the £150billion is it now.

Incidently, the featured link is 2 years old, and the government debt is now double that discussed.

it should also be noted, again, that we dont yet know what the cuts will actually be as we await the end of the spending review in September. the immediate cuts made, of things like the ID database, some fringe projects and quangos have made a decent impression on the markets if thats their intent, with Sterling firming up nicely since the change of government.

Firstly, I posted the link as it gave quite a good reasoned arguement about the hysteria associated with National debt.

As regards National Debt, that isn't the amount owed by individuals on the credit cards, mortgages etc, it is the amount owed by the Governement accumulated over a long period of time. Also, the figure people have referred to is not £150b but more like £1,500b. However, the actual National Debt as at 2010 is, according to some sources, estimated to be £1.1 trillion.

The best measure is to compare countries by the ratio of National Debt to GDP and in that respect we are not much different to many other European countries such as Germany, France and Italy.

 

[beorhthelm]

As regards National Debt, that isn't the amount owed by individuals on the credit cards, mortgages etc, it is the amount owed by the Governement accumulated over a long period of time. Also, the figure people have referred to is not £150b but more like £1,500b. However, the actual National Debt as at 2010 is, according to some sources, estimated to be £1.1 trillion.

you're probably quite right, i have the wrong definition for the term. iirc the amount for the debt owed by the population is similar though. however, i will point out that if by your own admission the national debt is £1.1trillion, it seems you agree with simmo and titanic after all. maybe time to step back from calling people ignorant on complex matters?

 

[drew]

you're probably quite right, i have the wrong definition for the term. iirc the amount for the debt owed by the population is similar though. however, i will point out that if by your own admission the national debt is £1.1trillion, it seems you agree with simmo and titanic after all. maybe time to step back from calling people ignorant on complex matters?

I think you need to go back and read all the posts again!!!! You will see that little Simmo seems to think that the National Debt is all down to Labour, ie that there was no national debt when labour took office in 1997. He then backtracks and starts going on about how the debt has risen based on Titanics misquoted figure from £830m to £1.5t. Both figures are wrong, the former of which Titanic corrected.

So I see no reason to step back from calling Simmo ignorant. His posts seem to be knee jerk reactions to other posts with no foundation, knowledge or research!

 

[drew]

Now looks likely that the BoE are reducing growth forecasts and increasing the forecast for inflation in an announcement later today!!!

 

[itszamora]

Now looks likely that the BoE are reducing growth forecasts and increasing the forecast for inflation in an announcement later today!!!

I reckon secretly a lot of the Tories would love a double dip. They and their mates will be fine, while it gives them an excuse to cut spending even further.

 

[simonsimon]

I seem to recall that before the General Election there was a warning on cutting public expenditure too early while the economic recovery was fragile.

Now the latest Bank of England forecasts are saying there is risk to growth in 2011 due to the softening of business and consumer confidence. Inflation will be soaring above target well into 2012 partly due to the VAT hike in January 2011 and higher food and commodity prices. For a while now the Bank of England has consistently underestimated inflation and if the markets become unsettled and there is a decrease in the price of sterling, then an increase in interest rates could be forced. This kind of monetary policy shock may prove to be the biggest risk for double dip recession.

 

[Helter]

Sorry, but I don't read or watch the crap that is the Labour supporting propaganda machine of the BBC.

Just out of interest, and trying to put everything into context, have a look at the attached article.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The myth of record debt

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sorry, but I don't read or watch the crap that is the Labour supporting propaganda machine of the BBC.

.. whose head of politics is a tory.

 

[Helter]

.. whose head of politics is a tory.

It isn't sky you leftie toad. They are neutral.

 

[drew]

It isn't sky you leftie toad. They are neutral.

Sky! Aren't they part of the same group as Fox News?

 

[Helter]

Sky! Aren't they part of the same group as Fox News?

What has Fox news got to do with british polictics? Don't see Fox news on our TV's.

You lefties need help.

 

[drew]

What has Fox news got to do with british polictics? Don't see Fox news on our TV's.

You lefties need help.

Are you really as simple as all posts seem to suggest?

 

[itszamora]

It isn't sky you leftie toad. They are neutral.

Make your mind up, are they a "Labour supporting propaganda machine," or are they neutral. I can confirm that Nick Robinson is, to quote my BBC employee source, "a raging Tory," and I suspect the Hutton whitewash means the BBC aren't exactly best mates with Labour.

 

[drew]

Make your mind up, are they a "Labour supporting propaganda machine," or are they neutral. I can confirm that Nick Robinson is, to quote my BBC employee source, "a raging Tory," and I suspect the Hutton whitewash means the BBC aren't exactly best mates with Labour.

I think your argument may be a little too complex for him to understand!!!!

 

[simonsimon]

Confirmed, Robinson is a raging Tory.

This should not be allowed. Political reporters should be neutral.

 

[desprateseagull]

so, in conclusion..

we're all doooomed?