UK productivity lowest since 2008: Osborne & Tories are failing

[Colossal Squid]

Cheers Gwylan, that is brilliant

 

[gordonchas]

Here you go, it's an interesting read. The guy who put the analysis together is a Labour party adviser so he does have a vested interest but the figures themselves are from the Bank of England

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

Thank you for your link. As soon as I saw that the author of it is Richard Murphy my heart sank.

if you look at the source material for Public Sector Net Borrowing you will see a different pattern,

Up until the 1970s there was very little net borrowing at all. It made no difference who was in power. In the 1970s this changed. By the time 1979 came round borrowing under the Callaghan government was 8.7 billion per year. This remained reasonably constant until the end of 80s when there were net repayments again.

Following the ERM disaster of John Major and Norman Lamont much higher borrowing was needed, to a high of 51.6m in 1994.. This was swiftly brought down.

However, it's the Blair government from 1997 that gets the benefit in Murphy's statistical analysis of following Tory spending plans for the first two years (net repayments). Promising to keep to Tory spending plans was one of the main reasons they won the 1997 election.

Following the -17.1 (net repayment of 2000-1) net borrowing then followed this progression up the the 2008 crash: 0.5, 26.7, 31.5, 43.7, 41.6, 37.1, 40.9.

There was no recession in those years to blame for the high borrowing.

Without context, the whole Murphy analysis is seriously flawed.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05745/SN05745.pdf

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Exactly,..... I love the leftys on this boardf, who in one breath bleat incessantly about the housing balloon, how it is evil capitalism at its worst,.. then in the next breath demand that we maintain open borders, increasing population, more house building etc etc,.... let me tell you sir, these houses are not council houses, they are in the main private builds, and will be sold as such, and will thus hand in hand with the population/migration issue, drive prices ever higher.

I'm on the left. Your caracature of me is laugable. I suppose you're sewing swastikas on your tory pin stripe suit before going out for a night of gypsy bashing and a spin in your baby Bentley . . . .

 

[Diego Napier]

I think if you look hard enough you can present a gloomy outlook, but like the permanently offended and outraged left, who simply cannot believe that Ed didn't get the vote... you need to consider better where this country would be if the spend spend spend policies of Miliband Brown and Blair would have left us if continued through the extended world financial crisis.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Anyone who uses the phrase "the permanently offended and outraged left" reveals a sadly simplistic view of the world; an accusation that could be equally levelled at the similarly trite "the inherently greedy and smug I'm all-right-Jack right".

Of course, going on to state "you need to consider better" would rather emphasise a superciliously smugness.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

How would the ships in the Naval Dockyards at Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight ferries get out to sea?

Swing bridge / Tower bridge style perhaps - minor detail .....

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Do we know how many people regularly need to commute from Dover to Plymouth or vice versa?

There will junctions along the way - defo at Newhaven, Rottingdean, Marina, Lagoon, Worthing etc. you get the idea ....
Bit like the M1 London to Leeds - not many people drive end to end, but hop on and off to suit.

Will probably need to be a toll road like M6 toll to pay for sea damage too.

 

[heathgate]

I'm on the left. Your caracature of me is laugable. I suppose you're sewing swastikas on your tory pin stripe suit before going out for a night of gypsy bashing and a spin in your baby Bentley . . . .

Fook right off you sad excuse for a human being....

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[heathgate]

Anyone who uses the phrase "the permanently offended and outraged left" reveals a sadly simplistic view of the world; an accusation that could be equally levelled at the similarly trite "the inherently greedy and smug I'm all-right-Jack right".

Of course, going on to state "you need to consider better" would rather emphasise a superciliously smugness.

More sleep inducing, substance absent rhetoric you once heard in a student union bar.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Diego Napier]

More sleep inducing, substance absent rhetoric I overhear in a the Con club.

Sent from my arse using Tapatalk

Thanks for the confirmation, it really wasn't necessary.

 

[glasfryn]

Fook right off you sad excuse for a human being....

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

had the suspicion you were a nasty piece of work


just confirmed it

 

[Hampster Gull]

Thank you for your link. As soon as I saw that the author of it is Richard Murphy my heart sank.

if you look at the source material for Public Sector Net Borrowing you will see a different pattern,

Up until the 1970s there was very little net borrowing at all. It made no difference who was in power. In the 1970s this changed. By the time 1979 came round borrowing under the Callaghan government was 8.7 billion per year. This remained reasonably constant until the end of 80s when there were net repayments again.

Following the ERM disaster of John Major and Norman Lamont much higher borrowing was needed, to a high of 51.6m in 1994.. This was swiftly brought down.

However, it's the Blair government from 1997 that gets the benefit in Murphy's statistical analysis of following Tory spending plans for the first two years (net repayments). Promising to keep to Tory spending plans was one of the main reasons they won the 1997 election.

Following the -17.1 (net repayment of 2000-1) net borrowing then followed this progression up the the 2008 crash: 0.5, 26.7, 31.5, 43.7, 41.6, 37.1, 40.9.

There was no recession in those years to blame for the high borrowing.

Without context, the whole Murphy analysis is seriously flawed.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05745/SN05745.pdf

Good post, this will get the rabid left foaming

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Good post, this will get the rabid left foaming

......and get the relaxed, slightly pink, shrugging. I see no party-related trend in the graphs in the pdf. The most obvious divergence from gentle trends in recent times is the effect of the American sub prime lending fiasco. Loath the false grinning hopeless weirdo, Brown, as one may, it would take a mental contortion to blame that on him. No, the bloody hand of the red Satan is no more real than the face of Jusus on the Turin Shroud.

If it were so obvious that labour destroys everyone's wealth whenever they get in, they'd never get in. Likwise, if it were true that every small working class boy has to sweep chimneys to feed the family whenever the tory's get in, they'd never get in either. Our politics is much more nuanced, no matter how hard the committed may contort themselves to prove otherwise.

With respect to the terminally committed obsessive party politicos, this latest volley of statistics seems like yet another enormous return in speculation from a small investment of fact.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Swing bridge / Tower bridge style perhaps - minor detail .....

Yes, it would be a minor detail to get an aircraft carrier under a motorway

 

[heathgate]

had the suspicion you were a nasty piece of work


just confirmed it

I would look back at your post to establish which one of us is a koont... your post was vile and inexcusable... think again boy.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[heathgate]

Thanks for the confirmation, it really wasn't necessary.

You have to resort to fraudulent alteration of others' posts to even get close to making a valid point..... we'll done you infant.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[glasfryn]

I would look back at your post to establish which one of us is a koont... your post was vile and inexcusable... think again boy.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

boy, I have been around a long time, your language proves my point, maybe you would like to quote the post you speak of,actually don't bother its easier to put you on the ignore list

 

[heathgate]

boy, I have been around a long time, your language proves my point, maybe you would like to quote the post you speak of,actually don't bother its easier to put you on the ignore list

Go for it...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Diego Napier]

You have to resort to fraudulent alteration of others' posts to even get close to making a valid point..... we'll done you infant.

Sent from my ars*hole Tapatalk

Oh get real you pompous flathead. As unbelievable as it may sound, one of your posts on this thread was facile enough to attract Das Reich's thumb. Talk about losing any shred of credibility.

 

[heathgate]

Oh get real you pompous flathead. As unbelievable as it may sound, one of your posts on this thread was facile enough to attract Das Reich's thumb. Talk about losing any shred of credibility.

Unlike you and your flaccid attempts to ingratiate yourself with the 'right on' socialist not so bright young things, on this and probably other boards, I don't give a rats arse for popularity and notoriety from an anonymous digital platform..... I prefer real people.


Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Diego Napier]

I don't give a rats arse for popularity and notoriety from an anonymous digital platform..... I prefer real people.


Sent from my ars*hole using Tapatalk

No you're just confirming your silliness