If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life11 mins ago
Osborne
Is it true , Osborne is in charge of the slowest financial recovery for one hundred years. ??? I know a certain answer bank member, is going to reply saying it is the fault of the previous government, but Osborne is a member of the present government , who have been in power for over three years.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hawksley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i do not know if it is the slowest in 100 years, but it has been slow, I don't think that can be seriously disputed.
The problem about arguing over economics is that there is absolutely no way of telling if an alternative method - a Plan B, if you will - would have helped or hindered the rate of recovery.
Personally, I still think it too early to be entirely optimistic that the recession is over, and certainly the economic data is not that good that you can be smug about the management of the recession itself or certain that the policies you adopted were instrumental in that recovery.
The problem about arguing over economics is that there is absolutely no way of telling if an alternative method - a Plan B, if you will - would have helped or hindered the rate of recovery.
Personally, I still think it too early to be entirely optimistic that the recession is over, and certainly the economic data is not that good that you can be smug about the management of the recession itself or certain that the policies you adopted were instrumental in that recovery.
No idea.
But if it was Labour's gradual method of economic recovery as opposed to the Conservatives rapid response method.........it would have been even slower.....but probably more sustained......I don't know,as LazyGun has pointed out.
I think that we all agree that the economic state of the country when the Coalition took over was "extraordinary, but who was at fault..........depends upon your Poiltics.
But if it was Labour's gradual method of economic recovery as opposed to the Conservatives rapid response method.........it would have been even slower.....but probably more sustained......I don't know,as LazyGun has pointed out.
I think that we all agree that the economic state of the country when the Coalition took over was "extraordinary, but who was at fault..........depends upon your Poiltics.
The economy is far from being OK. The great tragedy in Britain today is not the huge unemployment figures, especially among the young, but the poor wages that millions of people in work actually get paid. Lots of them are paid so poorly that despite not being unemployed, they still qualify for state handouts, in order to make ends meet. This isn't a party political point as it occurred under Labour as well.
I'd be the first to admit it's a bit of a statistical game
You can point out that every Tory Prime Minister since McMillan lead us into a recession.
More accurate to say every PM apart from Blair did so!
In reality I think politicians have far less control over the economy than they like to pretend.
The controls they have are generally very crude and slow to take effect
You can point out that every Tory Prime Minister since McMillan lead us into a recession.
More accurate to say every PM apart from Blair did so!
In reality I think politicians have far less control over the economy than they like to pretend.
The controls they have are generally very crude and slow to take effect
It depends what you mean by recovery and where you start from.
GDP growth when the Coalition came to power was 1% in June 2010.
Three years later in August 2013 it is 0.7%.
By anyones measure, that is not good. If people are claiming that the economy is now in good shape, they have to admit it was in better shape when the country dumped Labour.
The economy was not good in 2010 and it is not good now.
GDP growth when the Coalition came to power was 1% in June 2010.
Three years later in August 2013 it is 0.7%.
By anyones measure, that is not good. If people are claiming that the economy is now in good shape, they have to admit it was in better shape when the country dumped Labour.
The economy was not good in 2010 and it is not good now.
I think we are borrowing more. One problem is that attempts to cut spending on specific things such as welfare costs, pension reforms, public sector pay restraint will be resisted. I don't particularly like Osborne but I'm not convinced that there's actually much any Chancellor can do to change the direction of a tanker like this. Isn't the same happening in every country? At least we still have a generous benefits system, an NHS, falling unemployment and an economy that doesn't require a bailout from Europe.
Three years to get out of the mess we were in? It will be more like ten, no matter who has the reigns. The big problem is that is is a world-wide confidence thing.
Generally it is better to be a slow recovery or you end up with boom and bust ... again.
I'm no fan of George, he did not cut anywhere deep enough for my liking and still isn't. But to be honest I am not sure any method would have increased speed - if that is what is wanted.
Generally it is better to be a slow recovery or you end up with boom and bust ... again.
I'm no fan of George, he did not cut anywhere deep enough for my liking and still isn't. But to be honest I am not sure any method would have increased speed - if that is what is wanted.
I should clarify the "I think we are borrowing more" statement. It depends on whether we are talking about the debt figure or the deficit.
This chart is interesting.
http://
This FT article shows the picture is not at all straightforward
http://
This chart is interesting.
http://
This FT article shows the picture is not at all straightforward
http://
The amount a country borrows is not an indicator on it's own, it needs to be measured vs other things such as GDP.
And this is the problem, what do you measure and how do you equate this into confidence?
It would help if we(the press mainly) all got behind the economy and lauded it rather than putting it down all the time. Regardless of who caused who has not made it better in a short time etc etc.
That is how we will get out of it.
And this is the problem, what do you measure and how do you equate this into confidence?
It would help if we(the press mainly) all got behind the economy and lauded it rather than putting it down all the time. Regardless of who caused who has not made it better in a short time etc etc.
That is how we will get out of it.
The only reason it can be claimed that B-liar didn't lead us into recession is that he greased his way so far up the corporate pole that he got out in time when he could see (or should have been able to see) the way things were going and dumped everything on Brown.
I know it's fashionable to sneer at Brown, and I'm no Labour supported, but I do think that the history of the crash of 2008 will judge him to have acted correctly.
B-liar is still laughing all the way to the bank and I think will be judged to have been one of the most dishonourable people to have occupied No 10.
I know it's fashionable to sneer at Brown, and I'm no Labour supported, but I do think that the history of the crash of 2008 will judge him to have acted correctly.
B-liar is still laughing all the way to the bank and I think will be judged to have been one of the most dishonourable people to have occupied No 10.
1 to 15 of 15
