Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Monkeynut]

Growth rates:

2010 2011 2012 2013
1.9 1.6 0.7 1.7 UK
2.5 1.6 2.3 2.2 US

Growth was close to 2% in 2010, the Tories came in and they killed it for 3 years. The US did the opposite of austerity, they spent dollars to stimulate their economy which resulted in a low but steady growth.

Yes the UK is growing again now, as are quite a few other countries but those 3 years are lost so I ask you, for what? The debt did not decrease, it didn't even slow down so what did austerity actually do?

You missed out the 2014 figures. UK 2.8% growth, U.S 2.4%.

 

[Mr Jack]

Last time I checked it was one of the fastest growing.

It's growing at about the rate it was when the Tories took over after three long years in which we had virtually no growth at all. This still puts us behind on international comparisons since the economy finally spluttered back to life so much later than in other countries. This does not constitute a success.

It's also only really managed to turn around because Osborne dialled back on austerity and, particularly absurdly, decided to help blow up a fresh housing bubble.

 

[Zethor]

The US also in that period became virtually self sufficient for oil and such like resources due to shale gas exposure, and the industry that created, keeping considerable wealth within their own nation that previously flooded out externally.
Did that affect their growth figures? No-one ever comments.

Russia or Nigeria rely on natural resources for growth, developed nations don't.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=25673

 

[delta0]

It's growing at about the rate it was when the Tories took over after three long years in which we had virtually no growth at all. This still puts us behind on international comparisons since the economy finally spluttered back to life so much later than in other countries. This does not constitute a success.

It's also only really managed to turn around because Osborne dialled back on austerity and, particularly absurdly, decided to help blow up a fresh housing bubble.

It is exceptional performance for us.

 

[delta0]

Growth rates:

2010 2011 2012 2013
1.9 1.6 0.7 1.7 UK
2.5 1.6 2.3 2.2 US

Growth was close to 2% in 2010, the Tories came in and they killed it for 3 years. The US did the opposite of austerity, they spent dollars to stimulate their economy which resulted in a low but steady growth.

Yes the UK is growing again now, as are quite a few other countries but those 3 years are lost so I ask you, for what? The debt did not decrease, it didn't even slow down so what did austerity actually do?

UK is now ahead of all G7.

 

[Glaucus]

The selected stats. Couldnot possibly be other massive differences US has over us.
This thread is pretty scary, that people think you can just keep spending more than you make. Thanks to labour we were stuffed. In boom tomes you save, in recessions you spend.
But we couldn't do that, as labour spent spent spent in boom time.

One thing we need to adopt, is US willingness to support new technology/companies. Even though a fair amount fail, the ones that make it far outweigh the failures. We in the UK aren't willing to take that risk.

 

[Zethor]

You missed out the 2014 figures. UK 2.8% growth, U.S 2.4%.

Latvia was at 4% and you missed the point. The economy is improving for the whole of Europe now, not just the UK.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2014_spring_forecast_en.htm

I repeat, why was austerity needed? What did it accomplish? And how does implementing failed policies make the Tories more fiscally responsible?

 

[Destination]

Russia or Nigeria rely on natural resources for growth, developed nations don't.

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=25673

You can't just look at growth, but also at income. Norway sure as hell do.
They're reasonably developed.
If an entire industry which didn't exists suddenly exists, that has to contribute to growth. I just wondered how much. The wall of stats you have linked don't seem to suggest any answer to my question regarding employment, income, money kept within the country as opposed to leaving the country.

Even as late as 2011 the US had a trade deficit in oil and gas of $354 billion. In a year’s time the US will begin to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). It is expected to become a net exporter of energy in 2018/19.

 

[Scania]

the UK is not even close to being broke, the debt is not that high.

As of Q4 2014 our national debt was £1.51 Trillion pounds (88.1% of GDP) - you think that's not high?

In 1997, National debt was circa £350 Billion(40% of GDP) during Labours 13years in office it more than doubled to 80% completely unsustainable and exactly the boom & bust that Brown and Milliband claimed to have seen the back of.

Whilst historically we've had higher debt,due to world wars for example, it doesn't mean we're sitting pretty now, far from it.

We need a government comitted to stop borrowing and spend a lot less, unpalatable as it undoubtedly is,this government is trying to do just that, if we continue as we did during the previous Labour term in office, our grandchildrens children will be saddled with our debt of today!

 

[Deleted member 66701]

 

[Mr Jack]

As of Q4 2014 our national debt was £1.51 Trillion pounds (88.1% of GDP) - you think that's not high?

It's high; it's not that high that it requires us to adopt urgent austerity measures to combat it.

In 1997, National debt was circa £350 Billion(40% of GDP) during Labours 13years in office it more than doubled to 80% completely unsustainable and exactly the boom & bust that Brown and Milliband claimed to have seen the back of.

It increase only because of the credit crunch. Prior to the crunch it had fallen as a share of GDP.

We need a government comitted to stop borrowing and spend a lot less, unpalatable as it undoubtedly is,this government is trying to do just that, if we continue as we did during the previous Labour term in office, our grandchildrens children will be saddled with our debt of today!

This is happening anyway for two reasons: firstly, austerity isn't working and, secondly, quite a number of the austerity measures are pushing income from young to old: observe how working age benefits are being slashed to pay for higher pensions and how the Lib Dem's tuition fees policy not only means people will still be paying for their education when their own children go to university but almost 50% of the debt will have to be written off in 30 years time, dumping a fresh debt burden onto future taxpayers.

The way to deal with debt is growth and (moderate) inflation.

 

[Mr Jack]

It is exceptional performance for us.

Only if you mean exceptionally poor. We've had very weak growth for many years, a little spurt of barely above trend (and falling back to below trend in the latest quarter) growth doesn't mean we're doing well.

Austerity has been an economic and social disaster for this country and has manifestly failed to do what it was supposed to do: balance the books in this parliament. The coalition has cut the deficit by just 40%.

 

[Zethor]

You can't just look at growth, but also at income. Norway sure as hell do.
They're reasonably developed.
If an entire industry which didn't exists suddenly exists, that has to contribute to growth. I just wondered how much. The wall of stats you have linked don't seem to suggest any answer to my question regarding employment, income, money kept within the country as opposed to leaving the country.

Firstly, Norway is an exception because of its tiny population compared to its huge supply of natural resources.

Secondly, the shale gas industry did not magically appear in the US out of nowhere and, in fact, the production slowed down in 2012. Shale gas is not a significant contributor to the US' growth, I don't know where you got that idea but it's simply wrong. There's a lot of literature online on the subject of the country's growth in recent years, feel free to read it.

 

[Tunney]

Interesting to see how many people are happy with the coalition. There was a lot of scaremongering in 2010 that coalition politics would lead to chaos.

I wonder if more people would be in favour of proportional representation now?

 

[xs2man]

Love that picture. The text is a bit misleading though, since cigarettes and alcohol do actually take a long time to kill you, and are both heavily taxed, so I'm quite sure most smokers / drinkers in the country have paid for their NHS treatment already.

Only if you mean exceptionally poor. We've had very weak growth for many years, a little spurt of barely above trend (and falling back to below trend in the latest quarter) growth doesn't mean we're doing well.

Austerity has been an economic and social disaster for this country and has manifestly failed to do what it was supposed to do: balance the books in this parliament. The coalition has cut the deficit by just 40%.

40% is a huge margin though. It means we are almost halfway there. Compared to other approaches, I think we have done well.

Gone are the days that a country can afford to start massive infrastructure rebuilding in order to kick start economies. Too high wages and too much health and safety for that to become a viable option again.

 

[sityeuropa]

I've not felt any austerity? Is it because I work?

 

[Destination]

40% is a huge margin though. It means we are almost halfway there. Compared to other approaches, I think we have done well.

Gone are the days that a country can afford to start massive infrastructure rebuilding in order to kick start economies. Too high wages and too much health and safety for that to become a viable option again.

Unfortunately this is exactly what Commander Balls is planning.

 

[Scotty123]

It's a tough choice. Ed Balls is my MP. So it will be whoever has the best chance of ousting him. His majority was around 1k at the last election I think.

 

[robgmun]

snip

Lets see what happens if you get cancer but the hospital you go to has run out of money to give you the best treatment.

 

[scorza]

Unfortunately this is exactly what Commander Balls is planning.

It's a good idea - one we can afford and one that will result in jobs, growth and prosperity. Ed Balls has at least taught economics at Harvard, unlike the so-called "experts" in this thread. George Osborne's only real job was folding towels in John Lewis.