The Good News thread, local jobs, economy etc

[Rincewind]

He overheard it after bugging one of his mentor's phone.

[Alf Bentley]

More people in employment now than ever before seems rather boomy to me.

I believe most of the increase in self employment is down to 55+ ladies setting up cake making businesses, and similar, as a way of 'winding down' but still bringing in a small income.

 

At what point does a six-year, near continuous decline in real incomes cease to be a boom? There are more people than ever before in employment in Bangladesh, too.... 

 

Re. the lady cake makers, is it the increased output of millionaire's shortbread that has convinced you of this boom? They don't call you (Chocolate) Moussebreath for nothing! 

[Webbo]

The economy is such a complicated thing, dependent on so many things outside the control of govt that things will never be perfect. There are so many different stats recorded every month that you'll always find some that don't look as good as others. The fact is those who were on the dole are better off working than they were before.

You have to ask yourself which party do you trust most on the economy? The party that increased the deficit during a boom? The party whose idea to cure the debt crisis was to borrow more money?

Labour has no credible policies so all they can do is stir up class warfare. The idea of them getting in again is frightening.

[Guest MattP]

Well at least no one can accuse me of not bringing this up. Said for a while the deficit is still rising and we aren't doing enough to cut it.

It might get a bit better in Jan though when the vast majority of the self employed fill out tax returns.

The funny thing is some people are still moaning about 'the cuts' - if you think it's bad now just wait until we have to start actually cutting to pay our debts off. No party can tell the truth about what needs to be done as they wouldn't be elected. Still promising the public free money for things when you are 1, 400 billion in debt with a rising deficit is astounding.

Can you even begin to imagine what those figures would be in 2020 should Ed Balls get access to the credit card again? This is a man on record as saying he still to this day doesn't think our borrowing or deficit was ever too high.

I'm doing a Ken and seeing if I can take early retirement if they, I'm entitled to now at 32, paid in since I was 20.

[Rincewind]

Speaking as a relatively stupid twat, I'm interested to know where this 'booming' private sector jobs market is?

 

I would have a guess that it is either low-income jobs that are being created or they are elsewhere in the country, i.e. London & the South East.

 

As someone who is self-employed & earning a 'below average' income, I find that there is very little work available paying anything decent or in a worthwhile occupation.  The number of people self-employed is on the increase, not because we all envisage being millionaires one day, rather there is bugger all else out there.

This was stated on the 10 oclock news about more people in work but mostly low paid and self employed. Those on low pay and zero hour and part time will be claiming tax credits and benefits and the number has increased as more of the lower to lower middle are dragged below the  threshold set out by law. The deficit will never be cleared. They said on the news that borrowing has gone up. More is being paid out in benefits, You cannot continue to hit the worse off and vulnerable as they do not have enough. Unless we do as Moosebreat hinted and have legalised euthanasia for the disable,sick, elderly and vulnerable.

Maybe it won't be noticed by some when it happens if it is done over a period of time.

[MooseBreath]

At what point does a six-year, near continuous decline in real incomes cease to be a boom? There are more people than ever before in employment in Bangladesh, too....

Re. the lady cake makers, is it the increased output of millionaire's shortbread that has convinced you of this boom? They don't call you (Chocolate) Moussebreath for nothing!

It's a boom in employment. If one of the main risks of making cuts is rising unemployment, then one of the best times to make cuts is when there is an abundance of jobs available.

[Guest MattP]

Important to say though in the Tories defence, they weren't raising the deficit during the boom years.

Labour's borrowing in the 2000's was unforgivable given the economic state of the world.

Edited 22 October 2014 by MattP

[MooseBreath]

Well at least no one can accuse me of not bringing this up. Said for a while the deficit is still rising and we aren't doing enough to cut it.

It might get a bit better in Jan though when the vast majority of the self employed fill out tax returns.

The funny thing is some people are still moaning about 'the cuts' - if you think it's bad now just wait until we have to start actually cutting to pay our debts off. No party can tell the truth about what needs to be done as they wouldn't be elected. Still promising the public free money for things when you are 1, 400 billion in debt with a rising deficit is astounding.

Can you even begin to imagine what those figures would be in 2020 should Ed Balls get access to the credit card again? This is a man on record as saying he still to this day doesn't think our borrowing or deficit was ever too high.

I'm doing a Ken and seeing if I can take early retirement if they, I'm entitled to now at 32, paid in since I was 20.

If there was any integrity in politics all the main parties would come together and state that more severe cuts are needed and they're coming no matter who you vote for. As it stands I can see a really petulant class battle developing as labour pretend like they're going to hit 'the rich' when we all know they'll do more damage to the poor than anyone. The Tories will be accused of pandering to 'the rich' even as the vibrant growth generated by business remains the only bright spot on the horizon. Why not just put all that to one side, acknowledge that cuts need to be made, and have a proper discussion about the best way to make them. Edited 22 October 2014 by MooseBreath

[Alf Bentley]

You have to ask yourself which party do you trust most on the economy? The party that increased the deficit during a boom? The party whose idea to cure the debt crisis was to borrow more money?

 

 

Important to say though in the Tories defence, they weren't raising the deficit during the boom years.

Labour's borrowing in the 2000's was unforgivable given the economic state of the world.

 

I'm going to have to get that graph out again (deficit since 1980): http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

So, are you blokes also going to criticise Thatcher for running a deficit in 9 out of her 11 years in power? Major, for running a bigger deficit than Blair/Brown did until the 2008 crash? Was the economy in constant recession 1979-1997 or are you choosing not to criticise the Tories for running a deficit during a boom? I join you in your criticism of Labour for doing that in 2002-2007 (should've taxed more). Of course, they ran a surplus 1998-2001 and any govt would've had a deficit after the 2008 crash.

 

What is the right-wing economic view of deficits, anyway? "Budget surplus during a boom; deficit during a recession to stimulate demand" is centre-left (& Tory wet) Keynesian economics, so I'm surprised that you use it. I thought Thatcherites had jettisoned Keynes and all the lessons learned in the 1930s? I thought they believed that economic success was all about controlling the money supply and supply-side measures (e.g. squeezing labour costs to increase competitiveness)?

 

Debt v. Deficit: Whether the national debt needs to be reduced, as well as the budget deficit, is a tricky economic and a political judgment. Some countries deliberately run a long-term debt, as inflation will reduce the real burden and a small debt is definitely viable for a stable, developed country. At some point, it ceases to be viable as financial markets see it as a risk and reduce your credit rating, so that you have to pay more interest...on the other hand, reducing debt prematurely has adverse consequences (short-term, at least) as repaying debt means that you have to cut spending even more or increase tax yield. Which extra spending will you cut (NHS? Defence? Education? Completely eliminate the welfare state?)...and will such austerity destroy any recovery? However, public debt was massively increased after the 2008 crash, so the deficit needs to go sooner rather than later - we can't just keep adding to a large debt. To use the credit card metaphor: I've had about £4500 on my credit card for years, pay £25 interest per month, no problem....but if I kept adding to that debt, sooner or later I'd become too big a risk and the credit card company would pull the plug - or I'd be paying out so much interest that it would ruin my lifestyle!

 

Deficits and debt need to be cut sustainably, though. I could create my own personal budget surplus by reducing my food expenditure to zero....wouldn't be sustainable medium-term, though. I'd be better advised to increase my short-term debt by taking a training course to improve my long-term income. Similarly, Osborne's short-sighted slash-and-burn tactics will take us nowhere good. Real incomes falling for 6 years?! That really is unsustainable - as the fall in tax take shows. You can't just keep on cutting and cutting or the patient ends up dead. Sooner not later, demand needs to be stimulated (e.g. through much-needed housebuilding) so tax yield recovers - and then you can run a budget surplus without destroying tax take and causing social devastation.

 

Self-employed: Laugh as I might about Moose's cake-making ladies, I think he's closer to the truth than you, Matt. Here's that report about the incomes of the self-employed, Matt: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/SEI2013.pdf. If the average income of the self-employed is now down to £10,400 (excluding the top 2%), tax allowances are up to £10k and top rate tax has been cut (for the 2% or less of the self-employed earning that much), then there'll be no big January tax bonanza! We're mainly talking about people just scabbing enough to get by (like me!) or people doing a bit extra because their main income or their partner's income is falling in real terms. 

 

I agree with Nick, I mean Moose, that the NHS and the aging population transcend party politics. But, if the experts (including Tory experts) are saying that an extra £30bn will be needed by 2020 just to maintain current service levels, then that's a massive problem for the next government. Being cynical, it could make 2015 a good election to lose as whoever is elected, however well they perform and whatever policies they introduce, their reputation is likely to be ruined by 2020!

 

Oh! Anyone going to answer my queries about the cut in top rate tax for those on £150k to billionaires? How come that hasn't generated more tax than the 50% rate, as you said it would? And how is Osborne going to continue to justify it if he goes to the electorate with the deficit increasing and tax take falling, claiming that we need ever more spending cuts?!  Bluff and blame Brown, I suppose....might work in 2015, but not forever... 

[MooseBreath]

Thatcher inherited a wild economy, inflation was at something like 25% as the Labour government had borrowed and spent mountains of cash in a misguided push towards full employment. Thatcher cut spending and by the end had eliminated the deficit.

Major inherited a major recession, attempted to reduce the deficit and in the end passed Gordon Brown an economy that could barely fail.

Cameron has inherited a major recession and is in the process of cutting the deficit while creating jobs and growth.

See the pattern? Labour economic disasters followed by conservative clean up jobs that often take years to complete.

I'm all for spending on things that require government support like major infrastructure, but only if it can be afforded. I'm against wasteful spending on things like welfare and on industries that would be better off being privatised. Small government, low tax, personal responsibility, carefully targeted government spending and balanced books. That's what it's all about.

Edited 22 October 2014 by MooseBreath

[leicsmac]

Thatcher inherited a wild economy, inflation was at something like 25% as the Labour government had borrowed and spent mountains of cash in a misguided push towards full employment. Thatcher cut spending and by the end had eliminated the deficit.

Major inherited a major recession, attempted to reduce the deficit and in the end passed Gordon Brown an economy that could barely fail.

Cameron has inherited a major recession and is in the process of cutting the deficit while creating jobs and growth.

See the pattern? Labour economic disasters followed by conservative clean up jobs that often take years to complete.

I'm all for spending on things that require government support like major infrastructure, but only if it can be afforded. I'm against wasteful spending on things like welfare and on industries that would be better off being privatised. Small government, low tax, personal responsibility, carefully targeted government spending and balanced books. That's what it's all about.

 

And who did he inherit that from? 

[Rincewind]

A group of MP's

[Guest MattP]

I was going to say surely the response is that whenever the Tories get in the economy has generally been crippled by Labour and we have to start borrowing to rebuild.

 

Of course debt needs to be reduced, nothing can ever come good of having large debts, it jeopardises credit ratings, puts off investors and means you are paying far more off in interest which is money that could be spent elsewhere.

 

I agree on the fact that 2015 could be a good election to lose, but then with the financial state of the nation I think every single one will be for the rest of my lifetime, as a 30-something I real feel like I've missed the boat even if I have had some good times.

 

Who is to say the top rate of a tax cut hasn't worked, that could be one of the reasons why we have far more people employed, business owners may have re-invested that into companies, if people are spending more more people have to be in work to oversee all that entails.

[Guest MattP]

A group of MP's

 

Bad news for you Ken is next up for the cuts it's the pensioners, just in time for 2015 I bet.

[Rincewind]

Bad news for you Ken is next up for the cuts it's the pensioners, just in time for 2015 I bet.

Some of the old sods in the House of Lords will be worried then. One LibDem Dame was complaining that £300 a day was not enough. Poor dear.

[purpleronnie]

I was going to say surely the response is that whenever the Tories get in the economy has generally been crippled by Labour and we have to start borrowing to rebuild.

 

Of course debt needs to be reduced, nothing can ever come good of having large debts, it jeopardises credit ratings, puts off investors and means you are paying far more off in interest which is money that could be spent elsewhere.

 

I agree on the fact that 2015 could be a good election to lose, but then with the financial state of the nation I think every single one will be for the rest of my lifetime, as a 30-something I real feel like I've missed the boat even if I have had some good times.

 

Who is to say the top rate of a tax cut hasn't worked, that could be one of the reasons why we have far more people employed, business owners may have re-invested that into companies, if people are spending more more people have to be in work to oversee all that entails.

Are you blaming the worldwide financial crisis on labour?  The economy was doing just fine before that.

[leicsmac]

I was going to say surely the response is that whenever the Tories get in the economy has generally been crippled by Labour and we have to start borrowing to rebuild.

 

Of course debt needs to be reduced, nothing can ever come good of having large debts, it jeopardises credit ratings, puts off investors and means you are paying far more off in interest which is money that could be spent elsewhere.

 

I agree on the fact that 2015 could be a good election to lose, but then with the financial state of the nation I think every single one will be for the rest of my lifetime, as a 30-something I real feel like I've missed the boat even if I have had some good times.

 

Who is to say the top rate of a tax cut hasn't worked, that could be one of the reasons why we have far more people employed, business owners may have re-invested that into companies, if people are spending more more people have to be in work to oversee all that entails.

 

I'm curious as to exactly who we're in debt to? 

 

As PR above said, the economy was doing pretty damned good right up to the point some American tosspots tried to play casino with the world economy and lost. Of course Labour are fvcking stupid for not adequately preparing for such a scenario but...

 

As an aside, I take a look at the country I'm working in now. Similar population, similar land size. Yet economically it seems to be doing far far better than the UK right now. I wonder why? Perhaps because they still actually make stuff that they can export en masse and like updating their transportation infrastructure on a regular basis?

Edited 22 October 2014 by leicsmac

[Rincewind]

Those on benefits did not invest enough in the banks which caused the bankers to lose millions and led to the crash so it is all the fault of the low paid workers.

Most of the businesses I see that are new are Pound shops and money lending shops. All the steel ship building hosiery car industries are about gone.  Where are the houses? France built more and they said it was not good enough.

Edited 22 October 2014 by Rincewind

[Guest MattP]

Are you blaming the worldwide financial crisis on labour?  The economy was doing just fine before that.

 

Might have been for you but a lot would disagree. Most people weren't wealthy at all, they were just being given the impression they were by the amount they were being allowed to borrow, you had barmaids on minimum wage buying Vutton handbags on credit cards, you struggled to find a person who didn;t have a large overdraft they were living out of.

 

As Alf has explained in his post, given the state of the finances it was inexcusable for Labour to be borrowing in between 2002-2007, they used it to raise borrowing even more, totally unacceptable and what looks in hindsight that a complete attempt to keep buying power.

 

We were all sailing into the storm when the crisis hit, but not at the vessels were in the crooked state that our ship was.

[Alf Bentley]

Thatcher inherited a wild economy, inflation was at something like 25% as the Labour government had borrowed and spent mountains of cash in a misguided push towards full employment. Thatcher cut spending and by the end had eliminated the deficit.

Major inherited a major recession, attempted to reduce the deficit and in the end passed Gordon Brown an economy that could barely fail.

Cameron has inherited a major recession and is in the process of cutting the deficit while creating jobs and growth.

See the pattern? Labour economic disasters followed by conservative clean up jobs that often take years to complete.

I'm all for spending on things that require government support like major infrastructure, but only if it can be afforded. I'm against wasteful spending on things like welfare and on industries that would be better off being privatised. Small government, low tax, personal responsibility, carefully targeted government spending and balanced books. That's what it's all about.

 

 No, I don't see the pattern at all...

- While the 74-79 Labour govt deserves criticism, it inherited high and rising inflation from Heath's Tories, plus an oil crisis; Heath had presided over a 3-day week and been thrown out of office

- Thatcher maintained a deficit from 1979 until 1987, and the budge was back in deficit by 1990, before she was knifed by the Tories (look at the graph)

- "Major inherited a major recession"....indeed he did! He inherited it from Thatcher (or more specifically from the "Lawson boom")....Labour hadn't been in office for 11 years then!

- Despite justified criticisms, the economy thrived under Brown from 1997 until 2008 (global financial crash)....11 years, no temporary inherited blip; he ran a budget surplus from 1998 to 2001 due to the decision to stick to Tory spending plans....which Ken Clarke (outgoing Tory Chancellor) is on record as saying that he wouldn't have done! So, by 2001 the deficit would actually have been back and higher under the Tories, according to Clarke!

 

The only pattern that I see is one of a post-imperial country with structural problems consistently refusing to invest and to plan its economic future until it is forced to. Short-termism is a pattern, as is the desire of all political parties to pretend that we can have high-quality public services AND low taxes. I give the Tories some credit for finally being the ones to grasp the nettle and reform pensions. Someone's going to have to do something similar for the NHS & social services, unless we want either much higher taxes or Dickensian misery and squalor...

 

"Major inherited a major recession"....from a cabinet that he was a member of!  Give me strength! Labour deserve some criticism, but a less one-eyed analysis from the Tory boys would be appreciated!

[Alf Bentley]

Might have been for you but a lot would disagree. Most people weren't wealthy at all, they were just being given the impression they were by the amount they were being allowed to borrow, you had barmaids on minimum wage buying Vutton handbags on credit cards, you struggled to find a person who didn;t have a large overdraft they were living out of.

 

As Alf has explained in his post, given the state of the finances it was inexcusable for Labour to be borrowing in between 2002-2007, they used it to raise borrowing even more, totally unacceptable and what looks in hindsight that a complete attempt to keep buying power.

 

We were all sailing into the storm when the crisis hit, but not at the vessels were in the crooked state that our ship was.

 

The general criticism re. 2002-2007 is a fair one, even if much of the spending was desperately needed investment in schools and hospitals, which the Tories had left in a horrendous state (some of it was money wasted, too, as it is under any govt).

 

Seriously, though, Matt - have a look at the graph that I posted. After loosening the belt post-2001, the deficit under Labour stayed quite level until the 2008 crash...at a level lower than under Major 1992-95.

 

Labour shouldn't have been running a deficit during a boom, but the idea that they were increasing the deficit is a falsehood (though they were increasing the debt, like the Tories before them).

 

Any Tory/UKIP boys want to lay into Thatcher for running a deficit 9 years out of 11, or into Major during every year he was in No. 10.....and at a higher level than Brown 1997-2007?! 

Edited 22 October 2014 by Alf Bentley

[Webbo]

The general criticism re. 2002-2007 is a fair one, even if much of the spending was desperately needed investment in schools and hospitals, which the Tories had left in a horrendous state (some of it was money wasted, too, as it is under any govt).

 

 

I think much needed is debatable. My old school Soar Valley was completely flattened and rebuilt. The original building was built in 1972. I believe the proposed HQ for the East Midlands Fire service built under PPI costs us £5 million a year and stands completely empty. If the Tories had spent money like that they'd be accused of funneling money to their rich friends.  

[MooseBreath]

As an aside, I take a look at the country I'm working in now. Similar population, similar land size. Yet economically it seems to be doing far far better than the UK right now. I wonder why? Perhaps because they still actually make stuff that they can export en masse and like updating their transportation infrastructure on a regular basis?

Relatively low welfare spending?

[leicsmac]

Relatively low welfare spending?

 

7.6% of GDP, which by comparison to other OECD nations is pretty low.

 

They are however pretty big on nationalised industries (or at least part-to-most-owned, especially in the fields of communication and transportation) and those industries spending a lot on infrastructure projects. 

[Alf Bentley]

I think much needed is debatable. My old school Soar Valley was completely flattened and rebuilt. 

 

They did that with Cromwell Street, Gloucester, too, after the Wests were caught. Best thing for it. Eliminates all unfortunate association with unsavoury elements.