But Labourites said the recovery was over.....?

13

Comments

  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems that the Conservatives and supporters are still in pre-election mode!


    Making grand claims of mission accomplished is not going to work. They must actually deliver on the economy, or else. After 10 years of "war" (austerity) the public will not forgive any failure.

    And "the economy" is the spending money in people pockets, not facts 'n figures.
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    <sigh> A forecast, not an opinion, based on new information.

    You want to revise your opinion in the light of this new information?

    "Research by the CBI suggests" is not really a forecast.
  • JT2060JT2060 Posts: 5,370
    Forum Member
    Tassium wrote: »
    It seems that the Conservatives and supporters are still in pre-election mode!


    Making grand claims of mission accomplished is not going to work. They must actually deliver on the economy, or else. After 10 years of "war" (austerity) the public will not forgive any failure.

    And "the economy" is the spending money in people pockets, not facts 'n figures.

    Hopefully Labour will stay in pre election mode. It worked well for them.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    My God. How many more times do we have to do this.

    The CBI predicting growth is not the same as there actually being growth. Shouldn't we wait until we get the actual figures in before we start celebrating?
  • NeverEnoughNeverEnough Posts: 3,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Obviously there is no recovery. The public know it as well.

    And there isn't going to be a recovery, the government have no economic plan other than to hope for the best.

    But this inflammatory thread does demonstrate the tremendous bias in moderation these days, try starting a thread mentioning the "Nasty Party"

    Really? The public knows of this dastardly fiction? And yet they didn't vote to expose this lie with a resounding Labour majority?

    And how is linking to a piece by the CBI on the BBC website (Two pillars of the establishment) "inflammatory"? :confused:
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,340
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Really? The public knows of this dastardly fiction? And yet they didn't vote to expose this lie with a resounding Labour majority?

    And how is linking to a piece by the CBI on the BBC website (Two pillars of the establishment) "inflammatory"? :confused:

    Well we in the NHS have had 1% over three years care to explain why this is not even inflationary.?:o

    If the economy is doing so well.;-).
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Really? The public knows of this dastardly fiction? And yet they didn't vote to expose this lie with a resounding Labour majority?

    And how is linking to a piece by the CBI on the BBC website (Two pillars of the establishment) "inflammatory"? :confused:

    Because it is not fact but merely a prediction.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,647
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭


    Well we in the NHS have had 1% over three years care to explain why this is not even inflationary.?:o

    The same reason why many people in the private sector haven't had an above inflation pay rise in the last few years.

    The last few years have been tough but at least we didn't see the mass unemployment which was predicted by many back in 2008. Budgets have been squeezed but we didn't see the massive public sector cuts they Portugal, Greece and Spain had. We (and a millions of others) may not have a real terms pay rise in the last few years but at least we kept our jobs.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    "Research by the CBI suggests" is not really a forecast.

    Why not? If it's good enough for governments, businesses etc. to build business models, loaded with forecasts - what's your problem?

    If it's semantics, research always suggests. It's never categorical.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    My God. How many more times do we have to do this.

    The CBI predicting growth is not the same as there actually being growth. Shouldn't we wait until we get the actual figures in before we start celebrating?

    We? When was the last time you celebrated growth?
  • B-29B-29 Posts: 2,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meepers wrote: »
    Jol, which is a better result?

    A small majority?

    A massive loss?

    On jolworld which is near Blatterworld , a massive loss is better.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    Why not? If it's good enough for governments, businesses etc. to build business models, loaded with forecasts - what's your problem?

    If it's semantics, research always suggests. It's never categorical.

    Yes Osborne did that in 2010.

    Remind me how that worked out for him?
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    David Tee wrote: »
    Why not? If it's good enough for governments, businesses etc. to build business models, loaded with forecasts - what's your problem?

    If it's semantics, research always suggests. It's never categorical.

    But when "official figures revealed...the slowest quarterly growth for two years" that's not overturned by "Research by the CBI suggests"
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meepers wrote: »
    I was merely pointing out the good economic news, as the Labourites on here were to so keen to point out any bad.

    But interesting that these figures are different to other sources. Nothing shady there then!
  • mungobrushmungobrush Posts: 9,332
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    But when "official figures revealed...the slowest quarterly growth for two years" that's not overturned by "Research by the CBI suggests"

    Don't worry.
    The next election isn't until 2020
    By then we'll have had another 5 years of increased prosperity
    And with Labour still dithering on the sidelines there will be no opposition.
    Growth and prosperity is assured.
  • greenyonegreenyone Posts: 3,545
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meepers wrote: »
    I was merely pointing out the good economic news, as the Labourites on here were to so keen to point out any bad.

    No you were not we all know what you were doing though :D
  • GormagonGormagon Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Recovery is always slower than the decline, that is and always will be the case.

    What the morons in charge need to get through there brick-hard heads is that a reserve must be built up before they start pee-ing money up the wall again.

    We need a fiscal tank, a reserve, a black-hole full of cash that can be dipped into the next time this happens.

    I don't blame Labour or Brown for the crash, that would be stupid, but I do blame Brown, and Brown only for not having a modicum of reserve tucked away, he spent too much and took no heed of future requirements.
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mungobrush wrote: »
    Don't worry.
    The next election isn't until 2020
    By then we'll have had another 5 years of increased prosperity
    And with Labour still dithering on the sidelines there will be no opposition.
    Growth and prosperity is assured.

    Because ""Research by the CBI suggests"?
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gormagon wrote: »
    Recovery is always slower than the decline, that is and always will be the case.

    What the morons in charge need to get through there brick-hard heads is that a reserve must be built up before they start pee-ing money up the wall again.

    We need a fiscal tank, a reserve, a black-hole full of cash that can be dipped into the next time this happens.

    I don't blame Labour or Brown for the crash, that would be stupid, but I do blame Brown, and Brown only for not having a modicum of reserve tucked away, he spent too much and took no heed of future requirements.

    But that "too much" spending has been increased by Osborne.
  • GormagonGormagon Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    But that "too much" spending has been increased by Osborne.

    Thats not spending, thats repayment.
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gormagon wrote: »
    Thats not spending, thats repayment.

    We haven't made any repayments, the debt is going up.
  • GormagonGormagon Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    We haven't made any repayments, the debt is going up.

    Repayment on debt.

    Should we just ignore debt and spend again?
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    andykn wrote: »
    We haven't made any repayments, the debt is going up.

    True, but now the Tories have a majority they can make all of the necessary cuts and significantly reduce the debt.
  • GormagonGormagon Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    True, but now the Tories have a majority they can make all of the necessary cuts and significantly reduce the debt.

    Should we ignore the debt and just not repay?
  • GeneralissimoGeneralissimo Posts: 6,289
    Forum Member
    Gormagon wrote: »
    Should we ignore the debt and just not repay?

    I think I said just the opposite, didn't I?
Sign In or Register to comment.