"UK economy back at pre-crisis level"

[MerinPally]

I think it's pretty sad that UK politics has descended to the level where the prime minister's looks are so important.



The "labour wrecks, tories fix" story is pretty much a myth. This recent recession is part of a global economic downturn and I think you might be assigning a bit too much power to Brown and Blair if you think they were that influential. I really doubt the Conservatives would have handled it much better particularly when they still have to pander to the further-right tendencies of their grass-roots supporters.

Looking back at the past 50 years, almost all of our recessions have been linked to fluctuations in the world economy with the most likely exception being the early 80s which might have been due to Tory policy. Overall though I think the economy is mostly beyond the capabilities of a single government to manage, at least to the extent people tend to credit them with.

Well, looks are important. It's a shame but they matter, it's an image we're selling. Ed Miliband has come out today claiming that he can never match an image like Cameron and thus admits it's going to be a point of weakness for Labour.

Maybe so, it's a deeply complex issue and the few years that a government is in power is not going to completely uproot and revert it. However, the way we got to the economy we have now can be traced back to the Thatcher regime, and if at best case scenario Labour didn't do anything that hurt the economy, historically they've had slower growth than a tory government.

[Deleted]

Really, Thatcher?

Privatisation, poll tax, tax cuts for high earners, the allowing of inequality to flourish, and crippling trade unions? Putting Thatcher and Churchill in the same league is like equating a pot smoker to a serial killer.

NAhh, I'm with him on this. Pretty bad fan of thatcher. I know she made some mistakes, I don't think anyone would argue poll tax was a good idea, but... economically speaking, in the long run, I feel like she's saved out country from disaster. I think she's one of those people who are good to have around for a wee while so they can fix a lot of the broken things and trim the fat, but you don't wanna keep them around too long or they start to go off the rails a bit.

[MerinPally]

Just pointing out that those of us lucky enough to have competent leadership didn't throw away half a decade's worth of economic growth to add even more debt. But hey, enjoy your stagnation.

Hey if the UK could have Obama we'd accept him with open arms, as would most of western europe. None of us can understand why any of you would want a republican government.

Edit: We'd also let him get on with stuff. If Obama was allowed to do things it'd be great, the republicans cockblock him from doing anything useful. You aren't competent, but you are able to be competent if you stopped acting like children.

[Hyve]

Just pointing out that those of us lucky enough to have competent leadership didn't throw away half a decade's worth of economic growth to add even more debt. But hey, enjoy your stagnation.

You think the U.S. has had competent leadership? Seriously ...

Again, you're comparing a super power that owns the world currency, has the largest economy and also can self-support regardless of international or nation debt. You're clearly incapable of seeing the difference so i'll just ignore you ...

[Durandro]

Well, looks are important. It's a shame but they matter, it's an image we're selling. Ed Miliband has come out today claiming that he can never match an image like Cameron and thus admits it's going to be a point of weakness for Labour.

While Ed isn't a 'looker', Cameron is looking more and more like a balding chubby schoolboy. Anymore remember those hilariously shiney airbrushed pictures of him during the last elections?

[Deleted]

I could have sworn I read an article the other day saying that the economy is on the up.

God damn onion articles.

[Deleted]

Just pointing out that those of us lucky enough to have competent leadership didn't throw away half a decade's worth of economic growth to add even more debt. But hey, enjoy your stagnation.

Almost had me there.

[MerinPally]

Really, Thatcher?

Privatisation, poll tax, tax cuts for high earners, the allowing of inequality to flourish, and crippling trade unions? Putting Thatcher and Churchill in the same league is like equating a pot smoker to a serial killer.

Whilst I wouldn't compare them as such, without Thatcher things would be massively different. She modernised the UK economy and it was severely needed, she just did it bullheadedly. She did to our economy, what Obama is doing to the US health system - dragging it forward even if they have to do it kicking and screaming, as it's for the best whether they're willing to accept it or not. Unemployment dropped massively until 1990 and growth was the highest in Europe for a period.

[Durandro]

What are the alternatives? Labour? Can you really see a milliband running anything? The pair of them are jokes, and the one we are left with is no better than the weakling they got rid of. Lib Dem? Yep. Just... Yep. UKIP? I dunno, as much as racism and homophobia DO make my knickers damp, I don't think it's the best idea. Tories may be bad but what is the alternative? Well, either way I don't vote. Unless I could vote for myself.

Labour is the only safe bet right now. If I thought they could win I'd vote Green in an instant.

But with Labour, their main weakness is their leader. He can be replaced, since UK politics is different to US politics in that we vote for the Party and not the PM (hense why Gordon Brown became PM without an election - and honestly I think he was better then Blair and helped stop the UK suffering from the recession as much as it could have. The guy is extremely modest too, and keeps to himself now - which I can apprieciate a lot. And he doesn't even claim the money he's allowed to from being the former PM!).

But I digress. Labour is better then nothing. Even if they just maintain a status quo, its better then tearing up the floorboards searching for more things to sell off to private investors (i.e. Fracking...).

[Deleted]

NAhh, I'm with him on this. Pretty bad fan of thatcher. I know she made some mistakes, I don't think anyone would argue poll tax was a good idea, but... economically speaking, in the long run, I feel like she's saved out country from disaster. I think she's one of those people who are good to have around for a wee while so they can fix a lot of the broken things and trim the fat, but you don't wanna keep them around too long or they start to go off the rails a bit.

She didn't. Look at the various economic areas in the following link, she didn't really do anything of any significance, other than cause lasting social damage.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/27...aret-thatcher/

You can disagree with the conclusion the author draws, but not the figures given.

[Durandro]

As opposed to the Lib Dems who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, and labour who has a history of wrecking the economy only for the tories to fix it every time albeit slowly and sometimes on a bumpy path? Yeah I understand his thinking.

I think you're confused now.

The recession was global. Not the fault of the government. The Conservatives fixed nothing - they made things worse!

And do you remember the state of the economy in the 80's and early 90's? You know, the time the Tories were in power? It was like it was today - great if you're rich, sucks to be poor. And national debt was higher, and Labour reduced that over the 10 years Labour were in power. By a lot, infact.

So don't even try it.

[MerinPally]

She didn't. Look at the various economic areas in the following link, she didn't really do anything of any significance, other than cause lasting social damage.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/27...aret-thatcher/

You can disagree with the conclusion the author draws, but not the figures given.

What would have happened if she hadn't revolutionised the economy though? We can only speculate, but not entirely. We had necrotic parts to our system, she was the only one with the balls to cut them off rather than let them get worse.

[Deleted]

Whilst I wouldn't compare them as such, without Thatcher things would be massively different. She modernised the UK economy and it was severely needed, she just did it bullheadedly. She did to our economy, what Obama is doing to the US health system - dragging it forward even if they have to do it kicking and screaming, as it's for the best whether they're willing to accept it or not. Unemployment dropped massively until 1990 and growth was the highest in Europe for a period.

What? Thathcher caused massive unemployment, I've no clue where you got that from.

See the link I just posted, unemployment rose until 1984, spiking at 12% and dropped to 7% in 1990. Where did you get the notion that unemployment dropped until 1990??

[Dhrizzle]

As a working-class Northerner I am socially and genetically destined to hate Thatcher but even then I can't deny that her regime was beneficial to the UK economy. I just don't think the social costs were worth it.

[Deleted]

What would have happened if she hadn't revolutionised the economy though? We can only speculate, but not entirely. We had necrotic parts to our system, she was the only one with the balls to cut them off rather than let them get worse.

The impacts attributed to her are rarely directly linked to any choice she made, she caused massive unemployment whilst also cutting social support.

Saying she was great because we don't know how it could have been worse is meaningless. I can just as easily say we'd have been 500% better off, and it would be just as legitimate.

[MerinPally]

What? Thathcher caused massive unemployment, I've no clue where you got that from.

See the link I just posted, unemployment rose until 1984, spiking at 12% and dropped to 7% in 1990. Where did you get the notion that unemployment dropped until 1990??

I meant that drop. I know that it rose at first. She made things worse, and then took things forward from there. A potentially necessary evil in order to improve things. We couldn't continue how we were.

[Dhrizzle]

What would have happened if she hadn't revolutionised the economy though? We can only speculate, but not entirely. We had necrotic parts to our system, she was the only one with the balls to cut them off rather than let them get worse.

You'll note that she cut away the parts that traditionally supported Labour, whilst other economically unviable sectors - such as agriculture - have a traditionally Conservative following and still receive subsidies.

[Deleted]

Labour is the only safe bet right now. If I thought they could win I'd vote Green in an instant.

But with Labour, their main weakness is their leader. He can be replaced, since UK politics is different to US politics in that we vote for the Party and not the PM (hense why Gordon Brown became PM without an election - and honestly I think he was better then Blair and helped stop the UK suffering from the recession as much as it could have. The guy is extremely modest too, and keeps to himself now - which I can apprieciate a lot. And he doesn't even claim the money he's allowed to from being the former PM!).

But I digress. Labour is better then nothing. Even if they just maintain a status quo, its better then tearing up the floorboards searching for more things to sell off to private investors (i.e. Fracking...).

Oh god that made me Laugh

Labour have NO viable policies and do nothing but shout. They have yet to give even an inkling of a suitable policy and anything they have said is tantamount to bribery with false promises they cannot possibly deliver.

And lol at your Gordon brown comment. If it wasnt for his complete ineptitude the economy would never have dipped as far as it did. He keeps to himself now as he didnt do a single piece of good in his time in office.
In a time of "economic boom" he massively inflated public sector spending, sold off the last of our gold stocks (at record low p[rices) and raised the defecit to its highest EVER level.. and this is during an economic boom.

Fracking whilst controversial is a viable way to become more self sufficient and bring down our own energy costs. but then people like to complain about everything whilst wanting everything else. As long as its not near them that is.

[Deleted]

I meant that drop. I know that it rose at first. She made things worse, and then took things forward from there. A potentially necessary evil in order to improve things. We couldn't continue how we were.

Her government also caused a recession in 1991, the Lawson boom?

And unemployment rose again from 91 to 95 before dropping. Really, I don't know if you've actually looked at the figures, but her policies were just dumb for the most part. She helped the wealthy to stay wealthy, helped privatisation, and cut down on needless grants.

[Deleted]

The impacts attributed to her are rarely directly linked to any choice she made, she caused massive unemployment whilst also cutting social support.

Saying she was great because we don't know how it could have been worse is meaningless. I can just as easily say we'd have been 500% better off, and it would be just as legitimate.

Welll, this is where it comes down to opinions. Some people believe that the things she did were only bad, with huge social implications and no plus sides, other people think that the things she did were important and neccesary, and without them we would have been much worse off further down the line. THere's no real way to prove one way or the other, but saying "Well, just look at what actually happened HERE AND NOW and not speculate on what might have happened in the future" is what the problem with British politics (hell, politics in general) is. No one is interested in long term solutions. Governments want quick fixes that will make people richer or better off somehow in the short term with no real consideration for the long term, becuase the only thing that matters is the next election. For actual progress to be made, politicians and voters need to start considering long term implications of the actions of the government and not just thinking about the next 4 years.