Tony Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 In the run up to the election much was made by the previous Government of the 0.4% growth in the economy as being proof that UK PLC was out of recession. From revised figures it turns out that government spending that was responsible for 0.4% but that the private sector was in recession at -0.1% . In short, the government overspending was preventing the figures from showing recession. Just great. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23855206-government-spending-keeps-britain-from-recession.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 In the run up to the election much was made by the previous Government of the 0.4% growth in the economy as being proof that UK PLC was out of recession. From revised figures it turns out that government spending that was responsible for 0.4% but that the private sector was in recession at -0.1% . In short, the government overspending was preventing the figures from showing recession. Just great. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23855206-government-spending-keeps-britain-from-recession.do I don't understand why you're surprised.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I don't understand why you're surprised.... Neither do I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Doesn't 'turn out' at all. Those of us in business know we are still well and truly in a recession and choose to ignore metrocentric nonsense spouted by the press and the self-appointed 'experts' (government, quangos, FSA etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 we knew they were lying through their teeth, to try and jolly everyone along and keep them spending so the economy didn't take a nosedive as far as I'm concerned we were in recession a long time before it was announced too for much the same reason, to stop the markets panicking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 From revised figures it turns out that government spending that was responsible for 0.4% £200 billion of quantitative easing, £167 billion of deficit spending, the run up to Christmas AND the prospect of VAT going from 15% to 17.5% and still no "recoverah!" Isn't it about time we admitted that, after 18 months of trying to reflate a collapsing bubble, that the patient is not only dead, it's starting to stink the place up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 In the run up to the election much was made by the previous Government of the 0.4% growth in the economy as being proof that UK PLC was out of recession. From revised figures it turns out that government spending that was responsible for 0.4% but that the private sector was in recession at -0.1% . In short, the government overspending was preventing the figures from showing recession. Just great. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23855206-government-spending-keeps-britain-from-recession.do Titanic will never believe it till his dying day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I have the popcorn ready and am sat patiently for the pro-Labour posters (apologists)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 And why would that be? Because growth was positive, therefore it wasn't recession, therefore the figures wouldn't show recession. You can of course cherry-pick any figures to show what you want, but you are being entirely disingenuous. It's no different to people borrowing money they can't afford so that they can buy a new car to make the neighbours think they're doing well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Added last line before you posted to show what i mean: What you are saying is "1+1=2, but if we remove the first 1, it only equals 1, when you told us it equals 2" It depends where that second "1" came from.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.