I M F state UK economy to grow by 2%

[maxmaximus]

The economy nosedived in 2008 for the same reasons that all Western economies did. Since Labour does not control those other countries why is it Labour's fault? From memory because I've not looked it up, there was growth between of around 2-3% during 2008-2010, how do you explain that it is much less now, 0.8% or something?

 

That's been explained to you many times, here's a quick reminder, there was a massive injection of cheap money into the economy in the form of quantitative easing..

 

This caused temporary growth and increased Britain's debts.

 

A Bank of England report into the effect of its first round of QE (that is, the £200bn worth of purchases made between March and November 2009) suggested that the measure had helped to increase the UK's annual economic output by between 1.5% and 2%, indicating that the effects of the programme had been "economically significant".

[I1L2T3]

The uk economy has expanded by 5% since 2009 as I stated. If you would like to dispute that please provide the evidence.em

 

It should be you providing the evidence because you made the claim but I'll happily indulge you just this once

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp

 

As you can see UK GDP has shrunk since 2009, because of the deep recession in 2009 you continually mention.

 

Or are you starting from beginning of 2010? If so the strongest quarter on quarter growth we've seen since 2008 was in Q1-Q2 of 2010, when Labour were still in power and it would be crazy of you to try and attribute that to the Tories.

 

Now, can you provide links for your other unattributed quotes and stats.

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 08:19 ----------

 

That's been explained to you many times, here's a quick reminder, there was a massive injection of cheap money into the economy in the form of quantitative easing..

 

This caused temporary growth and increased Britain's debts.

 

A Bank of England report into the effect of its first round of QE (that is, the £200bn worth of purchases made between March and November 2009) suggested that the measure had helped to increase the UK's annual economic output by between 1.5% and 2%, indicating that the effects of the programme had been "economically significant".

 

We've had £175bn of QE since Osborne took over the economy. And there could be more still.

[maxmaximus]

It should be you providing the evidence because you made the claim but I'll happily indulge you just this once

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp

 

As you can see UK GDP has shrunk since 2009, because of the deep recession in 2009 you continually mention.

 

Or are you starting from beginning of 2010? If so the strongest quarter on quarter growth we've seen since 2008 was in Q1-Q2 of 2010, when Labour were still in power and it would be crazy of you to try and attribute that to the Tories.

 

 

This chart says the strongest quarter on quarter growth was in 2012.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 08:28 ----------

 

 

We've had £175bn of QE since Osborne took over the economy. And there could be more still.

 

Yep, it spears they will do anything for economic growth. Madness.

[I1L2T3]

This chart says the strongest quarter on quarter growth was in 2012.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 08:28 ----------

 

 

Yep, it spears they will do anything for economic growth. Madness.

 

Which bit of 2012?

 

Are you talking about the quarter when we had the Olympics, and when they entered all ticket sales into the books as well? The quarter with negative growth either side of it?

 

Oh dear.

[maxmaximus]

Which bit of 2012?

 

Are you talking about the quarter when we had the Olympics, and when they entered all ticket sales into the books as well? The quarter with negative growth either side of it?

 

Oh dear.

 

The Office for National Statistics said that Olympic ticket sales had added 0.2 percentage points to the figures. So sill growth of 0.7% if ticket sales are taken out, this is also money that could have been spent on something else, and many business suffered lower sales because of the Olympics.

I was one of the millions of people that sat at home and watched it, so I spent less money in the economy.

[Obelix]

Not Really, as George "Grub Bank" Osborne admitted in that interview what did the rounds a few months back, that it always helps to make things look worse than they are when you're trying to take over the running of the country. Can you tell us why the current government borrowed more money in the first 2.5 years of their term than under 3 whole terms under Labour

 

Because Labour spent all the money on public sector non-jobs and had to leave a note saying "Dear Secretary to the Treasury, sorry, there's no money left"

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 13:42 ----------

 

The Office for National Statistics said that Olympic ticket sales had added 0.2 percentage points to the figures.

 

Sorry that's one of those polls and guesses that you consider to be completely made up so you can't use that argument.

[maxmaximus]

 

Sorry that's one of those polls and guesses that you consider to be completely made up so you can't use that argument.

I would think the ONS knows precisely how many Olympic tickets were sold and what price was paid for them.

[Mecky]

Because Labour spent all the money on public sector non-jobs and had to leave a note saying "Dear Secretary to the Treasury, sorry, there's no money left"

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 13:42 ----------

 

 

Sorry that's one of those polls and guesses that you consider to be completely made up so you can't use that argument.

 

And the second bit of my quote which you failed to answer?

 

And have you actually seen this supposed letter saying there's no money left anyway? Besides, didn't George Grub bank Osborne joke about it and said he would have probably done the same?

[Dingus]

The Office for National Statistics said that Olympic ticket sales had added 0.2 percentage points to the figures. So sill growth of 0.7% if ticket sales are taken out, this is also money that could have been spent on something else, and many business suffered lower sales because of the Olympics.

I was one of the millions of people that sat at home and watched it, so I spent less money in the economy.

 

Bloody hell they must have been expensive tickets. GDP is 2.375 trillion so 0.2% would be £4.75 billion. Add to that folk who were at the Olympics weren't anywhere else spending their dosh at the time. You have to have it in your pocket to spend it so if it were spent on Olympics tickets it wasn't being spent at Centre Parks. I think also a lot of folks spent £20 on a pack on tinnies and a curry from Sainsburys and sat in watching games on the box rather than nipping out to the pub and spending £50 on a few pints and a steak.

 

---------- Post added 12-07-2013 at 14:22 ----------

 

And the second bit of my quote which you failed to answer?

 

And have you actually seen this supposed letter saying there's no money left anyway? Besides, didn't George Grub bank Osborne joke about it and said he would have probably done the same?

 

That's an interesting paradox. If there wasn't a letter how did Osbourne comment about it? Mecky shoots himself in foot again methinks.

[Obelix]

I would think the ONS knows precisely how many Olympic tickets were sold and what price was paid for them.

 

It's still done using sampling and statistics though - so stop using it Smithy m'lad as you have said it's all cobblers.