« Andrew Neil to the NUT: You've opposed every recent education reform, haven't you? |
| The Royal baby announcement is made »
Posted at 02:23 PM in Economy | Permalink
If one of Ed Ball's minions were quizzing the ONS chap about the figures, trying find some bad news for the government, you would be hearing most of this interview.
Vir Cantium blog |
June 27, 2013 at 02:37 PM
The old adage "Things are never as good or as bad as they appear at the time" seems to apply here. It seems that the recession in 2008-09 was even deeper than first thought and that the recovery, while slow is in fact bringing us half-way back to the position in place at the beginning of 2008. Does this mean that the Ratings Agencies will now review and return the AAA status that the UK enjoyed until talk of `double-dip` caused them to reduce it? If not, why not? Will Balls and Miliband give credit to the progress being hard-won by the coalition? Doubtful.
It remains the case that we continue to borrow too much and although the amount is reducing, we are still living way beyond our means. QE and accelerated expenditure on infrastructure projects might affect the economy in a positive way but will this produce the growth needed to reduce the deficit enough to bring it back into the balance sought by the Chancellor? It will be a long, hard road; but any question of handing the economy back to the stewardship of Labour would seem to be lunacy of a high order.
john parkes |
June 27, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Rather like the home secretary telling us immigration is not out of control while she continues to print uncapped ICT work visas like confetti, and hands out indefinte leave to remain to all comers
Iain Gill |
June 27, 2013 at 06:57 PM
Yes there was no double-dip or triple dip recession and yes the recovery is weak. And so cutting taxes on corporate profits, capital gains and personal incomes will incentivize investment, entrepreneurship and spending and thus could spur an economic resurgence.
Properly dealing with the Gordon Brown legacy of bloating the public sector would ensure that that could be done.
Matthew Reynolds |
June 27, 2013 at 07:49 PM
"Properly dealing with the Gordon Brown legacy of bloating the public sector would ensure that that could be done."
That sums up the country's main objective very succinctly. I suggest that government should be required to keep public expenditure to below 40% of GDP.
David Belchamber |
June 27, 2013 at 08:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.