Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
Today the IMF have published an important report into the UK economy. This is important to a large part as a result of recent concerns about the UK economy and an increase in calls for Osborne to adopt a 'Plan B'.
A key passage of the report:
""Aided by the implementation of a wide-ranging policy program, the post-crisis repair of the UK economy is underway. However, the weakness in economic growth and rise in inflation over the last several months was unexpected. This raises the question whether it is time to adjust macroeconomic policies.
The answer is no as the deviations are largely temporary. Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential to achieve a more sustainable budgetary position, thus reducing fiscal risks. The inflation overshoot is driven largely by transitory factors, and hence maintaining the current scale of monetary stimulus is appropriate given fiscal adjustment and subdued wage growth. This macroeconomic policy mix will also assist in rebalancing the economy toward investment and external demand. Bank balance sheet repair continues, but vulnerabilities remain and strong domestic measures and international coordination are needed to further bolster financial stability. Indeed, the stability and efficiency of the UK financial system is a global public good due to potential spillovers and thus requires the highest quality of supervision and regulation. Nonetheless, there are significant risks to inflation, growth, and unemployment. If they materialize, the policy response will depend on the nature of the shock""
The IMF also go on to prioritise tax cuts ahead of more QE (or public spending come to that..) Something that will not please Balls and Red Ed but can be enthusiastically endorsed by both coalition parties.
Just to add a link to the FT
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9951d7e-9039-11e0-85a0-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rsshoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
looking at the last two lines of the second paragraph they are suggesting that a plan b might be needed.
their previous predictions have not been that clever, last november they predicted 2% growth in 2011, then in april they revised it down to 1.7%, now it is 1.5%.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#3
He hasn't got a Plan B.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
No that is simply not accurate Howard.
Marek and Howard - the IMF in fact say that there is currently no need for a Plan B. Quite specifically so.
They do say that if such a need arises then tax cuts are preferred to QE and they should stick to cutting spending. In fact in none of the scenarios that they set out in their report suggest any reversal of spending cuts. This is a real poke in the eye to the Labour deficit denyers.
Their forecasts are no more accurate than other independent bodies but their analysis is at least free of a party political bias.
Here is the full report if you like to read such dry economic analysis:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2011/060611.htm
I should point out that osborne has also recently received the backing of the OECD among others.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#5
Well okay the IMF have given him a cautious thumbsup for the theory, but as Norman Lamont former Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Sky earlier..'what we mustnt expect is a consumer led recovery because the consumer is cutting back bigtime'.
Where does a recovery come from if it isnt consumer led? thats the problem. The consumer it appears to me is at the heart of all recovery..he creates demand, then people have to go off and work to make the item he requires, then work to supply it, and so on.
Also today there was another unhelpful and slimey development in the shape of Vince Cable and his speech at the GMB conference. He clearly threatened the unions that if they up their strike quota the government will introduce draconian laws to deal with it. The government are clearly trying to head off a "winter of discontent" at the pass. But it is the peoples right to strike...if they are disgruntled with cuts, wage freezes, job losses, losses to services then let them strike..it is there right to do so. WE already have draconian anti strike measures which were introduced by Mrs Thatcher as I remember from back in the era of flying pickets.
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
#6
They seem to be banking on alot, but how unhelpfull is Vince Cable yet again not really saying the right thing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
PaulB - I made a point about the consumer issues in my blog over the weekend and what is holding the economy back.
Read the report on my link and you will see how the IMF sees the economy moving.
Vince Cable was quite right in what he said - giving the Unions a well timed warning. Many, like myself, want a big clampdown on the Unions ability to cause disruption to the economy and the public. If they go about their insane summer of strike action then they will deserve to get clobbered and the pressure to do that will become unstoppable.
People working in the private sector have cooperated with employers to help protect their jobs. Their pensions have been downgraded, many suffered not only wage freezes but also wage cuts in the worse period of the recession, many worked short-time to help their employer's survive. All the time that was going on the public sector remained untouched - now it is their turn to take some of the economic strain as the rest of us have done. Of course I can sympathise with any individual's problems who will be hit by this but it has to be kept in perspective.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
the unions were not expecting to mobilise their members for massive strike action, they are now.
i saw the speech from cable and thought it was up there with the most stupid i have heard from a politician and he was up against some strong opposition in that regard.
thanks to him and his threats he has alienated public sevice workers totally and played into the hands of gung ho union leaders that have their own agenda.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
Howard - I have no time at all for Cable as you know but what he issued were not threats they were warnings. He is not a hawk on such matters and is one of those standing in the way of some sensible tightening of strike law.
His words were very moderate but the reaction from the Union tells us a lot about their sheer stupidity and justifies what I and others from the right are saying about the need to modernise TU law.
Here is the Speccy take on it including some video of Cable.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7004973/vince-cable-dances-with-the-unions.thtmlGuest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
Business Secretary Vince Cable has moved to reassure delegates at the GMB union's conference that the right for workers to strike will remain in place just as long as they promise not to use it.
Union leaders have expressed anger at the possible introduction of tougher union laws which could make strike action illegal, but Mr Cable has insisted that this would only happen if they exercised their right and actually took strike action.
In the speech Mr Cable revealed that he would get tough on the unions rather than the people who were responsible for the current economic plight, but only if he "really, really had to".
Responding to boos and jeers, Mr Cable told delegates in Brighton "Let me reassure you that your right to strike will be completely unaffected just so long as you promise that you won't."
"I am a Liberal at heart, and I completely back the rights of people to do as they please, right up until the point it becomes politically inconvenient." Cable went on, "Strike levels remain historically low, but if people start doing the things they've got the right to do all over the place, then we'll have to review what rights people can have."
"We have to strike a balance between getting ordinary workers to foot the bill for the recovery, and them being able to keep their right to complain about it." "It's a little thing us Lib-Dems like to call compromise."
Just to balance out the spectator article with a funny take from Newsthump.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#11
So what is the source from which you copied and pasted Marek ? - I always give my sources (often with a link)
The fact is though the Unions are dinosaurs that simply cannot be trusted by their members to act in their interests. Self-serving they are run by the intellectually deficient who are more interested in pursuing an ill-conceived political agenda than anything else.
The Speccie article makes it clear just how increasing irrelivent Unions are in the modern day and age. They survive on the basis of outragously old fashioned practices like the deductions of member subs from wage packets. They are undemocratic and the leadership is totally unrepresentative of their members.
.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
barry
the post from marek was an internet funny, anyway back to cable.
the man knows that his days as a yellow are numbered and is clearly trying to save his skin by becoming a blue, not the first time he has changed his views to further his ambitions.
moving on, crude attacks on the unions such as you have posted do much to inflame a delicate situation, where the loser is the public.
at this juncture we need cool rational thinking not the stuff that plays into the hands of some of the despotic union leaders.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Howard - once again I prefer plain speaking, saying it as it is. The Unions are well past their sell by date and their leadership now is just as bad and out of touch as it ever was in their worse days.
As for Cable - come off it, any thought that he might 'become a blue' is taking fantasy a lot too far. If Cable changes at all it will be to return to his Labour roots.
Are you all right Howard? I am a bit concerned about you as you seem to have become a bit detached from reality a couple of times of late (thats not a dig)
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#14
Barryw
Read the last line of my post it clearly states NEWSTHUMP
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#15
Barry, if you were referring to Howard's last post I thought it contained a lot of common sense.
If workers are unhappy with their work situation they must have the right to withdraw their labour so long as they follow the correct procedure.
Unions still do a lot of good they are not there solely to instigate strikes, which sadly that is how some think of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#16
Are they Barry?
Why is the working stiffs right to organise collectively in order to level the playing field with their employer an anathema?
It is not as though all employers or their management representatives are angels and don't have agendas etc. now is it.
Surely given your antipathy towards the public sector where many of these "dinosaur" unions organise you would welcome the opportunity presented by them striking and demonstrating how pointless they and the "services" their members deliver as their jobs are
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#17
Rights work both ways. When I was a junior bank clerk and union member I had the right to strike but recognised that if I did so, the bank had the right to sack me.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#18
I won't be going on strike.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#19
I was a member of the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union for 24 years whilst working for NatWest in London and I never went out on strike once - there were a few calls for strikes, but we, where I worked at the computer centre, never exercised that right, because we didn't believe in it.
Unions still believe it is "us and them" and whilst they are earning very good money, the workers lose money and gain nothing at all..
If there are strikes this summer, then all that will happen, is that many people will lose money, but more will lose their job - is that sensible ?
Roger
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#20
Roger
doesn't Barry's posting smack of 'us and them'? We are now under an old fashioned Tory government dressed up as a Liberal coalition sneaking through insidious policies that serve big business at the expense of the working man and woman.
At least with Barry, as reprehensible as his views may be to the thinking person, you know where he stands and what he stands for. With government(s) you have to second guess all the time.
That workers in the private sector don't belong to unions or don't go on strike is testament to the fear of losing your job. You will remember the mantra that "unemployment is a price worth paying" from the 80s; well, it is back. We need unions more than ever.
