Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

two-thirds of leading UK economists say coalition austerity has been bad for the economy

37 replies

blacksunday · 02/04/2015 19:47

David Cameron has presided over an economy with the weakest productivity record of any government since the second world war, the Office for National Statistics said as it revealed output per worker fell again in the final three months of 2014.

The ONS said productivity decreased by 0.2% in the third quarter of the financial year, leaving output per hour worked little changed on the previous year and slightly lower than in 2007, before the UK’s longest and deepest modern recession.

“These estimates show that the absence of productivity growth in the seven years since 2007 is unprecedented in the postwar period,” the ONS said.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/01/uk-productivity-growth-is-weakest-since-wwii-says-ons?CMP=share_btn_fb

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 03/04/2015 00:20

How is cutting a 2010 £157 billion government budget deficit/overspend to £90 billion this year, "austerity". lol

blacksunday …. No one inclluding the BoE seems to know why our Productivity levels are so low versus other countries.

But what I DO KNOW is that if we carried on as we were up to 2010, when Labour having lost around half our Manufacturing base (23% of our economy in 1997, 12% by 2010) and kept pumping money into Public Sector quangos and non jobs – our Productivity would be far WORSE, as no other country had unbalanced their economy so badly in the good times, as the UK did.

This recession was totally different to past ones, where interest rates went sky high, the Private Sector laid off huge numbers of people massively increasing overall unemployment, so then lean companies were more ‘Productive’ as a measurement – banks would then lend, as businesses were confident expecting interest rates to come DOWN.

This great recession started with near 300-year low UK interest rates, taxes were rising into the recession, the fall in Private Sector employment after the crash, was unaccountably mirrored by RISES in Public Sector employment (see the forth graph below), since adjusted over the last 5-years dumping loads of £50k plus Public Sector managers/quangocrats and probably replacing them with lower paid Private Sector jobs, as they rebalanced the economy.
www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-22/uks-holiday-cheer-in-four-charts

Moreover businesses from 2010 needed tax cut help and post recession confidence rebuilt with some political certainty they never had under Labour since 2008, knowing the next TREND in interest rates will be UP (not down as previous recessions) but with the huge uncertainty (political risks) of a Coalition government back then – and for the next 5-years.

Anyhoo, this is what that nice Mr Peston had to say about it.

Weep for falling productivity – by Robert Peston”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32146712

”The point is that a big contributor to the absence of any growth at all in output per worker and output per hour is that employment has grown much faster than national income: unemployment rose proportionately less in the downturn than in previous recessions and new jobs have been created faster than the growth in output.”

”But if that's the good news, there is also a very troubling corollary.”

”Lower productivity undermines the competitiveness of British firms in the global economy.”

”And the absence of productivity growth undermines the ability of British firms to increase our pay.”

”Why has productivity been so limp?”

”There are plenty of competing explanations, which include:”

”1. Productivity growth before the crash was exaggerated by the spurious productivity of banks and City firms that were taking crazy economy-imperilling risks;”

”2. Since the crash, too many lame duck firms have been kept afloat, under pressure from politicians, preventing the necessary re-allocation of capital from low-productivity firms to better ones;”

”3. As a nation we're lousy at innovation and we don't have enough highly skilled people (compared with Germany, for example);”

”4. The City is too short-termist and is hopeless at investing in winners;”

”5. Companies lack the confidence to invest adequately in expensive new kit, and would rather incur the costs of taking on cheap people to boost output, confident they can fire these people if all goes pear-shaped.”

”Getting to the root of the problem matters. Because unless we can improve productivity, we won't be able to afford the living standards we feel we deserve.”

What I do know is that to INCREASE UK PRODUCTIVITY, putting a plethora of business taxes up from 2015 to 2020 and forcing the Minimum Wage up regardless of what the Low Pay Commission says, is neither going to allow businesses to remain as confident as they currently are, or invest/employ.

Whether a government wants to increase Productivity, pay our bills, reduce our debts, or build a shed loads of pledged Homes, they HAVE to be able to relate to small, medium and large businesses - rather than ideologically bash them at every turn.

masueuk · 13/04/2015 13:38

Incredibly well said.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 13/04/2015 19:41

I could link in my favourite oecd report on how inequality is bad for the economy... oh look I did Smile.

Productivity is how much individuals produce, yes? Effectively how hard they work? Personally I think that that might have something to do with morale. And when our democracy is unrepresentative, living costs soar, real wage power drops and inequality soars, that is likely to have an effect on morale. Why should we work ever harder for less reward while the rich get richer?

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 10:44

GibberingFlapdoodle …. The short answer to your last line would be to pay your own bills, provide for your family and retirement, as not all of us can win the X Factor. Lol

Seriously though, as the measurement of “Productivity” is broadly about efficiency (factoring in ‘stuff’ like output per unit of input) while “inequality” may be a factor, it can become a deflection, as the economy and government actions (or inactions) is a massive variable in Productivity, and indeed morale.

Tell me, when citizens hear and see that we are in the worst recession in 100-years, who gets a ‘warm and fuzzy’ feeling in their knickers; and politicians constantly telling people EVERYTHING will all be alright when the rich pay more tax, is not the confidence building material KEY to dragging us out of that recession – so any false hopes, especially for political purposes, is an economic and social race to the bottom. IMO

If the increased size of the government’s coffers and its expenditure was key to prosperity to all, we would have all been living like Bill Gates PRIOR to the economic crash starting around 2008, were you?

‘Morale’ is directly related to having a home, having more money in our pockets by paying less taxes (especially in recessions), having efficient affordable public services, a world beating basic education, and a private sector job market and vacancies to help ourselves – so a society/party dismissing the state of the economy and concentrating on telling people to focus on the wealthy being paid by shareholders, rather than their own ‘lot’ and self improvement – would rather you didn’t concentrate on the missed opportunities by government on their watch.

Especially if they totally unbalanced the economy, on that watch.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 14/04/2015 13:15

Rich does not mean winning the x factor. Rich means you got lucky. There is plenty of evidence to show that most wealth is inherited, and now 'earned' on housing, rather than actually worked for. Contrary to myth, hard work does not of itself guarantee wealth or even nowadays a living wage. Cleaners may work harder than managers and take home 1/20 the pay.

The rest, you are convinced that the public sector is to blame for everything. It is not, quite the reverse. It was the private sector that caused the banking crash. The public sector was not the enemy then and it is not the enemy now, redistribution is key to a healthy economy. But I am wasting my breath if the oecd can't convince you.

Madasabox · 14/04/2015 13:25

The banking sector was the trigger for the crash, but the underlying cause was a number of factors including excessive growth in the public debt and public sector, irresponsible growth in personal debt and deregulation in the financial sector. Unpopular to say, but people need to accept some individual responsibility, unless that is, of course, they never borrowed more than they could pay off in 3 months if they lost their jobs.

Having said that, the City is a hopelessly short-term environment with unsurprisingly no altruistic motives.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 14/04/2015 14:53

How much of that growth in public debt was / is actually due to public money gong straight into private hands via various subsidies of private companies, pfi, bad management of 'public' it projects, other public projects handled by the private sector who know very well that the public sector has been turned into sharks' feeding time. And stupid command and control target and accompanied statistics requirements. I don't have figures for either of those but that's my experience of where public money goes. All of that is due to 30 / 40 years hostility towards the public sector. It does need reform - by getting government out of the way. Central government is the working person's worst enemy right now.

I agree wholeheartedly about financial deregulation.

Is that the kind of productivity you want to see increased? More financial chopping and slicing to create fictional new products and yet more bureaucratic nonsense in the public sector? There is good and bad productivity, the second decreases the first by itself, and unfortunately I only see the second increasing under neo-liberalism. They haven't a clue about how things work on the ground and how to match services to the needs of ordinary people - of course they can't begin to comprehend the needs of ordinary people at all.

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 14:53

GibberingFlapdoodle …. To a ‘child of Thatcher’, or anyone like me born to a council flat, educated in a shitty inner London comprehensive school, worked very hard to lift myself up, or indeed anyone from a higher starting point and did better than their parents - I won’t rise to “most wealth is inherited”.

Without my admitted ‘luck’ on the way, education is KEY to a persons life choices, and with the money going into the State education, a ‘cleaner’ who either did not take advantage of that education or maybe likes the hours, has little claim on the earnings potential of ‘a manager’ no matter how hard they work – until El Presidenti Milibando fixes some arbitrary ‘kin formula, that is.

Next let me make something crystal, I do not blame the Public Sector for a thing, I blame the bottom wipe of an administration that USED the private Sector to ‘create’ public sector jobs for several reasons, one being that it did totally unbalance the economy and I put forward this is a significant reason why our ‘Productivity’ internationally sucks as;

  • Employment from 1997 to a few years after the recession began in 2010, from a lot lower number base line I’ll admit, Public Sector employment had risen 18%, the Private Sector employment that financially SUPPORTS it, only 7% - as while the Private Sector lost a shed load of jobs after the financial crash, the Public Sector was still hiring, appearing to be an effort to (a cynic like me) keep net unemployment down ahead of an election.
  • The Public Sector over 13-years of unreformed money being thrown at it, I suspect didn’t have ONE ‘time and motion study’ throughout that time, so we can fairly safely assume that the measurement of Productivity (including cost of ‘input’) brings down the UK’s average productivity, as no other nation I remember had such ‘real’ increases in government annual expenditures on itself.
  • By the spraying often newly titled government salaried jobs around the country at taxpayers expense, you are never going to create a sustainable economy, or regional ‘powerhouse’ to rival the south, in the north, east, west, or even in middle earth – as any responsible government in a recession should ‘cut their expenditure cloth’ in a (great) recession, not order a new roll of cloth

Especially if their government salaries and final salary pensions can ‘crowd out’ a healthy local private sector employment market, never mind a struggling one.

Finally, while we all know why Labour was NEVER going to ‘cut their spending cloth’, but a figure came out last week that WILL influence future ‘Productivity’, and that is the drain on annual budgets from the revised unfunded Private Sector Pension Liability.

The annual actuarial influences of ultra low interest rates trying to support a mainly Final salary scheme I’d guess mainly to blame, but with the Labour ‘non job fest’ you cheekily call “redistribution” (yet the poor pay for it e.g. Council Tax) the Private Sector pension liability went up from £1.2 trillion from 2012/13, to £1.3 trillion.

So in addition to the near £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) annually accumulating national debt, we have an additional £1,300,000,000,000 non State pension liability, to be claimed on demand by those retiring every year.

So please excuse me if I don’t see Ball-sian style productivity and ‘growf’ as ANY form of ‘redistribution’, based on the low paid that will have to pay those government quangocrat type pensions, on top of their salaries during the recession, for as long as many will live.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 14/04/2015 15:03

I'm also from a disadvantaged background. As another you should appreciate the barriers in our way. Education is key, yes, and so many from our backgrounds don't and can't get access to that. Congratulations on getting out, so did I - I did get a privileged education. I also helped pull my dh up. Those educational doors are increasingly closing for those after us.

For wealth is inherited try googling Piketty - his famous book is here www.amazon.co.uk/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X

Another economist in that 2/3 group (from the op) whom you will ignore no doubt.

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 15:31

How has Piketty-Witch's economic theories done for his native France; taxing wealth/businesses up to the ying, yangs until left/contracted, a State taking over 50% of GDP output, GDP still flatlining 7- years after the financial crash, unemployment still hovering around 11%, so have the 'Brucie Bonus' of the Front National still gaining votes?

Hmmm the mans an economic guru; the problem is about wealth, if it has been taxed through your life nine ways to Sunday, it is not right that a State, especially one that squanders the taxpayers money it gets in - to have first dibs when you die - thank god Miliband has finally found fiscal responsibility religion. Hmmm.

As to doors closing, how can you say that, we're in the EU baby, for our children Europe, nay the the world, is their lobster init - which is why we de-emphasised languages to boost school league tables, as no doubt deemed 'progressive'.

(Best I don't have a glass of wine at lunchtime)

GibberingFlapdoodle · 14/04/2015 16:11

Educational doors closing is what reduced public sector spending means. It isn't just mucking about with figures at a national level. It means no more free nursery places. Privatized schools with teachers so stressed appalling numbers leave after the first year. Gelded library services and privatised media so we don't have unbiased information and don't know what the hell's really happening. It means more debt at university so you have a choice of low-paid work or a debt you can't pay off until you're in 40s or 50s, so that you can't buy a house, so that you can't save for retirement. It means that the people who are poor now will stay poor and the lower middle classes will be pulled down while the higher classes will walk away with the best of everything.

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 16:26

Re your "Educational doors closing is what reduced public sector spending means."

No it doesn't, any time Public Sector cuts are mentioned, critics tell us its all 'front line', which is rollocks, why doesn't any critic think of cutting quangos, managers and non-jobs first - other than its the managers deciding who goes first.

We doubled the education budget under Labour and according to the OECD we were coming close to 25th in the basics, out of I believe 25 countries.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

There must have been HUGE 'fat' built up at the local levels under Labour, as please correct me if I'm wrong, despite Coalition cuts, Labour in their undetailed spending cuts plans, are telling us that they still see loads of savings at Local Authority levels?

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 16:37

P.S. So getting back to 'Productivity', if I was was in a department working in the private sector coming around 24 out of 24 (excuse me, not 25), I'd be more than "stressed", I'd be ASKED to walk and down the Job Centre - and maybe teachers are walking as the last government set the bar so low, the real job of preparing our children for employment rather than being just 'rounded', is a bit of a shock. Just a thought.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labour-admits-great-crime-on-education-tristram-hunt-says-his-party-encouraged-schools-to-aim-too-low--and-pupils-paid-the-price-9053693.html

Isitmebut · 14/04/2015 18:20

And finally the reasons why UK Productivity will always be low after a Labour Administration and why Miliband is pretending to fein Fiscal Responsibility and thinks he doesn't have to detail Spending Cuts and Tax Rises;

It is because Miliband is NOT ALLOWED to cut the Public Sector no matter how bloated it gets, as once elected to Labour leader on a trade union ticket, he had to do a deal with the devil, and it will be TAX RISES OVER CUTS EVERY TIME.

When Len McClusky tells Miliband to 'jump', as ANY public sector/spending cuts is "austerity", Miliband has to say 'how high, sir'? lol

2014; ”Unite’s Len McClusky Pledges to back Labour”
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-47a7-Unites-Len-McCluskey-pledges-to-back-Labour#.VSz9TtuF-jE

”UNITE general secretary Len McCluskey pledged yesterday to rally behind Labour to evict the Con-Dems from Downing Street.”

”The combative general secretary has talked openly about the prospect of Unite quitting Labour should it lose the election by offering a “pale shade of austerity.”

”But Mr McCluskey called on members to postpone the fight over Labour’s future, offering union cash to aid the party’s campaign as he insisted that “there is no third option.”

Mar 2015; ”Unite donate further £1m to Labour ahead of election”
www.itv.com/news/update/2015-03-27/unite-donate-further-1m-to-labour-ahead-of-election/

^"Trade union Unite has announced a further £1 million donation to Labour, bringing the total given to Ed Miliband's party to £3.5 million since December.

AlphaBravoHenryFoxtons · 15/04/2015 19:23

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1ef6a62-e26c-11e4-ba33-00144feab7de.html#axzz3XHFlht1X

The IMF praised the UK's solid growth the day before yesterday.

The economists on your list OP, are letting their politics interfere with the facts.

blacksunday · 16/04/2015 19:07

Alpha-

So let me get this straight - the economists which I linked to are playing politics, but the IMF is apolitical and non-ideological, is that really what you're saying?

Do you know very much about the IMF and its history?


Certainly the record of the IMF and World Bank has been abysmal. They have consistently supported corrupt and dictatorial regimes so long as they served Western interests – in the Congo, Rwanda, Indonesia, Philippines, Tunisia and Egypt. They used their resources and power to undermine and destroy outbreaks of democracy – Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Goulart in Brazil, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Allende in Chile, and many others. When countries, despite the efforts of the IMF and World, nevertheless gained their independence in the 1950-60s, they forced these fledgeling independent states to repay the odious debts contracted by the previous authoritarian and corrupt regimes.

They continued to provide financial back-up to countries like apartheid South Africa and Portugal in their suppression of the countries and races they controlled whether in Africa or the Pacific. In terms of the environment and climate change, they overwhelmingly backed the fossil fuel industries and multinational exploitation of indigenous resources in the newly independent developing countries. The World Bank financed projects that flagrantly violated human rights such as the enforced displacement of populations in Indonesia. And their signature policy, the liberalisation of capital flows, has paved the way for the current industrial-level tax avoidance, extensive corruption, and abrupt flight of capital that is so badly damaging emerging markets.

www.leftfutures.org/2014/01/why-the-imf-and-world-bank-should-accompany-neoliberalism-into-the-dustbin-of-history/

OP posts:
blacksunday · 18/04/2015 07:55

Alpha-

Does this article refer to the same IMF report, perhaps?

I can't read the article behind the paywall.

-----

IMF forecast blows hole in George Osborne’s deficit reduction plan

Gloomy view on UK economy says government spending on welfare may need to be higher than Treasury plans, while lower tax receipts will undermine growth

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/15/imf-forecast-uk-george-osborne-deficit-reduction-growth-fuel-tax?CMP=share_btn_fb

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 18/04/2015 19:34

blacksunday ... you usually only offer dodgy sources, so in your words "calm down".

As you are good at IMF history, what did they say in 2010 when Labour, using the usually neutral UK Treasury as a lap dog, when despite GROWING the non front line public sector job FIXED COSTS (as the private sector taxes shrunk - didn't apparently see a honking great £153 billion budget deficit/overspend in 2010, COMING????

What did the IMF say when Labour, despite having their dodgy books for 13-years, didn't give ANY budget plans to address their £153 bil over spend.

The independent OBR Osborne brought in was to make governments finances more transparent BECAUSE Brown/Balls politicized the Treasury and their forecasts - so no Labour lacky has any right to throw stones after what they did to our financial/economic UK glass house.

And what is one of the first things El Presidenti Milibano going to do?

April 18 2015; Revealed;Ed Miliband’s plans for power in Downing Street.
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4415495.ece

”Ed Miliband will reinstate the 50p rate of tax within weeks and grab more powers for Downing Street if he becomes prime minister, The Times has learnt. The measures are among a list of draft bills already handed to Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, as Labour makes plans for a new administration.”

”Mr Miliband wants strengthen the Downing Street machine as he seeks to assert his authority over Whitehall and the Treasury in particular, according to Lord Falconer of Thoroton, his adviser on a transition to government.”

I wonder why the Miliband Labour Party that apparently found 'Fiscal Responsibility' - but comes apart on the first page of the Manifesto as I point out on that link - needs to get "control" of a UK Treasury immediately, after 5-years of Coalition competence?

Go figure.

blacksunday · 18/04/2015 19:52

I read the first line of your post and then scrolled on.

I don't care what the IMF said about Labour in 2010. It has nothing to do with this thread.

OP posts:
Isitmebut · 18/04/2015 23:45

It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread, especially as you call cutting a £150 odd billion annual budget deficit/overspend, 'austerity'.

Let say Labour would have stayed in power from 2010, maintained the adding of non front line public sector employees (to our cost base) as the (then) private sector growth/employment was flat, then weaker - as the National Insurance and Fuel Duty rises Labour budgeted before the election to come in after the election, with other taxes/fiscal tightening - to half the budget deficit mentioned in their 2010 manifesto.

In all this time, none of the government 'fat' built up over 13-years could not be cut, as the public sector unions (and others) financing Miliband and other shadow ministers offices and 'sponsoring' most of the sitting Labour MP's AND paying for their election campaign, WOULD NOT LET THEM.

Surely Productivity would not just be weak, it would have pan-holed by now as the economy became even more unbalanced?

Whichever way you look at it, no matter how churlish against the Conservative coalition, no matter how bad you think it is now, under another Labour parliament STILL heading in the wrong direction, overall it would have been a lot worse.

LotusLight · 19/04/2015 09:41

We have done internationally brilliantly and ar an example to many nations now. The Coalition has been proved right and others wrong. Vote Conservative.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 19/04/2015 09:44

You're joking, right?

LotusLight · 19/04/2015 10:19

Not at all. We are doing very well compared to others internationally as think about half the nation actually so I am not alone. It is touch and go who will win the election but the people shall decide.

figroll · 19/04/2015 10:34

Gosh I think all these threads have been infiltrated by the conservative central office.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 19/04/2015 13:19

Yes, it depends on what you mean by doing well internationally doesn't it. Socially we are not, quite the opposite. We're the most unequal country in Europe barring only Portugal and I doubt many other countries are seeing increasing numbers of disabled people killing themselves in despair blacktrianglecampaign.org Why does that not matter to you? Is the movement of small green pieces of paper really the only important thing?

Plus I'm not convinced we're doing so well on that front, I think it's all smoke and mirrors.

Swipe left for the next trending thread