Average incomes return to pre-recession levels

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:14 am

Average household incomes have returned to pre-recession levels as the economic recovery takes hold, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested.
The IFS analysis said that household incomes were “finally strengthening” after the slowest recovery following a recession in history.
The report showed that a family with two children is now earning on average £31,000 after tax, breaking the level seen in 2007-08.
The IFS also said that the gap between the richest and the poorest had fallen as wages had been squeezed.
George Osborne seized on the figures as evidence that the economic recovery is feeding through to millions of people. The Chancellor said: “This confirmation from the independent IFS that incomes are back to their pre-crisis levels is another major milestone in our recovery from Labour’s Great Recession, and another sign that our long-term economic plan is working.
“But we don’t want just to repair the damage done — we want hard-working families to have higher incomes and pay lower taxes on those incomes, with all the economic security that brings. With two months to go until a critical general election, all this progress would be lost if we changed course.”
The IFS said that the slow recovery had been a “remarkable feature” of the downturn. In 2007-08, just before the recession, a family with two children earned £30,700. The figure peaked in 2010-11 before the effects of the recession were felt and it fell significantly over the next two years. Last year it rose to £31,000.
The IFS said that the Coalition took office just as household incomes were starting their “inevitable” decline, adding that it was “almost certain” that the same would have happened under any government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11447587/Average-incomes-return-to-pre-recession-levels.html

by eddie Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:07 am

They fiddle figures pfffff!
I go by what the average person tells me and the recession ain't over yet.

Also, grocery shopping costs a hell of a lot more than it did in 2008

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:13 am

They certainly do Eddie.

Families still worse off than when Tories came to power, study claims

Families still have less money to spend than when David Cameron came to office in 2010, although average living standards have returned to pre-recession levels of seven years ago, a report shows.

The disclosure that overall incomes are steadily recovering after years of being squeezed will be hailed by the Coalition as further evidence that its tough economic medicine is working.

However, the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) shows the recovery has been very slow and families remain extremely cautious about spending.

It also says average households are still more than 2 per cent worse off than at the last election and calculates that working-age adults have fared worse than pensioners.

The downturn began seven years ago when banks were forced to ask for emergency help from the taxpayer, but incomes continued growing slowly in 2008-09 and 2009-10 because of efforts by the last government to stimulate the economy. Average incomes then slid by 4 per cent over the next two years as the Coalition introduced austerity measures in an attempt to cut the national deficit.

Average incomes return to pre-recession levels Pg-4-income-graphic

Average incomes return to pre-recession levels Pg-4-income-graphic

The recovery in living standards that followed has been anaemic, with average incomes edging up by less than 2 per cent in three years and with a lot of lost ground to make up.

In an election briefing note, the IFS said the recovery in living standards was strengthening thanks to falling inflation and growing employment. It calculated that average household income will have grown by 1.1 per cent during this financial year.

However, the IFS also stressed the sluggishness of the recovery, with incomes growing by just 1.8 per cent between 2011-12 and 2014-15, much more slowly than after the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. It attributed the slow growth to flat wages, tax increases and benefits cuts.

The report’s co-author, Andrew Hood, a research economist at the IFS, said: “After large falls and a historically slow recovery, average household income is now back to around its pre-crisis level.

“However, the young have done much worse than the old, those on higher incomes somewhat worse than those on lower incomes and those with children better than those without.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/families-are-still-worse-off-than-when-tories-came-to-power-study-claims-10083321.html

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:43 am

eddie wrote:They fiddle figures pfffff!
I go by what the average person tells me and the recession ain't over yet.

Also, grocery shopping costs a hell of a lot more than it did in 2008

That is your choice most people I know are going out more again than they used to which is positive because we have seen places like pubs close and restaurants, so I see with my on eyes the feel good factor starting to come back.
This is also reflected in the Polls where again the Tories are starting to creep ahead.
The fact is labour brought about economic disaster to this country which will take years to fix and if we had Labour in power, we would have mass unemployement and no stability that we see in the economy today Eddie

by eddie Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:
eddie wrote:They fiddle figures pfffff!
I go by what the average person tells me and the recession ain't over yet.

Also, grocery shopping costs a hell of a lot more than it did in 2008

That is your choice most people I know are going out more again than they used to which is positive because we have seen places like pubs close and restaurants, so I see with my on eyes the feel good factor starting to come back.
This is also reflected in the Polls where again the Tories are starting to creep ahead.
The fact is labour brought about economic disaster to this country which will take years to fix and if we had Labour in power, we would have mass unemployement and no stability that we see in the economy today Eddie

Oh Didge I can't argue about politics as I'm rubbish! Pffffff

Thing is, my Oh is a black cabbie, as you know, and he says:

People are not Staying out as late - so spending less
Not as many people in the streets
Taking less taxis
Not tipping as much or as often

Perhaps this is classed as a luxury but it's what he sees daily.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:16 pm

eddie wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

That is your choice most people I know are going out more again than they used to which is positive because we have seen places like pubs close and restaurants, so I see with my on eyes the feel good factor starting to come back.
This is also reflected in the Polls where again the Tories are starting to creep ahead.
The fact is labour brought about economic disaster to this country which will take years to fix and if we had Labour in power, we would have mass unemployement and no stability that we see in the economy today Eddie

Oh Didge I can't argue about politics as I'm rubbish! Pffffff

Thing is, my Oh is a black cabbie, as you know, and he says:

People are not Staying out as late - so spending less
Not as many people in the streets
Taking less taxis
Not tipping as much or as often

Perhaps this is classed as a luxury but it's what he sees daily.

I guess that is London for you Eddie and agree people do go out less, though to me this has improved to what it was a few years back.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:34 pm

yep and I bet they were VERY selective about which households with two children they interviewed....

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:38 pm

darknessss wrote:yep and I bet they were VERY selective about which households with two children they interviewed....

Is having children now the responsibilty of political parties?

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:52 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:yep and I bet they were VERY selective about which households with two children they interviewed....

Is having children now the responsibilty of political parties?

whats THAT got to do with anything....it hasnt....

my point is the figures you make such a fuss of will be garnered from "specially selected" families....

I bet there are none in that survey where one parent is working as a packer on minimum wage and mother is working as a nursery nurse on minimum wage.
or where there are two children but only one parent....for wwhatever reason...who is on minimum wage.....

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:55 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Is having children now the responsibilty of political parties?

whats THAT got to do with anything....it hasnt....

my point is the figures you make such a fuss of will be garnered from "specially selected" families....

I bet there are none in that survey where one parent is working as a packer on minimum wage and mother is working as a nursery nurse on minimum wage.
or where there are two children but only one parent....for wwhatever reason...who is on minimum wage.....

Again negativity, not even attempting to see if this is good news.
You place the view on a family of two, why?
Should this be a reason to make any further view here, when the responsibility of having a family is the people that decide to have one?
Your ethics are all mixed up and you are plauged so much with negativity.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:20 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

whats THAT got to do with anything....it hasnt....

my point is the figures you make such a fuss of will be garnered from "specially selected" families....

I bet there are none in that survey where one parent is working as a packer on minimum wage and mother is working as a nursery nurse on minimum wage.
or where there are two children but only one parent....for wwhatever reason...who is on minimum wage.....

Again negativity, not even attempting to see if this is good news.
You place the view on a family of two, why?
Should this be a reason to make any further view here, when the responsibility of having a family is the people that decide to have one?
that is a deflection , since the op mentions a family with two kids as (presumably ) the "average household" ...which it aint in fact but still.....

Your ethics are all mixed up and you are plauged so much with negativity.

ffs didge the OP talked about s family with two kids....

are you on dumbo drops tonite?????

the whole point is that this is a massaged tory "sound bite" it aint actually true and its accuracy depends on "which" families were included in the "survey"

NOTHING to do with "responsibility2 or in fact if they have kids or not...the sam argument applies even if you quoted "massaged" figure for a single person

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:43 pm

So its talks about a family being better off as many will be and on average.
It is still good news for many, not all but many, yet you still see the negative.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:03 pm

As normal, never trust a Conservative to tell the truth, if their mouths are open, they are lying. And the title of the OP is a complete lie.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:04 pm

See more intolerance from the left.
How much more evidence do people need?

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:06 pm

The evidence of the graph above from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which shows your OP is a lie, nothing more, nothing less.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:08 pm

You see even the institution state people are starting to go bacl to levels being better off and again only the left see the negativity

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:13 pm

cool...intolerance now...
blimey even the right have learned...claim victim status

well now...its wacist to call a R/W names....

you do make i larf didge.......

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:17 pm

darknessss wrote:cool...intolerance now...
blimey even the right have learned...claim victim status

well now...its wacist to call a R/W names....

you do make i larf didge.......

The point is though the left claim to be tolerant Victor and yet all I see is constant intolerance from them on any political view.
The reason nothing ever gets done is because neither the right or left can agree on anything. How often do you see them place personal differences aside except for tragedies?
I am no victim, I seriously enjoy anything thrown at me, I am just pointing out that the left are easily as intolerant as the right.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:23 pm

yup tolerance doesnt extend to "haters of the poor"

OR to those who...for the sake of a few fraudsters...... are willing and happy to see the list sassy put up here of unjust sanctions...which is only the tip of the iceberg .......

anyone who can countenance that is inhumane

and at the same time you have nothing to say about those tax cheats and avoiders who cost the economy 10 times more than the ENTIRE benefits bill Rolling Eyes

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:27 pm

Dear me, impossible to have a civilized debate when you come out with crap like that Victor.
To be honest religion and politics two bad ideas that people get so wrapped up in and become so hateful on

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:31 pm

Oh I am against Tax fraud, so what does that have to do with anything when neither party has doine much to counter the problem?
This is a global issue which needs everyone on board

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:36 pm

BUT that is THE POINT isnt it

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:36 pm

And you never answered my point on why there is over 700,00 job vacancies and that they are never fully filled, as this number has been consistant over the last year. I mean if as you claim people are actively looling for work why is it we have this same number of job vacancies and the number of unemployement goes down slowly with around 867,000 claiming job seekers allowance?
I suggest you look closely and see why there is a problem with some people not wanting to actively find work and why some have their money stopped, because it is clear some have no intention of finding work.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:38 pm

Brasidas wrote:Oh I am against Tax fraud, so what does that have to do with anything when neither party has doine much to counter the problem?
This is a global issue which needs everyone on board

It has EVERYTHING to do with it....

IF you are going to grind sick and desperate people into the ground over a "few bob" in benefits...it behoves you to get your own house in order first....

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:39 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Oh I am against Tax fraud, so what does that have to do with anything when neither party has doine much to counter the problem?
This is a global issue which needs everyone on board

It has EVERYTHING to do with it....

IF you are going to grind sick and desperate people into the ground over a "few bob" in benefits...it behoves you to get your own house in order first....

They are seprerate issues, which again you detract from the problems you cannot answer:

And you never answered my point on why there is over 700,00 job vacancies and that they are never fully filled, as this number has been consistant over the last year. I mean if as you claim people are actively looling for work why is it we have this same number of job vacancies and the number of unemployement goes down slowly with around 867,000 claiming job seekers allowance?
I suggest you look closely and see why there is a problem with some people not wanting to actively find work and why some have their money stopped, because it is clear some have no intention of finding work.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:39 pm

Brasidas wrote:And you never answered my point on why there is over 700,00 job vacancies and that they are never fully filled, as this number has been consistant over the last year. I mean if as you claim people are actively looling for work why is it we have this same number of job vacancies and the number of unemployement goes down slowly with around 867,000 claiming job seekers allowance?

uhm...the number of unemployed is over 2 million...NOT your fantasy figure of 867,000

I suggest you look closely and see why there is a problem with some people not wanting to actively find work and why some have their money stopped, because it is clear some have no intention of finding work.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:44 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:And you never answered my point on why there is over 700,00 job vacancies and that they are never fully filled, as this number has been consistant over the last year. I mean if as you claim people are actively looling for work why is it we have this same number of job vacancies and the number of unemployement goes down slowly with around 867,000 claiming job seekers allowance?

uhm...the number of unemployed is over 2 million...NOT your fantasy figure of 867,000

I suggest you look closely and see why there is a problem with some people not wanting to actively find work and why some have their money stopped, because it is clear some have no intention of finding work.

No its 1.9 million and these are people on job seekers support, and I am going off those on job seekers allowance and why again we have should hardly any job vanacies in the fact they should be filled up by many here unemployed.
You are avoiding the point!

by Irn Bru Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:48 pm

This is an absolutely shocking report and evidence that the price for Osborne’s austerity is falling mainly on the people who had nothing to do with the collapse of the banking system and the worst affected are the young and those in the lower earnings category.

Osborne had said that the deficit would be written down by the end of this parliament and the debt mountain would start coming down. The deficit has barely been halved and the debt is still going up and people are still worse off than before the recession.

Get this clown out before he gets another chance to drive a low wage economy and deliver a ‘work for nothing’ employment pool to businesses as a means to solving this country’s problems whilst the tax cheats and offshore bandits hoard their millions from the tax man..

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:50 pm

So people back to levels of being better off is shocking now?
See again the left only see the negative even though this is positive news.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:54 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

No its 1.9 million and these are people on job seekers support, and I am going off those on job seekers allowance and why again we have should hardly any job vanacies in the fact they should be filled up by many here unemployed.
You are avoiding the point!

sorry didge you are twisting figures again

from the ONS (independant and open please note didge)

There were 718,000 job vacancies for November 2014 to January 2015.

there are

1.04 million unemployed men,

822,000 unemployed women,
so roughly
2 million unemployed (not counting those considered economically "inactive" ie not working OR recieving benefits)

unemployed for this purpose id defined as

Unemployment measures people without a job who have been actively seeking work within the last four weeks and are available to start work within the next two weeks.

so 3 people for each job...

hmm thats "plenty" then....

of course if we ALSO include all those idle "sick" layabouts (you know the ones....the terminal cancer sufferers, they dying cardiac cases, the folks with severe mental health problems.... Rolling Eyes ) then its much greater

this is without factoring in that many of the jobs are where the unemployed are NOT

of course they can all walk 35 miles every day cant they....idle gits.....

by Irn Bru Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Brasidas wrote:So people back to levels of being better off is shocking now?
See again the left only see the negative even though this is positive news.

Where are they better off? He's had near on 5 years and failed on every fiscal target including the deficit reduction and debt targets he set in 2010 and delivered nothing but misery for millions who are worse off.

He said judge me on retaining our Triple A credit rating - that's gone, hasn't it?

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:59 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

No its 1.9 million and these are people on job seekers support, and I am going off those on job seekers allowance and why again we have should hardly any job vanacies in the fact they should be filled up by many here unemployed.
You are avoiding the point!

sorry didge you are twisting figures again
from the ONS (independant and open please note didge)
There were 718,000 job vacancies for November 2014 to January 2015.
there are
1.04 million unemployed men,
822,000 unemployed women,
so roughly
2 million unemployed (not counting those considered economically "inactive" ie not working OR recieving benefits)
unemployed for this purpose id defined as
Unemployment measures people without a job who have been actively seeking work within the last four weeks and are available to start work within the next two weeks.
so 3 people for each job...
hmm thats "plenty" then....

of course if we ALSO include all those idle "sick" layabouts (you know the ones....the terminal cancer sufferers, they dying cardiac cases, the folks with severe mental health problems.... Rolling Eyes ) then its much greater

this is without factoring in that many of the jobs are where the unemployed are NOT

of course they can all walk 35 miles every day cant they....idle gits.....

Yet more nonsense.
This is simple, you are going on about people having their beneifts stopped when they are not seeking work.
I am using the figure of job seekers as just one point here this figure being over 800,000. Not counting those on disabilities on this point but on the fact there is a consistant job vanacy rate of 700,000 and why this is not filled up to accomadate many here who are unemployed, where the figure again is 1.91 million.
Now try again, if as you believe people are actively seeking work then why have these jobs not been filled within a few short months?

Unemployment fell by 58,000 to 1.91 million in the three months to the end of November, according to the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures.
The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in October fell by 29,700 to 867,000, the ONS said.
The jobless rate was 5.8%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:01 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:So people back to levels of being better off is shocking now?
See again the left only see the negative even though this is positive news.

Where are they better off? He's had near on 5 years and failed on every fiscal target including the deficit reduction and debt targets he set in 2010 and delivered nothing but misery for millions who are worse off.

He said judge me on retaining our Triple A credit rating - that's gone, hasn't it?

It takes time to bring about recovery from a disaster left by labour sadly longer than it was forseen, because the impact of the mess they left was devastating. So your point is on his targtes being out, fine, what has that got to do with the fact people are seeing more money in their pockets again and that this is good news?

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:02 pm

not only that but notice how didge has doged the point ...again...

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:03 pm

Why we expect anything else with a Chancellor who stuffs cocaine up his nose I have no idea.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:06 pm

darknessss wrote:not only that but notice how didge has doged the point ...again...

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

So more waffle avoiding a very important point on jobs and vacancies because ity completely rips apart your sob story and charges of the Tories not caring for the poor. Clearly there is an issue here with the vast number of vacancies and jobs not being filled.
You have no answer to this and I knew you would not have any answer

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:10 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:not only that but notice how didge has doged the point ...again...

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

So more waffle avoiding a very important point on jobs and vacancies because ity completely rips apart your sob story and charges of the Tories not caring for the poor. Clearly there is an issue here with the vast number of vacancies and jobs not being filled.
You have no answer to this and I knew you would not have any answer

NO didge it is YOU who are once again "moving the goalposts"

what answer have you to the basic inhumanity of the system that does as sassys post shows....

you havnt, have you....but thats ok..it will save you a few coppers....

never mind the misery

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:12 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

So more waffle avoiding a very important point on jobs and vacancies because ity completely rips apart your sob story and charges of the Tories not caring for the poor. Clearly there is an issue here with the vast number of vacancies and jobs not being filled.
You have no answer to this and I knew you would not have any answer

NO didge it is YOU who are once again "moving the goalposts"

what answer have you to the basic inhumanity of the system that does as sassys post shows....

you havnt, have you....but thats ok..it will save you a few coppers....

never mind the misery

More waffle and avoiding my point

Try again

by Irn Bru Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:15 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Brasidas wrote:So people back to levels of being better off is shocking now?
See again the left only see the negative even though this is positive news.

Where are they better off? He's had near on 5 years and failed on every fiscal target including the deficit reduction and debt targets he set in 2010 and delivered nothing but misery for millions who are worse off.

He said judge me on retaining our Triple A credit rating - that's gone, hasn't it?

It takes time to bring about recovery from a disaster left by labour sadly longer than it was forseen, because the impact of the mess they left was devastating. So your point is on his targtes being out, fine, what has that got to do with the fact people are seeing more money in their pockets again and that this is good news?

Left by Labour!!!

Recent times have indeed been turbulent. After a decade and a half of stability, with rising employment and living standards, came the crisis and recession - the biggest economic upheaval since the Great Depression. Before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip - we, that is, in the financial sector and as policy-makers - not your members nor the many businesses and organisations around the country which employ them. And although the causes of the crisis may have been rooted in the financial sector, the consequences are affecting everyone, and will continue to do so for years to come.
Thankfully, the costs of the crisis have been smaller than those of the Great Depression. But only because we learnt from that experience. An unprecedented degree of policy stimulus, here and abroad, prevented another world slump. Even so, around a million more people in Britain are out of work than before the crisis. Many, especially the young unemployed, have had their futures blighted.

Mervyn King – Governor of the Bank of England

But he added: "If I'm honest, I have to admit that we, the Conservative Party, didn't see this as early as we could have."
There were other areas where Tory party policy had gone wrong, he said, such as basing its plans on the hope that economic growth would continue.
In a striking admission, Mr Cameron said not all of the present problems had been created since Labour came to power almost 12 years ago. "If we're honest we must recognise that some of our economic difficulties today relate not only to what has happened in the last ten years, but also to fundamental weaknesses that have been there for decades," he said.
These remarks could upset Tory traditionalists who will see it as a partial apology for Thatcherite policies.

David Cameron – Prime Minister

http://www.scotsman.com/news/cameron-apologises-for-past-tory-failings-over-economy-1-1029731

Institute for Fiscal Studies...

Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red.
By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives.• And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07.

Labour not responsible for crash, says former Bank of England governor

The former Bank of England governor Mervyn King has denied that the previous Labour government was responsible for the financial crash, saying there was a shared intellectual responsibility across the political parties and financial institutions for failing to foresee the problems.
Saying his view on the cause of the crisis had evolved, he said he doubted any single one country could have found their way through the crisis.
His remarks on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, which he was guest-editing, will please the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, as he prepares to battle a Conservative claim at the next election that Labour mismanagement of City regulation and excessive public spending were jointly responsible for the crash from which the UK economy is still recovering.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king

Read that have you?

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:18 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:

NO didge it is YOU who are once again "moving the goalposts"

what answer have you to the basic inhumanity of the system that does as sassys post shows....

you havnt, have you....but thats ok..it will save you a few coppers....

never mind the misery

More waffle and avoiding my point

Try again

and I have answered your point...twice now on various threads...

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:22 pm

Nope you have avoided it at every turn.

Try again

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:25 pm

oh nuts didge...i'm not playing your "dodge the question2 game...

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:25 pm

your point about the number of unemployed and available jobs id irrelevant

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:26 pm

What he always does when he knows he is wrong and looks a fool.

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:26 pm

THIS is what matters

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:28 pm

darknessss wrote:THIS is what matters

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

How many Job vanacies does in regards to people having their beneifts stopped, because clearly there is a caser of a number of people clearly not looking for work and these benefits are there only to assist people to get back into work.
This is the point you are missing.
Job Seekers support, not stay on the dole support.

You are sinking fast mate

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:30 pm

Declared 'fit to work'... dead nine days later: Double lung and heart transplant patient passed away a week after her benefits were stopped

Linda Wootton, 49, was on 10 prescription medications a day
The former council worker suffered from regular blackouts
But healthcare assessor Atos ruled that she was 'fit to work'
She was told her benefits were being stopped as she lay dying in hospital
Husband Peter now wants to expose the ordeal his wife went through

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332038/Double-lung-heart-transplant-patient-died-days-benefits-stopped-declared-fit-work.html#ixzz3TSGQ0umd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:31 pm

risingsun wrote:Declared 'fit to work'... dead nine days later: Double lung and heart transplant patient passed away a week after her benefits were stopped

Linda Wootton, 49, was on 10 prescription medications a day
The former council worker suffered from regular blackouts
But healthcare assessor Atos ruled that she was 'fit to work'
She was told her benefits were being stopped as she lay dying in hospital
Husband Peter now wants to expose the ordeal his wife went through

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332038/Double-lung-heart-transplant-patient-died-days-benefits-stopped-declared-fit-work.html#ixzz3TSGQ0umd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The worst attempt at deflection to my question yet

Try again

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:34 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:THIS is what matters

seriously i dont give a damn about "how many jobs there are"

the point remains and ALWAYS WILL remain
that......

you talk of "civilised" and yet what I have said above is the bald and patent truth

and is far from "civilised"

it is utterly WRONG and indefensible that those unfortunates in sassy's post were treted like that...

it is unacceptable to make excuses like "mistake"

IF you are going to posit a harsh and strict system then it had better NOT make ANY mistakes

otherwise it becomes a disreputable monstrosity

NOR can you deny that as far as the countries finace is concerned, the payments "lost" due to fraud and or so called "workshy" is not only miniscule as a proportion of the benefits bill, but pales into utter insignificance in comparison to what is drained from the country by the tax doging rich

How many Job vanacies does in regards to people having their beneifts stopped, because clearly there is a caser of a number of people clearly not looking for work and these benefits are there only to assist people to get back into work.
This is the point you are missing.
Job Seekers support, not stay on the dole support.

You are sinking fast mate

so you find it acceptable to sanction those people in sassys earlier post

well didge...IMHO that makes you a bad person....

what part of (the level of fraud and "work shy" is miniscule in proportion to the benefits bill) can you not see....

what part of IT IS INHUMANE and INHUMAN to sanction, literally to their death, some of the most vulnerable people in our society do you fail to get through your ossified cranium???

by Guest Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:35 pm

Tell you what Dodgery Doo-doo - you have just shown everyone the depths of your scuminess.

by Sponsored content