Finally Getting There?

[youngmafbog]

http://news.sky.com/story/1159517/uk-economy-gdp-growth-accelerates-to-0-8-percent

OK, still a long way to go, but is there hope on the horizon.

Certainly looks like it and time to talk up our economy to attract foreign business but how long before the left put their agenda first and try to trash it?

[doctordb]

I'm sure ed 'Gestapo' balls will do his best to dampen everyone's spirits.

[Zacs-Master]

I suppose they would have to get into power first.

[jno]

at this rate of "momentum" , in another three years we'll be where we were in 2008.

[Gromit]

Labour were kicked out because of their poor performance on the economy.

When they were booted out growth at Q2 2010 was at 1.1%. That figure was considered not good enough and the voters showed their disapproval at the ballot box.

Three and a half years later and the figure now is 0.8% growth. Rather than get better, our growth has faulted under the coalition.

Strange how 1.1% was very bad in 2010 and 0.8% gets you jumping for joy in 2013.


http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/blog-uploads/2012/10/economic-growth-uk-ons-quarter2.png

[doctordb]

Not only the economy gromit. There were many reasons for new labours demise. It also didn't help that their leader was a miserable self obsessed tyrant.

[youngmafbog]

Have you forgotten the big dip just before that? The growth was not sustainable and would have dropped once it came out the country was actually out of cash.
//Strange how 1.1% was very bad in 2010 and 0.8% gets you jumping for joy in 2013. //

not sure how "still a long way to go, but is there hope on the horizon" equates to jumping for joy ??

[Kromovaracun]

The economy was always going to recover eventually - they always do. The problem is that the growth we're only just starting to experience (while it is welcome news) is comparatively pretty modest, and has been severely delayed and limited by the government's badly-thought out austerity measures.

It's a very common idea - being pushed by the government, and lapped up by the press - that the British debt situation is catastrophically dire due to years and years of Labour overspending, and that we have no choice but to cut spending which has quite a severe impact on peoples' lives.

This is a powerful idea, but unfortunately, the reality just doesn't seem that simple. British debt history prior to the credit crisis was, within expected parameters, pretty stable after the late '70s and didn't change all that much based on whichever party was in office. It spiked during the crisis because of the bank bailout (which most people seem to agree saved us a great deal of pain in exchange for putting up with a horrendously unjust treatment of those responsible for the mess).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/british-debt-history/?_r=0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9932748/Budget-2013-Britains-debt-and-deficit.html

Labour largely inherited Conservative economic policies and preserved them - they really didn't differ a great deal so it doesn't really make sense to say that the current debt situation is some kind of particularly Labour legacy.