Johnny Bognor

I was outraged Turkish, as I was over the reduction in cup size for tea. Cutting back on the hot water does seem a little excessive.

They used to serve grab bag sized walkers crisps, now you only get standard size for the same money. So I now buy a packet of crisps before the game. True Story.

I agree to some extent CEC, but personal allowances have offset some of the difference between pay freezes and inflation. Personal tax allowances were £5,225 in 2008/2009 and they are now £9,440. Perhaps the government could do more, but this would probably mean cuts elsewhere. Anyway, for many businesses, it is not a case of "take it or leave it" because they are evil nasty employers. For many it is a simple case of trying to survive.

True, but the private sector is taking twice the fall, but as we're all in this together, I grant you that public sector workers are feeling the squeeze, if only to a lesser extent. So the choice boils down to falling living standards, but keeping jobs rising living standards (for those in work), but losing jobs. I think the first option is the better one until things recover. It's not a matter of left or right, but a matter of common sense.

Eurozone grew by 0.3%, France by 0.5% and Germany by 0.7% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23692102 So we've done OK. Spain (the country upheld by the lefties to bang on about falling living standards) contracted 0.1%.

It is why we've had lower unemployment. Many small businesses have frozen pay, so in effect wages have fallen. But those employees would rather keep their jobs, at the same rate and tighten their belts, than lose their jobs and go on to benefits. Small business employers would rather retain trained staff, than let them go, so in the short term it is no bad thing. It puts us in a better position for a recovery. To compare the UK to Spain, where they have unemployment in excess of 25% is bordering on ridiculous. Would you swap for Spain right now? I don't think anyone in their right mind would.

Andrex will be crapping themselves over Puncheon launching his own brand of "When you gotta go, you gotta go" toilet paper.

Jake, you have mail mate

This is nuts http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/70346/al-qaeda-threaten-tottenham-over-transfer-of-gareth-bale-to-real-madrid/

Hmm. Wages not rising whilst cost of living does shocker amidst the worst economic crisis since WW2. Don't think you can blame him for that, just as you won't praise him when these green shoots result in rising wages during economic growth?

All 13 components of the manufacturing index showed growth for the first time since June 1992, the Office for National Statistics said.

Good news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23571579

One for you Turkish ;-) Wanyama woahhhh ooooo We bought him from Celtic Cortese is a pr***

I never said they were. In fact, I have said that what the bankers did was akin to fraud and as such, they should be punished like the common criminals they are. Forgetting about the international banking fraud, if we look at the whole PPI fiasco, I am amazed no one has been sent to jail.

I think they were right to, but I won't hold people (who were implicit in creating the problem in the first place) up to be heros of the day...

There is an alternative. The more you grow GDP, the less you would have to cut. Just a thought. FWIW, I think public spending should be brought into line with what we can afford. If current public spending is £721bn and we are running a £100bn deficit, then it should be £621bn which is 36% of our current GDP. In 2001 we were running at 37%, so it is achievable and it doesn't mean losing the NHS.

To start with, it's not 50%. It's 42% and it is projected to go to 39% over the next few years. If we can hold actual spending and get the economy going, we should be able to get back to 35%, which is probably about right IMO

To be fair, it is right to look at spending against GDP rather than taxation vs GDP. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/government-spending-countries-gdp (taken from the Guardian so it is not dismissed as right wing propaganda) When you look at it that way, there are a number of desirable places with lower public spending as a proportion of GDP. Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Even the beloved Norway (often championed by the lefties), currently has lower government spending as a proportion of GDP than we do. Furthermore, the countries with the largest proportion are Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea. Anyone want to live there?

So if 74% equates to £534 billion, then 100% would equate to £721bn I have and it doesn't add up. Straight from the Gordon Brown school of economics LOL

This is one for the anti-banking posters

Firstly, Verbal, where did the government get all of this money? Are we back to Gordon's magic socialist money tree? You know, the one that creates money out of thin air? Or was it taken from the private sector in taxation? I'll let you decide.

Well I have upgraded to a member to ensure I have enough posts for the onslaught. Let battle commence...

...

...

"No more boom and bust" anyone? Sorry Verbal, but Gordon Clown was as active as anyone in creating the conditions for everything to go tits up. He lied to the nation to give everyone a false sense of security so that they kept borrowing what they couldn't afford (well, he was doing it wasn't he?) on their mortages and credit cards. Some people said he was prudent... I said stick Crash Gordon in a jail cell next to the bankers and I still stand by that. For those that missed it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQVF9s01NYI And as for the academic, Wren-Lewis omits a very very important fact from his work (which is what you would expect from a loony lefty academic with an agenda). Gordon Clown adopted tory spending plans for his first two years of office, during which time net debt fell and budget surpluses returned. Ironically, those first two years of his chancellorship were his most successful. Jeez and to think this clown (I mean the professor, not Gordon) is brainwashing his students. I despair, I really do.