You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2010.

We must all be pleased and relieved that the economy actually grew by more in 4Q 2009 than suggested – up from 0.1 to 0.3%.

Except that it didn’t.

The Telegraph has a couple of reports …

Edmund Conway points out

“The size of the British economy – in other words the total amount of cash generated by its companies and spent by its people – was actually £133m smaller in the fourth quarter than the ONS previously thought.”

“Before today’s revisions, it thought the economy pumped out £315,845m worth of output in those three months. Now, it thinks the actual figure was more like £315,712m.”

“the ONS … went back through a whole range of its statistics, and discovered that the recession was in fact significantly deeper than it previously thought. So although in Q4 Britain ended up producing more or less the same amount of cash (actually £133m less …), it produced even less than was previously thought in the preceding quarters”

And he has a second bite

“The pound slid to new lows on Friday after it emerged that an apparent improvement in Britain’s growth late last year disguised the fact that the Office for National Statistics has actually cut its estimate of Britain’s economic output. ”

A four month low.

So despite all the headlines – “the official estimate of the level of economic output in the fourth quarter was actually £133m lower than the ONS’s previous estimate, at £315,712m. The ONS also revealed that the peak-to-trough fall in economic output was, at 6.2pc,”

For those who thrill to the words of bona fide economists …
“Andrew Lilico, chief economist at Policy Exchange, pointed out that the lower estimate of GDP would have far-reaching consequences for the public finances. He said: “A political consequence is that, since the economy will now be smaller at the start of the 2010/11 budget year, tax receipts should now be expected to be lower, so the 2010/11 and 2011/12 deficit projections will need to be revised up – perhaps to above £200bn – even if the deficit ends up fractionally down this year. That makes early spending cuts more urgent.” ”

Is this a scenario where you would call call a General Election? Hmm…

Just as well we have a Prime Minister with a brain the size of a planet.


OK in fact my post has precious little to do with Greeks and only marginally deficits.  Though I think I  cover myself with my conclusions – all right I don’t.

In truth, given the current Euro crisis, it seems a neat headline, so self servingly I use it.

No I am driven by a quote – publicised by The Spectators ‘Coffee House’. They quote Brown as saying, “we are paying a one off price for globalisation”

Coffee House put this down to “the technocratic side of Brown”, (they might have remembered, ‘a price worth paying‘) but it really is all part of Brown rationalising his broken paradigm to himself.

This is not just his post neo classical endogenous growth theory rubbish, or his facile social engineering. Its all his fancies about global this that and the other and how it means never ending sweetness and light.

Just before he came down with his brain illness Ted Kennedy had to sit through Brown’s speech to the assembled Kennedy entourage in Boston, waffling on about ‘global’ issues. Laughably you will not be surprised to learn that Brown thought that everything good thats happened in the world since 1963 was down to President John and Senator Ted. Even the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But when you hear Brown say things like “Let me sketch out the challenges we face, the new directions I favour and the solutions I propose.”, you know you should run for the exit.

Interestingly when you consider his response to the leaked UEA emails Brown says, “A few years ago in regime after regime sentries could stand over fax machines as governments sought to deny information to their peoples … the digital age is enabling people to become the authors of change rather than its subjects”. Hmm, today Iran has shut down Google.  Still we cannot expect the Great Leader to think of everything.

Browns conclusions? “a new World Bank; a new International Monetary Fund; a reformed and renewed United Nations … strong regional organizations from the European Union to the African Union able to bring … humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and the support for stability and reconstruction that has been absent for too long — all built around a new global society founded on revitalized international rules and institutions, ”

You pick up on that? Lets leave aside the more powerful (usually unaccountable) institutions to rule and dehumanise us; no its, ‘rules’; pity those pesky Greeks cannot obey rules (and pay their taxes). Rules – thats why we have had 6000 new laws in the past 13 years. Rules to make life better. If only people would think like Brown and obey his rules.

This is Browns warped paradigm. He then demanded “during the year to come I want this debate about change to become a global dialogue about renewal as we embark upon a task perhaps more ambitious than even the Bretton Woods Conference”.  Phew!

All that was in April 2008 – anyone seen any of these absurd pipe-deams coming to fruition?

No. Brown did not, cannot, envisage ‘globalisation’ making things worse not better, so our current disaster becomes a ‘one off’ price.
What should worry people is that if he really believes that then he will not be rushing to rebalance our economy, as according to his paradigm we have all of the time in the (global) world.  Just follow his rules, its easy.

And for followers of the Jonah Principle – soon after this speech Senator Ted had a brain seizure and subsequently died, with the Democrats losing his seat to … someone called Brown.

Disaster looms. Britain desperately needs a new government.

Watts Up With that have a neat post which sums up all the dangers we face in a world where life is just too complex for us oiks.

They point to a quote by former Senator Tim Wirth which speaks for itself.

“we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

It sums up the whole mindset of the climategate cheats.

As WUWT point out “Not surprisingly, after Wirth left the Senate and the Clinton administration he ended up at the United Nations.”

Like I said, it speaks for itself, so I will save my breath.

Over at UK Polling Report they have an average of polls; it shows 39-30-19.   This means that there is 12 for ‘others’.
Historically this is very high.
Go back to 1979 and you find ….
44-37-14 —   with 5 for others.

Currently that means that Tories have 44% of the none ‘others’, whilst in 1979 they had 46%.  Not much difference.

This high rise in ‘others’  accounts for the fall in share of labour and tory votes.  The LibDem vote is the one that has risen against this trend – following the 1997 lib/lab pact.

Will we see 12% for others in the coming election.  Are the polls correctly picking up their (and libdem) correct representation?
Will voting either libdem or ‘others’ help keep Brown in power?  Or when faced on the day with knowing which way they have to vote to remove labour, will this colour the actual vote (especially in marginals) ??

Its easy to see why Brown wants to keep this lib/lab pact (via PR) going isn’t it ??  Will libdems buy this pig in a poke again??

And are the polls really currently predicting what will happen when the election starts?

February 2010
« Dec   Mar »