A “hard lesson” for George Osborne

6th January, 2014 3:38 pm

In 2011 George Osborne proclaimed that “We have already asked the British people for what is needed, and today we do not need to ask for more.”  Yet today, in 2014 on the feast of the epiphany no-less, George Osborne commands that this will be “A year of hard truths”.

Of course Osborne will no doubt wish to forget most of the “hard truths” of 2013. A year which saw the Conservative dominated Coalition Government accrue more UK state debt than the entire period of the previous 13 year Labour Government.  Growth effectively strangled till autumn 2013, and UK public sector net deficit stubbornly lingering despite claims in June 2010 that it would be eradicated by 2015.

No, we all now need to prepare for further cuts for the foreseeable future now according to Osborne. Gone are the claims of the original Osborne “plan A” that it all be over by May 2015.

And why? Well with SME investment collapsing by £30bn since 2011, industry and business are sweating assets rather than investing, all desperately wondering how the current period of growth is in any shape or form sustainable. This is not “a march of the makers”. Current growth is based on what Osborne used to refer to as “bad growth” or consumer debt led growth.

osbornesmirk

Except it is and it isn’t. It’s actually worse. It’s a growth based on record levels of savings being spent, as household savings have declined to levels seen since the early 1970s.  Savings being spent plus pay day loans offers up a heady toxic mix of UK state debt, vast personal debt, rising prices and falling wages.

Worker productivity has collapsed through the floor, with people doing much less for less pay.

But it’s the stark facts on the ground that Osborne needs to take on board. For people working in my constituency, average real gross weekly pay has fallen by 35.2% since 2010. This is a huge weekly earnings loss, and with prices running away from earnings Osborne will be desperate for a levelling out of living standards.

Today Osborne says “the plan is working…for the first time in a long while, there’s a real sense that Britain is on the rise.”  Whose Britain is this?  And which plan is working?  This is certainly not what I hear on the doorsteps of Guisborough, Loftus and Park End.

This Government has a real disconnect with what most people are thinking and experiencing

The real threat for Osborne, and he knows it, is any forward guidance decision to raise interest rates. Implicitly, Osborne is admitting there is a cost of living crisis by hoping he can avoid such an interest rate rise as already struggling household budgets, of low and middle income families, would almost certainly haemorrhage.

The point is people are now beginning to ask themselves, do I feel better off more now than I did in May 2010? And the answer for the majority is no. That is the hard lesson for Osborne in 2014 and one he is culpable for.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Monkey_Bach

    What Osborne is suggesting is impossible.

    Eeek.

  • Alexwilliamz

    Surely if his policies were a success, tax take would go up and other revenue sources would increase, mirroring this there would be fewer subsidies and benefit payments. Consequently there would be no need for further cuts as things would balance themselves out.

    • Hugh

      He’s still talking about tackling the structural deficit isn’t he – the fact public sector debt was increasing pre-crisis. Gordon didn’t manage to “balance things out” even during a long period of economic growth, so I’m not sure this argument stacks up.

      • Alexwilliamz

        If we have made cuts up to now, surely that should have an impact on the deficit especially if revenue increased and other costs went down. It is the debt that would be expected to be unaffected. What we need is real term figures of punlic spending including welfare, public spending excluding welfare and revenue. Any competent economic policy should seek to get the right balance on all three. If we were experiencing a genuine recovery we would expect the welfare bill to naturally reduce, revenue shoukd also increase, the public spending one presumes has gone down if we have been experiencing the correct kind of austerity. If osbourne is advocating more austerity it suggests that a) while there have been cuts actual public spending may not have been reduced significantly (nhs reform costs, welfare reforms etc) b) welfare bill is on the up because people are not working or earning enough to not require it c) revenue has not recovered. All george can offer is cutting spending, he offers one potentially self defeating solution, without a real credible economic and industrial policy it cannot work. He is like a medieval doctor, bleeding the sick patient in the hope of purging them of the illness, but in fact just making him weaker. I’d say economic theory is probably at the same level as medieval medicine, a hotch potch of remedies gained from trial and error laced with a number of questionable theories. My instinct says george is wrong and even if the answer is balancing the books, targetting the weakest and the under rerepresented is just morally wrong.

        • Hugh

          “If we have made cuts up to now, surely that should have an impact on the
          deficit especially if revenue increased and other costs went down.”

          There has been an impact on the deficit. It shrank last year. Expecting it to shrink much more in the midst of turmoil in the EU (our biggest trading partner, we’re often reminded) strikes me as a touch unrealistic. If memory serves, the IFS has also had little time for the argument that higher public spending to boost the economy would have led to lower debt overall.

          “If we were experiencing a genuine recovery we would expect the welfare bill to naturally reduce…”

          Given unemployment trails recessions I don’t think that’s true. And has there ever been a recovery that economists didn’t initially decry for its lack of balance. What was Gordon’s debt-binged uptick in 2009 under this analysis, indicentally?

          As for (a), (b) and (c), I think there’s another possibilty, which is simply the cuts so far have not reversed the increases in public spending to an extent that they’re sustainable – particualrly since it should now be obvious that boom and bust are not abolished, and much of the revenue from the City was a fantasy. In other words, teh current cuts are cutting the deficit, but have still not eradicated the structural deficit.

          “He is like a medieval doctor, bleeding the sick patient in the hope of
          purging them of the illness, but in fact just making him weaker”

          That line of argument had some resonance when the recovery was faltering. With growth looking increasingly likely to hit 3% in the current year it looks silly.

          Whether or not we would have been better off with more spending to boost growth last year, since we do now have strong growth, yet are still running a significant deficit, what exactly is the case against further cuts in public spending (we can argue about where the cuts should lie, of course)? If you don’t intend to work to eradicate the deficit now, when exactly should we do it? How many years of uninterrupted growth do you expect in the coming decade?

          • Alexwilliamz

            My concern is that the rhetoric and reasoning is all skewed and simplistic. Basically the argument seems to be the crash and recession can be solved by cutting spending. Personally i think the two things are actually separate issues; namely that the recession had little to do with public spending, deficits etc and everything to do with the structural weaknesses within our economy. A recession merely highlights deficit issues, because it receives an unsurprising jump (revenues drop and welfare costs go up). Hence targetting cutting the deficit as in some way being the solution to our economic woes seems to me missing the point and more worringly missing where maybe our real focus should be. The bleeding analogy works even better here because often patients recovered despite the purge, and of course their recovery was then used as vindication, people of the medieval period were not witless if everyone getting bled always died they would not keep doing it.
            Don’t get me wrong there are serious questions about the tipping point with regard to a deficit and it is unsustainable (unless accompanied by hyperinflation of course!) but that debate has never happened. Instead there has been a deliberate move to suggest that the deficit was a new phenomenon which suddenly appeared under the last Labour gvt. Osbourne has clearly failed, the shortfall in cutting the deficit as we all know has nothing to do with needing more cuts and everything to do with the initial growth projections not being matched in reality. Never has it taken so long to recover from a recession, especially when you consider the position it was in before. Blaming the eu situation is interesting since one could argue that is merely building the case against austerity since the eu is following the same economic strategy. We will never know whether things may have worked out differently had a different approach been followed, however it seems clear to me that george’s most recent statements can only be seen in the light of a failure to stimulate the economy during the first 3 years of this gvt.
            Where i agree with you most strongly is that what is missing is a discussion about how we pay ourself out of the situation and i think we need to be honest with the country and ask the big question about using taxation to increase revenue as well as cuts and taking a position on what we believe should and should not be paid for.
            I’d like to see some innovation in how some things are paid for.
            Pension reform should be discussed.
            A genuine inudstrial policy needs to be developed
            Integrated infrastructure needs a strategic steer.
            Basically gvt needs to get its hands dirty in building the conditions in which private and public enterprise can thrive. Instead of the subsidisation of poor practises and inefficient business models (eg tax credits and housing benefits subsidising poor pay, bailing out the bank etc etc), these are sticking plaster solutions and we have to develop a society robust enough to manage without.
            All i see is a detached elite scoring points of each other and trying to set ‘traps’ for each other at the cost to real people’s lives. Playing to what seems to be a very narrow audience of people who read newspapers and are on websites like this!

          • Hugh

            “…the recession had little to do with public spending,
            deficits etc and everything to do with the structural weaknesses within
            our economy.”

            I think you’re missing the point: we had deficits etc when the economy was growing strongly, and not due to one-off capital projects, but the strucutural deficit. Since the government, if memory serves, earlier scaled back its original spending cuts (which were aimed at eliminating the structural deficit), it’s not surprising now that the economy is growing that more cuts are considered.

            That “structural weakness” that leads to deficits even when the economy is growing well and tax receipts are good can only be explained by an unsustainable level of public spending.

            “there are serious questions about the tipping point with regard to a deficit and it is unsustainable”

            That’s simply not true. The debate has been played out here and in practically every country in the world: the conclusion in almost all cases has been – no matter what the flavour of governemnt is that government debt needs to be reduced, which means tackling the deficit or assuming consistently strong growth year after year that will make it sustainable. After the last few years do you really want to bet on the latter?

            “We will never know whether things may have worked out differently had a
            different approach been followed, however it seems clear to me that
            george’s most recent statements can only be seen in the light of a
            failure to stimulate the economy during the first 3 years of this gvt.”

            No, we will never know. I suspect you’re wrong, but as I’ve already said, we are now in a situation where we have strong growth, and you still don’t want to cut the deficit significantly. So, when would you do it? Or do you think we should do it mostly with tax rises – despite the fact taxes have already been raised since 2010?

            “Pension reform should be discussed.
            A genuine inudstrial policy needs to be developed
            Integrated infrastructure needs a strategic steer.
            Basically gvt needs to get its hands dirty in building the conditions in which private and public enterprise can thrive.”

            I know a little about the first and it has been discussed, exhaustively. We’re raising the pensions age, ending contracting out etc. What specific changes would you like to see, and what difference do you reckon they’ll make to the deficit?

          • Alexwilliamz

            I’m not sure you are reading my posts correctly, or the challenge of punctuation on the ipad is causing problems.
            1) i do not dispute the existence of the deficit, in fact you seem to agree with my point that it existed before the recession and therefore those arguing that we need to cut it for the good of the wider economy are conflating two issues, which may have overlap are far from cause and effect. They are two separate debates that we should be having.
            2) there is no doubt that the failure to build a stronger recovery has a direct impact on the scale of the deficit. Without the figures i do not know if for example the deficit would exist if we combined present public spending against the pre recession revenue and cost of specific spending that accompanies a recession being removed. It stands that the weaker the economy then the greater the deficit, irrespective of public spending cuts. The deficit can be reduced by cutting spending and raising revenue, with the additional benefit of recoveryreducing the cost of certain other costs eg unemployment benefit. Equally the type of recovery will also have an i impact on this element (gdp is not the only critical measure).
            3) this brings me to the biggest poltiical/economic issue which is that the only real game in town being pushed by osbourne is cuts, and the argument that this will automatically lead to a ‘fixed’ economy. There is very dangerous as it means that we continue to just avoid the tougher actions we will need to balance the economy and the equal opportunities across the nation. We are just setting ourselves up for another crisis in a few years time. For me what is happening as so often is the wrong argument is dominating the political scene.

            I think the issue with the deficit is a result of the failure to tackle wider issues including how we pay for the services we use, how we engage the wider population in constructuve activity and how we tackle an ageing population. The later remains focussed on paying for those people who are retired now rather than how we reinvigorate the economy as the workforce itself ages? Who will do the jobs to sustain growth and what industry will those jobs be in.

            I question why the welfare budget is the prime target for cuts. I question why taxation is not part of the equation. I question where the plans for what sort of economy we need to transition to. I question how we gainfully employ the population. I reject the answer that the market will magically supply all or even any answers to the longer term problems we face.

          • Hugh

            Thanks for the reply. I’m afraid I don’t have time to go through all of it, but to take the second briefly – look at tax receipt levels during any of the boom years and you’ll find we’d still be running a large deficit.

            Given that, how much growth do you realistically expect we can achieve consistently? You seem to make no distinction betweeen the deficit and the structural deficit: the latter is, by definition unsustainable long term and unlikely to be solved by growth.

            On your concluding points: “I think the issue with the deficit is a result of the failure to tackle wider issues including how we pay for the services we use, how we engage the wider population in constructuve activity and how we tackle
            an ageing population.”

            You can argue about the methods and their likely success but the Tories’ welfare reforms are quite plainly focussed on the second of these; the arguments over private funding in public services are clearly aimed at the first. You may disagree with the conclusions they’re coming up with, but it’s quite clear these issues are not being ignored.

            “I question why taxation is not part of the equation.”

            It plainly is. Since 2010 there have been two and a half times as many tax rises as tax cuts. In the decade before the crash, the tax burden also increased. The new parliament will also see taxes rise – whoever gets in power.

  • Mr Arthur Cook

    This isn a sign of Georges economic failure. It’s part 2 of the plan.
    The idea was never to “suffer a bit until the economy picks up then back to normal”.
    This is the consolidation phase where PERMANENT expectations of poverty for the plebs is established as a NORM ….not just a response to recession.
    The recession did not prompt cuts and the distruction of the welfate state ….it simply provided a useful cover for it. Now that the economy is picking up George is keen that we we don’t take our weight off the boot on the neck of the poor.
    Having got them where he wants them …. he needs to now establish it as their permanent state as a “back to the good old days” Tory philosophy.

    • Doug Smith

      He won’t get away with it.

      The patience of the people will eventually wear thin. Though there is no indication of a return to Labour for an alternative. Indeed, there is no indication Labour is capable of producing an alternative.

      We should expect a very rough future.

      • Mr Arthur Cook

        I’m afraid Labour are so inculcated with “middle of the road”, “third way”, “responsible capitalism” nonsense that they can marshal little that could be called an underpinning ideology which defines the values of the party other than in soundbite slogans thought up by marketing men.
        The problem with Labour is that it drited south, taking its nothern vote for granted and hoped to capture the votes of the “made it” cool Britannia crowd.
        This Tory government (for it is a Tory government) has done us a huge favour. It has shown us that the corruption, nepotism and self-interest of a social class who believe they are born to rule is alive and well and was waiting in the wings to destroy everything we had won over 6 decades.
        The Labour “leadership” feels uncomfortable with the realities of a polarised society and quacks out the stolen Tory slogan of “one nation”.
        No nation is “one nation” and a Labour leadership which believes it can reconcile the diametrically opposed interests of capital and labour are either liars or scoundrels.
        What is it to be?

        • Doug Smith

          Well, we’ll have to wait and see though we may have to wait some time – most Labour supporters seem to want to learn the hard way.

          What I find most disheartening is the way Blairism(i.e. mimicking the Tories) is wheeled out as the perennially valid response.

          One has to assume the intellectual exhaustion of the Labour Partry prevents it from addressing many of the important challenges we face.

          Take the globalised situation – where the owner of an important facility in Scotland can hold the nation to ransom, threatening to close his plant and open up in another country unless the government stumps-up loan guarantees and the workforce submits to unreasonable demands.

          Plenty of other globalised corporations could do exactly the same. And probably will particularly when international healthcare corporations get their meat-hooks into a vital service like the NHS.

          But no doubt this hasn’t featured in Labour’s polling so they won’t regard this as an being of any importance at all.

          • Graemeyh

            Totally disagree.

            Good article by the way.

          • treborc1

            You mean people like ATOS and UNUM Provident two companies who worked together to make the WCA and welfare reforms.

            I’ve no doubt if Miliband was to get in those two companies would be big in labour future NHS.

          • Doug Smith

            With an eye to opportunities in the private sector thereafter I’m sure unaccountable future Labour ministers will busy themselves representing corporate interests.

            One of the conveniences loved by the LibLabCon elite is the superstition that corporate interests are identical with public interest.

  • JoeDM

    The net Public Sector debt in Sept. 2013 was £1,211.8 billion. That’s 75.9% of GDP.

    Back in 1990 it was 29% of GDP.

    With interest rates due to return to normal levels over the next year or two, the proportion of GDP required to service that debt will rise from the current 3.5%.

    This is a long term problem that will impact governments of whatever party for many years to come. That’s the economic reality.

    • BillFrancisOConnor

      ‘With interest rates due to return to normal levels over the next year or two,,

      You mean the interest rates for government bonds on the international bond market?

      • Steve Stubbs

        Which have nearly doubled in the past year. Bad omen there.

        • BillFrancisOConnor

          Under Osborne’s watch who lost us the triple A status. He promised that he would reduce the deficit to 0 by the end of the financial year 2014-2015 when next year the deficit will be £79 billion.

    • treborc1

      And yet we have had to deal with debts of five times this after two world wars, and we built up a country after this.

      I think this is an all round excuse by all political parties to bring this country down, it’s a debt for god sake, you pay back these debts over a long period it may cost more but you do not find people asking is it worth voting for Pratts who cannot see banks abuse and now cannot tell how to pay off debts.

      1945 we have five times higher debts then we did today

      • JoeDM

        Agreed, but then we had rationing, import controls, strong foreign exchange controls and very high income taxes, but with low unemployment and much smaller pensioner population to fund.

        I don’t think the taxes and economic restrictions of the late 40s and 50s would be politically acceptable today.

        When Labour get elected in 2015 one of the most interesting aspects of economic policy will be taxation. How will they fund their spending plans given the current level of national debt? Will they bite the bullet and push up income tax?

        • treborc1

          The big problem for labour is that public borrowing is on the up, and the recovery is now looking assured, if of course we end up back in a recession then i think the Tories would struggle.

          Two polls a few months ago showed Miliband personal rating was low, and he is still not trusted with the economy, he has to change those.

          We will see I’m sure the Tories will find tax cuts for the rich middle class swing voters which always helps polls.

          • ColinAdkins

            Excellent post and your comments highlight the quandry facing Labour. I have long proposed stealing a march on any such move by Osborne by proposing that the 45p should kick in at a lower level and all proceeds should go into on a tax neutral basis in lifting the rate at which people pay 40p. This will set the interests of one group of relatively high earners against those who earn even more.

        • Chris Cook

          Income tax is way too high.

          Labour still have an ideological fixation – the theory of Labour Value – on taxation of earned income by people, rather than income accruing (I won’t say earned) to their assets and privileged property rights over Commons such as land.

          This suits the conservatives and neo-liberals just fine of course.

          Labour should drastically cut the taxation of earned income to leave minimal levies on gross income to cover health, education and security.

          How to fill the gap?

          Firstly, I suggest a levy/tax on exclusive use of land should be made, collected and distributed equally to all as a Land Dividend (a form of basic income) of levy credits which are returnable against land use whatever the tenure (a landlord will always accept credits in payment of rent to use himself) .

          Secondly, a similar levy/tax and dividend on non-renewable energy use and then a limited liability levy/tax on the gross income of credit intermediaries aka banks; another levy/tax on the privilege of IP rights and so on.

          Financing and funding for new productive assets will come, as it always did prior to central banks, not from debt, but from prepayment of the levy by investors at a discount leading to a rate of return over time.

          In this way those with above average use of the Commons would compensate those with below average use.

          Naturally, privileged turkeys will never enact Xmas.

    • BillFrancisOConnor

      With interest rates due to return to normal levels over the next year or two,

      You mean the interest rates for government bonds on the international bond market?

      Because of course you would know that the interest rate for government debts on the international bond market bears no relation to domestic interest rates wouldn’t you? You’d also know that the current 2 year yield on UK government debt is 0.52% and that the cost of government debt is not necessarily connected to the level of public spending. Hence the current 10 year yield on Swedish government debt which has 10%-15% historically higher levels of public spending than the UK is 2.5% as against the UK’s current 10 year yield of 2.95%

      Despite Osborne’s best efforts to increase the price of UK government debt ,which has of course included his spectacular loss of the UK’s triple A rating, it remains comparatively cheap but not as cheap as high State spending countries like Sweden.

      In a similar vein, any suggestion that your remark was an ill informed and poorly thought out load of old pony is,and must remain, pure speculation.

      • Hugh

        Is Sweden’s low borrowing cost not related at least partly to the fact it has a very low deficit (about a fifth the size of the UK’s) and debt (less than half)? And do base rates, and specifically base rate expectations really have no relation to the government’s cost of borrowing – particularly when thinking about two-year gilts?

        Here, incidentally, is Robert Stheeman of the UK Debt Management Office two days ago explaining how the prospect of interest rate rises could make it more difficult to finance government debt going forward. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25614095

        • BillFrancisOConnor

          Interesting first point. High spending Sweden’s deficit has of course been falling like a stone over the last few years.

          • Hugh

            Well, that’s not true actually. It had a surplus in 2008, and balanced its books in 2010 and 11 and it’s not forecast to really fall in the next couple of years. I’m unclear on your argument, anyway: are you suggesting the UK should ramp up spending now to further boost growth?

            Besides, only the first point? I thought the Robert Stheeman interview was very interesting too.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Sorry Hugh need time to look at second point ( Had to work so couldn’t read it properly).

            I’m a Keynesian I’m afraid (although not necessarily an orthodox Keynesian). So yes increase public spending to increase growth, raise taxes with the focus on the more well off sections of the population. This will in time prove to be more effective in reducing the deficit IMHO.

          • Hugh

            I don’t think Keynes supported increasing spending to stimulate growth when it is running above the historic average. He believed in running a surplus to pay for it during downturns didn’t he?

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Your use of the term historic average is interesting Hugh. Of course the most consistent period of economic growth in this country (not matched before or since) took place between 1947 and 1973 when governments globally adopted Keynesian policies. GDP averaged 3% annual growth over a 27 year period and the lives of most people in Britain were transformed. Keynes did argue for deficits to be paid down when growth is sustained -NB He argued this point from the perspective of the economic downturn in 1937 which occurred 5 years after the initial economic collapse that took place between 1929-1932. The intervening period saw strong growth rates around the globe but by 1938 the price of stocks had returned to their 1932 levels. What we are currently witnessing is some economic growth which is in large part, although not entirely, on a housing boom in London and the South East. History tells us that such periods of economic growth are not sustainable in the mid to long term and I see no reason to suppose that this current upturn will be any different.

          • Hugh

            “He argued this point from the perspective of the economic downturn in 1937”

            I’m not sure I understand. The Treatise on Money was published in 1930, The Means to Prosperity in 1933 and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936.

            Stock market levels today (a not very useful indicator, anyway), of course, are back to their historic highs.

            Who are the Keynesian economists currently arguing for further economic stimulus in the UK?

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            It was argued for later. It is important not to confuse post war Keynesianism with the New Deal policies of Roosevelt- although of course they are connected. Joseph Stiglitz (arguably the most prominent Keynesian economist around at present) has proposed a policy of further stimulus.

          • Hugh

            “It is important not to confuse post war Keynesianism with the New Deal policies of Roosevelt- although of course they are connected.”

            No chance of that.

            Independent analysts are expecting growth of 3% this year. What level of growth do you and Stiglitz reckon we should be aiming for?

          • Hugh

            As it is, the second point wasn’t on that. It simply illustrated that base rates do indeed have an impact on government borrowing.

        • BillFrancisOConnor

          The figures for Sweden can be found here:
          http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/government-budget
          There were problems in 2010 like everywhere. The figures make very positive reading compared with the disastrous Osborne figures.

    • Steve Stubbs

      But does that figure include the unfunded liabilities of public sector pensions, PFI commitments and all the “off the books” accounting? I am sure that I have seen other figures at included them in the £Trillions. Must look back for them…..

      • treborc1

        Well PFI they say will top out in 2017 with repayments topping out at £10.5 billion with a total cost of £350 billion and worse we are still building using PFI.

      • JoeDM

        Nope. Thats the Public Sector Debt as at Sept last year. The only data I had access to at the time, but good enough as an illustration of the size of the problem. As it is a figure from the national accounts it would not include the PFI liabilities. After all, that was the intention of Gordon Brown’s ‘Enron style’ off balance sheet accounting!!!

  • charles.ward

    “For people working in my constituency, average real gross weekly pay has fallen by 35.2% since 2010.”

    Have you got a source for that statistic? If inflation was about 10% over the period that would still require a fall in average nominal wages of about 25%. Smells like bull****.

    • Hugh

      Yes, puzzling given that this is the reply Mr Blenkinsop received in December from the ONS in response to his question on the changes:

      “[The] figures show that there was a 10.1 per cent decrease for men and a
      1.5 per cent increase for women in median gross weekly earnings between
      April 2010 and April 2013.”
      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131216/text/131216w0003.htm

      Is inflation much higher in the region than eleswhere in the country?

    • treborc1

      Between 2007 and 2008, household disposable income
      per head in the UK grew by 1.4 per cent in real terms,
      compared with a fall of 0.1 per cent in gross domestic
      product per head. (Figure 5.1)

  • swatnan

    Wondering if its a lesson from Alan Johnson’s Primer?

x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit