UK PM paves way for EU referendum

[Hello_10]

Britain is losing the economic Olympics

As London prepares for another display of British pageantry and good humor to match the unlikely triumph of last month’s rain-sodden Royal Jubilee, a less impressive aspect of Britain’s stoical “stiff upper lip” may detract from the national pride associated with hosting the Olympics. In the global race out of recession, Britain has just been revealed as a prime contender for the wooden spoon.

Not only was the shocking drop of 0.7 percent in Britain’s second-quarter GDP reported on Wednesday much bigger than investors and independent economists had expected but it almost matched the 0.8 percent fall in Italy’s GDP the previous quarter. And that Italian drop holds the record for the biggest quarterly contraction suffered by any G7 country since the immediate aftermath of the Lehman crisis. Much more important than such statistical trivia is the fact that Britain’s economic output is still 4.5 percent below the peak level it reached in the first quarter of 2008, more than four years ago. The U.S. and German economies, by contrast, are now significantly bigger than they were before the crisis and, in this sense at least, have left the recession behind them. And even the euro zone as a whole, despite the severity of its financial crisis, has done much better than Britain, with GDP just 2 percent below its peak in 2008.

National economic performance is not, of course, a competitive Olympic sport, and there is more to economic success than GDP growth. Still, there is a good reason for connecting the Olympics with economics: International competitions and comparisons can teach useful lessons and create incentives to improve economic management.

The most instructive international comparison at present is between the British and American efforts to clamber out of recession and financial crisis. This race is about as close as economics can get to a controlled experiment of the kind favored by natural scientists, in which sharply different policies are applied to two countries with broadly similar structures and initial conditions, facing similar economic problems.

In 2008, the U.S. and Britain were two advanced economies with large financial sectors, dangerous housing bubbles, heavy consumer debt and similar government deficits and debt levels relative to GDP. Both suffered extremely severe banking crises that forced their governments to take on huge additional liabilities by guaranteeing their biggest banks. For two years after the Lehman crisis in September 2008, the two economies followed broadly similar policies: slashing interest rates to zero, allowing large expansions of their budget deficits and financing the resulting debt with newly printed money. The two economies moved closely in tandem, as economic theory would have predicted: both on the way down until mid-2009 and then on the way up until mid-2010.

But then, in the summer of 2010, the newly elected British government set a radically different course for one very specific and controversial aspect of economic policy – government borrowing. Instead of simply tolerating the big budget deficits that had resulted from weak economic growth, as both the U.S. and British Treasuries had done until 2010, David Cameron decided his top priority would be to reduce government borrowing. He planned to do this by slashing public spending and imposing substantially higher tax rates. The U.S. government, meanwhile, continued with a fiscal policy of benign neglect. Despite all the sound and fury in Washington about deficits and debt limits, U.S. tax rates and public spending plans remained broadly unchanged through 2011 and 2012, with a small cut in payroll taxes largely offsetting the fiscal impact of cuts in local government spending and employment. In all other respects conditions in the two economies remained unchanged. Both central banks continued to print money and to keep interest rates near zero. The dollar and the pound moved very little against one another, and exports grew moderately in both countries, despite the crisis in the euro zone. In short, this really was a controlled experiment on the impact of different fiscal policies.

Curiously enough, the two economies began to diverge from the moment this controlled experiment started, with the British economy contracting in the third quarter of 2010, while growth accelerated in the U.S. In the period since then, the U.S. economy has expanded by 2.7 percent, while Britain has contracted by 0.8 percent. The latest results of this experiment will be revealed on Friday, when the U.S. GDP figures are published and can be compared with the 0.8 percent fall in British GDP just announced.

It may be said, of course, that the British policy of fiscal consolidation was still justified, even if the U.S. enjoys much stronger growth, as it almost surely will. After all, controlling public debt and deficits is an important national objective that counts for more than simply juicing up short-term growth.

But this is where we get to the really significant and surprising feature of the race out of recession. Britain’s heroic spending cuts and tax increases imposed by the Cameron government may contrast starkly with lassitude and cowardice displayed by politicians in Washington. But this dramatic political contrast has made absolutely no difference on the debt and borrowing outcomes the two countries have actually achieved, because the British austerity has simply prolonged recession, while U.S. fiscal laxity has allowed the economy to grow. According to the latest IMF figures, published two weeks ago, the U.S. budget deficit has been reduced from 10.5 percent of GDP in 2010 to 8.2 percent in 2012. This reduction is a slightly bigger reduction in the deficit than Britain has managed to achieve in the same period – from 9.8 percent to 8.1 percent.

In short, any country determined to control public borrowing should forget about fiscal austerity and instead do everything to grow as fast as it can – a fitting economic message from Olympic Britain.

Britain is losing the economic Olympics | Anatole Kaletsky

population growth rate of US is around 0.9% per year and hence there might be around 4% more people in US by mid 2012, as compare to early 2008. and even if its economy is now around 2% higher than its peak of mid 2008, per capita income on real term would be around 2% less than its peak of early 2008, on PPP term adjusting inflation. but US is still better than UK whose per capita income is around 7.5% less than its peak of early 2008..........

but the worse thing about both of these two economy is, Public Debt level of US was around 70% in early 2008 but now its 105% and that of Uk was around 50% in early 2008 while now its 86% at the end of 2008. hence, these two economies are only borrowing to pay for the expanses/bail-outs but still they are on a slow pace of decline....

while even if GDP growth rate of India was the slowest last year, than for last over 10 years, it was still on 6.5% ......

 

[Hello_10]

UK trade deficit at 15-year high

The UK's trade gap widened sharply in June, to its worst level since comparable records began in 1997.

The deficit, which measures how much imported goods and services exceed exports, rose to £4.3bn in June from £2.7bn in May.

The rise was driven by a 4.6% month-on-month fall in the value of UK exports to eurozone and non-European Union countries.

The deficit with non-EU nations rose to £5.2bn in June from £3.9bn in May.

Economists and analysts greeted the figures with dismay.

BNP Paribas analyst David Tinsley said that even allowing for the reduced number of working days in June - because of the extra bank holiday from the Diamond Jubilee celebrations - the numbers were "very weak".

"There's clearly been a big impact from the low number of working days which has directly affecting shipments," said Mr Tinsley.

He added that the main disappointment was the deficit in services, and within that, partly in financial services.

The UK trade deficit - why it's bad

=> It represents the biggest goods trade deficit since September 2011

=> It's the biggest non-EU goods trade deficit since September 2011

=> It's the biggest total goods and services trade deficit since modern records began in 1997

Vicky Redwood, analyst at Capital Economics, called the data "awful", but said that the extra days off work could not be blamed for the growing deficit.

"If the bank holiday halted work at ports, it should have affected both imports and exports. And previous extra bank holidays have not had that big an impact on the overall deficit," said Ms Redwood.

Exports to non-EU countries fell 9.6% to £11.9bn, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.

At the same time, imports to Britain from non-EU countries were unchanged between May and June, at £17.1bn.

The fall in total exports of goods was driven by lower trade in oil, especially to the US, by chemicals to all non-EU countries, and by car production and shipping to places such as China.

"It is disappointing to see such a large trade deficit in June," said David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC).

"Although the monthly figures would have been affected by public holidays, such as the Diamond Jubilee, it is worrying that the trade deficit in the second quarter as a whole was much higher than in the first.

"There is no question that British exporters are facing major challenges as a result of problems in the eurozone, but the rebalancing of the UK economy towards exports is taking too long."

The Bank of England's latest quarterly inflation report, issued on Wednesday, forecast that the UK economy would barely grow at all in 2012.

The Bank cut its growth and inflation projections for the year.

BBC News - UK trade deficit at 15-year high

 

[Hello_10]

Service sector growth stalls to 19-month low
Friday, 03 August 2012 09:08

Growth in the UK services sector ground to a 19-month low in July as the relentlessly bleak economic news shows no sign of stopping.

The service sector accounts for more than two-thirds of activity in the UK economy and a slow in growth means that there is unlikely to be an early upward bounce from the 0.7 per cent contraction seen from the first estimate of GDP in the second quarter.

The purchasing managers index fell from 51.3 in June to 51.0 in July. A reading of more than 50 indicates expansion in the sector.

Analysts had hoped for an improved reading of around 53.0 as the sector made up some of the productivity lost as a result of the extra bank holiday from the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. However, the data indicates that this did not happen.

Paul Smith, Senior Economist at survey compilers Markit, said: “Slower growth of activity is somewhat disappointing following the disruption of the Queen’s Jubilee in June.”

The report suggested that “temporary factors and a tough economic climate continued to weigh on activity and business.”

The report indicates that input costs continue to increase and that margins are becoming tighter.

Paul Smith said that the combined PMI data for the Manufacturing, construction and services sector had fallen to a 39-month low. He said: “Combining the latest services data with figures from the sister construction and manufacturing surveys, the All-Sector PMI dropped below 50.0 for the first time in 39 months in July.”
Howard Archer, Chief UK & European Economist at IHS Global Insight said: “This is a serious blow to hopes that the economy can bounce in the third quarter after dismal GDP contraction of 0.7% quarter-on-quarter in the second quarter.”

Mr Archer believes the weak PMI data from all sectors makes further quantitative easing likely.

He said: “The survey reinforces expectations that the Bank of England will have to take further stimulative action to try boost the economy. We expect another £50 billion of Quantitative Easing in November.”

Service sector growth stalls to 19-month low

 

[Fireaxe888]

Clegg won't allow it, if he has any spine left. Most likely this is just posturing for Tory backbenchers and to keep UKIP down.

 

[Hello_10]

Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects

Nearly nine in 10 Britons would consider leaving the UK for a better - and wealthier - life abroad within the next five years

The current recession combined with the perception that property is cheaper overseas and job prospects better collectively accounted for nearly a third of all reasons for emigrating, according to a survey by Skyscanner.

Sam Baldwin, Skyscanner’s travel editor, said: “For many people the idea of ‘living the dream’ abroad is very alluring. The survey revealed that our perception of life abroad is very positive – perhaps overly so – and many people come back from a holiday enamoured with their destination. Interestingly, Spain and USA were two of the most popular places even though both countries are currently suffering from their own economic problems, which suggests that the dream of moving abroad to improve financial prospects may be just that - a dream.

The dream may be more realistic if, rather than moving abroad to look for new work, you are sent abroad as part of an existing job. Around 750,000 British workers are being posted abroad on assignments with their existing employer, and a massive 84 per cent believe this is helping them to climb the corporate ladder, according to the NatWest International Personal Banking (IPB) Quality of Life Index.

They also feel they benefit from an improved lifestyle, backing up the Skyscanner research results, and the increasing use of temporary global workers means that the traditional definition of ‘expat’ is now being blurred, said Dave Isley, head of NatWest International Personal Banking.

He added: “The growth of the global worker has brought with it an opportunity to share knowledge and experience around the world. The great brain exchange is a fantastic concept of other economies temporarily sharing the strengths of British workers.

Almost 90% would 'consider moving abroad' for better financial prospects - Telegraph

 

[Hello_10]

Brits Hit By 'Never-Ending Recession' Fears
Friday 14 September 2012

Two new surveys suggest recession fears continue to spread, with even the most affluent now forced to tighten their belts.

Five years after the collapse of Northern Rock, a survey shows that many Britons believe the economic gloom will never end.

The poll found that 14% of Brits believe their finances will never be the same again, while 47% doubt recovery will happen any time soon.

A further 18% of the country believes that the gloomy economic outlook will go on forever.

The survey by MoneySupermarket.com showed how with the Bank of England base rate sitting at an historic low, saving and credit rates show little parity.

The website said that while the average saving rate has dropped by 3.28% since 2007, savers still benefit from a rate six times that of the 0.5% base rate.

Although mortgage borrowers enjoy reduced rates, first time buyers continue to struggle.

Similarly, credit card rates have increased by 2.03%, despite the low base rate.

Recessionary fears adversely affect an economy when belt-tightening spreads across society - known by economists as the paradox of thrift.

Meanwhile, according to insurance giant Axa, austerity has now impacted Britain's rich.

The firm's big money index showed that austerity is now firmly gripping more affluent consumers as a third of higher earners switched supermarkets and dipped into savings to make ends meet.

It also showed that almost one in seven Brits across all groups cannot see a time when their income will cover their outgoings, rising to 20% among the most 'stretched' consumers.

Axa said the relentless squeeze on household finances was seemingly too much to face for some, and 6% of 'under-funded seniors' did not know how much debt they had on cards and loans.

It said 15% of young professionals and 11% of 'the stretched' actively avoided opening bank statements.

Axa UK marketing director Cheryl Toner said: "A pattern of relentless economising has set in since our big money index surveys began in early 2011, and it's showing no signs of easing.

"It's alarming to see that even those deemed 'untouchable', the more comfortable sectors, are now feeling the pinch.

"Severe cutbacks are evident almost regardless of affluence levels."

Brits Hit By 'Never-Ending Recession' Fears

 

[Cloakedvessel]

09/13/2012

Election in the Netherlands

Dutch Voters Choose Pro-European Parties

The incumbent conservative-liberal VVD party has won the Dutch election, with the center-left Labor Party coming in second. The result is a show of support for the current government's euro-crisis policies and a rejection of euroskeptic parties, with right-wing populist Geert Wilders suffering a major defeat.

The euro crisis had been the dominant theme in the run-up to Wednesday's parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. In the end, Dutch voters rejected euroskeptic parties and voted for a continuation of the current government's austerity-focused policies.

The incumbent prime minister, Mark Rutte, declared victory for his conservative-liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) Wednesday night. Early Thursday morning, Rutte said his challenger, Diederik Samsom, of the center-left Labor Party (PVDA), had called him and congratulated him on his election victory.
According to preliminary results from Thursday morning, the VVD have won 41 seats in the 150-member lower house of parliament, with 26.6 percent of the vote. That gives them two more seats than the PVDA, which won 39 seats (24.7 percent).

Both of the two major parties were able to make greater gains than had been predicted in pre-election opinion polls. The Labor Party especially had seen significant gains in the days before the election.

Chances of a Stable Government

"Let us celebrate today," Rutte told cheering supporters in The Hague. "Tomorrow, we will get to work so we can form a stable cabinet as soon as possible." He also said he would help lead the Netherlands out of the crisis.

Rutte described the VVD's election victory as a vote of confidence in his government's policies. The result was a call on him to continue his work, he said. The VVD has so far supported the euro-crisis policies of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and drastic austerity measures.

The VVD and PVDA are now expected to form a coalition that will have a stable majority in parliament, with 80 seats between them, significantly more than the 75 seats needed for a majority. In the run-up to the election, Rutte and Samsom had not ruled out such a pairing, even if it is a marriage born of necessity rather than love. "We are ready to form a stable government," Samsom said.

Rutte said he would not yet comment on a possible coalition. Coalition negotiations can only begin once the official election results have been confirmed on Monday. Observers consider it possible that the social-liberal D66 party, which saw its support rise from 10 to 12 seats, may also join the coalition.

'A Very Big Defeat'

The Netherlands now seems to have a good chance of having a stable government for the first time in years. Wednesday's elections were the fifth in 10 years. The previous minority government of the VVD and Christian Democrats collapsed in April after just 18 months in power after Geert Wilders' Party of Freedom (PVV) withdrew its support for Rutte's austerity measures.

The main loser of the election was Wilders himself, the right-wing populist who is known for his anti-Islamic views and who had waged a euroskeptic election campaign. His PVV party won 15 seats, down from 24. On Wednesday evening, Wilders described the preliminary result as "a very big defeat." He added that his party would not give up, saying: "We will come back hard."

The Christian Democrats, which had been part of the last government, suffered a historic defeat. It won just 13 seats, eight fewer than in 2010.

Emile Roemer's Socialist Party, which has been critical of euro-rescue efforts, won 15 seats, the same result as in the 2010 election. It was a disappointing result for the Socialists, which had been leading in the polls for a period. Roemer had even been touted as a potential prime minister.

But the mood in the Netherlands had changed dramatically in the last few days before the election, with support shifting from the euroskeptics to the mainstream parties. Claes de Vreese, a professor for political communication at Amsterdam University, told the newspaper De Volkskrant that the election showed a deliberate choice against populists and in favor of future-oriented politicians who were capable of taking action.

One reason for the surprising result could be that 40 percent of voters were undecided right up to polling day. The Netherlands has around 12.7 million voters, and turnout on Wednesday was around 74 percent.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt welcomed the election results. "Looks as if populist anti-Europeans are losing big time in Dutch election. Distinctly good news," he wrote in a Twitter message. European Commissioner Neelie Kroes, a member of the VVD, said it was a "fantastic result for the Netherlands and Europe." She added that her party could now build a cabinet that will be taken seriously in Brussels "because no anti-European party will be in power."

Moving Away from Merkel

But the new government faces major challenges. Economic growth is weak, health care costs are threatening to get spiral of control, and there is the danger of a real-estate bubble.

Although Mark Rutte will remain prime minister, the new Dutch government may take a slightly different course in the euro crisis. Up to now, the Netherlands has been a strong ally of Germany in fighting for the fiscal pact, austerity in the crisis-hit countries and budgetary discipline. But this position may soon change. Both Rutte and Samson have announced that they will not necessarily follow the German lead in the euro crisis going forward. They both want to move away from Angela Merkel's focus on austerity and granting more oversight to Brussels.
During the campaign, Rutte already announced that he wouldn't support giving more financial aid to Greece. He also spoke out against giving Brussels more power. Samson favors greater European integration but is against the current austerity-focused strategy. His party wants to fight unemployment through more investment.

Given these circumstances, the new government in The Hague looks set to pivot away from Merkel and more toward supporting the policies of French President François Hollande. That would leave only Austria and Finland as staunch allies of Germany.

With reporting by Benjamin Dürr in The Hague

dgs -- with wires

Voters Choose Pro-European Parties in Dutch Election - SPIEGEL ONLINE

 

[Hello_10]

Working for nothing – the truth about low pay in the UK
Sunday 2 October 2011

New research indicates that more than 20% of British employees are earning less than a living wage

Workers on the bottom rung of the earnings ladder received a leg up on Saturday, as the national minimum wage increased from £5.98 to £6.08. But new research shows that as many as 5 million people higher up the scale are barely earning enough to make ends meet.

Thinktank the Resolution Foundation has looked at workers up and down the country earning less than a "living wage". It found that more than one in five employees falls into this group, echoing recent work by the TUC, which uncovered what it called a "livelihood crisis" among the growing swathe of the workforce stuck in low-paid jobs.

In London, there is an official "living wage" endorsed by the mayor, Boris Johnson, and currently set at £8.30 an hour. It's intended to be the least amount required to pay for what most people consider to be basic necessities and a "minimum acceptable quality of life".

Loughborough University's Centre for Research in Social Policy, considered the authority on the issue, calculates that outside the capital, you need £7.20 an hour.

Using official earnings figures, Resolution finds that in some parts of the country, almost a quarter of the workforce are taking home less than this. They range across a wide range of sectors, from sales, where 60% of workers earn less than the living wage, to personal services such as hairdressers and childminders (33%).

"It brings to life just how pervasive low pay is in modern Britain," says Resolution's chief executive, Gavin Kelly. "Many people on higher incomes would assume it only exists on the fringes, not the mainstream."

Instead of being a short-term result of the recession of 2008-09 and the lacklustre recovery, Kelly sees the increasing problem of low pay as being the result of a long period when the fruits of economic expansion failed to feed through to those at the bottom of the pile. "It shows you what it looks like after a long period of growth, and it makes you raise questions about the nature of that growth and who it benefited," he says.

Resolution's report says: "Historically, periods of economic growth have led to growing wages for ordinary workers, ensuring rising living standards for all households. But this connection between growth and gain for workers has started to fray in recent years."

Nicola Smith, head of economics and social affairs development at the TUC, says structural changes, such as the decline of the manufacturing sector, have hollowed out the skilled-jobs sector that once made up a large proportion of the workforce, resulting in a polarisation between high-paying "knowledge economy" jobs, monopolised by graduates, and a "long tail" of lower-skilled workers struggling to get by.

"Over the past decade, there's been a loss of about 1.5m jobs in manufacturing," she says. Meanwhile, a long period of rapid expansion in highly paid industries such as banking, and the increasing prevalence of share awards and bonus payments, helped earnings at the top of the scale to race away from the rest.

Resolution's research shows that low-paid workers are disproportionately female, part-time, and concentrated in the private sector.

Smith says that could mean the number of low-paid jobs will increase as government cuts bite: "The public sector has until now played a large role in creating middle-income jobs for people with skills."

Recent research by the TUC showed that the erosion of living standards for lower-paid workers is a very long-term phenomenon: while incomes for the top 10% of earners doubled in real terms between 1978 and 2008, they increased by just 27% for the bottom tenth.

Whether they are called the "squeezed middle", "hard-working families" or the "deserving poor", there is little agreement about what to do to improve their lot – and politicians are divided about how to win their support.

Liberal Democrats are proud of persuading the Tories to adopt their policy of raising the personal income tax allowance, which helps to take the lowest-paid out of tax altogether.

However, the increase in the allowance also benefits many earners higher up the income scale, causing some analysts, such as the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), to warn that it is badly targeted.

There are also fears that a series of changes to the tax and benefits system introduced by George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith, including the reduction in the childcare element of the working tax credit, could act against the increase in the allowance, and make life harder.

Ed Miliband's speech to the Labour party conference suggested that he takes a top-down approach to the issue, advocating putting workers' representatives on companies' remuneration committees to argue the case for fairer pay and helping to rein in excessive rewards at the top.

Smith says the government must also think about ways to encourage key sectors, such as the sciences and creative industries, which employ relatively large numbers of more skilled workers. "It's the challenge of creating better quality jobs," she says.

A more direct approach is bottom-up agitation. In the capital, the Living Wage campaign, run by London Citizens, a coalition of religious leaders, community activists and trades unionists, was launched a decade ago to highlight the plight of many workers doing jobs essential to the smooth running of London.

An army of cleaners, drivers, shop-workers and so on, many of them migrant workers, were unable to earn enough to afford to eat decent food, keep a roof over their heads, or spend any time with their families.

"You're talking about people getting up at 4am to get two night buses to work, and sending money back to their families in Ghana," says Andy Hull of the IPPR, who is involved in London Citizens.

London Citizens has used the full battery of campaigning tactics, including noisily invading the offices of Goldman Sachs, and tabling questions at HSBC's annual meetings, to persuade employers to pay their staff more generously, and offer longer-term contracts.

Hull says: "You need the top-down and the bottom-up; you need to apply pressure." London Citizens has a meeting with Tesco on Wednesday, in its latest attempt to persuade the mega-retailer to extend the relatively generous wages that it pays its shopfloor staff to thousands of sub-contracted cleaners, security guards and delivery drivers. "At least a dialogue is happening," Hull says.

He adds: "The argument that no one should do a day's work for less than a wage they can live on is a hard one to disagree with."

Working for nothing

 

[Hello_10]

,
unemployment rate of UK is close to 8% and if more than 20% employed workers there dont get even living wage also then I wonder, what would be the condition of these Unemployed 8% of Britain????? one more news on this topic as below

Britain bears costs of jobs without growth
Reuters Oct 8, 2012

LONDON: A near-record number of Britons are in work despite a shrinking economy, but new employment has come at the expense of pay and job security, capping any boost to vital consumer spending.

Britain's economic output is now 4 percent lower than in the first quarter of 2008, just before the slump that followed the global financial crisis, while the number of people in work has risen to 29.56 million, close to an all-time high.

But the new jobs, many of which are precarious and low-paid, have failed to encourage consumers to spend, blunting the boost to the economy higher employment normally provides.

Jobs growth may also run out of steam. Disappointing recent data has dimmed hopes of a meaningful economic recovery in Britain, which has been mired in recession since late last year.

For now, thousands of Britons are having to accept either a fall in real income, low job security or having to toil more for the same earnings just to stay in work.

"Wages staying quite low and below inflation prices people into work," said Kevin Green, head of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which represents Britain's recruiters.

"Employers are trying to keep their fixed costs down ... Whereas we used to see lots of temps, flexible working happening in the low-skill, retail, office professionals type-of-activity, we now see that growing in the professional groups."

'Jobs without growth' has been a conundrum for economists in the past year, translating into a steep fall in productivity which even the central bank struggles to make sense of.

Explanations range from inaccurate GDP statistics to the effects of the financial crisis constraining the economy's ability to grow, while debate has focused recently on the kind of jobs being created and what they mean for growth.

Sean Cannon, who set up a business with his brother in 2010 selling British fine foods, is a case in point. He left his job as a youth worker following deep cuts in funding and now works about twice as many hours for a similar income.

Would he still recommend starting a business? "I'd recommend it if you are prepared to literally give up all of your social life," he said in his small deli, Cannon & Cannon, in the London district of Brixton, where jars of pickled pears and tapenade line the shelves.

In the past four years, self-employment and part-time work have grown strongly, while full-time jobs have fallen.

There are also now more temporary workers as a share of all employees, and a much larger proportion of people say they are working part-time or on temporary contracts because they could not find full-time or permanent work.

Britain bears costs of jobs without growth - Economic Times

 

[Hello_10]

Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline
11 October, 2012, 05:42

In an overtly patriotic speech filled with big conservative ideals, David Cameron called for Britain to sink or swim in a tough global world – but failed to say in any detail how it should be done.

**Cameron urged Britain to “sink or swim,” telling delegates that the UK faced an “hour of reckoning.” He insisted that only “effort and aspiration” can stop the UK from becoming a second-tier economy, which, like many countries in Europe, would be tied down by “fat welfare systems” and “unreformed public services.”

He hammered home his message that only the coalition policy of economic prudence could pull Britain out of recession, while Labour’s increased borrowing would be nothing short of economic suicide.

The welfare system formed a key part of his speech. The UK spent £90 billion a year on welfare, and a key policy of Cameron’s coalition government has been to reduce this bill come what may.

And he was blunt at first glance with the facts, telling the country that more British children live in households where no one works than almost any other nation in Europe.

But Cameron didn’t mention that over one million people in Britain are unable to find work, the highest figure in almost a generation.

On the economy, the prime minster was adamant that the austerity program his party has prescribed the UK is the right medicine. He insisted that Britain is “on the right track,” but didn’t mention that the UK is in a double-dip recession and has among the lowest growth rates of any developed country. Instead, he blamed the last Labour government, saying, “It’s worse than we thought but we are making progress.”

Cameron reiterated that the deficit had come down under his leadership, but he didn’t explain why borrowing had gone up instead of down.

Nor did he mention the banks, which stood out against Ed Miliband’s promise last week in his speech to the Labour Party, that if the banks don’t regulate themselves, the government will step in and do it for them.

On taxes he went into attack mode. Rather than defend his government’s policy of cutting taxes for 8,000 millionaires by 40,000 a year by next April – while forcing pensioners to pay more – he hit back at Labour’s plans to spend more to create jobs, and in a quip at Miliband’s rallying call that Labour is a party of "one nation," called them the party of “one notion – borrowing.”

Cameron was clear about what he believes will get Britain out of the mess it’s in: aspiration, entrepreneurial spirit and private enterprise. Here the PM had some cause for celebration, as last year more businesses were created than in any other year in Britain’s history.

But he also skated over some of the more unpleasant facts about employment in the UK. His claim to have created up to one million jobs in the private sector is only true because of a change in how new jobs are classified.

He also claimed that the UK is first in the world in offshore wind power. Yet about 90% of the £1.5 billion spent building the massive London Array wind farm off the Kent coast went to foreign corporations.

Unsurprisingly, Cameron was big on the NHS. But a recent Tory-inspired shake-up of the health service has left critics arguing that GP’s (family doctors in the UK) will be “suffocated, not liberated” by the changes.

Cameron praised the armed forces for their role in Afghanistan, asking everyone in the hall to stand to show their gratitude. But it is the armed forces that will bear the brunt of the government’s spending cuts, while many senior figures in the military are warning that Britain will no longer be able to carry out such missions in the future.

On the police, in stark contrast to Miliband, Cameron didn’t say a word. Twenty-four thousand police jobs have been written off because of austerity, including 6,800 front line officers. A poster outside the conference hall read “say hello to Dave, wave goodbye to your police service.”

The Libdems, a vital part of his coalition government, were left out altogether. Instead, the PM decided to pan Labour while talking up his aspirational version of conservatism.

Subjects causing any deep divisions in the Conservative Party were also omitted. There was no mention of an EU referendum, something that many in the party are calling for, and none either of the thorny issue of marriage equality.

Cameron, backed by the Libdems, has tried to push for gay marriage as consistent with his conservative values of fairness, commitment and the importance of the family. But it hasn’t gone down well with the traditional grassroots Tory activists.

On Scotland, Cameron was also reticent. He talked a lot about the Olympics and the enormous pride he felt in our athletes, and that they draped themselves in the union flag, regardless of whether they were from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, saying that as one nation, Britain would rise together. His speech provoked outrage from the SNP (Scottish National Party), which labeled his backing to keep the union a “campaign that is all about what is best for Westminster.”

On education, the PM was passionate. He cited plans for up to 79 new free schools – independent but funded by the state – and the 2,000 academies (schools responsible for their own management and budget) that have already been created while the collation government has been in power. Cameron himself went to Eton, one of the country's most expensive and prodigious fee-based boarding schools.

But his plans drew criticism from Christine Blower, the NUT (National Union of Teachers) general secretary. She commented in The Guardian that the academy program is developing a fragmented and unaccountable education system, and that secondary school places are being set up where primary places are needed most.

The PM was firmly businesslike, appealing to the “aspiration nation,” and unlike Miliband – who last week memorized his speech to the Labour party – Cameron read from an autocue, saying that as prime minister he was too busy to memorize a speech.

He was defensive about comments that he was from the party of privilege and that he went to a ‘posh school,’ and fought back with: “I went to a great school and I want every child to have a great education. I'm not here to defend privilege; I'm here to spread it.”

Cameron leans on cliches to avert British decline (Op-Ed) — RT

 

[Hello_10]

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country

Top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985, thinktank's study reveals

Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.

The thinktank says the gap has come about due to the rise of a financial services elite who, through education and marriage, have concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny minority.

Economists from the group, which is funded by developed-world taxpayers, say the annual average income in the UK of the top 10% in 2008 was just under £55,000, about 12 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of £4,700.

This is up from a ratio of eight to one in 1985 and significantly higher than the average income gap in developed nations of nine to one.

However, the report makes clear that even in countries viewed as "fairer" – such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden – this pay gap between rich and poor is expanding: from five to one in the 1980s to six to one today. In the rising powers of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the ratio is an alarming 50 to one.

The OECD warned about the rise of the top 1% in rich societies and the falling share of income going to poorer people.

This trend is especially pronounced in Britain, where the dramatic rise in inequality has been fuelled by the creation of a super-rich class. The share of the top 1% of income earners increased from 7.1% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2005.

Just prior to the global recession, the OECD says the very top of British society – the 0.1% of highest earners – accounted for a remarkable 5% of total pre-tax income, a level of wealth hoarding not seen since the second world war.

At the same time as accumulating great wealth, the rich have seen tax rates fall. The top marginal income tax rate dropped from 60% in the 1980s to 40% in the 2000s, before its recent increase to 50%.

The buildup of riches was partly economic: the higher-paid worked longer. Since the mid-1980s, annual hours of low-wage workers remained stable at around 1,050, while those of high-wage workers rose almost 10% to 2,450 hours.

But the concentration of resources in the highest rungs of Britain's society was also a social phenomenon. Unlike in many other nations, the earnings gap between the wives of rich and poor husbands in Britain has grown from £3,900 in 1987 to £10,200 in 2004.

Although the OECD figures stop just before the recession, experts say the trend continued into the downturn.

Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that in the UK "2009-10 incomes went up incredibly fast (at the top end) possibly because the new top rate of tax was coming in".

He pointed out that the growth in the City and bankers' bonuses had played a large part in creating this divide. "If you look at who is racing away, then half the top 1% of high earners work in financial services," he said.

He cited the research of Mark Stewart, a professor of economics at Warwick University, who has shown that "almost all the increase in inequality has come from financial services" in the past 12 years.

Such disparities, the thinktank said, could not be blamed on globalisation but a trend in labour and social policies in rich nations that had helped the wealthy.

Although spending on public services in Britain had gone up in the past decade, at the same time benefits to the poor were worth less and taxes were less redistributive.

The effect has been a dramatic weakening in the state's ability to spread wealth throughout society. From the mid-70s to mid-80s, the tax-benefit system offset more than 50% of the rise in income inequality. It now manages just 20%.

The OECD warned of sweeping consequences for rich societies – and pointed to the rash of occupations and protests, especially by young people, around the world. "Youths who see no future for themselves feel increasingly disenfranchised. They have now been joined by protesters who believe they are bearing the brunt of a crisis for which they have no responsibility, while people on higher incomes appeared to be spared," the OECD said.

It was a paradox, said the OECD, that such moves had not been grounded in popular support. Michael Förster, author of the OECD's Divided We Stand report, said: "In almost all countries apart from the US and Japan, more than 50% of people say that inequality is too high. In the UK, it is 65% so I think everyone agrees it is a problem."

To rebalance society "for the 99%", the authors call for a series of measures focusing on job creation, "increased redistributive effects" and "freely accessible and high-quality public services in education, health and family care".

When it was pointed out that British government plans would instead lead to public sector job cuts of 710,000, more child poverty and a hike in university fees, the OECD's authors said debt was an issue for governments but urged them "not to cut social investments".

Monika Queisser, the head of OECD's social policy division, said: "The OECD agreed that fiscal consolidation was important. We want to governments to see social expenditures as investment so we would want to see, say, early years [funding] rising."

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country, says OECD | Society | The Guardian

 

[Hello_10]

,
here we have Per Capita Estimate of UK by June 2012. its was 6,085 Ponds by Q4 2007, as per the prices since 1948, and it then reduced to 5,652 Ponds by June 2012, around 7.11% less than its of Q4 2007. (under the last column "Per Capita Chained volume measures: Seasonally adjusted") as below:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbcGhOdG0zTG1EWkVPX1k1VWR6LTd1U3c#gid=10

its because of the fact that population growth rate of Britain is around 0.6% per year, hence having around 2.7% more population by Q2 2012, as compare to Q4 2007

this table also show 1% jump in UK's GDP by Q3 2012, which is because of increased spending due to Olympics. so its more wise to check this table after Q4 2012 result

 

[Audio]

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country

Must be those heavily skilled immigrants our society counts on for prosperity! Sicko.....