IDS's answer to the question of increasing use of foodbanks on Daybreak this morning was that they were run by well meaning good people but that the new welfare reforms would handle everything.



So you only have to keep starving until 2017 and it will all be ok then.

So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive.



Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."

It never has been wrong. It's only you with your obvious inability to comprehend English grammar that thinks it is. The more you say it is the more stupid you look.



You also I see ignore the questions about the nature of the growth we see. Par for the course with you.

So over the last two days we have had inflation falling further and unemployment falling further....



From the BBC:



David Tinsley, UK economist at BNP Paribas said the UK labour market was "showing spectacular strength".



David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "These are very strong labour market figures, which back our recent forecast of increased growth in the fourth quarter of this year."



Like Osborne said: "comprehensively wrong"....

I suppose this avoided actually responding to all the points raised and questions asked.

Of course it's wrong. You are wrong now and will be even more wrong with every quarterly GDP figure.



Now I have given you an opportunity to admit you are wrong but you have continued with this bizarre line of reply in an attempt to save face.



You will therefore be reminded how wrong you are with every GDP figure released - I cannot wait.

Good news about falling unemployment isn't it Mintball? You talk about jobs regularly on here.

Or "Phew, we guessed right! (Put the other press release through the shredder Dave)"

Reasoning and thinking as opposed to posting bald statistics is just too hard for some.



Here is a thought and a bit of reasoning. If the unemployment figures fall below 7%, the B of E has said interest rates will rise. This will of course put peoples mortgages up and increase the cost of borrowing to businesses.



So added to the cost of living crisis we see as the cost of energy goes up, we will have increased mortgages to pay which would be great timing (not) for an election if we saw a steady increase in interest rates between now and 2015 as peoples pockets are further squeezed.



This is the last thing Osborne wants. So instead of having a figure for unemployment based on those not in a full time job (as it used to be years ago), we have a figure that takes you out of the unemployment statistics as soon as you become ineligible for JSA, then this particularly broad view as to what constitutes employment could stick a huge spanner in Osborne's economic policy which is relying on interest rates being low for years if not decades.



Lets see how independent the B of E is over interest rates if as looks likely the figure will drop below 7% and if they do put them up how Osborne spins even more strain being out on family budgets as being a good thing.

So unemployment falling is actually a bad thing? Seriously?

Why is he wrong? How much has the economy grown by since his post?

No response to being proved totally ignorant over growth from 2010?

And growth in 2013. But shhh, he still thinks he knows what he's on about!

The definition of a recession (which I am sure you know) is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.



Please tell me the two consecutive quarters since 2010 of negative growth? Thanks.

Did you wince? Did it upset you to see falling unemployment? Would you rather unemployment rises so that you have a bit more ammunition to attack the Government with?



I ask again, good news isn't it?

You going to tell us why DaveO is wrong? How much has the economy grown since his post?

2011 Q4 to 2012 Q2 – -0.3, -0.2, -0.4. That's three in succession.



If you cannot look at those two graphs and see that for yourself, I suggest you nip along to Specsavers.

I merely wondered whether these are real jobs – ones that, for instance, do not depend on zero-hours contracts and only a few hours a week.



Do you understand the issue of underemployment? Do you understand that it is costing the country money, as many people who are in work, but on only limited or widely variable hours, need benefits to survive?



It is also why unemployment didn't rise to the levels expected by economists, because it acts as a mask to the full picture.



Mind, I note that today's figure – however much it has been manipulated – shows that unemployment is "at its lowest since 2009". In other words, the years since have seen unemployment rising and it's not even yet back to the level a year after the crash.

You carry on. The only person you are fooling is yourself.

I didn't say that did I?



I merely pointed out the consequence of it falling below 7% is (supposed to be) rising interest rates.



If the unemployment figures are flattered by things like workfare there is a certain irony there in that something Osborne does not want, rising interest rates, would come about because they moved heaven and earth to get the figures down by doing things like setting job centres targets for getting people off JSA and that takes the unemployment figures below 7%.



So on the one hand the government can point to the figures and say aren't we great (ignoring the debate about whether these jobs are paying a living wage) but on the other they are going to have to deal with home owners (and businesses) seeing the mortgage and lending rate rise.



Now given at least two opinion polls since November have said most people are not feeling the benefit of the recovery that feel-good factor Cameron wants to have by 2015 is going to take a big knock if we have add rising mortgage payments to ever increasing fuel bills.



It is also not what Osborne wants as the last thing he needs is business lending to become more expensive and demand hit because people have even less money in their pocket. Rising interest rates will also increase the value of the Pound so our exports will become more expensive. A devalued pound is what Osborne wants, not one rising in value.



The B of E have been caught out as they felt unemployment would hit 7% in 2016. Well into the next parliament so safely away from increased mortgage rates coming in before the next election. It could now do it in 2014 and so there is chance mortgages rates will rise before the election.



The B of E may deem inflation low enough and pay settlements low enough not to raise interest rates the minute unemployment dips below 7% but they can't hold off forever because again (ironically) increasing employment tightens the labour market forcing wages (and so inflation) up and low interest rates for a prolonged period like we have had risk creating a boom-bust scenario in the housing market.



All this is pretty much just common sense but you'd have to look at the bigger picture than just a set of unemployment statistics to see it.

What's that? I thought I could hear the faint tapping of a keyboard as someone was frantically searching Wikipedia.



Oh no, my mistake. Ajw has disappeared again.

Quote Mintball="Mintball" So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive. Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."'" The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf

Quote Mintball="Mintball" So, after the 2008 crash, the UK economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009 and continued in growth until the fourth quarter of 2010, when it dipped to -0.5. Of the following six quarters, only two showed growth and were not successive. Ergo: "The economy was in growth in 2010. The policies of the incoming government put paid to that and sent the country back into recession."'" The economicshelp.org graph you've displayed is a little out of date/incorrect. Here's the latest one. Plus, here's a link to the ONS. If you scroll down to Table 2a to 2e, they show historical revisions of GDP data since 1998. www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_314093.pdf

Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.

Then there's the GDP of the Euro area, our largest trading partner. From www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/indicators It's almost like our economy started to slow down again when the economy of the area we do the most trade with slowed down.

As BobbyD has alluded to your statistics are incorrect.



The actual GDP figures for those quarters are as follows:



2011 Q4 -0.1%

2012 Q1 0%

2012 Q2 -0.5%



So there hasn't been 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Therefore no recession.