Are the Brits the dumbest people in the world?

The Daily Mail

Spivs Comment

Below is a series of four articles of the type that make people tut, give a quick shake of their head and fuck off back to playing the X-Box or gossiping with their mates. You know the type of articles I mean… The ones that fucking matter.

First up we have a tale packed with Bullshit, purposely designed to con the brain-dead  (who are still reasonably unaffected by the misery being imposed upon the poor, the sick and the old), into thinking that the austerity measures are slowly working. However, the article tells us that the measures already in place, are not enough to save us all from doom. Therefore, the cunt Cameron tells us that he needs to impose more. 

In turn, the yet as unaffected Brain-Dead nod their heads meekly. And with that, the poor get poorer, the sick get sicker and the old fucking die. At this point, I have to tell you that I am fighting not to  throw an Alex Jones type hissy fit. 

Who the fuck does that ponce Cameron think he fucking is?

I would love to smash the cunt up and down the length of Downing Street sixteen and a half times, nip into Number 10 for a quick cuppa and a Hobnob, before smashing the cunt up and down the length of the street another five and a half times. What a piss taking horrible puss filled boil, son of a cunt that twat is. 

Why are you not all as fucking irate as what I am?

“We have to cut the deficit  faster“???

We need to cut the scabby cunts throat faster. 

“Calm down Spiv, for fucks sake.

Fuck off.

That Cunt, who has never done a fucking days work in his poxy fucking life has taken abso-fucking-lutely every shred of dignity from the poor, the disabled and the old and now you are going to let him take more???

The cunt cannot even reply to the people who pay his fucking vastly over the top wages for fucks sake. What an arrogant fucking parasitic sick ponce of a whore. 

The National debt is still rising. It will continue to rise no matter what austerity measures he imposes. He knows that. He’s not as fucking dumb as you fucking lot. You have got to understand that these tough measures have fuck all to do with reducing the National fucking debt. A debt, I hasten to add, that those cunts in the puppet show have run up – on paper only – and expect us to pay for. The cuts are about taking every last fucking thing you own and a little bit more on top. 

You need to educate yourselves on Money and fractional reserve banking. The debt is fraudulent. It doesn’t exist except in the fucking Corporate world. Step into the free world people… Hang the fucking evil mischief making slime balls and live your life how it should be. If you don’t… Well, in the end you’ll get what you deserve.

I am so, so pissed off right now, you have no fucking idea. 

The second article tells you that Austerity doesn’t work. Clap fucking clap…  And that’s written by a robot who’s supposedly a financial expert, yet is too fucking corporate controlled & brainwashed to realise that he probably knows more about cleaning dog shit off his shoe. 

The third one is a slap round the chops for you. POW! Right in the kisser.

You see, despite kiddies going without food in this country, the nonces in the Westminster puppet show are going to cost the tax payer… Thats you mugs by the way, another £2million on top of the money they already steal from you under false pretences.

The reason for that is because, the blatantly taking the right fucking piss, kiddie fiddlers, planned  increase in pension contributions (Yeah right. Course it was), has now been suspended… Do you want me to say that again for fucks sake?

Give me fucking strength. Those piss taking arse klinkers are laughing their podgy half inch long cocks off at you muppets… And hardly any of you seem capable of giving a fuck.

Come here! Let me fuck you too, I ain’t had sex in a while.

Just exactly how long are you going to let this madness carry on?  What the fuck will it take before you get fucking angry and do something to put an end to it? It has to fucking stop!

Which brings me to the 4th and final article. You see, while the robbing nonces are lining their own pockets and making sure they have a nice nest egg as well a a fat, fuck off pension, for doing ab-so-fucking-lutely jack shit all day except rape our children, at least 300,00 people in this country are still working at 70 years old… Get that? 70 fucking years old, because they are simply too fucking poor to retire.

Hang your fucking heads in shame people. You allow that to happen… Nuff said. I’m of to make my self a fried egg roll while I calm myself down. 

 

Official: The economy DID grow in 2012 – but only just (so Cameron says we must cut the deficit ‘further and faster’)

  • Output rose by 0.2 per cent in 2012 narrowly avoiding ‘triple dip’ recession
  • Prime Minister said deficit needs to be cut to regain AAA credit rating

By HUGO DUNCAN and TIM SHIPMAN

 

Bring the AAA game: British Prime Minister David Cameron, pictured before today's PMQs, wants to cut the deficit 'further and faster'Bring the AAA game: British Prime Minister David Cameron, pictured before today’s PMQs, wants to cut the deficit ‘further and faster’

The economy eked out modest growth last year rather than flatlining as previously thought, official figures showed yesterday.

The Office for National Statistics said output rose by 0.2 per cent in 2012 – a paltry amount but better than the zero growth initially reported last month.

But the economy still shrank by 0.3 per cent in the final three months of the year – leaving the country on the brink of a third recession in five years.

The Prime Minister said the deficit must be cut ‘further and faster’ to get the economy back on track and regain Britain’s AAA credit rating.

Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit, said the economy would ‘narrowly’ avoid a dreaded ‘triple dip’ with growth of 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2013.

‘However, none of the root causes of the weakness of the economy have yet been resolved, suggesting very modest growth at best can be expected over the course of 2013,’ he said.

But another leading economist in the City of London ruled out a triple-dip altogether – saying there had not even been a double-dip.

Simon Ward, chief economist at Henderson Global Investors, said that once the collapse in activity in the North Sea oil and gas production was stripped out, the economy grew 0.6 per cent last year.

He said there was no double-dip recession in late 2011 and the first half of 2012, with much of the decline in official figures down to problems in the North Sea and the extra bank holiday for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

Mr Ward also put the decline in the final three months of 2012 down partly to the hangover from the Olympics – suggesting the underlying state of the economy is not as sickly as official figures suggest.

 

 

But despite the revisions to growth from the ONS, the economy is still 3.2 per cent below its pre-recession peak in 2008.

International agency Moody’s last week stripped Britain of its gold-plated AAA credit rating amid worries over weak growth and soaring levels of debt.

David Cameron fended off criticism over the loss of AAA status, signalling he wants deeper cuts to get the public finances back on track. During Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Cameron told Ed Miliband: ‘This credit rating does matter. It demonstrates that we have to go further and faster on reducing the deficit.’

Blamed: Labour treasury spokesman Rachel Reeves blamed George Osborne and David Cameron for the ;stagnation' of Britain and its economyBlamed: Labour treasury spokesman Rachel Reeves blamed George Osborne and David Cameron for the ;stagnation’ of Britain and its economy

His intervention appeared to signal a change of approach by the Coalition, but Downing Street said afterwards that the Prime Minister was not announcing a change of policy. Asked to explain ‘further and faster’, a No.10 spokesman said: ‘The PM was referring to the Government’s policy as is. He was not making a new statement.

‘The autumn statement of 2012 extended the period of fiscal consolidation, taking it further. The deficit is to fall by £1.5billion. Next year it is forecast to fall by £8billion, a faster fall. In 2016-17 it will fall by £25billion.’

Douglas McWilliams, chairman of the Centre for Economics and Business Research think-tank, said the handling of the economy in the build-up to and during the financial crisis ‘messed up public finances so badly’ that it will be the late 2020s before austerity policies can be eased. He said bailing out the banks will cost the taxpayer about £120billion while excess deficits built up since 2000 will have cost the economy £1.5trillion by 2025.

Professor McWilliams said: ‘It is time to stop pretending that all the problems were caused by bankers. Gordon Brown cost the taxpayer more than 10 times as much.’

Labour Treasury spokesman  Rachel Reeves said: ‘Britain has stagnated under David Cameron and George Osborne and that is why people’s living standards are falling year after year and Britain has been downgraded.’

John Longworth, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: ‘These figures, coupled with the recent downgrade of the UK’s credit rating, confirm that action must be taken quickly to get the economy growing again. The Chancellor should seize the opportunity in next month’s Budget to be radical.’

 

IT’S OFFICIAL: AUSTERITY ECONOMICS DOESN’T WORK

Posted by 
George Osborne, the U.K. Chancellor of the ExchequerWith all the theatrics going on in Washington, you might well have missed the most important political and economic news of the week: an official confirmation from the United Kingdom that austerity policies don’t work.In making his annual Autumn Statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday, George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was forced to admit that his government has failed to meet a series of targets it set for itself back in June of 2010, when it slashed the budgets of various government departments by up to thirty per cent. Back then, Osborne said that his austerity policies would cut his country’s budget deficit to zero within four years, enable Britain to begin relieving itself of its public debt, and generate healthy economic growth. None of these things have happened. Britain’s deficit remains stubbornly high, its people have been suffering through a double-dip recession, and many observers now expect the country to lose its “AAA” credit rating.

One of the frustrations of economics is that it is hard to carry out scientific experiments and prove things beyond reasonable doubt. But not in this case. Thanks to Osborne’s stubborn refusal to change course—“Turning back would be a disaster,” he told Parliament—what has been happening in Britain amounts to a “natural experiment” to test the efficacy of austerity economics. For the sixty-odd million inhabitants of the U.K., living through it hasn’t been a pleasant experience—no university institutional-review board would have allowed this kind of brutal human experimentation. But from a historical and scientific perspective, it is an invaluable case study.

At every stage of the experiment, critics (myself included) have warned that Osborne’s austerity policies would prove self-defeating. Any decent economics textbook will tell you that, other things being equal, cutting government spending causes the economy’s overall output to fall, tax revenues to decrease, and spending on benefits to increase. Almost invariably, the end result is slower growth (or a recession) and high budget deficits. Osborne, relying on arguments about restoring the confidence of investors and businessmen that his forebears at the U.K. Treasury used during the early nineteen-thirties against Keynes, insisted (and continues to insist) otherwise, but he has been proven wrong.

With Republicans in Congress still intent on pursuing a strategy similar to the failed one adopted by the Brits, this is a story that needs trumpeting. Austerity policies are self-defeating: they cripple growth and reduce tax revenues. The only way to bring down the U.S. government’s deficit in a sustainable manner, and put the nation’s finances on a firmer footing, is to keep the economy growing. Spending cuts and tax increases can also play a role, but they need to be introduced gradually.

Before the last election there, which took place in May, 2010, the U.K.’s economy appeared to be slowly recovering from the deep slump of 2008-09 that followed the housing bust and global financial crisis. Just like the Bush Administration (2008) and the Obama Administration (2009), Gordon Brown’s Labour government had introduced a fiscal stimulus to help turn the economy around. G.D.P. was growing at an annual rate of about 2.5 per cent. Once Osborne’s cuts in spending started to be felt, however, things changed dramatically. In the fourth quarter of 2010, growth turned negative and a double-dip recession began. So far, it has lasted two years. While G.D.P. did expand in the third quarter of this year, the Office of Budget Responsibility, an independent economic agency that Osborne set up, has said that it expects another decline in the current quarter. For 2013, the O.B.R. is forecasting G.D.P. growth of just 1.3 per cent. With the economy so weak, the O.B.R. says that the unemployment rate will tick up from eight per cent to 8.2 per cent next year.

That austerity has led to recession is undeniable. Despite the Bank of England slashing interest rates and adopting a policy of quantitative easing, consumer and investment spending have remained depressed. Osborne places much of the blame on continental Europe, Britain’s biggest trading partner, but that’s a lame excuse. It was perfectly clear back in 2010 that Europe was headed for trouble. The proper reaction to a negative external shock is to loosen fiscal policy, not tighten it, much less tighten it violently. But Osborne was determined to go ahead with his grisly exercise in pre-Keynesian economics.

If all the pain he has inflicted had transformed Britain’s fiscal position, his policies could perhaps be defended. But that hasn’t happened. Back in 2009, the O.B.R. predicted that by the end of 2013-2014, the deficit would have fallen to 3.5 per cent of G.D.P. Now, the O.B.R. says that the actual figure will be 6.1 per cent. And since most of its forecasts have proved too optimistic, this might well be another underestimate. Even by Osborne’s preferred measure, which adjusts the headline figure for the state of the economy and doesn’t count capital spending, the deficit won’t be eliminated before 2016-17 at the earliest. The debt-to-G.D.P. ratio, which Osborne originally said would peak at about seventy per cent, has now hit seventy-five per cent, and it is forecast to come close to eighty per cent in 2015-2016. It was supposed to start falling next year. Now, it is set to keep climbing until at least 2017-2018.

A comparison with what has happened on this side of the Atlantic is illuminating. For the purposes of the natural experiment, the U.S. can be thought of as the control. In adopting a fiscal stimulus of gradually declining magnitude over the past four years, the Obama Administration has administered what was, until recently, the standard medicine for a sick economy.

As one would have expected on the basis of the textbooks, the American economy, while hardly racing ahead, has fared considerably better than its British counterpart. Between 2010 and 2012, G.D.P. growth here has averaged about 2.1 per cent. For the U.K., the figure is 0.9 per cent. What may be more surprising—at least to those of you who have been listening to the deficit hawks—is that the United States, while sticking with Keynesian stimulus policies, has also managed to bring down the size of its deficit, relative to G.D.P., almost as rapidly as hairshirt Britain has. Back in 2009, at the depths of the recession, both countries had double-digit deficits. Today, the U.S. deficit stands at about seven per cent of G.D.P., and the British deficit is about five per cent of G.D.P. But with the U.S. growing faster than the U.K,. the gap is set to close. Next year, according to the latest forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office and the O.B.R., the U.S. deficit will be considerably smaller than the U.K. deficit: four per cent of G.D.P. compared to six per cent.

Let’s go over that one more time. Having adopted the policies of Keynes in response to a calamitous recession, the United States has grown more than twice as fast during the past three years as Britain, which adopted the economics of Hoover (and Paul Ryan). Meanwhile, the gaping hole in the two countries’ budgets has declined at roughly the same rate, and next year the U.S. will be in better fiscal shape than its old ally.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/austerity-economics-doesnt-work.html#ixzz2MAY5Xm2W

 

MPs to get ‘holiday’ from paying more into their gold-plated pensions leaving the taxpayer to pick up £2million bill

  • Expenses watchdog stuns the Treasury with decision to suspend planned rise in contributions made by MPs
  • Decision leaves Chancellor George Osborne to find the extra money from the public coffers
  • Critics slam the ‘preferential treatment’ being given to politicians

By DANIEL MARTIN, WHITEHALL CORRESPONDENT

PUBLISHED: 16:09, 27 February 2013 | UPDATED: 01:28, 28 February 2013

 

Taxpayers face a £2million bill after plans to increase the amount that MPs contribute towards their gold-plated pensions were quietly dropped.

The Treasury was expecting a 1.85 per cent rise in contributions to come into play this April – but yesterday the MPs’ expenses watchdog made the surprise announcement that the rise was being suspended.

It means the taxpayer will be forced to plough even more money into MPs’ pensions to plug the gap, at a time when millions are having to tighten their belts to fund higher contributions towards their own pensions.

MPs were expected to pay 1.85 per cent more into their pensions, but the expenses watchdog IPSA has postponed the increase leaving the Treasury plug the £2million gapMPs were expected to pay 1.85 per cent more into their pensions, but the expenses watchdog IPSA has postponed the increase leaving the Treasury plug the £2million gap

Almost all public sector workers are facing contribution rises of up to 6 per cent, and for staff in the private sector contribution rates are also going up.

Chancellor George Osborne must now find the extra money to make up the shortfallChancellor George Osborne must now find the extra money to make up the shortfall

Despite this, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said it will put off any decisions on members’ contributions until after it has considered the whole issue of MPs’ pay and pensions in a report expected later this year.

The decision means that policemen will be paying more towards their pensions than MPs by 2015.

MPs’ pensions arrangements are among the most generous in the country. They contribute an average of 13.2 per cent of their £65,738 salaries into the schemes, which pay out after they reach 65.

In contrast, by 2015 policemen will be contributing 13.7 per cent towards their pensions.

MPs have to pay into their scheme for far fewer years than ordinary workers before getting a full pension. And they benefit from a higher  taxpayer contribution to their pensions than any other group in the public sector – almost 29 per cent compared with 14 per cent for teachers and nurses.

A 1.85 per cent rise in their contributions was due to start this April but this will no longer happen following IPSA’s decision yesterday.

It is expected that the Treasury will have to find £2million to plug the gap – at a time when frontline services are being pared to the bone.

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘MPs should be subject to the same pension reforms they’re imposing on the wider public sector.

Former pension adviser to the Treasury Ros Altmann said it was 'rather unusual' that MPs¿ contributions were not increasing when voters were feeling the pinchFormer pension adviser to the Treasury Ros Altmann said it was ‘rather unusual’ that MPs¿ contributions were not increasing when voters were feeling the pinch

‘They say we’re all in it together, so it’s only fair that politicians contribute more to their hugely generous pension schemes to help repair our broken public finances.’

Last night Ros Altmann, former pension adviser to the Treasury, said: ‘At a time when pensions are becoming more expensive to provide, it is rather unusual that MPs’ contributions are not increasing when they are everywhere else.’

IPSA said it deferred the rise so the contribution rate could be considered alongside other aspects as part of a wholesale review of pay and pensions.

A spokesman said: ‘MPs’ pensions certainly need looking at. And that is why we are in the middle of a fundamental review looking at both MPs’ pensions and pay.’

 

300,000 pensioners aged 70 and over are still working as they are ‘too poor to stop’

  • Many women in 70s are cleaning people’s homes or offices
  • ONS study relates to 193,000 men and 111,000 women

By BECKY BARROW

PUBLISHED: 11:00, 27 February 2013 | UPDATED: 13:33, 27 February 2013

 

Many women in their 70s are cleaning people's homes or the local offices, or sitting behind the tills at their local supermarket (posed by model)Many women in their 70s are cleaning people’s homes or local offices, or sitting behind the tills at their local supermarket (posed by model)

More than 300,000 people who are aged 70 and above have a job, with many blaming the fact they are too poor to stop working, official figures revealed yesterday.

The ballooning number of older workers highlights a social revolution in Britain with people forced to work at an age when many assume they would have stopped years ago.

The figures, compiled exclusively for the Daily Mail by the Office for National Statistics, shows 193,000 men and 111,000 women are still working at the age of 70 and over.

The National Pensioners’ Convention warns the majority are ‘ordinary, working-class people who are having to take jobs because they can’t make ends meet any other way.’

A spokesman added: ‘Anecdotally, they are not exactly doing jobs like becoming the Governor of the Bank of England.’

The ONS’s research also reveals a clear gap between the types of job that older men are doing compared to those that women are doing if they are still working in their sixties.

For older men, the most common jobs are managers, directors and senior officials. For women, they tend to do more low-skilled jobs, such as being a cleaner or a secretary.

It comes as a report, also published by the ONS, shatters the traditional dream of retiring at the age of 65 with a comfortable pension and dreams of foreign travel.

In reality, many women in their 70s are cleaning people’s homes or the local offices, or sitting behind the tills at their local supermarket.

More than a third of men and nearly a quarter of women ‘stopped working after the age of 65’, it said.

While the majority work part-time, around a third of people who are still working after State pension age are ‘employed full-time’, according to the ONS.

 

At present, a man reaches State pension age when he is 65 and a woman currently reaches State pension age at the age of 61 and six months.

But both these ages are being increased. By 2020, the State pension age for both men and women will be 66, rising to 67 by 2028 – and it will keep on rising to 68 and beyond.

For many pensioners, it is a positive choice. They enjoy their job, find it satisfying and are also keen to remain active in their old age.

But many others are being forced into working – or even going back to work after retiring – because they simply cannot afford to stop.

The self-employed make up a greater proportion of the workforce post-retirement than pre-retirement (left), while the retirement age has been steadily rising since the turn of the century.The self-employed make up a greater proportion of the workforce post-retirement than pre-retirement (left), while the retirement age has been steadily rising since the turn of the century

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: ‘Given more of us are living longer, it’s important people can choose to work for longer and fund their retirement.

‘That’s why we made it illegal to sack someone just because they reached the age of 65.’

Keith Simpson, chief executive of Skilled People, a recruitment website for people over the age of 50, said he is ‘absolutely sure’ the trend of people delaying their retirement will increase.

He said: ‘We asked people if they will have to work beyond the age of 65 to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Nearly 70 per cent of people said “yes”.’

It comes as just a third of private sector workers are saving into a company pension. Of those who have one, it is typically worth just £26,000, which buys an annual income of just £850.

The self-employed make up a greater proportion of the workforce post-retirement than pre-retirement (left), while the retirement age has been steadily rising since the turn of the century.Graph showing the rise of older workers since the mid-1980s

New rules forcing bosses to pay into a pension for their workers are designed to stem the growing pensions crisis, with up to 11million workers being ‘auto-enrolled’ into a pension.

But a separate report, from the insurance firm Aviva, found 37 per cent of private sector workers will opt out and refuse to save into a pension.

It warned the success of the Government’s scheme ‘hangs in the balance as many workers focus on making ends meet in challenging economic times’.

The National Association of Pension Funds warned Britain is ‘miles off course when it comes to saving enough for its old age’.

Last night, a Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: ‘We have said we expect around a third of people to opt out of automatic enrolment.

‘Our ongoing advertising campaign is achieving high levels of awareness among employers and individuals of the need to put something aside so they can afford a decent quality of life in retirement.’