SunnySideUp

I blame Labour for the amazing recovery, I don't think we can blame anyone else - to be honest!

Does my head in that they are so right about everything

I vote we get some clowns in to mess things up ...

BBC News - Labour get it spot on - again!

StickyMicky

Lets hope it moves upwards at its steady pace then

Since the start of this credit crunch waffle/recession, i have personally lost 24k from my own wage, and i am not looking forward to adding it all up again come 2011 as we have not been off to a very good start so far

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

I was employed for 10 years , since 2009 I have lost 4 jobs. Well done new labour ironically my last employer went bust because they could not borrow any money from the rbs.

EddScott

On the other hand

Pound could collapse "within weeks" warns ex-Soros partner - IFAonline


I found this highly amusing.

jonc

BBC News - SSU gets it spot on - again!

PaulC72

They probably have the maths wrong and it is actually a net loss.

stuart n

These figures were only ever going to be revised upwards with the election looming.
All of the financial figures released over the last week still paint a very grim picture and our national debt is increasing quicker than that of Greece
Funny how Darling predicted the worse recession for 60 years but got shouted down by Gordon, who is now trying to take the credit for fixing things

EddScott

I think Greece deficit is around 12.7% - and they have at least half an excuse because the outgoing goverment hadn't been completely honest about the figures.

If we know 11.8% is UK deficit god help us if Labour are massaging the figures as well.

My boss told me a story of when Mrs Thatcher got into power - her chancellor went into No.11 and passed the outgoing Labour chancellor on the stairs. The story is that the labour chancellor dumps a pile of paperwork on the tory chancellor and said something like "Goodluck sorting that lot out, its f*cked!"

PaulC72

very good.

Be similar to this time then.

Greece also have the added problem with being in the Euro and can do little about some things, us however....

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Editted for accuracy

PaulC72

Jamz3k

this year in my opinion is worse than last year. I'm seeing alot of being completely fecked whereas last year I was seeing a lot of people worried about being fecked.

SunnySideUp

Everything is coming up roses ... it's all over, bar the shouting.

NotoriousREV

Part of the reason the last quarter has been revised upwards is because the previous 2 quarters have been revised downwards i.e. the recession was deeper than previously thought.

Don't be fooled: GDP was actually revised down – Telegraph Blogs

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Oh yes Pete of course

From the article you linked to:

The UK had been the last major economy to start growing again.

Europe's two biggest economies - Germany and France - came out of recession last summer, and Japan and the US also emerged from recession last year.

The UK recession began in the April-to-June quarter of 2008, and was the longest UK downturn on record.

During 18 months of recession, public borrowing increased to an estimated £178bn.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So from 1999 to 2009 you were gainfully employed. You can thank Labour for that. Only fair if you are going to blame them for the 4 subsequent redundancies

On a serious note though the banks need a serious kick up the **** which is not something they will get from this spineless bunch of morons

SunnySideUp

Houses are sold out.

Cars are sold out.

DFS has ended it's sale - well it will on Sunday, so they say.

Interest rates are historically low.

Unemployment is down.

TV's are cheaper than they have ever been.

The average wage has now topped £40,000 for the very first time.

We've never really had it much better - and it's about to get a whole lot better under Labour.

Don't let the Tories destroy it!

SunnySideUp

That's because we were riding higher than everyone else ..... someone has to be the one who falls furthest, and bounce back last - nowt wrong with that.

NotoriousREV

And of course GDP fell by £52bn in 2009.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

You know something though this place is a bit like the media. The doom mongers seem to love nothing more than predicting more and more gloom and in the media's case they are definitely part of the cause of the severity of the downturn in the UK - certainly in terms of consumer and business confidence.

Last week I visited two potential customers, both retailing in the same sector. One complained the recession was the worst thing he had ever lived through and hence it was no wonder he had no customers as there was nothing he could do about it whereas the other was of the attitude that yes things aren't great, but you just have to try harder and find new ways to attract customers.

I was with each of them for 2 hours and in that time number 1 had no customers whereas number 2 just down the road from number 1 I might addd never stopped.

Make of that what you will!

zip106

At least a crap £ will be good for all the exports we, well, export.
Oh, hang on.....

jonc

Yep, its gonna be a bumper year and just to add

Bankers are still getting the bonuses and all the more better as the pound is weaker than ever

Closure of traditional industries like making steel in favour of financial services lead economy for greater revenue and profits

MP are still allowed claim all they can on expenses

Labour will have more money to spend by raising National Insurance

Immigration rises five fold, should help keep wage costs low and keep those unwilling to work to stay on benefits

Yep, lets hope Labour win the election so we can keep the status quo.

dunx

iTrader: (3)

For the banks to borrow from the BoE, not for their customers.....



0.5% in 14.5% to me = 2800% profit.

dunx

GC8

The problem lies in the fact that millions of other Labour voting fools, will be as easily led as you.

StickyMicky

The thing is, who the hell are we supposed to vote for?

I am at an utter loss as they all seam pathetic.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

The sector I work in has seen tremendous growth since about October last year. And by tremendous I mean between 15-25% depending on which company.

A number of businesses I work with are completely sold out and are struggling to recruit fast enough.

I would see this as a lead indicator for the wider economy as this investment moves through the economic chain.

There are other factors that give a case for optimism such as advertising spend which is rising rapidly.

There are sectors that will lag in a recession - what is see the bottom has been passed and the corner turned.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

All well and good, except that actually GDP was revised down not up - the absolute value was revised down by £133 million. The apparent increase is because the Q3 2009 GDP was also revised down, but by more. So the recession was even deeper than we thought and we're further behind trend growth than we thought we were - hooray for Labour!

If you think Labour and Brown have done so well look at comparisons with other developed nations. With the exception of Japan which has been a basket case for years, we have had a deeper recession and are emerging from it slower than anyone else. All the result of Brown inflating public spending to unsustainable levels because he fooled himself into thinking he had single handedly ended boom and bust. In reality he has diverted economic capacity from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector with very little measureable improvement in the quality of services.

As happened in the 80s it will take a disciplined Tory government to recover from this economic mismanagement, with Labour standing on the sidelines claiming the necessary austerity measures (for which they are solely to blame) are evidence of an uncaring government. And stupid people will believe them!

EddScott

This is how I feel.

I won't vote Labour but not completely because of the economy. The series of events that screwed the western world wasn't thier doing. I'm not even 100% sure its all their fault that the UK economy was changed from a manufacturing country to a financial country - and therefore making us more vunerable. I won't vote Labour because they are clearly trying to blag their way through the crisis irrespective of who caused it and they are clearly lap dogs to the banks and have allowed the FSA to become run by ex-bankers (WTF?!) - I just don't trust them to say one honest thing.

Then theres Team Cameron. I can't bring myself to vote of a party that plans to put the worst schools into private sector hands - this NEVER works and will be a flood gate for the privatisation of schools and then the NHS. Then theres the above issue with the banks and the tories will do exactly the same. They won't make any suitable changes and when their targets fail they'll spend years blaming Labour for the pile of **** they inherited.

I really want to give the Lib Dems a chance but they just don't have anything firm to bring to the table.

The rest are just noise that I wouldn't entertain voting for - UKIP, BNP, Green? All to obsessed with thier political agenda rather than actually running a country.

Xx-IAN-xX

From The Sunday Times April 15, 2007

Goldfinger Brown’s £2 billion blunder in the bullion market
Chancellor ignored advice on sell-offHolly Watt and Robert Winnett Recommend? (7) GATHERED around a table in one of the Bank of England’s grand meeting rooms, the select group of Britain’s top gold traders could not believe what they were being told.

Gordon Brown had decided to sell off more than half of the country’s centuries-old gold reserves and the chancellor was intending to announce his plan later that day.

It was May 1999 and the gold price had stagnated for much of the decade. The traders present — including senior executives from at least two big investment banks — warned that Brown, who was not at the meeting, could barely have chosen a worse moment.

In the room, just behind the governor’s main office, they cautioned that gold traditionally moved in decades-long cycles and that the price was likely to increase. They added that even if the sale were to go ahead, the timings and amounts should not be announced, as the gold price would plunge.

“The timing of the decision was ludicrous. We told them you are going to push the gold price down before you sell,” said Peter Fava, then head of precious metal dealing at HSBC who was present at the meeting. “We thought it was a disastrous decision; we couldn’t understand it. We brought up a lot of potential problems at the meeting.”

Martin Stokes, former vice-president at JP Morgan, who was also present, said: “I was surprised they had chosen the auction method. It indicated they did not have a real understanding of the gold market.”

According to other sources, however, Bank of England officials told those present they had “little say” about what was going to happen and that they were “doing what they were told”. This was a decision made by Brown and his inner circle, who appeared uninterested in their expert advice.

Ian Plenderleith, the senior Bank executive hosting the meeting, is nevertheless understood to have compiled a note on the meeting for the Treasury. It is one of several key documents that are thought to disclose the warnings ignored by ministers.

Eight years on, the advice appears even more pertinent.

The price of gold has almost trebled and the loss to the taxpayer has been calculated by one leading firm of accountants at more than £2 billion.

The decision to sell 400 tons of gold is seen in City circles as a financial bungle on the scale of the Tories’ “Black Wednesday” that cost the taxpayer £3.3 billion, according to Treasury estimates.

Dominic Hall, a former gold dealer who now runs thebulliondesk.com, a website for the gold market, said: “Brown was keen to throw mud at the opposition over Black Wednesday but this was a financial disaster on a similar scale.”

As Brown inches closer to the premiership — he had his first private meeting with President George W Bush in Washington on Friday — his record as chancellor is coming under increasing scrutiny. For the past 18 months The Sunday Times has been battling the Treasury to release the advice it received on the gold sales under freedom of information laws. Brown’s department has sought — so far successfully — to use a range of legal exemptions to block disclosure.

In its last response to requests by The Sunday Times, the Treasury stated: “We have decided that it is not in the public interest to release further information.”

Inquiries by this newspaper, however, have uncovered new details that Brown’s political opponents say raise fresh questions over his style of leadership and his apparent failure to heed advice from experienced officials. It follows damaging revelations last month when the Treasury was forced to disclose official documents showing how the chancellor ignored similar warnings over his 1997 tax raid on pension funds.

This weekend key insiders involved in the discussions to sell off Britain’s gold revealed how Brown railroaded through the decision despite internal concerns and misgivings within the City.

The story starts on May 7, 1999. For all but the most eagle-eyed financial experts, it seemed like another dull Friday in parliament. The Treasury, however, hoped it would be the perfect moment to bury news that it was to launch an unprecedented sale of Britain’s gold reserves.

The news was slipped out by Patricia Hewitt, then a junior Treasury minister, in answer toa written parliamentary question placed by a Labour backbencher. “Today we are announcing a restructuring of the UK’s reserve holdings to achieve a better balance in the portfolio by increasing the proportion held in currency. This will involve a programme of auctions of gold,” she said.

“The Treasury intends to sell 125 tons of gold, 3% of the total reserves, during 1999-2000, with the Bank of England conducting five auctions on the Treasury’s behalf. Auctions will be held every other month starting in July.”

The answer was later shown to be wholly misleading as the government actually planned to sell 400 tons before 2002, representing more than half the country’s gold.

Hewitt’s figure of 3% referred to “total reserves” which, apart from gold, included tens of billions that the government borrows on the international currency markets, rather than the gold reserves actually owned outright by Britain.

Sir Peter Tapsell, a Conservative backbencher who campaigned vigorously against the decision, said in a parliamentary debate in June 1999: “The written answer given by the economic secretary to the Treasury was extremely cursory and brief, and contained only a very small part of the story . . . The way in which the announcement was handled was disgraceful.”

Following the government’s announcement of the sell-off, other leading economies rushed to the defence of gold as the asset of last resort.

On May 20, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve and the world’s most respected bank governor, said in response to Brown’s decision: “Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world . . . Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. Fiat money paper [a technical term for legal tender] in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.”

The day before, Jean-Claude Trichet, governor of the Bank of France who later became head of the European Central Bank, said: “I will simply say that as far as I am aware — and this is not just the position of the Bank of France and our country but also the position of the Bundesbank, the Bank of Italy and of the United States, and these are the four main gold stocks in the world — the position is not to sell gold.”

For centuries gold had maintained its status as the only investment to retain its value and keep pace with inflation over the long term.

In Victorian times the Bank of England stored gold equivalent to the value of all banknotes in circulation — the so-called gold standard. This ensured that money had an intrinsic value and that governments could not simply print banknotes at will, which could quickly devalue sterling. However, the gold standard was suspended during the first world war as the country required huge sums of money to fund the military campaign. It was finally abandoned in the inter-war period.

But gold remains an important asset for most of the world’s big central banks. The United States currently holds 8,133 tons of gold, Germany has 2,422 tons, France has 2,710 tons and Japan 765 tons. Britain currently has 315 tons. Only a handful of smaller economies, including Switzerland, Malaysia and Australia, have recently sold off significant gold reserves.

By September 1999, 15 of the European central banks had signed an agreement limiting the amount of gold that could be sold in future to prevent a repeat of Brown’s sell-off. The banks said the move had been “destabilising” to the gold market and new rules were necessary to prevent the problem occurring in the future.

When Brown became chancellor in 1997, Britain held 715 tons of gold — an amount that had remained unchanged since the 1970s. “It [selling gold] was something that was not contemplated. I remember no discussion of such a move under the previous Conservative administrations,” said a senior Bank of England official.

Lord Burns, then permanent secretary at the Treasury, also recalls no significant discussion over the selling of gold during his period heading the department between 1991 and 1998.

However, Burns left in July 1998 and within months Brown and his aides had decided to offload more than half the country’s gold reserves and reinvest the money in dollars, euros and yen.

The driving force behind the decision is still not known, although it was said at the time that Brown was suspected of attempting to prop up the newly launched but beleaguered euro.

Sir Eddie George, then governor of the Bank of England, is said by authoritative sources to have believed at the time that the Treasury’s decision to sell was “not unreasonable”. But the manner in which the sale took place is thought to have caused consternation among key Bank officials.

One senior Bank official said: “There was certainly no debate about the gold price or where it was going. The Bank were not asked to provide that sort of advice.”

A Treasury official also involved in the process confirmed that no long-term guidance on the timing had been sought, only specific advice on when the sales should take place during the calendar year.

“Don’t assume,” he said, “that the Bank of England were asked the [broad] question, ‘Would you sell gold?’ There would have been advice on, ‘Is this the best time of the year to sell?’

“And that would have been in terms of the micro-structure of the gold market: when is there strong demand, the Indian wedding season, smaller issues, but not the cyclical issues — is this point in the decade the best time to sell?”

A trawl of experts and dealers in the market by The Sunday Times has been unable to find anyone who was approached by the Treasury to outline the long-term prospects for gold. The London Bullion Market Association said it was unaware of any such advice being sought from its members.

It is therefore not known on what expert basis the decision to sell such a large amount in a relatively short period was taken.

Brown offloaded the gold at a 20-year low in the market — now nicknamed the “Brown Bottom” by dealers. The 17 auctions achieved prices for the gold of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275. Since then gold has risen sharply in value and stood yesterday at $685. This year, some top investment banks have predicted, it could even rise above the all-time high of $850.

An analysis by the accountants Grant Thornton calculates that the gold is now worth $5.1 billion more than the price achieved when it was sold. This figure will grow by another $2.1 billion if the recent forecasts are accurate.

According to the accountancy firm, the total loss to taxpayers as a result of Brown’s decision now stands at about £2 billion, as the euros bought with the proceeds have appreciated in value and thereby slightly reduced the total loss. The new currency also earns a low rate of interest.

Maurice Fitzpatrick of Grant Thornton said: “With the benefit of hindsight this was obviously a very poor investment decision for the country.”

The decision to auction the gold rather than sell it quietly on the global markets also surprised many experts. Other central banks, including those of Switzerland and Australia, have chosen to use the normal markets to sell gold and only announce the details of the sales afterwards. By contrast, from the announcement of the British sell-off in May to the first auction in July, the gold price dropped by 10%.

The number of traders “shorting” — using financial instruments to bet on the price of gold falling — went up eightfold in the weeks preceding the first auction.

“The joke in the market was that Gordon had guaranteed he would get the worst price,” said the former gold dealer Dominic Hall. “The world and his grandmother shorted the market. Other central banks quietly dribbled gold they were selling on the market.” Stokes added: “The auction process raised hysteria and a negative sentiment in the market. Had the government sold a small amount quietly on the market every day, no one would have noticed. The Swiss sold far more without anyone noticing.

“It gave the professionals a chance to boot down the market and then scoop up the gold cheap at the auctions.”

Well placed sources added that the concerns of senior gold dealers over the auction process — which crippled the London gold market at the time — were also shared by senior Bank of England officials.

The National Audit Office, which conducted an investigation into the mechanism of the sale in January 2001, found the auction had been fair and transparent, as required by the Treasury. Ministers subsequently used its report to justify their decision, although it specifically states: “This report does not question the merits of the decision to sell, which is a policy matter outside the remit of the National Audit Office.” However, this weekend one of the experts consulted by the National Audit Office expressed concern over the report. He said he made significant factual changes to a draft that were not reflected in the final version.

With Brown facing a Commons grilling over the affair, the Treasury is under pressure to release the official advice so that the public can draw their own conclusions.

A secure asset

Gold has been prized — and mined — since prehistoric times. It is the only asset that has maintained its value and kept pace with inflation, writes Holly Watt.

Britain led the way in establishing a gold standard when Sir Isaac Newton, as warden of the Royal Mint, linked the value of raw gold to the value of money in 1717.

The 1844 Bank Charter Act formalised the gold standard, the Bank of England’s promise that every note could be redeemed for its value in gold. The gold standard lasted until Britain was forced to abandon it during the first world war. Churchill returned to the standard in 1925 but it was again abandoned in 1931.

Since then the Bank of England has maintained significant gold reserves which can be called upon in a financial emergency.

Gold’s intrinsic value came into question after its price slumped during the 1980s and 1990s as investors switched into shares and bonds.

Britain decided to sell off its gold in 1999 at the bottom of this 20-year slump but most countries still see it as a key asset.

Finding the truth

The Sunday Times has been battling the Treasury for 18 months to obtain documents revealing the advice it received on the sale of gold, writes Holly Watt.

Under freedom of information laws, the paper has asked for statistical information relating to the decision to sell gold; minutes of ministerial meetings; official correspondence and studies into the aftermath of the decision.

Before the 2005 election the Treasury rushed out comparable information about the Conservatives’ darkest economic hour, Black Wednesday, but it took it five months to turn down this request, although it is required by law to respond within 20 working days.

Among five exemptions it has claimed to block publication is that “such information relates to the location (past or present) of the UK’s gold holdings, which, if made known, could increase risks to security”. This information is on the Bank’s official website




People don't forget SSU

jonc

If only Gordon Brown hadn't announced to the world of a fire sale of the British gold reserve and there by pushing the price of gold down before the sale at a rock bottom price, the country's economy would be in much better state that it is curretly. Gold is currently worth over 3 times more than for what he sold it for.