Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I was reading something the other day, I forget where, about how absolutely ingrained in the psyche of people the idea of the Nazi's being "right wing" despite it having absolutely no basis in fact at all. It's so weird.

 

[Arksy]

If you made a papier-mache man out of pages from the Mail and Telegraph and then sprinkled it with sacrificed fox blood to bring it to life you'd get Nigel Farage.

I'd hate to think how you'd make a Dan Hannan.

I was reading something the other day, I forget where, about how absolutely ingrained in the psyche of people the idea of the Nazi's being "right wing" despite it having absolutely no basis in fact at all. It's so weird.

Could it have been my posts like, yesterday?

People haven't read the road to serfdom it seems.

 

[reggieandTFE]

To your line of business? GDP figures mean precisely nothing. A technical recession means nothing in and of itself, it's the ridiculous media reaction which damages spending on the high street as people tighten their belts on hearing shit like "triple dip" even though it basically makes no difference to their lives. If anything low growth is helpful in a sense that UK Gilts will remain very low yield and allow for interest rates to stay low on mortgages and loans.

Otherwise, GDP figures mean nothing, especially the preliminary estimates.

You wouldn't be saying this if Labour was in charge.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Are we really gonna do the "hurrr nazis aren't right wing they had socialist in their name " bullshit like some 15 year old who just found that out and think's they're smart?
I mean seriously, that's the sort of nonsense you get from Tea Party comment sections.

Also I'd line a birdcage with Hayek.

 

[PJV3]

Are we really gonna do the "hurrr nazis aren't right wing they had socialist in their name " bullshit like some 15 year old who just found that out and think's they're smart?

Also I'd line a birdcage with Hayek.

The Nazis were born out of the germanic imperial nationalist movement, they were anti socialist and as right wing as they come.

It's fucking bonkers to pretend otherwise.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

What would you even talk about with Farage in this pint-sharing scenario?

Lamenting that you have to go outside to have a fag these days?
Bitching about PC GONE MAD?
Ranting about benefits and unemployed people?
Moaning about how if you try and celebrate St. George's day you get called racist?
Complaining in hushed tones (lest the LOONY LEFTY PC BRIGADE swoop down) about "those people"?

I had to stop cos I ran out of synonyms for "complaining" and didn't want to open a thesaurus. Not surprising given that their manifesto is basically a list of things that annoy people.

UKIP is the party of choice for pub drunks and black cab drivers.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-spoke-to-my-local-ukip-representative-to-reinforce-my-prejudices
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/2613/buoyant-ukip-battles-to-contain-partys-most-e

WANKERRRRRRRRRS

 

[CyclopsRock]

Are we really gonna do the "hurrr nazis aren't right wing they had socialist in their name " bullshit like some 15 year old who just found that out and think's they're smart?
I mean seriously, that's the sort of nonsense you get from Tea Party comment sections.

Also I'd line a birdcage with Hayek.

It's not their name, it's their policies. Their promotion of Volksgemeinschaft, their nationalising of any industry that didn't do what they wanted it to, they banned farmers from selling their land and then told them what to produce, and allowed private ownership and "capitalism" to flourish only as long as it wasn't getting in the way of the national interest. Basically, they wanted control of everything, and took direct control where they did not coerce or happen to find their goals aligned with private industry. A big chunk of their nominal opposition to Marxism was that it was all a bit jew'y.

Beyond economics, I find the labels of left and right wing a bit mincey. Which "wing" has a policy for burning books? For prison camps and forced labour? For forcing children to learn to play certain musical instruments? Everything the Nazi's did, in both economics and social policy, was about putting the "nation" ahead of the needs of individual people.

You have to go back a long, long way to find a time when it was the right wing that was advocating national benefit over that of the individual.

 

[Arksy]

It's not their name, it's their policies. Their promotion of Volksgemeinschaft, their nationalising of any industry that didn't do what they wanted it to, they banned farmers from selling their land and then told them what to produce, and allowed private ownership and "capitalism" to flourish only as long as it wasn't getting in the way of the national interest. Basically, they wanted control of everything, and took direct control where they did not coerce or happen to find their goals aligned with private industry. A big chunk of their nominal opposition to Marxism was that it was all a bit jew'y.

Beyond economics, I find the labels of left and right wing a bit mincey. Which "wing" has a policy for burning books? For prison camps and forced labour? For forcing children to learn to play certain musical instruments? Everything the Nazi's did, in both economics and social policy, was about putting the "nation" ahead of the needs of individual people.

You have to go back a long, long way to find a time when it was the right wing that was advocating national benefit over that of the individual.

Except that NEVER was the case. At least not in the English tradition. That was the entire essence of the Magna Carta, there was an inherited well established body of law and even the King couldn't mess with that. The entire tradition of liberalism from the English perspective has always been the elation of the individual over the state. Hence no taxation without representation, primacy for money bills in the House of Representatives, due process according to law.

Just refer back to the story of Alfred and the Cakes or King Cnut. These types of stories where the monarchs are humbled simply don't exist in other cultures. I defy anyone to find a similar story in Persian or Japanese history.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Hardcore Nationalism is a big thing in left-wing politics, I will admit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Except that NEVER was the case. At least not in the English tradition. That was the entire essence of the Magna Carta, there was an inherited well established body of law and even the King couldn't mess with that. The entire tradition of liberalism from the English perspective has always been the elation of the individual over the state. Hence no taxation without representation, primacy for money bills in the House of Representatives, due process according to law.

Just refer back to the story of Alfred and the Cakes or King Cnut. These types of stories where the monarchs are humbled simply don't exist in other cultures. I defy anyone to find a similar story in Persian or Japanese history.

Well I'd argue Disraeli's one-nation conservatism was a pretty big step in encouraging a national benefit at the expense of individual freedom (where "individual freedom" is defined by a lack of negative constraints on what to do with ones money). I mean, there's a reason why Ed is wandering up and down the country talking about One Nation this and that - it was a consideration of class through the lens of paternal conservatism.

 

[Arksy]

Well I'd argue Disraeli's one-nation conservatism was a pretty big step in encouraging a national benefit at the expense of individual freedom (where "individual freedom" is defined by a lack of negative constraints on what to do with ones money). I mean, there's a reason why Ed is wandering up and down the country talking about One Nation this and that - it was a consideration of class through the lens of paternal conservatism.

Yeah. I'd argue that the English tradition of liberalism had become rather corrupted by that point. The idea of parliamentary sovereignty directly contradicts the traditions of Magna Carta and the merger of the merger of the executive with the legislature was repugnant to that tradition because the entire point of the Commons and the Lords was to restrain the executive. I don't think that it was a bad thing in totality. It allowed for MPs to summon and censure heads of the Executive on a more frequent basis but my point is that things took a big change in the late C18-19.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

We have one or two kids on average and they have ten. So imagine that: every generation there’s a hundred of theirs to four of ours, a thousand to our eight. So, within three or four generations, this country will be a Muslim country.

Hehe.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I think it's generally understood that Nationalism, emphasis on the family unit, moral guardianship, authoritarianism etc. etc. are "conservative" things, and that, in to normal everyday people, conservatism is a ~right-wing~ thing. To try argue otherwise is just semantic, hair-splitting obfuscatory bullshit.

The thing that made the Nazis what they were was the word before Socialism. It was only socialism for the "German people". There's a reason people who subscribe to left-wing politics are often wary of Nationalism and it's simply because, from a leftist POV (maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, who knows), Nationalism puts "A" people first rather than "THE" people (all people). Think of it as using left-wing policies to enforce a right-wing frame onto society (if you (the state) control X then you can use this control to marginalise a group you dont like).

This is all worded shit but that happens with my posts which is why I don't like making longer ones and stick to shitposting and being a snarky cunt. But I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

 

[phisheep]

I think it's generally understood that Nationalism, emphasis on the family unit, moral guardianship, authoritarianism etc. etc. are "conservative" things, and that, in to normal everyday people, conservatism is a ~right-wing~ thing. To try argue otherwise is just semantic, hair-splitting obfuscatory bullshit.

The thing that made the Nazis what they were was the word before Socialism. It was only socialism for the "German people". There's a reason people who subscribe to left-wing politics are often wary of Nationalism and it's simply because, from a leftist POV (maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, who knows), Nationalism puts "A" people first rather than "THE" people (all people). Think of it as using left-wing policies to enforce a right-wing frame onto society (if you (the state) control X then you can use this control to marginalise a group you dont like).

This is all worded shit but that happens with my posts which is why I don't like making longer ones and stick to shitposting and being a snarky cunt. But I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

I kind of lost track of that post somewhere along the line, sorry.

Not wanting to query your logic or anything, but out of curiousity can you name one socialist country - anytime in history - that meets your criteria of being not right wing. If you can, go on to name three.

 

[Arksy]

I think it's generally understood that Nationalism, emphasis on the family unit, moral guardianship, authoritarianism etc. etc. are "conservative" things, and that, in to normal everyday people, conservatism is a ~right-wing~ thing. To try argue otherwise is just semantic, hair-splitting obfuscatory bullshit.

The thing that made the Nazis what they were was the word before Socialism. It was only socialism for the "German people". There's a reason people who subscribe to left-wing politics are often wary of Nationalism and it's simply because, from a leftist POV (maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, who knows), Nationalism puts "A" people first rather than "THE" people (all people). Think of it as using left-wing policies to enforce a right-wing frame onto society (if you (the state) control X then you can use this control to marginalise a group you dont like).

This is all worded shit but that happens with my posts which is why I don't like making longer ones and stick to shitposting and being a snarky cunt. But I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

I wouldn't disagree in principle. There's a good reason why a bunch of scholars define fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine. It definitely takes ideas from both left and ring wing traditions.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Think of it this way: they used left-wing economics to do things that are anathema to left-wing beliefs.

 

[War Peaceman]

I think it's generally understood that Nationalism, emphasis on the family unit, moral guardianship, authoritarianism etc. etc. are "conservative" things, and that, in to normal everyday people, conservatism is a ~right-wing~ thing. To try argue otherwise is just semantic, hair-splitting obfuscatory bullshit.

The thing that made the Nazis what they were was the word before Socialism. It was only socialism for the "German people". There's a reason people who subscribe to left-wing politics are often wary of Nationalism and it's simply because, from a leftist POV (maybe I'm only speaking for myself here, who knows), Nationalism puts "A" people first rather than "THE" people (all people). Think of it as using left-wing policies to enforce a right-wing frame onto society (if you (the state) control X then you can use this control to marginalise a group you dont like).

This is all worded shit but that happens with my posts which is why I don't like making longer ones and stick to shitposting and being a snarky cunt. But I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

Essentially the Nazis tried to appeal to everyone and anyone. 'Socialism' gave them an outsider edge compared to the establishment. Their rhetoric (and actions) changed as they became a significant political presence. If you look at their various propaganda, they really tried to be all things to everyone.

They did utilise some 'left-wing' policies - central planning in particular (I'm distinguishing this from authoritarianism). They can be said to be pro-unions too, if you look at the (impressive) DAF, but at the same time this replaced all trade unions so became more of a national endeavour, not a union in the traditional sense.

I think in general though that their emphasis on traditional ideas, as Cheezmo put it, of the family, German (Sturm und Drang) myths and heritage roots them more in the right wing. I'm hesitant to say that race was a part of this too, though it certainly is connected. Similarly, I'd argue that at least for the time that their military-approach was more right-wing, not least in their organisation. External expansion seems a right wing attitude for the period.

More than anything they were authoritarian fascists, which could be right wing or left wing.

EDIT: They were a piss-poor administration too. A total mess. They had competing departments for receiving Hitler's mail. What the fuck.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I thought left / right was a bit outmoded these days. Doesn't the modern political spectrum look something like this?:

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Not wanting to query your logic or anything, but out of curiousity can you name one socialist country - anytime in history - that meets your criteria of being not right wing. If you can, go on to name three.

Probably not!

Funnily enough, I'm a huge history buff. However my interests were always focussed on Classical rather than Modern history (and in the cases where I was interested in the latter it was always war or inter-national stuff I was interested in, not political systems).

If I had to throw out an absolute total wildcard, I would say post-revolutionary Russia before things started to get turned back somewhat. I'm basing this of what little I actually know of the society (I've actually been meaning to learn more about this exact subject but I have some books in my backlog I need to finish up first.) This might give you a very slight idea of the angle I'm coming from though http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20272

Im probably being laughed at now by a bunch of lurkers who know about this sort of stuff but fuck it, I'm gonna go read about Assyrians.

You could probably ask this question in a more dedicated lefty part of the internet (fake edit: try the GAF socialism thread) and get several walls of text back, if you're actually interested.

I thought left / right was a bit outmoded these days. Doesn't the modern political spectrum look something like this?:

Eh, I never liked this scale. I mean, it only covers social liberalism on the Y axis. Like, it doesn't seem to acknowledge economic authoritarianism as it's own thing.

These political tests need some sort of 3D representation, IMO.

See, I took it and I would put my dot slightly higher up on the Y axis, but I mean that economically. Like I said, it's only talking about social issues. Without a 3rd axis then what's the difference between a centrally-planned Soviet economy and an Anarcho-Syndicalist society?

 

[phisheep]

Probably not!

[snip]

Funnily enough, I'm a huge history buff.

Thought so. Didn't mean to make you a mockery - and probably I haven't given how few people are around. But it always kind of worries me when people claim all things done wrong by anyone ever to be "right wing" and everything else (as in mythologically nonexistent societies, or small fragments of interdependent societies) to be left wing and therefore right, as it were.

Makes no sense to me to do the left/right thing. Which also means it makes no sense to me to accuse (or be accused of) the left/right thing. The way you were using it was right=nasty, but it could as well be interpreted as right=whatever's lasted long enough to become history; or right=what works; or right=what achieves power.

I've a strong feeling for example that there's a big bunch of the Liberal Party that would give up if they ever got into power. Because being in power is too right-wing. That's just not practical politics.

 

[phisheep]

However my interests were always focussed on Classical rather than Modern history.

Let's try Rome then.

Was the Empire (say somewhere between Augustus and Diocletian and deleting a few of the madder Emperors) right-wing or left-wing?

I have a view. But you first.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Let's try Rome then.

Was the Empire (say somewhere between Augustus and Diocletian and deleting a few of the madder Emperors) right-wing or left-wing?

I have a view. But you first.

I can't say a society that uses slaves is left-wing.

 

[f0rk]

Yes slaves are bad and only good people are left wing.

 

[phisheep]

I can't say a society that uses slaves is left-wing.

Think a bit harder.

Remember that 'slaves' in Roman usage was roughly equivalent to what we mean by 'employees' now. Remember that slaves could make fortunes on their own account, often outlasting their masters' fortunes, remember that slaves could earn or buy their freedom (basically what we mean by "retirement"). It wasn't all that different. Though of course there was Spartacus and all that.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I should probably clarify that, to me, being leftist means opposition to exploitation (in the leftist sense), private property and class systems.

So for me, the roman slave system (for example) includes all three of these.

I feel we're dancing around definitions of left and right here.

 

[phisheep]

I feel we're dancing around definitions of left and right here.

Yep. That was the point!

Night night guys and gals. Need sleep for radio interview tomorrow.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

0.3% growth. LOL! ONS trying to hide last quarter's maths failure I think.

 

[SteveWD40]

0.3% growth.

 

[phisheep]

It's bloody uncomfortable doing a live broadcast over the telephone. Need more practice maybe (or perhaps to not say "yes" so readily next time).

Hadn't realised how much of a stitch-up these "phone-in" programmes are - as in, they call me.

 

[PJV3]

Think a bit harder.

Remember that 'slaves' in Roman usage was roughly equivalent to what we mean by 'employees' now. Remember that slaves could make fortunes on their own account, often outlasting their masters' fortunes, remember that slaves could earn or buy their freedom (basically what we mean by "retirement"). It wasn't all that different. Though of course there was Spartacus and all that.

This is a funny way of talking about the roman system of slavery. Slaves had no legal status, and an owner could ban a slave from holding any money, so yes a slave could buy freedom but only if the owner allowed it.

The system was nuanced, but I think the term employee is a bit of a whitewash. especially if you didn't have a skill that the romans valued. becoming a libertinus was more likely at a drunken religious festival.

 

[phisheep]

This is a funny way of talking about the roman system of slavery. Slaves had no legal status, and an owner could ban a slave from holding any money, so yes a slave could buy freedom but only if the owner allowed it.

The system was nuanced, but I think the term employee is a bit of a whitewash. especially if you didn't have a skill that the romans valued. becoming a libertinus was more likely at a drunken religious festival.

That's maybe overstating it a bit. They had something like the same legal status as did married women in England before 1870, which wasn't maybe in modern terms a great legal status and certainly not an equal one. But it is a long way off not having a legal status at all.

 

[PJV3]

That's maybe overstating it a bit. They had something like the same legal status as did married women in England before 1870, which wasn't maybe in modern terms a great legal status and certainly not an equal one. But it is a long way off not having a legal status at all.

Summary execution, enforced prostitution, testimony only accepted in court if based on torture etc. It's a bit different to being employed by tesco.

it was your use of the word employee that threw me, when slave is perfectly descriptive. obviously some slaves did better than others though.

You're right about having some legal status(someone's property) but they still didn't have personhood.

 

[Pie and Beans]

"Good clean internet". Definitely reads like one of those bizarre "free" policies DOSAC would spend a month discussing in the Thick Of It.

Internet so fresh you can see your face in its fucking reflection.

 

[PJV3]

"Good clean internet". Definitely reads like one of those bizarre "free" policies DOSAC would spend a month discussing in the Thick Of It.

Internet so fresh you can see your face in its fucking reflection.

How big of an issue is dirty wifi?
I've not really heard much about it.

0.3%
The economy is flat, I'm not sure why people in thr media get excited when it's + or - by such a small amount.

especially when it gets revised up or down a fraction a few months later.

 

[JonathanEx]

It's bloody uncomfortable doing a live broadcast over the telephone. Need more practice maybe (or perhaps to not say "yes" so readily next time).

Hadn't realised how much of a stitch-up these "phone-in" programmes are - as in, they call me.

It's partially a comfort thing, doing radio phoners. And probably bad job on the production team's part, they should probably make guests feel a bit more comfortable... I tend to find they just don't give me enough info on something when I've done them, or I prepare sort of the wrong stuff or it's much shorter than I'm led to believe.

But yeah - phone-ins. My friend was asked to be on Call Clegg. Of course, they looked for someone from a certain group of people, and wanted a question on a specific subject. So really about getting what people think.

Though a lot of people who phone in are nutters. Think of the nutters on air. Then think of how bad the ones rejected must have been.

 

[kmag]

How big of an issue is dirty wifi?
I've not really heard much about it.

0.3%
The economy is flat, I'm not sure why people in thr media get excited when it's + or - by such a small amount.

especially when it gets revised up or down a fraction a few months later.

The average revision from the 1st estimate is +/- 0.4% as you say the media tend to get their knickers in a twist for statistical chaff.

 

[PJV3]

The average revision from the 1st estimate is +/- 0.4% as you say the media tend to get their knickers in a twist for statistical chaff.

Yeah I've found it pointless for the last couple of years, it's just flat.

I'd rather see regional figures given more of a focus, and see what needs doing in terms of long term strategy.

 

[SteveWD40]

0.3%
The economy is flat, I'm not sure why people in thr media get excited when it's + or - by such a small amount.

especially when it gets revised up or down a fraction a few months later.

That's what I said a while ago, wake me up when it's 1% either way. As for the media, they need to keep people gripped as if it's an alien invasion 24/7.

 

[Little Old Man]

How big of an issue is dirty wifi?
I've not really heard much about it.

0.3%
The economy is flat, I'm not sure why people in thr media get excited when it's + or - by such a small amount.

especially when it gets revised up or down a fraction a few months later.

Because it's very easy to get people worked up when the average person can't relate GDP figures to their everyday lives, which keeps viewer numbers up.

I think George would be crying with happiness if I can achieve annual growth of 1.2% though, it would give him breathing room politically.
I'm more interested to see what the revision is, if any, which as CyclopsRock said earlier, have often been upwards revisions in recent years.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

A few of us have just been crunching through our figures today. I think the ONS have got Q4 wrong, it should be -0.1% and they have this quarter wrong as well, should be +0.2%, there were also two stealth revisions from previous quarters.

Just looking at the detailed GDP figures, the difference between Britain having a double dip recession and not having a double dip recession now stands at just £72m, I would put forward that the double dip recession probably never happened, it was just a bit of a downturn. It's a shame since the headlines of "Britain enters double dip" probably knocked spending a fair bit and it was all just unnecessary. If only the ONS were good at their job. D:

Classic example. Q42011 was initially put at -0.4%, the latest figures now say it is -0.1%, with more positive data waiting to be processed for Q12012. Another one is Q22012 which was put at -0.7% then revised up to -0.4%.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I phoned up LBC once and got on. Its not all reverse calling! I talked about sex education

Edit: as an aside, I also uses to have my letters printed in the Metro once or twice a week for a year or so, a couple of years back when I used to commute.

 

[PJV3]

A few of us have just been crunching through our figures today. I think the ONS have got Q4 wrong, it should be -0.1% and they have this quarter wrong as well, should be +0.2%, there were also two stealth revisions from previous quarters.

Just looking at the detailed GDP figures, the difference between Britain having a double dip recession and not having a double dip recession now stands at just £72m, I would put forward that the double dip recession probably never happened, it was just a bit of a downturn. It's a shame since the headlines of "Britain enters double dip" probably knocked spending a fair bit and it was all just unnecessary. If only the ONS were good at their job. D:

Classic example. Q42011 was initially put at -0.4%, the latest figures now say it is -0.1%, with more positive data waiting to be processed for Q12012. Another one is Q22012 which was put at -0.7% then revised up to -0.4%.

The ONS has always worked like this, it isn't about being good or bad, it's the process they go through. The last sets of figures from the Labour government were revised upwards after a few months.

QE modified by cuts and global conditions=flat.
It isn't good enough to sort out our troubles, but it isn't a catastrophe as such either.

How much is the SE growing, how are other regions doing? the headline national figure is uninteresting at the moment.

 

[phisheep]

The ONS has always worked like this, it isn't about being good or bad, it's the process they go through.

It's also about they don't have all the information. They don't know, for example anything about my business's (admittedly small) contribution to the economy because I haven't told them and they never asked. Sure, they know about my imports, and they know now about my employees because I put the annual return in early. But my accounts aren't in yet, and won't be for another four months probably.

When I worked in the Statistics Office it was damn difficult to get anything at all reliable about small businesses.

 

[PJV3]

It's also about they don't have all the information. They don't know, for example anything about my business's (admittedly small) contribution to the economy because I haven't told them and they never asked. Sure, they know about my imports, and they know now about my employees because I put the annual return in early. But my accounts aren't in yet, and won't be for another four months probably.

When I worked in the Statistics Office it was damn difficult to get anything at all reliable about small businesses.

Yeah true.
But then again if they had to process that level of information they would never get the reports out in the same year (I think). They still process far more data than anybody else though.

I think they do a fair job considering, and I'd be wary of any government interference aimed at 'improving' what they do.

 

[travisbickle]

Thatcher's funeral estimated to cost around 3.6 million.

You can always rely on the state to provide a good service for lower than expected price, Thatcher would have been proud.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The ONS has always worked like this, it isn't about being good or bad, it's the process they go through. The last sets of figures from the Labour government were revised upwards after a few months.

QE modified by cuts and global conditions=flat.
It isn't good enough to sort out our troubles, but it isn't a catastrophe as such either.

How much is the SE growing, how are other regions doing? the headline national figure is uninteresting at the moment.

Yes, but that's the problem. Very few in the City trust the ONS figures right now, we all rely on our own figures or wait for the Bank's figures. The last set of Labour govt GDP figures were revised down btw, our recession was initially pegged at ~ 5% from peak to trough, many thought this was too shallow at the time and once Labour left power the recession gradually got to where the Bank and City thought it should be ~ 6% from peak to trough.

There are many who believe that the ONS became too political towards the end of the 13 Labour years, especially because one of the Con cuts was going to made at the ONS with a couple of departments just shutting down for good. I have not seen evidence where I can say with 100% certainty that I subscribe to this theory, but there are certain revisions and stats which make me wonder.

FWIW here's my bank's vs the ONS GDP figs for Q12011-Q12013

0.5% vs 0.5%
0.2% vs 0.1%
0.6% vs 0.6%
-0.1% vs -0.1%
0.1% vs -0.1%
0.1% vs -0.4%
0.5% vs 0.9%
-0.1% vs -0.3%
0.2% vs 0.3%

Overall for the listed period we would put GDP growth 0.4% higher than what it is currently recorded as, YoY would be 0.7% vs 0.6% and our seasonal adjustment is in line with the Bank's seasonal adjustment (moving the bank holiday related growth into the correct quarter rather than have GDP swing wildly like the ONS has it).

I believe in 2014 once the ONS has completed its revisions their final figures will look a lot like my bank's figures and it will have transpired that there was no double dip recession (the employment figures don't make sense otherwise) and we are just bumping along the bottom with 1% YoY growth, nothing spectacular but not disastrous either given what's happening on the other side of the Channel.

 

[Protome]

Thatcher's funeral estimated to cost around 3.6 million.

You can always rely on the state to provide a good service for lower than expected price, Thatcher would have been proud.

"For three million they could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we'd dig a hole so deep, we'd hand her over to Satan personally."

 

[Jezbollah]

"For three million they could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we'd dig a hole so deep, we'd hand her over to Satan personally."

I wonder what they could have done with the £7m that they overestimated for.

 

[PJV3]

Yes, but that's the problem. Very few in the City trust the ONS figures right now, we all rely on our own figures or wait for the Bank's figures. The last set of Labour govt GDP figures were revised down btw, our recession was initially pegged at ~ 5% from peak to trough, many thought this was too shallow at the time and once Labour left power the recession gradually got to where the Bank and City thought it should be ~ 6% from peak to trough.

There are many who believe that the ONS became too political towards the end of the 13 Labour years, especially because one of the Con cuts was going to made at the ONS with a couple of departments just shutting down for good. I have not seen evidence where I can say with 100% certainty that I subscribe to this theory, but there are certain revisions and stats which make me wonder.

FWIW here's my bank's vs the ONS GDP figs for Q12011-Q12013

0.5% vs 0.5%
0.2% vs 0.1%
0.6% vs 0.6%
-0.1% vs -0.1%
0.1% vs -0.1%
0.1% vs -0.4%
0.5% vs 0.9%
-0.1% vs -0.3%
0.2% vs 0.3%

Overall for the listed period we would put GDP growth 0.4% higher than what it is currently recorded as, YoY would be 0.7% vs 0.6% and our seasonal adjustment is in line with the Bank's seasonal adjustment (moving the bank holiday related growth into the correct quarter rather than have GDP swing wildly like the ONS has it).

I believe in 2014 once the ONS has completed its revisions their final figures will look a lot like my bank's figures and it will have transpired that there was no double dip recession (the employment figures don't make sense otherwise) and we are just bumping along the bottom with 1% YoY growth, nothing spectacular but not disastrous either given what's happening on the other side of the Channel.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/30/uk-gdp-revised-up

I'm not sure what you're saying tbh, in this article they mention the 6% contraction, the ONS revised growth upwards and they keep altering figures up and down for years as errors in the data are revealed.

As for the political shenanigans, you need to tell the people who believe rubbish like that to grow up.

The ONS isn't infallible, and it shouldn't be taken as gospel, it's an estimate that always gets adjusted.