Lots of work for Kremlinologists
David Miliband condemned "Kremlinology gone crazy" yesterday as he argued against a leadership election and declared his support for Gordon Brown. Sorry to disappoint you, David, but there is still plenty of work for we Kremlinologists to do pointing out what the cabinet are, and are not, saying. (If you find textual analysis wearisome, I suggest you skip to my last sentence.)
The foreign secretary was much clearer than he was in July but did add a test that the PM had to pass - "the test of our conference is about how we respond to very different circumstances, and that is what we have got to develop, a political agenda that is adequate to the changed circumstances that we face."
The business secretary, John Hutton was more ambiguous. On the one hand he did say that we've "got the right leader" and "I am supporting the prime minister, we should all be supporting the prime minister today and in the weeks ahead because it is a hugely difficult job that he's got to do". However, he added riders pointing out that "in the government, your job is to support your leader and to support the government, and that is what I am doing" whereas "if you're not in the government, then you can make a different set of choices" before adding "I think you've got to be absolutely clear on these occasions that it is right and proper for there to be debate about the direction of the party".
The chief whip, Geoff Hoon, made clear his view that Gordon Brown would still be prime minister by Christmas and his belief that a public worrying about paying their bills and their mortgages did not want the distraction of a leadership contest. However, careful lawyer that he is, Mr Hoon chose his words with precision when asked about a leadership election - "I don't think at this stage that it's appropriate".
None of this textual analysis would be worthwhile if any member of the cabinet had uttered words along the lines "Gordon Brown is the right man to lead Labour and the country now because...". None of them came anywhere close.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Isn't this called 'Damning with faint praise'?
The collective silence from cabinet ministers over the weekend was enough to do for Brown.
The deckchairs will be arranged on the Titanic.
Can't wait for the labour party conference.
Complain about this comment
The king is dead, long live the king!
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I totally agree. Going further, none of the cabinet are able to even paint a picture of the vision and strategy of our government.
If they had a vision and strategy, they would say this is where we are going. This is why we are moving in this direction and because of that these are the reasons that Gordon is the right person to lead the delivery of that vision.
I would say that this is because Labour no longer has a plan.
Not one of the Cabinet inspires as a potential successor to Gordon Brown. When they talk about the future they just use bland meaningless words regarding 'change'.
If they fell Gordon Brown it seems that they will still be rudderless.
The current inertia is probably because they are trying to come up with a plan of substance on the back of the time honoured fag packet.
Complain about this comment
It all sounds like internal manouvering in preperation for the leadership fight.
Some are thinly disguising the instruction to wait until after the loss in the election.
Some are saying lets lop off our head now!
Some are thinly disguising that they will go for it now if enough others want them too.
There is no unity in the Labour party.
I think many are hoping for a little accident, possibly with the salmon moose, on the eve of conference.
Gordon has finally found something we can be number one at, he is taking us down the pan and he is racing the US to get there first. Many economies will survive this ours won't thanks to Prudence, unfortunately she was miss named and took the country for every penny she could get when she divorced Brown in 2001, Its taken while for the settlement to come through but now it has our cupboards are bare.
Complain about this comment
Geoff Hoon should understand that people will only be distracted by a Labour leadership battle as a bull is by a midge.
Complain about this comment
Lack of clarity and conviction from the lot then.
Tis a murky world.
Like the Kremlinology analogy, very apt.
Wonder if any of them are actually doing anything useful at the moment.
Complain about this comment
I would say that this is because Labour no longer has a plan.
Of course Labour has a plan. This year they will, due to 'Global factors beyond their control', borrow about 80bn quid. For 'investment in infrastructure'. Next year (2009/2010) They will borrow 120bn quid for 'investment in infrastructure'.
They will also re-jig the 'independent' BoE's remit to completely ignore inflation to whatever criteria will allow the BoE to cut interest rates to 3%. If (say) Mervyn King resigns in protest of this trashing of the currency he will simply be replaced by somebody more amenable to being told what to do. Likewise any 'independent' members of the committee.
That is their plan.
That is why the pound is down the toilet despite having higher (at only 5% - remember - that's not 'high) interest rates than the Euro-zone or the dollar. Because the international community has got out it's economic/political text-books and cross-referenced what happens to spending, indebtedness and financial disaster when Labour is in power and is acting accordingly.
I don't expect them to be proven wrong.
Complain about this comment
Now listen I am getting very annoyed. These are the comments I made yesterday #133 on Rebel Tactics:-
'I can now see why some compared him to Stalin, anybody who is not for me is against me, and I will have no challenge to my authority. Can we soon expect some show trials, recant or else. Oh for a modern day Shakespeare'.
These comments should also be read in conjunction with support from David Millibland.
I don't know, must everybody follow the Griffin.
Where is the government commentary about the financial meltdown in America. We have had 9/11 and the War on Terror, well put it in your diaries, this day will go down in history, 9/15, Great Depression II.
Some people ought to go back to read their Shakespeare, money has made us all pimps and whores. If you want to know try reading Faust/Mephistopheles Part 1,scene iv.
In fact this is actually turning into a Faustian tragedy.
Complain about this comment
Its not quite vultures circling round the corpse at the moment, more like a pride of lions holding back for the right moment to move in for the kill. Trouble is when Brown is toppled its not going to make much difference to the fate of the party or government who's in charge. It feels like ministers are positioning themselves for picking up the pieces post election defeat because no one realy has the stomach or the bottle to put the knife in now. I think despite all the posturing Brown will stagger on to lead Labour to catastrophic defeat at the next election, and then will be unceromoniously dumped. Milliband and co are too clever to take over as captain of the ship just before it goes down, better to rally the survivors in the life boats and look to the future.
Complain about this comment
Three things really
a) if the man at the top is a ditherer, as GB is, then it can't be surprising that the Cabinet are as well
b) As GB showed how not to be loyal,its also can't be a surprise that he does not attract loyalty himself.
c) This years Labour conference may be good viewing, although I thought Labour had banned blood sports ?
Complain about this comment
The first thing Labour could be getting on with is updating their budget predictions to move from their made-up number of 2.5% growth to -1% or -2%, just to show that they have a plan for how this country will deal with the slowdown/reversal, rather than repeating the moronic line/spin that Gordon's listening and will do what's best for the country. Let's see some numbers, if you want to start regaining the trust and confidence of the country!
Complain about this comment
Now he even has his party dithering; the infection has spread from just Gordon.
It must be so frustrating for ministers like Purnell and Millipede to have a prime minister who, just like a petulant child, is constantly asking for 'five more minutes' before being packed off to bed.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know how long the shortest standing ovation for a party leader at a conference has been?
Just curious...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There's never been a PM in history so quickly deemed as useless as Gordon Brown.
I really do think we're panicing a bit. Everyone reads too much into the polls and its what seems to be driving the Labour backbenchers to speak out. Selfish individuals fearing for their own seats.
I really think Gordon Brown is, and will prove to be a better Prime Minister than people think.
We always do this, be it in politics, celebrities or football, as soon as things get tough or things arent quite going how we like, we all start demanding for change, somehow thinking it will make it all better. Is it really Mr. Brown's fault that the prices of everything are going up? Of course not, but people hurt most in their pockets and i cant help but think that if Mr. Brown does go / is forced out, people will look around and think 'well, whats changed?'
...and if the Tories do come in, i think people will soon start thinking 'wouldn't it be nice to have that Mr. Brown back'
Complain about this comment
Regardless of whether or not GB is the right person to lead the country, the truth is that he's got zero momentum, and the leadership mutterings are getting louder. That's not good for anyone. Either he needs to pull a big rabbit out of the hat in the near future, or face it head on and embrace a proper leadership contest (that didn't happen before). I guess he believes he can just tough it out, but if he's wrong, what are the consequences for hm, the Labour Party and the country? The Labour conference will hopefully sort this out one way or another.
Complain about this comment
I think all this talk of Miliband et al forcing a leadership contest is nonsense.
It's just the wrong time.
There is likely to be a period of stagnant growth (positive year-on-year growth, but a shrinking economy on a quarter-to-quarter basis).
The Government is extremely unpopular - it's Cameron's election to lose, and there are little signs of that happening, regardless of who's in charge. The Conservative view - that the recession is all the Government's fault, most spending has been wasteful appears to be accepted by many in the country (regardless of its truth). There does not seem to be a way back, especially with the stagnation in the economy likely to last until the election.
What do Miliband or others have to gain from becoming leader now? Pressure for an early general election, difficulty in trying to reform the party, and an early landslide defeat to Cameron, all of which will start them off on the back-foot.
From their perspective it's surely better to let Brown take the hit and to be a fresh start. If there is a leadership contest, maybe a caretaker leader (e.g. Straw) would be the answer for Labour (minimise losses by getting rid of Brown and keeping the future leader free from being tainted by a likely landslide defeat in 2010)
Surprised backbenches want a contest - the pressure to go to an election (at which Cameron is likely to win a landslide) will be immense...
Complain about this comment
Nu-Labour? Nu-Weasels.
Complain about this comment
...and if the Tories do come in, i think people will soon start thinking 'wouldn't it be nice to have that Mr. Brown back'
Stranger things have happened. Right now people are thinking wouldn't it be nice to have that safe pair of hands, John Major, back. Oh, if only we had a teensy recession like the 1990's to look forward to.
The Brown Bust. You'll be able to read about it in the history books for generations to come.
Complain about this comment
Brown is a rabbit in the headlights trying to look cool (and failing miserably).
Like a Cycle Persuit race, each candidate is waiting to see who (if anyone) makes a break first.
The thing they fear most, is that if there is a competition, that they miss out on it.
Selfish, self-interested morons to a man (and woman) - much in the model of their (current) leader.
Brown is the cuckoo who spent a decade ensuring there would be no worthy competition -- however he has clearly set the bar so low, that in the eyes of the public, evan a dead-sheep would be in with a good chance of relacing him.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Why aren't you at the Liberal Democrats conference?
I think the ideas being put about by Cleggie and Cable are far more interesting than reading between the lines about who thinks what in a failed government.
Labour is dead. Good riddance! However, lets have a look at the alternatives before we have to face the prospect of voting.
Complain about this comment
There is likely to be a period of stagnant growth (positive year-on-year growth, but a shrinking economy on a quarter-to-quarter basis).
I'd say year-on-year growth will be lucky/rigged to show a positive over the calendar year 2008. From the end of Q1 2008 to Q1 2009 it will be negative and it will remain negative up until the (projected) election in 2010.
The only way these predictions will prove unfounded is by absolutely monumental amounts of further government borrowing and squandering. 100bn a year plus. Or, as I'm sure it will be coded, 'essential investment in infrastructure'.
This economy is shot. It's going to take a lot of pain to turn it around. I wouldn't want to be starting from here. And I particularly wouldn't want to have a socialist control freak like Gordon Brown starting from here. Because this is just the beginning of how bad it's going to get with him in control. He is a one-trick chancellor.
Borrow. Tax. Squander.
Make that three tricks.
Complain about this comment
It is a bit like a party which is winding down, and one of the guests shows no sign of going home, and he has overstayed his welcome, and just is not picking up on any of the hints that it is time to call for the taxi and head home...
Take the hint, Gordon...
Complain about this comment
The Conservative view - that the recession is all the Government's fault, most spending has been wasteful appears to be accepted by many in the country (regardless of its truth).
Most spending has been wasteful. 'Improvements' in education are not due to a succession of glass and steel monuments to learning constructed at vast cost. They are due to making exams so simple to pass that amoeba are getting straight 'A's.
Productivity in the NHS has actually gone down despite the bazillions squandered on shiny new glass and steel structures with free car-parks for all the million new functionnaires Gordon Brown 'employed'. The doctors cut such a laughably one-sided deal with the incompetent health secretary at the time (40% wage increase plus an extra 5,000 quid if we make ourselves available at weekends) that 95% of doctors promptly went to a three day week for the same money they were getting before.
Weekends? Ha ha ha. Yeah, right. For an extra 5,000 quid a year? Even the paper-boy gets more than that.
This government demands a new definition of the word 'incompetent'. This government goes to bed at night, hugs its pillow and dreams of being merely 'incompetent'. Shakespeare' language, the English language has no word even approaching the scale of this government's incompetence.
Those who lived as adults through the 1970s might disagree of course. They've been here before. Now I fully understand what they mean by the phrase 'Labour government'.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The problem for New Labour is not who is the figurehead but their repeated failure to manage the economy. There still are not any signs of any strategy to get on with the act of governance.
We are at the natural end point of a hands-off approach to the economy where markets forces - or more correctly market manipulation be interested parties - have led us. Self regulation by private businesses is a weak tool, as is the pretence that replacing a monopoly with a cartel makes any difference.
Indications of the role that Labour see for themselves are in one of the first things they did when coming to power. That was to pass the setting of interest rates, coupled to very restrictive formula to the Bank of England. To be honest it is highly unlikely that you need the BoE, the WI could do it, the BoE have so little room for manouevre within the rules that there was little point in pretending they are independent. This doesnt stop the government saying it is nothing to do with us, it is the BoE that is responsible for interest rate. It is not our fault if things dont go well.
This pretence that robust system(s) are in place and proactive economic management is in action when it is not is fundemental to the problems that are showing up. We have a government which seems to think its job is to implement ever restrictive rules and regulations on what it's citizens can do at quite a petty level yet at the most important strategy end the cupboard is bare. It is hands-off, let the market sort it, put regulators in place who do not have the tools or power or backbone to regulate, who are too slow to act or to develop new regulation tools in a fast moving senario and have little if any mandate to do so.
Meanwhile short term quick yield private companies like the banks and energy companies run the economy and cook the books. And the government says it is nothing to do with us.
The self dellusion this government has about the boundaries between governemnt and private business is shown clearly with the fuel help policy which will simple push up fuel bills across the board for every household and is another grossly inefficient implementation involving admin and high installation labour costs and a up to 10 year wait. It is also simple an extension to a scheme already in place. Like new seems to come out.
There are fundemental problems with the way Labour view accountability and responsibility which were again highlighted when a minister recently said he was accountable but not responsible. The two are intertwined, if you are accountable you are responsible. This is the very basic problem with Labours whole strategy - they do not understand the act of governance. They wish again and again to devolve governace to independent bodies or private businesses who have agendas which have little to do with governing.
The message from the governemnt is wait and it will all come right, lets just stay hands-off. we have nothing new to say or do. It is most unlikely that what is an inbuilt cultural problem with New Labour will be sorted by changing who is at the top.
Complain about this comment
Just a little bit of news reported on Radio 5, which may be of interest.
It is reported that Pakistan fired on some American planes which overflew Pakistan airspace. No violations of Pakistani Territory will be tolerated.
Now then can we take it that British and American forces are not operating in the border areas to Aghanistan and Pakistan, and sometimes going over the border, into Pakistan.
Now I think that Gordon Brown will announce to cheers that British troops are to be withdrawn from Iraq, however they will have to be sent to reinforce our defeat in Afghanistan.
Russia was bankrupted by its Afghanistan excursion. The same is happening to America, apart from anything else it can't afford these wars. Americans are not happy about their recession and the fact the billions are being spent to fight wars.
So, while we have concerns about the economy, and the politicians we are losing site of the disaster unfolding in other areas of the world. Millibland ought to do his job trying to sort his job as foreign secretary before he can even think about running this country.
Can't wait for the governmnet reshuffle.
Complain about this comment
Cut off the Chicken's head and the carcass still flails around blindly in the yard. Same will happen with Labour without the clunking fist at the helm, steering us to disaster. Labour MP's should start looking in the jobs sections, they're doomed.
Complain about this comment
Don't worry ... PMQs will be back soon and then Gordon can confirm by how much Tractor production is up.
Complain about this comment
6 carrots
Lack of clarity and conviction from the lot then.
Tis a murky world.
Wonder if any of them are actually doing anything useful at the moment.
You were talking about Cameron and the invisibles weren't you. Carrots
Complain about this comment
Its all about applying pressure on Gordon to do the honest thing and fall on his sword. They all know to force him out is not an option and would harm the Party and the individuals concerned.
The trouble is he aint gonna go withought a fight. I really feel for Gordon, but on the other hand his stubborness is just selfish. The longer it goes on the more the public will rally against him.
So next steps? Looks to me like the way forward is to apply more pressure on GB at conference. More and more members will be asking for change and hint at the likelyhood of a disasterous election, but will fall short of wanting to push him out.
The big question for the Labour party now is, do we risk loosing the next election with a respectable amount of seats held, or do we let this continue and risk a really disasterous result that could take 2-3 parliaments to undo ?
Complain about this comment
Yond’ Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar (1599) act 1, sc. 2
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
More entomology than Kremlinology....
The true inhabitants of the Kremlin have a better assessment of the worth of Miliband and other Nu Labour ministers.
As Sergi Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister said to Miliband: "Who are you to lecture me?". Though he did add a naughty word....
I'd like to think he speaks for us all!
Complain about this comment
Brown is a disgrace.
He's just sacking anyone and everyone who calls for a leadership contest.
No wonder the Cabinet aren't calling for one.
BROWN OUT!
Complain about this comment
Labour on the verge of destruction
Complain about this comment
Poor old Gordon, the clock is ticking.
Complain about this comment
At least the BBC is being more sensible than when John Major was in power when it was trawling for rebels to appear in studios in order to discredit the government and magnify the rebellion. This time round the rebels are largely being kept away from the microphones.
As regards to analysis – I think you should leave that to voters. No matter how neutral you try to be, any analysis you provide is bound to have an angle to it and therefore have an undue weighting on our democracy.
Complain about this comment
24. U9461192
You do the doctors a disservice:
They didnt cut a deal, the government threw them a pot of gold. At first they thought the offer was a joke.
A classis case of how socialists just dont understand how organisations work and what makes them tick.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6314301.stm
Complain about this comment
The fact that there is no-one willing to challenge for party leader just confirms to me that they are all a bunch of talentless no hopers able to do the job.
Complain about this comment
Re - Afghan Can our estemed government advise the true total financial cost, (let alone the casualties) to the UK of the ghastly pantomime in Iraq and Afghanhistan.
It was standing in the Billions at the end of the first year but its been Mums the word for a long time.
Whilst they are at it can they also advise the last time any foreign country militarily went to Afghanhistan and won.
Just another Labour ego trip and total lack of reality. I still find it difficult to understand that when asked by Blair about war in these regions that Paddy Ashdown said that he thought a surgical in and out was practical, I thought Ashdown had been in the Army, he certainly did not read Military History. His idea of surgery has more to do with Jack the Ripper than keyhole surgery.
Complain about this comment
30. grandantidote
Glad to see youre back on form.
Weve missed you.
Oh yes and NO..... I wasnt.
Complain about this comment
The Labour Party has suppressed dissent to the point that constructive criticism was not tolerated. So there are no clearly formed lines with Brownites and Blairites but also Old and New Labour. Change is impossible in the Labour Party - the Stalin jibe is quite accurate in some senses.
If Gordon does not go quietly there is a bloodbath at the polls until the next election and they lose very very badly. Will there be much of a Party to take over by that time?
If Gordon does go quietly you can only have a caretaker like Straw or a compromise candidate. Would such a candidate survive the inevitable general election let alone win it? The plus for them is they might start the process of rebuilding and possibly slide some of the economic blame onto the Tories.
But once it becomes clear that the only way is down for Labour then I think we will see vicious civil war for a while. If Scotland becomes independent then that will take yet more base power away from Labour.
Ultimately if Honest John Major feels sorry for Brown the future is very very bleak.
Complain about this comment
re: 34
That was brill wasn't it? Milibland the cowardly, lightweight, treacherous backstabber should go back to school.
Complain about this comment
Gordondammerung, with a full cast of Rhinemaidens! Many are auditioning for Hagen.
Complain about this comment
The trouble with trying to predict what politicians will do next is that they are not like us.
We live in the real world and have real concerns and a pragmatic view of life.
They live in the Westminster Hothouse, and have invented concerns and a frankly unreal view of the world.
The factor that Labour MP's will currently be weighing will be the likelhood of their own survival following yet another unopposed, unelected, undemocratic leadership transition. Should a change of leadership come, it will of course be unopposed. I can't imagine they would find two people foolish enough to run.
I imagine Gordon will be allowed to crash and burn to glorious defeat in 2010, unless he has an outbreak of sanity and resigns first.
If they have a leadership election before the General election, they will just be exchanging the scapegoat for the Judas goat.
Complain about this comment
32. DistantTraveller
And Marcus Antonius tries to soothe Caesar: "Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous, He is a noble Roman, and well given."
Ironically, the superstitious Caesar, who sees through Cassius's noble exterior, will die, while the deluded Antony will survive to avenge him, and later to take power.
Complain about this comment
#18 power_to_the_people
Pop goes the weasel!
Complain about this comment
I hope when Cameron is elected he actually does cut spending. It's insane to continue on Labour's path of tax and spend but as yet Cameron has made no promises.
Complain about this comment
#22
the best projections of e.g. IMF, OECD, EU and other non-governmental sources is for a technical recession (i.e. 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) combined with year-on-year growth remaining positive. Though of course there are risks on the downside (but risks on the upside too) as with any projections of the economy.
As for a 'socialist control freak' - Socialist? New Labour have largely accepted the Thatcherite/Neo-Con consensus in most areas. Control freak? You mean holding people accountable for their results through targets right? Isn't that called 'management' in the private sector?
I addressed the points on borrowing on a previous thread - the one about Harman's social mobility speech (e.g. the IFS says that the structural deficit is lower now than it was in 1997; borrowing, even including PFI deals, is lower now than in 1997; public services are better, investment in infrastructure is far higher).
#24
blah,blah,blah. Productivity 'falling' is no surprise - it is because of increases in wages given to public sector workers. Labour had to solve the 1979-1997 government's unsustainable squeeze on public sector wages. Otherwise, teacher quality would continue to decline over time. Maybe making teacher quality worse is, in your view, the best way to improve education. Interested in that argument.
Complain about this comment
Where is John Reid? He's nowhere to be seen.
Is he patiently waiting or will no one cut short their political career by steering the party into inevitable election meltdown. Go back to you constituencies and prepare for opposition.
Complain about this comment
e.g. try [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] for a look at the impact of declining pay of teachers during the 1980s/early 1990s.
Pay increases were necessary to improve quality. This obviously had an impact on productivity
Complain about this comment
#32
Nice one but please give credit to #8.
Can we expect to see more quotes from Shakespeare.
It's carnage on the Stock market, where is a government spokesman, like the Prime Minister, telling us not to worry, it's not as bad as it seems.
Only trouble is that any words uttered by anybody attached to this awful government will only exacerbate the situation. Their words will come back to haunt them. 'The pound in your pocket' or 'crisis what crisis', or even te classic piece of paper being waved n the air and 'peace in our time'.
Abandon hope all you who enter here.
Complain about this comment
#24
Not only did newlabour strike this ridiculous deal with doctors to work less for more pay but they also struck another blow for incompetence in their negocaitions with contractors.
Now the shiny new glass and steel buildings are finished in the health and education sector 121 contractors are being investigated for price fixing... newlabour ripped off yet again and squanering tax payers money.
It makes the Paulson affair from the 70s look like a wee timorous mousie. A bit like newlabour policies these days.
Complain about this comment
30. grandantidote
Goodmorning
Once more unto the breach dear friend!
Don't let them get you down, we are all in for tough times.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown was well suited to the job of Chancellor, but the 'election that never was' showed his shortcomings as pm.
We face a Conservative Government in two years and it requires a high profile cabinet minister to sacrifice their own career by standing against Brown now. Why is it a sacrifice? Because, like Michael Hesseltine brining down Mrs Thatcher, somebody else will get the prize of being PM.
Unless somebody does it, the dark days of the Tories will return. Keeping their powder dry until the election (defeat) of Brown does none of us any good.
Complain about this comment
I seriously dislike journalists (who are supposed to have some grammatical knowldge) using the nominative case when they should use the accusative.
"... for we Kremlinologists to do .." is a disgraceful example of writing by those who use "he and I" for example in an effort to be what they think is clever and indeed make themselves look idiots.
It simply shows up their dreadful lack of education.
No doubt at school during a period of Labour government hey?
Complain about this comment
"Where is John Reid? He's nowhere to be seen."
Must be with Harriet.
Mark my words, it's HH that's going to come through. Harriet Harman, Prime Minister.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Complain about this comment
IMF Projection - found the data now from their most recent update (6th August) http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2008/pn0899.htm
I quote:
"Real GDP Growth is projected to be 1.4% in 2008, falling to 1.1% in 2009" (2 sentences before the bold heading "Executive Board Assessment)
Complain about this comment
Milliband probably supports Gordon Brown because he is now certain that Labour will loose the next election.
Being very young, the time Labour will have to spend in the opposition will give him enough time to groom himself and grow into the natural leader for the next time round in 10-year or so.
So by supporting Gordon Brown, he is avoiding un-necessary friction and making sure that he remain the darling of the party aparatchiks.
Complain about this comment
re: 48
Every last one of those weasels will go pop! (Just like a pigeon that has swallowed an alka-seltzer).
re: 53
From Macbeth act 1 sc. 7
I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people.
Complain about this comment
53. T A Griffin (TAG)
Can we expect to see more quotes from Shakespeare
Before I saw your posting, I did quote from The Bard. He is great, something perfect to say for every occasion.
How about all of us in this forum (left, right and up the creek) combining to produce a modern-day comedy-tragedy using quotes from WS?
It would put a stop to the awful fighting of yesterday.
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
If we're going to quote Shakespeare, the three witches in Macbeth are the most apposite:
"How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags! What is't you do?"
or "double, double, toil and trouble"
still better "Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth."
And how about the camping supplies shop in - I think - Stratford (the east London one) :
"Now is the winter of our discount tents"
Complain about this comment
Here's another politically-relevant Shakespeare quote, from Macbeth again (Act 3 sc. 4):
Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once.
Complain about this comment
Never forget that Nick Robinson was a tory party worker and cannot give an unbiased view.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Who in their right mind would want to lead the party to an almost certain electoral defeat?
The events that have scuppered GB have largely been out of his control but his reaction to these events has been nothing short of woeful.
Complain about this comment
Who will give the 'friends Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears, I come to bury Caesar not to praise him' speech when Gordon is eventually carried away into the wings.
Now we are hearing that Barry Gardener resigned and was not sacked, oh yes you were, oh no I wasn't, pure theatre, absolute pure theatre.
Is it a case of not seeing the woods for the trees.
Complain about this comment
Come on folks, wise up! We have here a potentially epoch changing crisis of western free market capitalism. We're seeing the death throes of the investment banking business model ... also the end of cheap (borrowed) money, cheap energy and the developing world's willingness to work like crazy for peanuts.
All combining to bring on an absolute Mother of a Slump. Not just us, the US, Japan, Europe as well. So don't let's have all this tosh about it being down to Brown. Of course it isn't. None of these other countries have Brown in charge, do they? It's dangerous to misdiagnose the cause because, if you do that, you'll prescribe the wrong medicine.
At this point in time, with everything that's happening, to get all worked up about, say, the level of UK government spending is like sitting on the Titanic (post crash) and complaining that there's no ice cubes for your gin and tonic.
Complain about this comment
Look, we can sort this out v quickly: has Gordon signed with a publisher yet for his Memoirs? (The Brown Months), and if so which London property is he keen on getting his hands on?
Check the small ads!
:)
Complain about this comment
#62
I think the movement has started, light the blue touch paper and retire.
Complain about this comment
# 56 (Willie)
Actually, as this banking nightmare carries on and gets worse, people might start to see the resulting slump as a clear case of free market capitalism gone wrong, rather than blaming the government. That could really hurt the Tories since they are the party most closely associated with that particular way of running things.
Two problems for Labour, though ...
- they've spent most of the last 15 years saying pretty much the same thing about how the market is best.
- in GB, they have a leader who is unelectable because he can't connect with the voters.
But what if they ditch Gordon for a leader who actually has some communication skills? And what if they also come up with a strongly interventionist programme to get things moving again? Strikes me it's not impossible that the next GE could then turn out to be very close.
Having said that, if I were advising Labour, I think I'd say don't bother, stick with Gordon, stick with doing not very much, because 2009 or 2010 is going to be a great election to lose.
Complain about this comment
What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,
That, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion,
Make yourselves scabs?
Coriolanus act 1 sc. 1
Complain about this comment
You know, the electorate could just about forgive Labour changing leaders mid-parliament. And the Tories couldn't shout too much because they had history too in that regard with Major.
But to do it twice would seem to most of us rather like the extraction of urine. Thew currently minuscule chances of Labour winning again would vanish utterly.
Unfortunately, many of the headless chickens flapping around the incestuous Westminster fever factory haven't really managed to grasp this most single, salient fact. So, while the entire western world teeters on the brink of financial meltdown (and that's not really an overstatement as I write), some Labour MP's have nothing better to do than run about pointing fingers and telling tales.
Would it be inopportune at this stage to humbly request that they GET A GRIP?
(see, even the faintest hint of a swearword - which wasn't actually there at all using the magic of ellipsis - is now expunged)
Complain about this comment
TAG, you mean that WS knew all about GB's latest Nu Lab re-launch?
"A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Complain about this comment
hi Nick,
I hear that the editors on the Radio 4 news at one have even picked up on this quotes business 'He who wields the knife never wears the crown'.
Could I work and get paid by the BBC? To be joined by your other contributors of course. It would solve the unemployment problem.
Complain about this comment
#72
Marx was always right. Just as everybody stops being a Marxist then that is just when we need some really committed Marxists, capitalism is dead, it's been dead for years, only nobody read the last rites.
Either that or a nice dose of Proudhon anarchism.
Complain about this comment
#8 - T A Griffin (TAG)
Please not a Faustian tragedy.
Dr. Faust, you will recall, was redeemed by the love of a woman. If that means Harperson, give me damnation any day.
Complain about this comment
Julias Ceasar - Act V Scene III
Cassius (the one who killed Ceasar) shortly before he gets betrayed and stabbed by his servant :
"Come down, behold no more.
O, coward that I am, to live so long,
To see my best friend ta'en before my face!"
Shakespeare says Gordon will only go when Ed Balls is (politically) assassinated, stabbed by his servant.
(Gordon Brown's servant / PPS is Mr Ian Austin (Dudley North))
This works for me, carry on.
Complain about this comment
69 Sagamix
I agree that the global epic problems are more important than the detail concerning what ministers say or don't say concerning the imminent demise of Brown.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are very angry with Labour.
For years the media have given Labour a really soft ride - even when Brown ludicrously claimed to have ended boom and bust.
Labour have finally been outed for the incompetant charlatans they always were. There is far more than the economy that is broken in this country.
Even if we focus on the single issue of a busted economy Brown can't seem to string two credible words together which show HM Government is able to do anything to mitigate the pain of global chaos.
Confident leadership is the first thing the country needs in order to stabilise economic freefall. Brown can't even manage that. Even George W Bush seems more coherent.
It is the public's responsibility to hound this bunch from office any way we can ASAP.
Complain about this comment
Small word of warning to everyone who thinks Labour is doomed. Would you have given McCain a snowball's hope in hell 6 months ago?
Watch out for the 'lipstick' gags chaps!
Complain about this comment
I wonder if something else is going on behind the scenes that we are unaware of.
The one group we haven't heard much from is the Unions. What do they think?
They pretty much fund the New
Labour Party, their influence is not to be underestimated.
The Party Conference is just around the corner too, I wonder how many MPs will be invited to have a little chat with a Union Leader?
In a very round about way the Unions may have more to gain if the New Labour Party is voted out of power. I know it sounds odd but let me explain.
Currently the Unions have little influence (at least that we can see). There have been a few strikes but nothing has really stopped. Firemen and train/tube drivers/guards (have you noticed they most commonly strike when England play football ?), and by all account they didn't really cause too much disruption. Inconvenience - yes, disruption - no (that's the weathers job!).
With a Conservative government the Unions can unleash their heavy guns and blast away for all they are worth. It's rather difficult for some Unions to attack the New Labour Party as they are so entwined.
They have the added benefit that they will have MUCH more influence on the Labour Party (I think we can safely assume the New prefix will be consigned to the dustbin fairly soon), as they will be funding a much smaller party with huge debts. They will be able to dictate, rather than encourage policy direction.
So it doesn't really matter who is plotting at the moment. In time and with patience we will find out who the next leader will be - all of the candidates are right in front of us now.
Complain about this comment
re: 78
But in Marlowe's Dr Faustus, the eponymous character is torn apart by devils (ie. the panicking greedy piggies who know their time's up, ie. the cabinet).
Complain about this comment
Try this one:-
Get thee glass eyes,
And like a scurvy politician, seem
To see things thou dost not.
King Lear, Act IV, scene vi
For in the land of the blind is not the one eyed man king. Don't know that one but I've used it for years.
Complain about this comment
Slow day is it Nick?
Sadly one of the reasons that today's politicians of all parties sound like spin-fed robots is the journalistic obsession with nuances, inflections and omissions. They no longer have to concern themselves with convincing the electorate; only Paxman (and possibly Robinson). The media will then lead us in the right direction.
A non-statement here, a missed comma there may all make for an orgasmic headline in tomorrow's Daily Express but eventually
the PLP will sort themselves out for better or worse (probably the latter) and no-one else can do it for them.
Back in the real world, had you heard that Lehmann Bros had gone to the wall (one which surely cannot be blamed on socialist excess) and most City pharmacies are already sold out of Immodium Plus
Complain about this comment
Irreparable is the loss, and patience
Says it is past her cure.
The Tempest Act 5. sc. 1
Complain about this comment
King Henry:
Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose
To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude,
And in the calmest and most stillest night,
With all appliances and means to boot,
Deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down!
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.
Henry The Fourth, Part 2 Act 3, scene 1, 26–31
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,"
He concludes, probably wishing that he hadn't seized the throne from the pathetic Richard II and then had him murdered.
Complain about this comment
"there is still plenty of work for we Kremlinologists to do".
Aargh. "For WE to do?"
No - "For US to do".
Complain about this comment
"As by the strength of their illusion,
Shall draw him on to his confusion"
Macbeth III:V:29
Brown becomes more like Macbeth as the days wear on. He plotted against Blair and got the top job; now his party is turning against him. Perhaps one word of caution to any potential challenger who does successfully depose Brown - the witches' prophecy at the end of Macbeth suggests that Macduff himself may not be secure either -
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none"
Macbeth I:III:70
Whatever happens, it seems as if the party is heading towards a civil war. The same happened to Major and now it is Brown's turn. Cries from the dying Tory Administration about the threat of a Labour Government were ignored in the 1990s and probably the same will occur now with similar calls from Labour about a future Conservative Government.
Blair was Labour's best asset and they forced him out of office. Blair was a winner, Brown is a loser.
Complain about this comment
I take it you have decided not to suggest we are now in a moment of calm for fear of further calls for GB to go.
Well done Nick - at least GB was able to clearly decide who was to blame for that debacle! Have you had your marching orders yet or do the political police just come and take you away?
All hail our beloved leader!
Complain about this comment
As has been said above, Labour know that if they ditch Brown the pressure for an election will be irresistible, it's also practically nailed on that Labour will be crushed by the Tories in England and Wales and by the SNP in Scotland. Many commentators have floated the idea that the Labour rebels want someone like Jack Straw to become leader for a "kamikaze" election so that Miliband won't be tarred with blame for an election that will make Michael Foot look like Clement Atlee and hope that the Tories will muck things up allowing Labour back in at the following GE. The flaw with this theory is that first term governments get the benefit of the doubt from the electorate, unless they make a pig's ear of it like Heath did. Voters will know that the economic problems won't be of the Tories' making and they will need time to sort it out. The other flaw is that if the polls are correct, most of Miliband's natural Blairite allies will have perished in the massacre and the parliamentary party will largely consist of MP's from Central Scotland, the Welsh Valleys, North East and Merseyside/Greater Manchester, few of whom were ever fervent supporters of New Labour and will want a return to Old Labour. Also bear in mind, that in opposition the PLP elects the shadow cabinet. In those circumstances I doubt Miliband would want the job.
Complain about this comment
I don't know anyone who thinks Labour will win the next election. The issue is, during the two years until they get kicked out we need someone who knows what he's doing leading the country through these difficult times.
The PM is turning into Robert Mugabe - all his actions are intended to save his own skin rather than fix all the financial problems (to a large extent of his own making).
Is one man's vanity worth all the economic damage that will be caused until 2010?
Complain about this comment
It's a pity Tony Blair didn't adopt Gordon Brown's policy of sacking everyone who shows disloyalty.
Complain about this comment
The "Scottish play" will be enough - Glenrothes.
Complain about this comment
TAG (#84)
re. country of the blind - a Roman gentlemen called Fullonius is believed to have said it first:
"Caecorum in patria luscus rex imperat omnis"
The trouble is that McCavity is in no sense a king.
And in the HG Wells story it isn't true as the blind refuse to believe that the sighted interloper can "see".
Complain about this comment
re: 94
Ooh I can't wait! We should be able to smell the roast pork as far south as Westminster!
Complain about this comment
All this speculation about Brown is sickening - just look around you, what is happening in the world? World financial system in deep crisis, climate change threatening the lives of millions, instability in many regions (middle east, Aghan/Pakistan border, Caucasus), major diseases (Aids, malaria). Gordon Brown really is a person capable of contributing to finding a solution to these problems, at the international and national level - look at his track record over the past decade. The media has so convinced the public that Gordon Brown is the problem, that is all people can think about.
And in any case, imagine if GB was to step down now, who would want to take his place? Given the mood of the public, it's quite likely that Labour will lose the next election, who ever is leader. There's a slim chance that if someone (maybe Milliband, Straw, or some other cabinet minister) took charge now, they could turn the situation round enough to scrape home at the next election in 2010. Depends very much on the fortunes of the Tory party and whether they come up with any credible policies.
Complain about this comment
#83 - power_to_the_ppl
Aye - I was referring to Goethe.
By the way, were the 'piggies' wearing lipstick?
Complain about this comment
Love the quotations from Marlowe and Shakespeare: bearing in mind the state of the Labour Government and its approach to policy-making and the dilemma in which they find themselves under the Shining One, I am put in mind of Luke's Gospel ch11 verse 39 "Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness."
Complain about this comment
#80 (Jonathan)
I'm sorry but I don't fully understand where you're coming from.
Yes, I accept that Brown's claiming of the credit for our "prosperity" was preposterous and so he deserves some stick now. Yes, I agree he doesn't have the aptitude to be PM and should go.
I'm sure the guy annoys you beyond measure (I'm not that keen either, to be honest) and so it's a great feeling to stick the boot in. That's fine, I can totally understand that, I felt the same visceral dislike for Thatcher. But it's surely dangerous to not recognise the truth. For example, I recognise that taming the unions, as Thatcher did, was important and necessary ... can you not give Brown a good pasting whilst also accepting the clear truth that the downturn has very little to do with him?
I mean, things are worse in the US and they haven't had anything like New Labour, have they? ... they've had 8 years of a right wing Republican administration.
Come on, seriously, think about it. If our problems are down to New Labour, how come all these other countries are going down in the same way? How come the ultra capitalist USA is in the worst shape of all?
Complain about this comment
Where is the PM today?
One Investment bank gone bust and another gone in a fire sale. Two travel firms have gone collapsed and more chaos is expected.
In response to this impending doom, after a summer of planning, Gordon has visited some blokes house in Kettering and admired their sausage dog draft excluder.
Should Gordon Brown not be leading from the front and making even the smallest effort to try and steady nerves?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
These cabinet members telling us GB is the one to lead us are becoming bigger comedians by the minute. But their jokes aren't the least bit funny.
Where is this man? Can his nickname of McCafferty be a true description of him after all
Where was he during the Ossetian crisis?
Hiding somewhere. Nowhere to be found.
Where is he now?
Hiding somewhere. Nowhere to be found.
As even Bush bless his little cotton socks tries to speak to the American people about the financial crisis we get cardboard cutouts of Gordon with the same quote. 'Britain is well placed to weather this financial crisis'
This time if he has to wait for this one to resolve itself before making another appearance we'll never ever see him again.
Not that he'll be missed.
Complain about this comment
@100
The diference is that "some" of the other countries were prudent and saved for the inevitable rainy day, whereas our Canutelike PM stated that he had banished rainy days to history and so didnt need to save.
The result is in the US the Fed can bail out their failing banks whereas here we have propped up Geordie Rock but we wont be able to prop up the criminal over chargers in HBOS. although I for one will be glad to see the back of that particular Scottish owned criminal operation. They remind me of the line in the recent Jason Statham film The Bank Job "Do you think we are Expletive Gangsters?"
Complain about this comment
Hmm
Would posters on here agree with the following statement?
"Gordon Brown and the Government can take no credit for the 11 years of constant growth we have seen since 1997. It was achieved despite the best efforts of an incompetent government who put in place a stifling regime of regulation and bureaucracy that put a brake on the innovation of our dynamic financial sector. Any growth was achieved thanks to the reforms of the Conservatives in 1979-1997 moving us to a more free-market system and the benign world economic conditions since 1997"
Would they also agree that:
"The economic downturn is all the Government's fault. They did not regulate enough (e.g. bank lending, exposure to junk financial instruments from the US, over-leveraged exposure to bad loans) to prevent the economic difficulties we are experiencing now. They should have intervened more. Yes - the world economy is experiencing difficulties - but the problems in our economy are all Gordon's fault"
Do they see any conflict between the 2 positions?
Moon. On. A. Stick.
Complain about this comment
Public Service Broadcasting Rate now bigger than all of GP, according to a chum of mine, and yet still no sign of a new series from Eric and Ernie.
Is this to do with Gordon Brown?
If it is, it's an affront to all that's right and proper.
Complain about this comment
I call upon all decent right thinking types to join with me, Colin Prout, in demanding that Gordon Brown considers his position.
Are you listening, Mr Brown? I very much doubt you are.
Complain about this comment
Blind rage' when the private banks tighten their ropes, the crowd re-act....
turn the clock back' bring back thatcher, she will sort it out........bottle-neck parasites.
Its a global turn-down....lets attack the minority,,blame the public sector down....
look inward not outward.....its the private sector...to blame...that! has led to this crisis.
The gothic brigade,,,prophets of false allegations.....They need to blame someone' irresponsible...conservative toads....
Get up..stand up...and "ask not what you can do to blame someone but ask what you can do to help someone"
Complain about this comment
100 Sagamix,
I refer you to my post at 101 above.
Also - Gordon has left us in a financial straight jacket. He believed his own press - that he had ended boom and bust.
That meant that Gordon has not allowed any money for a rainy day. He has zero flexibility to take any measures that the global crisis will hit families with.
His attempts to do anything have been feeble.
Complain about this comment
@105
We would like to refer you to post #104.
Complain about this comment
#105
The problem is that the PM disagrees entirely with the first example and disagrees entirely with the second second.
He's the one taking all the credit for the good times and avoiding all the blame for the bad times.
If he just admitted to his mistakes and perhaps acknowledged that he inherited a decent economy the voting public might trust him a bit more.
Complain about this comment
"save for a rainy day" - here we go again.
The UK Government debt is low when compared to many other countries and we are better prepared for future demographic changes (mainly as our pension/social care provision is relatively stingy compared with others).
The debt - even including off-balance sheet PFI deals - is undoubtedly lower than it was in 1997.
The structural deficit is lower than it was in 1997 - on the authority of the (independent) IFS, who state this in their 2008 Green Book.
The government has largely borrowed to invest in infrastructure - though I would agree that a small structural deficit has appeared to have opened up.
The Government has added more redistribution to the tax system and taken a lot of people, particular children and old people, out of poverty.
Public services have improved (as the Conservatives admit now - the political dispute is over value-for-money for these improvements)
And the Government has done all these things without the benefit of substantial revenues from North Sea Oil (which reached ~3% of GDP for 3 years during the 1980s), or the benefit of selling off a significant portion of the public housing stock, or the benefit of privatising a substantial chunk of state assets (BT, British Gas, British Rail) etc.
Let's take the example of the US (where all good neo-liberal capitalists should look towards). According to the CIA World Factbook, debt is 60.8% of GDP (vs 43% on the same measure in the UK). Did they save for a rainy day to allow for moral hazard-inducing bail-outs of the private sector, or are they just willing to borrow more from future generations than the UK Government?
And I'm sure you would love it if the UK Government pocketed more of your money in taxes and said "We're saving for a rainy day". Surely your answer to that would be "Give me back my money, I can save for myself thankyou".
Is "saving for a rainy day" official Conservative policy? I thought the big idea was "sharing the proceeds of growth" - i.e. shrinking the size of the Government as a % of GDP (and in real terms given higher inflation from labour intensive public services such as teaching), and giving the proceeds to taxpayers (e.g. those who die with houses worth more than £1.2 million), rather than trying to pay back the Government debt.
Complain about this comment
Never fear. Conservative delegates have been given an opportunity to fund growth area of the economy. I'm sure that many will take the opportunity to donate funds.
Complain about this comment
#108
Maybe if newlabour hadn't spent eleven years cultivating the blame culture and encouraging no won no fee no responsibility for your own actions we wouldn't nbe in quite such a mess.
One of the strongest reasons it's just impossible to ressuscitate newlabour whomsoever is incharge is that people simply don't like the fake culture theyhave brought with it.
They don't like cool Britannia and all it's Blair flakiness.
They don't like high taxation and all the exhortations from the guardianistas to pay even more.
They don't like the surveillance socitey because it ain't british.
Thye don't like newlabour MPs making ridiculous statements about the Proms being elitist because if Gordon Brown really was sincere he'd recognise it was just a chance to have a good old singalong.
And most of them recognise the problems are global but we'd like a little less hubris and a bit more humility from the man claiming to be responsible for the good times, when in fact everyone was having a good time.
And it is clear form opinion polls that the majority now want less not more taxation, please. If that means shutting down some pet newlabour projects that simply can't be justified then so be it.
We could start by binning Harriet Harman's latest opportunity to waste the public purse with an equality project that's as doomed to failure as tax credits, the newdeal, surestart and every child a reader.
Do we live in a continual loop newlabour TV advert? Stop this dysfunction now and stand down. The majority of Brits have seen it and had enough and will not vote you back in regardless of the economy.
Complain about this comment
#104 - the US saved for a rainy day.
They have debt at 60.3% GDP compared to 43% in the UK (on CIA World Factbook Measure).
Surely this means they are in a worse position?
The UK's debt is lower than the US by over 17% of GDP. Surely the UK is more equipped to borrow to alleviate the impact of a recession.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Complain about this comment
105 Balhamu
Good first draft. I have collapsed the two statements and drafted some corrections for wider review:
"Gordon Brown and the Government claimed too much credit for the 11 years of constant growth we have seen since 1997. The catalyst for growth was achieved lthanks to the reforms of the Conservatives in 1979-1997 moving us to a more free-market system. In power Labour followed a light touch regulation approach, which ensured that London was for a period often seen as a more favourable financial centre than it's competitors. Labour over taxed, over borrowed and then overspent the nations finances, thus during a global downturn the government were left with insufficient funds to mitigate the the serious impacts of global financial problems apart from deploying all but the most trivial gimmicks."
Complain about this comment
# 109 (JC)
Look, I'm no fan of Brown. He is, like you say, pretty feeble ... coward, bully, manipulative, dishonest, all of those things too. None too bright either, in my opinion. He's been rumbled and he should go.
But this point about saving for a rainy day, well a couple of things there ...
- the country voted for the increased public spending, right?
- everybody moans about the increased tax take but, without the tax rises, and given the mandated spending increases, we would be in worse shape, wouldn't we?
- saw somewhere that UK government debt is considerably lower than Germany, France, Italy etc as a percentage of GDP, so we actually have more flexibility than others, not less. No?
Complain about this comment
@111
Yeah, he did inherit a decent economy and actually managed to keep it decent for a while. So no, he can't take ALL the credit.
Conversely, he can't shoulder ALL the blame for current woes either. They have made mistakes (every government does) but I don't, for example, see quite what he could have done about Lehman or Merril and their impact on the stock market today. Some things you just can't control. C'est la vie.
Unfortunately, for too many people the world is black and white and they can't understand that shades of grey may exist.
Complain about this comment
This isn't about policy, it's not about fundamental ideology, it is about competence - strong, decisive leadership. Or, more pertinently, the yawning lack of it.
There are plently of examples of the ineptitude of this government even during the short tenure of Gordon Brown. But really you have to look no further than the 10p tax fiasco.
And please, don't give me the line about a government being big enough to recognise its mistakes and to rectify them. Any govt that is so (insert the srongest expletive you can think of here) stupid that they couldn't foresee the damage of such a change, but ploughed on regardless just so GB could stand at the dispatch box and annouce a cut in basic rate tax does not deserve office.
If it was genuinely a change borne out of an ideological stance then they should have had the guts to stick to their guns. But they didn't, which just highlights what a "tactical" and slimey move it was. Especially when you consider it in light of the simultaneous hike in NICs (which was conveniently buried in the small print - funny how that never got annouced at the dispatch box).
Everyone on here consoles themselves in the knowledge that it is one person, one vote. So even if you vigourously disagree with others, you know your opinion has exactly the same weight and influence as theirs' when it comes to polling day.
Whether the election is in a week, a month or in May 2010, I will not forget the incompetency of this government and I will never vote for them. If I went to the Early Learning Centre to buy a government, this lot would be in the box.
Complain about this comment
113. oldnat
Hey look at least its a private sector lap dancing club.
Just imagine what kind of club the public sector would run.
Yukkk.
Complain about this comment
4fooey @97 wrote:
"look at his [GB's] track record over the past decade."
It is precisely his track record of spend and waste that means that the UK is uniquely placed to get a real battering should this recession get more severe.
Gordon Brown is the problem - not the solution. He always was. Blair's greatest political blunder - was to let Brown succeed him.
Complain about this comment
Geoff Hoon's arrogance seems to know no bounds. Does he really believe people would give two figs about labour party politicians, contests, etc. when worried about keeping their children warm this winter !!!???
Amazing.
Complain about this comment
@112
You needn't have bothered typing that tired old sting of rubbish.
No one in the country belives it.
The IMF dont believe it.
Financial markets dont belive it
The PFI companies know it isnt true because they are sat just waiting for thier windfalls in the years to come.
IF Gordon was prudent he would have had something real to offer last week rather than saying all pensioners could have free insulation when he meant only the over 70's, and what is more is that it wouldn't just have been a reinstatement of something that they had already taken away. the 910M over 3 years is the 750M per year that they took away from the scheme and they arent even paying for it, those that pay fuel bills will get it added on to the bills and there isnt a thing the government can do to stop it. Its tax by another method.
balhamu I can buy you a ticket to Birmingham if you like, you might find someone there that belives the nonsense, although even that may be a stretch
Complain about this comment
@115
Look for true government debt, not just the contrived figure minus the PFI millstone
Complain about this comment
@111
I think you will find less than 36% of the eligible electorate voted for the Labour candidates in the last election.
So in reality the answer to your question about voting for increased taxation is a resounding NO. 64% of this country did not vote for increased taxation
Complain about this comment
# 112 (Balham)
That's a good post.
I've been trying to make some of these points but I keep banging up against mindless ideological chanting. Perhaps you'll do better.
# 111 (Jake) does have a good point there, though, about Brown. If the guy can't admit that any aspect of the good times were to do with something other than himself, then how can he complain when, as now, it turns bad and he gets the blame. He can't really, can he?
Complain about this comment
The trouble is that Gordon Brown was so obviously going to be Blair's successor that no one thought about who would follow Brown. The next generation were kept back so that they wouldn't be ready to challenge Brown and now that they are needed they are not ready either in experience or in the public's mind.
I wonder whether Brown's dithering about a general election last year was because he feared that the credit crunch would hit right in the middle of the campaign. There has to be some reason why someone who started off so confidently had a sudden loss of confidence. As we are seeing the credit crunch has a momentum all of its own, but for Gordon to tell the nation that he foresaw bad times ahead and here was nothing he could do about it was an admission too far.
What amazes me is that even if Labour were lead by Kevin Keegan and Nelson Mandela they would not win the next election. So why would any serious PM in waiting want to take over and be blamed for losing an election? What Brown and the party should do is to decide who is going to be the front bench team when they are in opposition (obviously Brown would not be in the new team) and get them known by the public for being good in their job. They should prepare for effective oppostion, because we need one of those as well as an effective government.
Complain about this comment
#114
Robin, giving that you end your para' with an economic bow, it seem that your more adverse to the political correctness, rather than the economic position, (fair enough)
I'm sure you understand that many people who are in reciept of the tax credit, surestart and every child a reader, maybe not as keen, to see those projects closed.
I dont advocate means tested projects either, however I believe that taxation could be improved; and a more realistic process of the distribution of wealth implemented.
Robin, I hope nulab is over too, the labour party is best, when it is labour.
Complain about this comment
117 Sagamix
If we have more flexibility than other countries - then what our the government doing to
a) Calm nerves
b) Outline how they will be able to mitigate the impacts of a global financial crisis
Brown is in hiding because of the media storm. The media storm should have happened years ago and sussed him out when he ludicrously claimed to have ended boom and bust.
Complain about this comment
#123
So you disagree with the statistics on Government debt of independent analysts (e.g. CIA, IMF)?
Or you think that the fact we have lower public debt than most other OECD countries makes us uniquely badly placed?
Complain about this comment
To E_Murdstone.
Unfortunately for us all, you're spot on.
Complain about this comment
Surely, as some of us consider that our Gordon is somehow linked to the great Stalin, or uncle jo, as he may also be refrred to, let's give a quote which could have come from the great man himself:-)
'I trust no one, not even myself'.
Now when he said it and to whom I know not, except that he his supposed to have said it, so, not quite Shakespeare but I am so looking forward to the labour party conference.
Bear Stearns, Northern Rock, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and that is without looking back into the big-bang which happened in the late 80's, all the well known City Investment banks and brokers which disappeared.
Maybe there has been the creation of black holes by the CERN LHC after all. All the money, all the assets, all the governments they are slowly being swallowed up and turning into, absolutely nothing. I blame the scientists.
Complain about this comment
Officially Number Ten says Mr Brown welcomes a debate in the party and he told Cabinet ministers they shouldn't personally condemn the rebels
Debate he says, and what does he do, Sacks anyone who doesnt agree with him.
Thats not debate, thats Stalinism!
Complain about this comment
What really concerns me now is this, The Labour party rules state that nomination papers should be sent out.
But this hasnt happened under Comrade Blair or Herr Brown.
As they flout party rules so openly who is to stop them flouting parliamentary rules in 2010 and not calling an election.
What are the odds that they can dress the economic crisis up as a serious enough threat to the country that they can engineer some type marshall law that prohibits elections.
Complain about this comment
It's becoming blindingly obvious that Harry H Corbett, Sooty, Sweep and Sue would make a better job of things than Gordon, Alistair, David and Jacqui.
Complain about this comment
re PFI and debt:
Debt was 36.9% GDP in March 2008 (excluding PFI and pension liabilities) in 2008 and was 43.3% GDP (excluding PFI and public pension liabilities) in March1997 (based on HMT Public Finance statistics).
PFI liabilities were estimated by the IFS in 2008 as £110 billion in their 2008 Green Book. This is 7.7% GDP - and would take public debt figures in 2008 up to 44.3% GDP.
However, some of the PFI liabilities are not related to capital spend, but to future current spend i.e. not debt as the levels of service could be reduced by a future Government (e.g. caretaking services).
The IFS Green Book estimates these as 50% of total costs in hospital PFIs and 30% of total cost in school PFIs. PFI deals in these sectors make up the majority of whats on (or off) the books (see Ch3, p27 of the IFS Green Book).
Taking a cautious assumption that 20% of the value of PFI deals refer to future current spend rather than capital spend, this gives a total off-book PFI value of £88 billion. This would leave debt at ~44.0% GDP - a decrease in debt since 1997, even under the highly unrealistic assumption that there was no PFI debt in March 1997.
The 'massive increase in borrowing' since 1997 just does not wash with the facts, at least as a % of GDP.
So, taxes have increased, and you are entitled to your opinion about that. But if you say debt has increased, you are making it up.
Complain about this comment
It's a bit sad that, with the UK - and the world - in the biggest financial doo-doo for decades, anyone gives a damn whether Brown or some other person leads the Labour party.
I don't see a "natural heir". Miliband sounds like a bright lightweight. The heavyweights have moved on (by accident or on request). Hutton looks like the John Major candidate, but hardly likely to set the party or country on fire.
Somebody in government should be focused on trying to maintain financial stability. They all should, really.
They all lauded Brown as the greatest Chancellor in living memory. They should lock him and Ed Balls (Robin to Brown's Batman) in No 11 with Darling and the expensive "special advisors" and just keep them there till they prove their brilliance.
That could take a long time and plenty of takeaways passed through the windows...
Education can get along fine without Balls. In fact, it may be a blessed relief for schools.
Ed and Yvette could get to spend more time in the same rooms...
Brown wouldn't have to manage Africa, Global Warming, etc, for a while.
Sounds like good deal to me.
You can't blame Brown for a US created financial mess. But challenge him for not getting tough with financial institutions operating in the UK. He had 10 years to make a difference.
Whoever leads the Labour party will not have the guts to call an election until absolutely inevitable. Can't blame them. But they should stop fiddling around (all that "broad narrative" nonsense) and get down to sorting out the mess.
Complain about this comment
Chap over the road tells me that a new Quangoish situation has cropped up in our village. Not only that, you can't park unless you've got a permit.
Why don't you go, Mr Brown? Why don't you go now?
Or at least seriously consider your position.
Complain about this comment
@130
I know that the debt is hidden as do the IMF and CIA, It is in their interest not to let on that the house was built on sand though.
The problem for the Labour party is that they have borrowed to fund growth without getting value for money.
The US corporate charter system is going to collapse as a driving force behind capitalism.
Its basic premise that you can make more profit year on year ad infinitum is unviable.
Our problem is that when this system collapses we are not in position to withstand it. We are the first G8 country in to reccesion and we have nothing to fall back on.
The best thing that anyone can do now is to get there cash out of the financial system and into something tangible that exists in the real world that can be sold or bartered in the future. Its value against currency will appear to drop at first , but it will still have its inherent real value.
Complain about this comment
But are we *really* prepared to trust the Tories again?
I mean.
Really?
Remember and beware!
Complain about this comment
@137
All sounds fairly reasonable to me. But will anyone listen?
Complain about this comment
#128
couldn't agree more. labour is best when it's labour. It has a purpose and should present as its first initiative to cut tax altogether on the first £25,000 earned.
As for the education system; keep away, you've meddled enough and that can be seen from the counter attack on Ed Balls from the US company that marked SATs.
I don't want to live in a society that thinks all children should go to school until they are 18. If a child wants to be a builder or a plumber or a mechanic these are perfectly respectable things to do.
'Unlocking potential' is as much about seeing who is not suitable fora further education as who is. You will simply make some young adults miserable and resentfuil when they could be occupied in worthwhile trades.
Otherwise the obvious corollary from every child a reader is in extremis 'every child a university porfessor' Where does it end? And who newlabour to decide? Stop this social engineering it is destroying society.
Complain about this comment
# 105 Balhamu
You first statement is broadly correct. Brown did indeed inherit a stable economy from the Tories, and yes, much of the credit goes to that previous administration. Remember the chaos the Tories inherited in 1979 - runaway inflation, high interest rates, and militant trade unions bringing the country to a standstill with rubbish and unburied dead bodies piled high.
Since 1997, we have got by largely because the world conditions for growth have been relatively stable. You can be sure, Brown did not make good use of the fine weather. He sold a large part of our gold reserve causing the price to plummet - not only losing us money, but effectively devaluing the gold we had left.
He has also hiked taxes across the board, causing damage to our competitiveness and discouraging investment. He has raided our pensions and caused untold misery for the years ahead. Not content with the usual Labour "tax and waste" profligacy, he still pursues expensive and unwelcome white elephants such as the ID card scheme. HIPS (a thoroughly stupid idea) has also helped depress the housing market.
This government has messed around with our constitution, largely to appease a relatively small number of Scottish voters - although that plan has now backfired spectacularly! England however remains at a considerable disadvantage within the Union.
As to your second point, no, the world economic downturn is not all the government's fault. But Brown's policies have left us weak and exposed. Far from being well-placed to weather the storm as Brown suggests, he has left us without a paddle. The idea that Labour can sort this mess out is frankly laughable.
Complain about this comment
Potty (various)
Good point about PFI. It's a bit of a con, isn't it? Course, the Tories would have done plenty more of it ... it's kind of like a sneaky "stealth privatisation" isn't it?
Open (137)
You're absolutely right. Brown should have stopped the banks messing up, should have acted to depress house prices, and he should have prevented the British people borrowing to the hilt against overvalued property, maxing out their credit cards and generally living beyond their means.
And can you imagine the uproar about "government meddling" that would have ensued? Not least from some of the people on here.
Complain about this comment
128. derekbarker
Go on Derek enlighten us; how can taxation be improved; and a more realistic process of the distribution of wealth implemented.
GIve us some pacific policies.
Complain about this comment
#136 - obviously debt+PFI figures in 2008 in 2nd para were meant to be 44.6% (36.9+7.7) before anyone picks me up on this.
Complain about this comment
142:
as ever, RobinJD, you seem keen to misrepresent labour party positions.
if you would actually care to inspect the plans you are so keen to criticise, you would discover that you have misunderstood them:
"I don't want to live in a society that thinks all children should go to school until they are 18. If a child wants to be a builder or a plumber or a mechanic these are perfectly respectable things to do."
in fact, labour wants students to stay in education or TRAINING. including work based training. hence, 18 years olds wanting to be plumbers, builders etc, on apprentices or undertaking training funded by increased labour spending, do not have to attend school.
frankly your statements are slanderous, and its a poor reflection on yourself not to check the factual basis of your arguments.
Complain about this comment
#145 - or some Atlantic ones...
Complain about this comment
look at his track record over the past decade. The media has so convinced the public that Gordon Brown is the problem, that is all people can think about.
---------------------------
It is not the media that has convinced us that Brown is the problem, it is his track record over the last decade.
It is his policies over the last ten years that have left us with no money in the kitty to allow for times like this.
There are no reserves of money (or gold) for us to dig into to help the people. Borrowing is at such a high level that the Govt really can't afford to borrow more and, to top it off, Brown is so scared to further damage his short term image, that he refuses to make the big decisions this country so desperately needs made!
Complain about this comment
@144
It wasnt for Gordon to decide on the general publics borrowing. It was for him to decide not to mortgage the country to the hilt.
I know you can never understand finance but you will be able to believe your eyes when the PFI chickens come home to roost and the country stays endebted for the next 25 years.
Perhaps Gordon was relying on getting an IVA for the government. even if that were possible via the IMF in the past,(Its what Labour did in the 70's). It wont be possible after the collapse of the world finances.
Complain about this comment
Old lady up the road wants a new elbow but Gordon Brown has written to say she can't have one because of something called the Credit Crush. Have you heard of that? (I haven't). Is it another thing that Gordon Brown has gone and done?
If he has, then all I can suggest is that he seriously considers his position.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is the right man to lead the labour party because:
1. He is, and was, the natural successor to John Smith.
2. He doesn't have the "presidential" style of Tony Blair.
3.There is no member of his cabinet or indeed his Government who has anything like his experience and presence.
4.His apparent qualities of integrity, intelligence and gravity surely make him the ideal person to lead the party.
But what do I know?
The constant harping on about his leadership has really surprised me in the past few months. It seems to me, as he is a man you would be hard pressed to criticise, members of his own party are turning up stones so the worms can crawl out and nibble at his image with niggling and petty criticisms.
But what do I know? I don't even belong to the Labour party. I belong to another party, but if he had been one of the candidates for leadership of my party, I would have voted for him.
Complain about this comment
Good chum, who's a bit of a wild card, told me this one the other day.
What's the difference between Gordon Brown and a Prime Minister who should resign or at least seriously consider his position?
Nothing because they are one and the same thing! (the point being that Gordon Brown IS a Prime Minister who should resign or at least seriously consider his position).
Are you listening Mr Brown? Are you? I very much doubt that you are.
Complain about this comment
Which financial GLOBAL STORM occured between 1980 and 1997?
Take heed of what our friend Mr. Peston is saying and accept it.
The world is heading to the 1930s, and no change of party in Government will change that.
So far we do not have the amount of debt we had under the Tories, nor the 3.6 million unemployed, so we are nowhere near that catastrophic situation yet!
Complain about this comment
142 RobinJD and 128 Derek Barker
I agree Labour is best when it is Labour - they are a natural party of opposition.
As a pressure group Labour are fine.
The Trade Unions are daft to waste their money funding Labour ever again. When the countries magnifying glass landed on Glasgow East recently it became clear that Labour hasn't delivered to it's core voters in the slightest.
Maybe Trade Unions should fund should fund Plaid Cymru, Scottish Nats and The Conservatives and throttle their funding to the party that best delivers against the Trade Union agenda.
Complain about this comment
@ 150Perhaps Gordon was relying on getting an IVA for the government. even if that were possible via the IMF in the past,(Its what Labour did in the 70's). It wont be possible after the collapse of the world finances.
It wont be possible after the collapse of the world finances. Is that so?
Is there a GLOBAL financial problem that we do not know of, POT?
Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?
We could have no debt at all, and still be dragged down with the present GLOBAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, the likes of which appeared in the 1930s.
Complain about this comment
#150.
Read what the independent IFS say in chapter 3 of their 2008 Spring Book about the level of public debt, PFI and structural deficits.
If you assume that a) PFI debt was zero in March 1997; and b) All PFI projects are entirely capital-related, then debt has increased from 43.3% of GDP to 44.6% of GDP.
However, if you seperate out the current and capital elements of PFI as the IFS suggest (relaxing the second assumption), even on a conservative assumption 20% of PFI debt is not capital spend, then 2008 debt was 43.0% - lower than in 1997 as a proportion of GDP.
Regardless of this, the countries you hold up as examples of the 'saving for a rainy day' attitude the UK Government should have taken have higher public debts than the UK.
Who doesn't understand finance?
Who's the one who does not understand finance
Complain about this comment
@ 151
Old lady up the road wants a new elbow but Gordon Brown has written to say she can't have one because of something called the Credit Crush.
So who is this lady?
I can tell you that my grand mother did not receive any letters from JM in 1995, but she had to wait years for a by-pass.
Complain about this comment
#150 (Pot)
No no, I agree with you about PFI. It's off balance sheet financing, it's a fiddle. I don't like it. Similar trickery lies at the heart of quite a few of the big private sector corporate scandals of recent years ... remember Enron?
Was just pointing out that it's something the tories would probably have done even more of.
Complain about this comment
142. RobinJD
I agree with you.
I think there could be a lot more problems with sectors of our youth if they remained in school until 18. Regret to say this, but I've personally witnessed the fact that many schools are training grounds for prison, lack of discipline, getting away with bullying, swearing and mocking authority. Just look at the wild youth that swarms out at the end of the day. The inmates are in control of the asylum.
All those jobs for apprentice welders, plumbers etc etc. that once led to a useful and profitable future in respected trades. Now, these jobs go to EU or if they can get them cheaper, ilegal workers. Employers say British youth doesn't want to work. Perhaps this is correct to an extent, but do the bosses want to put in the time needed to invest in training, and do they want to pay a decent wage if they can get away with cheaper?
Robin I agree with you on so many points.
Complain about this comment
As Nu-Labour, about to expire
Sinks further into the mire,
Their MPs will brawl
Until all of them fall
From the frying pan into the fire!
Complain about this comment
Yet more disinformation from the Party Faithful. Somebody must have cleared a cheque from the union this morning because they're back on in numbers again.
Look, it's very simple. Here is a couple of extracts from the 1997 Labour Manifesto on which they were elected..
Spending and tax: new Labour's approach
The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. Spending has risen. But more spending has brought neither greater fairness nor less poverty. Quite the reverse - our society is more divided than it has been for generations. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent.
The national debt has doubled under John Major. The public finances remain weak. A new Labour government will give immediate high priority to seeing how public money can be better used.
New Labour will be wise spenders, not big spenders.
Also...
We will reject the boom and bust policies which caused the collapse of the housing market.
.......
Mortgage buyers also require stronger consumer protection, for example by extension of the Financial Services Act, against the sale of disadvantageous mortgage packages.
All these key platforms of economic prudence were slung out the window. Look again....
We will reject the boom and bust policies which caused the collapse of the housing market.
How was he going to do that? Use The Force?
This government deliberately rigged the 'independent' BoE's mandate so that around 2003 when a house price boom was getting under way they still didn't allow the BoE to vary interest rates to put that demon back in the box. They insisted on an inflation proxy that totally ignored inflation in the largest purchase most people ever made. They did this because they knew the great British public would do what they always do when their house increases in value. Spend like crazy.
All the time this crazy spending was going on Gordon was doing the same. Always his apologists would say 'But look at France. But look at Italy. But look at America'. Basically look over there. Don't look at what we're doing.
And now, after a decade of increasingly ramped government and private borrowing the same apologists are trying to kid on that it's not so bad. Look at America. Look at Italy. Look at France.
I don't live in any of those places. I live here. And this government has screwed it up. For me. For all of us. The people who live HERE.
If he was seriously going to act against a house price boom/bust he'd have built that into the BoE's remit. Not moved away from RPI which at least had a slight house-price component.
The government is never shy of telling us we eat/drink/smoke too much but when it came to reminding folk their house wasn't really a cash machine and that they could get burnt. Not a peep.
The bust playing out in the UK is entirely this governments fault. The 'trigger' might have come from the US but the consequences are entirely home grown and the chief culprit is Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
sagamix
"... Brown should have stopped the banks messing up, should have acted to depress house prices, and he should have prevented the British people borrowing to the hilt against overvalued property, maxing out their credit cards and generally living beyond their means.
And can you imagine the uproar about "government meddling" that would have ensued? Not least from some of the people on here."
I'm sure many people would have complained about "government meddling".
But that's what governments do.
I can stand that, as long as they focus on the big issues and just stop pratting about with constant, media-managed initiatives, many of which need to be unravelled in place of yet another...
I'd prefer government to meddle in credit-control, rather than meddling in the content and structure of "education".
Complain about this comment
If you assume that a) PFI debt was zero in March 1997; and b) All PFI projects are entirely capital-related, then debt has increased from 43.3% of GDP to 44.6% of GDP.
All the while that we were being told that the economy was in fantastic shape thanks to Gordon Brown we were actually increasing our debt not only in cash terms but by some deliberately adopted 'percentage of blah blah' so that Gordon Brown could claim national debt was going down while actually practically doubling it.
And folk wonder why everything has to be 'clarified' whenever this government announces more disinformation.
It truly is Carol Vorderman statistics. Ohhhhh, I'll take a dodgy number from the top row, two dodgy statistics from the second row Gordon and a whole host of half-truths from the bottom row. Then I'll have Alastair Darling send it to the press and stick it up on the Labour web-sit as a list of our 'achievements'.
Complain about this comment
We could have no debt at all, and still be dragged down with the present GLOBAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, the likes of which appeared in the 1930s.
What? Huh? If we were a solvent debt-free nation, our banks unburdened with weird financial instruments created/adopted to pump up Gordon Brown's housing boom economy to even dizzier heights then we'd be in a lot better shape than we are. Wouldn't we?
Now a US bank going bust in London would be a blow for several thousand employees. But nothing compared to several UK banks going bust right on our doorstep just because it suited this government to pretend that all was well when house prices treble in a decade. A perfectly natural course of events. House prices trebling nationwide. With inflation and wage rises allegedly under control. Nothing to concern ourselves with at all.
And how could he? Who was he to lecture the great British borrower when it was he who started it all back in 2001. Employing almost a million people practically overnight. Wow, what a lucky graduation year that was. Then borrowing and squandering 35bn quid a year since to pay them. Dressing it up as 'investment in infrastructure'.
Complain about this comment
sagamix
"... Brown should have stopped the banks messing up, should have acted to depress house prices, and he should have prevented the British people borrowing to the hilt against overvalued property, maxing out their credit cards and generally living beyond their means.
And can you imagine the uproar about "government meddling" that would have ensued? Not least from some of the people on here."
We might have moaned about it but Brown could then have put his hand on his heart and said he'd actually tried to do something about his boom and bust. As it is he didn't just keep his gob shut or bite his lip because he didn't want to interfere in essentially private decisions. Quite the opposite. He was the one who pump-primed the whole debacle by borrowing and squandering 35bn a year.
And then just in case anybody tried to increase interest rates to put the brakes on runaway house prices he rigged the BoE's remit to totally ignore rampant inflation in the biggest purchase we make.
Complain about this comment
U9461192
What policies do you think the Government should have used to control the housing market and the behaviour of lenders?
Recession - Use interest rates to control asset bubbles - a recession is a price well worth paying to stop asset bubbles
Regulation (I'm sure that would have been very popular)?
Honesty (Government says 'don't buy houses. they are over-valued' - again popular)
Persuasion (please Mr Banker, don't buy any of those complex financial products or lend to people who can't afford to pay you back)?
Or what? Asset price bubbles are notoriously difficult to deal with. And easy to 'predict' after they've happened.
What happened to the market knowing best.
The Government was merely carrying on the neo-liberal, low regulation approach that it was elected to do.
And debt has not increased as a % of GDP. And is lower than in the shining beacons of virtuous government behaviour that we are asked to look towards.
Complain about this comment
148. balhamu
Sorry; bad joke from earlier in the week.
Complain about this comment
So far we do not have the amount of debt we had under the Tories,
Dead right. We have almost double the debt we had under the Tories. 350bn 'v' 660bn. Another couple of months and it will be double. Certainly come budget 2009.
nor the 3.6 million unemployed, so we are nowhere near that catastrophic situation yet!
Ohhhh. Haven't you heard about the catastrophic outbreak of incapacity we've had since 1997? The total number of economically inactive is the same as it ever was. We've just rejigged what we call them.
Complain about this comment
UP946
£50 says you won't get anyone who can provide a lucid argument against that post.
The problem is that the media have been so soft on Labour there are still loads of party faithfull who don't know they have been sold down the river yet.
Complain about this comment
# 162 U and the Numbers
Nice theory but I think you're crediting GB with too much grey matter. It would have been extremely clever and devious of him to have rigged things like that, wouldn't it? Almost like a chess grandmaster!
I'd kind of like to believe it but I can't see it somehow. He (Gordon Brown, I mean) is not massively bright in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
I am disappointed with lack of government response. Looks like these people are going to ruin our country before they are forced out. Even with every thing happening today no response or action from government.
Only God can help us.
Complain about this comment
That 1997 Labour manifesto is an endless source of mirth.
new Labour because Britain deserves better
Britain will be better with new Labour
'Our case is simple: that Britain can and must be better'
......
' This is our contract with the people'
Followed eventually by..
We will reject the boom and bust policies which caused the collapse of the housing market.
I wonder if we can sue them for breach of contract.
Complain about this comment
So, Mr Gordon "Boobs Inside Your Head" Brown, are you listening? I very much doubt that you are.
Right thinking chaps have just about had it with you, do you realise that? You should come out of your bonker and furiously consider your position.
Complain about this comment
look at his track record over the past decade. The media has so convinced the public that Gordon Brown is the problem, that is all people can think about.
If the media had been looking at his track record for the past ten years over the past five years then Tony Blair would have had the perfect excuse to fire before he left for the Caribbean.
The great shame of this past ten years is that nobody in the media was looking at what was going on. And if they were they either didn't understand what was happening or colluded in covering up. Because it's been quite apparent to me what was going on since about 2001. And I'm reasonably apolitical.
Hell, I was actually pleased when Major got chucked out. But not as pleased as I'll be when this bunch get chucked out. Chucking out is too good for them.
So much goodwill. So much money. All squandered. For nothing.
Complain about this comment
Education.....
Well! if the tories get in..well..well
They propose to streamline the local authorities......yes...that includes the LEA's
Under the tories, all school would opt-out of LEA control and become grant-maintained schools (can you imagine how some schools would cope with that)
All schools should excel...please no exceptions.......No tories!
Complain about this comment
#154 "Which financial GLOBAL STORM occurred between 1980 and 1997"
Were you asleep in Monday 19 October 1987, I wonder?
Dow Jones down 23%
Canada down 23%
UK down 26%
Spain down 31%
Australia down 42%
Hong Kong down 44%
New Zealand down 60%
etc...
Or wasn't that big enough to count as a global storm?
Complain about this comment
Re U9641192
Re your earlier coment about Doctors pay.
If labour are guilty of anything then the biggest mistake is handing big pay rises to Doctors and Teachers without gaining agreement on robust procedures to root out the useless ones.
Productivity has gone down in the NHS by giving far too much for too little. Personally Doctors are overpaid for what they do as are teachers. they should have a strong element of performance pay.
Failing to grasp this nettle will go down as labour biggest mistake.
Complain about this comment
"there is still plenty of work for we Kremlinologists to do..." ouch! Why on Earth do you write "for we" - would you normally say "this is for I"? If it's preceded by the preposition "for", the pronoun must be "me, us, him or her". If the Pronoun itself is the subject, e.g. "We Kremlinologists feel that..." then it's "I, he, she, we etc." In a public context, simple but correct English does matter. It is dangerous to assume that readers don't care.
Complain about this comment
140. At 4:32pm on 15 Sep 2008, DaveOnline wrote:
But are we *really* prepared to trust the Tories again?
I mean.
Really?
Remember and beware!
Funny thing, some people were saying that in 1997 about Labour.
We need a change on Government, much as we did in 1997 and definitely in 1979.
But as long as the Lib Dems don't get in.......
Complain about this comment
#167 balhamu
"The Government was merely carrying on the neo-liberal, low regulation approach that it was elected to do. "
And the alternative governments at UK level will follow the same neo-liberal philosophy.
I find it odd that so many posting here, imagine that global finance can be regulated within any single country/Union. International regulation just might control the situation whereby the world is still awash with money looking for investment locations, but without effective mechanisms for identifying these locations appropriately.
Complain about this comment
169:
"Ohhhh. Haven't you heard about the catastrophic outbreak of incapacity we've had since 1997? The total number of economically inactive is the same as it ever was. We've just rejigged what we call them."
wrong.
why dont you just check the numbers on IB in 1997? cant be that hard?
claimant count down - no questions there?.
Incapacity claimants down from 2.7 mil in 1997 to 2.4 mil now. thats down by 300,000. not really an outbreak.
incidentally, from 1996 to 1997, 100,000 people joined IB. so there trend was upwards in IB when labour came to power.
Complain about this comment
The summum bonum of all this is that Nu-Laba-PF are a poor bunch of apparachiks and the sooner they are out of office and hopefully out of any further governments the better.
Be under no illusions though, it is going to take years to clear up the mess these clowns have got the country into over the past decade.
Complain about this comment
176. derekbarker
Derek
Ref your comments; a few responses attached
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p32OC97aNqc
Enjoy
Complain about this comment
#northhighlander
Why not complain about pop-stars or football players wages, why? have a go at the most valuable members in society or even "FAT CAT EXECUTIVES" now! there are people that need aligned.....
Complain about this comment
Where is the great leader?
On the day the news stands in London carried the headline "Black Monday" we have heard nothing.
In the full knowledge that the crisis was getting very bad we have been treated to photo calls of Gordon examining some blokes double glazing and his right hand man Ed Balls doing some drumming at a school and then launching a cookbook.
They don't even pretend they are leading this country.
Complain about this comment
Mr U,
re boom and bust policies. 11 years of unbroken growth under the Government. Even with the recession predicted, even the IMF notes that we are likely to see continued year-on-year growth throughout the next 2 years (1.4% in 2008 and 1.1% in 2009.
No repeat of the "Eddie and Ken" show either - the political business cycle is dead.
Complain about this comment
Mr U,
And borrowing has fallen since 1997. As my analysis shows.
And debt is significantly less as a % of GDP than other countries held up as shining examples e.g. USA
Complain about this comment
I ask again - where is the great leader?
At home tonight we had a serious chat about shifting our savings between banks - thus if one bank fails we are somewhat protected.
One look at the Conservative web-site - and yes they have the answer:
George Osborne has written to Alistair Darling to demand urgent action to protect savers in the face of increased financial turbulence.
The Shadow Chancellor stressed the need to reassure the public about the stability of the banking system by making the depositor protection regime more effective.
And he offered cross-party support for action to raise the level of deposit protection to £50,000 and make paying out easier and quicker:
"Working together we can pass the necessary legislation within days. The British public would know their savings are safe, even if the decision were made to let a financial institution fail."
George concluded by telling Darling that, "It is time to stop dithering and instead act decisively."
Complain about this comment
#181 - that's a good point.
But the other party do not have the same commitment to poverty and fairness. They say they are, but propose the same old solutions that worked so well in the 1980s and 1990s.
Complain about this comment
Off Subject I admitt and sorry if anyone has mentioned this before,
The new Hovis advert on TV is quite eye catching as its a sort of historical narrative of the twentieth century and goes from the Titanic to the Sufrage movement, the two wars. the 60s and 66 World cup etc and then for the 80s the most memorable image they come up with is the Miners Strike with Workers confronting the Police with chants of "Coal not Dole".
I can't help but feel those days lie ahead as well as in the past if Cameron and Osbourne take over as they appear likely to do.
Complain about this comment
What with the latest rumor/news that a minister of state is going to resign shortly, could we have a Geoffery Howe moment in the offing?
If so who do we think it is?
John Hutton?
Alan Johnson?
Hmmm "curiouser and curiouser said Alice"
Complain about this comment
Glad to see there are more people on here challenging what in some cases are fanatical opinion with some old fashioned facts.
Thanks Moderateproressive and Balhamu for your contributions. You'll probably get the usual hectoring to try to bully or bore you off the blog but nevertheless good for you for persevering.
If you continue you'll probably get a PTTP poem (please no)
Complain about this comment
The problem with New Labour is their predicament with the electorate has little to do with anything other than house prices. House prices are the opium of the masses in the UK and the masses are in cold turkey.
All they want is house prices on the up again. All the other non british things (like brave new world) they will put up with if housing is on the up. Brown is not seen as capable of restoring uplift so the grass is always greener. He will be out.
The problem with a house price culture is when they are on the up nothing is allowed to intervene to damp price rises. This keeps on the up until it all falls apart. the only time that mechanisms can be put in place is at the bottom of the curve and the next mob in want house prices to go up because it keeps the masses happy. We keep going thru the loop and nobody listens, there have been many sound commentators ignored.
Complain about this comment
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Complain about this comment
#184
Carrotsneeddarabbit
Tried to find your link, No success...
Can you elaborate on your comment?
Complain about this comment
Post 181 - global finance can't be controlled.
Yup. Can't argue.
However a country can control financial products at the point of sale, either by rules or making it plain that if tight self regulation does not work legislation will follow.
The issue is not that the US have messed up - it is that banking retail sales of UK mortgages have been uncontrolled and that has made the UK far more vulnerable than it would have otherwise been.
If even the banks are admitting they have lacked self control then it is clear something is lacking and it is a problem of regulation. What the hell is a government for.
The blindness seems to extend to almost everything. It is obvious that if people in paddyfields can buy a car or a fridge they will. And that sooner or later they will, that aid plans are even intended to acheive that. That outcome can only increase the demand for raw materials and increase pollution. A kid can work it out. But we have to wait for a energy squeeze to invest in windfarms or biofuels. It is the lurching from one policy to another that exacerbates the problem.
Complain about this comment
#182 - moderateprogressive
It would be interesting to see if there has been a corresponding increase in DLA claimants (not means tested, long term). Alas I cannot find the statistics but obviously figures relating IB will be affected by an increase in DLA claims allowed.
Complain about this comment
Me want taxes!
Complain about this comment
#190 balhamu
"But the other party do not have the same commitment to poverty and fairness"
I know what you mean. The Labour Party in Scotland lost such commitment many years ago - which is why they, and their Lib-Dem allies will love even more heavily to the current Government next time round, and even more dramatically at the bye-election, if they ever get round to calling it.
Delaying it is hardly fair to the Glenrothes voters, but we expect no better from Labour.
Complain about this comment
Godddamn lazy-arse moderators.
Sort yourselves out, Christ on a bike!
Complain about this comment
#191 eatonrifle
"66 World cup"
I suspect Hovis might make that an England only advert :-)
Complain about this comment
191 Eatonrifle
Yes those days do lie ahead.......
In order to turn a broken country around, the Conservatives had to deliver painful medicine.
In my living memory, this will be the second Labour disaster that we will be calling on the Conservatives to fix.
The finances and state of profligacy is so bad at the moment that it is going to be very painful indeed. The sort of 'hard choices' that Blair and Brown have spun that they were taking, are going to be have to be made for real.
Those people that fight the Conservatives "because they have always done that since birth" - are going to have a worse time than the rest of us (and for the rest of us it ain't going to be pretty by the way).
On the bright side each time we go through this Labour destroy, Conservative fix cycle - less people believe in Labour the next time.
My family, like George Osbourne's, are histrocial Labour voters.
It only takes common sense and and a bit of free thinking (without just voting with the normal tribe / herd) and it is possible to change.
You have been sold down the river by Labour - look at post 162 by U946112 for a flavour of this.......
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
The head prefect Milliband is not stupid, taking over now would be a poisoned chalice (remember william hague) his plan is to "support" the pm until he loses the next election then he will make his move.
Complain about this comment
"there is still plenty of work for we Kremlinologists to do"
Oh dear oh dear. Plenty of work for US Krmlinologists, not for WE Kremlinologists.
You wouldn't say "work for we", would you? You'd say "work for US". It is just the same when there are extra words on either side of the phrase.
Please BBC stop employing people who can't do elementary English grammar.
Complain about this comment
Did the BBC go bust like Lehmans Bank!
Have the blogs been shut down?
Whats happening??
Complain about this comment
re: 189 jonathan_cook
I don't think anyone'll have much luck trying to get Darling or Brown to do/say anything about the financial system.
Remember it took Darling countless reviews and many months just to work out whether or not he'd have a temporary partial stamp duty rebate. The idea that he'd do something worthwhile/quick/relevant to help confidence in the financial system generally is something that just won't happen.
Northern Rock was a classic example; they could have stopped it years before they physically went bust, but they just didn't listen.
Fingers in the ears time, going "la la la I can't hear you....getting on with the job....it's all the americans' fault.....global economy.....tractor production is up....everything's fine....move along, nothing to see here...."
They're on a different planet; they all need to go right now and get replaced by people who know what they're doing; an immediate election is the only solution.
Complain about this comment
Blair must be in stitches. Seriously, I imagine he sits up all night reading all this because it's his dream come true.
If ever a man should have heeded the warning to be careful what we wish for it's gordon.
Complain about this comment
Since there are 65 posts awaiting moderation over 3 blogs as I write, I am giving up for the night. Night all.
Complain about this comment
195 power-to-the-ppl
I'm afraid the chicken didn't cross the road.
On 'Black Monday', like many other days, he stayed in the Downing Street bunker.
Complain about this comment
202 Oldnat
Hovis adverts aren't to be trusted.
The famous 'steep hill' adverts were set 'up north' (England), but filmed 'down south' (Dorset I think).
All very New Labour presentational...... faux-interested-in-the-people-of-Glasgow-East etc......
Whereas Iron Bru ads have always been filmed in Cardiff ;-)
Complain about this comment
192. At 8:51pm on 15 Sep 2008, dylunydd wrote:
What with the latest rumor/news that a minister of state is going to resign shortly, could we have a Geoffery Howe moment in the offing?
If so who do we think it is?
John Hutton?
Alan Johnson?
Hmmm "curiouser and curiouser said Alice"
Alan Johnson to me is a strong bet. Very popular with the unions and has been relatively quiet lately.
Complain about this comment
"An unnamed minister of state tells the BBC he is ready to resign over concerns about Gordon Brown's leadership."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7617709.stm
Who is this then?
Typically the unidentified person, is undecided. Presumably keeping his/her powder dry!
Just a scenario to bounce around and invite opinion, suppose, as seems likely the groundswell is too big to ignore and Gordon Brown is replaced by say, Frank Field or Alan Johnson, (two random names), would traditional Labour voters, who, right now are clearly disaffected, reconsider their voting intentions come the next General Election? The theory being, like Gordon Brown, the successor could enjoy a "honeymoon" period. Worst case scenario limit the damage and diminish the majority of a presumably, incoming Conservative administration, thereby keeping them honest. I believe a huge majority is not a good thing at all.
Complain about this comment
Well, it seems that the moderators had enough of the tribal rubbish and downed tools for a while (2208 till midnight).
Can't blame them.
Statistics swapping doesn't really get us anywhere. Don't we all just need politicians who strut less and buckle down to do something. Not too much - 'cos that's their tendency. Just a few things, well thought through, so that, even if you don't agree with it, there is some strand of logic that anyone could understand.
(I think Parliament has things the wrong way round. They should sit and scrutinise every piece of legislation - of Westminster or Brussels origin - before allowing it to get onto the statute books.
I'd bet my house that not a single MP or Minister knows and understands the laws, regulations, statutory instruments that have actually been passed - and what the implications are. And, if I'm right, how do they expect Joe Public to keep up-to-date?
And Parliament should only sit for the period equivalent to the present "holidays" they take. Then go back to their constituencies for the remaining part of the year and get to understand a bit more about life.
We don't need more and more regulation. Just a bit of action to enforce the thousands of laws we already have!)
Oh, and a little bit of honesty along the way would be a useful starting point. That includes setting out budget information in such a way that people don't have to scour the small print to discover the realities...
Complain about this comment
re: 193
Is that an indirect way of asking me to dedicate a poem to you? I'm sorry Eatonrifle but you aren't worthy of the honour.
Complain about this comment
re: 193
(Oh alright then, if you insist)
It's hard to keep a straight face
Reading the posts of bloggers so base
That they try to delude
With factoids so skewed
They can't even argue their case!
Complain about this comment
As previously stated, I really don't care which individuals (or even party) occupies the government benches - as long as they do sensible things.
I don't think that building national debt during a period of local and global economic growth was very sensible.
I don't believe that much of the legislation passed over the 11 years was very well thought through.
I don't think that devolution was handled in a sensible way.
I don't think it was a smart move to hammer private pension schemes by withdrawing tax exemption for dividend payments. (Weren't they boasting that UK schemes were so much better than those across the EU that the Commission could try and tap into that strength? I kept the cuttings...)
I do believe that many MPs want to make a difference, whichever party they happen to come from.
Just wish they would focus a bit more on realities and less on party issues.
Once elected, these folk are supposed to represent all the electorate. NOT just the bit of it that wanted them to be in Westminster where we have the privilege of paying their mortgages...
Complain about this comment
tuesdays meeting with the national executive will be a turning point i think.
it looks increasingly, as if the cabinet senior ministers are waiting to see if nomination papers are permitted to be sent out, after gordon brown's meeting with them.
if the nomination papers are not sent out id expect to see maybe 2-3 ministers resign, and once they do, others will follow...
some posts here also about the fall of the pound - this was always going to happen, as much of the money for the war (ie, buying equipment, vehicles, aircraft, etc) was printed, it didnt come from the overall budget pot, so when eventually, this "new" money starts to filter back through into our economy pot, the pound weakens.
interest rate rises have failed to keep inflation in check, as the extra money works its way back here, fuelling the economy even more, as we import far more than we used to because gordon has, in his infinate wisdom, destroyed manufacturing (ie, making things to sell) in exchange for service jobs.
we have nothing to sell anymore, which is why gordon is keen to point to anything we make and sell.
hes in deep deep trouble, but safe in the knowledge that hes tainted most of his close rivals for the job, if labour MPs get the taste for "anyone but gordon" might just save their seats at the next general election, then it could be very very painful for him.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]What do Floridians have against cloth?
Complain about this comment
#214
I had a fleeting glimpse of your thoughts and yes at that level, all MP's should scrutinise legislation (irrespective of party allegiance)
However my hands did swell, when you put your house on the line(brave)
Yes MP's have become comfortably numb while resting in the parliament, so a more pre-longed period of constituency work would be welcome
More often than not MP's lips do move but even sometimes I cant hear what their saying
just a distant ship smoke on the horizon...
Complain about this comment
General Election.. You're not getting a vote!
Eu Treaty.. You're not getting a vote!
Party Leadership.. You're not getting a vote!
Mugabe and Putin have much more in common with Brown than either of them think!
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
listened to Alistair Darling this morning telling us about the credit crunch and the financial crisis and he was asked about Hedge Funds.
Just a quickie for your readers . In order to be able to sell short a hedge fund still has to make delivery of stock to the market in settlement, so they borrow the stock.
Now who do they borrow the stock from, why the Investment Banks who manage the assets of Pension Funds. So, when you are a Trustee of a Pension Fund and you are asked will you permit any of the assets of the pension fund to be 'lent' then just say no.
The Investment Banks cannot do anything without the approval of the Trustees, so just say no. So, Alistair pass legislation immediately to prevent any stock lending.
There are implications because the Investment Banks pay interest on the value of the borrowed stock but that is far outweighed by seeing the value of the pension fund assets fall in value.
So, to assist the Chancellor, stop stock lending and disallow the activity which is known as Contracts for Difference, which avoids the need to settle with physical stock within the Settlement period.
I do not expect any financial aid from the Chancellor for my contribution but if he does this right away he will have the gratitude of all of us. By the way please note that Pension Funds cannot 'trade' their assets, that is they cannot just buy and sell because they are meant to invest for the long term, not just short term speculative gains.
Complain about this comment
Funny how no one has mentioned the Lib Dems.
Didnt they have a little get together yesterday?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
been listening to Radio 4 news this morning and at last it seems to be sinking in that if the politicians make the wrong moves, which by the way I think they will, then we will have a rturn to the 1930's where decisions made in 1928/29 were the root cause.
Henry Ford was just so wrong 'history is bunk', there are lessons to be learnt.
But you ask why did things start to go wrong in 1928/29 then look into the problems raised by reparations which was meant to resolve the issue of 'war crimes' and a war of aggression by Germany in the Great War. They were forced to pay for their 'crimes'. Only trouble was that the governments were spending the money before it was received and guess what, tth efunds dried up, and there was no money.
Oh, and the great Winston Churchill who was chancellor had put us back onto the gold standard at an unsustainable rate. Maybe, Gordon sold our gold because he had read the history books. Surely not some Stalinesque revenge.
The economies in the west are imploding, if they save the American insurance company AIG then we all might as well give up and go home. Let them pay the price, because the moral hazard question has not gone away.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Right thinking chaps will have to manage without me today. I have to go for a wig fitting.
Are you listening, Mr Brown?
Complain about this comment
Hey, all the angry young men on here. You know ... Carrots, Max, U, JC, Robin ... yes, you guys. Listen up.
LibDems to cut taxes (yes, CUT taxes) and set about the bloated pubic sector.
There's your party, right there!
Complain about this comment
203 Johnathan Cook
I wonder where you live or what terrible circumstances you find yourself in when you talk of a "broken country", a phrase even Boris Johnson described as "piffle"
II meu be wrong but are we not the worlds 4th largest economy?
Are you not the person earlier talking of moving your savings to several different banks? (doesn't sound too bad to me)
Anyway my earlier post about the unemployment of the 80's was more about the desolation that causes and the economic madness of having so many non productive, contributing little in taxes but living off the state (other peoples tax) is hardly some great economic plan to look forward too.
Is that the sort of medicine you a Dr Osbourbe are prescribing?
Well I fail to see how that is the answer but I'm sure you'll explain
BTW if we're cross referencing to other posts to reiforce our points try some of Balhamu and moderateprogressive.
Bye for Now
Complain about this comment
#214 - there's no 'swapping' going on. As far as I can see.
The more ideological contributors to this board say something not backed up by fact (e.g. debt is up, the only reason for unemployment decreased post-1997 is that they have all been shunted onto Incapacity Benefit etc), and the more pragmatic contributors provide statistics that enable people to make an informed judgement based on the facts.
Complain about this comment
wrong.
why dont you just check the numbers on IB in 1997? cant be that hard?
claimant count down - no questions there?.
Incapacity claimants down from 2.7 mil in 1997 to 2.4 mil now. thats down by 300,000. not really an outbreak.
Wow! The ministry for Disinformation and Disingenuity definitely got a cheque cut over the weekend.
More Vordermanesque statistics in this governments relentless campaign against the truth. They choose to concentrate on a rigged statistic - Disability Allowance. Knowing full well that they've moved a shed load of the 'incapacitated' across to a seperate so-called 'Disability Living Allowance' and 'Severe Disablement Allowance'. And of course the total of all these invalid and disabled has increased by half a million. Viola another half million hidden from the unemployment numbers.
And they're moving the men off incapacity into these other Disability categories at an astonishing rate to make way for the legions of single mothers who, suddenly, as soon as their youngest child hits eighteen move seamlessly from statistically invisible 'carer' to statistically invisible 'incapacitated'. The same does not happen to married women. They just remain as economically inactive.
The outbreak of incapacity amongst single mothers since 1997 is mind-boggling. They must have spend the last decade slaving down the mines or working in foundries.
The last 11 years of economic 'prudence' and record 'employment' have been one great big deceit. And those who chose to propogate it should be ashamed of themselves.
Complain about this comment
TAG the best news about AIG potentially going belly up is the fact that it will royally screw over Man Utd. Every cloud has a silver lining and all that.
I dont think we're due as big a crash as 1929, more a large restructuring as certain institutions crash and new ones take their place.
Our main problem is the percieved inertia coming from the government. (Its McCaverty not McCafferty if I remember my Cats correctly). What we need is the government coming out saying, "yes it is difficult, but we're going to try and smooth the waters or allow for a soft landing by doing x, y and z." The silence coming out of Number 11 and 10 is deafening.
What is needed fom Brown (in my opinion) is for him to come out guns blazing and show strong leadership. Again, the absence of any of that is why the labour party is in near open revolt.
Jaunts out to the provinces such as the cabinet meeting in Brum are not what is needed.
It appears to me that Brown and Labour are
Out of ideas;
Out of touch;
Out of money; and
damn near out of time.
Maybe a leadership change will work, I doubt it, Brown and Blair have managed to remove anyone with a hint of charisma who might have challenged them.
Complain about this comment
188. At 8:35pm on 15 Sep 2008, balhamu wrote:
Mr U,
And borrowing has fallen since 1997. As my analysis shows.
More disinformation. Total national debt was 350bn in 1997. Today (including PFI) It is 660bn. Almost doubled. Doubled by March.
And debt is significantly less as a % of GDP than other countries held up as shining examples e.g. USA
Strawman. Nobody is holding other countries up as an example. We have no influence on them. We have increased borrowing on either measure since 1997. During the most benign decade in 2000 years. And now we're stuck with a million extra civil servants who wont go quietly but expect index-linked payrises and pensions in perpetuity.
This economy is broke and it was broken by this government and this PM. Fact.
Complain about this comment
The more ideological contributors to this board say something not backed up by fact (e.g. debt is up, the only reason for unemployment decreased post-1997 is that they have all been shunted onto Incapacity Benefit etc), and the more pragmatic contributors provide statistics that enable people to make an informed judgement based on the facts.
Well now that simply isn't true is it?
The more idealogical attempt to redifine 'debt' and then cook up various mechanisms to attempt to conceal debt and then wheel out these numbers as if they were fact.
Likewise with Incapacity. They redifine 'Incapacity Benefit' as a sub-set of all the sick and disabled and then move people off 'Incapacity Benefit' to a slightly differently named 'Allowance' which they never mention in public. Only by digging into the stats do you discover that the total on Incapacity and Sickness benefits has increased from 3.6 million in 1997 to 4 million by 2003.
And of course the sole purpose of these re-riggings is top focus the debate on their manipulated numbers away from the true picture.
As you well know.
Complain about this comment
U946,
Economic activity rate (as a % of working age population 16-59 for women; 16-64 for men) is UP - as an earlier post showed. Despite more children/young adults being in education 16-21 (which is not corrected for in the figures).
Unemployment is DOWN (again, as I showed).
Even on your assumption that everyone on disability benefit/IB is just a lazy free-loader, the facts do not back up your case.
A higher proportion of the working age population are in work.
re your debt figures:
I see you accept you have lost the argument on %GDP terms, so have gone back to the absolute level of debt.
Is income not relevant?
It certainly is to e.g. mortgage lenders - e.g. if I had £10,000 income, a prudent lender might decide an affordable mortgage for me was £30,000 (three times my income). If I had £20,000, they might lend me £60,000 (three times my England).
I have a friend who a couple of years ago earned £10,000 per year. He owed £4,000 to the bank on a loan for his car.
He now earns £20,000 per year but he owes £5,000 to the bank. I keep telling him how he is being irresponsible and that he should worry about the fact he is borrowing £1,000 more now. How can he squander his future like this?
He just mumbles something about his income having increased, and that his debt is 25% of his income now v 40% a couple of years ago and that means he can afford to take on more debt.
Who is right in this argument? His debt has certainly increased by £1,000 - no denying it.
Complain about this comment
228 Eatonrifle
Morning.
By 'broken' country - I mean that it is not 'humming along nicely'......
The country is going to have to get finances in order, slim government (as even the Liberals have noticed it is a problem) and correct the inflation in the housing market etc....
That is going to be painful. Under Labour we have got fat. It will take hard work to get the country in order again and you and I will suffer as the country returns to a level that it can reasonably afford.
The slow down has started already.
Have you noticed the increased number of houses up for sale? People have over extended themselves on mortgages, the cost of living has risen and they can't sell their house in a falling market. Some people are going to get badly burnt.
Labour are going to find it hard to make the necessary choices and, for instance, slim back government.
People that are hit hard by the pain of the slowdown may riot against the government. The longer Labour take to make the right decisions the worse the pain will be.
Although the Conservatives are the best people to fix the country - in some ways you have to hope that Gordon and gang are still in charge and having to deal with the pain that there policies will inflict on the people.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
please note that I am nearly 60, next April to be exact. My older brother was born 1944 my sister 1947, me 1949 there is then an 8 year gap between me and my younger brother.
My point, over the next 5 years we will start to receive our pensions, both state and private.
As we are typical of the immediate post war generation hundreds of thousands, millions around the world, of people born between 1944 and 1949 will start retiring.
The proverbial will start to hit the fan because I don't think that the money is there to pay. The disabled will be taken off the statistics as being in receipt of disability payments. The unemployed will disappear off the unemployment figures. Those taking early retirement, if they can afford it, will not bother to sign on because there is no work, and they get their national insurance stamp paid for them over 60. For those who don't know contributions based unemployment is removed after 6 months and there is now income rules which will remove the early retirement pensioners from the need to sign on, they will have earnt to much to have any entitlements.
Complain about this comment
re your debt figures:
I see you accept you have lost the argument on %GDP terms, so have gone back to the absolute level of debt.
I see you accept you have lost the argument on total debt terms.
Is income not relevant?
It certainly is to e.g. mortgage lenders - e.g. if I had ?10,000 income, .....
blah blah
He just mumbles something about his income having increased, and that his debt is 25% of his income now v 40% a couple of years ago and that means he can afford to take on more debt.
Who is right in this argument? His debt has certainly increased by ?1,000 - no denying it.
This is exactly my point.
If the bloke next door borrows 50,000 to fund his 100,000 mortgage back in 1997. His debt is 50% of his house, his 'GDP' if you like.
If he remortgages just before it went pearshaped mid-2007 his 300,000 house (same house) for an extra 50,000 then if he was being honest he would say 'I have doubled my mortgage'. Only if he was trying to conceal the level of his debt would he say 'My debt has gone down' (whisper as a percentage of my over-valued asset end whisper
But that is what this government does.
They tell you debt has gone down when it has practically doubled. And their asset ie GDP - it only increased because they (and everybody else) was were borrowing money and chasing up the price of assets.
Complain about this comment
Economic activity rate (as a % of working age population 16-59 for women; 16-64 for men) is UP - as an earlier post showed. Despite more children/young adults being in education 16-21 (which is not corrected for in the figures).
I notice you're not contradicting my point that 'Incapacity Benefit' has been highlighted and rigged while the true numbers of sick, disabled and incapacitated has boomed despite record 'investment in the NHS'.
Any breakdown on these (surely rigged) numbers to indicate what percentage of these 'employed' are just desperate house-wives forced into part-time work for five quid an hour to pay for a mortgage on their insanely inflated house?
You know, to fund the asset in the asset-bubble that this government could only see with hindsight. Well hindsight and the millions of people, TV programs and newspaper headlines screaming 'Housing is out of control' by 2003/2004.
I remember some health minister a while back (this government though) dancing about all over the place while trying to kid-on that they'd recruited a million extra nurses (or somesuch) but wouldn't say how may full-time equivilent jobs these were. 'All nurses are equally precious) to my statistics was the message. If he'd had 60 nurses doing half an hour a week he'd have claimed to have recruited 60 nurses.
It is all disingenuity, smoke and mirrors. That is why every government statement undergoes several iterations of 'clarification' and even then you're left with nothing tangible.
Nobody trusts a word or a number that this government produces. And with good reason. They are all empty statements and statistics that do not bear scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
Another measure - debt interest payments made by the Government.
These were £28.6 billion in 1997/98 (3.4% GDP) versus £27.6 billion in 2006/07 (2.1% GDP) [Debt Management Report 2008/09 and 1998/99, HMT]
The larger debt interest repayments (in money terms and as % GDP) in 1997 were more affordable right?
Complain about this comment
U, you make some reasonable points about the overpraising of the last decade's much vaunted prosperity. No question that the rise in living standards has not been matched by real wealth creation. We've been surfing on cheap credit, inflated houses, cheap energy, cheap goods from developing countries. All that's changing now and what we're seeing is the truth of the saying "the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust".
So, you're right that we're in a mess but you are guilty of ideological ranting when you seek to place all (or even most) of the blame on the policies of the Labour government. I understand the need to vent anger on Brown. Mr Smug who for so long basked in undeserved adulation as he presided over a bubble. Same point applies to Greenspan in the States. Brown took the credit then and he has to take the flak now. That's politics. And he is taking the flak, isn't he? Probably won't survive much longer.
But, leaving aside the almost poetic justice of what's happening to GB, the truth is that he was falsely praised on the way up and he is now being falsely criticised on the way down. Or put another way, the policies of this government were not primarily responsible for the good times and they are not primarily responsible for the slump. Of course they contributed (in particular with the increased government spending) but other factors, those in my first para, were
far more influential. This is self evident and I can't see what's gained by denying it.
As regards the higher spending, the country voted for that. Labour had a clear mandate for increasing government spending. Okay, we can all say there's been waste and can point to some silly sounding public sector jobs. Fair enough. But to stretch that into "the country's broke because all our money has been frittered away on government nonsense" is hyperbole. It's just silly.
It is an objective fact that UK Government debt as a proportion of GDP is significantly lower than in other comparable nations. That gives us more flexibility to deal with this Banker created economic slump which is coming our way. It is also the case that Labour's tax increases (much maligned by many on here) have contributed to the lower borrowing.
Just about every country in the western world (and in particular, the ultra free market right wing republican led USofA) is going into an economic slump and the clear common cause is the International Credit Crunch, as cooked up for you by the banking wizards. Gordon Brown is (thankfully you may feel) not a player in this. It's not his fault. Sorry, but that's how it is.
It's an important point, this, and to keep answering it by saying you don't live in France is a bit weak.
Complain about this comment
The biggest problem labour has, is that the Brownites (in the labour party and his lapdog supporters in the media) spent two years campaigning to secure the leadership of the party by insisting that there was nobody else in the Party that was anywhere near as capable as Brown. That he was a political giant amongst pygmies and that he was the one and only person who could rescue labour from Blair's phony image-makers and spin-masters.
We have been told over and over that there is no-one who is better placed to lead. This was marvellously successful as He was anointed leader, unopposed by a vote.
Well now that we see how much of a complete and utter failure Brown has been politically, economically and strategically, and how empty that rhetoric was. How can they ever have any credibility in finding a replacement? They cannot. For whoever replaces Brown is a far worse candidate for leader than the man who has been one of the worst Prime Minister's in the last 100 years, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION. Whoever were to take over, they would be immediately hated by the Brownites AND the country.
SO labour are now in the position where, if they Keep Brown, Labour will be wiped out at the next election. Whereas if they get rid of Brown, they will be wiped out at the next election.
It would not be difficult for them to win the next election though. All they would have to do is make a few policy changes, like:
Granting the referendum on the EU treaty. slashing taxes. Scrapping the ID card scheme and the surveillance state, Scrapping masses of red-tape. Amending the Human rights act, or repealing it and replacing it with a common sense charter of citizen's rights and responsibilities and limiting the rights of prisoners and terrorists to the most basic right to food and shelter. And finally, drastically limiting Immigration.
Who on these boards would vote for the party that had these policies in their manifesto, regardless of which party that is?
Complain about this comment
#105
As much as I don't like this government, I don't blame them for the economic downturn. These things happen and cannot be avoided.
The problem was Gordon Brown's belief that he was better than world economies and so he could defeat the cycles that noone is history has defeated. This led to a program of massive overspending/overborrowing which has put our country in a unique position where he is unable to offer any effective help through tough economic times.
See the most recent ideas from the government. To try to encourage the housing market, they offered a 1% tax cut to a very select number of homes. To aid with energy prices, they are going to make energy companies pay to insulate people houses and hope that the companies don't pass costs onto customers.
These are the best they can come up with because they have no money. 11 years of uninterupted growth and we have no money. That is why people are so angry and that is why Gordon Brown will forever be associated with the credit crunch.
Complain about this comment
"Some people ought to go back to read their Shakespeare, money has made us all pimps and whores. If you want to know try reading Faust/Mephistopheles Part 1,scene iv.
In fact this is actually turning into a Faustian tragedy."
Quite right TAG, Quite right...
Complain about this comment
@239
Of course all your stats versus GDP fall down like a house of cards when GDP falls ass it is now going to.
Also there is a debt escalator created by PFI, so while it seems low currently the debt is on the never never to use an old phrase. It is the equivalent of borrowing from a loan shark. Borrowing is OK if your payments pay off a sizeable chunk of the capital, the way GB has structured our debt we only ever pay off a small peice of the capital so the total cost is higher.
Now I have taught you a little basic economics I suggest you toddle off and learn some more in preperation for the next time Labour get in. You'll have about 20 years study time
Complain about this comment
#160
phoenixarisen
we shall have our day.. and not too long to wait at this rate. The Brown crutch has been kicked away finally as his cabinet refuses to obey orders and come out to back him.
This will be one of the most rebellious and disruptive labour conferences ever and they will show themselves to be truly not fit for purpose.
Complain about this comment
@240
GB's policy of borrowing more instead of paying off debt is directly responible for how far we will sink into the mire.
Think how much better off the country would be if all our debt had been paid off and we had our entire credit limit to call on now instead of being maxed on all our lines of credit.
As I pointed out to you on numerous occasions 64% of the country did not vote for Labour at the last election, that is not a clear mandate in my book.
As for the debt as a percentage of GDP I refer you to my post #244 as I am not going to type it all again.
Complain about this comment
@241
Set up the party and I will vote for it
Complain about this comment
To the new Tory financial experts on this blog:-
BBC - quote. Many European countries now face the threat of recession, particularly the Irish Republic and Spain. Denmark is already in recession.
That is not entirely down to the credit crunch. Rising food and oil prices and falling house prices have all had an impact.
However, national governments as well as institutions such as the European Commission and the European Central Bank are finding it hard to respond.
In fact, they are appealing to the financial and business communities to help.
But those sectors have profound problems of their own and are finding it difficult to find the funds or the motivation to come to the rescue of Europe's faltering economy. - unquote
Now let one put it to you this way, maybe you understand the question.
When did the above horrific financial turmoil happen between 1980 and 1996?
Please do not give idiotic answers as you had previously provided.
We are nearing the 1930s financial crises and when some 3 months ago I predicted that big US Financial Institutions like Banks will go under, some idiots tried to make jokes about what I was saying.
Don't tell us what Labour should have done, but the question is, what are other countries doing, let alone boy Dave, who squandered all our tax money to render Sterling worth less then a roll of toilet paper!
No wonder the Tories never agreed and still do not agree to an independent BOE. Giving them half the chance they will grab the BOE by the neck as they did in their successful 3 recessions.
Complain about this comment
#244 - The IMF et al are predicting GDP to fall on a quarterly basis, while maintaining year-on-year growth. I have provided sources for this. These are independent forcasts (1.4% growth 2008, 1.1% growth 2009).
Of course there are risks GDP will fall - economic forecasting is not a science. But independent economic forecasters are not expecting such a fall.
Unless you know better?
Complain about this comment
#244 "it is equivalent to borrowing from a loan shark".
Really?
Complain about this comment
And #246 - I refer you back to my previous posts on the level of PFI debt, based on the independent analysis of the IFS Green Book (e.g. #157 and on the recent thread about Harman and social mobility)
30% of schools PFIs and 50% of hospital PFIs (by value) are future current spend rather than capital spend. It can be reduced if a future government decides it wants to have less services in e.g. schools, hospitals. It is not debt.
A conservative assumption that these non-capital elements of PFI make up 20% of whats on (off) the books, would lead us to a conclusion debt is lower now.
I guess you know better than the IFS?
Complain about this comment
# 246 Pot
Rather fear that we're going round in circles, you and I.
I don't disagree with you about the three card trick that is PFI. However ...
- the tories would probably have done even more of it.
- to say that PFI outstandings make a complete nonsense of the official debt figures is an idealogically driven exaggeration.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, also to point out to you that Labour had 2 landslides in a row ... if that's not a clear mandate, what on earth is?
Complain about this comment
@246 PotKettle, wrote: "As I pointed out to you on numerous occasions 64% of the country did not vote for Labour at the last election, that is not a clear mandate in my book."
Actually you exclude non-voters. Many of whom despise labour, but could not bring themselves to vote tory and thought any other vote would be wasted under our current system.
IF you include the whole electorate of people eligable to vote, something like 78% did NOT vote labour last time. That was when labour was securing 36% of the vote... Now they are down to 25% - 27% of the share of the vote, that equates to about 85% of the public that will NOT vote labour next time.
Compare that to the 40% of the public that will not vote at all "because there is no point when the only `realistic` choices are tory or labour"
Well the only reason that the only `realistic` choices are tory or labour is because the media and the pollsters leave out non-voters to minimise there effects on the figures and give a wholly false picture.
If more people realised that actually, if you DID vote, then whoever you vote for as a group, at 40% of the electorate, you WILL defeat labour and tory alike." In fact it would be a complete WIPEOUT!
Complain about this comment
@249
the forecast was made BEFORE the collapse of financial markets. The update will astound you!
@250
Yes really!
If you dont believe me ask GB and Darling when they expect to fully pay off the loans.
Complain about this comment
@251
I love the way you are taken in by semantics.
FutureCurrentSpend
Thats so Orwellian its scary
Complain about this comment
#249 balhamu
"Unless you know better?"
Now that's an unfair question. You know perfectly well that many of the right wingers on this blog just get confused when you try to throw facts at them.
They know better because they JUST KNOW!!!!
TAG, of course has knowledge and experience, so I read his comments with interest, and find them illuminating. Thanks TAG.
Complain about this comment
I do not know anyone, who understands economics, that would blame Gordon Brown for the Credit Crunch. It is clearly NOT his fault.
But then neither were the boom times. neither were the however-many consecutive quarters of economic growth, which started in 2002 under John Major and the structural integrity that a government created in the economy, under a government that controlled interest rates and taxation and spending.
Gordon Brown gave the BoE independence and then the bank did what banks do best, in fact the only thing that they are set up to do. Create Credit. So, it is the BANKS who are to blame for the credit crunch.
All the growth in the economy from then on was down to the 'bank created credit' exceeding the damage that labour could do.
Gordon was onto a winning strategy.... Let the banks create the money to drive the economy, and he'll just overtax the profits that follows. It was a policy that had many people fooled (especially the journalists) for a long time, but it was a policy that was doomed to failure as constantly increasing credit is unsustainable. The credit bubble was bound to burst and the longer it took, the bigger the bang would be.
Instead of overtaxing the profits and investing them for a rainy day, Brown went on wild spending sprees to buy down unemployment with hundreds of thousands of administrator roles and NGO's and Quangos etc etc...
The reason that ever-rising credit is unsustainable, is that the banks never issue the interest repayable on loans into circulation. therefore total debt can never be repaid by design.
Complain about this comment
"Sorry, also to point out to you that Labour had 2 landslides in a row ... if that's not a clear mandate, what on earth is?" Sagamix...
Are you also suggesting that we should keep the tories in because they had landslides in 1983 and 1987 too? or because they won 4 General elections in a row?
Your point is utterly wrong. Yes labour won two huge landslides 1997, 2001, but won the 3rd election on the lowest share of the vote in modern election history. 36% share of vote and 22% overall. That is NOT a big endorsement or a clear mandate AT ALL!
In fact, had it not been for the 60 seat bias towards labour inerrant in the seating boundaries, then that share of the vote should have given us a hung Parliament, which it would have if the boundaries had remained the same since the 1980's.
The boundaries have changed again recently reducing the bias to about 40 seats
Claiming labour has a mandate now because they were elected in previous elections is utterly ridiculous.
Is this really the level that the average labour supporter has sunk?
Complain about this comment
# 254 Purple Haze, and you Potty, it's relevant to you too.
Bit of a fallacy what you're saying there, I'm afraid.
Any reason to think that all the people who don't vote would plump for the same thing if they did suddenly grab the pencil?
Or do you think it more likely that they would split their votes over as many different parties as there are on the ballot?
Complain about this comment
#259
re GDP updates - I'm going by current projections by experts yes - not making-up projections to suit my 'we're doomed' argument. It's a question about how much going on in the stockmarket and in the financial sector (driven by the mistakes of bankers) will taint the real economy.
re 'loan shark' - so you predict that we will start being charged over 50% per annum interest on our debt (which incidentally, I'm not sure I mentioned, is lower than it was in 1997), and the country will be invaded by people looking to get their money back?
Ok...
Complain about this comment
#258
You say "Brown went on wild spending sprees to buy down unemployment with hundreds of thousands of administrator roles".
So the structural deficit has increased since 1997 then? Must be the case with a wild spending spree - implies that over the economic cycle we would be borrowing more to fund current expenditure (rather than investment), breaking one of the "Golden Rules".
Lets see what the independent IFS have to say about the structural deficit - surely they will be able to provide us with an impartial answer
"(Looking back over Labour's 11 years in office) the net result is that the structural deficit and level of public net debt are both lower now than the levels inherited from the Conservatives"
Source: IFS Green Book 2008, Chapter 2, Page 28 (page 20 of the pdf file on their website).
So, despite irresponsible borrowing and borrowing to pay for armies of civil servants (in your view), the IFS note the structural deficit is lower now. How would that work?
Yes - Brown has increased expenditure. He has increased taxes too though to pay for this. That was a political choice that the British public bought into at the time (e.g. 2005 election was an opportunity to disagree with the increases in expenditure seen post-2001 by voting in an alternative).
Complain about this comment
28/262 Balhamu
You are a Star.
You're doing what's most hated on this site, confronting fanatic opinion with some actual facts backed up by sourced inormation. Well done you.
You'll always be confronted with the hundreds of thousands of penpushing Quango lovers "arguement" with figures just plucked out of the ether but that appears to be the best the usual suspects can come up with.
Complain about this comment
259# Purple
So claiming you have a mandate because you won the last election is ridiculous?
What kind of democracy do you want?
It gets funnier on here
Complain about this comment
# 259 Dog,
Okay, if (under the system that we have) winning the last election is not a mandate to govern, how can a party ever achieve a mandate? I guess they'd have to somehow win some other sort of contest. Perhaps they could, I dunno, win a specially staged donkey derby down at Ramsgate, do you think? Something like that?
Balham (various)
Excellent antidote to the ideological chanting. Very good. Keep at it!
Complain about this comment
Not that I would expect eaton to understand simple English, I shall explain exactly what I wrote in very very simple terms so even he can understand.
No I did not claim that 'gaining a mandate by winning an election is ridiculous' as you misinterpreted it.
I was responding to someone who seemed to be claiming that winning the election before last was still a mandate. Not the last election.
As it was, under the rules, labour DID gain a mandate although the mandate gained in 2005 under labour's 36% share of the vote, and 22% national support is hardly a ringing endorsement and under a more equal seating boundary system would have resulted in a hung parliament. That is why it was not a full mandate. When almost 80% of the public does NOT vote for you... That is hardly a ringing endorsement of your policies.
So go back and read carefully what I wrote.
in answer to your question, "What kind of democracy do you want?"
I would like a democracy where a party would require more than 22% support to form a government with a majority of over 60 seats.
What kind of a democracy do you want? one where a tiny majority dictates to the majority like the pathetic charade we have? It does NOT deserve to be called a democracy.
Complain about this comment
"# 254 Purple Haze, and you Potty, it's relevant to you too.
Bit of a fallacy what you're saying there, I'm afraid.
Any reason to think that all the people who don't vote would plump for the same thing if they did suddenly grab the pencil?
Or do you think it more likely that they would split their votes over as many different parties as there are on the ballot?"
GOOD QUESTION!
This is a theory that desperately needs testing actually.
Why do non voter's refuse to vote? Is it because the majority of them cannot stand either main party, yet feel that their vote is worthless if cast elsewhere?
Many of the people who DO vote for the two main parties, only do so because they hate the other party more than they hate the party they vote for because they see no ALTERNATIVE party getting into power.
WHY?
The numbers do NOT bear out the popular misconception that there are not enough people who feel likewise to democratically overthrow the main parties, so why?
Could it be that if you asked people "Do you realise that as a non-voter, that you are actually a member of the largest potential political force in the UK?" that they would NOT be aware of that?
And if they knew that they DID have the power to overthrow the 2 party dictatorship we live under, that they may actually bother voting? That local groups could spring up in constituencies all over the country of people who are SICK of what we have to put up with and then decide amongst themselves, which alternative candidate to back?
But who to back? It may be an independent minded member of the current mainstream parties, or they may agree to support a member of the greens or BNP or UKIP, Or they may opt for a local independent candidate. It doesn't matter. What matters is getting rid of the corrupt two party dictatorship and electing people to power in each constituency who care about representing the hopes and aspirations of the British People instead of the banking and corporate elite and being in power solely to do the bidding of the administrations of the EU and USA.
Whatever, the fact is that there ARE enough people in the UK who hate all the mainstream parties enough to get rid of them. It is also a fact that (at the moment) most of them do not know it.
I think that the possibility that they may become aware of their power and use it is the establishment's worst nightmare.
Complain about this comment
"What kind of a democracy do you want? one where a tiny majority dictates to the majority like the pathetic charade we have? It does NOT deserve to be called a democracy."
My typo, I of course meant
"one where a tiny minority dictates to the majority like the pathetic charade we have? It does NOT deserve to be called a democracy.""
Complain about this comment
I have just used the BBC seat calculator to work out what would happen if the non-voters (realised their true power and they all voted "other"
Note that the percentages below for the mainstream parties are based on a rough extrapolation on the numbers from polls INCLUDING the non-voters that they leave out.
The published polls by gallop, yougov, etc....have figures on voting intention that add up to 100% but do not include, 'will not vote' in those figures.
Based on the following share of the vote:
Labour 20%
Conservative 23%
Liberal Democrat 15%
Others (other parties and non-voters combined) 42%
This is more than generous to labour's current standing in the polls and assumes some level of recovery at the Conservatives' expense.
The BBC seat calculator takes into account the seating boundaries as of 2005.
Based on these numbers, the result of any general election is as Follows:
Labour: 0 seats
Conservative: 89 seats
Liberal Democrat: 51
Others: 506.
Here is the URL for you to try this yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/seatcalculator/html/default.stm
(try running it with Tories and Labour getting an equal number of votes or try labour 34% Conservatives 35% LibDems 19% Others 12% and see labour win a majority by losing the election.)
Obviously this is not 100% accurate as their are a number of labour seats, where the local MP is loved by the electorate and they always get over 50% of the vote, so Labour would NEVER get 0 MP's
But what this does show is that it is entirely feasible to democratically overthrow the current two party dictatorship with a very very very huge majority for the others.
Complain about this comment
Yes, but who is "Others"? That's going to be about 506 different parties, isn't it? So then all you have is a bit of a mess.
Complain about this comment
227. sagamix
Me angry never. never, never..Look :-))
I know I heard the calling: Just doubt they could resist the urge to spend spend spend.
Nor have they the ability to do basic maths: Lower taxes for 90% of the population and improve public services.
Show me the numbers.
Complain about this comment
purpledogzz - you are completely right, proportional representation sounds like a great idea. I am completely with you in principle.
That's why the Tories took up the cause in the 1980s when Labour got a bad deal from the system and are pushing for such electoral reform now. Oh, hang on a minute...
But seriously, I'm not sure what the right answer is (to low turnout/unrepresentative politics). The strategies of both New Labour/Cameron's Conservatives are based around the 'median voter' - win the Worcestershire housewifes/SE families and you have yourself an election win. Good for them, bad for the rest of us. It needs to change if politics is going to become more representative of what people actually want.
However, PR has a number of problems. Coalition government, as is required if we have PR, is more unstable (see the Netherlands) and is more difficult to get things done (see how much of the SNP legislative programme survives intact north of the border). I suspect a PR system will be one in which politicians do not make difficult decisions and one in which 'pork barrel' politics would become more important as the price of supporting other party's initiatives.
It will also break the link between an MP and their constituents - and we will have our politicians decided by the decisions made by the people in charge of the Party List (potential corruption - donate and get on the list?).
I think that Labour looked into this as part of their constitutional reform programme and decided it wasn't worth the bother (particularly as the current system began to favour them).
And I'm not sure it will solve turnout issues- people don't think in narrow cost/benefit of voting terms (otherwise why should anyone vote?). There are other more powerful reasons at play (e.g. politicians are all the same, politics can't make a difference to my life, etc).
Off topic though, of course.
Complain about this comment
266#Purple
Hey you know you should try not to be quite so angry and personal like your first paragragh "... so even he can understand"
Both myself and Sagamix drew exactly the same conclusion about your post which on re-reading still comes over the same way.
Just remember Purple losing an arguement isn't the end of the world (unlike a Tory government which would be) LOL
Complain about this comment
262. balhamu
The Government's current account debt as a percentage of GDP may be lower now than when it peaked in the early 1990s, but that was during a bad recession, and not with the economy growing at the rates we have seen over the last decade.
Im all for borrowing in times of recession, that is what you do, borrowing combined with tax cuts, especially to business can kick start the economy.
In short you save during the good times and borrow during the bad.
Brown got the balance wrong.
Complain about this comment
#274 Wasn't my point.
The 'structural' deficit corrects for the impact of the economic cycle. This has decreased under Labour, as the IFS note.
Complain about this comment
275. balhamu
Point being, is that structural deficit has not decreased any where near enough given the growth.
Golden rule figures have been fudged. eg road maintenance, interest payments. extending the cycle, PFIs.
Complain about this comment
#276 - Why should structural deficits decrease during periods of growth?
The actual current deficit should decrease during upswings in the business cycle yes (as I think it has).
But any change in the structural deficit will require policy changes by the Government - there is no reason why it would automatically decrease through growth.
The IFS note that this 'structural deficit' has decreased since 1997 i.e. the Government has taken policy decisions that brings the current budget closer to balance over the economic cycle (though they also warn a Golden-Rule breaking structural deficit does still exist, just a smaller one than that inherited in 1997).
RE the debt rule, I would acknowledge that the failure to account for PFI within net debt figures is against the spirit of the 40% debt ceiling that Labour imposed on itself, and it is apparent that inclusion of PFI will mean that this rule has not been stuck to. Debt is still lower than in 1997 though.
RE the zero structural deficit rule ("borrow only to invest over the economic cycle"), this appears to have been largely met in the last economic cycle (give or take a very small amount in % terms - a couple of billion depending on whose account of the beginning and end of the cycle you believe) and has contributed to increased financial discipline in current spending than existed previously. A structural deficit may have re-appeared during the current cycle, which HMT are desperately trying to reign in during this CSR period to meet the fiscal rules (e.g. real pay cuts for public sector workers and real spending cuts in departments other than health and education)
I'm not sure what points you are making re road maintenance and interest payments - what fudges are you talking about? It is clear that interest payments on debt has decreased in real money terms (and so decreased dramatically in % GDP terms) since 1997.
I think many people have been surprised by the discipline that Labour has shown in largely keeping to its self-imposed Golden Rules (which the Conservatives would not have introduced) and its better management of public finances and the economy (e.g. introducing 3-year settlements for Government departments and on public sector pay, ending the 'Eddie and Ken show' political business cycle, keeping inflation expectations and interest rates low for 11 years).
Real concerns (from people who understand finance at least) are, I thought, more about the re-appearance of a structural deficit in more recent times, the increases in the % of GDP raised in tax and the perception that much of the increased expenditure this extra taxation has funded has been wasted (e.g. on civil service pay, inefficient bureaucracies).
Complain about this comment
re political business cycle
there is going to be a general election in 2010 (or sooner)
previous administrations would have been trying to decrease interest rates (monetary stimulus regardless of impact on inflation or medium-term impact), and trying to cut taxes or increase government spending (fiscal stimulus regardless of impact on borrowing and inflation or medium term-impact.
this government is doing the reverse (fiscal tightening to curb borrowing, basing monetary policy tightness loosened slightly, concentrating on reigning in inflation).
surely a positive thing in terms of stewardship of the economy/public finances?
Complain about this comment
277. balhamu
My point is that Brown is a master of trickery when it comes to numbers:
Interest paid on Network Rail loans is not included in current expenditure
Sending previously counted as road maintenance is now investment in new roads.
Golden rule:
You may recall in 2005 he moved the goal posts by extending the period of the cycle by 2 years. it was adjusted to start in April 1997 not 1999. Magically creating a 16bn surplus.
Any how looks like the tides gone out here.
Complain about this comment
You mean "for us Kremlinologists". The standard of BBC English is definitely falling.
Complain about this comment
#279 - I thought the IFS concluded that the date of the previous cycle wouldn't make a difference to whether the Golden Rule was met or not - even though the changes that HMT made to the start/finish of the previous cycle alter conclusions on whether the rules was met or not.
The dates that HMT use at the moment for the previous cycle (97/98-06/07) lead to a conclusion there was a current surplus of 0.1% of GDP or £2 billion per year.
The IFS conclusion on the impact of feasible changes of dates (see Ch3 of their Green Budget 2008; p41 or p13 of the ch3 pdf file) is:
"Ironically, it is also the case that the Golden Rule would have been met, or at least would still have been on course to have been met, under either of the previous 2 datings of the economic cycle published by the Treasury (99/00 - 05/06 and 97/98-08/09)"
(these figures would be +0.1% of GDP under the first definition and forecast +0.05% at March 2008 under the second)
So the change in date in the end made no difference - the rule is likely to have been met in both scenarios (though the increasing deficit could jeopardise the second, but not by much).
There are two issues - both because of the fact that HMT is both deciding the rules of whether the Golden Rule is met and making the judgement, and has an interest in a conclusion that they are met. The trust in the rules would be enhanced if some independence is both defining the cycle and deciding how performance against it is measured would be of benefit to the perceived reliability of the measure.
* (implied) change in definition of meeting the Golden Rule by HMT to a %GDP basis from an absolute basis (which gives higher weight to the early surplus in the cycle)
* Change in dates of cycle by HMT (which, given their interest in it, one could argue was done in order to ensure the Golden Rule was met - even though it seems that it were unimportant in the end, though not at the time the dates of the cycle were changed)
Transparency would help a lot (with the PFI elements too) - I think this is the big problem in getting trust in the figures.
But the conclusion the Golden Rule was met regardless of realistic dates for the cycle (on a %GDP basis) holds.
Complain about this comment
267 purpledogzzz. I have been reading through some of your posts and one or two others concerning PR I have no argument with your supposition that this would be a fairer system and I have to say that the Libdems have been calling for this for many years.
What I do take issue with is that you and a few other are living under the misconception that this will sudenly bring out all the non voters in this country.
Nothing could be further from the truth, while you and I and many others on these blogs have our own ideas, regarding which party should be in power, the majority of people dont give a damn who is in power.
They get politics rammed down their throats on the media as they say 24/7 and its become like the advertisments something to turn off.
You like myself and others on these blogs look forward to Question time ,Daily politics and what have you but to most people its a complete turn of , now you and I might find that difficult to understand but thats the way it is.
If you stand on the corner of any street north or south of the country and stop people and ask them I they would support PR nine out of ten would think you were asking them about a new brand of soap powder. if you then showed them photographs of two members of the cabinet and the same of shadow cabinet both parties the percentage would be even lower,
I am not for one moment suggesting that these people are stupid or irresponsible its just that there not interested if you went to their homes with Taxi's and offered to take them to the polling station they would tell you sorry but I am watching Coronation Street they are not inrersted and I can tell you that PR is not going to get people off their backsides to vote.
I am afraid that whatever system of voting we adopt other than compulsory voting. nothing will change we will still be controlled by the floating voter.
Not you our I Purpledogzzz we know which way we are going to vote but the way it will go is in the hands of the floating voter and I was going to say also in the hands of the Gods but that would be untrue it will be in the hands of the media and what they tell the floating voter to vote for.
Incidentally thats the same reasonthat I have for not being in favour of referenda.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to be a pedant - I usually try to stop myself - but you mean "there's plenty of work for us Kremlinologists", not "for we". I honestly believe there isn't a single journalist left at the BBC with a satisfactory grasp of English grammar.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS