The final cost of recession
If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists, that would be splendid. So said John Maynard Keynes.
Substitute the word "politicians" for "economists" and the words could easily have been uttered by Alastair Darling - a man who's never minded being written off as grey or dull, providing that description's been accompanied by a tribute to his efficiency.
The chancellor's been spending rather a lot of time recently studying the views of the great economist. On Wednesday he will deliver a wordy and worthy lecture about the future direction of economic policy. It will mark the start of a critically important political debate about the role of government in helping the country get through a recession and about the bill that will have to be paid once the worst is over.
Within weeks Mr Darling will give his pre-budget report which will reveal the true scale of the carnage that the financial crisis and looming recession have wreaked on the government's finances. He will have to spell out then what he intends to do about it.
The noises in advance of both these important speeches have been decidedly Keynsian. "Much of what Keynes wrote still makes sense," Mr Darling declared recently.
This has spawned headlines declaring a return to an era of spend, spend, spend and suggesting that ministers plan to borrow their way out of recession.
Today the Chancellor will pour a little cold water on these stories - insisting that though he believes it right to borrow more in the short term, it is also right that that borrowing is reduced once the economy starts to grow again. Keynes, he argues, has been misunderstood.
The great man's message during the depression of the 1930s was not that governments should let spending rip - but they should not cut it in order to balance the budget.
Having excited his party with talk of a new Keynsian economic policy, Mr Darling is now trying to reassure the markets that our old friend Prudence is just sleeping - and is not actually dead. Get that message wrong and not only might the pound slide further but also the Bank of England might react by stalling on interest rate cuts.
What then of Gordon Brown's much-vaunted fiscal rules - the ones that promised that borrowing would only be used for investment not day-to-day spending and that debt would never be allowed to become too big a share of the economy.
Ever so quietly Mr Darling will concede that they've been broken but promise that a new responsible fiscal framework will be put in their place. In other words, the fiscal rules are dead. Long live the fiscal rules.
The Tories mock all of this. They claim that Gordon Brown's a man with an overdraft not a plan - a man who is trying to repackage past failure to control spending and borrowing as if it's a strategy for future success. Since, they argue, the Treasury's cupboard is bare there can be no new economic policy and it is a con trick to pretend there can be.
Behind the scenes ministers are uncertain whether there's a change merely in presentation or in policy. One who's well connected makes this telling observation. The lesson that Gordon Brown's learnt from the past few weeks is to be bold and to make policy announcements big.
It's clear that the pre-budget report is still far from having been written. So what would a bold Brown do? Ministers are being asked to draw up plans to help the unemployed and those whose homes are being repossessed; to look at speeding up capital projects and to reprioritise spending in their departments.
Those options may not pass the test of looking bold or big. One thing would. A tax cut. This year the government has borrowed to cut taxes - on the £2.7 billion bail-out of the 10p debacle and the freezing of petrol duty. So, why not next year too?
One interesting political consequence is that the Tories could not easily endorse something they've already opposed as "fiscal conservatives" - borrowing to pay for tax cuts.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Labour continue to spend
But for us this could be the end,
They borrow and borrow
(No thought for tomorrow)
How low can Labour descend?
Complain about this comment
Who gives a stuff about the economy......what's Gordy gonna do about Brand and Ross???
Complain about this comment
What a truly amazing man
1997 brief spell at the treasury, Secretary of State for Social Security, has handled the Education portfolio, Transport, Scottish office and Dept for Trade and Industry, Energy etc.
Now he's lecturing life time economists on the state of the economy
Thank goodness we have superb and talented individuals like this running our country.
I feel secure.
Complain about this comment
Borrow in order not to cut public spending? A cautious OK to that. Where public projects are concerned it could plausibly even be finessed into 'investment'. But is such a position not undermined by the freezing of council tax at a cost to public spending? Is that vote-catching manoeuvre any longer sustainable?
Complain about this comment
With regards to your final point, I'm not sure why this would be an interesting political consequence.
That seems to be made on the very simplisitic view that Tory policy is All Tax Cuts Are Good when manifestly David Cameron has been saying since elected that he only favours tax cuts that can be afforded.
With regards to Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown's position it will be interesting to hear what elements of the vastly increased borrowing represents new enterprises to boost growth (their words) and what simply reflects the fact that their existing spending plans have gone kapput.
Complain about this comment
The economy has been growing since the Conservatives managed us out of the last recession. Labour paid off some of our net debt. It then reverted to type and set out on a massive borrowing-fuelled spending spree that saw our debt accelerate to over £630bn. It has gone even further now.
The IMF warned it was unsustainable. Labour ignored them. Personal and public sector debt soared. Labour used the excuse that borrowing is lower as a percentage of GDP, but does not count the PFI debt. The net amount owed is far greater than ever before and more than it should ever have been.
The borrowing and debt has increased while the economy was growing - so why is it only now that Alistair Darling talks about reducing borrowing when the economy starts to grow again? It was not done before so why should we believe they will rein in spending in future?
Complain about this comment
If GB and AD want to peddle something to the electorate, why not quote Keynes and then tell us we've all misinterpreted it. You couldn't make it up!
Complain about this comment
That was a good topic, Nick. I enjoyed reading it. I'm quite excited by the idea that the Prime Minister has become a little more confident and Alistair Darling has a nuanced approach to policy. Another thing that leaps out is how ministers are being asked to rise to the challenge and show what they're made of.
One thing that's struck me is how some people have taken a clichéd and reactive approach to developing an economic plan. Now, the usual lists of spending plans and revenue are being discussed, but I'm more interested in how the government will tweak people's attitudes as, I think, this is a key determiner of success.
I note that some people in the brewing industry are looking at investing in more innovation, and Ford is doing everything it can to retain staff even if that means a little belt tightening. This sort of stuff doesn't cost much money or level mountains but by taking a better focus now people can be in a stronger position and gain more in the long-term.
Gordon Brown was generally responsible even if he did use some smoke and mirrors to ride the economic wave. The upcoming budget looks like it may be pulling a similar magic trick. If Labour pull it off, and I hope they do, could this be the beginning of putting a stake through the heart of Britain's broken economic fundamentals?
The scope for new technologies and developing new markets is considerable. So much so that a UN commissioned report concluded that we were on the brink of a global economic renaissance. Now, we could confuse things or talk ourselves into a deeper recession like the Tories, or ride through this and properly embrace this potential.
Wow. *squeal* I'm sooo excited.
Complain about this comment
There is a myth that classic Keynesianism (of the General Theory vintage) is fine for periods of classic depression - with falling real prices and stagnant or falling money wages - but no good in periods of actual or latent price inflation. It was the great lie of monetarism that this was not only true by experience, but bound to be true.
Keynes knrew this was claptrap. In 'How to Pay for the War' he outlined exactly how an anti-recession strategy could work in a period of potential inflation.
Keynesianism, of course, is supposed to be a busted flush because 'we are all Thatcherites now'. Well, no we are not. Those for whom Keynesian or neo-Keynesian ideas still have real meaning know that what JMK was on about was not some desperate scheme for creating employment in the face of depression, but a systematic approach to macroeconomic policy management that....well, went a bit further than announcing the odd tweak of interest rates, which has just about been all that there is of macroeconomic policy management for the past decade.
If anything is a busted flush it is the notion - beloved of Conservatives like Mr Cameron - that all is for the best and that 'markets will eventually equilibrate'. We have seen time and time again since the 1970s the sight British governments doing nothing for fear of inflation, upsetting the City or depressing the value of the pound.
Well now, all bets are off. We want a lower pound, we will have falling inflation and the City is....well, the trigger for our current malaise and, besides, the government now seems to own a considerable slice of it.
JMK, your hour is now.
Complain about this comment
"The chancellor's been spending rather a lot of time recently studying the views of the great
economist"
So, after spending 11 years in charge of the money and destroying the economy, he's finally decided it's a good idea to actually learn some economic theories.
I think he's a bit too late, and it kind of proves the point that I always make that he never understood anything about economics.
Complain about this comment
Yes, more media reports of how bad it's going to get ('there will be more insolvencies and more repossessions') and no-one acting to stop this arcane nonsense.
Why 'bankrupt' people who have done everything possible to service their financial obligations and simply cannot through no fault of their own.? Or repossess their house?
As the downward spiral in the banking system gathers pace no-one is giving this their attention although David Cameron alluded to it recently.
It is grossly unfair to throw the burden of responsibility for failure on the individual who took out perfectly reasonable financial liabilities based on assurances of stable economics from Government.
The converse is that if everyone took out liabilities based on that the economic system was bound to fail - no-one would ever borrow! And generally people borrow because they don't have enough savings to cover the intended costs. This doesn't mean they are irresponsible - which is how the law makes them look. It's not about the 'undeserving' or 'deserving poor'. It's about being decent and reasonable FAIR.
Britain's insolvency laws belong in the Dark Ages. If something isn't changed quickly the courts are soon going to be on overtime and there will be a legal and social trainwreck for decades to come.
Your urgent attention to this important social issue please!
Sign my No10 Petition.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Harsh-treatment
If you are not worried do it (with social conscience) for others who are not as fortunate as you. it is only live to 9th Dec after which it will either have done its job or it won't matter.
Why do I write this here?
Because I watched the ghastly panoply of State measures rolled out against so many in the 90s recession while the Govt stood by and did - NOTHING. At least with the internet now one can speak out to a degree. I have to say I am again shocked at how silent OUR Parliament is on this absolutely fundamental social-economic issue. The repossession/foreclosure juggernaut coming your way frankly, flies in the face of everything that Article 17 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands for that states that a person should not be 'arbitrarily deprived of his home'.
Thank you for reading this.
Guy Croft
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"So what would a bold Brown do?"
Answers:
1) Enable his Chancellor to get on with the job.
(Problem: Brown installed a puppet, but the puppet doesn't always like having his strings pulled....)
2) Say "Sorry - I cocked up. I'm going to resign"
(problem: sadly, some dreams are truly beyond our reach).
What will Brown do?
Answer: Say "I'm bold! (hey, I even 'wrote' a book about courage)" and continue to delude himself and try to do likewise to the nation.
Complain about this comment
The most dangerous situation for the World to move into is competitive interest rate cuts.
The USA is about to cut theirs so we will cut ours - there lies doom and a Japanese style perpetual recession. Unless the bad loans are let deteriorate properly they will be a gigantic drag on the economy.
Home borrowers (I will not say home owners) must either pay a reasonable rate of interest on their loans, or default, and be reprocessed and the homes sold for what they are properly valued.
Ultra low interest rates will deepen and prolong the slump. Over the very short term perhaps 3 months, they may be necessary, but it must be made clear that borrowers should reckon on at least 7 percent mortgage rates in the long term. If the borrowers cannot afford this then they must be allowed to default.
Without the very necessary correction in property prices in the UK the economy will not recover. Lowering interest rates is the path to doom.
Lower interest rates and all those dependent on savings income to fund their expenditure will hold back - already equity release has ceased to be an economic driver so the net effect will be to multiply and deepen the depression.
Money needs to have a reasonable value and cost. This must be the medium term aim of policy and all other matters flow from this, such as income multiple maximums of 3 to 3.5 times to house prices.
If we do not have affordable homes we will destroy the structure of society (such that it is.) Regulation and tax policy must be used to ensure that this happens, before the next election, Mr Darling!
Complain about this comment
A speech to stop the horse once it has already bolted would be a more apt description. The unprudent language used for this spending policy has been so ridiculous. The pound is in freefall and the old adage 'loose words costs lives' is never more appropriate.
Bit more balanced today though Nick - 7/10!
Complain about this comment
If ever there was a case of failure packaged as strategy - then this is it.
The line "Responsible fiscal framework" ties into the accusations of Brown presiding over an "age of irresponsibility" doesn't it?
Brown's economic reputation is dust.
Complain about this comment
Nick when you say:
"The lesson that Gordon Brown's learnt from the past few weeks is to be bold and to make policy announcements big."
I am unconvinced.
I think he has decided to keep making announcements and make sure that people don't start asking how we got here. It could have been worse with the Tories but thats not the point. You can't fix a problem if you don't know what the problem was. It needs a full blooded public inquiry.
It is frightening that we have "whoops economic apocalypse!" and then there is a shrug of the shoulders and people move on.
I can't see any reason why we won't be vulnerable to this type of event in the long term.
Gordon is just "brassing it out".
Complain about this comment
It seems that according to the Keynsian view, the solution to the recession is a spot of 'retail therapy' - spend, spend, spend, Buy Now, Pay Later.
The problem is, the country was already in debt before this latest crisis.
The Government's answer is to take out a few new credit cards, and switch the outstanding balance for a few months at 0%, then worry about it later.
Brown knows it wont be his problem, because by the time the final demands land on the doormat, he won't be in Number 10 any more.
The very least he could now would be to try to cut back on waste. Scrapping the expensive ID card scheme would be a good start.
Aboloshing HIPs would also help free up the property market, thereby helping hard-working people who find themselves in the negative equity trap through no fault of their own.
Complain about this comment
re 10: I forgot, Brown is no longer officially the chancellor (although in reality he is), but the same basic logic applies regardless; whether it's darling or brown, having at least one of them studying economics would be a step in the right direction seeing as neither of them understand economics at all at the moment.
Brown does, however, know history (although he doesn't learn from it), and can quote irrelevant historical facts and figures very well. The problem is that he never studied economics and his analysis skills are non-existent and he never listens to anyone who isn't 100% in favour of his own ideology. I have no idea why/how the labour party left such an arrogant idiot in charge of the money for so long; they've got a lot to answer for.
Complain about this comment
Keynes did say ' I change my mind when the facts change - what do you do sir? ' So has Darling changed his mind because the facts have changed? Don't think so because we have had increasing borrowing requirements over the last few years in a boom time (don't care what Brown says , we've had a boom the last few years..) which is completely contradictory to Keynes basic premise of boosting spending in an economic downturn but not in boom times. We are now maintaining spending at a time when tax revenues are declining sharply from a recession and borrowing to avoid having to raise taxes to resolve our debt issue. Brown has presided over this situation, either at No.11 or No.10 and I for one will not forget that when it comes to the next General Election.
At the end of the good years we should have had a budget surplus to allow us to maintain spending and potentially lower taxes to help cushion a recession. What Brown has done is to mis-manage the economy so that we may be able to do neither and just have to ride it out. Personally I think history will judge him a truely appalling Chancellor who squandered his inheritance
Complain about this comment
To get the full benefit of government funded economic pump-priming the economy has to be on the floor. The economy has not yet hit the floor, so any direct action of that nature at this time would be wasted.
However, a substantial tax cut for the lower paid is well overdue and will certainly be appreciated by all.
Going forward, taxation should be directed at economic outcomes so that taxpayers get to see the unequivocal benefits of government spending of their hard-earned.
Taxation must no longer be used to feed the bloated state machine that New Labour has deliberately created to please its own client groups.
So Keynsian economics properly applied will have a direct benefit to the community at large.
However if this label is used to just place a face on more of the same that got us where we are then we can forget it and need to begin to plan for our own revolution.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm sure the fiscal rules aren't really dead, are they? As I understand it, the fiscal rules can be written thus:
"We will always make sure that economic cycles, investment, current spending, and what actually appears on the balance sheet are defined in such a way that it appears that borrowing will only be used for investment over the course of an economic cycle".
Surely that's still true, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
it realy doesnt matter who is incharge this is a global problem and thus it can only be sorted globaly.
what i find scary is this idea of borrowing to offset the downturn, doesnt all borrowing imply payback with interest thus the taxpayer has to keep paying off government loans that may not even help.
these loans could break this country and the only way to survive will be to be fully part of european structure, what this government has already been paid to do by there european masters.
all we the public can do is kiss our assetts goodbye.
Complain about this comment
The problem with Brown is that he continues to make policies for his short-term self-interest rather than the countries interests. That's why government borrowing is out of control...or "a little too high" as Labour's mate Robert Preston put it.
Biased Biased Corporation.
Complain about this comment
The idea that the government can spend now and pay it all back later is wishful thinking at best.
They were already being warned about their failure to balance the country's balance sheet for years and years. Labour are simply too addicted to tax, borrow and spend.
Ken Clarke, who Gordon has much to thank for inheriting a strong economy, was already writing about this 3 years ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/25/election2005.economy
As Ken says; "It remains an iron law of politics that the job of Conservative governments is to clear up the mess left by Labour governments."
Complain about this comment
Maybe Brown should get in the queue at the IMF now before it gets any bigger. Darling seems to have caught the Brown ( I'm an economic genius ) disease. When did being a lawyer, who practised for a very short time suddenly become the criteria for having enough knowledge of economics to regulate the world's finances ? Was it perhaps that, like his mentor, he, being a " son of the manse " was provided with this amazing knowledge by god himself? It's just a pity god didn't do it sooner before the holy duo destroyed the the country's economy . Somewhere in the bible they wrap themselves in is the parable about the "talents " of silver and how they should be invested, maybe god forgot to tell them about that bit before they squandered the country's resources. Still ; if Brown's performance at PMQs is anything to go by, we must all join them in praying that "The Lord will provide ".
Complain about this comment
Darling said: "the government's fiscal policy must adapt to the current exceptional economic circumstances"
But the whole point of the fiscal rules would be that as a government you'd save during a boom so that you can then spend when there's a recession. That was the whole point of the rules.
The fiscal rules were a good idea, it's just that labour never followed the logic behind it; if labour had properly followed their own fiscal rules and not hidden things with false accounting and if they'd kept spending to the level that they were supposed to, then we wouldn't need to borrow at all right now, and we'd be out of the recession in a couple of months.
It was the fact that they never kept to their own rules that we're now forced to break those rules in order to stave off total economic collapse.
Complain about this comment
re: 18, Distant Traveller
The very least he could now would be to try to cut back on waste. Scrapping the expensive ID card scheme would be a good start.
Well said. The sooner we get rid of this ridiculous, human-rights infringing cash-vampire the better. And I'm talking about the ID cards scheme as well.
Complain about this comment
#17, right on.
I don't know how old you are, but what is coming is beyond frightening. I don't care any for those who say 'oh, doom and gloom' because nothing ever touches them, what I care about are the folk whose lives are going to be comprehensively savaged by this economic onslaught. I know exactly what's coming.
The consequences of Brown's 'shrug of the shoulders' as you so aptly put it and that of all his ministers, all his MPS and all those of all the other parties and the whole Govt executive machine too right down to the magistrates and circuit judges, sheriffs and bailiffs et alia are going to be the instruments of the greatest social upheaval in the UK since the Inclosure Acts.
The judiciary will cope perfectly well with the new workload, indeed it will create jobs in the public sector. They will be as icily efficient and adaptable as the German legal system under Roland Freisler.
If I cannot stop them, at least I can say I tried this time.
GC
Complain about this comment
One of the most worrying aspects of this is that the plan is only now being written.
Grown has recently taken to denying that he ever said he had ended 'boom and bust'.
However, if he did expect a bust at some point, then why was there no contingency plan in place already?
Not only is the emperor naked, but he wants to have his cake and eat it...
Nick, at some point you must realise that anyone who continues to pretend to beleive that the emporer still has clothes now looks as stupid as he does.
Complain about this comment
From this week's Private Eye:
Anagram of Peter Mandelson: Mean old serpent.
Complain about this comment
and I might add that after having been in place for many weeks my petition for rewrite of the insolvency laws has so far attracted a massive 22 signatures.
Just next to "Ban all pellet guns in the UK" with 23
whereas the breathtaking
" instruct water companies to return to charging churches as charities rather than as business premises" has attracted nearly 37,000, no doubt signed by all the faithful who think the recession is 'doom and gloom'.
I wish I could get an introduction to someone as public spirited and newsworthy as Joanna Lumley.
GC
Complain about this comment
guy @ 11
I have to say I am again shocked at how silent OUR Parliament is on this absolutely fundamental social-economic issue
We're all sorry that your business has gone bust.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#23 DisgustedofMitcham
I'm sure the fiscal rules aren't really dead, are they? As I understand it, the fiscal rules can be written thus:
"We will always make sure that economic cycles, investment, current spending, and what actually appears on the balance sheet are defined in such a way that it appears that borrowing will only be used for investment over the course of an economic cycle".
Very Good. I'm sure that Mr Brown's Fiscal Rules' amount to nothing more than a draft Code of Practice.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
jcook @ 22
Whether this saturation coverage will attract any viewers remains to be seen
The US election you mean? I'll be watching every second of it ... it's like Olympics and World Cup, you only get to see about seven of them in your post childhood but pre senility lifetime.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Borrow?
How much and for how long?
Who from?
With every other country borrowing billions at a time to keep them solvernt how long before the money runs out and we can't borrow any more.
Already the IMF are seeking extra funds from China and Saudia Arabia.
These countries will have their own problems to sort out so are unlikely to provide enough funds to continue to prop up everyone else.
This is a temporary measure for a long term problem
Unless the problems are tackled now at source country by country we will all find ourselves bankrupt.
That prospect is so horrific it is unthinkable.
Welcome to the third world.
Complain about this comment
23. DisgustedOfMitcham2
Of courses its true. thats why HMG reclassified road maintenance costs as investment in new roads and why the interest payments for the network rail loans were investments in new railways.
No funny accounting here.
Complain about this comment
Yep, it's the same for me as the government I guess? I'm in a bit of a financial mess as a result of the global over-leveraging problem. So, I think I'll go get me some more leverage - borrow, say, £50,000 - and get down to spending my way out my personal financial crisis. God knows how I'll ever pay it back, but then again I assume the Chancellor's probably thinking much the same thing.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
More nu-labour spin from the BBC. The public pays hard-earned cash for this, they deserve balanced reporting and analysis. The BBC has no right to pursue its left-wing agenda when it is funded as it is currently.
Complain about this comment
#25 delmister
You say "this is a global problem and thus it can only be sorted globally".
I think this is largely correct, but what we do nationally is also very important at this time.
Think of it this way. If you take out a mortgage to buy a new house, you will need to consider how much you can afford in terms of monthly repayments. It might be very tempting to take out an even bigger loan and also pay for new carpets, curtains, fridge-freezer, plasma TV and maybe even a new car. You are either extending the loan period, or facing higher monthly repayments. You need to take very great care not to be tempted to over-extend yourself.
When money is tight, as it is now, it makes sense to keep a very tight reign on spending - not to keep borrowing for unnecessary luxuries.
Complain about this comment
Rather than spend a week on the speech and then lecture us on the state of the economy, I would rather he sat at his desk and worked hard to stop the likes of:
20bn on an IT system for the NHS that has had questionable trials, and lacks the support of NHS staff,
2bn lost in tax credit fraud or errors.
2.3bn refurbishing civilian offices of MOD
1.7bn spent settling Metronet’s debts following the failed privatisation of London Underground
300m to Transport for London to cover its cost in taking on Metronet’s contracts.
300m lost on two cancelled IT projects at the Department of Work and Pensions In 5 years the DWP managed to spend £2.14bn on IT projects, both ongoing and cancelled, with over £500m going to consultants alone.
A further £486m has been wasted on the computer project for the Child Support Agency and £140m on a system designed to streamline payments which was shelved because it never worked.
Or perhaps £77m on an IT system meant to clear the backlog of immigration casework which was shelved because it missed deadlines.
Maybe he should consider the waste in respect of a system that was being introduced to manage the applications of adults applying for independent learning grants which was scrapped after millions was lost in fraudulent applications; the cost of this was another £97m of taxpayer’s money.
MOD: After failing to include a clause ensuring that Chinooks purchased from the USA would meet UK airworthy standards MOD has spent more than £300m, now forecast to be £500m to upgrade them. Though ordered in 1995, the upgrade on these 8 Chinooks has still not been completed. Likely waste is in the region of £500m plus the cost of the Chinooks.
The MOD also scrapped a computer inventory scheme before it was introduced at a cost of £118m and a further £77m on a radar system for the Harrier before it was decided to withdraw it from service.
Or perhaps the Nimrod AEW aircraft that was supposed to replace the RAF Shackletons. Despite the fact that a well proven replacement, The Boeing E3 was available, the Government MOD decided it was better to spend £1.5billion on a radar system that didn’t work. Having wasted this £1.5bn, they went on to spend another £750 million buying the 7 aircraft that the RAF had wanted to begin with!
The MOD also wrote off 118m on a failed inventory IT project (DSMS). In fact, the MOD may end up writing of over 3bn for a programme to upgrade RAF Nimrods, a plane that is built on the 1950’s
Or the Pathway project, which promised to introduce a benefits payment card in 2000 and was scrapped after four years of expensive development was scrapped at a cost of 1bn
400m was spent on a project aimed at ‘cost control’ for the 2012 Olympics. Value Eh?
In respect of Information Technology projects, this government is forecasted to spend another £14bn of taxpayer’s money this year, this is roughly equivalent to a reduction in personal taxation of 7p in the pound.
Now this government wants to spend another £5bn on a computer system to manage a new ID card system.
Remember all this when hes lecturing us on the state of the economy and fiscal responsibility.
Complain about this comment
Here is something that the Government could try ... being honest.
That would be very helpful indeed and a wonderful morale booster.
For example, they could start being honest about Income Tax and National Insurance 'contributions'.
We, the people, know that they are really the same thing, so why not merge them into one tax - that would be an honest thing to do.
A much simplified 'flat rate' tax system would also be a more honest arrangement, in that its transparency would appeal to the peoples sense of fairness.
As they/we now 'own' bank(s), they could also be honest about repossessing homes.
This repossession is very bad business and there are a number of ways in which this could be avoided - so let us see a bit of honesty from HMG here.
The unemployed would be in a more honest relationship with the Government if they actually earnt the money that was paid over to them - so let us see some effort in this area.
If Government concentrated in offering genuine value per tax-payer pound for the services it provides then that would be an honest thing to do, and would be seen as such by the people.
Sadly, I think we will find that such honesty is in very short supply within HMG or for that matter, the Opposition.
I think Keynes understood this completely and would have sighed deeply at these politicians and their feeble attempts to rearrange deck-chairs when radical, honest reform is desparately needed.
You would have thought a Labour Government heading for probable electoral defeat would think well, we've nothing to lose so we might as well go for it.
Come on Brown, Campbell, Mandelson and 'moneybags' Blair - reprise New Labour and let us see if we get anything sensible this time around.
Complain about this comment
When keynes wrote the General Theory of economics government spending as a proprtion of national income was dramatically lower.
For a start off there was no NHS with a 97 billion pre annum budget.
There were no city academies and a comprehensive system.
The state did not employ 50 per cent of the labour force.
There were no diversity officers and the police force was dramatically smaller.
State spending was way below where it is now so the startig point was different.
Comparing the current situation to that of the 1930s is akin to saying we are going to pour in some bubble bath; then the taps had not even been turned on.
Anything the government does now is irrelevant to overall GDP....pushing on a string.
The government are a bunch of amateurs who have no idea what path to take so they take the path of least resistance; spend more money. Our money.
There should be wholesale tax cuts and incentives to save more money (tax credits)
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
Prime Minister's questions went as expected, he never answered one question.
They will have to rename it Prime Minister has no answers.
Mandelson must have went to the same school, that teaches how to refuse to answer questions with a smirk.
Is the giggling and chuckling part of the deal when sitting in Parliment? I wonder at them having such a good time while dishing out waffle.
Neither use nor ornament.
Darling will put on a brave face when he tells us how we are going to pay for the gross mismanagement that has been Labours policy.
I'm sure we will not be joining them in the laughter.
Boom, Bust, Debt.
Complain about this comment
What has happened at the BBC? No moderators on this blog for almost 2 hours, or has the Wossy and Wussy saga got everyone in a bit of a tizz?
Complain about this comment
For all the budding economists out there.
Have a look at the article and chart in the link below (click on the chart to expand it).
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/07/has-deleveraging-even-begun-not-for.html
It specifically relates to the US economy but ours is a mirror image of theirs.
It won't matter what policies they decide on in Westminster village. We're gonna get hit and we're gonna get hit hard.
As guycroft posted earlier, they should be concentrating on policies that will prevent business defaults and home repossessions (through no fault of their own). They should be doing everything to keep families in their own homes.
Its our Yoomun rights....innit?
Complain about this comment
Shock horror the Tory Blog Mafia are not complaining. Please can we get back to examining Cameron and Osborne you Soooooooooo biased against Labour....
Excuse the sarcasm but we only get to blog on topic if it's broadly critical of Government.
GB's fiscal rules are clearly dead. The question is were they wrong altogether or right for 10 years but need replacing now.
The government should be getting hammered but the Tories have been incapacitated by the Osborne row and seem intent on playing only to the Westminster crowd.
Policy, Policy, Policy. Show us there is an alternative, make it bold and tell it calmly. Fulfil the promise to remove punch and judy the subject is too important.
A few pence of relief to tiny businesses will not help. Massive incentives to SME's will. For example add a 5% tax on all payments to companies employing less than 1000 that are delayed by more than 60 days. Big companies frequently rape smaller ones through late payments particularly in hard times. Try to use the current laws to charge interest and they threaten to take their business elsewhere. Make companies declare late payments then smaller profitable business won't go under for want cash flow. Pass the money directly to the smaller business up to the level of their bank charges. Sounds harsh but it's the smaller businesses that cannot get lines of credit easily at the moment. SME's are the backbone of our economy, protect them. Many who run them could be better off by pulling the plug. Support them and they support UK PLC.
Propose compulsory purchase of repossessions at a rate that is punitive if a lender pulls the plug too early. Use the home for social housing renting to the dispossessed owner if appropriate and allowing a buy back (or part buy back) at a later point. Banks would be forced to accept a huge loss or help the country by trying to help those they probably should not have lent to originally.
Twopolicies in 5 minutes, yes we would need to borrow to fund one of them but they would help stimulate the economy and offer people a bit of hope.
Complain about this comment
gordon @ 29
if they'd kept spending to the level that they were supposed to, then we wouldn't need to borrow at all right now, and we'd be out of the recession in a couple of months.
I think you're underestimating (by miles) the magnitude of the economic downturn that we are entering. There are quite a few chickens coming home to roost, all at the same time, and only one of those (probably the least significant) is the level of UK government debt.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In these difficult economic times, it is completely and utterly sickening to witness these Labour and Tory politicians slugging it out as per usual.
What does it take to make these politicians understand that that we can no longer afford the luxury of adversarial politics.
Unless these two so-called mainstream parties get their act together PDQ and start genuinely co-operating for the benefit of the country, then they will fully deserve to be put up against the proverbial wall.
Down here on the 'Banksy' level, it is not impossible to imagine that the wall would be necessarily 'proverbial' either.
Complain about this comment
That is a very prophetic article!
Unfortunately - I don't share Ken Clarke's faith:
"I have great faith in people's ability to see through hype."
When he has been caught out - Brown evades, blusters and misleads. We've seen it on 'Gold', we've see in on 'Boom and Bust' - we see the same every week at Prime Ministers Questions.
The media could and should pillory Brown for this - but they leave him alone and prefer to investigate stories with gossip and intrigue, rather than major political substance.
Until the media take their gloves off and tackle Brown - I do not have faith that 'people will see through the hype'
Complain about this comment
These blogs often have post(s) which points out ad nauseam '{the boy called out} the emperor has no clothes'.
People think that that is profound.
But there is another point in that fable ... the procession carried on as if nothing had happened.
Complain about this comment
Excellent point made by Cameron at PMQ's
In 1997 - Brown told us all that the lesson he learnt from the last downturn is that you cannot spend your way out of a recession.
How things have changed, could this U Turn be anything to do with a complete lack of forward planning during the good times?
Complain about this comment
Having just read George Osborne's latest comments, I wonder if the Tories are hell bent on talking down the economy with the sole intention of discrediting the government, regardless of the damage they might do to the country in the process. One minute they are drawing our attention to the drop in the footsie, and blaming it on the government; when it starts to climb again, they search around for another stick to beat Gordon Brown with. Since when has borrowing to bring forward pre-planned work on Crossrail, hospitals, schools, affordable housing and the 2012 Olympics been 'splurging on white elephant public works'. His comments merely show his contempt for those less fortunate than himself. You can take the boy out of the Bullingdon Club but you can't take the Bullingdon Club out of the boy. Pump priming was ever the way to kick-start a failing economy. Why doesn't he just go back into the cupboard where he's been hiding for the last 3 weeks. He really doesn't have anything to say that's of any relevance.
Complain about this comment
Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
//
Gordon Brown was generally responsible even if he did use some smoke and mirrors to ride the economic wave. The upcoming budget looks like it may be pulling a similar magic trick. If Labour pull it off, and I hope they do, could this be the beginning of putting a stake through the heart of Britain's broken economic fundamentals?
//
You WHAT? Why not google
IMF WARNS UK
(no quotes)
and see what comes up
You will find that Brown was warned more than once about the following
1. Public debt
2. Private debt
3. The bubble of the housing boom
4. UK SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES (my caps,
as this confirms Brown is lying when he
says are troubles are down to the USA)
So what Brown was warned about, has happened. And you say he was "generally responsible"? No - he is almost single-handedly responsible for the mess we are in.
There's none so blind as them who don't want to see, eh, Charles?
Complain about this comment
29 Oct 2008, the-real-truth wrote:
//
Grown has recently taken to denying that he ever said he had ended 'boom and bust'.
//
Grown!?
No, he claims he had put an end to "TORY boom and bust".
No comment. Oh, just one. The man is insane of he thinks that fools anyone. Tory boom and bust, FFS?
Complain about this comment
Couldn't we simply put Jonathan Ross's salary into the economy to buiild a few schools and hospitals. Both problems solved!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well its 5:20 now, and I get back from work in 6 hours, so hopefully this will be up by then!
Woohoo, I think Charles finally gets it! He has now accepted that we are in a recession, and not only that, he also says
"Gordon Brown was generally responsible even if he did use some smoke and mirrors to ride the economic wave. The upcoming budget looks like it may be pulling a similar magic trick"
Welcome to the real world Charles. Now do some more digging and you'll discover the actual extent of those "smoke and mirrors". Take a deep breath before you do though, because it's scary stuff.
Complain about this comment
#33 pttp
Gideon Osborne = Oi! No snob greed!
Complain about this comment
It's the borrowing stupid! You cannot spend more than you earn. Is that such a difficult concept for Gordy and Darling to understand? The fact is that the piggy bank has been emptied by Nu Liebour. The Third Way project has been shown up for what any right thinking person has known for years. It's all smoke and mirrors. The government could save billions without touching spending simply by eliminating the appalling waste of our money on failed capital projects. All we ever hear Gordy talking about "is more money into the NHS, more money into education...drone, drone ,drone.." Any fool can spend someone elses money, the trouble is that they spend much of it badly. Waste and Nu Liebour are perfect bedfellows. The Big Clunking Fist? More like The Big Girls Blouse!
Complain about this comment
Brown hasn't balanced a budget since 2001.
He probably won't balance another one until 2011 - oh, he won't be in power then.
Brown's decade of debt beckons.
Complain about this comment
in reply to 46
i understand that what is done localy will help the global problem as it will take all the locals to fix the global. titer ye not at my thinking its hard to convey correctly sometimes as i am no politition with a spin doctor to hype it up.
so what i try to explain is regardles what this country does in the overall scheem of things we are but a part player that has no power due infact to the governments poor handling of the ecconomy and there blatent dack door attempts to drag us into europe and thus no longer able to affect anything.
the british leader that led us into the common market was well paid for his effort and members of this government i fear are being well paid to put us further in to europes debt.
westminster is slowly becoming just a mouthpiece for eu bureaucrats .
the current leadership are traitors and as such should be treated as.
this neu labour group has spat on the ideals of the labour party, ripped off ideas from wherever they can, lead this country into its darkest hour since the second world war and they think they can do what they like and get away with it, well come the reconing they will pay as all traitors should public hanging.
Complain about this comment
Ref my post at 22.
Somebody doesn't like me pointing out that the BBC is biased in favour of Obama and Labour and biased against the Conservatives and McCain.
Now I support the Conservatives and Obama - so the bias is obvious to me.
As much as I dislike McCain - I wish the BBC would treat him equally to Obama. I just don't feel like I'm getting the full impartial picture on the US election.
I also pointed out a story in this weeks Private Eye covering BBC pro Obama bias - it seems as if the BBC are getting themselves ready to party on the same scale as 1997.
Now if my post at 22 is removed - that is going to be interesting - because I even made sure it was on topic by welcoming Nick returing to more meaningful topics such as this "The final cost of Recession".
As for Nick's current blog - I don't detect bias and am glad he is back on the straight and narrow again - for completeness I defo think that Gordon is a man with an overdraft and not a plan.
Complain about this comment
So Brown is going to cut taxes and increase spending when revenue is falling - by increasing borrowing even more, I guess.
This shows that he either:
a) does not care about the fiscal implications about this provided he has a better shot at winning the next election; or
b) already knows he will lose but wants to limit the Tory majority so he can try to stay as Labour leader.
Why would we want such an irresponsible man as our PM? "Iron Chancellor"? More like "Flip-flopping sponge"!
Complain about this comment
I almost threw up watching Brown on PMQs today. His lying, like his spending, is out of control. Greed and power have gone to his head, and all he cares about is getting Labour re-elected--- two fingers to everyone else.
Well guess what--- it ain't gonna happen.
Complain about this comment
hmm look at all these warnings over the years about the precarious state of the country's finances. Yet still Gordon continues to believe his own spin, even as the roof collapses in on him!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/imf-warns-over-uk-property-crash-415925.html
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=419293&in_page_id=2
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5553/is_200409/ai_n22240955
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/brown-steels-himself-for-fresh-clash-with-imf-over-outlook-for-uk-economy-507725.html
Complain about this comment
59. laugh_on
In 1997 - Brown told us all that the lesson he learnt from the last downturn is that you cannot spend your way out of a recession.
How things have changed, could this U Turn be anything to do with a complete lack of forward planning during the good times?
THE GENTLEMAN IS NOT FOR TURNING!
Complain about this comment
Go on Gordan!
Labour smacks out the Tory bench.
Besides as if the GLOBAL recession could have been stopped!
Im sure Brown is confident enough to sort out any economic kinks.
Complain about this comment
machine @ 50
Is the giggling and chuckling part of the deal when sitting in Parliment? I wonder at them having such a good time while dishing out waffle.
Poor show isn't it?
So why all the opposition to moving more power to Europe?
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown seems not to care
About this wretched, sordid affair,
His shameful excess
Has left us a mess,
If only he'd go, like Blair!
Complain about this comment
Brown's regime will be history soon
So we ought to be over the moon,
But when Nu-Labour lose
He might end up drinking booze
Like that ginger-haired Lib Dem buffoon.
Complain about this comment
16 Cook
"Brown's economic reputation is dust"
Well if you say so it must be true.
This recession/depression/downturn call it what you want can and will be managed.
In fact no matter who is in power after the next election, it will still be finite.
Despite the determination of many politicians to milk it for all its worth, unlike the 1930's when countries acted more in isolation, the global problems will take on a more global solution.
The Brown Banking Plan (like it or loath it) has undoubtedly put in the first building block, that is to stabilise the banks.
The LIBOR rate has fallen for 14 consecutive days.
The oil and food spikes driven inflation is now receeding, there will be interest cuts here and probably in most countries to put money back into national/global economy.
Modest increases in public spending, funded by borrowing (all parties accept the necessity for this, I think that includes the Tories today perhaps not tomorrow) will also contribute to the recovery.
The shares of temporarily nationalised banks will rise overtime and can be sold at a profit.
I suspect even Cameron and Osbourne understand this but political gain comes first.
Complain about this comment
constable @ 48
Here is something that the Government could try ... being honest.
Strangely enough, I think that might pay electoral dividends too. You know how it's only very naive people who make a point of trusting nobody? - well, kind of like that if you see what I mean.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's busy today
With his plan to lead us astray,
And make us believe
He has tricks up his sleeve
And that everything will be OK.
But of course the truth is far worse
'Cause Labour will never put us first,
Their only concern
Is how much they earn...
Having Nu-Lab in charge is a curse.
Complain about this comment
52 Bankslicker -R
I am afraid that the two things you can be pretty certain of are -
1 Very little will be done to stop the repo of houses.
2 Very little will be done to stop the foreclosure of small businesses.
Both are based on individuals and they are not organised as a group, therefore do not have much political clout.
Inevitably most people in a recession may suffer a bit but they do not pay the highest price. That is paid by a small number, usually arbitarily. The majority will not be interested unless they are afraid they are next. This was only too evident in the early 90s. The tale is as old as Jason and the Argonauts.
In both cases - housing repo and small business failure - some minor posturing by the government will be made in order to say they have taken action. There is no great intent. They so far have asked the banks to 'repackage' where possible. Minor stuff. And they have asked the courts to check a repackaging option has occurred. both are deliberately arms length strategies so that the government can say it is up to somebody else, not us.
I know somebody who has worked with young offenders and the way a minor financial wrongdoing is treated is remarkable in comparison to offences like rape, drink driving etc. Anything financial is hammered however small. The potential fine for having no road tax is higher than some rapists recieve as a penalty.
Unfortunately the government is only interested in the majority, and only interested in the short term, and only interested in the public sector.
The government also knows that many in trouble will not last for long and the issue will 'disappear' within a fairly short time, politically at least. They have already done the figures. They did the same in the early 90's.
Anybody who thinks that this recession will only hit the feckless, and not hit hardworking, ethical, above average people is seriously misguided. Much ado is made about the need for clever people inthe private sector but in the UK we have one of the most adverse environments anybody could develop, long term, let alone short term, it weakens the country.
Complain about this comment
79 Eaton Rifle
I said his reputation is dust'.... that doesn't imply his reputation over the last 14 days or so. I'm talking 11 years or more.
Brown's one big promise "No more boom and bust"
We have a bust. It is both a global as well as a local problem.
Brown was economically stupid to say that he had ended 'busts'. He can't admit that we now have a bust. He can't admit that some of his actions have contributed to the bust.
Hence....... I'm afraid - that 'Browns Economic reputation is dust".
If he fessed up I would respect him more. That he seems only able to claim credit and shrug off the negative makes my skin crawl. I'd rather have an open and honest leader.
"All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes."
Winston Churchill
Brown is a second or third rate leader if he can't admit to admit to failures. He does not command respect.
Complain about this comment
shellingout @64
Answer: The one that was popular with the Appalachian mountain men, of course.
Complain about this comment
#70 jonathan_cook
At the time of writing, your post #20 has the message "This comment has been referred to the moderators" - so we'll see if it comes back!
Let's hope the moderators do their job properly and uphold the BBC's own rules and reinstate it. Messages are only supposed to be removed if they break the House Rules, which yours did not. According to the rules, Messages will not be removed for any other reason.
I think we should be told who keeps referring the messages. Abusing the complaints system is itself a breach of the rules. Action will be taken against anyone abusing the complaints system or technical infrastructure.
Why do the moderators not take action against whoever it is who keeps referring messages for no good reason?
Complain about this comment
Neither Jonathan Ross nor that dirty Brand character are funny or talented. A true case of the Emperor's New Clothes. For a long time I've wondered how they have achieved fame and riches. I think I finally know - they are of the same ilk as Mandy. Need I say more?
Complain about this comment
Just think that Brown got it spectacularly wrong over the 10p tax band.
From a political, social and economic perspective.
Politically - it seemed ludicrous for a Labour Chancellor to introduce a bit of a bail out for the most needy, then pull the rug away.
Socially - because folk with less income find it harder to accept the vast gap between themselves and the stupid idiots who created a financial nightmare.
Economically - because people on smaller incomes spend more of the income they have, because they simply have to. So taking away their ability to spend simply limits the flow into companies offering "core living" products.
With all that massive intellectual talent available via the Treasury (plus advisors), why couldn't they have simply introduced an "IF" clause in the tax regime?
In other words, if total income is less than GBP N,000 then apply the 10p break.
That would have excluded people who had big (or at least significantly bigger) incomes. So limiting the "generous" allowance to those who really needed it.
And, so far, there is no real solution to the problem.
The GBP2.7BIL Brown and Darling conjured up is only committed to cover this year's impact.
Where's the moral compass in that?
Complain about this comment
In the land of the blighted.....the one eyed monster is king[Canute]!
Complain about this comment
re: 86, phoenix
They achieved 'fame' because the BBC, in a desperate attempt to appear up-to-date and trendy and make it seem as if the licence-fee was worthwhile, confused 'edginess' with unpleasantness. It seems that only now are they realising their mistake. Those two loathsome and talentless bullies ought to be removed from the airwaves for good.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
You must to be slipping!.....most people are interested in Robert Peston's blog at the moment. Politics seems a bit dull in these financially interesting days. Have you got any juicy Mandy stories for us? [please, please!]
I see there's a new BBC programme on the horizon....it's to be called...
EMIGRATE
EMIGRATE
EMIGRATE
The poor people in the private sector cannot afford to fund the final salary pension schemes of those in the public sector.......so the only option open to them is to leave!
Complain about this comment
89 Power-to-the-ppl
First time I have found myself disagreeing with you............. oh well...... had to happen one day.
I think Brand and Ross are both talented and I like them.
OK - so the current thing is pretty bad....... but on the whole I like both.
I think the whole situation is a mountain out of a molehill.
The BBC were stupid to broadcast it. I agree with that.
Not sure I'm with Mindphoenix - Bland and Ross compared to Mandelson?? No way. Mandelson is a separate an unique form of vileness.
Complain about this comment
#85
My message!
Typo - I meant jonathan_cook's message at #22 (not #20). Sorry for my mistake.
It's still not back...
If it didn't break any House Rules, why has it been removed?
Is any action going to be taken against whoever referred it, for abusing the complaints system?
Complain about this comment
Darling is the worst Chancellor since Lawton!
Economic policy should never be left in the hands of politicans. It's like employing a tank commander as your gardner.
Complain about this comment
It all depends on what Alastair Darling spends our money.
Spend it on paying manual labourers to make roads as our civil service did during the potato famine in Ireland (1845-1848) then the money goes directly to the destitute.
Spend it on capital projects then the money like-as-not will go to large overseas multinationals and the UK will see little of it.
PS An odd thing: the Year of Revolutions occurred all across Europe in 1848 (see above)! 23 years after the defeat of Napoleon by Wellington and Blücher at Waterloo and still 23 years before the creation of Germany at the end of the Franco German war of 1870-1871. A truly significant year! Let the numerologists play with that!
PPS nobody remembers the war of 1812!
Complain about this comment
#90 Bank
Damn right! We shouldn't give these free-loading civil servants a pension. Or even a job. Get rid of the lot of them I say.
Complain about this comment
re: 91, jonathan_cook
I was never a fan of them, I have to admit! Phoenix Nights and The League of Gentlemen is much more my sort of thing. Too bad the dreadful Little Britain became popular by shamelessly ripping off TLOG...
Don't watch TV at all any more, watch/read the news on the net... TV really has gone downhill, it's all lowest-common-denominator tripe because the BBC can't stop making cheap crappy 'celebrity' singalong programmes. People like Brand and Ross suck up the licence fee and prevent real programmes being made, but I doubt you'd agree with that!
Complain about this comment
Nick Just the same old boring rheteric from the Tories everybody is wrong except them.
Post after post on every blog full of the Tory experts and of course the clowns it doesn't matter a damn to them really, their like Cameron and George say anything at all as long as they think theve scored a few points doesn't matter what harm they do to the country.
I thought Gordon Brown made Cameron look like a novice once again at PMQs not one sensible question he has seven and yet not one of substance he's a waste of time, I can think of several tories that would make a better fist of it than Cameron, but thats OK lets leave him were he is , some of the older Tories must cringe when either Dave or George get to their feet.
Complain about this comment
sagamix @ 80
When I read your post about honesty and trust, an old Russian phrase popped into my head :-
"doveryai, no proveryai" (trust but verify)
Which sums up my attitude to Government, I will {initially at least} trust but always try to verify.
It is not as straightforward as doing what you say you are going to do because politicians are masters of saying one thing but doing another.
We, the people, usually have to form a view via the sometimes distorted prism of the media.
Does it really matter?
I think it does because people hate the feeling of being cheated in any way, and if the source of the dishonesty is perceived to be the Government, then that is a bitter pill to swallow.
PS. Anyway, in the long run, as Keynes famously said ... we all move on.
Complain about this comment
83#Johnathon Cook
I'm guessing you're a Tory. Perhaps you could sy if you are or not.
You say you would appreciate an "honest open leader"
Now Cameron. Have you not noticed the flip flopping from less regulation to more regulation?
The current increased borrowing need to no increase in borrowing?
The no intervention on market/banking to intervention is needed?
A straight question. Is Cameron the "open honest leader" that you would support?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Don't want to cramp your style or anything like that...
But if the BBC have 'skills exchange' sessions, you might want to look up "Richard Galpin".
Dunno about the guy generally, but his interview with mandleson was pretty good.
He asked reasonable questions, and when mandleson wriggled and writhed like a vampire exposed to the light, Richard politely pointed out that the question had not been answered, and repeated it.
Not difficult, but something that you may need to brush up on?
Complain about this comment
If you go digging through my online comment you'll find I said it a couple of years ago. You'll also see me talking up R&D and talking down the housing boom, but none of you Born-Again Tories were around to support that at the time.
Labour have made some big mistakes but I'd rather have them in power than an unreformed Tory party. I remember the madness and cruelty from the last time they were in power. Their support for bad management and greed hasn't gone away.
Tax simplification is a good idea. The real issue is the low wage economy. Mostly, this has been caused by American trans-national companies which have devastated incomes and agriculture across a big chunk of Asia, and Tory policies at home that *stole* income from the bottom and gave it to the middle and higher income brackets.
What you're lacking, here, is a perspective on tax credits, globalisation, and history. It's complex but underlying all this is a break from historical norms and standards. This has had a huge impact on the shape of industry and services, trade, and culture. It's helped create a level of unreality and destabilisation.
By returning to a more real pay and conditions model, less gaming of the system and unregulated capital flow, a better sense of order and harmony will return to the system. I commented on better business and media models in the past: these can play a helpful part in the governance model.
As a manager and systems developer, I've seen people try to be clever. They think that sound method is an artificial restriction and make decisions that are a bit dumb. Nobody listens because they think they're smart or want to be "individuals" but there's *always* a kickback somewhere.
The media have just dumbed down and chase ratings, and both the BBC and ITV companies are feeling the heat from that, and the print media has similar issues. They're obsessed with "hits" but this has driven quality and relevance out of their content, and satisfaction has fallen accordingly.
I've said all this before, so it's not a bandwagon exercise. The just-in-time opinions around here won't remember because they were too full of the sound of their voices. I saw the same thing back when I was discussing game graphics. All the mouths said I was nuts to talk about ultra-high resolution models, more emotionally and conext aware animation, large scenes, and a more narrative aware designs. Today, it's the norm and arrived a little quicker than I expected.
Going by the record, it's likely I'm generally correct about the economy and the prospects for a recovery. Gordon Brown is correct to be clearer and louder about this to cut through the babble and take his deserved credit. People will say he's wrong and the "cool guys" will high five each other but lets see who laughs last.
Complain about this comment
91:
I think Jonathan Ross is fine as a witty panellist on 'They Think It's All Over' and as a knowledgeable presenter on Film 2008. Where he comes unstuck is when he is given too much licence to do his own thing. His chat shows are more about him than his guests unlike Michael Parkinson. Russel Brand cut his spurs on Little Brother's Big Big Mouth where his lewd humour went down well. His laughing at the expense of others doesn't go down well with the vast majority of people and he disgraced himself recently in The USA. I would be sorry to see the back of Jonathan Ross but will weep no tears for Russel Brand who I don't find in the least bit funny. I am far from being a prude and can swear with the best of them. I just don't find him funny.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A straight question. Is Cameron the "open honest leader" that you would support?
Since you ask probably not until I've had a chance to see him in Office so that I can make a reasoned judgement but I think even less of Gordon Brown and that is putting it mildly. For me the most honest politician around right now is Vince Cable. He makes a lot of sense in my opinion. As there is no chance of The Lib Dems taking power I'm willing to give David Cameron a chance and I suspect that will be the verdict of the majority of voters in 2010. The phrase 'Better the devil you know' is indicative of a course I personally would be unwilling to follow.
Complain about this comment
95. balhamu
Helpful comment
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Keynes did not work in the 1970s it will not work now.
Why?
Because money has to be productive, the best productivity is found in the free and faster decision making of the people and the private sector.
Government is so slow and it is wasteful in comparison.
Compare £100bn of 'value'.
To achieve £100bn of value in the private sector, it would require.... £100bn.
Now government, to achieve £100bn of value, it would take £120bn.
Why?
Because the private sector will always eliminate non-value creating outcomes in a bid to maximise value through profit.
That is the key failure of Keynes and why Monetarism combined with small government works.
PROTECT SCHOOLS AND HOSPITAL FUNDING, SLASH THE REST, BORROW NO MORE, PAY THE DEBT, CUT TAXES.
Any idiot (Brown included) can preside over a credit boom and indeed encourage one (as Brown did).
Getting out of a recession, it requires:
Low interest rates
Lower taxes
Lower Government spending.
Moderate government borrowing (to prevent a run on the currency)
You need all four, not one or two.
Complain about this comment
The moves made by our government will not fix the economy, we remain on the road to ruin, they are trying to fix the wrong problem. There is a school of thought to which I belong that way back 8 years ago pointed to the flaws in the mystery money economic model. We need to manufacture goods here in the UK, we must not borrow money based on the notional rise in value of a commodity or asset. Anything only has a value at the point that you sell it and receive the money AND NOT BEFORE. If you have invested or borrowed unwisely then that is the risk that you take ! You would not have come looking to share your profit if the situation had been reversed ! The effect of the money made available to the economy is the devaluation of our currency. The recession ( and possible depression ) will be with us for some time yet and the effects felt for many years as the cut backs in services that the government provides start to bite.
The answer is in a house price collapse to about 60% of their high figure, and a law to make it impossible to borrow ( from any source ) more that 3.5 % of your salary, manufacturing to be brought back to the UK and our politicians need to go back to read Keynes.
Our leaders are still not dealing with the problems at the heart of the 'credit crunch' and what is worse they are using ideas and terms that they do not understand. One or two are now mentioning Keynes which is good but, Keynes policy works in a national system where the government control the taxes and origins of the goods bought (ie made within the state) Keynes policies were not formed to work in an open market world economy. It is important that our government does not spend money without first understanding the workings of the policy that they are quoting, as it is they stand a good chance of making the situation even worse.
I keep hearing people say that "We could not have predicted the problems that we have"
YES WE COULD AND YES WE DID
No one was listening but there was a strand of opinion that I belong to that pointed out the foolishness of the last 10 years which itself was built upon a foolish notion.
Up until 1999 there was a law that separated the activities of banks and stock markets, the law was enacted to stop the situation that lead to the Wall Street crash from happening again.
In 1999 the law was repealed !!!
Complain about this comment
109 Flan
So just for clarity, the "SLASH LIST" includes;
Police on the streets
The Armed Forces
Social Care Services
All Road Maintaience
Fire Service
Adult Education
Primary Care by GPs
etc
etc
And when "Culled" (presumeably of many staff) all those newly unemployed will be transferred to benefits, lowering the Tax Take but increasing the benefit budget
(unless of course under your great plan the benefit budget is slashed at the same time, or does that escape the slash?
Well all in all a great plan that should be put in the bext manifesto of the Party you support and put to the people.
Call an election
Complain about this comment
90# Bank
said
"The poor people in the private sector cannot afford to fund the final salary pension schemes of those in the public sector.......so the only option open to them is to leave!"
On the other hand no doubt, you hate the "politics of envy"
Complain about this comment
@111.
Typical reaction to cutting public services.
You could preserve the front-line in many services by changing the funding structure.
So, can you explain the 400,000 extra administrators in the civil service hired by this government?
Front-line salaries and pensions? Productive members of the economy?
It would be better for the taxpayer that they got their severance and took the dole to look for other work than pay their salaries.
Or the 60bn pounds annual bill for unelected Quangos?
Or how about the 17% the LEAs skim from the education budgets, why not just give the money straight to the schools and cut out the middle man?
Same for the RHA's, why not just fund the hospitals directly?
As for bringing up the Armed Forces, that's a cheap shot, this government has done more to decimate them and not buy essential kit whilst frittering money on artworks and new offices.
As for State benefits, answer this?
In our miraculous credit fuelled boom, why did this country have 1.5million unemployed and 2m on incapacity benefits when so many jobs were created and we had record employment?
Yes, call an election.
After all, this is taxpayers money, our money being wasted and that is the arrogance of Big Government.
Complain about this comment
Gosh, some proper journalism from the BBC - Nick, take note.
Complain about this comment
110 Norwich
said
"manufacturing to be brought back to the UK"
Such an easy thing to say.
How?
By who?
Manufacturing what?
to which bit of the country?
needing which skills?
Which gap in the market?
At what labour costs compared to India?
Anyone can make the sort of statement above, its the sort of thing if said in the H of C gets loads of "here here" but its meaningless unless all the above are answered with it.
So just answer the "by who" and what's been stopping them anyway?
Complain about this comment
Those two comments tend to ignore realities of policy and performance, and smack more of faith and enthusiasm to me. Someone else could probably come up with harder references, but I suggest you look at corporate governance and fair wages as policy examples, and like for like comparisons between the public and private sector. It might just say something.
The Tories had nothing resembling a business plan but monitored opinion, and Cameron wrote and rewrote his last speech to suit. It lifted nearly every bullet point I'd raised in here over the previous couple of weeks. That's checkable fact. Spin and copycat isn't equivalent to delivery or ability.
On the issue of fairness: the Tories would let you swing and have charities pick up the slack. They've opposed job security law and the charities themselves don't want the task of handling the unemployed because they fear being a humane cover for economic ruin.
Here's a few thoughts: I've judged that about 80%+ of IT support jobs are non-jobs. Most of those just fill in for broken technology or pork-barrel projects. How many jobs in call centres are similar make-work padding? Add in the usual fat cutting in other areas and there's a huge slice of waste in private industry.
Any fool can ride a credit boom? Well, any fool can mouth off on the internet. What about creating policy and keeping people on board so the place doesn't fall apart? That's hard when you've got a red in tooth and claw CBI and a million Tiny Tycoon wannabes salivating over the value of their property.
Here's a few numbers I keep repeating: 90% of project ideas never go live. 90% of projects are never completed. 90% of working projects fail. In short, only 1 in 1000 ideas go from the drawing board to being a hit. Before we even get talking, 99.9% of what anyone says in here is junk. Talk is cheap. Doing anything well is hard.
As I said at the top, this slowdown is a blip, and it's not money or resources that's the problem. The big problem is how people perceive things. If you want to be risk averse and cut folks loose, don't complain if the economy collapses. But, if you say, "Oki-doki" and just get on with it success will come in its own time soon enough.
*shrug* Be happy. Life is good.
Complain about this comment
I'm just a simple sole who doesn't understand the finer issues of economics.
How can a country continue to run a balance of payments deficit for so many years I cannot remember?
How can this government continue to spend more than they raise in taxes without any intention or sign of actually paying the debt off?
Why do governments think that the only solution to a deficit in spending is to either tax or borrow. I'm trying to think of the last time that they addressed the issue of poorly targeted spending.
I have to live within my means, why are they financially incontinent.
Complain about this comment
113.
Boris Johnson cleared out a load of dead wood, non-jobs and leftie hangers on when he took over as London mayor. Imagine what could be saved if this was done at the governmental level.
The government is tired and out of ideas. We have had 11 years of overspending, delivering, high taxes, an endemic and inneficient target culture in public services, and most insidiuous of all fiddling the figures to make themselves look good (exam pass rates thanks to dumbing down, massaged police crime rates, PFI, RPI to CPI, etc).
The only way to sort things out is a change of government.
Complain about this comment
Reply to 115
The Government is about to spend money on capitol projects, what I am suggesting is that there is a flaw in the plan.
Using a Keynes model of the economy, if you spent money on a project within the state ( remember that this was before the vast levels of international trade )
1) Jobs were created
2) Unemployment went down
3) Employed people pay tax
4) Employed people use services and buy goods
5) People have pride in being able to provide for themselves
6) The governments pump priming spending can be recouped from the tax stream and reduced as the ecomony comes back into stability.
The Flaw with the plan now would be.
1) Jobs created
2) Unemployment goes down
3) Employed people pay tax
4) Employed people buy goods that are made from across the world which means that the loop is broken and thus the jobs that were created in the previous model do not exist so the taxes are not paid and the pump priming money cannot be recouped.
The reason that we are not able to provide for ourselves is the way in which markets work, cost reduction being the main motivation. We should trade with the world but not to the point where our social structure becomes unsustainable.
We need to become rather more independent but at no time isolated.
Complain about this comment
96 Power-to-People
I agree with everything you say there. Phew!
I love the League of Gentlemen - (although the live stage show was a little disappointing a couple of years back). Also Peter Kay - v.good.
Gordon Brown, however, is a far more expensive comedian and as much as I like black humour........ I'm no longer laughing....
Complain about this comment
#114 spriteUK
I read this with interest.
The paragraph which interested me was the one in which Mr Mandleson said he had to make sure he wasn't distracted by media squalls.
Ok if he instigated them, but not if he's caught up in them eh?!!
Complain about this comment
97 Grandantidote
Seven questions and no answers.
Do you think Gordon should answer a straight question with a straight answer?
Complain about this comment
Of course that's the reaction because cutting public services doesn't just affect the balance sheet it does what it says on your tin "it cuts public services".
That's why when great "policy ideas" like yours when floated get some scrutiny.
If you can't take the scrutiny ( a bit like your party) you're not up to the job.
so, 400,000 extra "administrators" a nice round number, what's the source and does it confirm that these jobs are "administration". Is it just the 400,000 who to use your words...
"got their severance and took the dole to look for other work"
(by the way Norman, will they need a bike)
Is 400,000 a minimum number for the dole under the great plan or will there be lots more?
Up to the scrutiny or not?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Chuck E by gum @101,
You are so full of yourself!
If you are so right about everything, then how come you have not used your omniscient powers to make yourself immensely rich and powerful so that you can become a respected 'sage' like Warren Buffet - addressing and influencing millions - rather than wasting your precious time spouting prolix and pompous tosh on this small-time, political-junkie blog?
I guess it's a 'zen' thing.
But, as I said at the start: you're full of yourself.
Complain about this comment
99 Eatonrifle
No need to guess. Yes I am a Conservative supporter. I haven't voted since 1997 but the 42 days issue was the final straw that made me so angry I checked things out and decided that:
1. Labour must be removed
2. Conservatives deserve my support (so I joined up as a member)
The points you raise don't worry me. Gordon Brown is shifting policy on the fly to counter and wrong foot the Conservatives. Each shift costs us billions of pounds - just to save Gordon's job and ego.
Gordon is in such disarray at the moment. It is difficult for anybody to remain consistent when the Government of this country are flapping in the wind.
Remember a couple of weeks back?
After Gordon's personal intervention, Lloyds were due to take over HBOS and one of the benefits of the deal was spun as 'zero pennies of tax payers money will be required'. Wait a couple of weeks - and yes..... ooops - was it £17 Billion pounds needed???!
Gordon has his finger prints all over the current chaos we are in. He needs to be removed - otherwise I will be working until I'm 98 paying off Labour profligacy.
Complain about this comment
115 eatonrifle
Some manufacturing is coming / will come back. Not a lot compared to previously though. It is driven by transportation costs, flexibility and in some market areas by the customer in a backlash against the quality of goods, concerns about environmental damage and ethics. Customer concerns.
Having destroyed a manufacturing infrastructure, with much equipment having been sold for scrap or exported, there are real problems in any regeneration.
Satellite manufacturing units for foreign multinationals have inherent problems, they can be switched on and off. Some never even open, eg LG.
China has caused problems in India, undercut them. China is the problem.
However there are signs China is making mistakes in driving for volume. They are quite 18th century in their belief in monolithic facilites which are akin to the early mills. If your mindset is to designate an entire large town as a manufacturer of motorcycles then you can produce a lot of motorcycles cheaply but whether anybody will want to buy them longterm cheap or not is a different matter. It is repeat business which is needed for growth. A downturn in western demand and exchange rate problems will not help. Most products are lifestyle statements and China does not understand lifestyle. It remains essentially undemocratic with permitted capitalism.
There are conclusions you can draw from this situation.
Complain about this comment
100 The-real-truth
Yes - I heard about this interview. Good lad. He seems to have applied common sense and didn't just pander to the Labour elite.
Unleash Galpin on Brown and Cameron next I say. Give him two central questions to explore:
1. The 11 year Labour track record. What has been achieved and is this value for money.
2. What are the Conservative's plans for government.
If Galpin does a good job and still isn't side tracked by waffle - then fire about 10 BBC journalists and give the man a pay rise.
Complain about this comment
Nick commented a few topics back that the City had sucked talent and it's been very anti-manufacturing for years as it requires a large capital outlay and long-term returns. Plus, one suspects the collapse of manufacturing was convenient for the Tories or, at least, they turned a tin ear.
People don't have the hobbies they used to. Most folks go for some push button or off the rack enjoyment, and rarely do anything physical like baking, painting, or building stuff. Then there's the problems with getting ideas to market. Britain is insanely bad at that. [*]
I've just bought a new camera and am looking at photography and movie making, and checked out steadycams. They're insanely expensive. Why can't I find a British website that sells a low-end kit, and why isn't there a low-cost consumer version of the top end gear?
Products and services are about fullfilling perceived need and, sometimes, just scratching an itch. Someone might have a cool idea or it just sounds like fun, so you give it a bash. Not everyone succeeds but what's success anyway? Filling our places with junk, or having a good time?
* My first invention was published in the Sunday Times Innovation Section while I was still in full-time education, and poor product development and financing killed it dead. I never got credited or ever saw a penny from that, and the manufacturer has since closed down. Sux 2b me.
Complain about this comment
Re 111
And when "Culled" (presumeably of many staff) all those newly unemployed will be transferred to benefits, lowering the Tax Take but increasing the benefit budget
But aren't there supposed to be 600,000 job vacancies at the moment. So, presumably, these people would be able to find fresh employment rarther than being transferred to benefits.
Complain about this comment
re: 118, DukeJake
Boris Johnson cleared out a load of dead wood, non-jobs and leftie hangers on when he took over as London mayor.
Boris had the sense to get rid of Livingstone's disgusting propaganda 'newspaper'--- paid for by the taxpayer--- a trick so typical of our hypocritical champagne socialist guvverment.
Imagine what could be saved if this was done at the governmental level.
Around 100billion/year if we were to have a bonfire of the quangos, LIKE NU-LAB PROMISED US.
Complain about this comment
re: 120, jonathan_cook
Gordon Brown, however, is a far more expensive comedian and as much as I like black humour........ I'm no longer laughing....
Brown bombed on his opening night, the whole crowd is throwing tomatoes and he still won't do the decent thing and leave the stage. Instead he locks all the fire-exits and keeps stumbling through the same tired one-liners while the crowd grow more irate.
One more chance, just one more chance...
No Brown. You've blown it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
125. MaxSceptic
Max
Its not himself hes full of...
But your close.
Complain about this comment
114 Sprite
Thanks for the link, how can any supporter of Mandy truly watch it, and not think of him as both evasive, and condesending.
One of the great non acted apon Labour crimes is no minister seemed to be accountable for anything.
Mandleson was basically saying even if I did discuss aluminium prices, that was my old job and nothing to do with this one.
So the message is leave it alone and it will go away.
It seems that the countdown continues for this truly sinister phoney.
Batting for Britain. Pa!
Complain about this comment
#116...
I'm sure Mr. Cameron will be personally e-mailing you for your suggestions and giving you full credit in due course.
You can cite that 99.9% of IT support jobs are superfluous, it could be 10%, 55.7% or 83.19734%
However, there is a motivation in the private sector to maximise value and maximise profit. It is through the efficient use of capital and all resources.
Keynes and any Monetarist would agree on that.
You can be rest assured if any waste exists in the private sector, they are aware of it or want to be aware of it and want to eliminate it
Innovations like Lean Engineering propel software companies, automotive giants and industry. Just one of many philosophies of getting ever more from ever less.
The old fashioned phrase is 'value for money'.
Such is this profit motive, it drives ever more innovation, the pursuit of new ideas, thinking to convert capital into wealth.
Can you name a single market innovation concocted by government?
Can government create wealth?
Does it seek to do ever more from ever less?
No.
Does it provide goods that cannot be provided in the private sector?
A few. At its barest bones, defence, security, law and order and governance... the rest depends on the mood of the electorate?
So is the motivation of government is to do what? It's not make a profit that's for certain.
Is it intimately involved in the efficient allocation of resources?
Seeing words like 'pump-prime' and 'public works'.
Look at Japan, it hasn't worked. Lots of capital works which are no more than giant models because no-one is using them.
Also, where are all the 'pump-primed' industries created in the UK during the 1960s?
It didn't work, you cannot buck the capitalist market, it didn't work in the 1960s or 1970s in the UK.
Ever more from ever less..... without profit, there is no motivation.
Such is human nature - is the solution to re-program them or to trust them and their actions that makes up their contribution to macro-economic pie?
Instead in the 1970s there were many controls on personal expenditure, we had a currency in the toilet, industries unproductive, massive government borrowing and an over-massive State trying to hold it together with all the levers of its control.
It didn't work then and it won't work now.
The economy now is far more dynamic, faster moving, capital flows in micro-seconds not days. Millions of people make billions of economic decisions every day using the resources at their disposal.
Information to base your purchasing decision that goes far beyond 1970's newspapers, three TV channels and a handful of MW/LW radio stations.
The massive difference between Keynes and Monetarism is this.
Monetarism trusts people, it offers micro and macro-economic explanations based on intrinsic human nature. It is no mistake that Hayek totemic treatise is called 'The Constitution of Liberty'.
Keynes does not have such a narrative on micro-economics and believes in big actions to stabilise events. The key failure is that by the time the stabiliser is used, the event has long since happened.
Has government decision making moved from years and months to micro-seconds?
No.
Has it exhibited one grain of trust in the people to spend its money?
No.
Does it believe in the pre-requisite personal freedoms, freedom to innovate, does it lightly regulate to encourage new markets, new ideas?
No.
A mindset steeped in the 1970s, an economic philosophy steeped in the history of post-war decline.
It will not work.
However, low tax and small government has yet to fail, it rebounds faster from adversity, it creates more wealth.
That's where we should be going.
Complain about this comment
the-real-truth @100,
I agree: it was a good interview.
(Nick - take note!)
Even after being asked directly four times, Mandy weaseled out of giving a direct answer. But it did show him up for what his is: a Common Unprintable Non-answering Toad.
Complain about this comment
@123...
You only scrutinise the 400,000?
What about all the skimming off of budgets?
Is that fair?
What wealth does that generate?
When a firm invested £100 in new machinery it will say generate £20 in extra sales every year.
So it's ROI is 20% and pays for itself in 5 years.
Now, an LEA takes 18% of a £1bn budget.
Where does that £180m go?
Is it invested (probably in an Icelandic bank)? to obtain 6% ROI?
No.
Is it spent on improving educating a child in a classroom?
Possibly but after paying for the LEA staff, offices, pensions, etc, etc....
Has it produced high class graduates attracting the best firms in the world to set up offices here?
Maybe but probably not, they are all leaving our shores.
Is it possible to quantify anywhere that any benefit has been delivered anywhere to anyone?
No.
Is it being used to issue new guidelines, new targets to measure, new initiatives for teachers to follow, is it investigating teaching practices making teachers leave the profession? Is it overriding head teacher's expulsions? Investigating matter of dress code, etc, etc, etc, etc?
Yes.
How is that generating any value to anyone except to the LEA to ask for £180m again next year?
That £180m could have not been taken from the public in the first place...
They could have used it to reduce their heating bills by lagging their loft, used it to buy their child some learning materials.
They could have simply just spent it on having fun and still keeping people in work doing that!
Complain about this comment
#124 and #133
These two comments of mine have both been moderated and banned. I wrote about Ross and Brand, nasty things, but not as horrible as the things they said on the BBC programme, paid for by us the licence owners. I really must go carefully, because once again I am public enemy number one. I suggested that perhaps soon Ross will be awarded a peerage, was this perhaps too near the bone?
Complain about this comment
There is Incapacity Benefit for those who have worked but can no longer due to disability or sickness.
There is income support with Disability Living Allowance and Mobility Allowance for those who have never worked such as my son who had a terrible head injury, brain surgery, coma for a year, and comes under the category of "Critical". He cannot walk, cannot talk properly, cannot use his hands properly, needs to be taken to the toilet and helped to eat. He cannot even pick up the phone to dial 999. Undisputedly he cannot work. We and he wish it were different as he was in his last year at school about to take GCSEs with great predictions.
We have come across many "skivvers" who have motability cars, house adaptations, benefits, blue badges, you name it. I have said this before and got moderated but in THIS area where we live it is common knowledge that in their places of worship (not churches) they get doctors and other professionals to sign off paperwork to say they are sick or disabled and the council workers who are of the same persuasion or religion (whatever) just dole out the dosh.
This government has been blind to this for years and it has been a big attraction to people coming from overseas for obvious reasons. The problem has escalated. It costs us the taxpayer millions.
I reiterate, it is going to be a mammoth task to sort it out n ow that they are taking a proprietorial interest but the whole situation is so unfair on those who are genuinely in need of such help.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Like #17 and #31, I am uneasy about the whole mess. What is making me uneasy? - I don't really know. I am 43 years old now, and have just been made redundant for the second time in my life. I don't despair - I am reasonably intelligent and have started up my own business, doing OK at the minute. On reflection, I think it is the utter ineptitude of Brown and Darling in particular that gets my goat. Are they clever? - undoubtedly. Have they any experience of the real world that grounds them in a way that most of us take for granted? - no. Lets take GB as an example - a man who's been a professional politician his whole life, who's ambition has been his main driving force, can't drive a car so gets driven round in a limo, and has a bunch of civil servants surrounding him 24/7 who only open their mouths to tell him that he is always right. No more boom and bust! spot on, Gord, just bust and no boom. I suspect the economy would have thrived the last 10 years if he didn't turn up for work anyway, and the absence of regulation in the financial sector was criminal.
This is one of the elements that make me uneasy. There are many more, but the PSA target culture that creates the 1000's off back office jobs in an attempt to micro manage the unmanagable is by far the biggest fallacy of this government, and it crippling our public services - NHS, Councils and the police.
Fiddling while Rome burns while Darling gets those deck chairs re-arranged. I really do despair.
Complain about this comment
#111 Eatonrifle
Public sector workers are already being maintined at our (private sector taxpayer) expense - while they are tied up doing non-jobs for the state they are not available to take up real jobs.
Moving them from state employee to unemployed is cheaper (no pension/benefits etc), and provides the opportunity for them to find something worthwhile (wealth generating, rather then wealth consuming) with their time.
Just because someones job title sound like a 'good thing' doesn't mean they are actually doing anything useful... This is the same thinking that makes labour judge 'success' by the amount of money spent on something, rather than what is acheived with the money.
Brown is such a chav - "we are wonderful, everyone has fantastic trainers now, they cost £x,000 a pair" - ignoring the fact that they could have been had for a tenth of the price from another shop down the road...
Complain about this comment
In case anyone missed it, it is the video on page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7697211.stm
Mandy thinks if he can waffle for long enough then he will get away without anwering -- so spends two minutes (at the start) making a speech unrelated to the question.
At 1:40 in he is challenged again and it gets more interesting.
A shame the headline on the page wasn't more representative maybe "Mandleson credibility questioned, and has no answers".
Complain about this comment
125. That character may not be all it is perceived to be.
It has a strange interest from foreign shores and is into computer games in a big way. (nuff said).
Complain about this comment
Why would anyone condone "borrowing to pay for tax cuts"?!?
I'll give you £5, if you give me £10 tomorrow... ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
119#Norwch
With all due resect Norwich you didn't answer aa single question about HOW to get manufacturing back into the UK.
As I said "Easy to Say"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
140. flamepatricia
I doubt if my wholehearted support on his issue will help you, because whenever I point out obvious corruption of the sytem I am moderated.
That wretched terrorist with the hook instead of a hand, which he lost through terrorist actions, receives full benefits, as do his wife and offspring. I believe he is still in the country resisting attempts to deport him to the USA, where he would receive true justice. He is just one of the many skivers, not all terrorists, but potential traitors who we have to support at the expense of the genuine needy.
Complain about this comment
139
I did yesterday same subject I used the word Moore on. tsk
Complain about this comment
#144 therealtruth
Thanks I had not seen this before. The headline does not exactly scream at you to have a look does it? Funny, I thought that the basic news reporting was always make sure the story has a great headline grabber! Strange that the BBc has forgotten the basics...
Complain about this comment
Anyone with a brain will agree
That Glenrothes must vote SNP,
Brown's out of control
And he's scored an own goal
With his ill-thought-out splurging spree!
Complain about this comment
150. HarryPagetFlashman wrote:
139
I did yesterday same subject I used the word Moore on. tsk
Hello There, HarryPagetFlashman,
I must be very doddery today, I'm confused. I just typed the 'm' word correctly and my comment was rejected. It seems Moore on is banned, but the 'f' word on radio is allowed!
Complain about this comment
things can only get better was the neu labour theme song and when in the history of politics has a leader been so popular, not very often and thats becouse polititians should concentrait on there jobs not there image mr blair was all image and snappy catch phrases but he got out knowing he had no answer for the downturn that was comming.
mr brown and his team have in reality done nothing to stem this countries problems during this crisis they have done nothing to ensure the safety of elderly or disabled people on fixed low incomes over mounting fuel bills and food price hikes.
there will be serious hardships to those who are too old or infirm to get any help if it were available.
the cost of this period of time sadly will not be revealed untill its over but will neu labour worry about it, no not as long as they look good on tv and have the right amount of spin to cover themselves.
any deaths due to neglect this season is on the governments head and in a fair society they would be held accountable for them.
Complain about this comment
#144 therealtruth
This is typical of a politician who's done something wrong and been found out. He can't give a straight answer to a straight question - even when pressed he still gave the stock answer - but not the right answer.......and they wonder why the public don't trust them..!!
Complain about this comment
#150 HarryPagetFlashman
I do think the software should be updated. I wrote that dreaded 'M' word and 'Problem' came up and my comment was rejected, not even moderated. This word is not obscene, and I cannot understand why it isn't allowed. Is it because there are so many characters it fits? Maybe I'm one trying to bring sanity to a crazy world!
Complain about this comment
156 MPR
I have heard a few defendants of these two characters, one hysterical girl was bemoaning who will replace them?
Erm...Anyone?
Same notation British Government.
Complain about this comment
re: phoenix
There's no logic to what the BBC deems 'offensive' because it takes the whims of NoooLieBore as its law...
Complain about this comment
157. HarryPagetFlashman
Hello again,
I'm going out for a while, but I see we will all have to communicate in code. What was that signal for the BBC Overseas Radio in the War, Dot-Dot-Dot-Dash = V for Victory, in morse code? It was also the sound of Beethoven's opening bars to his Fifth Symphony. A very different BBC in those days.
Complain about this comment
#97 grandantidote Good afternoon
You wrote....I thought Gordon Brown made Cameron look like a novice once again at PMQs not one sensible question he has seven and yet not one of substance he's a waste of time......
If the questions put to Gordon Brown on PMQ's were of such poor quality, surely Brown would actually answer them and attempt to show them up for what you think they are, not sensible.
Brown is quickly acquiring a reputation, amongst other existing character flaws/traits, for not responding to anything asked. Not only the most recent PMQ's but every one for a number of months.
Be careful what you say mate, not every poster here who criticizes Gordon Brown, in many cases quite honestly, is a Tory expert.
Right now, I would imgine considerably more people cringe when Darling or Brown or Harman or Miliband or Blears or Mandelson rise to their feet.
Just my opinion
Complain about this comment
#142 scarrface
Good luck with your business. The country needs people with your spirit and a government that offers the right environment.
As another poster said:
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
#110 norwich_north
then #115 Eatonrifle
and #116 C_E_H
Some interesting stuff.
It still surprises me that, until recently, car production in the UK has been at its highest ever level. Obviously not through UK owned companies - but still here and productive. And using lean, quality-orientated processes developed by the Japanese.
Manufacturing from "innovation start-points" seems to be the only way in which the UK or other relatively high-cost European countries can be involved in future manufacturing. There's always the risk that, at a certain point, the sheer inpact of production costs force companies to seek lower costs elsewhere. (Witness Dyson. Can't blame him for trying to find a lower cost base - but he did a lot to generate local innovation and production.)
Forgetting arguments about Global Warming, it's evident that some better way of delivering power for "static" and "mobile" use (i.e. infrastructural home/ workplace/ factory vs transport usage) is required as global natural resources gradually diminish.
There are UK companies already involved in development and production of really high potential work in this area. (Tidal wave energy and "clever greenhouses" as examples.) Some of that would be of benefit both within the UK and in developed and developing countries.
Shovel money (with proper controls) into that type of enterprise. Take government stakes if necessary.
There are plenty of UK innovators. But, if necessary or sensible, seek out people with real "ready to go" projects from elsewhere. Such as Dean Kamen and his Stirling engine offerings. (We spend a significant amount on overseas aid. No prob with that. But if you were a recipient of aid, would you prefer a bag of rice, a bit of cash, or a power supply you could rely on?)
As C_E_H says, most projects don't get off the ground. Many which are adopted are far too expensive, because the "risk costs" are overstated, rather than being sensibly negotiated into initial agreements.
Far as I can see, most government IT projects are adopted by people who really haven't thought through the fundamental requirements definition (even though there can be years allowed between initial requests, through evaluation, then negotiation and eventual contracting...), haven't really worked with end-users and don't understand the impact of delivery.
(NHS solutions?)
The world's first commercial nuclear power plant was here in the UK. Like it, or loath it, nuclear output offers independent power generation. (Some call it energy security...) Fact is that, when we run a bit short of electricity supply, we pick up output from France. Who have a heavy reliance on nuclear sources. So there's obviously no moral issue once the lights start to dim...
IF someone could build cost-effective wind-powered generation, it could still fill a bit of our needs with an inbuilt unreliability.
This government talks about implanting thousands of highly-subsidised wind plants. Where is the UK R and D to deliver higher efficiency, less costly solutions? Nowhere, really.
Show me a new, award-winning- architecture-designed school, staffed by teachers who teach-to-test and are not too well paid, and I'll show you a continued decline in intellectual output.
Put money into a decent cheap-as-chips weather proof structure, containing the IT enablement, properly equipped science labs (with not too much interference from Health & Safety idiots) and great, inspirational teachers and we will all benefit. So reward the teachers. Especially at the primary school level and early secondary and you'll get people who will learn "stuff" and still be able to think...
Of course there's plenty of waste in private companies. But private companies can only survive if they flog some product or service. If they get too expensive, they cut costs. (That frequently shakes out staff who really aren't as valuable as HR departments believe.)
If state organisations don't have enough money, it's very rare for them to cut their cloth to fit their financial means. There's no way you can opt out of taxes...
I'm entirely in favour of well run, financially sensible public service provision in areas where social needs have to be supported. Just don't like having to pay for people in pretty stupid, high-paid "roles" that don't contribute much at all.
Complain about this comment
#113 PhaetonFlanFlinger
Well said! If only those in Westminster had an equally sensible vision!
Complain about this comment
#144 the-real-truth
Headlines are not often representative. I posted on this and was moderated. As in..
‘Cameron’s economic problem’
‘The rebirth of Gordon Brown’
‘At least Gordon’s smiling’
All headings from Nick’s recent blogs.
Spot the difference.
Some would say there’s a subliminal message here. The use of Christian name or surname, the positive image (rebirth, smiling) – or negative one (problem).
It’s not the BBC’s job (or Nick’s) to relay the party message from Labour or any other party.
The blogs are interesting, informative, humorous, frustrating and annoying. It’s up to the contributors to bring personal opinions to the table, not Nick.
Complain about this comment
161. At 12:20pm on 30 Oct 2008, jonties wrote:
#142 scarrface
Good luck with your business. The country needs people with your spirit and a government that offers the right environment.
Just going out when I saw this posting.
I too endorse what jontie wrote.
Scarface, you are a self-reliant person, just the type which makes Harman, et al cringe. This type of a government cannot thrive, let alone function if the majority of citizens are ready to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. The philosophy now, as Brown proclaims, is to get into debt to beat recession. The more people in debt, the more ruined lives and stuck on the benefits system. That equals more voters in the next elections, desperate souls afraid of losing the little they have got, and broken spirits.
Complain about this comment
All Labour supporters and people thinking of voting Labour.
I challenge you to spend 6.53 minutes of your time and watch this video on our financial situation.
Defending the indefensible
Complain about this comment
Nick,if you were doing your job correctly,you would skewer Brown like this guy.
At least you could find out what has happened to Browns 1997 speech
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqrBb-nRbs
Complain about this comment
#162 fairlyopenmind
Totally agree with you.
Teachers are the most important component in education. Many adults remember at least one teacher (and their name) who inspired/believed in them.
We do have many able people whose expertise makes Britain great. Immediate recall of where we led the world in engineering:
Frank Whittle - jet engine
Christopher Cockerell - hovercraft
and there are so many other fields.
Complain about this comment
Boom and Bust
Brown is culpable:
Don't vote for the cause of our troubles
Complain about this comment
#166 jonathan_cook
I've got no intention of voting Labour but I watched it anyway. The bit about his 1997 budget speech being wiped off the Government's website is a bit unsettling. Let's hope someone in the media has a copy.
Complain about this comment
About UK car production owned by foreign companies.
Are the cars sold here, abroad or both?
If they are sold abroad then Nissan or whomever is increasing the money supply in the Country allowing people to buy goods and services and keep the economy going.
If they are sold in the UK then Nissan or whomever is actually reducing the amount of money in the UK for people to spend on other goods and services.
Always be aware that 'bringing jobs' can actually be a bad thing if the net result is more being taken out then putting in - this especially applies to retailers. Surprisingly having a large retailer/ supermarket is bad for the local economy.
Complain about this comment
Scrap the spend of GBP billions on ID cards, whopping databases on innocent peoples communication details etc. The government claims Brown and Smith (the world intellectual giants of intelligence matters) that this will reduce terrorism has been described as complete bunkum by an expert at GCHQ.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gchq-expert-dismisses-id-cards-bunkum-978149.html
They then fall back by saying that terrorists often use multiple false identities. In the 9/11 attack against the World Trade Centre nine of th eleven terrorists used their real identities, so that mythis scotched. Secondly intelligence officers (MI5, MI6 etc) in the field often use false identities, so if this logically is to continue a loophole will have to exist to enable this practice to continue. Terrorists could also exploit this loophole, with the simple expedient of loads of cash - only the very naive would deny this.
Oh, and why is the USA not embarking on this great waste of money? Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
Ref: The Economy and our finances..........
The ruinous contribution of Gordon Brown
Complain about this comment
Listening to a broadcast of BBC 4 Radio, The World At One, and some pompous BBC official is declaiming against mob rule, and how Brand and Ross maybe were not so terrible. It appears to me that everything is dependent on political correctness. The 'm' word banned earlier in this forum, is deemed wrong, so are many other words, a veritable ABC of naughty words. Perhaps gross disclosures of such a nature as were heard are not politically incorrect. In today's moral climate, where everything if approved by government goes, maybe it was socially acceptable to say what they did, not nearly as bad as the 'm' word.
Complain about this comment
I can't remember the exact numbers but here's an example: Blair's project to get beggars off the streets was effective but funnelled a big chunk of money into the hands of charities and other vested interests. I won't knock it because it needed to be done to clear the dreg off the pavement and get folks real help. And, yeah. That's another "waste" of money if you listen to the Tories who created the heroin addicted beggars in the first place.
One housing project designed to house about a dozen people soaked up about X million GBP and the money was gone in 3 years. I worked out the same money could've bought EACH rehoused homeless person a house in a premium area of town, refurbished and fully furnished with quality gear, and have a chunk of hooray money left over.
That money got spent on the salaries of housing officers who sat around looking important and patronising. You know, they're "professionals" and "care". Well, it's attitudes like that which are a KEY cause of poverty and a MAJOR reason why the Tory plans for dealing with the unemployed and disabled WILL NOT WORK.
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to focus on business enterprise and jobs creation and retention because it helps avoid the waste of money and human capital that leads to costly and miserable problems like this arising in the first place.
Some economist can run the numbers but the last time I did it the costs of soaking up all unemployed and disabled people and giving them real, meaningful, and satisfactorily paid jobs was pretty marginal. If need be, I'm in favour of stiffer law to retain staff and quotas to hire staff to help alleviate the problem.
Direction and enthusiasm help, as do well crafted challenges and surprises. You get the same deal in martial arts. Learning the form and being aware isn't enough. But, preset patterns and routine are needed to drill things in and give them time to be absorbed. This is something some students and teachers don't get.
I note, some people are criticising Darling for slackening the economic rules. He's quite correct to slacken them as circumstances dictate. To cling to a rigid formula when the broader situation has changed is a nonsense. I liken this to a martial artist shifting stance, but the foundations and focus remain the same.
Innovation is a big subject but, simply, shifting focus to this will help take people's minds off difficulties, give them purpose, and help develop creative and cognitive skills, job satisfaction, and so on, and so forth. By rewarding employees with secure employement and listening to them, companies can encourage staff to be more forthcoming. Everyone's a winner.
Okay, back to you Eyebrows-sensei.
Complain about this comment
#166
JC.. very good video to which I'd like to add an interesting snippet.
No-one in Europe really believes the 'Brown Plan' to save the banks is enough; it's just a backstop.
Never mind the loans that are not performing (in default) - there are substantial percentages of their portfolios performing but unprofitable because they were issued at Libor +35bps.
This is precisely why not a single foreign bidder has come in for Barclays or RBS or HBOS; vast tracts of their loan portfolios are unprofitable and could remain so for years.
The whole newlabour miracle was built on a mountian of cheap debt that subsidised a lifestyle we can no longer afford.
No argument baout how many hospitals they built or teachers they employed is relevant anymore; we were living a life we couldn't afford and now no-one is prepared to pay for it.
Borrow as much as you like, dear Gordon but the banking system remains weak as a kitten thanks to the shocking failure of the Tripartite structure to correctly regulate the biggest housing and spending boom in history.
All paper wealth financing lifestyles no-one had worked for.
All to be paid for now in a very deep recession.
Call an election. Now.
Complain about this comment
. .-.. . -.-. - .. --- -. ...
Complain about this comment
#33 pttp
Another one for you:
A mad conman lad. I aid low drivel (David William Donald Cameron)
Complain about this comment
I prefer the renegade nobody calls global renaiisance version. And, yeah. I beat The Times to that. If you line up the this calls that, and that calls this statements they make tree rings in history. Pretty.
What some jerk said last year or might say next year is neither here nor there. Anyway, who cares about a piece of shiny tinfoil and a bunch of chimpanzees backslapping each other at an award ceremony.
Dude, what happens NOW is what matters.
Hey, wooh. This is good stuff. The Zen. Not anything, uh, illegal. Jus', you know - HAPPY, not some meanie uptight Tory talk yourself into recession and depression thing.
Complain about this comment
Nick, The rules were made to establish Browns Labour and hence Labours credibility in an era when they were in question.
Labour had a serious credibility problem having driven the economy onto the rocks and caused the recession of the early eighties, the grizzely early Thatcher years.
Brown convincingly established his credibility for sound public finances in Labours first term, simply by following the conservative budgets he inherited and harvesting the benefit. This took courage and strength of purpose.
All seemed well and the rules became a mantra of Browns power but they also restricted the benefits that Labour would be able to give to the voters.
Browns genius was in finding ways round the rules via government use of commercial credit such as PFI, pretending spending is investing, and more dangerously through encouraging a credit boom.
Now that Brown has bought all the credibility he needs, all be it, with debt the taxpayer will have to pay he is safe to ignore the rules.
In fact the only thing that could realy damage brown is if he tried to stick to the rules. Telling the voters he has spent their future and that they will have to work for a decade to pay it back. That is why Darling says "strict application of the rules would get the wrong answer"
Complain about this comment
re #158 pttp
Noooliebore etc.
Hmm - those of us not on the far-right in the rabid anti-Labour camp need to find some ways to describe the main political pragmatists as witty as your ones.
CON-servatives.
CLOWN-servatives
Con-serve-the-rich-atives
David Scam-eron
John Deadwood
Georgie Porgie (Osborne) [as in Georgie Porgie pudding and pie kissed the girls and made them cry. When the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away. Quite apt]
Saga, Eaton, care to suggest any more? They only need to be at the same level as what pttp suggest
Complain about this comment
Defending the indefensible. That's what Labour are trying to do all right.
Brown and his piggies still scoff
At the gold-plated taxpayer trough,
And still they pretend
The solution is 'spend!'
We've had enough of you Labour, [bleep] off!
Complain about this comment
Interesting video. Brown's definitely guilty. You make me sick, Labour.
Complain about this comment
Alastair Darling humble, Nick?
I hear from ITV news that he's leaning on the banks to reduce the interest rate. He's 'found' £4bn to 'invest' in small businesses while forty small businesses go bust every day.
Why doesn't he leave it to the experts?
Complain about this comment
#166 jonathancook, #170 shellingout
Haven't watched the vid (at work and can't).
RE Government wiping the 1997 Budget from history.
The first Labour budget was in 1998 (it is in March, and as Labour got elected in May 1997, the March 1997 budget was a Conservative one).
All Budgets and Pre-Budget Reports are still available on-line. The Parliamentary speeches would also be available through Hansard
Pre Budget Report 1997
Budget 1998
Sadly for you there's no conspiracy hiding speeches - Labour are far more open with information than the party who suggested Freedom of Information legislation was "only wanted by left-wing busy-bodies" and voted against it.
Better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
jonathon_cook
Interesting video.
The best organisations I've worked with had the philosophy that making a mistake isn't a career-threatening problem, but can be a learning experience.
As long as you spot the mistake as early as possible (or properly regognise it when someone else points them out) - and learn from it.
The UK housing boom was fuelled by cheap credit. Permitted by the government. And with finance houses permitted to provide "mortagages" that were really intended to be used on consumables - not housing. Permitted by government.
If you have a whole government staffed by people who (probably genuinely) believe they are the chosen ones to lead a "project", you don't get adequate self-criticism.
I doubt that Brown would recognise that he could possibly have made a mistake. Even now, when the economy is biting his backside. It's all "someone else's fault".
(Can't blame the Treasury - as I ran that. Can't blame the total UK spend - as I seemed to have run most of that too... Can't blame the BoE, FSA, etc, as I created their terms of reference.
Can't blame the UK bankers, as I wanted them to make lots of money I could tax. And it seems, I allowed them to do really stupid things.
Aha... Let's blame those nasty US bankers.
Don't need to worry about offending the President, as he's a dead duck anyway.
See? I wasn't my fault, officer...)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re: balhamu
Gordon Brown: "Rob 'n' do wrong"
Complain about this comment
re 12 (being referred for moderation)
Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
In case anyone wonders, point 12 (if it ever resurfaces) was comparing ross'/brand's tactics, and labour's tactics over how they dealt with the weapons of mass destruction issue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of labour for chastising the bbc over ross/brand given what they did over the weapons issue.
Glass houses, stones, and all that.
Complain about this comment
138# Flan
School budgets are a good one to look at, I'm a school Governor, have kids in state schools so have a vested interest.
It is a matter of fact that LEAs do no devolve 100% of the "education" budget to schools.
Let me give you a few obvious reasons why o you don't need to remain in ignorance.
Its mostly where economies of scale can be achieved.
eg payroll services.
All school staff expect to receive a salary and this has to be calculated by someone appropriately qualified, so the LEA employs people to do this on behalf of hundreds of schools. Such people are often called Payroll Administrators. Obviously just having the word "Administrator" in your job title would consign you to the dole because it must be a "non-job" to you and the likes of "the real truth" but it delivers an economy.
eg Insurance
An LEA can insure hundreds of school building via blanket cover (or self insuring) individual schools would pay through the nose.
eg Building Maintainence
Self explnatory really, employ tradesmen to work accross dozens of schools wherever needed.
eg Supply Teaching
To cover absence accross dozens of schools.
eg HR Services.
A big LA will carry dozens if not hundreds of vacancies at one time. One large advertisement costs less than dozens piecemeal. But then again the person that does that would be an "administrator" therefore a Non-Job.
Are you starting to understand?
It saddens me greatly the level of ignorance on here coupled with belief in the right wing propaganda peddled by most of the media makes for dangerous times.
Paragraphs like the following from "THE REAL TRUTH" (no arrogance in that name)
are nothing short of sickening.
"Moving them from state employee to unemployed is cheaper (no pension/benefits etc), and provides the opportunity for them to find something worthwhile (wealth generating, rather then wealth consuming) with their time." SO speaks "THe REAL TRUTH"
Complain about this comment
re: balhamu
Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown: "One dimwit ruler, boring sporran mob"
Complain about this comment
179 CEH
Well - there was one lucid sentence there:
"Dude, what happens NOW is what matters."
Absolutely - we need to kick Brown, one of the architects of the current disaster, out of office.
It would also be nice if Brown stopped lying to the public and 'fessed up' to a few things- rather than trying to re-write history like Stalin.
Complain about this comment
Wow, so many comments!
I only want to provide a single link to the bbc's 1997 "Budget 97" page and then I will leave:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/budget97/live/housing.shtml
"Mr Brown said: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future." He said he was determined that the UK should not return to the "instability, speculation and negative equity" of the 1980s and 1990s."
Whoops.
Complain about this comment
I refuse to clean/resubmit point 12 on the grounds that it was entirely truthful, relevant, and not offensive to anyone.
The ministry of information can ban it if they want, but I won't sanitise it just on the grounds that it criticised labour's tactics on the weapons of mass destruction.
Complain about this comment
re: balhamu
The New Labour party: "Power hunt, betrayal."
Complain about this comment
Since you can't edit comments after they're posted/submitted, I'm sorry but I had to post this too :-
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/09/boom-and-bust.html
Complain about this comment
Look what Gordon's borrowing has done now
What is the next economy due to be hit by Gordon Brown's public borrowing?
Complain about this comment
181# Balhamu
Well if we're going to wallow in the gutter PTTP style I'd throw in;
George Osberk
&
David Camera-on.
The Flip-Flop Twins
Both representing the "Hindsight Party"
Dominic Greed I think is in the Shadow Cabinet somewhere.
Lord Ashcroft of Belize pumps in millions to fund them without actually registering for tax here.
William Vague of course provides clarity on Tory economic policy.
Spending five minutes on purile humour can be fun. Wouldn't like to do it every post though!!!!
Complain about this comment
. .-.. . -.-. - .. --- -. ... as soon as possible please
Complain about this comment
Herb_igone here, until I can get my proper new ID.
I note that whilst Mr Darling suggest that we should relax the fiscal rules, that suddenly the crossrail project gets resurrected, the project that was deemed too expensive last year, before we went bankrupt.
Now I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again, just where o these boys thing they're gonna borrow the money from?
Apart from taxes there are three ways for governments to raise money, by means of a loan from the world bank/IMF, by tripartite agreements with other governments, or by selling debt to the market.
The last time we went to the IMF for money was 1975, under the last Labour regime. So I think these boys will try to avoid a win double, plus they're lwending all their money to Hungary and Ukraine.
All the other governments are in the same state as us, trying to rescue their financial institutions, so I don't hold out much hope there.
The final resort is the market. The way it works is the BofE summons the primary lenders (UK Banksand large foreign banks operating in London) and stuffs all the debt down their throats. They get fees for this, and normally swallow whole, before selling it on to their clients - insurance companines, fund managers, pension funds, banks abroad, corporates, and you and me.
So thats banks like RBS (how much can rhey take?), Goldman Sachs (ditto?), UBS and any large japanese bank you care to thin of, AIG, Fortis, and so it goes on.
Nobody in that list has the money, so I don't know where they think it's going to come from. And they can't print it, in the form of bank notes; that's how they meet the obligations they've raised.
Needless to say, all these actions are inflationary. I suppose they might be hoping we'll all die of cold and malnutrition, before the winter's out, and before they have to make good. Also, a bit of inflation works wonders for reducing the real value of debt.
So 50 bn of new borrowing, plus inflation up a bit to 10pc, and it becomes manageable in no time.
After you with the suicide pills and razor blade Claud.
Complain about this comment
Petrol Prices.
Just paid 89.9p a litre.
This is really welcome to see prices dropping at the moment.
However under the Tories "fuel price equaliser" policy we'd just be putting it back up to over £1.00/ litre.
Another great idea from Boy George!
Whats the betting that particular gold nugget of a policy is quietly shelved.
Flip Flop, Flip Flop, Flip Flop get used to the sound.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Iron Chancellor for your careful stewardship of the nations economy and finances:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OU_fzCpwrNc
Complain about this comment
#185, #166, #170
I don't know if this helps.
It refers to a July 1997 Budget
http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/prebudgetNov97/prebudget/chap1.htm
If you change the Chapter reference number (eg to chap4) you'll find references to boom and bust, or simply click -next- at the bottom of the page.
Here's an extract from chapter 2.
Introduction
2.01 The Government's key economic and social goals are high and stable levels of growth and employment, a fairer society and higher standards of living for everyone. These goals are attainable because of the creativity, flexibility and inventiveness of the British people. However, the Government can also make an important contribution by creating a stable economic environment in which people and businesses can plan and invest with confidence.
2.02 In recognition of the need for a stable economy, in its fifth day in office the Government announced a new framework for monetary policy - one that ranks amongst the most open and transparent in the world. The Bank of England is now free to set interest rates so as to achieve the Government's target of low inflation, giving everyone greater assurance that the inflation target will be met and helping to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the boom and bust cycles that have undermined the UK's economic performance in the past.
Complain about this comment
Daily Mail - we must protect Andrew Sachs feelings, maybe some nice pictures will help. Baillie - honestly I'm disgusted at this opportunity to raise my profile
Complain about this comment
"This is a boom built on credit"
Gordon Brown
1988
In parliament to Nigel Lawson then chancellor of the exchequer.
"veteran chancellor bloodied by upstart" ran the Evening standard headlines.
My how the tables have turned.
could one newlabour apologist kindly explain why Gordon Brown embraced his nemesis in a bear hug and built the biggest boom in history on the biggest credit bubble in history?
There can be no wriggling off the hook for this doomed prime minister as he dashes around trying to save the planet.
He created the boom and he is responsible for the bust.
Resign.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
185 Balhamu
Sorry to rain on your parade old boy:
Brown's July 1997 budget is still there if you you dig around (as is also the curiously missing and also embarassing 2001 Pre-budget report).
The 1997 budget:
http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/budget/1999/index.html
(The url says 1999 but you can see several years there)
A few potted excerpts:
"It is essential that consumer spending is underpinned by investment and industrial growth. Britain cannot afford a recurrence of the all too familiar pattern of previous recoveries: accelerating consumer spending and borrowing side by side with skills shortages, capacity constraints, increased imports and rising inflation."
"Many of the least well insulated houses in Britain are occupied by older people. No pensioner should be in a position where for reasons of finance they cannot adequately insulate their homes. Today with our new programme of training and jobs for young people we are able to expand the national programme of home insulation."
"For most people the acquisition of a house is the biggest single investment they will make. Homeowners rightly expect their investment to be protected by sensible policies pursued by Government. I am determined that as a country we never return to the instability, speculation, and negative equity that characterised the housing market in the 1980s and 1990s.
Volatility is damaging both to the housing market and to the economy as a whole. So stability will be central to our policy to help homeowners. And we must be prepared to take the action necessary to secure it. I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
It's like the last 11 years never happened. If only...
Complain about this comment
#83 jonathon_cook
You mention that El Gordo is a second or third rate leader at best. I think you'll find he is in fact the second third rate leader on the trot that we have had to suffer.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
Just had time to catch up, been busy for the past few days.
Once again the majority of the posts here are against the government.
Wonder when, if ever, the message is going to filter down to these boys - your days are numbered.
Complain about this comment
186 Fairlyopenmind
I totally agree.
Real leaders admit to their mistakes - in fact they know that they will make mistakes - the sign of a good leader is how they handle those mistakes.
Brown does not have the right character to lead this nation. That is why he is part of the problem and must be removed.
Complain about this comment
#188, #191 pttp
It seems you've used all your best material already. Not up to your normal side-splitting standards of ZaNuLaborePF and others :p
Complain about this comment
#171 weejonnie wrote:
"About UK car production owned by foreign companies.
Are the cars sold here, abroad or both?"
Far as I'm aware there's been a mixture of sales into UK and European economies.
Most governments like inward investment. You don't normally import factories - they get built locally (home-economy impact) and staff them with local people (employment and broader economic spin-offs).
Corporate tax take depends on the vargaries of agreed international tax regimes...
But I wasn't suggesting importing jobs - rather saying that there are areas that somebody will get into in a big way. Given a British capability to innovate and develop, I'd prefer to see that happen here.
Just haven't seen much sign that government has been a real R&D shove (and if necessary start-up money) on a scale that makes any difference.
Bit old fashioned, maybe, but I prefer to buy British products if possible. If not British owned, then stuff produced here. Of course, there are many areas where that just isn't possible.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
185 Balhamu
Yes - not only is the 1997 budget 'missing' (well buried and hard to find) so is the 2001 Pre-Budget report.
So in 2001 Brown said this:
"In the past, when the main economies of the industrialised world have gone into a downturn, Britain has invariably come off worst.
Indeed, in the past, in every major global slowdown since 1945, Britain has entered weaker, suffered longer, experienced higher inflation and endured higher unemployment.
So it is at a time like this that our new monetary and fiscal regime - Bank of England independence, the symmetrical inflation target, our new fiscal rules and the tough decisions we have taken to reduce debt - is being tested."
Do you think Brown spent 11 years plotting and backstabbing Blair and forgot to do his day job? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#201
Better to drop a gold nugget of a policy than to sell all your gold nuggets at the wrong price.
Anything to say?
A for flip flop...what about your prime minister who railed at Nigel lawson 'this is a boom built on credit' then proceeded to build the biggest ever boom on history on credit.
now there's a real flip flop.
newlabour; nowhere to hide.
debtors prison for newlabour.
call an election
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#206
most off that 1997 budget speech was pure hyperbole; classic Gordon Brown. "not just the few but the many" blah blah blah.
Well congratulations, Gordon; the many are entrapped in negative equity; the many are heavily indebted; the many enjoyed your credit boom and the many now want you out of office.
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
It seems that Smith cannot wait
To enforce her rotten police state,
But the much-maligned Lords
Will stop us racing towards
Nu-Labour's insidious fate.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
201 Eaton Rifle
Max makes a good point on flip flopping at 214
Also - remember after Brown 'personally' brokered the HBOS takeover by Lloyds he told us this solution was ideal because not a penny from the tax payer would be required and hey presto - HBOS would be propped up.
Oooops..... a couple of weeks later and 17 Billion was needed.
Luckily Brown has a firm grasp of the nations tiller (shame he's holding it with his mouth).
Complain about this comment
#204 I don't think the grand-daughter is doing Andrew Sachs any favours at all. There was something on the front page of the Sun (I think it was) about how Brand shouted "que" when they were enjoying relations.
Funny old world.
Complain about this comment
re: 214, RobinJD
Nu-Labour's hypocrisy
Is right there for all to see:
It's 'a boom built on credit'
But the lefties don't geddit,
They should clean out their ears, that's the key!
Complain about this comment
#213 jonathan
Yes - the PBR 2001 is so well hidden.
You have to click on the Pre-Budget Report link on the left-hand side of the main page and then click on PBR 2001 in the list of all PBRs. Very tricky. Requires a lot of intellect to work your way through that. They're trying to hide it. Disgraceful.
Maybe you are right re Budget 1997. It was tricky to find. I had to type 'budget 1997' into google and it was the first result. It was so difficult for me and took several hours of digging (seriously though, not sure why it is not on the HMT website - can't say I've noticed it was there before and has been taken off recently though - maybe it escaped the cut-off when HMT were moving their archives online on the site)
Complain about this comment
It crossed my mind, earlier, to write a comment that made a crass remark about the Tory party and took a sly dig at one of the Tories in here just to show them that people can punch back but I'm a dud at that stuff and not too keen on encouraging it.
The Prime Minister is going to be bold with stating his goals, and Alistair Darling is looking rather helpful. I think, this is a constructive and kind policy designed to win hearts and minds. Personally, I prefer it to replicating Tory lies and nastiness.
The Tory polls are shrinking like a dick in a cold wind, and the trolls have been busted. It's just my view but I tend to think sticking to the facts and being sociable is the right way. Simply, focusing on attractive benefits gets attention without alienating people.
British management tend to want to maintain their own power over anything else, and there's not much done to develop the home market. It's that broken economic fundamentals thing again.
There are people and companies that have a better attitude but they've been in a minority. Some of that is internal. Some of that is environmental. The only way to stop procrastinating is to let go of it.
The world is awash with resources and potential markets. The real problem is perception. How you reason and intuit, or the mind, is key to how you see and relate to things. Fix that, the rest follows.
Let go. It's that simple. Costs nothing.
Complain about this comment
I bet El Gordo is really regretting that those old statements he made with such bravado didn't get lost by the same people who've been losing data repeatedly over the past few years.
I bet he wishes that agressive reporters like dear old Nick weren't quite so asiduous in their research, and probing in their questions.
I bet he wishes that he didn't have to do this job when the going gets tough.
I bet he wishes he'd treated Prudence a bit more respectfully when he was dragging here out of the cupboard every budget day.
I bet his finger nails are well gnawed down, as he looks desparetly around trying to find his next soundbite, because just like the previous manager of this country, he likes to make a headline, bask in the glory for a while, then scuttle off before somebody realises that its all smoke and mirrors.
Complain about this comment
214#
But the "Fuel Equaliser" policy has only just been born, it's current, its today. Not some piece of rhetoric quoted from 20 years ago when Lawson was chancellor.
Flip Flop, Flip Flop, Flip Flop.
Get used to that sound
We should borrow... We shouldn't borrow.
WE need lighter regulation...we need tighter regulation.
Flip Flop, Flip Flop, Flip Flop.
Cameron, Osbourne....Stick to drinking, puking, throwing money on the table to pay for the damage, thats your limit, The Bullingdon Club, you must both be so proud.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The editorial in today's Times recognises that Brown has crashed the economy:
"The Government has repeatedly proclaimed an end to boom and bust, yet has produced both. It has been found wanting in three essential respects: monetary policy, regulation, and fiscal policy.
Low interest rates, owing principally to prolonged low inflation, were the foundation of the era of cheap money that created the asset price bubble. That bubble, in everything from housing to equities and financial instruments, is now deflating."
How Brown helped crash the economy
Complain about this comment
That must explain why Camp Dave's poll's gone soft. Pfff. What a pair. They're as devious and creepy as the villains from Diamonds are Forever.
"If at first you don't succeed, Mr. Kidd".
"Try, try again Mr. Wint."
Hah-hah. They got that flip-flop thing as well.
Complain about this comment
227 J Cook
Anyone can be selective in their quote;
same article
"The framework for monetary policy is right in conception. Targeting inflation allows greater flexibility in responding to economic shocks than targeting the monetary aggregates or the exchange rate - successive approaches tried and found wanting under Conservative governments"
Quite!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re: 225, Eatonrifle
Your comments, lost in a sea of anti-Labour sentiment, sound increasingly desperate. And this might come as a surprise to you--- it's no Tory trick. The public hates Labour.
Complain about this comment
So what have Brown/Darling actually done, given that they've known for the last year or so that we were headed for a recession?
So far Darling has said that it'd be nice if the Bank of England reduced the interest rate a bit, and he's borrowed money from the EIB to lend to uk banks who in turn lend to uk businesses (if they want to) as an emergency temporary loan to cover day-to-day costs while the banks don't lend to each other.
But what else? So far they've both just been saying "we must do something", which is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Where's the action? This has been on the cards for many many months, if not years, and they're still just saying "yes, maybe we should do something about it all" but not actually doing anything.
Are they even aware that there are problems here? If so, do they have any idea whatsoever about how to fix them? If not, are they listening to any advisors who understand economics?
Where's the BBC in all of this?
Was the spending on the extra army tanks the other day the full extent of it? Was that supposed to get us out of recession?
Money in people's pockets is needed; and the absolute last thing they should do is tell people to borrow more money in order to stay afloat, which seems to be what they're driving at at the moment.
Am I missing something, or has there been absolutely no action about the recession so far despite it being known/pending for many many months ?
Complain about this comment
222 Balhamu
Yes 1997 was so hard to find - at first you didn't think Brown did a budget until March 1998 - your post 185)
The 2001 oddity - of course it is listed on the left hand side - but on the right hand side both 1997 and also the pre-budget 2001 are missing.
The Stalinist-Revisionist in me might conclude that the right hand side is more intuitive for the casual reader and those particular reports are missing because a certain Mr Brown doesn't want us to re-read what he said.
Given Brown is trying to re-write history at the moment "I said no more return to Tory Boom and Bust" - conspiracy theories rapidly gain pace.
However - I could equally believe that this is just a minor clerical error.
The problem is Brown has taken to telling brazen lies.
It is near impossible to tell fact from fiction, or clerical error from conspiracy.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre_prebud01_index.htm
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
These politicians and some of their economic advisers know that they have made some huge mistakes, both here and in the USA, over the past decade.
Principally in allowing a huge property based credit boom to occur.
Indeed, I would remind bloggers that it was only few months ago that Gordon Brown stated reassuringly that although property prices had dropped by an average 12% over the past year, they had 'gained' 180% over the past ten years.
To my mind, it was crystal clear that Brown, at that moment, considered such a huge rise in property prices to be a good thing.
When you consider that the average yearly property inflation from 1945 through to 1996 averaged 3.2% per annum, then for Brown to apparently think that a jump to 18% pa over the past ten years was a 'good' thing, reveals a politicians 'if it keeps the people happy' mindset, rather than an economists' alarm bells ringing.
Property inflation here in the UK over the past decade should, by historic norms, have been in the range 30%-50%, not 180%.
These politicians appear frighteningly incompetent to this blogger and are now patently making-it-up-as-they-go-along in these 'uncharted waters' but we elected them so must now suffer the consequences.
Maybe we'll all think a little bit harder next time we cast our vote.
Complain about this comment
229 EatonRifle
Well I posted the link so that everyone could read the whole article - it wasn't an attempt at Stalinist revision of history ;-)
Gordon has responsibility for the crash - although he can't own up to his mistakes and makes policies that try and cover up for his past failures.
Because of Brown's slippery character, we don't know if the policies are in the best interest of Britain or designed to save Brown's career.
Hence - Brown is part of the problem and needs to be removed.
Complain about this comment
Oh well I tried to change the words for Jilted John for the days news but the Moderators have it now....
Complain about this comment
#231 pttp
Yes, as you've said before they would prefer Hitler.
Complain about this comment
#225 eatonrifle
Its so nice to see that grown up, well reasoned argument is not dead and buried. However, you couldn't possibly tell that by reading your posts.
the fuel equalizer, with which I happen to agree, is current tory policy, not government policy, unless somebody held an elcetion without telling me, or the labour party has ceded responsibility. they've cedd pretty much everything else.
Now, just think about this for one little moment. Oil prices have fallen, and so has the government's tax take. This is EXACERBATING, or making worse, the government's debt situation, causing them to borrow more, which will hurt all of us.
Most of us, much as we moan about it, have got used to paying a more realistic price for a diminishing product, so if it were to be consistently level (this level has yet to be decided), at least the government would have consistent tax revenues.
Personally I'm against tax in principle, but I have to live in the real world.
Complain about this comment
#237 Harry
did you try this - Gordo is a moro?
Complain about this comment
Maybe if I had changed my name to Jonathan Ross it would have gone through.
Complain about this comment
235 John Constable
You say this:
"Maybe we'll all think a little bit harder next time we cast our vote."
Unfortunately there is a hard core of people who will vote Labour despite all the evidence that it is time for the removal of Brown and Co.
Complain about this comment
231 PTTP
Yep, hated them into three election victories, 97, 01, 05.
Complain about this comment
#166 jonathan_cook
That video is very interesting and well worth a watch! Thanks for the link, more people defintely need to see that!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqrBb-nRbs
Complain about this comment
Lot of flip flops on this post..
Have they come back into fashion?
Did Gordon Brown put some on in Southwold when he decided that he'd never said boom and bust and the golden rules were there to be broken?
Flip-flop
Call an election.
Complain about this comment
#190 eatonrifle
Did you know that the state spend as much on each childs education, as average private school fees?
Never the less, the local secondry schools around me are so bad, that I took my kids out and sent them private - a shame as there will be no money left to help them out at university (assuming they go) - and I was looking forward to them starting adult life with out the evil of debt hanging around their necks - oh well, maybe uni will be free again by then.
I rather resent having to pay twice - but at least my kids avoid the 'social engineering' of state schools, and while a state school is answerable to the useless LEA, my kids are in an environment where *WE* are the customers and it is *OUR* expectations that must be met because it is *US* who hold the purse strings.
Does the private school get together with other institutions to get 'bulk' discounts? I don't know and don't care, I know the headmaster, and I know that encouraging every child to be happy and acheive all they can is his primary concern I trust him to look after everything else. If I didn't I could send my kids elsewhere.
Do I trust state headmasters? no. Do I trust the local LEA? no. Do I have choice in the state system? no. Is private education more expensive than state? ONLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY TWICE.
Complain about this comment
re: 243, eatonrifle
Now their sins have found them out, and the charismatic Blair has gone, there won't be a fourth! I'm sure I don't need to remind you that every time the public has had an opportunity to voice their opinion on Brown's Labour, they have spoken as one. Lowest opinion polls for 80 years LOL
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#175 Charles_E_Hardwidge
"... Blair's project to get beggars off the streets was effective but funnelled a big chunk of money into the hands of charities and other vested interests. I won't knock it because it needed to be done to clear the dreg off the pavement and get folks real help."
You wouldn't hear me saying that helping struggling people is a waste of money. As long as, once helped - and with on-going support if needed - they make an effort to help themselves.
CEH "And, yeah. That's another "waste" of money if you listen to the Tories who created the heroin addicted beggars in the first place."
You don't help yourself, or the party you champion, with that sort of statement. The Tories "created heroin addicted beggars"? You cannot be serious.
CEH "One housing project designed to house about a dozen people soaked up about X million GBP and the money was gone in 3 years. I worked out the same money could've bought EACH rehoused homeless person a house in a premium area of town, refurbished and fully furnished with quality gear, and have a chunk of hooray money left over.
That money got spent on the salaries of housing officers who sat around looking important and patronising. You know, they're "professionals" and "care". Well, it's attitudes like that which are a KEY cause of poverty and a MAJOR reason why the Tory plans for dealing with the unemployed and disabled WILL NOT WORK."
Your post seems to imply it was under Blair's regime. As far I can see, there have been self-important and patronising officials (public or privately paid) for decades.
The State owns huge amounts of land. Some of it quite rich in potential for housing.
Building companies are backing off new-build. So why doesn't the government offer cost-plus contracts, so building companies can do what they do best, making an acceptable return and keep employing thousands. The State would then "own" houses that could be sold, or leased/rented at "reasonable" prices?
CEH "The Prime Minister is absolutely right to focus on business enterprise and jobs creation and retention because it helps avoid the waste of money and human capital that leads to costly and miserable problems like this arising in the first place."
For goodness sake, he's had 11 years to explain how it could be done!
Problem for me is that I see a bunch of theoreticians who wouldn't know business enterprise if it bit their ankles... and if they did, it would be someone else who'd do it while they clucked about Health and Safety and the like. (NOTE: Sensible H & S is absolutely necessary. But some folk out there just don't understand risk. Using some criteria, nobody would leave home. In fact, since there are penty of accidents IN the home, we'd all be better off living in the woods. Oh god, a branch could fall... better make that a field.)
What we've had is a regulation/restriction and generally rules based society, believing it's getting better because "exam results go up", "more people get first class degrees" and it's hard to find a decent plumber or electrician when you need one.
CEH "Some economist can run the numbers but the last time I did it the costs of soaking up all unemployed and disabled people and giving them real, meaningful, and satisfactorily paid jobs was pretty marginal. If need be, I'm in favour of stiffer law to retain staff and quotas to hire staff to help alleviate the problem."
I've obviously never achieved your level of earnings. But if you think the costs of soaking up all unemployed in the way you say would be pretty marginal, I suppose I have to ask, in what context?
You want a Soviet? That didn't really work. Plenty of people didn't have real jobs, because they couldn't access party membership.
You want the Jospin French model. Remember his great 35 hour week wheeze? So lots of small companies (and as in the UK, they make up a huge percentage of employment) had to either lay off staff, or close down for part of the week, as they just couldn't afford to implement the idea. Great idea. Cost projection? GBP 50/ 80/ 100 BIL?
ME: Show me a new, award-winning- architecture-designed school, staffed by teachers who teach-to-test and are not too well paid, and I'll show you a continued decline in intellectual output.
CEH: "Direction and enthusiasm help, as do well crafted challenges and surprises. You get the same deal in martial arts. Learning the form and being aware isn't enough. But, preset patterns and routine are needed to drill things in and give them time to be absorbed. This is something some students and teachers don't get."
Preset patterns and routines used to be called "rote learning". Way many people were brought up to learn the alphabet, their "times tables", some peoms, etc, to help develop memory. If children can learn to learn, they can learn to think, because they can start to compare information they already understand. Learning things has gone out of fashion, because "so much information is available online". That's fine in many circumstances.
I sure as hell don't want a surgeon hovering over me, wondering whether he or she should google "how to extract an appendix".
CEH: "I note, some people are criticising Darling for slackening the economic rules. He's quite correct to slacken them as circumstances dictate. To cling to a rigid formula when the broader situation has changed is a nonsense. I liken this to a martial artist shifting stance, but the foundations and focus remain the same."
Darling has to slacken the "rules". They were never adhered to, anyway. Brown's personality (thank goodness not like mine) wouldn't allow him to make honest reassessments when he should have some years ago.
CEH: "Innovation is a big subject but, simply, shifting focus to this will help take people's minds off difficulties, give them purpose, and help develop creative and cognitive skills, job satisfaction, and so on, and so forth. By rewarding employees with secure employement and listening to them, companies can encourage staff to be more forthcoming. Everyone's a winner."
Well said. I still believe that somebody going out on grey, mucky days to bring in the harvest is a completely worthwhile job.
I like to eat, but haven't the space for a market garden, couple of cows or pigs, so (I guess like you) I pop to the shop... Never been in agriculture, but grew up close enough to it to understand that food doesn't just "emerge" in a pack at the supermarket.
Job satisfaction comes from knowing that, whatever you do,you feel good about your input and probably that the recipients of endeavour appreciated it.
Job security has always been an issue. If I build a GBP2 light-bulb with a five year guarantee, but someone else offers a GBP1 with a ten year guarantee, there's a pretty good chance that my job will be at risk. I'm sure you don't believe that security should extend to non-viable companies?
CEH: "Okay, back to you Eyebrows-sensei."
I guess that means something to you, but has no resonance for (or should that be with) me.
I gather that you're a "games guru". I still believe that many games are simply time-wasting, societally negative products. (OK, I play a few.)
But if you could get the technology better integrated with the systems that support business and government, to provide a much more "real" experience for the millions of people who develop "screen eyes", you'd help a lot of people. And probably help those end-users to help others.
Funny thing is that, many, many years ago I came across a genuinely useful graphical interface to a commercial system. Aircraft weight and balance, actually. Developed by a bunch of folk in Latvia, who had to book a slot to use computers, as their resources were so limited.
Why aren't UK systems built and delivered with much better advanced interfaces?
Complain about this comment
240. U1777075 wrote:
#237 Harry
did you try this - Gordo is a moro?
How about ....is a more on? It has a rather raffish air!
Complain about this comment
jonathan_cook @ 242
Unfortunately there is a hard core of people who will vote Tory despite all the evidence that 'Dave' and his Bullingdon chums patently inhabit a born-to-rule-arrogance planet.
Even those Tories who appear to have come from humbler backgrounds e.g. Hague, has somehow managed to significantly enrich themselves whilst playing the political game.
Once there was a way to get home again .. to those who genuinely believed in the ethos of public service ... maybe we'll find it again.
Complain about this comment
250
Did it in morse code, I think it might have been the content. You know how closely the BBC scrutinise content before it's put on air or web, they sure run a tight ship.
I may be suspended on full pay by the end of the week.
Complain about this comment
249
I had posts removed by the mods the other week because the were "off topic" whereas Zen Buddism and such like are permitted endlessly and unchallenged.
There two things about CEH
1. Things can only get Budda!
2. His posts are more Charles Hawtree than Charles Hardwidge.
Complain about this comment
Lesley Douglas is a fall guy. The BBC will avoid a huge law suit if Ross is fired, and this they want to avoid. The CEO of the BBC is the one who should resign and NOW!
Complain about this comment
#251
As it goes, having come from a poor background, my experience is that those born into money tend to have more manners than those who have acquired it in their lifetime. This has nothing to do with deference or such nonsense, but plain experience. You'll doubtless be able to point to exceptions, but my own experience suggests otherwise.
Every party has those with money, and those who really don't give a damn. You have those in the Labour Party who will quite happily arrange their children to attend private and selective schools and those in the Tory party who cannot afford such luxuries. And vice versa. Do we really care? Well, yes we do if there's the stench of rank hypocrisy filling the air. Otherwise, why should we?
The point you're making is quite a ridiculous one. If we are back to class wars, then perhaps we ought, in strictly Orwellian terms and no abuse intended, to examine the lives of the pigs that currently govern us.
Complain about this comment
251 JohnConstable
That sort of reasoned debate is very persuasive
Complain about this comment
U54565643 Whatever
At 239 you say this;
"Its so nice to see that grown up, well reasoned argument is not dead and buried. However, you couldn't possibly tell that by reading your posts."
at 240 you say this;
"did you try this - Gordo is a moro?"
so that would be your "grown up well reasoned arguemant" I guess.
JeeeZz you couldn't make it up.
Complain about this comment
Alistair Darling. C'mon, loosen up a bit.
When people get obsessed there's little you can do apart from stamp on them from a great height, let it fizzle out, or wait for them to crash.
Labour couldn't take on the City or magic new business out of thin air, and the anti-regulation and anti-micromanagement brigade in here would have a field day if they had tried it.
I see this slowdown as overdue and an opportunity. People can sieze that or fall back on failed patterns.
Complain about this comment
Nu-Labour's disgusting betrayal*
And their plan to read all our mail
Has cost them their soul
(Not worth much, on the whole)
Justice at last will prevail!
*Take your pick.
Complain about this comment
You would have thought with all the licence month some one in the bbc would have bought a spine.
Complain about this comment
This man talks a lot of sense. Maybe 'just propping up the banks' is not going to save the economy........
Household liquidity
Complain about this comment
246#
Once again "THE REAL TRUTH" has spoken.
"at least my kids avoid the 'social engineering' of state schools"
and that manifests itself how exactly?
You don't think you may be a little paranoid at all?
Complain about this comment
jonathon_cook @ 256
Please compare apples with apples.
Just because Labour (without the Campbell influence) tried on a sad stereo-type, that does not invalidate what I asserted.
In my gilded youth, I came across a number of the Bullingdon types ... some of whom, in their obnoxious ways were just as bad as the pikeys I also knew.
Labour has the 'beast of Bolsover' and the Conservatives have the Wintertons.
Neither type are particularly attractive, in the political sense.
Complain about this comment
#223 Charles_E_Hardwidge
I'm one of those folk who take a look at stuff and make a choice, depending on circumstances. So, have never belonged to any political party. Never really worried whether Jobs or Gates was one of the Illuminati. Didn't really care whether Boeing or Airbus would deliver better product - as long as it made sense.
CEH: "The Prime Minister is going to be bold with stating his goals, and Alistair Darling is looking rather helpful. I think, this is a constructive and kind policy designed to win hearts and minds. Personally, I prefer it to replicating Tory lies and nastiness."
Well, maybe you feel it's OK. A kind policy that "allows" Northern Rock to junk the people it sold mortgages, then makes it really difficult for then to come back to their preferred source for renewal, when they no longer need them.
The Blessed Leader allowed finance houses to spray money around. He could - and should - have stopped it.
I know that the PM/BL wrote a book about courage. But doesn't have the courage to admit he really screwed up. That wouldn't match the "Project's" expectations.
CEH: "... It's just my view but I tend to think sticking to the facts and being sociable is the right way. Simply, focusing on attractive benefits gets attention without alienating people."
I would be a lot happier today if we'd been provided with more facts. I have no problem with a government using external resources to deliver their projected requirements. But it is simply dishonest to refuse to take the "capital repayment" aspects of PFI onto the state debt figures. I don't mind the "maintenance and servicing" wrappings to be treated as a cost of doing business. But if you contract to buy something solid, that's infrastructure - and that's a debt.
CEH: "British management tend to want to maintain their own power over anything else, and there's not much done to develop the home market. It's that broken economic fundamentals thing again."
That's complete rowlocks.
ALL management want to maintain control. There aren't many products or services that originate from a desire to serve non "home markets". Most start with a local base and migrate to seek other markets.
You bleat on about "broken economic fundamentals". You may know what you mean, but I doubt if most of us do. I've come late to all this blog crap. But maybe you could give a quick synopsis of what you mean.
(I'd be happy to get an update from anyone else. As far as I can tell, throughout history, every "economic fundamental" has been bent or broken out of shape to accommodate a new way of thinking. Just not sure what it was that Brown was really aiming for since 1997.)
By the way: I was relieved when Blair swept into power. Until Ecclestone. Then struggled to work out exactly what we'd bought.
CEH: "There are people and companies that have a better attitude but they've been in a minority. Some of that is internal. Some of that is environmental. The only way to stop procrastinating is to let go of it.
The world is awash with resources and potential markets. The real problem is perception. How you reason and intuit, or the mind, is key to how you see and relate to things. Fix that, the rest follows."
Well, I sort of hoped there would be a socially orientated, market aware government, when the "Project" was unleashed.
What I didn't expect was a bunch of "fact changers". I really don't give a stuff if the MP/BL used PFI to deliver future infrastructure. After all, there is no true development capacity within state resources. But there is no justification for trying to hide debt.
Didn't like the "factually based" - but actually sexed up - justification for war in Iraq. And that as someone who really hoped that Saddam would be swept away during the "Kuwait" episode.
Just find it hard to read you, Charles.
How much stuff have you developed, designed or marketed that has a global market?
Complain about this comment
Brown's solution to his crash is queried here also:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2562431/understanding-browns-bust.thtml
Complain about this comment
At 12:27pm on 29 Oct 2008, power_to_the_ppl wrote:
Labour continue to spend
But for us this could be the end,
They borrow and borrow
(No thought for tomorrow)
How low can Labour descend?
Answer - Never as low as Thatcher!
Complain about this comment
263 John Constable
I think you need to get out more
Complain about this comment
#258 Charles_E_Hardwidge
CEH: "Okay, back to you Eyebrows-sensei."
I guess that means something to you, but has no resonance for (or should that be with) me.
Alistair Darling. C'mon, loosen up a bit."
Sorry Charles, I was never educated at the private and expensive Loretto School. Guess you have to be "given" a very expensive private education to be a real "Labour" leader nowadays.
Surely even you can see the irony in that!
As I understand it, Darling (bearded then) was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International.
Plus ca change...
CEH: "Labour couldn't take on the City or magic new business out of thin air, and the anti-regulation and anti-micromanagement brigade in here would have a field day if they had tried it."
Labour never tried to take on the City. Blair was all over them like a rash. (Needing a well-paid exit route, which he seems to have achieved...)
Brown thought he showed "working class " independence by turning up to key City functions without wearing a penguin suit. If it that was that important, why did he change his kit when he'd become PM?
Brown made regulation lighter. Thatcher introduced the "Big Bang". But there were regulations. Brown relaxed the regulations. And had plenty of time to readjust if he felt it appropriate. He didn't impose adequate rules. If you work in the City and have a bunch of new limitations, you wouldn't be happy. But maybe millions of voters would have learned to appreciate a bit of control.
CEH: "Governments can't magic new business."
Don't care what wings they come from, there's no evidence that any government can create new business.
What they can do is create an environment within which people with innovative ideas can get traction. I just haven't seen much evidence of that.
CEH: "I see this slowdown as overdue and an opportunity. People can sieze that or fall back on failed patterns."
This slowdown has arrived like an out of control train at the buffers.
It didn't need to happen. Poor - actually catestrophic - failure of regulation allowed this.
Disaster always offers an opportunity.
Just can't see how a government that presided over the UK disaster believes it can simply turn a page and assume that everybody will believe that "all that stuff was yesterday, but we're here for tomorrow".
I don't have a lot of faith in any political party.
But I'd be happy to exile those who led us this far to Elba.
I've said before that getting it wrong shouldn't be assumed to be a sacking offence.
Ignoring the facts that you got it wrong should allow you to find a cardboard box to doss in somewhere and contemplate the misery you've inflicted on others.
Complain about this comment
I'm not getting into some nitpicky debate, nor get sucked into the flamebait some people can't stop throwing around. That's just not what I'm looking for.
Complain about this comment
The Labour Front Bench really enjoyed their Osborn baiting on Wednesday. They and their Lord and Master must be sorely tempted to call a General Election before the recession eventually starts to bite hard and their 9 point deficit widens again. It would probably leave us with a hung Parliament which is the worst of all evils although it may provide an important role for Vince Cable. I wouldn't be at all surprised if an Election is called for some time around March/April. The outcome is not a foregone conclusion but it would certainly stop all the bitching on here and close the argument for at least another 5 years or so.
Complain about this comment
sicilian29 @270
Dr. Vince Cable does come across very well, possibly and partly because he 'did something else' (an economist) before becoming a professional politician.
These times are so serious that you'd think that a national Government of genuinely all-the-talents would come into being ... with an obvious role for Dr. Cable.
But no, these partisan 'UK' politicians would apparently rather see the 'car crash' economy become a complete write-off than work with other politicians to get us out of this.
I expect we'll see a totally different approach from President Obama in the USA, which will hopefully galvanise the whole nation into getting back on the right track.
If only ...
Complain about this comment
Interesting thought. Does Barclays Bank feel safer borrowing from Middle East sources, rather than placing themselves completely in the hands of Brown and Darling? I have my own opinions, but would like to know what wiser bloggers than myself think.
Complain about this comment
271:
Agreed. Most professional politicians have come straight from the cosseted realms of University to Party Politics and have little experience of the wider outside world. I think it should be a prerequisite that prospective candidates and therefore new Members of Parliament have at least 5+ years experience of the outside world before they come into politics. It might help to focus their minds on the interests of the people as opposed to the interests of themselves.
Complain about this comment
spend spend spend.is new labour not old labour i'm confused.our troops have inadequate equipment,our motgages are rising,fuel prices at record levels and to top it off the mother of all recessions.when will we ever learn.no government can be trusted.no government has the working man's interests at heart yet we are the ones that pay for their overspending.the peasants are revolting and its time we had our say and the time the government listened to the plight of the people they are representing
Complain about this comment
274. stuchap
Good luck and welcome, pal
See this is your first posting.
I agree that the peasants are revolting, but remember, all the politicians are even more revolting.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's boast that Britain is well placed to weather the recession was dealt a serious blow last night.
A report by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies claimed Government finances are in a far worse state than the Prime Minister admits.
It said the budget deficit is more than four times as high as under the Tories in the early 1990s.
Gordon Brown accompanied by Glenrothes by-election Labour candidate Lindsay Roy with Kristian Birks, 5, at Bowhill War Memorial Club in Cardenden
Labour is also heading into the downturn with a 'significantly higher' level of public debt than when the Tories were in charge, the IFS claimed.
Brown calls for fuel giants to cut petrol prices as he hits the campaign trail in Glenrothes
According to the IFS, the shortfall between tax revenues and public spending will be 4.4 per cent of economic output this year.
That compares with only 1 per cent at the start of the recession under John Major in 1990.
The IFS report suggests a decade of extravagant spending has left the Government with nothing to tackle the slump.
The National Debt measures the Government's total liabilities.
The deficit is the annual shortfall between the amount of cash coming into Treasury coffers and spending on public services.
Government debt is heading for 39.7 per cent of gross domestic product, the IFS calculated - or a record £592billion.
In the last recession, at the end of 1990, public debt was far lower at 26.2 per cent of economic output - or £151billion.
The IFS expects the deficit, meanwhile, to hit £64billion this year, or 4.4 per cent of output. In 1990-91 it was a mere 1 per cent of national output, or £5.8billion.
The IFS also found that the public finances are weak in comparison with many other countries.
Britain has the 11th highest debt burden of 28 leading countries, it said, and the second-biggest deficit of the G7 economies after the U.S..
This and the revelations that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling knew about the problems of the Icelandic banks at least 6 months ago rather blows out of the water Balhamu's and CEH's defence of the prudent P.M. and his admirable fiscal record.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is a ool, we all know that.
But he is a better fool than all ou lot of cowardly anarchic capitalists who deem every thing is right as long as the money rolls in.
Is it or is it not about time you guys got off your horses and learned to toddle?
Complain about this comment
I hope that you are right and that the chancellor has become a Keynsian. If he has and is allowed to apply Keynes ideas, there is hope of a reasonably quick economic recovery.
Unfortunately, though it is rarely mentioned, a recession, which is caused essentially by a shortage of people with money to spend, is very good for the few that still have plenty of money.
Though they will cry plenty of crocodile tears, there is no reason why the wealthy should want the recession to end quickly.
Since a feature of the UK's broken democracy is that the wealthy, who are vital contributors to the funds of the major political parties, have great influence, it is unlikely that Mr Darling will be allowed to be too Keynsian.
Complain about this comment
I am at a loss.How can the Governement spending more improve the economic situation.
Why not spend LESS.
Instead of freezing budgets the Government should reduce ALL Department within Government,including Government itself by 10%.
Ministers in all Department will be obliged to identify the waste in their respective Departments and eradicate it.The consequences of these reductions should be clearly identified and endorsed by Parliament-who represent the tax payers (shareholders) of the country.
In the private service sectors this would be the only course ahead and inevitably would result in some pain across the board.
But this is the only way our bloated and ever growing public services,who employ 25% of the population, can be contained.
Government simply has to become leaner and meaner and run on the same lines as the private and service sectors.
Complain about this comment
We'll know the final cost of the recession soon enough. I don't think that hammering the banks is going to provide us with an answer either. They are having their arms twisted because voters are squealing. When voters squeal The Government acts. Pity it didn't do so long ago.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS