Mervyn's done it again
The governor of the Bank of England has said that government borrowing needs be reduced faster than ministers are currently planning.
He has called on them to show "greater ambition" and to publish a plan to deal with the debt in the chancellor's pre-Budget report due this autumn.
Asked at the Treasury select committee about plans set out in the budget to cut deficits Mervyn King replied: "I don't think it's clear enough" and remarked "it is an awfully long time to wait".
Nevertheless Mr King made clear that now was not the time to start fixing Britain's borrowing problem and that the speed of any deficit reduction programme would depend on the speed of recovery.
Under pressure from the Conservative MP Michael Fallon - who knows how to spot and create a news story - Mr King tried to dampen "King attacks Darling" headlines by insisting that "I don't think the chancellor is remotely relaxed " about the problem.
This comes on the day when the prime minister repeatedly refused to explain or apologise for his inaccurate claim at last week's PMQs that capital expenditure was going up between now and the Olympics.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
blown Gordons pmq's denials right out of the water....maybe he will now see sense, though i suspect he is in denial and its the IMF bailout next...
Complain about this comment
Surprisingly strong words, Nick. I think Brown attempted to explain, but made a royal hash of it. Why can't he just admit to what is plain as day? Why does he think that being a stubborn liar is a better strategy? And how can he talk about reforming politics and bringing about transparency when he obfuscates, blusters and downright lies at the dispatch box at PMQs?
Let's face it, Brown's govt has no interest in trying to fix the deficit problem or the debt problem or indeed any other problem facing the country. They know they're busted at the next election, so it's just a dirty ploy of talking about investment they know they won't be able to make, and then when the Tories or some coalition govt get their hands dirty making the necessary cuts, Labour can crow about what they'd have done and how many nurses and policemen have been lost. It's just a bit pathetic. What a laughing stock our country must look to the world!
Complain about this comment
Conservatives just want to sell us all down the river and them get as much money out of Britons workers
Conservatives believe that 4.5 million unemployed is worth it if they can reduce the ND now
Complain about this comment
Has any government failed so spectacularly to react to a modern medium?
Royal families have embraced the radio and television.
Kennedy and Churchill embraced the media.
But Gordon Brown continues to think he can continue with this line if I'm right you're wrong whe the information age can prove him wrong at the touch of a hyperlink.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8278a416-5f74-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=e70ca99e-a4b0-11db-b0ef-0000779e2340.html
Perhaps Downing Street would be helped by a media advisor who explained to him how other people use the media and not how he can try to manipulate it.
Information is all around us about how indebted we are and how much money te government has wasted; it's not even a matter of opinion anymore it is a matter of public record that efficiency in the public sector has been falling under newlabour.
newlabour are incompetent, complacent and arrogant and this is why the countrt wants an election.
Call one.
Complain about this comment
So the cat is now out of the bag!
This Labour government is going to have to cut spending and do it in public rather than the stealth method currently in progress.
So much for Labour `investment' and Tory `cuts'.
As a nation we now have to trim our state according to the available funds and they are much diminished.
To maintain what is left of its credibility with its main client base in the public sector and minimise its potential loss of seats Labour has to go to the country early.
So, any takers for an autumn election?
Complain about this comment
What the electorate don't need right now is a lot of pathetic, childish, school playground name calling from our politicians; we ARE in a financial mess with massive borrowing and a hugely inflated Public Sector both of which have to be reined in. So for Gordon Brown to pretend he is fighting the battles of 1997 is simply astonishing - the man simply doesn't get it; WE WANT HONESTY FROM YOU, NOT POINT SCORING.
I genuinely believe that Labours last chance to limit the damage that the next election will bring them went when the PLP showed themselves to be spinless by not dumping Brown after the utter humiliation of Labours performance in the Euro results. You get the feeling that the electorate has made its mind up over Brown in the same way they made their mind up over Major a couple of Years before the 97 election.
Bye Bye Brown.
Complain about this comment
3. At 4:17pm on 24 Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:
Conservatives just want to sell us all down the river and them get as much money out of Britons workers
Conservatives believe that 4.5 million unemployed is worth it if they can reduce the ND now
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could i ask you politely to just expand and qualify those remarks
Complain about this comment
#3
Whilst no one likes to see 4.5 million out of work, piling on the national debt will undoubtadly result in much more pai down the line.
So: 4.5 million now or 7.5 million in 5 years time? Take your pick
Complain about this comment
I believe that Mr King, in his ever so diplomatic and gentile way, is carrying on distancing himself from the Treasury....and who can blame him. He knows, we know, every MP in the 'House' knows that public spending has to reigned in from the earliest possible moment...Gordon probably knows too, but is deluded enough to think that if he continues to say that black is white, and says it often enough, that we will all suddenly realise that he is right and everyone else in the country (and beyond as it happens)has been wrong. Dolt.
For the first time in ages I managed to catch the first half of PMQ's, and I really got the impression that the Labour benches were utterly embarassed at the performance of their leader. Cameron made him look a fool. Labour MP's must surely be sorry they didn't take their chance a couple of weeks ago and send Gordon off to the vet. Sad to see really, a once powerful man utterly humiliated.
Complain about this comment
Brown thinks he is being so clever with his double talk and euphamisms for the word debt and cut backs; but because of all the disasters (all of his own making) that have befallen him since he became PM, no one believes a word he says anymore.
Like it or Cameron has been proven to be telling the truth about the UK`s economy. We are in deep doo - doo and Brown`s massive borrowing, to appease Labour voters, has been shown up to be what it is. A right cock up. We need to stop right here and now and start facing up to the reality of life. Mervyn King is right when he says the government needs to formulate a plan as to how it is going to pay back the mountain of borrowing. Its no good waiting until after the next General Election, which is obviously Brown`s plan A. If we do the country i.e us will be in greater debt. We will have to endure higher taxes and more savage cuts in the public secotr. Better to swallow the pill now, however bitter that maybe, than to be terminally ill later on.
Complain about this comment
If you had listened PMQ's Mr Brown said that the government had brought spending forward to help us in the downturn
and the figures Mr Brown quoted are correct and if you take them as from now they do decrease over the next 3 years but if you look at the pervious years spending that they forecasted to 2012 you see that they are up on the forecast therefore Mr Brown was right
Mr Cameron just went on the figures from today and tried to make out that government spending was been cut but the facts are that to 2012 the total is increasing
Complain about this comment
@3, york1900
And what exactly do you think Labour have done?
You and so many others like say "the Tories will do this, the Tories will do that" in effort to deflect from what Labour *have* done. You really think trotting out a load of maybe's and what-if's is any defence against the utter mess Brown and Blair have left?
Devalued exams, target-drive services, immense debt, greater inequality and a society and education system so damaged companies would rather employ East Europeans than native workers.
Thats Labours legacy. It's really hard to see how anyone could do worse, so good luck trying to suggest the Tories would. I suspect the reality of whats going on now will trump any scaremongering you wish to try.
Complain about this comment
The 30% devalution of sterling is now hitting raw materials. Prices of essentials are rising rapidly, particularly in the supermarkets. The BBC doesn't report these developments. We are facing significant inflation. Brown has ordered the BoE to print two billion pounds every week, to buy up the UK government's debts.
What it means for Joe Public is that, if he's working, his wages are devalued, and he will end up paying much more for just about everything he needs. If he's retired his pension and his savings will suffer in the same way.
And who is to blame? Blair and Brown (together with Bush) for a false prosperity based on spiralling debt. Its incredible that Brown is still in office after such monumental incompetence.
He's there because of a fundamental flaw in the 'unwritten' constitution of the UK - 'parliamentary sovereignty'. A supine body of Labour MPs keep him there because they are afraid to ditch him because they will lose out.
Sovereignty needs to be put in the hands of the citizens of this country, as it is in most other western democracies.
We're not going to get that essential basic reform, because its not in the interests of either of the two parties. They govern alternately in perpetuity on a minority of the votes. Its lazy politics, leading to the inevitable arrogance and complacency that we're familiar with, and the country and people are suffering because of it.
Does it require a 1789 or a 1917 approach?
Complain about this comment
Hats off to Mervyn - whop does look a bit like Geoffrey Howe but probably won't rid us of Gordon.
He is not being partisan, so far as I can see, he is thinking of the National Interest.
Gordon does not want to do too much regulation else he confirms that he is indeed partially responsible for the causes (debt bubble/cheap credit and bank regulation).
In fairness to Darling there is a need to consider whether cutting too much too early will be a help not a hindrance.
But to leave the cutting to the next government is irresponsible and shows the kind of failure in political joined-up-thinking that led us to the crash, Iraq, 10p, 42 days, ID cards, collaboration in torture and so on.
Brown does not want to do too much cutting as he sold the Labour Party on ending boom and bust.
Now he is considering the next election and thinks the public are fools and won't work things out - we won't have a painless rebound and a return to things as before we will have a long period of cuts and economic pain.
Shame on Brown!
PS Where is McBride - does he sleep with the fishes.
Complain about this comment
Thank goodness Mr. King sees fit to intervene on behalf of the British people and apply political pressure to the Government. This in itself is unconventional and unconstitutional, but it is worrying that the Government seem to be putting Labour's interests ahead of the country's with their reluctance to address the debt crisis.
Just look at how quickly the public finances are deteriorating? I've not seen such a stark illustration of where we stand:
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
Complain about this comment
#3. At 4:17pm on 24 Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:
"Conservatives just want to sell us all down the river and them get as much money out of Britons workers
Conservatives believe that 4.5 million unemployed is worth it if they can reduce the ND now"
Unfortunately they might be correct, a short sharp shock rather than years of stagnation (as Japan endured in the 1990s), and I say that as someone whose family suffered from the recessions and unemployment of the 1980s. National debt levels is going to be a big issue in any future recovery (and I'm not convinced that we have actually hit bottom yet...), reducing it isn't going to be like the early 1950s when the UK had a lot of control over what it could manufacture, export or control and/or tax imports and thus obtain revenue etc.
Not that I'm saying that what Brown/Darling did wrong by increasing ND, you can't put a house fire out without using water, afterwards you still have to clean up and sometimes that can temporarily cause even more distress before things get better - if you don't clear up and repair, the roof leaks and everything just stagnates.
Complain about this comment
Time to face up to the Labour debt bubble; the discrepancy in pensions between the public and private sectors; the ongoing structual deficit; and the PFI liabilities. The Conservatives do right to wait to disclose their economic policies - it's clear there is a train-wreck as a result of the policies of Brown and his malevolent cohorts.
Complain about this comment
11 - York
Nice try, but whichever way you look at it Gordon said last week that capital spenidng would increase year on year up to 2012. It isn't. It drops from £44bn - £26bn.
Even his own side, his own cabinet, think he's wrong...as evidenced by the cabinet report DC read out at PMQ's. (Cooper's face was a picture...'Scream' I think it's called... as was Capt Darling's).
No-one believes him, apart it would seem from your good self, on anything, at all. Such a shame that the new Speaker doesn't have the authority to say, 'Prime Minister, you know that's a load of old tosh, try again'.
Complain about this comment
Public finances are going be under pressure after the next election whoever is in power. End to boom and bust? No... bust in the private sector will be followed by bust in the public sector.
Perestroika is not going to happen any time soon - see http://moralorder.mediumisthemess.com/
New Labour, Old Mirrors
Complain about this comment
I don't know what Brown is frightened of. It seems as if things are not going to be quite as bad as predicted in some quarters. Public perception magnifies all economic situations, so we were not as well off as we thought in boom years and the bust years are not as bad as people fear.
This autumn the government should make a clear statement of their spending plans, claiming they are necessary to meet with the actions taken to reduce the severity of the (global) recession, challenge Cameron to find out what he would do and watch him wriggle. If Cameron comes up with a coherent account of his proposed spending and its consequences then he has earned the right to be PM. Cameron has proved to be a very effective leader of the opposition (if the aim is to destabilise the government), but that does not mean he has shown sufficient potential to be an effective PM.
There has got to be a time when Brown comes out of his bunker. If he doesn't he is not the leader the country needs. We could then be saddled with a PM who has not even had to work to get into power. Too many people have worked for bosses who were in the right place at the right time to be confident that the result is the right one.
At the very least Gordon should make David sweat.
Complain about this comment
I think this is Mervyn King's way of reminding our leaders what a disaster it would be if the UK lost it's AAA rating.
In terms of Brown's stewardship of the economy and whether the Tories would have done it better is concerned, the argument's academic.... both the main parties are neo-liberal free market fundamentalists - there wouldn't have been a big difference in where we are now, it's not possible.
The UK will continue it's bubble economics unless there's a political change.
Complain about this comment
Cameron's statements from the Cabinet by Darling and Cooper make it plain that Brown is still lying through his teeth at PMQs. This is simply not acceptable. When are the MSM and the Beeb going to turn on this man and ostracise him - he is a disgrace, his government is a disgrace, and they are destroying my country.
Bercow had a reasonable début, and his performance highlighted how appalling Martin was.
At least Brown didn't come up with last week - and previous weeks' - lie, in which he quite extraordinarily claimed that 200,000 people were getting coming off JSA each month.
If he really wanted to do the country a service, he would stand down.
Complain about this comment
"# 22. At 5:33pm on 24 Jun 2009, JeremyP (awaiting moderation)
Where's my comment?All new members are pre-moderated initially, which means that there will be a short delay between when you post your comment and when it appears while one of our moderators checks it."
Uh? New member? I may not post here often, but I am certainly not a new member. Apologise please!
Complain about this comment
Just watched PMQs on the iPlayer: Gordon Brown shameful, as ever.
As the world and his wife looks on the UK knowing that public spending absolutely must be cut if we are not indeed to go bankrupt, Brown trumpets yet again how he intends to (but, of course, cannot) spend more than the UK can possibly earn from taxes and/or borrow on the markets.
Gordon Brown looked lonely today at PMQs; his front bench sat stony-faced and embarassed. His backbenchers were nowhere to be heard. We really are watching a desparate politician, drowning not waving. How much longer do we have to put up with this? Why on earth is the Cabinet so paralysed with fear in the company of such an appalling bully?
After so much news about the catastrophe that is now British politics, Mervyn King is simply joining those commentators who have been pointing out for some time that political catastrophe is leading inexorably towards economic catastrophe for the UK.
And at PMQs today, yet again Brown proudly beat his chest and bellowed about spending and spending and spending money that he simply does not and will not have. The man's a completely deluded idiot.
Complain about this comment
The simple truth is - spend more, invest less = less money to support a collapsing economy.
It is the hole in a wet paper bag time, pouring more water into it is not going to fix the hole, it is going to just make it bigger.
Less borrowing for businesses so that more businesses go bust and therefore more unemployed.
I am afraid 'York' - Brown's already well on his way to your 4.5million unemployed and he didn't have to become conservative to achieve it - the recession is only just beginning.
Complain about this comment
D'oh!
Complain about this comment
13 BrynnTello
I agree. Inflation was going to be a problem before they introduced QE. Suppliers have been running down stocks to bare minimum over the last six months to conserve cash flow but they are now having to restock. Where is the bulk of this coming from. China of course. Because of the devaluation of sterling prices of new imported stock have gone up approx 20% to 30%. Ask any retailer or manufacturer if they can afford to absorb this and not put their prices up. Highly unlikely. So we have imported inflation.
Which country is printing money on top of its huge savings ratio and starting to dump it on the markets again? China of course.
Mervyn King spelled it out in a very subtle way this afternoon that the world's financial institutions must get together and agree how their different policies are affecting the markets. Too many imbalances to be addressed.
Too much liquidity at a time when it should be drawn out of the system means only one thing. The start of hyperinflation and high interest rates.
Complain about this comment
I can only assume that meetings of Hitler's generals in 1944 & 1945 as he ranted about how soon they would be delivering a mighty blow to the allied forces must have resembled Brown in front of his front bench at PMQs today.
The man has lost it and it's clear he won't stop spending what we just don't have until someone stops him.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Since this seems to be a Government which listens... eventually, hopefully, Mervyn King's comments will be acted on or at least assessed against the situation we are in.
Whatever the Government does in response to Mr King's comments, It will be flagged up as a U-turn... again... of course.
But we can't have it all ways... we either have a Government which listens to informed opinion and public pressure or we have one which goes its own sweet way regardless... wherever that takes them... and us.
Complain about this comment
# 25 Maurice Byford
"... the recession is only just beginning ..."
Yes, this is the most alarming point that the overwhelming majority of the British population has yet to grasp.
A small investment in time spent researching and reviewing a few of the more technical, apolitical sources of information to be found on the web will quickly throw up some hard realities about the state we're in. Indeed, the mainstream media reports the nature and scale of the looming problem too (see links below), but it continues to surprise me how sanguine the public seems about our future economic circumstances.
The situation ahead is at the very best uncertain, and at worst we're heading for armageddon. For as long as this Labour Government remains at the helm, the latter scenario grows more likely by the day.
One wonders quite what it will take for the British people to wake up to this one: a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate still think that Brown is the man. Que?
http://tinyurl.com/dj6pgs
http://tinyurl.com/n45yqf
http://tinyurl.com/c5f995
Complain about this comment
13. At 4:49pm on 24 Jun 2009, Bryn_Teilo wrote:
...Sovereignty needs to be put in the hands of the citizens of this country, as it is in most other western democracies...
Does it require a 1789 or a 1917 approach?...
On both of those occasions at least the majority of the army was very soon on the side of 'the people'. That would not happen here. We also have, in effect, an armed police force which would side with the Army (or the Government in the event of the Army's non-involvement).
Complain about this comment
It has to be spelled out slowly for some folks, doesn't it?
Gordon Brown is finished. The only person who does not think that is Mr Brown himself.
The economy is in very poor straights and despite all the puff about green shoots is still deteriorating, albeit slower than a few months ago. We all wish it would get better but it is going to be a very long haul. That long haul could be shorter if there was an outbreak of reality now at the top.
The question the political class has to address is that there are going to have to be cuts in public spending, so what are those cuts to be? This is the debate we need to hear; not the `four-legs good; two-legs bad' type of argument that the more antediluvian on the left are shouting about.
It is this discussion the Labour Party seems unable to address. There is a choice here; either a slash-and-burn slaughter of the innocents we would get from the IMF or a carefully costed, radical reassessment of the public sector that maximises value and retains people in constructive work. This is the debate we need to see, but it is just not happening.
If the Labour Party adopted a such a realistic programme now then the time they would be out of power could be shortened and the Tory majority minimised. Are they capable of thinking that far ahead?
I won't answer that question as I fear the answer. What I don't want to hear any more is this nonsense about `Labour investment or Tory cuts'. It is trivialising a very important and critical debate whose outcome will affect us all in one way or another.
Complain about this comment
Merv's suggestion that we need to reduce government borrowing should come as no surprise. Apart from Brown, most people understand that you can borrow your way out of debt. The question is, why has Merv taken so long to speak out?
It's difficult to believe that Brown and Darling really believe their spend-spend-spend policies are for the best. In fact it looks like a policy of 'scorched-earth', to create as much of a mess for the next government as possible.
Far from deriding policies for cuts in public spending, it may well be the case that people will vote for the party which offers the greatest savings. Everyone wants the NHS to be 'ring-fenced', but there is plenty of scope for cuts elsewhere. Eg Trident and ID cards
Complain about this comment
31. At 6:00pm on 24 Jun 2009, moraymint wrote:
...The situation ahead is at the very best uncertain, and at worst we're heading for armageddon. For as long as this Labour Government remains at the helm, the latter scenario grows more likely by the day...
http://tinyurl.com/dj6pgs
http://tinyurl.com/n45yqf
http://tinyurl.com/c5f995
Scary.
Complain about this comment
7. At 4:35pm on 24 Jun 2009, ghostworld
18. At 5:09pm on 24 Jun 2009, middleenglandtim
I have been through a Tory fix it before and it was not nice high unemployment and wages driven down except for top few
And what DC keeps coming up with would hurt us a lot more as Labour are trying the keep all things level
I do not want to go back to the Tory way of fixing it as I am now to old for that sticking loads on incapacity benefit as they are over 55 as employers make redundancies of older staff
The Tory's will make a few quick fix's
(1) Scrap the minimum wage
(2) scrap working hours directive
And doing that we will be back to the Country making a profit again
Complain about this comment
The dishonesty and cowardice of both Labour and Tories in their utterances on public spending is depressing. Spending must be reduced dramatically or tax increased dramatically. This is obvious to everyone.
The only other alternative - and that can only be temporary - is continued borrowing. But current borrowing levels are unsustainable. Before too long we will find it impossible to sell our debt on affordable terms.
The government's hope is that the economy will at least start to improve significantly before that point is reached. Others, like the OECD, don't. Among these, disturbingly, are the Governor of the Bank of England - judging by his comments today.
The hard fact is that we are going to have to increase taxes AND cut costs AND continue borrowing (at a lower level). The longer we leave it before grasping the nettle the more it is going to cost.
Are we really going to have to stagger on for another year with both major parties afraid to act?
Well, more fool us. There must be dramatic cuts in public spending NOW - whatever the short term damage to standards of living. This government, the current opposition - and in fact the whole of this Parliament - is hopelessly discredited. MPs are the walking dead.
We MUST have a general election NOW!
Complain about this comment
To fully understand Nick Robinson's comment, above, it is also necessary to read the news item that goes with it.
The link below is to the BBC story on Mervyn King's comments to the Treasury Committee. In the story, MK is quoted as saying:
"The scale of the deficit is truly extraordinary. 12.5% of GDP is not something that anybody would have anticipated even a year or two ago, and this reflects the scale of the global downturn."
According to Reuters, the full quote is:
"The scale of the deficit is truly extraordinary. 12.5 percent of GDP is not something that anybody would have anticipated even a year or two ago, and this reflects the scale of the global downturn. But it also reflects the fact that we came into this crisis with fiscal policy itself on a path that wasn't itself sustainable and a correction was needed."
It seems to me that the missing out the second sentence of Mr King's comment changes the sense quite dramatically. The full quote shows that Mervyn King was directly criticising government fiscal policy prior to the crisis.
I (as a practicing professional economist with near-30 years of experience) concur with the criticism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8117388.stm
Complain about this comment
Mervyn is busy covering his back, maybe he wants to hang on to his job when a new government takes the reins.Brown will be sticking pins in a wee plastic Mervyn at this very minute and plotting with his secret Downing Street enforcers how to discredit the poor wee bank manager. Maybe a sex scandal , a missing million or two , or some family skeleton could be invented to keep the cheeky wee ------ in line.
Complain about this comment
gordon brown twice said "we are spending billions on subsidised housing".. no one picked him up on this,I have searched but these "billions" are nowhere in the figures.... another lie, just like no cuts, just like he blithely says "we are helping hundreds of thousands of hard working families to stay in their homes... no wonder he was such an appalling chancellor, he has no real grip on numbers!
Complain about this comment
andy @ 28
The man has lost it
King? ... I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as that ... I do rather wish he'd stick to the bean counting, however, and stop poking his nose into fiscal policy
Complain about this comment
More (mostly) stealth taxes combined with stealth cuts from NuLab; Tories at least making an attempt at open-ness but who knows what they have planned as well. Neither are covering themselves in glory. So we are borrowed and commited up to the hilt, never mind the whys, it is NuLab that have taken us down this route as the only road to salvation.
Anyone who has worked with or for any form of government knows the complete hash they make of anything they touch; career politicians and their advisors need sacking for incompetence and replaced by solid business men and women and who have the power and authority to sweep aside the 90% of government that it un-necessary, slash waste and drive services forwards. imo whilst we are subjected to such high and increasing levels of government we stand no chance at improving the ecconomic situation, but watch those civil servants bleet.....
.......will never happen, just a pipe dream..... whilst we have incompetent government and mostly incompetent opposition and ultimately of course, the government wins and the only people with any real voice are the media and they bounce from one subject to another in a blink, what a mess
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown is clearly following George Bush's dictum that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the people you should focus on. The UK has a debt crisis. It can be resolved, but only by acknowledging there is a serious problem (say after me: my name is Gordon Brown. I'm a borrowing addict).
The OECD has also published a new set of projections for the world economy this week. UK government debt (for one year) is forecasted to be 14% of GDP by 2010, the largest of major economies, and set against a Eurozone average of 7%.
This year's forecast is for borrowing to reach 200 billion, or 500 million a day.
I'm not sure of the funding cost of 1 trillion pounds, but if it's 5% then we will be paying 50 billion a year on debt interest.
So when Gordon talks about increasing government spending remember that this includes interest payments on government debt (and unemployment costs). Soon compound interest will kick-in and we'll be borrowing more just to meet the interest repayments.
Because of this debt interest overhang spending cuts (or tax rises) will be needed just to pay for servicing the debt and this will dampen economic activity for years to come (until 2032 if I remember a recent forecast correctly). This is the legacy of Labour economic mismanagement, but no doubt the people who are fooled all of the time will blame the next Conservative Government for this.
Complain about this comment
oh, and as for the ongoing half and untruths at pmq; perhaps the situation has changed!!?? but if Cameron can't take GB apart, lets have someone who can and keep everyone aware of these inconsistencies. The media will move on and so will the public because of everyone's fickle nature
Complain about this comment
# 38 arr-jay
"... but it also reflects the fact that we came into this crisis with fiscal policy itself on a path that wasn't itself sustainable and a correction was needed" (Mervyn King).
Yes and, of course, this unsustainable fiscal policy was all Gordon Brown's brainchild; the Iron Chancellor; the politician who "saved the world"; the "no-more-boom-and-bust" man; the "clunking fist"; the G20's leading light.
If I hear one more reference to the Labour Party's economic genius (yes, there are still some commentators who reckon Brown made a reasonable fist of it ...), I'll be convinced I'm going stark staring mad.
As one who felt from Day One of the Great Project that it would all end in tears, it makes me desparately sad to realise the extent to which the British people were good and truly conned when Blair led his shower of political gangsters into Downing Street.
The fundamental issue here is that the Palace of Westminster has failed utterly. The gang of elected and unelected shysters who roam that place has spent the past decade and more taking the British people for the mother of all rides. Now, we're going to pay for it, and some.
I just hope that sooner rather than later it will be a case of "cometh the hour, cometh the man". Right now, I fear there's precious little sign of saviour.
Complain about this comment
Gordon is becoming irrelevent, he has no future and noboddy believes a word he says. There is not much point in even having PMQ when you put it in that context.
What use is it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#37. At 6:28pm on 24 Jun 2009, CA55ANDRA wrote:
..//..The only other alternative - and that can only be temporary - is continued borrowing. But current borrowing levels are unsustainable. Before too long we will find it impossible to sell our debt on affordable terms..//..
"We MUST have a general election NOW!"
No, what we need now is a change in policy, and that is what needs to be called for by the great British public, it's actually a non party political point that might, just might, get listened to (turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that...), a general election without a policy change might also just end up with the same policy and a renewed mandate!
Complain about this comment
So....once again the only voice of reason comes from within the establishment itself, the governor of the Bank of England.
Here is a rare entity indeed. A man of integrity, standing high and placing his head well and truly above the parapet.
You can't but feel sorry for such a man as Mervyn King. Steeped in the ritual of the financial heart of the City of London; one of the club; supposed to be there to maintain the status quo; member of the most exclusive private members clubs in London. A pinnacle of society; lauded by the great and good of the financial district in London.
And yet here he is. One of a few. Standing up and telling the government and the country that you cannot borrow to this extent without consequences. Money borrowed has to be paid back. Eventually someone is going to have to 'pay the piper'.
If nothing else, history teaches us that men of honour do not last for long in the world of politics.
Good luck to the governor of the Bank of England.
Just don't expect your invitation to the House of Lords to arrive in the post any time soon.
Complain about this comment
I feel that there is an assumption that Tory cuts will only put other people out of work, and that my job will be safe. The experience of the 80s was that reductions in public spending, on a large scale, affects even middle earners just as much.
The beneficiaries are those with large pots of cash stashed away, waiting for the home repossessions so as to pounce. They increase their property portfolios and there is a need for housing caused by the repossessions.
I know I have banged on about this issue, but I do believe that the introduction of a maximum wage will help reduce inflation, which is the single cause that most be fought for. Not only that though, a maximum wage will stop all this greed justifying any business practice, as long as it makes a profit. That is what has caused this economic crisis. We can blame GB for not putting in place a regulatory system that was able to forsee this situation developing, but the Tories will go back to a winner takes all philosophy.
The Tories also seem to put a lot of store in the BoE being able to manage the regulation better. It didn't seem to stop three recessions in the first twelve years of the last Tory government.
The talk from Mervyn King, always defying the Government's position can be seen in context to-day, as Gideon now has shown his hand over the passing of the majority of regulation back to him. How long have those talks been going on?
It seems to me, we do have to be ready to look at the capitalist model and fix it, before we consider which party is better at running it.
Before we all rush to judge GB I think we should ask ourselves how much of my job depends on Government investment?
Complain about this comment
Hummmm
Darling is stating that his budget shows that he is increasing public spending overall and is reducing public debt by 50% in the next financial 3 year period...
The Conservatives are stating that goverment spending (IF Health is ring fenced) will fall by 10% accross all other drpartments.
Brown is repeatedly stating that goverment spending is increasing and the Conservatives will slash departemts spending by 10%.
We are in a ressision so Unimployment spending will increase, Darling is saying debt repayments are shooting up, so Brown is probaly correct is staing Goverment spending is increasing......
BUT of indervicual departments IT MUST be cut as we transfer the spending to Unimployment costs and debt repayment!
Complain about this comment
Gordon and Alistairs spend spend spend policy will not affect one segment of the labour force - the inflation proof pensions of the public sector will keep them in the manner to which a vote for Nu Labour will guarantee.
For the rest of us, pay your taxes and keep quiet.
Complain about this comment
Comment 41 : Sagamix
King? ... I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as that ... I do rather wish he'd stick to the bean counting, however, and stop poking his nose into fiscal policy
You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope in the fullness of time you are humble enough to apologise for it. Mervyn King is to Gordon Brown as Werner von Braun is to Sir Richard Branson; the problem we are facing is that we are stuck on the moon with no rocket to get home; and people like you, and others who don't know their base from their apex, are trying to impose Branson as chief of the design team because he's more compatible to a culture of glorified ignorance than is von Braun.
If you prevail we'll be back in caves before you can say knife.
Complain about this comment
#50 wasowenright wrote: Before we all rush to judge GB I think we should ask ourselves how much of my job depends on Government investment?
Not sure whether you mean investment in the traditional sense of the word, or just spending (unfortunately, following Orwell's warning, Labour have corrupted language for political effect).
The subject matter of this blog was Government borrowing. I see little evidence that the Government is investing in the rational expectation of making a future profit for the UK taxpayer.
However, if public sector employment depends on increasing levels of borrowing then I would suggest that these jobs have never been and never will be secure. At some point, under any Government, expenditure will be cut, debt will be repaid, aggregate demand will fall, and any jobs dependent on it will be lost.
Finally, is anyone actually rushing to judge Gordon Brown, as you suggest? We've watched him for 12 painful years; do we have to wait another 12 before passing judgement?
Complain about this comment
excellence @ 53
come off it, King is just another "banker" - don't be fooled by the double chin, the modulated voice, and the wavy, grey hair - he has no clue what he's talking about - you only like him because he's making trouble for Gordon
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#50 wasow:
I know I have banged on about this issue, but I do believe that the introduction of a maximum wage will help reduce inflation, which is the single cause that most be fought for. Not only that though, a maximum wage will stop all this greed justifying any business practice, as long as it makes a profit. That is what has caused this economic crisis. We can blame GB for not putting in place a regulatory system that was able to forsee this situation developing, but the Tories will go back to a winner takes all philosophy.
----------------
does that mean that as I am self employed that I can decide to work 'all the hours God sends' to better myself and my family but have to cap my earnings?
---------------------
#50 wasow:
Before we all rush to judge GB I think we should ask ourselves how much of my job depends on Government investment?
---------------------
none of my work relies on Government spending, does that make me bad for wanting to earn a good crust and still think that government/local councils need to have a better insight into how to run things profitably.
---------------------------
Sagamix - I know you will think that this makes me a 'Tory' but i have never actually voted the same twice and still cannot fathom which party is best for me and the country! I wish the two together could exist. However I do not think robbing peter to pay paul and sticking it all on the never never is the right way to go.
Complain about this comment
comment 4 has it right..... But taking that point on a little; Peter Mandelson was brought back (Labour creates Lord of 15 titles just to get unelected guy back into Govt. ...!??) because he 'knew this stuff'...but he doesn't... not really....not now
1997 isn't that far away but the 'stuff he knew', the media, has just moved on--these days the velocity of change is incredible ... Mandy is working away with the old fashioned media (papers, lobby, broadcast) but they don't hold the line anymore.... and GB and PM just don't 'get' the new media world.
It's a bit like bringing on Scholes and Giggs in 2009/10...they ARE great players, but not QUITE still the players they were..... and in football, political judgement, or manipulation of the media it's not the 98% of stuff you do as well as you used to do that makes the difference...it's the 1 or 2 % you just can't do anymore ... it's the 'quite' that matters more than the 'still the players they were' part.
Lord Mandelson wasn't brought back to run 'Business' (what businesses has he ever run or worked in ..?) He was brought back to spin well...but 20%> of the vote in the recent polls shows the spinning isn't working...
IF GB had gone with his instincts it couldn't be worse and would probably be better.... the arguments and squabbles now are just political positioning.... Mervyn King is speaking to a post-election agenda ---he's getting his alibis in early
Complain about this comment
Why should'nt the prime minister repeatedly refuse to explain or apologise for his inaccurate claim at last week's PMQs that capital expenditure was going up between now and the Olympics?
Why should'nt any politician refuse to explain or apologise for taking any position on any subject, sometimes totally contradictory positions on the same day, depending upon the audience in question.
Yes, those of us outside of professional politics who have taken some time out to study the subject now realise that in politics, literally anything is possible.
It is a very weird game indeed but anyway, well done Mervyn King for belatedly saying, in the nicest possible way, we're going broke so you politicians need to come up with a convincing plan sharpish or the IMF will be soon asking some very awkward questions (again).
Complain about this comment
Post 53 Excellencefirst...spot on...... King knows the next 11/12 months aren't 'outcomes neutral'; the build-a-boom(let) policy isn't a harm free punt..... it could make things very much worse by late spring next year.
King's saying--( I feel) 'I told him we should have started the policies in Summer 2009..not just started TALKING about starting....the policies then'
Complain about this comment
Maybe Mervyn King should step in for Cameron at PMQs and ask Brown some pertinent questions relating to his plans for a continued spending spree at a time when we are deep in debt? Brown doesn't listen to The Opposition. Perhaps he'll take heed of the top money man in the city in a direct head to head confrontation.
Complain about this comment
People with long memories will recall that I regularly get emails giving me Labour's "lines to take" for their registered bloggers (or covert astroturfers, depending on what you choose to call them). One of this evening's little gems is that people need to be reminded that Mervyn King is a banker and as such not qualified to give a running commentary on national economic policy. Leaving aside the logic (or lack of it) of the argument, I just thought I would comment that I am sure it is only coincidental that this theme has cropped up on this blog today.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, current financial difficulties have, as I understand it, been largely generated by miss management within the 'private' sector - support provided or offered through government funding; so lets squeeze the 'public' sector to try and help balance the books. Individuals largely protected from the decisions they make are likley to cause furthering suffering to many of the people who operate in or rely upon the public sector. I'll wait to see what this means for University provision. I'm guessing further cut backs, including reductions in the hours that staff can actually spend with their students who may well be asked to pay more for this reduced service.
Complain about this comment
... and let's not forget that we have just had to spend face crunching amounts of taxpayer money bailing out the Mervyn Kings of this world - there is no reason whatsoever to take anything he says seriously - as the wise mister toe says @ 58, King's agenda is essentially self serving
Complain about this comment
There are many in the Labour Party who try to tell him; there are many in the other parties who try to tell him.
The people in the country are trying to tell him.
And in the end it will be Peter Mandelson who will tell him.
The game is up.
There is no 'nice' way to get out of a recession; it involves pain whichever way you deal with it.
You can either do it quick and cause a lot of pain or you can do it slowly and cause a lot of pain.
Quick pain or slow pain?
Slow pain or quick pain?
Labour would like 'nice' slow pain.
The Tories would like apparently 'not so nice' quick pain.
Over the last 12 years, Labour have inflicted the pain, way way beyond what the normal cyclical recession would have bought; the Tories have not.
The electorate in the end will decide how they like their pain.
Personally I would like my pain quick, get over it and move on.
My reason?
Because I like a lot of fellow bloggers belong to the generation of this government. We are the ones who are all accountable; we are the ones who are all responsible.
Our children are not. Our childrens children are not. And their childrens children are not.
To all you Labour supporters out there who can see into the future beyond the joke that is our present administration, just what are you going to tell your grandchildren and great grandchildren in the years to come as you put them to bed before you go out on your nightshift to pay for your working retirement?
"You will never have it,.....
.....so.....
.....good.....
.....night".
(Blows out the candle; the electric light bulb fizzled out years before)
This country as a whole and this despicable government needs to grow up!
Stop the self denial, admit the mistakes, have a GE and whoever wins, I'm beyond caring now, just sort out the problem.
Now!
Complain about this comment
Well everyone the interesting news is that the Governments "efficiency" measures have been communicated to the NHS. How about 20% efficiency on buildings next financial year!! Bunk beds for hospitals I assume.
Complain about this comment
sadly @ 57
I know you will think that this makes me a Tory
absolutely nothing wrong with being a Tory, desk, just so long as you don't do anything silly like voting for them!
and jrp ... do stop it ... as if
Complain about this comment
#64 sagamix wrote: King's agenda is essentially self serving
That's right, play the man rather than address the issues.
King is only saying what almost every other financial institution or commentator is saying, be they the IMF, the OECD, or the IFS.
Of course I realise this won't suit your agenda, so I'll write your reply for you: they're all suits, clowns, middle-class, males etc. etc.
By the way, the Bank of England wasn't bailed out by the Government so I don't understand your comment about King receiving crunching amounts of money.
Complain about this comment
Some bloggers who take an interest in macro-financial matters will have observed that the major banks have been boosting their Tier 1 capital ratios in recent so that they might be better placed to withstand future shocks (that was the main point of bank stress testing).
Some political bloggers may recall the rather trite saying 'they should have fixed the roof when the sun was shining', referring to the Government ability during 'good times' to pay down Government debt.
Some may now see a connection between these two points.
That is, the Government really should have paid down national debt as much as possible when it was feasible to do so, which would then have cushioned this country, to some extent, from the world-wide financial shocks that have occurred.
Indeed, I believe Brown did get the national debt as low as £298Bn, after the mobile phone companies stupidly handed over some £22Bn for 3G mobile phone licenses.
However it is now somewhere north of £600Bn and as Mr. King indicated, we are now drowning in debt and need to see a plausible plan for getting out of it.
People should be able to understand that the Government have not been very sensible with their income over the past decade and because of that, the econmic pain, which actually we suffer, not them, is now so much worse than it should have been.
Complain about this comment
#63 jwill5 wrote: current financial difficulties have, as I understand it, been largely generated by miss management within the 'private' sector
Yes, you're right, the immediate financial crisis was a result of systemic failure in bank management, market risk models, and banking regulation.
However, the UK is in a worse position than most other countries because this Labour Government ran a significant budget surplus in the latter boom years. So when the recession eventually ends and unemployment falls the UK has a structural deficit which will not be cured by economic growth. This is exactly the point that the Governor of the Bank of England was making in his speech.
A chosen few have benefited, but ordinary workers in the private sector have suffered under Labour as a result of the trashing of private pension schemes. Over 50 billion pounds has been taken in tax to fund current expenditure since 1997. Gordon has been running a financial scam for 12 years and only now has the majority of the people woken up to it.
Complain about this comment
finally @ 65
despite sitting here typing this wearing one of my large collection of Chairman Mao teeshirts, I yield to no Tory ... except maybe Robin ... in my concern about our debt crisis - and it IS a crisis, no question about it - to be fair, however, it's mainly due to the global credit crunch and the banking bailout, for which we can't in all honesty blame the government - and as to fixing the problem "Now!" well I dunno, what do you suggest?
Complain about this comment
Comment 55 : Sagamix
"come off it, King is just another "banker" - don't be fooled by the double chin, the modulated voice, and the wavy, grey hair - he has no clue what he's talking about - you only like him because he's making trouble for Gordon
What do you think we are on here? Idiotic attention-seeking schoolboys?
There are some people, not many I'm afraid, who take political stances that they think are right, full stop. Not right for them, or right because they're held by someone to whose mast they have nailed their colours, but right, full stop. All the major "political" parties, because they have abandoned politics for managerialism, have very little in the way of policy that should be described as right, full stop. But Labour's economic policy since 1997 has been the most grotesque mistake that has been imposed on the British people, short of war, since records began. It really does take the biscuit.
You, Sagamix, may think it a bit of a laugh for the running of the country to have been taken over by a bunch of people who've never grown out of the oozing self-regard that came from "winning" their first student debate. Strutting about while other, wiser heads looked on, fearful that in tomorrow's world, this abandonment of reason for emotive and deceitful claptrap might be taken by the public as the new wisdom.
How right the onlookers were, eh?
Complain about this comment
j harris @ 68
Of course I realise this won't suit your agenda, so I'll write your reply for you: they're all suits, clowns, middle-class, males etc. etc
you know me so well, John ... hey, what about vacuous poshboys? ... seriously though, one of the biggest lessons I've learnt over the last couple of years is not to take people like Mervyn King seriously - as to the rest ... I say global CC and BB, you say profligate public spending, I say yes but that's on the margins, you say come off it, we were heading for the rocks in any case, I say we weren't, you say we were, I say no we weren't, you say yes yes we WERE, I say, you say etc etc ...
Complain about this comment
Comment 70 : John Harris 66
"Yes, you're right, the immediate financial crisis was a result of systemic failure in bank management, market risk models, and banking regulation."
Well this is a matter of opinion, I think, Mr Harris. There would be some who would say that the fundamental cause for this crisis was the deliberately engineered disappearance of moral risk, in that too many institutions were encouraged to become "too big to fail", they knew they were too big to fail, and, critically, they knew there were others also which were too big to fail.
This changed the rules of the "game" they were playing. Firstly, no longer was it correct business strategy to assess risk including potential failure. By doing so, your institution would not keep pace with everyone else, would be swallowed up by one less cautious, and you. personally, would be put on the scrap-heap.
Sure, the Masters of the Universe made the decisions that got us here, but these weren't the first decisions in the chain. Those were taken by the politicians who saw a popularity fix in setting off the finance and financial services Ponzi scheme of the last 15 - 20 years, and have been, and are now, unwilling to take the cold turkey to get off it.
Complain about this comment
#71 Saga
....and it is nothing to do with the government spending off the back of a credit bubble?
You need a good economist to argue this one with you.
Susan where are you?
Complain about this comment
excellence @ 72
Labour's economic policy since 1997 has been the most grotesque mistake that has been imposed on the British people, short of war, since records began
not sure I agree with that but I guess one can can't form a proper judgement for a while yet - as a matter of interest ... because I am interested! ... what proportion of the blame for our govt debt crisis would you attribute to the global credit crunch? - and then what proportion of the blame for the global credit crunch would you attribute to the policies of the UK Labour govt since 1997? - just approximately I mean, no need for decimal points or anything
Complain about this comment
'There will certainly need to be a plan for the lifetime of the next parliament, contingent on the state of the economy, to show how those deficits will be brought down, IF (my capitals) the economy recovers, to reach levels of deficits below those which were shown in the budget figures.'
The above is from an article in The Guardian this evening. Can I suggest that you actually quote King correctly instead of towing the party line.
Just to make it plain. King is actually suggesting there may not even be a 'recovery'. I'm afraid I agree with him. We really are in very, very dangerous waters and the population of this country deserve much better information than is currently being provided by the Brown Broadcasting Corporation.
Complain about this comment
Mr King the UK banking expert has spoken up. The UK is in deep financial trouble, and it is time to fix this problem. We would surely be the most despised generation of Britons if all we do is pass our problem on to the next generation to resolve.
This will not be easy, and there will be a lot of financial pain along the way. It will be much harder for many of us as we have lived soft and pampered lives.
Parliament must stop looking inwards and act for the benefit of all the people of the UK.
So all you elected Parliamentary MuPpets, its time to stop worrying about Joe Public finding out about your duck houses and second home flipping scams. I think most of us are aware now.
It is time for honesty. (No spin, or lies or angles or useless slogans I think we can all see through you now)
It is time for policy debate, (thats cross party debate, not your know it all dictatorship style decisions Mr Brown) for sound planning and good leadership, for justice and fairness. The colour of your party is no longer of any importance. There is important work to be done. If you have to burn the midnight oil to formulate a robust and workable solution to this mess you have created, then so be it. Look at many of the policy ideas on this blogg, they are honest opinions and beliefs, worthy of fierce Parliamentary debate, and may just offer us a way out of this trap you have set us.
And then it is time for action.
If youre not up to it, then get out now. I hope that, as has been already said, cometh the hour, cometh the man. The hour is upon us.
Complain about this comment
coats @ 75
Susan? ... No!
excellence @ 74
I agree with you looking for root causes beyond poor Regulation ... a red herring in my view ... but the ones I'd go for are overly lax monetary policy from the Fed, plus the warped "one way bet" remuneration policies in the banks - a truly toxic combo - you, I think, are over estimating the power of politicians in the global free market - over estimating their intelligence too - clueless is more the mark, not Machiavellian puppet masters
Complain about this comment
I can say, having spent more of the weekend than I should have done arguing these exact points on an earlier thread in this blog, that what Mervyn King has said today is correct. I'm not going to rehash what I wrote before, but it is perfectly possible to go through a sound set of economic arguments that yield conclusions for which the quotes from King on this thread are the headlines. In short, we are over-borrowed, the credit crunch merely accelerated a direction that our economy has been headed in for a decade, and action is required in the short term to aleviate a major national economic crisis.
The action that is required is a switch of priorities to debt repayment. For a variety of reasons, there is little scope to achieve debt repayment by maintaining current expenditure while increasing taxation. We also have no serious assets left to sell. Therefore, the only course is expenditure reduction.
I do not say this for fun. Really, if you read some of the posts here and in the earlier threads, you would think that economic realists seek to cut government expenditure for sport. The route is, in fact, nothing like across the board 10% cuts as per government misrepresentation of Tory policy. It is about addressing sectors of expenditure with some care. There are some areas where cuts would put a lot of people out of work, and where, aside from the human consequences, overall expenditure reductions would not be achieved because of the massive extra benefits outgoings. To create sudden massive joblessness cannot be a sensible policy. But on the other hand, there are major projects in government where expenditure per UK national employed on them is extraordinarily high, and these have to be the target area. Various computer projects such as the ID register are shining examples of this. So are (though you would struggle to realise it if you merely listened to Brown's random outpourings) a number of major construction projects.
Intelligent, targeted, selective cutting is the only sensible way ahead.
Complain about this comment
Shock horror - our PM tells lies!
Even the BBC has to report the "discrepencies" in Gordon Brown's statements.
The moral compass taking another beating
Complain about this comment
GB reminds me of those *Debt Consolidation* ads: "Now you can borrow enough to get out of debt!!!
Complain about this comment
The problem with plucking unemployment figures out of the air is that it is a risky game of statistical truths.
Current unemployment stands at 2.2m and the Government state that "new claims" have fallen for two months running (they are still rising but at not such a steep rate). Even this is potentially fallacious given that this time of year is notorious for slackening claim rates.
Talk of 4.5m out of work now or 7m in a few years time are okay until one looks at what the Government's bail out of the banks has not achieved. Nothing positive has happened from the banks and it is public investment that is not doing what is needed - creating jobs that will at least generate some economic movement and hold off increasing unemployment. The row over the economy is a part of the "Gentlemen's Club" battle of words - it is not a realistic attempt to get to grips with the UK economy by being innovative. We have a serious shortage of housing so why are we trying to prop up property prices by failing to build new houses or change the use of the many commercial properties that now lay idle?
The "money men" didn't see the recession coming so how far can we trust what they say now?
Complain about this comment
"The governor of the Bank of England has said that government borrowing needs be reduced faster than ministers are currently planning."
Why? Something to do with today's OECD report, according to which the UK's budget deficit will hit 14 per cent of GDP next year - the biggest of any of the OECD's 30 member states? To improve stability, the OECD says, the UK government should continue to develop a concrete and comprehensive plan to ensure that debt is on a declining path once recovery takes hold. Not dissimilar to what the governor of the Bank of Blighty has been saying.
The UK's crushing debt problem will not benefit from the fact that the OECD is now forecasting a contraction in the UK economy of 4.3 per cent for this year, the biggest one-year fall in output since 1945 and worse than the Chancer of the Chequer Board's budget forecast of a 3.5 per cent decline. Previously, the OECD had pencilled in a 3.7 per cent contraction for Blighty this year. Oh dear, and rapidly rising unemployment (up to about 10 per cent in the UK in 2010) will drive down tax receipts and drive up government spending too, of course.
Could it be that Mr King sees a letter 'W' before his eyes and fears the worst, as many economists - or voodoo practitioners, as some are calling them these days - are predicting? What are they predicting precisely that could have anything to do with the letter 'W', and what has it got to do with the public debt that Mr King is apparently so concerned about? Are you sitting comfortably?
You may remember that a couple of weeks ago you were being invited to believe that green shoots were appearing that signified that the sick man of Europe was transforming himself by means of gross indebtedness into an island of blissful prosperity in a sea of troubles in the space of several weeks since the memorable Euro-parliamentary speech delivered in the presence of the UK PM by Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP for South East England.
One recalls that on March 24th Mr Hannan denounced the UK PM for having "subsidised, where you have not nationalized outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks", referring to the fact that the UK was in the worst economic condition of any G20 state. Could this miraculously no longer be so? One thinks of rabbits being pulled out of hats. A nice trick if you can manage it, but you know and even the rabbit knows that it is still only an optical illusion.
The fact of the matter, as Mr Hannan insisted, is that other states used the good years to pay off debt while the UK failed to do so, which is why the UK economy is burdened with unprecedented and dangerously high levels of government debt now that bad times have come. Squeezing "the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit" is how Mr Hannan characterized the Labour UK government's stewardship of the economy before proceeding to condemn its desperate attempt to "spend its way out of recession and borrow its way out of debt".
As for Mr Brown's claim that the UK was in a better economic condition than other states, Mr Hannan dismissed it contemptuously to rapturous applause up and down the UK and beyond: "You know, and we know, and you know that we know that its nonsense!"
As for the present position, one gathers that the CBI director-general, Richard Lambert, has let it be known publicly that he anticipates that the UK economy will contract by 3.9 per cent over 2009 before a slight recovery may be tentatively envisaged for next year, when the UK economy may be expected, however, to begin to be hit by the horrendous government-debt crisis that is being confidently forecast and which may well be as difficult, if not more difficult, to cope with than the original financial crisis which gave rise to the current phenomenal economic one.
Mr Lambert is evidently not alone in warning people against getting carried away by talk of 'green shoots' in the economy. May it not be far better to face facts and to place them within the context in which their true significance can optimally be discerned? This is self-evidently a rational approach, from which one should not allow oneself to be intimidated into deviating, as we witness the mud-wrestling between the champions of two opposing schools of thought. One perceives that the ringside spectators are arriving, breathless with anticipation, as Labour and other anglo-unionist spin-merchants deny that economists know anything about anything until they espy one who can be counted on, from past experience, to see things their way, at least in some respects, if they select from his words carefully, and then the fun begins.
Before this economist speaks, Professor Niall Ferguson, of Harvard, an historian, if you please, writes in the Financial Times that it is all quite simple essentially: the authorities are spending thousands of billions of dollars without really knowing what they are doing. Gasp! Quick intake of breath, and the markets begin to wobble. If these authorities borrow money to stimulate the economy, all they succeed in doing is to withdraw money from the private sphere to divert it towards public expenditure. There is no point in doing this, he argues.
Then the voice of Anglo-American casino-capitalist vested interests is heard, thundering across the Worldwide Web. In his blog, Paul Krugman accuses Ferguson - what with being an historian and all - of living in the Middle Ages of macro-economics, whatever that is supposed to mean. He explains that Ferguson is forgetting about the "proof" advanced by Keynes that supplementary government expenditure is an additional factor for the economy, so long as there is not full employment. As soon as there is full employment, on the other hand, then it is a different kettle of fish, he argues. It is, he suggests, in those circumstances that government borrowing merely stifles private borrowing.
What does all of this mean, and what has it got to do with what Krugman has been saying about the UK economy? Well, what it would appear to mean is that governments all over the planet, led into this by the USA, have been spending trillions with a view to preventing what could be a terrible Depression. However, the theory upon which they have been basing their hypotheses is of such slender substance that major theorists, including the German chancellor, who is nobody's window dressing, seem not to be able to support it.
According to the FT the other week, the Keynesian revolution was no triumph of science but was no more than a triumph of common sense. Many would agree, apparently, that there is no science in Keynes' work but would disagree that there is common sense in it, Keynes' "proof" proving to be defective. He merely claims that, when governments borrow and spend during a recession, they cannot stifle private borrowing without also increasing economic activity, which he considers to be advantageous.
At this point it may be best to put all of this abstruseness to one side and conceive of the matter differently. Another way of looking at it would be to imagine a town in which people have borrowed too much and spent too much. Faced with unemployment and a slowing down of economic activity, the council borrows money to build a new town hall, thus putting "unused" resources to work. This does not stifle private activity, because private citizens are sheltered from it and are busy trying to repay their debts. They save. They lend to the council. Private borrowers have no better use for the money. That is the theory. On the face of it, it seems as if the stimulus plan of the council may be a great success, as people are soon getting back to work, money is changing hands again and the new town hall is being built.
What is actually happening here, however? The citizens will have a new town hall. This is, however, a building that they did not particularly want when everything was going well. Now they also have their share of the debt that the council has committed them to in order to have the said town hall built. So, while the town may seem to be more prosperous, with people employed in the new town hall, drawing salaries and spending money, this prosperity, is, however, artificial, just like the original prosperity that was based on debt and over-spending. So, instead of solving the problem, another one has been created, which means that, whereas formerly there was one problem, now there are two problems, the second one being more intractable than the first, because it derives from it and from a failure to resolve it. (This is where the 'W' comes in, of course, although it may prove to be a lopsided one, alas.)
The citizenry have obtained not just one thing that they did not want but two things that they did not want: namely, a new town hall and more debt! Sooner or later, other expenditure - on necessary services, not least - will have to be suspended so that the new town hall can be paid for, at which point the original debt in response to which the buiding project was initiated will still have somehow to be paid back. Nonetheless, provided that the council can time events to fit advantageously into the political calendar, it may succeed in pulling the wool over the electorate's eyes and get itself re-elected so as to continue to derive the benefits of public office while the citizenry suffer the calamity which their undeservingly re-instated representatives have engineered.
This in other words is in essence at least partly what Angela Merkel appears to be telling the central banks: whether it soon begins to look as if a recovery is taking place or not, we shall in due course be back where we started, if we do not find ourselves to be in fact worse off than that. This would appear to be the context within which we should examine today's statement by Mr King as well as Mr Krugman's statement on the UK economy, in support of which the UK government has committed taxpayers to unprecedented levels of government debt, future substantial tax increases and swingeing government cut-backs in the provision of essential services, over which arguments are already beginning to rage.
Professed admirers of Krugman should give the man some credit for a degree of balance and perspective, indications of which may be detected in his NY Times blog entry of June 10th on the topic of 'green shoots'. There he says - in a blog which, frankly, seems disconcertingly insubstantial - that he perceives that the economic news is starting to "darken again". Up through about March every report was worse than expected, he states, "often worse than you could have imagined". Since then most reports, he claims, although continuing to be bad "in an absolute sense", have "surprised on the upside". His impression, however, is that reports are increasingly coming in (concerning Korean trade, Japanese orders and German exports, for instance) that are once again "surprising on the downside". His concluding cautionary remark is: "This thing aint over yet."
Indeed. Beware of the 'W'. In 2010, when the world may be beginning to emerge from the recession, the UK will not be doing so, apparently, according to the OECD, and unprecedented and dangerous levels of UK government debt, resulting in part from pre-recession fiscal policy that Mr King considers to have been unsustainable, will confront the incoming UK government with a requirement to raise taxes and cut spending as unemployment spirals horrendously out of control.
As if 2010 were not already looking like a bit of an 'annus horribilis', for some, what else may be happening then to stir the pot? Why, a Scottish Government referendum on independence, of course. Don't tell me you had forgotten. In the scenario that you may expect, the result of that referendum may be, on a conservative estimate, fairly evenly balanced. Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble.
Complain about this comment
Comment 76 : Sagamix
I'll try to come back to you, but it won't be until tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
the bank of england should regain their powers and the joke that is the FSA should be dismissed and got rid of, in its entirity.
the tri agreement was a farce, "the bank of england are independant" stated brown/blair, that maybe, but members of the monetary policy committee who vote each month on interest rates were labour stooges.
the powers that were in place to stop the banks overstretching themselves, were removed from the bank of england and given to the FSA, not for "a new approach" but for brown/blair to remain in control.
this methodolgy from brown completely fell flat on its face, to say the FSA was out of its depth would be an understatement, it didnt just fail, it was negligent!
that it took so long to fail, was more a tribute to the strength of the economy that labour inherited in 97, widely acknowledged as one of the strongest economic set of books an incoming government has ever taken on.
brown's line today is "we are doing all we can to help home owners" yet i fail to see how giving billions of borrowed/printed money to the banking world, so they can charge us higher fixed term mortgage interest rates to pay back this money, actually helps a single person with a mortgage?
not only does the taxpayer have to repay all this printed/borrowed money, but the taxpayer has to (and will do in the future) pay a higher price for their mortgages. in addition taxpayer's will have the horrendous amounts of debt interest (ie, wasted money) to pay out as well!
i welcome the bank of england standing up for a redress of the nation's debt, something needs to give and the british taxpayer is in dire need of protection from another 12 months (or until a general election) of labour spin and continued borrowing/printing money.
forget party politics, we have no choice but to bring this debt we taxpayers have been burdened with, under control as soon as possible!
Complain about this comment
62 jrperry
When I first read the above I was angry that, if true, Labour try to influence an open discussion forum.
Then I was pleased because it means Labour is scared of us or sees us as influential and needs to try to negate that influence.
Then I looked at sagas contributions and must ask saga, are you on the Labours "lines to take" bloggers list?
Complain about this comment
Whoever takes over after Brown is inheriting an awful mess and will not be thanked for making the tough decisions that this Government has avoided. Thank goodness Mr King has had the courage to speak out and in so doing has left our Gordon looking like a lonely Shag on a rock!
Complain about this comment
Nothing is going to happen until the person who was Chancellor while this developed is still Prime Minister. It is clear the he has a physiological problem in admitting mistakes so he will never be able to admit that his almost all of his policies have been wrong then take steps to change them.
The only answer is gobro go.
Complain about this comment
Mervyn King's remarks rather put Brown's claims of real imvestment increases as opposed to Conservative cutbacks into perspective. I wonder how long he will continue with this electoral falsehood?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/king-warns-of-the-long-hard-slog-to-clear-britains-debt-1718035.html
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else noticed how when Brown is making exaggerated claims about public spending in PMQs Harriet Harman sits behind him on the front bench nodding in assent almost continually whereas Alistair Darling just sits there stony faced with not a hint of positive body language?
Complain about this comment
tun @ 87
hey steady on! - accusing me of "taking a line" - you'll get me locked up
Complain about this comment
every one knows pmq,s are just for public airing and go no where near the true direction the government plans to go.
a publicity stunt aimed at pleasing the public but it serves no honest purpose and is a joke.
the mass public knows what state this country is in and knows there will be cuts and deserve honesty from those in government, but we get whitewash and flimflam merchants trying to play party politics with this countries future, how narrow minded of them.
this country is in crisis and needs leadership not what we have at the moment a lame duck government and inept opposition.
ever decreasing circles is how our politics seems to be going.
change is needed, not just government but the whole system.
Complain about this comment
My inclination is to believe the OECD , Mr King and Prof Ferguson.
I am disinclined to give credence to Mr Brown , Mr Darling,Mr Krugman or Sagamix.
All of whom follow the " we can't be wrong , so it must be you" line.
And at least three of them follow the party line of " Tory cuts , Labour Investment"
I want a political line of " Dear god how do we save the country?" and Not " How do we save our seats?"
In my fairly long life I have never seen such a desperate decline as this, and I do blame it ALL on the last 12 years of lies and spin , of illegal wars and celebrity culture in politics.
I am disgusted with a compliant media who should be there to ferret out truth and hold to account those in power.
I am most disgusted with the "Westminster" media who have been arrogant, short sighted and self congratulatory. Those chosen so often to be interviewed on the BBC because they are " Safe" the Toynbees, the Whites.
The fact that the PM allows one question at his press conference , which he never answers , is never challenged.
Complain about this comment
36. At 6:27pm on 24 Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:
I have been through a Tory fix it before and it was not nice high unemployment and wages driven down except for top few.
So you've been through a Tory fix eh, so have many more of us.
I was a miner in 84-85 so don't preach like your the only one who suffered.
Who do i blame for the recession in the 80's..................Labour.
Labour to put it politly messed up the country the last time they were in power and were promptly booted out in 79, remember the winter of discontent, mass strikes, rat infested rubbish piled high in the streets, dead bodies not being buried, or is your memory fading now?
Every socialist should read these words...........YOU CAN'T KEEP SPENDING WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE!
It's not rocket science, where do you think the money keeps coming from?
hard working Brits are bleeding from high taxes yet it's all going into a debt ridden black hole as it was in the late 70's when Thatcher came in and had to take drastic action to plug the hole which she did.
Once again we have to wait for a Tory government to come into power to fix the economy.
In my opinion this has without doubt been the worst Labour administration we have ever seen, giving away our powers to Brussels
destruction of the pensions industry, mass immigration, massive pfi debt, stupidity beyond belief in selling the countries gold at a LOSS of £3 billion.
The human rights act giving criminals equal and sometimes more rights than there victims.
The scrapping of the 10p tax band hitting the low paid.
The waste of money setting up the FSA and their ineffective monitoring of the banking system when the BoE could have done a far better job. (something the Tories plan to do).
The trouble with the majority of Labour supporters is that they think the state is there to provide for them.
The state is NOT there to provide for people it is there to provide a service for people.
Complain about this comment
If you look at the pre-1997 inflation and interest rates, you will find that both inflation and interest rates came down after the election of 1997, and have remained low since.
This resulted in making a lot of things and aspirations more affordable for more people (myself included).
It also caused investors to look towards more speculation and risk to try to achieve the higher interest rates they had been enjoying previously.
Unfortunately these risky and speculative investments, from necessity, used money some of us were able to save, necessitating Government action to protect our deposits, when the nature of the speculations and risks were exposed.
Although my view may be too simplistic, I think we have an ethical choice here.
Would we prefer to have the sort of control and regulation which keeps interest rates and inflation as low as possible to keep things affordable for as many people as possible, or would we rather allow inflation and interest rates to rise as a way of potentially cutting consumer spending and rewarding saving?
No one is disputing the necessity to bring down Government borrowing, but I suggest anyone advocating one particular way of doing this weighs very carefully the pros and cons of the fiscal policies of the past 12 years.
Complain about this comment
it's no longer a party political issue.
how much we have to cut spending will be determined by those who buy our debt, not by any politicians.
merv issued a warning.
the end game is nigh.
Complain about this comment
I love the Govenors interventions a little bit indiscrete here then rows back to neutrality again once the damage has been done. He is really a class act. I have a sneakey feeling though that George Osbourne will not welcome this when in Government.
PMQs makes me laugh it's all cleverly done with Cameron picking the dates so naturally it is a cut, Gordon reading out figures because he doesn't seem to want to attack Cameron personally so each side can argue this until the cows come home.
The real issue is how long do we take to bring down public debt do we do it quickly cutting doctors, nurses, teachers, ending benefit quickly in a short sharp shock -the tories favoured way. Or do we do it at a slower pace (but still cutting doctors nurses etc.) in an attempt to lessen the pain on those people who need public services in our society the labour way. That in essence will be the choice at the next general election. The Governor suggested that we should combine the two approaches in my view.
The depth of the cuts will in part depend on how the economy performs and how we compete with our competitors for market share. If we perform well then investment can go into the NHS and the cuts in other areas (maybe) could be less as increased tax revenues can go to pay off the national debt (as happened after 97).
If you look at how the Tories did last time they took over from Labour -they instigated really deep cuts initially but it did not really go down that well and the public were angry (this is before computers and blogs and instant reaction) and a boom was created by Lawson to win an election that didn't really help national debt payments at all and led to the recession in the early 90's.
I know I will be accused of bringing back old history so therfore not relevant etc - but remember the quote 'those who do not know their history are destined to repeat the same mistakes'
I would like Cameron and Brown to really debate the issue of how we pay off the debt what the choices are for us rather than this 'you don't tell the truth you are a bad PM' ' recite List of figures you would make it worse' rubbish that passes for political debate at present. Cameron has a first class education it would be nice if he showed it from time to time.
Complain about this comment
Jerry Springer has a point (or two)
No Professional politicians. People should have their own careers and do politics as a voluntary thing. Anybody of any age race colour or creed. Could be argued you would only get rich people who could afford to do it but perhaps some form of remuneration and expenses / allowances where appropriate. Definitely a government owned building (such as the old county hall in Westminster) for those needing a second base in London on occasions.
AND now the BBC. Why DO we need a State owned tv service? This BBC is the most awful and out of touch (viz the climedown in foul language). Why do the public have to PAY for this service which offends so often by bringing porn and filth into our sitting rooms? Why does East Enders offend at 7.30 when small children can ask - what is a condom and why did Ronnie put a hole in one? DISGRACEFUL.
I would imagine Mervyn King is right on the button and far more competent and dedicated than Darling. No contest!!!
BBC totally out of touch. Government totally out of touch.
As Jerry Springer says: "Rise Up"!!!!
Complain about this comment
#92 sagamix
Bit early isn't it?????
Complain about this comment
#69 JohnConstable
No, I don't believe that the government have been very wise with our money, however, it is economically and politically impossible for the Conservatives to have done much better (or fixed the roof while the sun was shining - always have found that a strange euphemism for saving money).
Given that both parties, adhere to neo-liberal fundamentalist economic policies (more so than the US), and the fact that there really is very little between the two parties due to our voting system (20,000 floating voters deciding which party has an overwhelming mandate), nope, we would be in roughly the same position. Besides, PFI/PPP was a Conservative idea and hospitals and schools still needed renewing.
Anecdotally, there's also the fact that Cameron/Osborne, were essentially Blairites, and until recently, planned to match government spending.
Anyway, back to Mervyn King, I agree with your earlier post, the Governor is reminding everyone that whilst they're talking expenses and parliamentary reform, there's our AAA rating to preserve.
Complain about this comment
I think King was right to demand more powers back for the BOE. Proper bankers (not the Goodwin types) understand banking and as such we most probably would not have been in this position now if they had been allowed to do their job properly as they used to be able to do under the previous strict regulation before 1997. At least it would have ensured that the banks had enough capital to lending, which now they have to start from base level to build up and deal with the toxic debt within them. This will ensure they will not be able to lend at decent levels for some time to come. Big banks also should be broken up into smaller ones to make sure they are not too big to fail in my opinion.
In 1997 the Conservatives left an economy in complete balance for the first time over recent years. For the first couple or so years under Brown he followed the Conservatives spending plans and all looked well. However from then onwards he went on a spending spree for reasons best known to himself which was building up to be totally unsustainable even before this recession/depression began. Therefore even if the banking crisis had not happened we would have been heading for trouble anyway.
It is obvious to everyone now that Darlings growth figures are completely wrong and the economy will this year shrink by 4% at least, the largest since 1931. His prediction from then onwards is that the economy will grow by 1.25% in 2010 and then 3.5% in 2011. This I believe is incorrect as I think in the later stages of this crisis we will see rapid inflation and sterling even weaker. I believe we will see the return of the stagnation of the 70s. I also believe we will have to have more quantitative easing.
Normally in good times in the economy such as the last 12 years we would as a Country cut back on spending in the public sector and increase spending in times of decline this we cannot do as we have increased spending during the good times to levels not seen before. The figure of public borrowing deficit of 12.5% of GDP expected to increase to 14% is truely awful. This will mean a combination of spending cuts and taxation to even start to help in my opinion. The ratings agencies will wait to see if a comprehensive plan is brought forward to cut our public finances before they finally decide to take away our AAA status. They will however not stave off doing this for much longer so in time to come if we continue as we are borrowing on our debt will become much more expensive.
Of course there were other factors too such as high levels of immigration which put pressure onto our services. It allowed our people to remain on benefits while immigrants did the work our people would not, thus keeping the payments on beneifts at a high level and increasing. Education as well as more young people have taken qualifications in skills not needed by employers and were left on benefits as there was no requirement in the work place for their skills.
I believe even though we are in recession/depression cuts must begin in the public finances now because we are just adding to our debt everyday that we do not. This debt puts more drag on the economy as we try to recover. These cuts do not have to be in the frontline services as Brown says, as doctors, nurses, policemen etc only make up a quarter of our public spending it will be spin doctors, civil servants etc that this Government has created jobs for. It has to be things like ID cards, public sector pensions and all the other expensive unnecessary projects that this Government has engaged in. Otherwise we could quite possibly see our services failing right across the board as the money runs out.
However you look at this crisis, Brown is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in. By Government fiscal policy he has taken away all the possible tools we could have had to fight this banking crisis and leaving the City to run itself without proper regulation. His spending in the public sector has ensured for years to come, we as a Country will be paying for this.
This of course is my opinion others may think differently.
Complain about this comment
The Governor said that the deficit reduction plan should be contingent on economic conditions, by which he presumably meant that deficit reduction should wait until unemployment gets back down to normal levels. This can only happen some time after the recession ends.
He also said that the pattern of this recession was different from any other recession since the 1930s. Implying that this recession may be similar to that in the 1930s and be followed by a long lasting depression, going on beyond the next parliament.
This means that the urgent question which parties need to answer is not how to reduce the deficit, which will happen automatically when employment recovers, but how to speed up this recovery. Reducing the deficit in the short term will not help.
Complain about this comment
92. sagamix
Or there may be a future for you in the Shadow Cabinet!!
Complain about this comment
Future Gov spending/borrowing trends will be solely dictated by the taxation revenues that are received by the Treasury. In the last 10 years the bulk of tax colected was on the back of the Billions of profit made by the financial sector, and the miilions that the banks paid out in bonuses. The banks are profitable again but not on the scale as before, but are paying bonuses (?) again - at the behest of the Gov maybe?
Energy companies are raking in the profits, but mostly on the back of an artificially high price for natural gas. But this makes the average Joe poorer so they have less to spend on the High Street. The economy across the board is out of kilter, some sectors surviving just others in dire straits and some doing very well. The differences are not geographic but is down to companies and people who have or have not saved for a rainy day.
What is becoming clear is that existing political dogma and economic strategies are not going to work. I strongly suspect that the way economic data is collected in the UK obscures the real picture. Hence the media analysis of where we are in the economic cycle is so contradictory. I do welcome Tory proposals to give more power to the BofE, but a radical scrutiny of regulatory reporting is required.
An example: when the FSA was created the reporting forms were identical to the old Dep of Trade and Industry ones. But the financial products that exist now are not comparable to those of 20 years ago, and yet the same product classifications are being used. This simplification of the classification means that low risk and high risk products are often lumped together which is more misleading than not. If you put garbage in you will always get garbage out. During my time in financial services regulatory reporting was always a headache, as slotting figures into different categories could be argued either way.
There must be a greater emphasis on the manufacturing sector, and the Gov of the day to become more UK centric rather than EU as was advocated by Blair. There is also scope for land protection schemes, such as stopping coastal erosion. The thought of our nuclear power stations on the east coast being flooded is terrifying, and yet sod all is being done about it. The last time this was raised the Dep of Environment came up with a new Thames barrier to protect London! The chimpanzees in London Zoo could do a better job of running Whitehall!
Complain about this comment
72. At 10:24pm on 24 Jun 2009, ExcellenceFirst wrote:
You... may think it a bit of a laugh for the running of the country to have been taken over by a bunch of people who've never grown out of the oozing self-regard that came from "winning" their first student debate. Strutting about while other, wiser heads looked on, fearful that in tomorrow's world, this abandonment of reason for emotive and deceitful claptrap might be taken by the public as the new wisdom.
How right the onlookers were, eh?
Yes, they were. While the MPs and constituency parties voted down the older, wiser heads for jobs because they think that the public would prefer younger, more camera-friendly leaders. And, let's face it, they are probably right about that. Reason is not much in evidence because the public themselves don't want reason. They want an X-Factor election with X-Factor people and X-Factor thrills and spills. They really do have the government that they deserve. This is why I believe that compulsory voting would be a disaster; can you imagine what politicians would resort to in exchange for votes?
Complain about this comment
#102 susan-croft
Thanks for your opinion, it is different to half the economists that appear onthe today programme, but similar to most of the rest and almost identical to a few.
This game that everyone loves to play, I think it's called, "Let's out-predict the Chancellor", is great fun, but by the time you are proved right or wrong, no one remembers what you said and no-one cares.
Do you agree that no matter who wins the next election and whoever is Chancellor, the free-market capitalist system will require a downturn, slowdown, recessions, whatever we want to call it.
It is caused by greed. The system rewards people who force prices to their absolute limit and then whtch everything plummet, and use their accumulated funds to by back assets at the new, lower price.
Can we agree on that?
Complain about this comment
In Philip Tetlock's book Expert Political Judgement, a 20 year study of 82,361 predictions by Political scientists, economists and journalists found that the accuracy was so poor they would have been beaten by random guesses. One other thing of note was that these experts at a later date remembered themselves being more accurate and certain than they actually were. With such evidence to hand is there a real future for the "he said she said" game as it would appear to be a complete waste of time. Those in government have to make decisions that turn out to be wrong as many times as they are right, no different from the rest of us and god only knows we are suffering the consequences of many past government decisions from the Thatcher and previous eras. Therefore why can't we just take pronouncements from the governor of the BOE with the right amount of prudence as I daily give to your pronouncements? I'm sure that the first task of governments to have to keep proving they are right cramps our political thinking, after all thank god we can't all be as perfect as Vince Cable thinks he is, if he was prime minister like we would go no where!
Complain about this comment
Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!!
I've been moderated for saying that Gordon tells lies!
People are being shot in Iran, yet we here are banned from telling the truth about our deceitful Prime Minister, even though Nick's blog states that Gordon made an "inaccurate claim".
Jesus wept.
Complain about this comment
#102. At 10:36am on 25 Jun 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
"This of course is my opinion others may think differently."
You seem to be spot on Susan, especially if you are implying that we are not at bottom yet.
Just to pick up on one of your comments:
"These cuts do not have to be in the frontline services as Brown says, as doctors, nurses, policemen etc only make up a quarter of our public spending it will be spin doctors, civil servants etc that this Government has created jobs for. It has to be things like ID cards, public sector pensions and all the other expensive unnecessary projects that this Government has engaged in."
And there lies the problem, a PM who has surrounded himself with these people, taking advice from these people, listening to only these people, when was the last time a turkey asked to have it's neck rung...
Complain about this comment
Ok....just suppose that there was a PM who was under so much pressure that he started to become un-stable and issue statements that only represent what he wants to be the case rather than actually what is the case. A sort of 'in denial' type situation.
At what point does the 'system' step in to say enough is enough?
Have we reached that point yet? Have to say i am worried for GB's health right now. What we need now is courage from his cabinet to end this farce. Somehow, i dont think it will come. What then?
Complain about this comment
extremesense @ 101
Upon reflection, I did not get across my point very clearly linking bank resilience and Government debt.
What I was trying to say is that in both cases, counter-cyclical measures needed to be undertaken.
That is in 'good times', banks have to bolster their reserves and the Government needs to pay down as much debt as possible so that when the 'bad times' come along (boom and bust has patently not been abolished) then both banks and Government have the capability to withstand the worst excesses of a recession.
Both the banks and the Government failed to take these prudent measures during the 'good times' and worse, the Government has been forced to bail out the banks, which has made its own fiscal position even more difficult.
On a different subject, I accept your statement that just 20,000 floating voters in a few marginal constituencies usually determine the outcome of the General Election.
That is patently a grotesque state of affairs for the first world democracy and if English people were not so generally ignorant of politics then this simply would not occur.
There should not be a 'safe seat' anywhere in a properly functioning democracy and maybe someday, somewhere, that will be the case and I personally do not see any reason why we English cannot be the first to achieve that.
Complain about this comment
The worse thing about Labour's debt bombshell is that neither Tony or Gordon are able to answer the question:
"Where has all the money gone?
Complain about this comment
107, Owen
It is caused by greed. The system rewards people who force prices to their absolute limit and then whtch everything plummet, and use their accumulated funds to by back assets at the new, lower price.
--------------
I would like to propose an amendement to your statement.
It is caused by short term focussed greed. If the greed had been long term, taking into account the future ahead of one year, then we would not be where we are.
This is the danger of quotas and short term incentives. Executives need to have a performance related element to their pay, or their is no incentive for them, but this should be a strictly long term incentive which stretches beyond their period in the top position, in order that they are never benefitted by getting a "quick fix".
Complain about this comment
#34 everyone does not want the NHS ring fenced that part of the problem
they want it to be improved and work better than it does for a start. from the little dealings that I have had its a"system" in choas.
Why say cut trident as opposed to sorting out the family Courts where there are so REAL issues to be dealing with ??
Complain about this comment
#107 wasowenright
I agree, who knows what's going to happen? The Americans including Paul Krugman feel that our Chancellor (and PM) have saved the world of capitalism. As for other economists, if you count most that count the average prediction works out at twenty basis points above the Chancellor's. But anyway.
I also believe you're right given that both Labour and the Tories subscribe to fundamentalist neo-liberal economic policies. It doesn't matter who's in power, they're the same sides of a dirty coin.
Britain simply will not change when only about 20,000 floating voters in marginal constituencies are responsible for delivering the government of the day an overwhelming mandate.
Greed will prevail.
Complain about this comment
#38 yeah and that selective reportig of news events too by the BBC
Complain about this comment
#109 jonathan
You may been moderated for something else you said as you have now been able to say it.
Just one thought, to make an "inaccurate claim", is not the same as telling a lie. The same as giving your opinion of Gordon Brown's truthfullness is not the same as telling the truth, whether people are being shot in Iran or not.
Complain about this comment
sc @ 102
Susan! ... where've you been? ... this house just aint no home when you run away like that ... bet you're feeling super strong and confident, now that MK is saying the same as you ... but back to my challenge, post 206 on that other thread (you know, the one where you got all sulky and threatened to stop posting) ... waiting
Complain about this comment
King checks Brown on the economy - Checkmate.
This calls into question everything that Brown Labour has been spouting recently about spend and cut politics.
Brown Labour is dead , long live the King.
191. At 2:26pm on 24 Jun 2009, ikamaskeip
Thanks for sharing.
As an Engineer, the English language is simply a tool.
I usually don't have the time to use a scalpel to make my point, I therefore favour the sledge hammer.
The sledge hammer approach saves precious (lunch) time, but is never laboured.
Etymology is less interesting to me than Entomology.
In this respect, when did you last see an Ant eat an Aardvark.
However, whats the odd, acidic comment between friends?
I find it flattering that you spent the time to respond to me.
Back to work now.
Ill continue bringing ideas into reality, while you continue to muse over the meaning of reality.
Bye Bye. :0)
Complain about this comment
#87 I suggest to prove that saga if not a labour lines blogger that he talks about the family courts and the dissater for the family and financial for the country that they have been ?
Cause none ofthe other social justice fairer society blogger want to talk about blair/brown legacy in that arean ?
Complain about this comment
wasowenright 107
Since I do not have time to listen to the the 'Today Programme' I have no idea what the economists say on there so I cannot comment. By the same token I do not know what other economists have influenced you so I cannot comment either. The knowledge that the Chancellor has been wrong up to now is out there so you can make your own predictions if you wish. I have no interest whether what I say is remembered or not, I do not see that as very important. I have been saying the same thing consistantly since before all this happened and I see no reason to change my mind. What matters much more to me is our economy and how it will affect the lives of people in this Country and the misery it may bring to many.
We are in a recession/depression already so I do not see what the next election has to do with it. However if you mean will the next Government have to make cuts in spending I think that is already established except for Brown himself who believes he is still spending when he is cutting.
The last comment I am afraid made no sense to me so I am sorry I cannot answer. Maybe one of the others can help you out there.
Complain about this comment
108. At 11:47am on 25 Jun 2009, notfooledsteve wrote:
...Those in government have to make decisions that turn out to be wrong as many times as they are right, no different from the rest of us and god only knows we are suffering the consequences of many past government decisions from the Thatcher and previous eras. Therefore why can't we just take pronouncements from the governor of the BOE with the right amount of prudence as I daily give to your pronouncements? I'm sure that the first task of governments to have to keep proving they are right cramps our political thinking...
No argument there. If they were 50% right 60% of the time I'd be impressed.
What I'm questioning is their reasons for implementing the policies in the first place - usually not for the country's benefit but cynically, for their own benefit. I know, I know; 'twas ever thus. But if ever there was a time to put together a government of thinkers as opposed to a government of posers, it's now.
Complain about this comment
If anyone has read the Independent today they are suggesting the whisper in Westminster amid the journalists is that Gordon Brown is preparing to step down.
Is this why these postings by Nick R have become so anodyne? He knows the end is appoaching but is not allowed to speculate?
Gordon Brown's performance at PMQs yesterday was a disaster and he knows it. None of the usua; cheering form his own side just bewildered disbelief that he can go on blustering and grandstanding about investment vs cuts when we are in the middle of the most serious downturn for a century.
Everyone knows cuts must come, everyone knows cuts are coming under newlabour or the tories. Everyone knows we are staring into the abyss with mountains of debt piling up and no credible plan to reduce it from newlabour.
Call an election; this is a farce.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 119
Sorry I have not been back there, I was not sulking honestly. Just started to think it was taking up too much time. I did not always have the time to answer. Will have a look. To be fair I was saying it before King came along because you kept telling not to be so certain. No it does not make me any more confident, its very sad actually.
Complain about this comment
Just been looking at some earlier blogs on this topic and it is amusing to see several references stating "if the Tories were in power it would be high wages for the few". Gordon has also been spouting on about the Tories cutting public expenditure whereas labour would continue to invest.
I work in a region in southern england with 44 local authorities. My local authority has a CEO paid £240k per year plus a pension to make your eyes water. It is a small market town. They have also just moved into new offices that resemble a Ritz Carlton hotel complete with an atrium lobby. It is not a Tory town.
The days of the stereotypical Tory and Labour 'values' are gone. As should be this Government.
Complain about this comment
Nick it was you who came up with the phrase 'stealth cuts' after the budget but up until now you have never forced the truth from the downing street idiots.
We all no that Brown can't tell the truth to save his life.
I saw him yesterday like a little boy caught out doing wrong trying to argue black white.
It would be funny if this man had not run the country the economy and the moral reputation of this nation into the ground.
I will say it again Labour should never be trusted with countries future ever again. If the people make that mistake again they only have theirselves to blame
Complain about this comment
Despite the enormous fiscal damage that Gordon Brown as Chancellor has inflicted upon the people of England, the effects of which will be felt by us English people for decades, not the least in our pensions, at this juncture I feel a modicum of pity for the fellow.
He patently does not have the attributes which seem to be pre-requisites for the Prime Ministers job in this day and age, which his predessor had in spades, i.e. the natural smile, the ease with new media, the instant attractive soundbite plus an intuitive grasp of English sensibilities and so on.
In essence, Mr. Brown is a fish-out-of-water, a old-school Scottish socialist politician trying to primarily manage English expectations - mission impossible!
Things will be so much easier for the politicians of the respective countries - England and Scotland, when both are fully independent political entities again.
Hopefully, thanks to the Scottish people, that will happen fairly soon and put an end to the political misery we currently endure.
Complain about this comment
At a small business function I attended last night (South LDN), of the 20+ company owners and managers (from various service industries) I spoke to, a clear majority thought that we had not reached the 'bottom' yet, unemployment was going to inflict more damage, and that a change of PM, most said government, was necessary to get us out of the state of limbo the country is in and get confidence back.
Uplifting stuff. At least the wine was palatable.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 119
and you put a public notice out on me which sure did not help, it got me in trouble with another blogger, a good one at that.
Complain about this comment
#107 susan-croft
You know very well what I am asking of you. You seem to have recently taken on the role of this blog's cheif economist, my question to you is, if it was possible to come up with a economic strategy that was fool proof, with-in a capitalist framework, don't you think someone might have dropped it in at the Treasury by now. I think they would be paid a fortune for that information. You seem to think you have this information so why don't you pop round there and see what Alistair says.
The impression I get is that you can't provide an answer because there isn't one. The capitalist system requires regular failures in order to create opportunities for those people that are called capitalists. Initially, they were seen as a good thing in that they provided funds for other people's ideas, but over the centuries they have come to think of themselves as more important than the idea it's self. What started out as a good idea has run it's course and is no longer functioning.
There are plenty of outlets on the TV and radio for these economists, they are everywhere. The one thing that is consistant with economists, is their inconsistancy. Saga gave it a "soft science" tag and that is what it is. It is the application of ideas where the framework it opporates in is always shifting.
What you talk of is not economics, it is political philosophy. You believe that each to their own. You work hard, get your rewards and if someone else can't, or won't do the same, then tough on them. The, "I'm all right Jack" approach. Co-operativism seeks to place people in an agreed place in an agreed wage spectrum. If you take my spectrum of 15k pa to 150k pa, I would think, with my skills and knowledge in the work I do at present, I would fit, and I hope I'm not being over generous to myself here, at about 22.5k pa. Perhaps someone may push me up a little, with a bit of luck. You may fit somewhere around the 140k pa, depending on what you do, of course if you are an economist in real life, then you would be around 20k pa.
The point is thattinkering with a system that has outlasted it's usefulness is a waste of time. I think people who argue the way you do, are just hankering after a dream that cannot be realised by most, and you fear that changing the system would deprive you of your hopes, not realising that you position in the pay spectrum may actually be higher. So you would rather keep the system we have, because it's doing OK for you, anddeprive others of any hope at all.
If I can ask, have you checked up on Ricardo's rent theory and Land Value Taxation. I do think you will find it interesting.
Complain about this comment
Invader-Zim and #120.
Sorry, to have upset you. Literary criticism is always hard to take and give!
Nevertheless, as you ask, historically speaking there are many examples of 'ants' overcoming 'anteaters' or their equivalent:
E.g. Russia's hordes overwhelming Nazi Germany's master race military machine, Battle of Agincourt and Henry V's few ants chewing up the armour-suited pride of France etc.
Of course in the natural world we can look to entomophagous behaviours all over the place and in point of fact the immeasureable colonising success of entomophilous shows the human as a failure in numerical terms, wouldn't you say?
If you've time to put down the 'hammer' (curious "engineering") from your panel-beating you might realise loathing Brown et al is not worthwhile unless you genuinely have something to replace them with and Cameron, Clegg are certainly not the 'anteater' these Isles need.
Complain about this comment
128. I don't pity Brown. Our children will be paying for his stupidity all their working lives.
Complain about this comment
132. At 2:51pm on 25 Jun 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
On the contrary, I was most amused.
But clearly the metaphoric sledge hammer was over your head.
Similarly the metaphoric Aardvark will only ever be food for thought.
Labour have repeated history in their two recent terms in office.
Despite what you think of Clegg and Cameron, they can't do any worse.
Even Merv agrees.
Brown is a political flea, so don't blame the electorate if they scratch.
Complain about this comment
#112 JohnConstable
Yes, agreed, banks should bolster their reserves and governments should pay down debt in the good times - hopefully we can learn from that although I have my doubts that this will happen now.
Besides the obvious reasons such as greed and politics/power, there are so many other factors why the government won't be able to do much about debt.... for example, so many defined benefit pension schemes are running hige deficits that need to be made-up and the schemes that have converted to defined contribution are massively under performing. This will not only put enormous pressure on government to make up shortfalls but also continue to create demand for high risk investments.
On the subject of democracy, I think we were agreed some time ago (at least before the expenses furore) that the state of our democracy is inadequate. Was it you who suggested devolution ages ago?
Complain about this comment
No127 Portcullis,
Do you agree with the view that only fools think politicians run free market economies?
Complain about this comment
"I feel a modicum of pity for the fellow [Brown].
He patently does not have the attributes which seem to be pre-requisites for the Prime Ministers job in this day and age, which his predessor had in spades, i.e. the natural smile, the ease with new media, the instant attractive soundbite plus an intuitive grasp of English sensibilities and so on."
WHAT??!!
I couldn't give a monkey's about his lack of smile or media savvy. As far as I'm concerned, he could have the personality of a soggy loaf of bread if only he was any good at his job.
Feel sorry for him? When his arrogance has driven the country into the ground and possibly ruined people's lives?
His arrogance is such that even when he is thrown from office and his career is in tatters, he will still bombastically proclaim that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Complain about this comment
DukeJake @ 133
Gordon Brown is not a stupid man and I should have written 'has inadvertently inflicted upon the English people ..' at post #128 above (and also 'predecessor' not 'predessor' in the Blair reference).
These top politicians, like high-level professionals in all walks of life, tend to work tremendously hard and as they do not know everything, are often heavily dependant upon advisors.
Which is where, for example, I believe Mr. Brown was very badly advised indeed regarding the withdrawal of the pension tax credit.
It seems to me that being a top-flight politician has become a pretty insane job in the modern era and it is possible that only a very tiny percentage of the cohort can actually handle it.
Unfortunately, that does not appear to include Mr. Brown in the PM role, although as I pointed out earlier, he would at least have a fighting chance if he was an English politician just minding England and even that would be no picnic!
Complain about this comment
#122 Susan-Croft
A couple of things.... you say that the knowledge that the Chancellor was wrong is out there, however, there's also the knowledge that he was right - it's a political not an economic argument.
It's like saying the US government estimate the cost of the Iraq war at under 1 trillion dollars but Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winning economist) and Linda Bilmes estimate the cost at 3 trillion dollars. It just depends how broadly you look at it - what are the terms of reference etc etc etc etc etc.
Some of the World's most respected economists (some are Nobel Prize winners no less) think very highly of our current and previous chancellors and think they've done a lot right. Doesn't mean that they're right though.
We simply won't know for a while, however, I'm glad that we're part of Europe with freedom to work throughout the continent, it may just come to that.
Finally, the fact is that economically, the Conservatives and New Labour are the same - we are the most extreme neo-liberal country on the planet (more so than the US) and both parties are fully subscribed to this ideology. Even if the Conservatives had been in power, we would be in exactly the same position because, economically, they're exactly the same. Don't forget that the Conservatives were going to match New Labour spending until recently and they have access to the same figures.
As for fixing the roof when the sun was shining, well, I'm sure the Conservatives would have fixed the same roofs as New Labour (blowing money on all sorts of vote winning things) as both parties are the same in craving power.
It's all very simple, whilst we lecture everyone else on democracy, we don't actually have a choice ourselves. As mentioned in my earlier post, the two parties play to the 20,000 floating voters in marginal constituencies that are the difference between losing and winning an enormous majority.
Complain about this comment
andyC555 @ 137
I did not say that I personally thought that these pre-requisites for beng the Prime Minister i.e. the natural smile, the ease with new media, the instant attractive soundbite, were important in themselves.
In fact, they are, as you point out, totally superficial attributes more akin to those needed by a talent show contestant.
But the other attribute I listed ... an intuitive grasp of English sensibilities ... is I believe, essential to successfully governing England.
Furthermore, I believe that that will be easier to accomplish if performed by an English politician, preferably from a 'working' as opposed to 'privileged' background.
Complain about this comment
138 John Constable
Brown is not badly advised, his takes advise badly (or not at all).
It is his arrogance and stubborness that is the main issue. I happen to agree that he is not stupid, but he is far from as brilliant as he believes himself to be.
He does not listen to anyone, hence the throwing of printers around the room when he comes accross dissent. He most especially does not listen to the people he is meant to represent, or he would have stepped down/ called an election by now.
Complain about this comment
Robin:
"Has any government failed so spectacularly to react to a modern medium?
Royal families have embraced the radio and television.
Kennedy and Churchill embraced the media."
So you're saying New Labour need to learn to spin more? Well if that's what you think... bring back Alistair?
Complain about this comment
#130 Susan
Nice to see you back - this is your sort of subject. Enjoy!
Complain about this comment
99 Flame Pat
I'm intrigued,why did he put a hole in it?
Complain about this comment
132. At 2:51pm on 25 Jun 2009, ikamaskeip wrote:
Of course in the natural world we can look to entomophagous behaviours all over the place and in point of fact the immeasureable colonising success of entomophilous shows the human as a failure in numerical terms, wouldn't you say?
---------------------
It's worth logging on just to read a sentance like that.
Complain about this comment
Returning to Mervyn King for a moment the man makes a thinly veiled statement about the economy one day and then all but detracts it the next day so as not to appear too partisan or political. He needs to have the balls to stand up, tell it as it is and stick to what he believes for the good of the country. This wishy washy commenting in speeches and select committees gives Alistair Darling every opportunity to say that he is in accord with The Governor and working with him to solve The Economic Crisis when that is patently untrue!
Complain about this comment
wasowenright 131
I do not know what you are on about, I am not setting myself up as anything I am merely giving an opinion on a blog the same as you. Its you thats angry for some unknown reason. You do not have to read or agree with anything I write, but you cannot stop me having an opinion. Nor will you.
I did not set up the capitalist system, I just live within it like everyone else. If you want to change the system there is very little I can do about it. Go and see Darling yourself if you think there is value in your new way of doing things.
Other than that what I earn and what I do has very little to do with you.
Complain about this comment
Is it only me that thinks NR has once again missed the single most important piece of information in the Governor of the Bank of England's comments?
Mervyn King is not just in open disagreement now with the chancellor and Gordon Brown he is saying the single most important thing is for both parties to put forward credible debt repayment plans for the whole of the life of the next parliament.
Finally someone has blown the lid on the odea perpetrated by Gordon Brown that we can just muddle through and hopw growth picks up again.
There needs to be a credible plan for debt repayment or the government will not be able to raise the money; we shall be downgraded by the rating agencies and all mortgages will become mroe expenisve.
For crying out loud BBC - get on the case before you are shut down.
Complain about this comment
139. At 4:18pm on 25 Jun 2009, extremesense wrote:
Finally, the fact is that economically, the Conservatives and New Labour are the same - we are the most extreme neo-liberal country on the planet (more so than the US) and both parties are fully subscribed to this ideology. Even if the Conservatives had been in power, we would be in exactly the same position because, economically, they're exactly the same. Don't forget that the Conservatives were going to match New Labour spending until recently and they have access to the same figures.
As for fixing the roof when the sun was shining, well, I'm sure the Conservatives would have fixed the same roofs as New Labour (blowing money on all sorts of vote winning things) as both parties are the same in craving power.
====================================================================
While most of your post seems reasonable, that last paragraph just isn't matched by history is it? The tories continuously fix the roof after labour take the tiles off to let the sun in (and sell them for a knockdown price no less).
Complain about this comment
140. At 4:26pm on 25 Jun 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
But the other attribute I listed ... an intuitive grasp of English sensibilities ... is I believe, essential to successfully governing England.
Furthermore, I believe that that will be easier to accomplish if performed by an English politician, preferably from a 'working' as opposed to 'privileged' background.
===================================================================
I'd agree with that as long as you really mean working and not the quaint 'working class'. What we really need in government are 'experienced' people who have something to bring to the role, without any dogmatic 'ideology' to get in the way of making the best decisions.
Personally I think the current Labour front bench know just as little about real life as the tories.
Complain about this comment
extremesense 139
I am not making a political argument for anyone, as the party I support does not even field candidates yet. Though we do have a mayor doing very nicely in Doncaster. However I am merely giving my view on the economy. The Chancellors forecasts have been wrong up to now and Browns spending has put us in the position we are in that is what I believe.
However I agree with you about democracy, I do wonder what kind of democracy we are selling to the world with all the problems we have.
Complain about this comment
Throughout this blog only 'moraymint' and 'Invader-Zim' are currently worth reading.
Also, what's with the 'Dear Nick...' rubbish?
Dear Nick Robinson,
I have an ingrowing toenail and my roses have black spot. Any advice?
Regards X.
Complain about this comment
#147:
You tell him Crofty!
Complain about this comment
#139 extreemsense
what labour say in public and what they actually do are two different things. They come from differnet mind sets. GB thinks that he can control everything of everybodies life
The Tories think that is impossible and want samller senssible governemt.
The 79-97 period showed that the "Tories" did fix parts of the roof. Well most of the roof was missing in '79 so thet had a long way to go.
Bit like today but the roof and 2 out of 4 walls are also missing as well. so the 2009 onwards journey is going to be even harder.
Take the idea of social justice and a fairer society and translate that to the Family Courts with forced adoption and then you will understand that Nulabour and the Tories are not the same animal at all, they are miles and miles apart.
Complain about this comment
92 saga
Must be pure coincidence then that you are so on message!
Complain about this comment
124. At 1:50pm on 25 Jun 2009, RobinJD wrote:
"Call an election; this is a farce".
The REAL farce is that there is only one person who can 'call an election' and he very probably isn't going to.
In fact, despite some significant pressure recently from his own party's MPs, he significantly side-stepped the issue.
Of course, the long knives might be out in a quieter, less obvious, 'behind-closed-doors' way but be careful just what you ask for.
Would it not, for example, be the case that even if Gordon Brown were to step down (surely not really probable), then Mandy as Secretary of State, Lord Chief Executive, Cook and Bottle-Washer (or whatever the title is) effectively 'takes the reigns' until the Labour party does, or does not, sort out some selection process?
And remember that as a member of the House of Lords Mandy could legally be prime minister.
And then presumably he would be the only person who could really 'call an election'.
Complain about this comment
#147 croftie
I am not angry about anything. I am trying to get to know more about your philosophy so I can understand it. There's not much point to this process if we all just log on, spout off and receive no come back. If you can tear my arguments to shreads, so be it. I have tried to do the same to your's.
I developed my belief in co-operative working some thirty-five years ago, as a shop steward in the T&G. We used to have meetings regularly, but the big ones, where emotions ran high, were when we we gearing up for the annual pay negotiations. Every year it was us, demanding (to use the phrase of the day) X% rise and longer holidays and, yes, paternity leave, sick pay for hourly paid staff. We would go into the JNC (Joint Negotiating Committee) meetings and the representatives of the employers would sit there and claim they had no money for these "demands", as much as they agreed that they were worthy aims, but not this year.
This went on with our Union doing it's best to delve into the finances of what was an international business. The answer that came to me, through more experienced union people, and other socialists was co-operativism. If we owned the company, we would not only be able to assertain what could be afforded, but we would be responsible for making it afforable. It is the perfect solution. It's not my idea, it was "invented" by Robert Owen, when he set up his New Lanark mills, taking people from the dark satanic mills of the north to his utopian mill in Scotland. That Utopianist approach is now, 200 years later, common practice. Clean working conditions, safer working practices, education for children and adults, health care. Based around production of saleable goods. We are at risk of throwing all this away, for what? Cheaper labour and higher profits.
This is history which we seem to have forgotten in our clamour for more money. Can we not agree that, even if it seems a bit of a dream now, it is a dream worth pursuing?
Complain about this comment
99. At 10:09am on 25 Jun 2009, flamepatricia wrote:
"AND now the BBC. Why DO we need a State owned tv service? This BBC is the most awful and out of touch (viz the climedown in foul language). Why do the public have to PAY for this service which offends so often by bringing porn and filth into our sitting rooms? Why does East Enders offend at 7.30 when small children can ask - what is a condom and why did Ronnie put a hole in one? DISGRACEFUL."
I never watch Eastenders, or indeed any other soap.
But I think Springwatch is great and I can't imagine any commercial station bringing it to the UK public.
Complain about this comment
140. At 4:26pm on 25 Jun 2009, JohnConstable wrote:
But the other attribute I listed ... an intuitive grasp of English sensibilities ... is I believe, essential to successfully governing England.
I agree with much of what you say JC, but what are 'English sensibilities'? Scones and cricket? The Haywain? A McDonalds on every high street? A Tesco's in every town? A George's cross outside every pub?Ask voters in Bradford or Bolton about English sensibilites and you'll get a very different answer than from voters in Berkshire or Kent. I live in the North-West in a coastal village. I believe that I have more in common with rural Scots than I do with Londoners. I suggest that no-one can grasp English sensibilities, because the English are simply too diverse and have been since the Romans abandoned us to our fate.
Complain about this comment
#149 sweetAnybody
You're right, historically there has been a balance.... Labour have invested (too much) and the Tories have brought investment back under control - I know this is an overly simplistic way of looking at it but it's the gist of it.
However, we're now in the post-Thatcherite period of history (becoming extreme neo-liberal) and much of it hasn't yet been written. Unfortunately, we'll have to continue with idle speculation until we're a few years into Cameron if we get that far.
I only say that because, firstly, he's doing an excellent job at alienating our friends in Europe so indirectly the States too, and secondly, because the green shoots, in our case, may not even be green roots yet. Sorry about the metaphors.
Personally, I hope he does a great job and turns things round including our incoherent foreign policy. I can't stand the man but it doesn't really matter if he is good at his job, does it?
Complain about this comment
131. At 2:46pm on 25 Jun 2009, wasowenright wrote:
If I can ask, have you checked up on Ricardo's rent theory and Land Value Taxation. I do think you will find it interesting.
Oh dear! I do hope you're not an Estate Agent. Things are looking rather bleak.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#151 Susan-Croft
The Mayor of Doncaster? Didn't Martin Winter get the boot? Intriguing, so who's got the job now?
Either way, good to hear of new political parties joining the fray although I fear that they will only be a transient presence unless there is enormous reform at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
159. At 5:43pm on 25 Jun 2009, Its_an_Outrage wrote:
"I believe that I have more in common with rural Scots than I do with Londoners."
Speaks volumes about your comment, madam.
"I suggest that no-one can grasp English sensibilities,..."
But the Scots and the Welsh can grasp their own I suppose.
Complain about this comment
#146. At 4:42pm on 25 Jun 2009, sicilian29 wrote:
"Returning to Mervyn King for a moment the man makes a thinly veiled statement about the economy one day and then all but detracts it the next day so as not to appear too partisan or political."
In other words he is playing a skilful game of 'Catch me out if you can', directed at his bosses (Brown/Darling) whilst saying what needs to be said and (hopefully) keeping his job! Don't be to hard on him...
Complain about this comment
#154 IR35_SURVIVOR
If you ask how the Conservatives 'fixed the roof' in the 79-97 period, the answer in short is by signing-up to neo-liberal economic strategies - the UK economy changed.
New Labour simply came in and continued where the Conservatives left off.
As for social justice and a fairer society, well they're just the cherries on top and they're just illusions to many people. We're now, by definition, an unfairer society than we were in '97.
Again, 'big government' (that controls all) was introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government and I doubt David Cameron will have the courage to change it.
Complain about this comment
#152 Reginaldjeeves I think you might find mine are worth reading if you that the
time to understand or even comment on them so try
moral compass
fairness
social equaility
Family Courts
and please comment would love to see your views pls give it a go
Complain about this comment
#165 ReginaldJeeves
You forget (I think) that there is another nation in these islands, who also have a legitimate stance - the British.
As the arguments for and against a centralist British state play out, obviously I hope that I, John Constable, Susan Croft etc are on the successful side. However, I hope we will be magnanimous to the Brits, and recognise that they will have lost something that was important to them.
Complain about this comment
#159 Its_an_Outrage
"English sensibilities" and what to do about them? I suspect that John_Constable is essentially right in maintaining consistently, as he does, as I understand it, that the English are only really happy with the UK when it can seem to them to be as English as possible. In this regard a very recent entry in the blog of a French radio station's London correspondent may be of interest.
The Scottish tennis player Andy Murray has not always been appreciated by the English, Jacques Monin maintains, because Murray is Scottish and identifies himself as such. So there you have an outsider's view according to which Scots seem to be acceptable in England to the extent to which they downplay their Scottishness. Lose the accent and say you are English, and all will be well. Great. So much for UK citizenship.
Surprising though it may seem to you, the French generally are aware of the wave of anti-Scottish sentiment that is sweeping England in your currently distressing condition. This is not a phenomenon that is going un-noticed. Nor is it one that is confined to politics.
When it seems reasonable in England that the PM of the UK should be English, it should be recognized that the anglo-union is apparently being conceived of generally in England in a way in which it is not being conceived of generally in Scotland. Is this disparity important? Some believe that it is, and others believe that it is not. Some ignore it or deny that it exists. We shall see.
Complain about this comment
#167 Lady T introduced the Children act in 1989 (20 years ago) for a fairer more just approach to one of your cherries that has been undermined by Nulabour every since in introduction via the social services.
look at how many labour MP's come from the social services
(see UKsecretcourts youtube video about that)
Lady-T went back to some basic sound housekeep rules you cannot spend more than you earn, its that simple a minimise state ownership (she might have gone to far in some areas BUT you have to look at the context and the power of the unions at the time)
Complain about this comment
#171 PS.
its in the name , it was labour that did IR35 twice rejected by lady T
but under Nulabour attacked "working people" like me and left the city
intact, part of the route of our current troubles.
I'm not against working and earning for a fair pay but NUlabour wanted a golden goose for there spend spend addiction and could not upset it so they went after there own (working people) I know loads of Contractors that voted labour but do not now.
Complain about this comment
... a serious subject this, and one that merits a sober, balanced post (rather than the usual punch and judy stuff) - so here goes - only a fool, or somebody so awesomely clever that they can appear foolish ... like Gordon Brown ... would deny we have a humdinger of a debt crisis - likewise, all reasonable people agree the need for cuts in public spending - how much better, however, to have Labour charged with that burden ... that grave responsibility ... than the clowns - don't know what you guys think but, for me, there's something, I dunno ... not nice? ... yes, not nice about the thought of a couple of spoons like Cameron and Osborne wielding the knife - they'd enjoy it too much for one thing
Complain about this comment
hi Susan ... here's a good point for you to concede, so as to prove me wrong about you being ultra dogmatic - ready? - right, all you need to do is admit that there are risks ... just that, and only that ... risks ... in cutting public spending very savagely, very quickly - as opposed to, say, cutting it quite a lot and fairly quickly - what do you say? - you only have to tell me, not anybody else - whisper if you like, I don't mind
Complain about this comment
sweetanybody @ 150
Yes, I meant having English politicians from a 'working' background in the broadest sense of the word, not as part of some completely dated, out-moded 'class' categorisation, which should have no place in a modern English society.
That is why I find it rather depressing that 'Dave' and his privileged chums are assumed, by default, to be the next Government, simply because Labour have fouled up.
Similarly, I do not like to see the 'other sort', as typified I suppose by the Milliband brothers, people of a 'political' background, who appear to have a purely political backdrop to their lives.
That is not very healthy for responsive politics, far better to have politicians who have done 'something meaningful else' before entering politics, so for example, being a political researcher first is not particularly helpful but being a teacher, business person or doctor gives a real insight into peoples lives, that is, some 'real life' experience that can then be carried forward into the political life.
Complain about this comment
170. At 6:54pm on 25 Jun 2009, frankly_francophone wrote:
#159 Its_an_Outrage
"English sensibilities" and what to do about them? I suspect that John_Constable is essentially right in maintaining consistently, as he does, as I understand it, that the English are only really happy with the UK when it can seem to them to be as English as possible. In this regard a very recent entry in the blog of a French radio station's London correspondent may be of interest.
The Scottish tennis player Andy Murray has not always been appreciated by the English, Jacques Monin maintains, because Murray is Scottish and identifies himself as such. So there you have an outsider's view according to which Scots seem to be acceptable in England to the extent to which they downplay their Scottishness. Lose the accent and say you are English, and all will be well. Great. So much for UK citizenship.
Surprising though it may seem to you, the French generally are aware of the wave of anti-Scottish sentiment that is sweeping England in your currently distressing condition. This is not a phenomenon that is going un-noticed. Nor is it one that is confined to politics.
When it seems reasonable in England that the PM of the UK should be English, it should be recognized that the anglo-union is apparently being conceived of generally in England in a way in which it is not being conceived of generally in Scotland. Is this disparity important? Some believe that it is, and others believe that it is not. Some ignore it or deny that it exists. We shall see.
Little Englanders are as much of an annoyance to me as are Little Scotlanders. It's meaningless nonsense and, I believe, devolution will greatly damage both 'nations'. The Anti-Scottish and anti-English whippers-in are otherwise of no interest to me; I might as well be watching flies in a jar. I'm not interested in tennis either, but from what I gather any antagonism on the part of the English towards Murray (and I wish him well) is because of his own anti-English sentiments.
Why do you think that I might be surprised by a French awareness of how some of the English feel about the Scots? Do you suppose that you are the only Francophone in the village? And as for the PM, he could be from Saturn for all I care. I'm more interested in his ability than his accent.
Complain about this comment
#174:
That is one of the most condescending comments I have seen from one poster to another very much in the same vein as those one would normally associate with grandantidote bless his partisan soul.
Gordon Brown btw doesn't accede that there have to be any 'real' cuts in Public Spending. He claims that he is going to invest and keep investing up until The Olympics. Our AAA grading will be history and we will be in a worse situation than we are now. Mervyn King has seen it as has Alistair Darling. Why hasn't the P.M.?
Complain about this comment
@ 177
it's not condescending, me and Susan talk to each other like that - you should see some of the telling offs I've had from her over the last couple of months - and I like it!
Complain about this comment
frankly_francophone @ 170
I can only speak for myself, not other English people and it is not true that I am only happy with the UK when it can seem to ... be as English as possible.
For the straightforward reason that I do not accept the political entity 'UK' as a part of a political heirarchy currently mapped over England (or Scotland or Wales for that matter).
Therefore, when I speak of England in the political sense, I mean England, not these other countries.
I am not all at anti-Scottish, they are wonderful people but I do object to their political professionals being down here in England running our show.
You mentioned young Andy Murray and good luck to him at Wimbledon.
He defines himself as Scottish, which is fine by me.
I won't be rooting for him as I would for an English player (if any were good enough) just as an American tennis fan would not being rooting for a Canandian tennis player at Wimbledon.
Nothing stays cast in stone forever and this Union of England, Scotland and Wales has outlived its usefulness.
Complain about this comment
Mervyn King sitting back with his hands on his stomach seems quite comforable with the Honda Effect working short time, Associate Release Programme -management speak for sacking. Those who stay when they return workers will owe Honda 250 hours of overtime. This means that any overtime when works picks up again they will recieve no pay (Guardian 29/29/09). The particular point is, why dont you ask King what sacrifices is he to going to make - that is the question I here asked mostly by my friends - it is a reasonable question. He was one of the imcompetents who got us into this situation you should be more direct rather than let him get away with dominating the agenda. Finall I know you have a great admiration for Attlee so here is story told by Lord Mountbatten in his TV biography,long before your time. Mountbatten got on well with Attlee being relativetly left wing for a Royal MounbatteOn was First Sea Lord and was 'tasked' (in management speak) to decommission large numbers of ships after the war. A number of Sea Lords were summoned by Attlee to be informed about this. After some minutes one Sea Lord huffed and puffed and said that in his opinion this could not be done. Attlee fixed with his beady eyes, raised his index finger and quietly but firmly said to the Sea Lord ' You are not here to express your opnion, you are here to obey my instructions' collapse of stout party. Mountbatten, with a twinkle asked the presenter Ludovic Kennedy 'Did you like that ?. Hope you did.
'
tly
Complain about this comment
Something I find utterly astonishing is that Labour (in the form of Sagamix at 173), in the course of "a sober, balanced post", is prepared to argue that the Conservatives will cut public expenditure because they enjoy it so much! (This from someone who complains so vigorously of "bias" against Labour almost whenever he finds posts that don't support a pure Brownite point of view.)
Can anyone imagine one single vote being swung to Labour by such an idiotic line of debate? If this is the way they propose to run a General Election campaign, then the post mortem verdict will be that Labour lost it not just for the shocking weakness of their economic arguments, but because they more or less told the voting public that they were fools, pure and simple.
Complain about this comment
oldnat @ 169
You hope that we will be magnanimous to the Brits, and recognise that they will have lost something that was important to them, in the event of full independence of England, Scotland and Wales.
I am sensitive to that aspiration, particularly when I think of my Dad's (RAF Bomber Command 1939-45) generation.
If Dad were alive today, he'd probably be pretty upset at how the Union has crumbled, to his generation it made perfect sense and was not questioned at all.
There are also the immigrants, many of whom have come here from difficult situations in their home countries, the Government has told these often bewildered and disorientated people that they are 'British' so they are pretty unlikely to figure out the nuances of the political situation in the so-called UK.
Another category of loudedly proclaimed 'Brits', and here I am being slightly cynical as a unpleasant way of telling the truth, are some of those professional politicians at Westmonster who hail from Scotland.
Make of that what you will.
Complain about this comment
#176 Its_an_Outrage
"devolution will greatly damage both 'nations'". While I'm unsure why you choose to apostrophise 'nations', or why you want to restrict that term to only two such entities, devolution has been in place for 10 years now, so you should be able to produce some evidence for your assertion.
Complain about this comment
#179 JohnConstable
The Scots aren't "wonderful people" any more than the English, Danish or any other nationality. We all have our range of the good, bad and downright appalling!
On your political point we are, as usual, in agreement.
Complain about this comment
extremesense 164
The new Mayor is Peter Davies of the English Democrats, he was interviewed on Sky and he has began a revolution in Doncaster apparently. He is sure going to shake things up with the Council there. The public that gave their views to Sky were all positive for the actions he was taking.
Complain about this comment
bit of algebra? ... okay, if you insist ... our debt crisis is down to 2 things:
- global credit crunch - 80 pc to blame
- high public spending - 20 pc to blame
to blame for the global credit crunch?
- the Labour govt - 5 pc
- the clowns - 20 pc (since they patented the "get rich quick" culture)
- other - 75 pc
and for high public spending?
- the Labour govt - 50 pc (they did it)
- the clowns - 50 pc (they DIDN'T do it and hence Labour had to)
and so, multiplying through, we get ...
Labour are 14 pc to blame for our (truly terrible) debt crisis
it's 26 pc the fault of the clowns
and the balance (60 pc) is due to other factors
... other factors being (in no particular order) people generally, the capitalist system, the US authorities (inc the Fed), Wall St, and Fate
interestingly ... as you can no doubt see ... the clowns bear almost twice as much responsibility as Labour for this debt crisis! - a little counter intuitive, I know, but the percentages do add up to 100 and so it's a QED, I'm afraid - you can argue with me as much as you like but you CANNOT argue with cold, hard mathematics
Complain about this comment
#182 JohnConstable
Your last category were absolutely excluded from my offer of magnaminity! :-)
Complain about this comment
sagamix 174
I am not being dogmatic, I just cannot say something I do not believe, to please anyone. It is my belief, just as yours is and it would be quite wrong of me to tell untruths. What we need to do is protect our front line services, thats what concerns me.
Anyway the trouble you have caused me you have a cheek to ask. Putting out a public notice on me, that was below the belt.
Complain about this comment
#185 croftie
So you believe that skt news can be trusted to present a fair selection of Doncaster voters do you?
Complain about this comment
168. At 6:35pm on 25 Jun 2009, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
#152 Reginaldjeeves
> Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comment(s).
*************************************************************
169. At 6:39pm on 25 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
#165 ReginaldJeeves
> A noble statement, however, magnanimity in defeat is never an option. That's humility.
Complain about this comment
#190 ReginaldJeeves
I'm glad that you accept the defeat of the current UK Union. I've learned never to expect humility from the Brits, however!
Complain about this comment
A bit of a thing going on about the French awareness of the Scots / English position.
Whats new?
Didnt the French harbour Bonnie Prince Charlie or one of his ilk. Dont they call the place Ecosse ? Isnt that what the Scots have on their cross of St Andrew car country plates?
The French have always had Scots sympathies. I often wonder what they have going with the Welsh. We call the French gallic, from Gaul,the French call Wales the Pays-de-Galles and the Welsh language is semi French, pont, fenestre for example.
Perhaps these things explain why there is a "thing" twixt the English and French ?
Complain about this comment
#192 xTunbridge
The cheek of those French! They call England Angleterre as well!
Unless these damn foreigners use English terms, they are clearly damned to perdition.
Complain about this comment
102 JohnConstable
Whether deliberate or accidental "Westmonster" is ace !
Complain about this comment
193 oldnat
It gets worse my friend. They call the English Channel "la manche" because it tapers like a sleeve !
Seriously people have died in accidents because the French air traffic conrollers use French when communicating with French planes. Against all the rules of course because English is the international language of the air. Had a scanner once and the richness of all the differently accented English spoken by the pilots was matched only by their total politness to each other.
Complain about this comment
191. At 9:19pm on 25 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
#190 ReginaldJeeves
"I'm glad that you accept the defeat of the current UK Union."
>I do not.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
"I've learned never to expect humility from the Brits, however!"
>I am happy that you have. It must have been a hard lesson for you.
Complain about this comment
#194 xTunbridge
Google "ace" and it seems a perfect description of Westminster!
That website seems to have everything for outdoor living. Duck houses are probably available.
Complain about this comment
Well saga @186, we are suddenly seeing a new fondness in you for numbers, albeit pulled out of the air and then combined in a way that would lead to a fail in your maths bronze arrow.
Let's see you factor in the high levels of consumer debt encouraged by Labour, and the high levels of existing tax, that mean that raising taxation to help us limp out of Brown's debt crisis is a total impossibility, simply because people can't afford it. For some reason, you seem to feel the need to ignore this important fact.
On balance, I find your argument to vote Labour at post 186 76.8% worse than your argument at post 173.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 188
I am NOT being dogmatic
ah but that's exactly my point! - only a truly dogmatic person would dogmatically insist they weren't being dogmatic when they were
hoist with your own petard and damned by your own words, and tripped over your own skipping rope ...
Complain about this comment
ps to my 198
I think it is your frequent reference to "clowns" that gives the game away.
Complain about this comment
#196 ReginaldJeeves
"a hard lesson"? Don't be silly. My first introduction to politics was Suez. It was obvious from then on.
Complain about this comment
#198 jpeery wrote
"On balance, I find your argument to vote Labour at post 186 76.8% worse than your argument at post 173"
Perry on the Sherry! come on McSherry keep the glass half full.
Complain about this comment
@186 lmao, you call that maths and logic?!!!
Here's some reality for you, Labour are 100% to blame because they are the muppets in power who have been desytroying the country for the last 12 years.
Of course Gordon Clown is 99% to blame for every stupid decision that labour have made in that time....
Complain about this comment
201. At 10:11pm on 25 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
#196 ReginaldJeeves
"a hard lesson"? Don't be silly. My first introduction to politics was Suez. It was obvious from then on.
>Thank you, sir.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
saga @ 186:
I sometimes suspect you of being on a tongue in cheek wind up. With that comment I'm now certain. It's not even worthy of a reply it's that far fetched!
Complain about this comment
Comment 186 : Sagamix
I did promise to come back to you, and I have ben a bit delayed, but I see that you've already made your mind up about the the proportions you asked me for.
So, let's see.
Debt crisis
Well, I'll accept that some part of this is down to having to bail the banks out as part of dealing with the credit crunch. We're not sure yet how much this will end up costing us, but let's say £100 billion. Much more than has been committed so far, but considerably less thansome observers are fearing will be necessary.
This is no more than about 20% of the total excess debt that will cause our debt crisis.
The whole of the rest of the debt crisis is down to trend annual public spending being at least £50 billion (4% of GDP) above a sustainable level. This is structural overspending - nothing to do with cyclical overspending through a recession. The entire responsibility for this is with this government. No matter how "necessary" you may argue the expenditure was, it was never so "necessary" as to justify running a deficit that would wreck the country's finances.
So 20% credit crunch : 80% Brown/Labour
Credit Crunch
Right, the credit crunch was always going to happen, and the UK could have done nothing to stop it. The USA, particularly one William Jefferson Clinton, were not to be told by anyone that the established rules of economics applied to them as well as to everyone else. The UK could, and should, have realised that the USA was leading the world into financial collapse, and done as much as possible to minimise the downside that this was inevitably leading to. But the Great Helmsman of Kirkcaldy decided otherwise. What's good for the USA is good for us, he surmised, so to force the banks into dramatic risk-taking by removing moral hazard was a real bonzo wheeze, the taxes from which would finance public sector extravagance for ever. Fail? How could they fail? Asset values keep going up to more-than-cover increases in debt, so there's never going to be any reason for any of them to fail. Their very success totally insulated them from failure. Except ....
So although the responsibility for the credit crunch is virtually entirely America's the responsibility for the UK not having taken steps to minimise its effect here is entirely Brown/Labour's.
So for the effect of the credit crunch on the UK economy, I'd be thinking I was generous to Brown if I gave more than 10% of the responsibility to the USA.
So USA 10% : Brown/Labour 90%
Therefore multiplying out, as you did, Brown/Labour's proportion of the responsibility for the debt crisis is 80% + (20% * 90%) = 98%.
Complain about this comment
Comment 185 : Susan-Croft
If I were you, I'd pop down to the newsagent in the morning and buy a copy of this week's Private Eye. On Page 13, Rotten Boroughs, the first section is entitled Turf Love and deals with an encounter Peter Davies had with a Radio Sheffield reporter immediately after the election. I appreciate these things are subjective, but to me the tone of this report suggests that all may not be quite as satisfactory as the Sky interviewees seem to think.
Complain about this comment
despise @ 203
Here's some reality for you, Labour are 100% to blame because they are the muppets in power who have been desytroying the country for the last 12 years
that seems rather harsh, I have to say - it implies that you're blaming the UK Labour government for the US sub prime debacle and the subsequent collapse of the global banking system!
jrp @ 200
I think it is your frequent reference to "clowns" that gives the game away
well, check out 203 above - can you think of a better word? - right
Complain about this comment
199. At 10:09pm on 25 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
susan @ 188
I am NOT being dogmatic
ah but that's exactly my point! - only a truly dogmatic person would dogmatically insist they weren't being dogmatic when they were
hoist with your own petard and damned by your own words, and tripped over your own skipping rope ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey ! You need to give the catnip a rest Saga
You really do seem to have it in for Susan, what's your problem with her ?
Complain about this comment
sicilian @ 205
It's not even worthy of a reply it's that far fetched!
well I'm not replying to you then!
ghost @ 209
You really do seem to have it in for Susan, what's your problem with her?
have you never liked a girl?
excellence @ 206
mmm, rather dodgy in my view, your analysis - as I think I said before (did I?) you are (IMO) over estimating the power of politicians in the global free market - my root cause culprits are lax monetary policy a.k.a. cheap money ... blame the Fed ... and the ridiculous "one way bet" remuneration policies in the banks ... blame the bankers and the culture they operate in - my 14 pc blame for Labour is, I admit, too low but your 98 pc is just silly - the truth (as always) is somewhere in between, but I'm closer than you so we can't split the difference and say 56 pc, that's too high - suggest we settle on 25 pc, something like that ... yes that's fine, Labour are 25 pc to blame for our debt crisis - happy with that
Complain about this comment
208 sagamix
I suggest you try "Conservatives" or "Tories" (and satisfy yourself with the knowledge that both terms have their historical origins in satire).
Not being quite so obsessively partisan as you might take me to be, I would point out that your little catchword "clowns" isn't doing you any good. These days, Labour are the ones commonly seen to be the clowns. Take Brown's performance at PMQs this week. It had just the right kind of tragi-comedy to fit the term nicely. I would reckon the average person speed-reading through your posts is going to think that by using the word "clowns", it's actually Labour you are on about.
Separate subject. Over on Dale's site, I noticed a known Labour troll trying out with "The Tories, as it is, want to punish the poor for the crisis caused by the rich and upper middle class." I see this, like your 173 here, as simply extending the Tory Toffs theme from a while ago. Aside from lowering the standard of debate to subterranean levels, do you guys really think you are going to benefit from this kind of campaign? There was no evidence AT ALL that it engaged with the electorate at Crewe and Nantwich, for example.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
... enough of the partisan bickering - if truth be told, this whole "who's to blame for the debt crisis?" is not a simple ABC issue - despite what people like me say or (even more so) hard core tory bloggers like Rockin' Robin (JD), it's complicated - not a Black And White thing - a lot of it isn't even due to the politicians, it's down to us - to see the problem, sometimes it's best to look within, to check out the Man In The Mirror, if you know what I mean ... RIP
Complain about this comment
monsieur perry @ 211
I guess you never say ZaNuLieBore or any of that rabid ranty stuff so, fair enough, I'll drop the clowns (well, apart from this one last time) when I'm writing to you - it's an affectionate nickname though, unlike most of the stuff the class A clowns (oops sorry!) come up with
Complain about this comment
Comment 210 : Sagamix
"my root cause culprits are lax monetary policy a.k.a. cheap money ... blame the Fed ... and the ridiculous "one way bet" remuneration policies in the banks ... blame the bankers and the culture they operate in"
But the "ridiculous one way bet remuneration policies" are the incentives given to managers to increase the share price, and increasing the share price, in an environment where there is no moral hazard, means taking on bets that wouldn't be touched with a barge-pole if the risk hadn't been assumed by the government. It's not as though these managers had a choice - they had to bet big, because if they didn't they'd lose out to their competitors, and lose their jobs. The question that wasn't asked of Stevenson, Hornby, Goodwin and McKillop before the Treasury Select Committee, but should have been, is "Do you think that the outcome would have been significantly different had the selection been of someone else, other than yourself, to the position you held". They could all have sat there and comfortably and truthfully answered "No".
Either you have moral hazard, or you have a regulator able to veto every decision that is made. It's one thing or the other. There is no way that with the ability to make one-way bets the market is voluntarily going to refrain from making them compulsory. Mr Brown chose to regard such counsel as unhelpful and extremist, surrounded himself with those whose recommendations coincided with his plans, and now tries to make out that it is unreasonable to expect him to have gone against all the advice he was receiving at the time. This is the problem with clever men who aren't wise. They freeze their opponents into a corner, and so they hear no warnings. Fine, albeit lucky, if they happen to be right. Catastrophic if they are wrong, as Brown was.
I'm sorry to have to say this, but if Brown, Blair and Co were toothless in controlling the activities of big money then they shouldn't have accepted the responsibilities in the first place. Politicians have the power to lead, and if necessary to control. If they haven't got the wit to do this then move out of the way, and let someone better-equipped have a go. I'd never have the gall to take a job that I didn't have full confidence in my ability to perform, and I don't consider it right that anyone else should either.
Complain about this comment
Comment 211 : jrperry
The problem Labour have is that they've based their policies of the last 12 years around a constructed position of not having to justify them with reason. Instead of respecting, engaging with and being generous to opponents and their differences of opinion, having political contests about policies, they have attepted to take the uncertainty of politics out of governance altogether, by branding all opposition as unworthy of the public's clung-to trust of authority. These are the actions of a group of people so uncertain of the rightness of their position that their first thought, in any confrontation, is "what do I need to do so as not to lose"
Mrs Thatcher's approach was based on very similar thinking, so it's not just something affecting Labour.
Complain about this comment
210. At 00:24am on 26 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghost @ 209
"You really do seem to have it in for Susan, what's your problem with her?"
have you never liked a girl?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like i suggested, perhaps have a couple of catnip free nights matey
Complain about this comment
saga @ 210:
Well I'll be. You were being serious.
Much as I now do with grandantidote I will hereafter neither respond to or comment on your posts because in my opinion your views border on the bizarre and ridiculous. You don't need to respond to this btw because I will not be replying in turn. It's really not worth it.
Complain about this comment
excellence @ 215
those are pretty good points but, as regards the bonuses, I'm not so much referring to the guys at the very top ... the Goodwins and Hornbys of this world ... I'm more talking about the remuneration structures in the "Front Office" generally - here we have many tens of thousands of very sharp, devious, energetic individuals who were incentivised to make that bad loan, misrate that bond, create that peculiar packaged "asset", talk up that crazy deal etc etc, and the net effect of all of it was the Blow Up - a culture thing ... very powerful ... unstoppable, actually, and neither Regulators nor anybody else had a cat's chance - it's a real stretch, in my view, to lay the lion's share of the blame at the government's door, that's why I suspect the people who do so of anti Labour bias - on the whole, whilst recognising some insight in your analysis, I stand by that
Complain about this comment
186. At 8:56pm on 25 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
bit of algebra? ... okay, if you insist ... our debt crisis is down to 2 things:
- global credit crunch - 80 pc to blame
- high public spending - 20 pc to blame
to blame for the global credit crunch?
- the Labour govt - 5 pc
- the clowns - 20 pc (since they patented the "get rich quick" culture)
- other - 75 pc
and for high public spending?
- the Labour govt - 50 pc (they did it)
- the clowns - 50 pc (they DIDN'T do it and hence Labour had to)
and so, multiplying through, we get ...
Labour are 14 pc to blame for our (truly terrible) debt crisis
it's 26 pc the fault of the clowns
and the balance (60 pc) is due to other factors
... other factors being (in no particular order) people generally, the capitalist system, the US authorities (inc the Fed), Wall St, and Fate
interestingly ... as you can no doubt see ... the clowns bear almost twice as much responsibility as Labour for this debt crisis! - a little counter intuitive, I know, but the percentages do add up to 100 and so it's a QED, I'm afraid - you can argue with me as much as you like but you CANNOT argue with cold, hard mathematics
=========================================================
You're right you can't argue with cold, hard mathematics - but your maths is only as valid as the numbers you made up to start with. It's called 'garbage in, garbage out'
Perhaps you should tell 'investing-not cutting' gordon brown about cold, hard mathematics, because he doesn't seem to have a clue.
Complain about this comment
219. At 08:15am on 26 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
it's a real stretch, in my view, to lay the lion's share of the blame at the government's door, that's why I suspect the people who do so of anti Labour bias -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words if someone disagrees with you, then it must mean they are anti Labour.... Odd really as some Labour supporters i know disagree fiercly with some policies and attitudes of Labour but they still support them.
Complain about this comment
sicilian @ 218
I will hereafter neither respond to or comment on your posts because in my opinion your views border on the bizarre and ridiculous
oh come on ... I have so few fans as it is ... can't afford to lose another one
Complain about this comment
Comment 219 : Sagamix
"I'm more talking about the remuneration structures in the "Front Office" generally - here we have many tens of thousands of very sharp, devious, energetic individuals who were incentivised to make that bad loan, misrate that bond, create that peculiar packaged "asset", talk up that crazy deal etc etc"
But your dear Mr Brown changed the whole control structure of the finance sector specifically to encourage bolder, less risk-evasive activity. The remuneration structures are the response of the firms to these changed conditions, insisted on by Brown/Labour in the face of warnings ignored, in which it became necessary to dismiss the medium to long term as irrelevant if you wanted your business to survive in the jungle that only looked at the immediate and the next five minutes. Labour and Brown were 100% responsible for putting in place the assumptions and structures that made this state of affairs inevitable. It's cowardice and dishonesty for them to turn round now and claim that they had nothing to do with the shortcomings of an ethos that their policy both encouraged and did everything to make inevitable.
and the net effect of all of it was the Blow Up - a culture thing ... very powerful ... unstoppable, actually, and neither Regulators nor anybody else had a cat's chance
No, no one had a cat's chance. And the reason for this? Because Gordon Brown created the structures that would ensure that no one had any chance of deviating from the path that he and his henchmen had decided was the way we were going. Not for the Great Navigator was the Bank of England, or anyone else, like an impartial civil service, going to be allowed to get in the way of his grand design. So "independence" was given to a Monetary Policy Committee, the composition of which was controlled by Brown and the Treasury. And regulation was hived out of the Bank to a Financial Services Authority where, again, the appointment of the higher echelons was at the behest of Brown and the Treasury, so again it could be assured that this supposedly independent body would actually do Brown's bidding. Treasury, Monetary Policy Committee, Financial Services Authority - the Tripartite System, but all in reality controlled by one man - Gordon Brown. And he has the audacity to claim that he is in no way responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves.
it's a real stretch, in my view, to lay the lion's share of the blame at the government's door, that's why I suspect the people who do so of anti Labour bias - on the whole, whilst recognising some insight in your analysis, I stand by that"
If your "view" was of what has actually happened, it would be a "real stretch" not to lay the lion's share of the blame with the government. And perhaps you might without your blinkers see that anti-Labour bias is not irrational prejudgement, but a sober attribution of current events to the people who have been most instrumental in causing them.
Complain about this comment
One sentence
Could it be a coincidence that after being Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years and then pushing himself into the top job of Prime Minister there then occurred a recession and ONLY THEN?
Complain about this comment
ex @ 223
look, I kind of agree with you - except for one (pretty fundamental thing) - I cannot have this idea of Brown as Master Puppeteer - to me, he's more a well meaning, but overrated, character who got lucky with the boom and has now ... which is fine, what goes around comes around ... got unlucky with the bust - a passenger not the pilot, in other words - I like my analysis because it has the virtue of being both logical and CONSISTENT - I don't particularly blame Brown for the downturn, sure, but neither do I give him much credit for the so called "good times" - that's not pro Labour bias, no way
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No214 sagamix,
When you refer to the 'clowns'do you mean those contributers that always fail to let us know the name of the last person to be elected as PM of the UK, and do not know the difference between a planned and a free market economy?
Complain about this comment
227. At 09:35am on 26 Jun 2009, braveSouter wrote:
No214 sagamix,
When you refer to the 'clowns'do you mean those contributers that always fail to let us know the name of the last person to be elected as PM of the UK, and do not know the difference between a planned and a free market economy?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As charming as ever Souter ...Arrogance is not a pretty trait
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.
186 Saga
Whilst there is no doubt that the Thather government is partly to blame for the banking crisis - indeed Thatherism could be defined as deregulation - it's also true that New Labour have done little to change the position.
I would also disagree with your assertion that you cannot argue with Maths. Statistics are notoriously dodgy and if we get into more abstract Maths such as quantum stuff, there is lots of uncertainty around. For example, there is a probability of about 60% that Bercow will, at some point, exist both as a Labour and Tory MP simultaneously. This is a result of the 'House of Commons Uncertainty Principle' which asserts that it is impossible to know both where a politician is and in which direction they are travelling.
Conversely, it is possible (5%) that Hazel Blears will completely disappear and reappear on the other side of the universe. This is known as the Brian Gould conjecture.
Complain about this comment
Comment 225 : Sagamix
If I walk up to a hole in the road and take the warning signs away, and subsequently someone falls into the hole, then I am largely responsible for the bad thing that has happened. Yes, you could say that if he was looking where he was going he wouldn't have fallen into the hole, but this doesn't transfer the entire responsibility to him. Yes, I can claim that I had a reason for moving the signs because, say, they didn't comply with European regulations, but that doesn't mean that I am excused from any responsibility for the accident that happened.
Jamie Oliver, God's gift to child nutrition who has never read a book, decided to take away school dinners that children wanted to eat, and replace them with those that they didn't. It's not the children who are responsible for the subsequent decline in school dinner usage. Just because there may be very good reasons why a healthier diet is to be preferred does not exclude Oliver from responsibility for the fact that some children are now less well nourished than they were before he changed the arrangements.
When Gordon Brown changed the rules of the game in finance so that the only way to survive was to behave in a destructive way, it's not the bankers who are responsible for adhering to the only mode of behaviour that Brown's impositions left available to them. No matter how noble were Brown's motives, no matter that the damage to the economy is unintentional, no matter that his critics could perhaps have done more to forestall him - the responsibility for what has happened is fair and square with him. He had the opportunity to make different decisions that would have led to us not being in so deep a hole. He rejected these out of hand. He is responsible.
Stop trying to subvert this judgement by confusing responsibility with blame, and by invoking all the emotion that causes us to hold back from apportioning blame. How much Brown is to blame for what has happened is a different set of calculations from those which decide how much he is responsible for it.
Complain about this comment
#179 JohnConstable
Tormented by the thought of non-English UK citizens exercising their constitutional right to occupy the high offices of the UK state, England is likely to resolve to end the anglo-union and surrender the territory of the subject peoples on which it is economically reliant? I don't think so. Nor do you.
So it is up to Scotland to vote for independence in the referendum which its government wants to hold next year? Small snag, though. The UK state is none too keen on this referendum, and the anglo-unionist parties oppose it, firmly resolved as they are to do all they can to prevent Scottish voters from determining their constitutional future in this way. One does not hear any protest about this coming from England. Nothing about democratic right and the right of national self-determination, although one is hearing that the poor English are oppressed and ill done by because a few non-English UK citizens are in the UK government.
What a shame. Oh, poor little downtrodden England.
Complain about this comment
Meaningless exercise trying to apportion percentages of blame on people or parties.
This government has been in power for 12 years, that's a pretty long stretch.. if a management board had been running a company for that length of time and it went belly up, I doubt if its shareholders would look to blame the previous management. Granted, balancing the country's books is a tad more complicated than those of a private company, but the analogy stands.
If the theory of blaming the Tories in part holds water than by that logic we shouldn't be heaping all the blame of RBS's failure on Sir Fred and Sir Tom, we'd need to look back before '98 when Fred joined. Doesn't make sense, does it?
223. ExcellenceFirst ...makes a lot of sense.
In his desire to ramp up spending on public services, an admirable goal, Brown either deliberately ignored the warning signs of an overheating global and local economy and hoped there would be an 'orderly' correction, or plainly failed to see them. Personally, I find the latter hard to believe.
Complain about this comment
183. At 8:36pm on 25 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
#176 Its_an_Outrage
"devolution will greatly damage both 'nations'". While I'm unsure why you choose to apostrophise 'nations', or why you want to restrict that term to only two such entities, devolution has been in place for 10 years now, so you should be able to produce some evidence for your assertion.
I wrote that as a reply to an accusation that I thought should not remain un-challenged. I don't really want to get caught up in a devolution debate in this thread, but I'm happy to answer your questions.
I used apostrophes around the word nation' because the term had not been defined in the context of the discussion. I wasn't using them to make any political point. I was discussing only two such entities because they were the subject of the discussion and to extend my argument to include Wales, Northern Ireland, Cornwall or Rutland would not have been relevant. I made no assertion other than to state that I believe that devolution will be a bad thing for both 'nations', obviously, I think, referring to full devolution. I'll be happy to debate this with you in a more appropriate forum.
Complain about this comment
ExcellenceFirst...
Would not a simpler anaolgy suffice?
If I put a monkey in charge of driving a car, the car will surely crash. But it isn't the monkey who is to blame.
This analogy can be used for most of what Brown has done, from removing constraints on bankers to the appointment of such as Harman and Jacqui Smith.
Complain about this comment
No224 flamepatricia,
Mr Brown was asked by her HM to form a government as a result of being the leader of the party in the House of Commons with an overall majority, or the person most likely to command a majority in the House. He was elected leader of his party un-opposed, a common occurrence in democratic organisations.Can you remember the time when the leader of one of the other main parties used to emerge following 'the customary processes of consultation'?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No232 Excellence,
You seem to be suggesting that if the change in banking regulation had not taken place in the UK, bankers would not have acted in a 'destructive' way. In view of the activities of bankers on Wall Street and in other financial centres throughout the world, are you being serious?
Complain about this comment
The thing to watch here is that King is right about reducing the debt but the timing is everything
Following the Crash in 1929 the US economy recovered in the early 30's but then dipped again as spending was reduced rapidly to reduce the deficit ...
So it seems to me that we are in a cleft stick on this - Brown created the conditions whereby our ONLY option is to spend to reduce the effects of the recession .. but the budget NEEDS to be balanced - getting that timing wrong could do some further real damage..
Complain about this comment
236 Andy
Your monkey analogy requires further thought. If an infinite number of monkeys were to drive cars, one of them would end up winning the F1 Grand Prix Championship. This would cause Ferrari to implode creating a Red Hole (defined as a vacuum where the Ferrari team once existed, not to be confused with a Blue Hole, defined as a vacuum currently occupied by George Osborne).
So who's to blame for that?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just a final shot at sagamix's 55 where he says King is merely a banker and we should ignore anything he says on economics because he knows nothing on the subject - and of course we all know where that one came from now, don't we!
Saga - check out King's wikipedia entry. There you will find an account of his very distinguished record as an academic economist. You will also find that he came to the B of E quite late in his career - as their chief economist, of course.
King's opinions on economics, which is where this thread started, are valid, respectable, based on a very successful career spent in the subject, and very much worth taking seriously, rather than being dismissed out of hand.
Complain about this comment
Comment 239 : braveSouter
If you read the part of my comment 206 that deals with the credit crunch, I think you'll find the answer to your question.
Brown/Labour had the opportunity to take action that would have greatly reduced the UK's exposure to the credit crunch. It was not written in tablets of stone that Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, Alliance and Leicester, RBS, HBOS and the others had to be instructed to act on the basis that they had a government guarantee against failure. There was no compulsion to take banking regulation away from the Bank of England and place it in the hands of an authority following the instructions of a man more motivated by political than economic considerations - G Brown Esq.
The UK banks acted exactly as Brown wanted them to, and intended them to. Big risks; big profits; big house price bubble; big taxes; loose credit; major popular overspending; big public feelgood. I detected no criticism from him when all was going along so swimmingly. The collapse of UK banking was largely avoidable - but not with Brown in charge it wasn't, it was inevitable.
You can argue that Brown couldn't have been expected to anticipate the calamity to come, and I would say that you are probably right. A man with Gordon Brown's psyche is not temperamentally capable of anticipating failure of his actions. THAT IS WHY HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE CONTROL OF ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE.
Complain about this comment
@saga 208
I wont deny my view may seem harsh and I certainly have an anti labour bias - it is a result of watching the damage that they have done since 1997.
Bear in mind that the governments reaction to the banking crisis was to dither before finally throwing money at it.
Had Northern Rock been declared bankrupt as they should have been then we could be in a different place now with considerably less taxpayer exposure to toxic debt. Instead the decision was taken that banks could not be allowed to fail and now they are all being propped up with our money.
What Labour apologists tend to conveniently forget is that the 'global' credit crunch seems to be having more of an effect here. I also dont see how the sub prime fisaco made Gordon borrow billions of pounds because he decided to spend even more money than his stealth tax receipts!!!!
Complain about this comment
238
The commission was an entirely voluntary set up by the Tories, and therefore is not accountable to anyone. While I will admit there is an element of one upmanship to the gesture, their remit is entirely independent, the Tories will be subject to the same review as everyone else at a later stage.
I'm not sure why you are so desperate to find fault with it.
Complain about this comment
237 I know the procedure Br Brave Souter, case in point, Major, Callaghan etc.
However, Brown took it upon himself to engineer the world & us.
He is indeed a control freak who set his own principle accountabilities, job description, way beyond that of the caretaker he is.
He has deep seated psychological problems leading to nail biting and picking his nose and eating it - he is just not the right material to run the country.
He caused the financial crisis so he could "fix" it.
He is hanging on Mugabe style because HE thinks he is right for the job regardless of what the public (or his government) think.
Complain about this comment
@223 excellence by name - excellent post by nature! I struggle to make points so clearly on such emotive subjects
@225 saga
Interesting point, I also find it very unlikely that such an incompetent idiot could be a master puppeteer.
I wonder if there is a real puppeteer dripping suggestions in the idiots ear with the full knowledge of the eventual outcome? Surely not, although there does seem to be an unelected deputy nowadays....
Complain about this comment
238
Independent should read irrelevent.
Complain about this comment
Gordon knows that only he, is the best man for the job.
Labour is the looney party, of the people that they rob.
He'll always been in office, oh just you wait and see.
Labour will end free elections, and irritating democracy.
Gordon knows whats best, so we dont need to care.
Labour will spend all our money, even if it isnt there.
Gordon at the helm of a vessel, fuelled by public cash.
Oops theres an iceberg, and a titanic market crash.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's 10 worst financial gaffes (as suggested by the Times Money Central)
1. Taxing dividend payments
Tax relief was scrapped, reducing the amount collected by pension funds by around £5 billion a year. £100 billion in pension funds lost over the last 12 years.
2. Selling our gold
May 1999, acting against advice from his own advisers. Estimated cost to us all: around £3 billion
3. Tripartite financial regulation
Established by Brown as Chancellor in 2000, missed what amounted to the biggest financial crisis of our lifetime.
Northern Rock: the Commons Treasury Select Committees report on the collapse of NR said that the Financial Services Authority had systematically failed in its duty to oversee the troubled banks activities.
4. Tax credits
Introduced in 1999, reformed in 2000, tax credits have been "a complete disaster zone", according to tax experts.
Millions of low-income families have had to pay back the Treasury after receiving too much money in tax credits.
5. The £10,000 corporation tax threshold
Introduced 2002. Changed the rules a few years later, raising the rate from 0 per cent to 19 per cent when GB released how much money was being lost.
6. Abolition of the 10p tax rate
Drew one of the 'rare as rocking horse droppings' apologies from Brown.
7. Failing to spot the housing bubble
Vince Cable 2003:"Is it not true that...the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level?"
Gordon Brown's reply: "The Honourable Gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, that spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the economy..."
8. 50 per cent tax rate
"If you look at what happened when higher rates were last changed in the 1980s, that might lead you to suggest that such a move might actually lose you revenue, rather than gain it, as people actually declare less income for tax." Robert Chote, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies
9. Cutting VAT
Cost £12.5 billion a year and it has made little discernable difference to hard-pressed families because it is shopkeepers, rather than shoppers, who have pocketed much of the benefit.
10. Public-sector borrowing
Will reach £175 billion this year. Forecast that total government debt will double to 79 per cent of GDP by 2013, the highest level since World War 2.
Complain about this comment
andy @ 236
If I put a monkey in charge of driving a car, the car will surely crash. But it isn't the monkey who is to blame
yes, that's exactly what I'm saying! ... Brown is the monkey and the clown-created "Get Rich Quick" City culture is the car - finally!
excellence @ 232
He is responsible. Stop trying to subvert this judgement by confusing responsibility with blame
precisely - I'm not confusing anything, you are - I've always been talking about BLAME - he's obviously "responsible" given 10 years as Chancellor and 2 as PM - happened on his Watch - if your Watch is long enough it's bound to, isn't it? - that's banal - so yes, he's responsible but he's not to blame - finally!
jr @ 243
King's opinions on economics, which is where this thread started, are valid, respectable, based on a very successful career spent in the subject, and very much worth taking seriously
don't deny he's spent his career in the field - doesn't mean he's any good ... I mean, Brown has spent the whole of his career in politics, has he not? ... just means he's climbed the greasy pole - looks the part, has a nice voice, that sort of thing - let's look at his record - his job, his ONLY job ... in contrast to Brown, who's got a million things to worry about as PM ... is to set an appropriate interest rate for the economy - right, so when we're clearly entering the Mother of deflationary recessions, he keeps rates at 5 pc for ages and then (when the awful truth finally dawns, dawns on him miles after it's patently apparent to everyone else) he panics and he slashes rates all the way down to near zero in the blink of an eye! - he's like a guy wandering around in a dazed stupor in 1973 telling everybody that the Beatles have broken up - I could have done better ... hell YOU could have done better! ... and all he's doing now is grubbing around, trying to protect his job for when they send in the clowns - that's how I call it, anyway
Complain about this comment
"don't deny he's spent his career in the field - doesn't mean he's any good" 252
Mr King is a well respected bod, which is usually a good indication of ones talents ... Brown on the other hand is not well respected
Complain about this comment
What is all this " clown " reference Saga ?
Complain about this comment
246 GreatHayMaker
As soon as Cameron went on television and promised the public a Scrutiny Committee comprised of significant independent input to judge all Tory MP expenses, he certainly became accountable for the delivery of that promise, and by inference, the committee became accountable to scrutinise in such a way as to help win public trust.
If the Tories wanted a largely internal team to work out for themselves where they had overstepped the mark and determine appropriate repayment, why mention the committee at all? Just send in the cheque.
I am a Conservative voter. I have been betrayed by Tory sleaze in the past and I am absolutely appalled, 12 years on, just how many Tory MPs didn't get it this time.
I thought Cameron's committee was an inspired idea when he announced it. It would distance him from the necessary blood letting and the independent component would go a long way to gaining public trust in the judgements. The reality has fallen far short of his promise. Few of mine and millions of other Tory Voter's questions have been answered. We have been let down once again.
I'm not desperate to find fault. I'm determined to find answers and I was rather hopeful that Cameron would be more truthful to his word than Labour have been to theirs over the last decade or so. But I guess taking about change and actually living up to it are very different matters.
Hardly matters now because some opponent of free speech has referred my original comment anyway.
Complain about this comment
No247 flamepatricia,
If you know the procedure, why do you persist in making such outrageous and inaccurate comments? Opinion and belief are fine, but do you agree with my friend that says there is no substitute for knowledge and understanding?
Complain about this comment
252. At 1:53pm on 26 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 236
If I put a monkey in charge of driving a car, the car will surely crash. But it isn't the monkey who is to blame
yes, that's exactly what I'm saying! ... Brown is the monkey and the clown-created "Get Rich Quick" City culture is the car - finally!
----------------
Saga, very mixed up with this one.
Just as the car is not to blame that a monkey was put in charge of driving it.
Neither is the rewards for those who earn them city system to blame that brown was put in charge of it.
You can quite squeeze this one through the door of the original metaphor I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
Splitting hairs now, aren't we?
Blame:
to consider (someone) responsible for
Be to blame:
to be at fault; responsibility for something that is wrong.
Responsible (for):
1) having control or authority over
2) being the agent or cause of
If I take responsibility for something, I'm in charge of that 'something'. If it goes 'wrong', I'm ultimately to blame.
Unless I invoke Labour's Law of Unaccountability, which is what saga is doing.
Complain about this comment
No251 TheBlamegame
Can you remember a short time ago when the two ex-members of the thuggish Bullingdon Club now leading the Tories were boasting about matching the governments spending on public services? To what extent has saving the financial system from total collapse had on the projected borrowing to which you draw attention? Was the government wrong to take that action? Do you think the Global Crises would have been cancelled if Dave had been in Downing Street? What policies do you think are now required to deal with the current situation, and what will be the impact on the British economy?
Complain about this comment
255. thomasak001
True, I am also waiting to see the results of the self-appointed Committee.
He too may be using Labour's Law of Unaccountability.
Complain about this comment
No257Great,
You advised me recently not to forget the English lessons,it was good advice.
Could I suggest you have a look at your sentence commencing with the word neither, and let me know if you have ever seen anything as stupid in your life?
Complain about this comment
Blame, I'll answer for you.
Yes but that was detracted because of the circumstances relating to our extraordinary debt (Mervyn King's words not mine)
There is no doubt that saving the financial system has drastically increased our borrowing requirement and consequent debt level in future years.
The Government was right to take action but should have done so much quicker.
The Global Crisis wouldn't have been cancelled with DC in charge but we we might, I say might have been better placed to deal with the negative consequences of it.
We need to proceed with prudence. Public Service cuts will have to be made in areas that will lead to the least pain for the vulnerable. ID cards, Trident, failed IT systems, quangos, unnecessary administration costs and daft schemes will have to be the first to get the chop.
Complain about this comment
261
Lesson:
Neither is the rewards for those who earn them city system to blame that brown was put in charge of it.
I'll admit that it is not a particularly clear sentence, but the English is perfectly acceptable. To demonstrate, and make it easier for you to understand, I will seperate the elements of the sentence using inverted commas.
Neither is the "rewards for those who earn them" city system to blame that Brown was put in charge of it.
Apart from failing to capitalise the first letter of Brown, for which I most humbly apologise, I think it should be appararent that there is in fact nothing wrong with my English.
In answer to your final question, I think an emphatic YES is in order.
Complain about this comment
haye @ 257
You can quite squeeze this one through the door of the original metaphor I'm afraid
not guilty - it's Andy's metaphor - Andy says if a monkey is driving a car and the car crashes, you can't blame the monkey - not the most inspired, I agree, but that's what he gave us to work with so, you know ...
Complain about this comment
bs @ 261
it's a whole new language - hayeglish! - and I rather like it
Complain about this comment
sicilian @ 262
I agree with every single word of that ... can't remember why we fell out in the first place, can you?
Complain about this comment
you can't blame the monkey - not the most inspired, I agree, but that's what he gave us to work with so, you know ...
----------------
To true, but I don't think your attempts to blame it on the car are any more inspired.
Complain about this comment
Comment 258 : TheBlameGame
Yes. It's the two very different definitions of Responsible (for) that are the source of the problem, I think. Sagamix, in accepting Brown's responsibility for the mayhem, is only accepting version 1. There's no admission of culpability, no acceptance that he is in any way the cause of what's happened.
My own feeling of why we're getting into this terminological mess is that it's linked into the growing feminisation of our cultural expectations. Increasingly, we are focusing on one-way thinking from process to outcome. The assumption of the modern political class is that it should only be held responsible for designing and putting in place processes to work towards a desired result. The judgement is that as long as they have tried their best they are due no criticism, even if the desired outcome is not achieved.
The other side of the coin of course is the masculine approach, which identifies the outcome required, and then works backwards to putting in place whatever most efficiently achieves that outcome. With this philosophy, the outcome is all for which one should be held responsible, and the shortcomings in the process are not relevant.
My sense is that the best way for us to progress is to recognise that we need to embrace both these philosophies, because otherwise there will always be a large group of people dissatisfied with what's going on. the first thing to understand is that different people have different impulses, and in today's world that we are severely under-resourcing the achievement of outcomes. It really is no good a government being allowed just to accept responsibility for processes.
Complain about this comment
ghm @ 267
well okay but if it's not the monkey and it's not the car, what the devil is it? - the long years of Tory under investment in the roads?
Complain about this comment
No262 Sicilian,
You seem to accept that the Governments approach to dealing with the Global Crises was broadly correct. It is, I am sure you are aware, a view supported by virtually all the major players participating in the International economy. Have you a view on how lavishing massive tax cuts on 3,000 of the richest people in the country will assist in protecting the most 'vulnerable' members in society, which, you imply is of concern to yourself?
Complain about this comment
269
The person to blame is clearly Sir Isaac Newton.
He drew up the first designs for a car
AND he decided that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction i.e. a crash
So without Isaac, there's no car and no crash
Complain about this comment
270 , you've been swallowing the Labour/BBC line again.
Or maybe you are the Labour /BBC line.
The whole world has NOT applauded the UK and Browns handling of the situation, not even if you say /write it another million times will it become true.
The OECD has been consistent in its unfortunate assessment of the UK and its economy and I'm very inclined to believe them.
Complain about this comment
#270 wrote:
Have you a view on how lavishing massive tax cuts on 3,000 of the richest people in the country will assist in protecting the most 'vulnerable' members in society, which, you imply is of concern to yourself?
#270:
I do have a view. My family were hit big time by IHT only 3 years ago. I object to the fact that my Mum and Dad worked and saved hard for over 40 years only for The Government to grab a huge stake in the sale of their house as well as their life savings. They then proceeded to waste a great deal of that through financial mismanagement. As for benefiting 3,000 rich people it doesn't though does it because they will be dead. If there are 3 or 4 siblings the benefit to the family is even less. The Conservatives have already said it won't come from the common pot but from a change in the rule on non doms. As far as the vulnerable go they come in categories, those who are lazy and feckless and don't bother to save. They just rely totally on the state to bail them out. Then there are those who no fault of their own fall on hard times because of illness, loss of work etc. These I grant you are totally worthy of support so why did The Government not build up a money scheme for these people to help them out when times were better?
Complain about this comment
ExcellentFirst 207
Sorry I could not get back to you sooner to thank you for your reference to Private Eye, I have been rather busy. A friend is bringing me a copy. I do hope however that the good people of Doncaster are not going to be let down after putting their faith in a relatively unknown person. It sounded in the report that things were going well, so this will be of great interest to me.
Complain about this comment
sicilian29 @ 273
hang on a sec - from the 29 suffix on your user name, I've been assuming you were born in 1929 and hence were 80 years old - which is why I've never wanted to argue with you too much ... my elders and betters and all that ... but yet your parents passed away only 3 years ago, so you're obviously a mere stripling - right, gloves off!
Complain about this comment
269. At 3:51pm on 26 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
ghm @ 267
well okay but if it's not the monkey and it's not the car, what the devil is it? - the long years of Tory under investment in the roads?
------------
You deliberately ignore the most obvious conclusion.
The people who put the monkey behind the wheel, a place where no monkey has the least business in being.
Just to stick a pin in the metaphor temporarily, I blame Blair and the PLP.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 274
yes, I've caught a couple of features on Peter D - seems a decent enough bloke - oh btw, "exxon" is worried about you - better stop by and say hello when you have a second ...
Complain about this comment
95. At 09:19am on 25 Jun 2009, UK-SILENT-MAJORITY wrote:
36. At 6:27pm on 24 Jun 2009, york1900 wrote:
I have been through a Tory fix it before and it was not nice high unemployment and wages driven down except for top few.
So you've been through a Tory fix eh, so have many more of us.
I was a miner in 84-85 so don't preach like your the only one who suffered.
Who do i blame for the recession in the 80's..................Labour.
Labour to put it politly messed up the country the last time they were in power and were promptly booted out in 79, remember the winter of discontent, mass strikes, rat infested rubbish piled high in the streets, dead bodies not being buried, or is your memory fading now?
Every socialist should read these words...........YOU CAN'T KEEP SPENDING WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE!
It's not rocket science, where do you think the money keeps coming from?
hard working Brits are bleeding from high taxes yet it's all going into a debt ridden black hole as it was in the late 70's when Thatcher came in and had to take drastic action to plug the hole which she did.
Once again we have to wait for a Tory government to come into power to fix the economy.
In my opinion this has without doubt been the worst Labour administration we have ever seen, giving away our powers to Brussels
destruction of the pensions industry, mass immigration, massive pfi debt, stupidity beyond belief in selling the countries gold at a LOSS of 3 billion.
The human rights act giving criminals equal and sometimes more rights than there victims.
The scrapping of the 10p tax band hitting the low paid.
The waste of money setting up the FSA and their ineffective monitoring of the banking system when the BoE could have done a far better job. (something the Tories plan to do).
The trouble with the majority of Labour supporters is that they think the state is there to provide for them.
The state is NOT there to provide for people it is there to provide a service for people
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree The trouble with the majority of Labour supporters is that they think the state is there to provide for them.
I do not want to be back to wages were every good company can not afford to pay a decent wage of a fair day work because businesses who don't give a dam about there staff move in and under cut every one as this dose more damage to everyone as decent employers are put out of business and then the National Debt grows
Complain about this comment
Dont understand all the debate about who's fault the crash was.
The monkey was driving so its got to be the monkey's.
Complain about this comment
#262 sicilian29
Those sound the most sensible areas to be looking at initially, however, the paranoia associated with power will probably lead to these areas being overlooked.
I'm guessing that there's going to be an awful lot of privatising (in a manner of speaking), and therefore, cuts to schools, hospitals and of course benefits in order to appease the Daily Mail et al.
I think in an earlier post sagamix asked whether the voters could trust two 'silver spoons' to make the cuts required to reduce borrowing or words to that effect. I would answer no, Labour I'd say have got to be far more trustworthy when it comes to not shafting the most vulnerable in society. Feels strange marrying the word trust with Labour.
The LibDems obviously claim to have this all sorted although nobody seems to want to vote for them.
Complain about this comment
laugh @ 271
The person to blame is clearly Sir Isaac Newton
maybe so - I'd have thought Brown bears some culpability, myself ... around 14 pc as I think I demonstrated ... but the good people on here seem convinced that it's all down to either a monkey or a car so fair enough, majority rules I guess - any case, I better be off to play my old Jackson records and Charlie's Angels vids - 2 giants of popular culture exiting the stage at the same time has to be marked in some way ... SYL(A)
Complain about this comment
It is of interest to me that most people make the assumption that the bank bail outs were the right thing to do. I confess I still have great doubts about that.
There is some thought in banking circles that if at the time of Northern Rock, the Government had acted sooner, guaranteed all deposits and stopped the run immediately, there would have been far more confidence within the system for much longer. This would have allowed the Government time to perhaps make better decisions.
The thought is that banks such as RBS, Northern Rock should then have been dealt with by the BOE, who most probably would have sorted out their balance sheets separating the toxic debt into workable or unworkable packages and then manage the former.
There was also the belief that RBS was far too big and therefore the BOE would have put in place a divestment programme and sold off outside interests. This would have made for a much smaller leaner bank but would have lost a lot of jobs in Scotland which would have been hugely unpopular for Labour. However, this strategy would have cost the tax payer very little money to put into operation. HBOS in turn was a toxic bank and should have been allowed to fail. This again would have lost jobs in Scotland and most probably the Glenrothes bi-election for Labour. The merger with Lloyds has been a disaster and now there is even less competition in the market.
Currently, not only is the tax payer exposed to the cost of the bail outs, but also every mortgage and business that is guaranteed by the Government that fails, the burden will fall onto the tax payer. Interest rates will go up in the future (which has already started) which could in turn be very costly as businesses and mortgages continue to default.
The last point I would like to make is that everyone gives Brown the credit for the bail out of the Banks. In fact it was on a programme recently (I think it was Dispatches) that stated when the banks went to No 10 to discuss the banking collapse and decide how to deal with it, Brown was asleep in bed. It was Darling who made the decisions of how the banks would be bailed out and only woke Brown when it had been decided. Of course it was Brown who made the announcement the next morning and of course took the credit.
Complain about this comment
268. ExcellenceFirst
Interesting analysis. Whether it's a question of masculine or feminine is a moot point, it could also be seen as 'old-fashioned' and 'modern', something which I see in the education my children receive in school. As a youngster I was taught at home and in school to take sole responsibility for my actions - there seems to be less of that ethos around now.
259. braveSouter
No, the global crisis would not have been 'cancelled' if Cameron had been in office. And who can say for sure that we would have been in a better situation had the Tories been in office, although I tend to believe that would have been the case. That's speculation, we are dealing with the recent past and the present, the future being very uncertain at this time.
The 10 'gaffes' I posted are up for discussion, not my absolute belief which is why I prefaced them with "as suggested by the Times Money Central."
As for saving the banking system, do you not think that the regulators should have seen the dangers inherent in some of the takeovers given the levels of toxic debt and unsustainable credit, a house of cards waiting to be blown over? Do you not think that some of the basket cases could have been left to go under and the money used to prop them up injected directly into business and taxpayers. What is the situation now? The banks are still looking after no.1. As a small business I find credit is still almost impossible to come by, but bank bonuses are on the increase again. For me unemployment is the biggest worry at the moment (not personally, but that may change). The government talks about thousands of new jobs created but I can't see any concrete evidence out there.
Some of those gaffes listed are indisputable, even Labour advisers will agree under duress. I am happy to wait and see if those green shoots come to Brown's rescue but the time is fast approaching when unserviceable debt and rising unemployment threaten to tip him over.
I'm no financial expert, I can only react to what I experience and see first hand, I try to read a diversity of opinions before coming to my own conclusions. If I had the answers to your last two questions I'd be in a different profession. If Brown's actions bear fruit and prove the critics wrong I will be among the first on these blogs to eat humble pie.
I'm also a cynic, which is why I think that there was more political self-aggrandisement behind Brown's spending sprees than altruism.
btw your description "ex-members of the thuggish Bullingdon Club" sounds like it came straight out of an old Boy's Own Annual.
Complain about this comment
Lets forget about who's fault it is that the monkey crashed, it obviously doesn't have a driving licence so let's lock it up and make sure it never drives again!!
Complain about this comment
sagamix 277
Thanks Saga,
I am working my way there, exxon is the best guy in the world a more caring person you could not find. So I hope you have not upset him.
Complain about this comment
281 sagamix
You have thrown me now, been back through all the posts on the monkey/car and no mention of brown bears until your post 281.
Complain about this comment
Monkeys cant reach the pedals so its the fault of whoever left the handbrake off.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 285
exxon is the best guy in the world, a more caring person you could not find
if that was just to make me jealous, you've totally succeeded ...
Complain about this comment
Monkeys, cars and Mervyn King::
"Just like human boys and girls, male monkeys like to play with toy cars while female monkeys prefer dolls, a research project has shown."
"Led by Gerianne Alexander, a psychologist at Texas A&M University in College Station, the monkey experiment put a variety of toys in front of 44 male and 44 female vervets, a breed of small African monkeys, and measured the amount of time they spent with each object.
Like little boys, some male monkeys moved a toy car along the ground. Like little girls, female monkeys closely inspected a doll's bottom. Males also played with balls while females fancied cooking pots. Both were equally interested in neutral objects such as a picture book and a stuffed dog.
People used to think that boys and girls played differently because of the way they were brought up. Now scientists such as Alexander say a creature's genetic inheritance also plays an important role."
What's Mervyn King got to do with all this? I was hoping you could tell me.
Complain about this comment
288. At 6:32pm on 26 Jun 2009, sagamix wrote:
susan @ 285
exxon is the best guy in the world, a more caring person you could not find
if that was just to make me jealous, you've totally succeeded ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey Saga, are you going soft on us
Complain about this comment
282. At 5:55pm on 26 Jun 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
...There is some thought in banking circles that if at the time of Northern Rock, the Government had acted sooner, guaranteed all deposits and stopped the run immediately, there would have been far more confidence within the system for much longer. This would have allowed the Government time to perhaps make better decisions...
Hmmm - I'm not sure that anything could have stopped that run, considering the speed at which the media (no names, no pack drill) raced ahead, greasing the rails. Once the cameras were outside the banks and the reptiles were vox popping, nothing could have stopped it.
Complain about this comment
Its_an_Outrage 291
Yes but if you remember at the time of the run on N.Rock it did take ages of allowing the media to think exactly what they liked and make predictions, before the Government acted at all. The staff at N. Rock were waiting for some announcement from Government of some kind and it never came. The Government continued to dither.
In banking it is very important to act quickly I believe. If the BOE had still had its powers you would have seen swift action even before the run.
Complain about this comment
292. At 7:33pm on 26 Jun 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
Its_an_Outrage 291
Yes but if you remember at the time of the run on N.Rock it did take ages of allowing the media to think exactly what they liked and make predictions, before the Government acted at all. The staff at N. Rock were waiting for some announcement from Government of some kind and it never came. The Government continued to dither.
In banking it is very important to act quickly I believe. If the BOE had still had its powers you would have seen swift action even before the run.
The government were certainly caught a tad off balance I must admit, but I still don't believe anything could have saved Northern Rock from the moment the queues first appeared on the TV screens, and that happened, some might say, suspiciously quickly. I think I agree with your point about the BOE, (although there are pros rubbing up against the cons as it were, where the BOE's loss of power is concerned). But the only thing I've ever seen banks do quickly is to blame the customer when anything goes wrong, and to lower interest rates.
Complain about this comment
Actually I blame the organ grinder - he shouldn't have let that damned monkey loose in the first place. No wonder car insurance is going through the roof
Complain about this comment
Ref 285 Susan Croft.
My first visit to this blog and thank you for those few kind words??!! I try my best.
Complain about this comment
294 laughatthetories
On reflection my friend I think you have revealed the answer.
The organ grinder has been making such an absolute hash of everything he does lately he chucked the monkey out in case it could do better.
Complain about this comment
No283 The BlameGame
You make some excellent points.I think you underplay the fact that for 30 years neo-liberal ideology has been dominant, and of course, regulation is anathama to the true believers.You must be aware that deregulation during that period has been the order of the day. Hayek, Friedman and their cronies would have been horrified at your suggestion that a democratically elected government should be intervening in the market place.Yes the 'basket cases' should have been allowed to wither and resources deployed in the manner you suggest.I can't help feeling that you must have some ideas about future economic policies and their likely outcome.
Complain about this comment
Hello, I was wondering if you're the Nick Robinson who came to Chagrin Falls, Ohio in 1979 on AFS? I'm Bonnie Winberg (prestin) [Personal details removed by Moderator] - looking for you on the net!!
Complain about this comment
The country is in heavy debt and soon we will become a third world nation. Any house holder knows that if they do not balance their house hold expenses sooner or later they will lose their home and be on the street. Brown is a man who boasted to everyone including our European nations of his fiscal discipline and prudent financial management. It is spending freely to stop the next Government succeed within their 4 year term. Wait till the final year salaries are paid to the millions of non jobs that the Government has created to win votes. The sooner Mr. Brown leaves the country and take up the European role that has been carved up for him the better it is. Didn't he say that he could walk out any moment. Could this be a wider Scottish plot against the English that the worst performing Scots have been sent to lead England (Blair, Brown, Shaw, Darling, Goodwin ........). What do you think!
Complain about this comment
@ 299
What do you think?
well, I'm thinking that this matter of what is a "non job" is quite an interesting one - people often seem to equate the public sector with nonjobness but I'm not sure about that - after all, there's millions of non productive paper shufflers in the private sector too - also, I don't think you can equate private sector profit generation with value to the economy ... properjobness, if you like ... take drug dealing, for example - whose contributing most our economy, the "waste of space" public sector Diversity Officer, or the dynamic and "entrepeneurial" private sector pusher?
Complain about this comment
Comment 3000 : Sagamix
So what, Sagamix, is to be done? Do we say that because it's not an exact science to value contributions we shouldn't even begin to attempt it? Or do we say that Parkinson's Law is real - it's an imperfection of humanity, but it's real. Work expands to fill the space available. Every public sector "initiative" becomes more important after it's been put into action than it was beforehand.
I know the same is true in the private sector - we're all human, of course. But does this make it any less negligent to ignore it?
What say we look at each public sector commitment of resource, and seek to answer the question "Is this use of resource the very best that it can be put to?" So, take the NHS computer project for example. GBP10 billion or thereabouts. At the end, even if the project is succesful, does it produce at least as much benefit as any other project the 10 billion could have been put towards? You know, ordinary individuals have to go through this sort of thought process every day. They may not always get the right answers, but stand-away analysis doesn't half cut out a lot of chaff.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 300
That very well may be true that there are non jobs in the private sector, but fortunately the tax payer does not have to pay for them.
Usually though in private companies, if you are not pulling your weight and coming up with the goods they find a way to get rid of you. Things are pretty ruthless to be honest. The higher you climb the more hours you have to work and the more likely you are to get the boot if you do not prove your worth.
Complain about this comment
hi ex ... ten BILLION for a computer project? ... that (to put it mildly) seems on the high side ... chop chop!
and hi Susan ... pretty ruthless eh? ... well, I've deduced that you're at the cutting edge in the private sector, so you tell me ... are you both of those things?
Complain about this comment
Comment 303 : Sagamix
Actually GBP12.4 billion*. Still, what's GBP2,400,000,000 between friends.
Wish I knew how to spin out high-sounding purposeless IT-speak for years on end. I too could have had a nice comfy existence on the NHS IT project, like so many others must have done.
But I'd have needed the conscience to regard this as acceptable. And, to me at least, that would have been more difficult than learning how to produce the spiel.
Maybe if I'd been born into your judgement-free world, things would have been a bit less complicated.
*http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5596213.ece
Complain about this comment
sagamix 303
No Saga I wish I were, I am a bit too soft me, but I know how the system works and I keep my head above water by sheer hard work.
Complain about this comment
It would be helpful and practical if all the party leaders got together with Mervyn King and agreed a line of action that would deal with the problems properly rather than having the leaders trying to to outdo each other while the nation sinks into bankruptcy.
The simple truth is we are spending money we do not have and cuts in public expenditure may be necessary, but they can be offset to some extent by increasing national income and getting better value for our money.
The time to do something is now, not at election time when we will be perhaps irretrievably deeper in the mire.
Complain about this comment
To answer Jolo_13, and New Labour hasn't? Even under the Tories we weren.t this much in debt, or taxed to the earholes. Out of all of them Mervyn King is the only one talking sense. Brown has lied, evaded answering questions, and is the root cause of the country being in so much debt. Whoever gets in at the next election is going to have an uphill struggle to get our country straight again. Brown and Co are just hanging on to get their gold-plated pensions, they don't give a stuff about the rest of us. The banks should be responsible for their actions, and pay for their incompetence, not us!
Complain about this comment
#301 ExcellenceFirst
I agree with your comments about the NHS computer system and its VFM equivalence which is probably rather low. However, of equal importance, is where this twelve billion (and rising) pounds actually goes. What remains of it in the UK sector (largely private sector sub contracted services) is valuable in creating work and circulating the money but how much of it leaves the UK?
For years outsourcing of public service computer support, hardware and software design, testing, implementation, management, maintenance and support has shown a steady flood of cash overseas (mainly to the US) whilst UK companies have gone to the wall or had their work seized by venture capitalists from Europe. Governments (present and past) have done little to prevent this stream of easy money from poorly managed contracts. This is not just ministerial incompetence but also ineffectual policy monitoring by senior civil servants.
We should also be disturbed and distressed by Government records on cutting jobs in public services when it would be much more effective to stop projects that encourage money to go abroad. Ten billion pounds pays for well over one million jobs at National minimum wage and keeps the money in the UK especially if UK companies are encouraged and supported in bidding for work.
As newshounduk says in 306 we must increase national income and get better value for money. We will only do that through tighter regulation and control of outsourcing, especially at the feasibility stage. It is not always good VFM to outsource and yet it is increasingly the only option considered in the public sector. Is the pressure for this coming from Government or "clever" lobbyists from the private sector who know easy money when they see it?
Complain about this comment
re: 244 ExcellenceFirst
Very good post, I wholeheartedly agree.
Especially the last bit (in bold):
"You can argue that Brown couldn't have been expected to anticipate the calamity to come, and I would say that you are probably right. A man with Gordon Brown's psyche is not temperamentally capable of anticipating failure of his actions. THAT IS WHY HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE CONTROL OF ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS THE LIVES OF OTHER PEOPLE."
Complain about this comment
Comment 309 : expatinnetherlands
Thanks for your kind words. Very few people seem to cotton on to the fact that Brown's reign is not just something that happens, unavoidable, but is the result of a failure in our system of promotion. It's far more important that the processexcludes all the wrong people, than that it includes all the right people.
Brown's been identifiable as one of the wrong people ever since his smart-*rse antics at Edinburgh University 40-odd years ago. As have Jack Straw and Peter Hain, in different student roles, from the same era.
Comment 308 : Cardboard Cutout
I take your point about outsourcing abroad, but there is a difference, surely, between getting the best VFM for the project and achieving the best demand-stimulation in the economy from the money committed. I don't think I would sign up to the idea that one should favour home-owned businesses over foreigners, even if the VFM was inferior. And I think that if the purpose of the expenditure is to pump demand into the economy, the critical decision is where this will be most effective, and I can't see that the pockets of generally well-off IT consultants is going to be very high up the list of possibilities.
So as far as I can see, the NHS IT project doesn't tick too many boxes, apart than being a fabulously expensive bit of PR for a Prime Minister who was addicted to glory-seeking.
Complain about this comment
"his inaccurate claim" --- what a polite way with words you have.
Brown lied to parliament.
he lies all the time and you are part of the conspiracy which lets him get away with it.
thats not what i pay my licence fee for.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS