BBC Blog Network

User Profile

BSlight

Listed below are comments made by BSlight between Thursday, 9th October 2008 and Wednesday, 8th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Government not defeated 8:28pm on 08 Jul 2009 A Government with a majority of over 60 should not have to contemplate the thought of being defeated on a motion as important as the Budget. The fact that backbench MPs were able to instil fear of defeat into the Government says a fair amount of the health and discipline in the governing party. Whether or not the opposition parties voted against the Government on principle or politics (with this Parliament, no-one really believes what politicians say anymore) is beside the point. Brown APPEARS weak and indecisive. It no longer matters what he says or does, people have stopped listening. Yep, you'll get the core voters out (same for any party) but the swing-voters will need a lot more convincing to return Brown for a Fourth Term. Frankly, if he is re-elected, what will Labour bring to the table? This Government is exhausted after 12 years in Office, hopelessly split and doesn't have a clue what way to go. Endless policies are announced to 'save' Britain, only to be denounced when they cannot withstand scrutiny. If 2010 is bad for Labour, another five years will be even worse. The Tories learnt that the hard way with their victory in 1992.
Who's planning what cuts? 4:12pm on 10 Jun 2009 Here's a different thought... What if Cameron doesn't actually WANT to win the next election? Say the Tories actual election aim is to increase their number of seats by just enough to give Brown an overall majority of say 5-10. Whilst Brown would have pulled off the wonderful 4th Term, he would then have the poisoned chalice of actually trying to sort out the spiralling public debt that he and Darling ran up in Labour's 3rd term. Plus, his small majority would be extremely fragile and his position as PM vulnerable.

After winning in 2010 Labour would be then forced to either a) make spending cuts - thus neutralising any claims against the Tories or b) increase borrowing - thus destroying/severely damaging Labour's reputation for economic competence. Brown, unable to accept his failures would continue to soldier on (like Major) until his exhausted and even more bitterly divided party are trounced at the next election.

The cupboard for Labour is already bare and the party looks tired from 12 years in Government. A fourth Labour Government would do nothing radically different and would drift from populist cause to the next. A short period in Opposition (under a new leader) would allow the Party to re-energise and possibly win in 2015. 1992 was the Conservatives greatest defeat. A Brown victory in 2010 would be exactly the same for Labour.
Questions that MPs dread 12:31pm on 08 May 2009 Sleaze did a lot of damage to the Major Government and it will do the same for the Brown Government. Brown limps from one thing to another - in PMQ's this week MP's from all parties openly humiliated and laughed at him.

Not only is his authority ebbing away, a lot of the ordinary public find him boring and uninspiring. Labour got rid of their best asset - Blair. I doubt Blair would have let this expenses row blow as it has or badly misjudged the public mood about the Gurkhas. On the latter issue, Joanna Lumley is now dictating Government Policy - watch her tell the Immigration Minister when and how the new guidelines will be written. Whilst I support the Gurkhas, it sets a worrying precedent if non-elected celebrities can wield so much power over the Government.

The whole thing seems like the end of the Major years - Brown is 'In Government but not in Power.'
Stealth taxes out, hikes for the rich in 2:40pm on 22 Apr 2009 One thing will be remembered in this Budget... The increase in taxes on alcohol and the increased fuel duties. The latter will be unpopular and will overshadow most of the other proposals.
Too 'European' 1:33pm on 03 Nov 2008 Whoever wins the White House (and the same is true of politicians all over the world) that person will say and promise to do everything to get elected. Once in Office, then there's a whole world of difference.

Didn't everyone think Bill Clinton was going to do many of the things Obama is promising now in 1992? Look at what happened to his health care plans - Democrats (from his own party) tore the idea to shreds and the Republicans ended up taking Congress by a landslide. Clinton backed off the idea massively (as with other things such as homosexuals in the armed forces) and did everything he could to ensure he was re-elected. His second term then ended up being remembered for his affair and subsequent attempted impeachment. (As an aside, people ask how George W Bush could ever have won - look at Clinton's second term - even Gore distanced himself from him in the 2000 election!)

In Britain, Tony Blair promised a new dawn. His legacy is now toxic, a lot of his main policies have never been implemented and his term in office is seen as something of a disappointment.

Obama/McCain - does it matter who wins? Politics is always about saving yourself rather than caring about the electorate...
It's the real economy, stupid 2:42pm on 16 Oct 2008 How much more of tax payers cash is Brown going to chuck at trying to solve, what is probably now, and inevitable crunch and deep recession? The markets have fallen again today, another immediate rescue needed to bribe shares to go back up?

Franklin Roosevelt is remembered as a good US President but his 'darker' side is forgotten. His enthusiasm after his election in 1933 helped the US on the way to recovery but in theory the New Deal did little to improve the US economy. Roosevelt spent money like water to keep the US economy going and his various New Deal projects became dependent on it. If you look at the US economic figures in the late 1930s-early 1940 when Government spending was eased back, the US economy tumbled again. In theory, the only way the Great Depression was ever solved was by the US entering the Second World War and a greater demand for US weapons/mass call ups of the workforce into the armed forces.

The same seems to be happening here. Brown is chucking more and more money at the system to give the perception he is doing something. Fine, we may all hate bankers and shareholders and blame them for the mess we are in now but the Government's actions will not be the solution in the end.

Brown (as are other ministers/politicians) is living in cloud cuckooland if he thinks that the Competition Regulators will stay silent for ever. Under law, the 'super' LLoyds-HBOS should never have been agreed and neither under EU rules should the mass bailouts either. The shareholders are the persecuted now, but soon they will become the victims. When the whole thing ends up challenged in court (as no doubt it will - it was in the US by the Supreme Court) what then? What happens when judges award compensation to those shareholders who have had their shares taken from them without little/adequate compensation in return?

The headache is just beginning. We can't stave off recession much longer - that was the whole point of the Iraq War if we are honest to avoid a similar problem in 2003/4 -and when the legal challenges start on this new scheme (which no doubt they will) Brown (and all other Governments had better watch out) - or is that one of the reasons why Gordon is quitely dispensing of jobs in the Ministry of Justice?
The rebirth of Gordon Brown? 10:45pm on 13 Oct 2008 "I like the government's general plan to develop innovation and employment for the long-term, and the asset stripping and wishful thinking of the opposition parties would just derail that."

Perhaps. My point was that just as Gerald Baker argued in The Times a few weeks ago that 2008 was the US Presidential Election to lose, I feel that the same comment is true of 2010 here.

Brown may have a plan and may be putting it into action. The question no-one is asking is how the tax payer is meant to fund everything. The Government have added mass sums to public borrowing to bail out the banks which has massively increased public debt. The 10 O'Clock news suggested that is now around a figure of 50%, something not seen since the 1970s. If this is true then we have two options -

1) The banks restore themselves to their financial footing post-August 2007 and the shares owned by the tax payer increase to cover the public debt (a gamble nonetheless.) However, there still remains a potential worry that the same problems experienced now will reappear when those shares are sold in say 10 years time to repay the 2008 funding. Therefore, will our banks need permanent public ownership to save people from themselves? If yes, then the loan for those shares will need repayment from elsewhere.

2) Pay the debt another way. The Government was already squeezed with public finances before it had to bail out the banks. It was widely accepted that there was no spare cash left and the mass investments by Labour in sectors such as education and the NHS would have to halt (if not be cut entirely.) The Olympic Games has also meant that funding has got to be diverted from elsewhere to pay for that. So, the Government either pay back the money by cutting services (unpopular but likely) or increasing taxation or introducing stealth taxes (unpopular)

Either way, we sort out a mess now at our peril for the future. Brown may be the master at 13/10/08 but will he take credit if the predicted rise in bank shares fails and he has to resort to option 2? Remember, many councils are worried about assets frozen in Icelandic banks - will that mean more money to bail out the system.

This plan looks great on paper but has serious flaws and is based on a hope that the market sorts itself out. Vince Cable, in the Commons today, warned the Government of hubris and of the impending dangers of recession.

The risk to the tax payer if this goes belly up is huge. That risk alone is enough to make Brown think carefully about winning in 2010.
The rebirth of Gordon Brown? 9:06pm on 13 Oct 2008 If all the stuff Brown has put into place is so wonderful why have the markets fallen yet again? We had a mass bailout last week and it seems to have made no difference to anything, Lloyds-TSB/HBOS wee forced to merge a month ago and that has made little difference. In effect it seems as if Brown is going to have to nationalise the whole banking system of the UK.

After that and the markets continue to fall what then? Brown may get credit at the moment for 'sorting things out' but has he really? How much more tax payers money is going to be used to prop up the system? When public services are cut to make savings to prevent tax rises to fund everything then we will see how popular Brown is.

Of course unless Brown is hoping Cameron actually wins the next election and has to deal with the inevitable mess and unpopularity that causes. Lose in 2010 but win massively in 2015 - sounds like a decent plan.
At least Gordon's smiling 5:02pm on 09 Oct 2008 When the phrase 'Never be the same again' is used, I tend to become a cynic. The banking system may appear to have changed for the next few years but as things get good again old habits will return.

When The Independent uses that phrase however, I tend to ignore it completely. At least the banking crisis makes a change from the usual headlines on that paper namely; 1) How we are all going to die from Global Warming (despite all the adverts for motoring and air travel), 2) How Israel is horrible because of X (according to Robert Fisk or Patrick Cockburn), 3) Something about George Bush and a negative piece about America (although that may soon change.) I used to read that paper virtually every day for about 4 years and it was so predictable...
At least Gordon's smiling 3:58pm on 09 Oct 2008 Why would Labour really want to win the next election? The economic climate isn't great now and if we do hit recession things are going to get a lot tougher.

Perhaps Brown should learn the lesson of Major. Better to lose by a small margin in 2010 than risk electoral wilderness in 2015. Imagine how unpopular a Cameron Government (or Brown Government) would be in say 2011 when taxes rise, public services are cut, unemployment figures continue to rise, Government borrowing is at an all time high, the Olympics turn into another 'British' fiasco, etc.

2010 might actually see a break in the current long party in Government cycle as well, which would be a bonus.

Gordon may be smiling now - but would he still be doing so in 2015? A week is a long-time in politics, seven years would be a lifetime.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

BSlight