Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ross - the point is that Brown was a repeat offender, time after time. You will know as I do about the advice he received over pension taxation, over pension reform (stakeholder) over tax-free savings, over regulation, over so called pension simplification. Government insiders have revealed as much. Time after time he ignored the experts and went with his own judgement and every time he was shown to be wrong.
In local government a councillor who behaved that way ignoring officer advice, using their own judgement leading to a loss to the taxpayer, can be challenged in court and a judicial review can lead to them being personally surcharged for any losses. Remember Clay Cross and Westminster - two cases where that happened.
If only central government operated under the same rules, would Brown have repeatedly ignored expert advice? He would have been daft enough to do so. No chance of getting even the £10bn he cost us on the gold sale let alone anything else. Still, it would be nice to see the man in the bankruptcy court for his foolishness.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Yes he did often ignore advice
- but again many do
- yes maybe central government should have the same rules and constraints as local government does.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
"We must draw a line between knowledge and speaking from an entrenched prejudice".
"We do all indeed have our prejudices Keith but we must discern that from the facts and proper debating/discussion points. Sweeping statements such as our friend makes regarding the markets/banks and the economy do not indicate any kind of knowledge, only prejudice and it is that on which I judge".
Egotism (in the true sense of the word i.e. being unable to see any view than one's own) is as dangerous as any prejudice.
Gordon Brown made mistakes but he did not cause Britain's current economic position which is part of the consequences of the GLOBAL economic downturn which started in 2007. What caused this? - US bankers lending silly money at silly rates to people who should not have been lent to. When news got out that banks were exposed the panic set in. Combined with rising oil prices, higher interest rates and falling tax revenue as workers were laid off ("a price worth paying") the catastrophic result was in fact well managed by Gordon Brown whose tactic of quantitative easing was copied around the world and is credited with stopping the downturn becoming a collapse.
So it would seem that Gordon Brown was more than the one trick pony that Osborne is who, despite warnings from the IMF (hardly a bastion of left wing sentiment) that he is cutting too fast and too deep is determined to prove his 'potency' and carry on regardless. Still, as it won't hurt him, his banker cronies nor his pals from the Bullingdon Club he may as well continue.
We may 'all be in this together' it's just that some will pay a higher price.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
mark
i agree with you
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i see that the i.m.f. have downgraded their growth forecast for the u.k. not long after noting that george had no plan b.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
UK public net borrowing rose to £15.9 billion in August, a record. So much for cutting borrowing
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Marek - I have said many times that he is not cutting enough so I do not disagree. The deficit reduction is not yet biting which throws out Labours silly arguments immediately.#
Mark - Perhaps you do not realise that economies always go in cyles of growth and decline so it is daft to place the blame on bankers. The banking problem was brought to a head by the natural downward part of that cycle and they were only vulnerable in the way they were because of Brown's regulatory changes that gave banks free reign. That is the first 'charge' against Brown.
Brown, of course, famously claimed that he had banned that economic cycle, claiming he had 'banned boom and bust' - totally delusional of course but the problem is he ran the economy as if he had done so. Charge 2 against Brown is that during the growth phase, when it suited him, he threw away his Keynsean text book and increased public spending, borrowing more during the phase of the economy in which deficits should have been balanced and debt repaid.
The result - at the start of the cyclical slowdown we were in an appalling state to face it, already with a structural deficit and massive borrowing at a point by which, according to Keynes, you should start to allow a deficit to build to help smooth out the economic cycle.
The fact is Mark, Brown is guilty of turning a normal recession into a crisis - because of him the UK recession is longer and deeper than it need be and we have that massive and unsustainable deficit that must be balanced and that can only be done by spending cuts.
Nothing that you can say lets that idiot Brown off the hook for creating the utter mess this country is in.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
lets keep laying fault. rather than attem,pting to solve the issues
record borrowing marek blimey
thought it was all about cutbacks
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
I am aware of the cyclical nature of economies hence boom and bust which I agree Brown was foolish to declare an end of. This period of 'bust' is worse because of the credit culture developed under Tories in the 80s and continued by Blair and Brown in the 90s, and exploited beyond the full by banks, left consumers with massive debts and no way of spending to help correct the downturn. It is also a by product of globalisation which saw the outsourcing to cheaper labour markets and as such it is desirable by the more right wing elements who see cheap labour as good.
You still can't lay all the blame at Gordon Brown's door - this is the consequence of successive governments enjoying a credit fuelled bubble of popularity which none wanted to end. Let's not forget that the Tories were pledged to continue with Labour's spending plans too so they show a degree of brass neck now to claim the moral high ground.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
re; post 26, here is the full story based on info from the office for national statistics.
makes grim reading.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-deficit-plan-offtarget-2358390.htmlGuest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Interesting comments there Mark.
You see there are a number of sides to this equation.
You refer to a 'credit culture' developed under Mrs T making this worse but she also had very strong feelings about living within your means and on the capital owning democracy. Savings and investment was a large part of this should we look at it in the round, she introduced tax incentivised savings to encourage that, PEPs and TESSAs helped the UK savings ratio to a record high. Such savings offer a buffer to people when times are hard and also means that they are less vulnerable to debt issues.
Her deregulation of lending had massive beneficial effects and helped boost the economy and increase jobs and wealth. Some people of course did abuse it and go into excessive debt without taking care of the other side of the equation, savings but then there is a matter here of personal responsibility. Mrs T certainly is not someone who approved of living on borrowed money and certainly did not encourage it.
Then we had those 13 years of Labour and that is where things really went wrong. First of all one side of the equation was demolished, the savings and investment side. One of Brown's first actions was to make changes to the savings regime that was devastating to savings and the savings ratio fell to a record low. This was accompanied by his flawed inflation brief to the Bank of England that ignored levels of indebtedness in the UK economy. The result was that interest rates were held down too low too long further discouraging savings and investment while encouraging more borrowing. This also created the massive housing bubble and that is a major factor now holing the economy back.
But then Brown did lead by example - with his massive borrowing and deficit spending from 2001 when he should have been balancing the current account and paying off debt.
So Mark - It is simply wrong to blame all this on the changes to the credit culture in the 80's. It is far too complex than that and Brown's ill considered reforms destroyed the important balance between saving and borrowing. We are suffering from 13 years of a disastrous economic mismanagement on a whole range of fronts by no less than Brown.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
a road to Damascus moment!!! "You see there are a number of sides to this equation". Fantastic, you are beginning to see the multi faceted nature of the world and how it operates - especially the world of economics.
A good start but then you spoiled it with "It is simply wrong to blame all this on the changes to the credit culture in the 80's". Actually I didn't put all the blame on this. However I have a theory of my own that after about 15 years things become to be regarded as the norm as a new generation comes of age and this, to my mind, is what happened with the credit boom. Therefore the root of it can be traced back to the 80s. You are right there must be personal responsibility but when banks/building societies/credit card agencies etc are saying you can borrow umpteen times your salary; when you are being urged by the consumerist monster to acquire the latest gadget otherwise you are so out of touch with the fashion and when you are being told by the Daily Express that your house is now worth billions of pounds so you are in fact really rich, the temptation is almost irresistible. The fact that, to the new generation, it seems to have been going on for ever gives an illusion of safety that those in positions of power - politicians, bankers - abused.
Not one man, then, but an economic system that loves profit at any cost and knows that with globalisation it is unlikely to be allowed to 'fail'.
We need new governance and new policies. Unfortunately we are just getting the old standards as no-one wants to be seen as the one who stopped the party.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are ignoring the key points I was making Mark - the climate in which the credit boom occurred prior to this recession was entirely of the making of Gordon Brown's and his ill-considered policies. He changed the balance between saving and borrowing for the worse and I gave you the specifics and the terrible impact they have had.
These are issues I deal with professionally every day and I lived through these changes in my work and have seen the impact first hand.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
I don't think I am ignoring them - I am not even disagreeing with them
- but I am stressing that it is a systemic failure that has tainted politicians AND bankers and financiers and left individuals and families devastated as you are finding through your work. It is too simplistic to lay the blame at one man's door, as politically tempting as that obviously is.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mark - I see what you are saying but there are a wide range of specific Brown actions that have significantly deepened this country's problems and these are actions that were taken against the advice of experts. It does not mean that we would have escaped recession all together if different decisions were made but it would most certainly mean that we would not have been hit nearly as badly and would be in a far better position for recovery.
I do take one point that you made and it is one I have made myself in a different way. Our democratic system does not encourage fiscal responsibility. The desire to be elected or re-elected encourages a spend now, pay later attitude and discourages the acceptance of responsibility.
I have previously set out a suggestion to lock governments into fiscal responsibility. Not so much Brown's 'golden rule' that he flouted, more a constitutional arrangement limiting public spending to a range of GDP and preventing excessive deficit spending by setting a maximum percentage of 35% of GDP with an average of 30% over an economic cycle allowing for a measure of Keyseyan smoothing. That way increased public spending can only be derived from gdp growth without an excessive burden being placed on the economy. The problem is that no chancellor would want his hands tied that way because they would not be able to buy votes approaching an election.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BARRYW;
I understand where your coming from and make one small point on future elections.
It is a little sad that any chancellor will buy votes in the way you indicate, although its correct what you say but not good for the country
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Coutesy The Independent/BBC.
Public Borrowing up by £2 Billion.Highest rise since 1993.
IMF tell Ossie to go to Plan `B`due to economic growth progressively in decline.
They say the austerity cuts should be adjusted.
Ultimate `U` turn looms.
It is so so easy when your not Joe Public to sit back and say we carry on with the cuts.
Clegg says he has the solution to end the Governments Gloom for Ossie.
Nick Robinson comments some ministers are anxious about Plan A
Clegg also says the Bankers and Casino boys are the Masters of Distruction in causing the Global crisis.
This appears to be the Universal opinion/verdict except for a `few` Ossie deciples who cling to the `mind set` belief it was all Browns fault!!!!
The division in the Coalition is wider Lib/Dems saying they are the `Social conscience` and `Compassion element`in the temporary union.
The Conservatives Conference may disagree !!!!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
reg;
there are a few issues within what you say.
1;The lib dem conference saw the lib dems attempt to distance themselves from
the horrid tories, but i dont think they convinced many, even the conference
hall was half empty.
2; Cleggy probably made an error of judgement by putting most of his attack on
the labour party, he will probably need them after the next general election.
3; the cracks between the libdems and tories are opening up and with so many
differences they cant hold it together much longer.
tory MP visiting the tory conference by invite stated the sooner the tories
get out of the co olition the better
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS