Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Brown's manifesto

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123723.stm

Gogogogo! I think this is a good thing.

1. Housing
Among pledges he told MPs investment in housing would be trebled to £2.1bn, funding 110,000 new affordable homes to rent or buy over the next two years and creating 45,000 jobs in construction.

2. Employment / scroungers
Mr Brown also told MPs, from January, everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for a year would get a guaranteed job, work experience or training place - and by "next spring" would have the "obligation to accept that guaranteed offer" or face having their benefits cut.

There's some other stuff in there, but they are the big two I felt.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    2. Employment / scroungers
    Mr Brown also told MPs, from January, everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for a year would get a guaranteed job, work experience or training place - and by "next spring" would have the "obligation to accept that guaranteed offer" or face having their benefits cut.

    Great in principle, but in practice, if they've got kids, you won't be able to cut it because kids can't be punished for the decisions of their parents. Which also means you can't cut their housing benefit, because the kids rely on that too.

    And is it going to be a case of having to do this after a year, but before that, you get fuck all help like it seems to be atm? If I lose my job tomorrow, can I look at a list of these training places and enroll on one straight away? Or am I on my own for a year first?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IDK I'm not a politician.

    But I think taking unemployment and housing seriously are two very big issues the next government needs to address. Not just politically but socially it's the main thing holding us back atm I believe, other than of course the erosion of freedoms due to a fake war on terror which would have been a nice number 3 on that list :<.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Couldn't he have published it last Friday - I return from a week on leave and spend my entire day running around trying to sort out various issues on it. I was hoping for a nice relaxing Monday :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lol, what do you make of it Flashman?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a lot of unsustainable public spending included in it, enshrining some of it into law.

    It's scorched-earth politics, nothing more. Try and make as many problems as possible for Cameron and hope he'll sink under the strain. It's got Gordon Brown written all over it. Never forget he is a man who cost this country £1bn in 1992 by blocking the exit from the ERM for personal political gain.

    The whole thing is nasty, spiteful and cynical, designed to appeal to the worst in all of us whilst trying to sink Cameron with unsustainable spending.

    I'm really worried about what will happen. The last Labour government took us all the way to the IMF and this one's going even further. Thatcher was able to sell off assets to rescue the country after the last Labour administration, but there's nothing left to sell now. Brown flogged the last of the gold at rock-bottom prices.

    A general election can't come soon enough. Personally I'm hoping it'll be another 18 years before we see a Labour PM darken our door again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you seriously think a PM would intentially damage the country significantly? How does more housing "appeal to the worst in us"? How does guarunteed jobs "appeal to the worst in us"? Look I agree Labour is deeply unpopular but I don't see what's wrong with his proposals. The UK isn't as bad off as everyone seems to think, that is political and media spin.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think Gordon Brown would sabotage this country for political gain. He did in 1992 and nothing I've seen of him, Blair or the New Labour Project has convinced me that he wouldn't do it again.

    Many of the commitments are financial, financial commitments that you would only make if you were looking to sink a future PM. Certainly in a recession, they make no sense whatsoever.

    Look into what he's actually promised, rather than the spin around the 'extra houses' or 'extra jobs'. In particular, you should note the cutting of the budget for council house repairs and the new obligation for houses to go to 'local people', despite less than 4% of social housing being given to non-UK citizens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Do you seriously think a PM would intentially damage the country significantly?
    Kermit wrote: »
    I think Gordon Brown would sabotage this country for political gain.

    :yes:

    Brown on one hand, installed the FSA to regulate the financial services industry and yet on the other hand, told them that they were being too strict. No matter how you look at it, a large proportion of the blame for our global recession falls firmly on his shoulders. He is now trying to spend his way into the voters' good books without any consideration given to our record-breaking deficit. He's a cunt. Pure and simple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yea I did wonder about that actually. Surely if this is part of Labour's manifesto / policy for the next election, it should be made as an election promise and not enacted before the next election. Then it makes it more transparent democratically as people are directly voting for these issues.

    Or else, the MPs in the house should vote on it, to represent their constituents wishes. After all, we are still a democracy.

    On the other hand, I do agree with the measures in general. You could call me a socialist. Politically I define myself as a moderate and have no alleigance to the Labour Party, but I strongly believe in looking after those at the bottom of society. Typically Labour has adopted policies aimed to help bring people up from the bottom - and in the last 12 years the NHS which serves everyone, the schools and such have got better. I imagine under a conservative government, the NHS would have been left the flounder and the solution would have been to give people tax breaks if they get private healthcare plans or private schooling - tax breaks of course which are only really advantageous if you're earning enough in the first place.

    We should be less concerned with the country running out of money, than with the welfare of people. We are a rich country and despite the economic downturn I seriously mean this when I say we are not as bad off as it looks. I actually was studying the economy recently and most of the G8 are worse off than us broadly speaking. I don't think because of a recession the government should stop providing services to those at the bottom (though that is political - it depends on what you think a government's role is), or indeed that they should stop improving them which amounts to the same thing really.

    I am in two minds about the emphasis on local people. On the one hand, I hate discrimination in any form let alone based on where you come from. But on the other hand, consider that this is social housing, it is there to provide a service for those who are in need in that area. If you live somewhere, and are living in a hostel and need a home, I think it's fair that you are given priority over someone who lives in the next parish because this is where all your ties, friends, family are. Some arguments ultimately are non-winnable though, and this may be a similar one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    :yes:

    Brown on one hand, installed the FSA to regulate the financial services industry and yet on the other hand, told them that they were being too strict. No matter how you look at it, a large proportion of the blame for our global recession falls firmly on his shoulders. He is now trying to spend his way into the voters' good books without any consideration given to our record-breaking deficit. He's a cunt. Pure and simple.

    Yet nobody complained when we had a booming economy for 10 years. Funny that. I find it hard to believe that someone who goes into political office does so with the intention to fuck the country up. I study the economy as part of my degree and even I don't understand everything that goes on, but it's clear that he is not stupid or malicious.

    I'm not an apologist for Brown I should get that straight, it just seems people are awash with this disdain for the man and want to find any reason to blame him for the current circumstances regardless of fact or fiction.

    Nobel Prize winner says UK is in good shape thanks to Gordon Brown
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/14/economy-gordon-brown

    That should at the very least make people question their assumptions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Yet nobody complained when we had a booming economy for 10 years. Funny that. I find it hard to believe that someone who goes into political office does so with the intention to fuck the country up. I study the economy as part of my degree and even I don't understand everything that goes on, but it's clear that he is not stupid or malicious.

    I'm not an apologist for Brown I should get that straight, it just seems people are awash with this disdain for the man and want to find any reason to blame him for the current circumstances regardless of fact or fiction.

    Nobel Prize winner says UK is in good shape thanks to Gordon Brown
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/14/economy-gordon-brown

    That should at the very least make people question their assumptions.

    But people did complain! The most famous/obvious was Vince Cable but there were many more out there that were stating the same .. so much so that around 6 month before the crash, I paid off all my debt and destroyed my credit cards. There were ears out there that were prepared to listen.

    The problem was that Brown started to believe in his own hype about being the 'greatest ever Chancellor etc' and IGNORED the advice from many - including within the banking system itself.

    Sure, Brown may not be maliciously evil but he certainly was stupid.

    And in response to your (pro-Brown Guardian) link and posted AFTER your article :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/30/uk-gdp-record-fall-revision

    That should at the very least make you question your assumptions. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Yet nobody complained when we had a booming economy for 10 years. Funny that.

    I complained loudly and vehemently because I, like anyone with half a brain, could see that it was unsustainable. Boom and bust cannot be avoided, it is human nature. We should have been feathering our nest during the boom to get us through the bust; instead, Brown sold off all the country's assets at rock-bottom prices and was running a deficit budget even in the fattest years.

    His early success can be attributed to Clarke's fiscal policy, which he stuck to rigidly until 2001, when the wheels started to fall off the cart big style.
    I find it hard to believe that someone who goes into political office does so with the intention to fuck the country up.

    His personal power is more important to him than the stability of the country.

    In 1992 he could have allowed Lamont to leave the ERM hours before he did, but he blocked it in Parliament for political reasons. Experts reckon Brown's political posturing cost the UK around £1bn. He put political capital ahead of national interest.

    I think he would put his own political power ahead of national interest and I honestly think that he WOULD use scorched-earth politics to try and sabotage the Tories. He is that cynical, he is that spiteful and if the myriad broken inkjet printers are anything to go by he is that sociopathic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look I'm not Pro-Brown, I just think the majority is the country is anti-Brown prejudiced rather than coming to an informed opinion. As for your link, we are already on the way back up... slowly. That was just the official figures for Q1.

    What assumptions do you think I've made? I've not assumed he's the best or worst prime minister or chancellor, or that he's a genius or that he's an idiot. I like the direction these ideas are going in although you will notice above I gave a fair critique of how they are undemocratic.

    Meet a random guy on the street though and it's much easier, you can just say "Brown's shit" and everyone would agree. Why don't we get the random guy on the street to be the PM then?

    UK Economy:
    Country	
    United Kingdom
    Year  Debt  GDP
    1980	40.9	607.787
    1981	43.9	599.011
    1982	43.9	610.489
    1983	42.7	632.065
    1984	43.4	648.325
    1985	43.2	671.375
    1986	42.2	697.894
    1987	39.7	729.638
    1988	35.9	765.932
    1989	30.5	782.429
    1990	27.3	788.152
    1991	26.4	777.403
    1992	27.8	779.563
    1993	32.2	798.489
    1994	37.5	833.681
    1995	41.4	857.522
    1996	49.3	880.854
    1997	50.3	908.655
    1998	47.2	938.101
    1999	44.6	966.551
    2000	41.6	1005.542
    2001	38.4	1027.905
    2002	37.9	1048.456
    2003	39.4	1074.858
    2004	41.2	1108.464
    2005	43.3	1128.68
    2006	44.1	1157.159
    2007	45.1	1188.065
    

    constant growth really. but what the hell does that matter. browns shit, lets let the guy in the pub run the country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    constant growth really. but what the hell does that matter. browns shit, lets let the guy in the pub run the country.

    And the figures quote what exactly? Sure, the UK was taking in loads of money based largely on the financial sector - but other sectors suffered terribly in the interim. And what did Brown do with that cash raised? He fell into the old Tory chestnut of 'spend now and pay later'. And boy, are we going to pay now!?

    And as for your rather patronising observation that the 'man in the pub' doesn't have any real insight into politics ... the less said the better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My point is teagan isn't that they don't have insight into politics, but it's the same trash we've heard for years about one thing or another isn't it? There are so many 'facts' we all 'know' it seems. I do get pissed off because of the explicit assumption that were it anybody else at all except Brown, we would be exploring space by now and wouldn't have been affected by the recession at all. It's shit and yes Brown should have had a crystal ball but how can we compare him to anyone else when nobody else was doing his job at the time? We can say, look at other similar economies - the rest of the G8 - and they're mostly worse off than us. We can also say, what do the academics and people who have a lifetime of experience analysing these things say? Well, it's a mixed bag to be fair - but there are plenty of supporters of Brown's handling of it all. The fact that these people who are extremely intelligent have differing opinions should make us wonder whether it is such an absolute truth that "Brown fucked it up.". If they can't be certain, why do lay people (I include myself in that) pretend that we are? That we saw all this coming years before the rest of the world? That's why I said us self-professed-experts-who-know-more-than-everyone-else should run the country, not because I think we are idiots with no insight into politics. We should stop pretending we know it all.

    The figures show that the economy has grown for the last 20 years whether it be margaret thatcher or tony blair or brown at the helm and everyone needs to stop panicking about the end of the world - and stop blaming Gordon Brown for it. These things happen and it wont be the last time. Like I said, I am not pro-Brown, but I wish people would talk about these things logically.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    There is a lot of unsustainable public spending included in it, enshrining some of it into law.

    It's scorched-earth politics, nothing more. Try and make as many problems as possible for Cameron and hope he'll sink under the strain. It's got Gordon Brown written all over it. Never forget he is a man who cost this country £1bn in 1992 by blocking the exit from the ERM for personal political gain.

    The whole thing is nasty, spiteful and cynical, designed to appeal to the worst in all of us whilst trying to sink Cameron with unsustainable spending.

    I'm really worried about what will happen. The last Labour government took us all the way to the IMF and this one's going even further. Thatcher was able to sell off assets to rescue the country after the last Labour administration, but there's nothing left to sell now. Brown flogged the last of the gold at rock-bottom prices.

    A general election can't come soon enough. Personally I'm hoping it'll be another 18 years before we see a Labour PM darken our door again.

    I'm not a great fan of Brown but how could he block us from exiting in 1992, given that he wasn't in power for another five years
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Lol, what do you make of it Flashman?

    On a personal level it's too much unsustainable debt and a panic by a PM on the way out. On a professional level it gives me new toys to play with, some interesting challenges and so I'm up for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Under-25s out of work for a year must accept a job or training or face benefit cuts

    Why only under 25s?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *shrug* i guess it's about pushing young people into work rather than letting them get into a pattern of not working when they've de-skilled and de-motivated whereby trying to get into work and a work routine will be difficult
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And people wonder why he's referred to as the Prime Mentalist? This is a perfect example of our Son of the Manse (whose moral compass is currently on sale on eBay, you might wish to know) doing what he's always done in his political lifetime - pissing shitloads of money up against a wall for no reason other than political advantage. He created the New Labour client state - the one which he is now pretending that Labour will never, ever, ever, ever make cuts in. He commits massive amounts of money to third world aid - money which ends up in the hands of African dictators.

    More worryingly, a report emerged in the Daily Telegraph last week about our benefits system. This year, "the state will pay out more in social security benefits than it raises from workers in income tax this year". As the Old Holborn blogger put it, the parasites are now killing their host. Why this truly terrifying news has not received more prominent coverage is bewildering. The man is truly a loathsome, disgusting cunt who is prepared to completely destroy this country in order to stay in power. When Guido Fawkes tells us that Brown is bonkers, rarely has a truer word been said.

    As for the proposals, it's nice to see New Labour resorting to the usual dirty tricks. They normally condemn xenophobia, yet they are more than happy to use it as a political weapon when it suits them. The psychologically flawed one has clearly learnt nothing from his dog-whistle call of "British jobs for British workers". He is now talking about giving local people more priority for social housing rather than immigrants, for example. I'm sure when the first reports come in of second or third-generation immigrant families being harassed and threatened by ignorant useless wankers, Macavity McBroon will be nowhere to be seen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    We can also say, what do the academics and people who have a lifetime of experience analysing these things say? Well, it's a mixed bag to be fair - but there are plenty of supporters of Brown's handling of it all. The fact that these people who are extremely intelligent have differing opinions should make us wonder whether it is such an absolute truth that "Brown fucked it up."

    So any pro-Brown arguments are 'logical' while any anti-Brown arguments are 'illogical'? Yes, I agree that we only can hold a certain peripheral vision of what has gone on but it is wrong to presume that he is a victim of circumstance. At the end of the day, it is the UK and the USA that brought the world to its knees and as far as Brown is concerned, his lack of support to the FSA in curtailing the financial markets was a major part of this downfall.

    Look, I am happy to agree to disagree with you but please don't believe that I have jumped onto some recent 'anti-Brown' bandwagon since the commencement of the global crisis. If you were to look back over several years of my postings, I have been critical of Brown since almost the very beginning, while he was still Chancellor and a few years before he became PM (I objected to his appointment as PM at the time anyway).

    Anyway .... *goes off and has a cuppa tea* :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not a great fan of Brown but how could he block us from exiting in 1992, given that he wasn't in power for another five years

    Brown's obfuscation around the ERM.

    As shadow chancellor he blocked devaluing knowing full well that it would be political destruction for the Tories. They already had a tiny majority and were reliant on the Ulster Unionists for support and it was very easy for the shadow chancellor to upset the apple cart.
    Shyboy wrote:
    My point is teagan isn't that they don't have insight into politics, but it's the same trash we've heard for years about one thing or another isn't it? There are so many 'facts' we all 'know' it seems.

    I don't think you need a great insight into politics to understand that:

    1. Running a deficit budget in times of plenty is retarded;
    2. PPP is all about hiding expenditure from the balance sheet- a Governmental equivalent of Barclaycard;
    3. Having a massive deficit when you're hiding so much expenditure shows scarily poor fiscal planning;
    4. Selling all your country's reserves off at rock bottom prices is very very retarded.
    5. Allowing your main financial sector to operate without any regulation is very very very retarded.

    Britain is in a stronger position than newer European economies, but it's in a much worse position than the European powerhouse economies of France and Germany.

    Germany's economy is only really suffering because of the effects of unification. They went into unification basically underwriting the whole of the GDR (one-to-one between Deutschemarks and Reichsmarks was a massive financial undertaking for the West) and they're still paying for it now.

    As for the codswallop about me 'jumping on a bandwagon', I've hated Blair and Brown since 1995. It's taken 14 years, but I've been proven right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not saying your anti-Brown Teagan, I guess I felt a bit defensive. Whenever I talk about Brown with friends (well except my housemate who is a fracking genius :p) there is an overwhelming sense that regardless of any argument, he's a fool and every foul to have befallen the country or indeed the world is down to him.

    Like I say, politically I see myself as a moderate, and I adopt whichever perspective makes the most sense. Before, I have advocated some kind of dictatorial PC to run the country as it would do away with the silly politics :p but of course that's just a pipe dream.

    It frustrates me whenever I try to discuss anything remotely relating to the current government that the discussion is often in my perception stonewalled by "anti-Brown" sentiment. There are plenty of other issues I have to avoid discussing because people struggle to be rational about it.

    I'm not saying that I am rational about these things, but I don't believe in taboos or pre-set absolute judgements. One of the most extreme examples that would offend most people is that of the age of consent, if it is absolutely horrific for sex under a set age to occur why do different cultures have different standards? Why do our closest animal cousins initiate in relations with partners of all ages? It's not a can of worms I'd like to open frankly as I believe I'd be called a peadophile for even asking the questions.

    And this is what it boils down to, I get defensive if I talk about politics because I'm not anti-Brown whereas to me it seems most people are, and I get labelled an idiot and some sort of Brown apologist and it makes me feel guilty and not even want to partake in the discussion.

    So sorry if I was a bit sharp it wasn't my intention, I was just on the defensive :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    As for the codswallop about me 'jumping on a bandwagon', I've hated Blair and Brown since 1995. It's taken 14 years, but I've been proven right.

    What would the relative economic position of the UK be today if Brown and Labour had not enacted policies to encourage growth both in the private sector by allowing lending and also in the public sector by increased tax and spend? Of course we would be better off in relative terms from 2 years ago thanks to a smaller exposure to the recession but in absolute terms over the last 14 years, it's a difficult thing to quantify isn't it?

    You've had your opinion for 14 years, and you've just waited for the excuse to claim that you've been right all along imo. It's no different from what the conservatives will do, they will say "look, we're right" just as labour said the same when margaret thatcher pushed unemployment up to 4 million.

    It's a difficult question either way and I don't think any of us know the absolute truth, we can only really speculate. Would we for sure have been better off with much tighter financial regulation? Bear in mind at the time looking at Ireland's growth model of tax and regulate low, receive lots of investment it was phenomenal, up there with China almost. They are one of the countries hit worst by the current recession.

    Why is running a deficit in times of plenty stupid? Even massive companies when they're making enormous profits still take out extra bank loans? Financing a company or a country is a fairly complicated matter, but ultimately if we have a gross income of £10bn, but if we borrow an extra £1bn we can provide services to the people of the UK equalling £2bn in 'welfare' if you want to call it that, isn't that a good thing?

    My point is that it's not such a clear picture as people like to paint. I guess that's getting off topic about the housing and employment announcements.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    What would the relative economic position of the UK be today if Brown and Labour had not enacted policies to encourage growth both in the private sector by allowing lending and also in the public sector by increased tax and spend? Of course we would be better off in relative terms from 2 years ago thanks to a smaller exposure to the recession but in absolute terms over the last 14 years, it's a difficult thing to quantify isn't it?

    A little while back the Tories were making a concerted effort to bring the term "Gordon Brown's recession" into the political lexicon. There were a couple of consecutive Question Times were Tory MPs were repeatedly using the phrase. It's laughable, really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    What would the relative economic position of the UK be today if Brown and Labour had not enacted policies to encourage growth both in the private sector by allowing lending and also in the public sector by increased tax and spend? Of course we would be better off in relative terms from 2 years ago thanks to a smaller exposure to the recession but in absolute terms over the last 14 years, it's a difficult thing to quantify isn't it?

    The relative economic position would be largely unchanged. If you think that the massive profits in the private sector have been re-invested into the UK then you're delusional, to be quite honest.

    A lack of regulation in the City has not brought increased revenue to the UK. The City has used the lack of regulation to create immensely complex tax avoidance vehicles, where profits are run through so many different tax systems throughout Europe. The net effect is that the top executives of hedge funds can brag that they pay less tax than their cleaners.
    Would we for sure have been better off with much tighter financial regulation? Bear in mind at the time looking at Ireland's growth model of tax and regulate low, receive lots of investment it was phenomenal, up there with China almost. They are one of the countries hit worst by the current recession.

    Ireland is the perfect example of what happens when you forget to regulate. They had huge amounts of paper investment- most UK tax avoidance vehicles put the profits through Dublin before moving on to the traditional tax havens- but precious little concrete investment. The money went in, the money went out and the banks left the Government to sink when the money stopped moving.
    Why is running a deficit in times of plenty stupid?

    A deficit budget is not investing profits in loans. A deficit budget is a loss. It means the Government is spending more than it can afford. It basically means the Government is sticking it all on the Mastercard. Someone else will sort it out, no worries.

    To be making a loss during the fattest times- the times with the highest revenue and the lowest costs- shows inept financial management on the grandest scale. It makes Fred the Shred look like a paragon of careful investment.

    And you have to remember that PPI investment vehicles do not show up on the Government balance sheet. That deficit doesn't include all the hospitals and schools that were built through PFI; those losses are still to come. The actual losses could be twice what Gordon reckons they are.

    I'm sure you'll agree that that is financial mismanagement of the highest magnitude. My personal belief is that mismanagament on that scale cannot be down to incompetence; it must therefore be corrupt. New Labour certainly have a track record of large-scale corruption going right up to the door of No 10.
    A little while back the Tories were making a concerted effort to bring the term "Gordon Brown's recession" into the political lexicon.

    That's politics for you.

    But who else do we blame? The country was in rude health in 1997, to the extent that Brown simply copied Clarke's budget for five years. It's been since 2002, when Brown had to take control of the rudder, that the country's started sinking into the abyss. Yes, we had growth, but any fool could see it was all based on credit. Credit is fickle and you can't run an economy based on credit always being available.

    The last Labour administration took us all the way to the IMF and this one is no different. I hope we never see the Labour Party in power ever again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Brown's obfuscation around the ERM.

    As shadow chancellor he blocked devaluing knowing full well that it would be political destruction for the Tories. They already had a tiny majority and were reliant on the Ulster Unionists for support and it was very easy for the shadow chancellor to upset the apple cart.
    .

    But it still remains Major and Lamont's responsibility and their mistake, not Brown's - otherwise you can say everything that happend from 1992-1997 was Labour's fault.

    (I can't believe I'm defending Brown...)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Haha! Saw this ... a touch of light comic relief. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QapZI2cLQQ&feature=channel_page
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it still remains Major and Lamont's responsibility and their mistake, not Brown's

    It does, and I wouldn't dispute that. However Brown allowed the country to lose another £1bn to hammer the political point home, to make sure everyone knew whose fault it was, and that shows just how cynical he is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    "To relieve the financial worry, a loan shark took his daughter up the arse for 10p..."

    How the hell do they think up these things? :lol:

    The latest (and real) example of Brown making everyone laugh (at him) is here. Gordon Brown - the gift that just keeps on giving.
Sign In or Register to comment.