- This topic has 59 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Unless they hold it in the next 2 years, Labour don’t have a hope in hell of winning the next election.
They "won" this one on a myth – the idea that
(a) the economy is strong<br>(b) Labour are responsible for that strength.
A few years down the line, the current rally will be long forgotten and, laughably, Labour’s economic "genius" will be in No 10 and sitting on a choice between doing nothing or speeding up the decline.
Then they’ll be chucked out on a landslide caused by the same thing that just got them elected – the mistaken belief that governments can somehow control the economy.
Steve
I admire Galloway immensely, he was the chap who was accused of recieving money from Saddam Hussien to speak out against the West in Britain. He took them to court got a claim in and won. Perhaps, if the state hadn’t lied about him he would have gone away by now and pro-war ‘Yes-Man’ Oona King would still be in the Commons dribbling on about how the Muslims in her constituency actually supported the War. At the very least, we know that there is one elected representative who is capable of telling the truth.
Apart from that I agree with everything that everyone has said on here .. the election was a farce .. :biggrin:
Stevedg has called it right I’d say. This was a good election for the Conservatives to lose.
I’d say that Nigel Lawson was poor at controllnig the economy – accentuating ”boom and bust” with his policies – and, relatively speaking, Brown has been successful.
I don’t think that that’s a comparison of like with like.
If Brown had been chancellor at the time Lawson was and if Lawson had been chancellor in the last few years, you’d be accusing Brown of boom-and-bust policies and praising Lawson for his relative stability.
These things are just things that happened while they were chancellor, like the weather.
Also, at bust times, the chancellor has to do something.
There’s no way he will be allowed to shrug his shoulders and say "we’ve just got to live with it".
And whatever he does is counterproductive (because the social/economic trend is more powerful than the resources he has to counteract it), so he ends up looking even more useless.
IMO, Gordon Brown has done a reasonable enough job. He’s kept spending down.
Though it should be said that that’s a lot easier if the government simply ignores looming crises such as transport, housing and the pensions black hole.
he has given the UK a better chance of a ”soft landing” after a slump than some.
I would say that that’s zero chance, but then it would have been zero chance under the tories.
Imagine someone who borrows money to maintain a lifestyle he can’t truly afford. Imagine he gets to the point where he’s so in debt that he has to borrow money to pay the interest on the money he owes.
At some point, he’s not going to be able to borrow any more money.
There’ll be no soft landing. The moment the credit dries up, he’s gone from living it large to being ****
ed.That’s pretty much the position we’re about to find ourseves in.
The level of personal debt and corporate debt (particularly to their own pension schemes) has allowed us to maintain the outward signs of prosperity.
However, once lenders lost confidence, the money isn’t going to be there to borrow and debts are going to be called in.
Owing money is going to be very expensive and borrowing money is going to be very difficult.
For a nation of debtors who are used to easy credit that they can service cheaply and indefinitely, that’s going to be one hell of a hard landing.
Steve
One observation:
The North of england vote Labour while the south of England vote conservative. Didn’t realise how the whole Northern Southern divide / rivalry was also actually an actuall political opinion divide.
That map is not same map i saw . Looked all red up north and all blue down south. That map tells a much different. Not anywhere near north = labour ,south =consevative. Much more diverse.
In my defence saw the "map" fist thing in the morning, not even out of bed.
Lawson’s use of the tools was irresponsible and things would have been better in that era under the more disciplined Brown. <br>Ian Davies Posted on 4:38 pm on May 8, 2005
<br>Not true Ian, no Euro back then and no low global interest rates. Economic growth has panned out and the need for higher interest rates has gone as well.
I don’t think you can compare apples with oranges. The Chancellor will simply manage the economy and try and push people in a certain direction by penalizing one group over another, in a very small way. You see it today with tax laws like IR35 which tries to tax self employed people like employees. And you saw it back then with start up grants for small businesses.
Steve is spot on about the borrowing … :biggrin: <br>
I guess some people just aren’t willing to believe that the current low interest rates in the UK are a reflection of a world trend in the same way that the high interest rates 20 years ago were a reflection of what was happening at that time.
For example, in the US, interest rates were 8.1% in 1985 and 2.56% in 2005 (fed rate).
Compared to 12.75% in the UK in 1985 and 4.75% now (base rate).
(these are calculated on a different basis, but the trends are indicative)
But that’s just two countries and surely must be coincidence.
Let’s pick a third country at random. How about Denmark, a fairly unremarkable neighbour of ours?
Interest rates in 1985: 7%.
Today: ??? I couldn’t find a number.
However, despite claiming that " the Danish economy has been hit by the combined effects of an appreciating currency and low European growth" a report from the Danish Trade Council in June 2004 stated "Danish interest rates fell to their lowest level since the Danish central bank was created in 1818".
So, I think we can assume the rates in Denmark are low also.
I’m sure the Danish people are very thankful for all the good economic advice Gordon Brown must have been giving them.
Steve
Lawson and Brown both heavyweights who are hard to separate.
Lawson’s difficulty was that he was in the ‘wrong corner’ and, encumbered by the raving Thatcher at the helm, did well to stop things getting worse than they were.
Brown is, and always has been, the real brains behind the New Labour ‘miracle’ and has done a remarkable job as Chancellor.
Of course both have little say in the wider events which govern the functioning of the economic cycle and, in that respect at least, both were set adrift to sea in a rowing boat with no oars. Brown has perhaps guided his boat more cannily than Lawson but the Scot undoubtedly set sail on calmer seas.<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.