Guess you mean shipbuilding, coal mining, steel production and car manufacture. Inefficient industries that couldn’t survive without subsidy.

But we ended up subsidising the same workers by paying them benefits. Keeping the industries going would also keep the communities wealthy and we wouldn’t be subsidising the shopkeepers and service staff in benefits either. God we’ve got some grim times to look forward to if they get back in.

National insurance receipts since 2001 (£63bn) have grown to £97bn (prov) in 2009 – driven by tax increases as well as salary increases.

Good to see the present govt. trying to fix the problems created by the old govt. then.

Those industries aren’t inherently inefficient, just look at the Nissan plant in Sunderland – aptly in an area that suffered after heavy manufacturing was decimated. And even though some sectors have been privatised – trains – they now recieve a bigger subsidy than under govt ownership!

there’s no point a Tory party putting forward a detailed “manifesto” until a GE is called and a manifesto can be published that cant get appropriated by the government.

‘Can’t get appropriated by the government’ ? Why ever not Stoner ?

Surely if these policies were good for Britain, then Tories would be more than happy for Labour to ‘steal them’ ?

Or are you saying that the Tories put the interests of their party before the interests of the country ?

My my Stoner, you have a very low opinion of the Tories 😯

Keeping the industries going would also keep the communities wealthy

Yes it would but it redirects resources away from more productive industry resulting in long term harm to the economy.

Those industries aren’t inherently inefficient, just look at the Nissan plant in Sunderland – aptly in an area that suffered after heavy manufacturing was decimated. And even though some sectors have been privatised – trains – they now recieve a bigger subsidy than under govt ownership!

Agree they are not inherently inefficient now. I assumed the poster was blaming the reduction in heavy industry to the Tory’s policies of removing subsidies and privatisation during the 70s and 80s.

Yes it would but it redirects resources away from more productive industry resulting in long term harm to the economy.

❓

Surely if these policies were good for Britain, then Tories would be more than happy for Labour to ‘steal them’ ?

Come on Ernie you can do better than that. You’re just trolling now.

So wasting all the oil money on unemployment benefit was better than spending it on supporting and modernising salvageable industry. For example we now have no train manufacturers so if we want to buy new trains we have to buy German or French.

The salvageable bits of those industries were salvaged. Its just they were much smaller than what they replaced.

Que? Oh no it wasn’t hence we have no heavy industry left at all – like no train manufacturers.

We have a steel industry and a small coal industry. Land Rover and Jaguar still survive albeit under foreign ownership.

We’ve also got a large chemical industry a lot of which I’d say was heavy- and with one exception I can think of its never received any subsidy.

For example we now have no train manufacturers so if we want to buy new trains we have to buy German or French.

Really? How about GEC Alsthom? OK its not 100% British but its a 50:50 venture between British GEC and French Alsthom.

Why don’t we let the government employ everyone and we can become a communist state … yipee ! A sure way to bankrupcy,failure along with every other country that has tried it !

The salvageable bits of those industries were salvaged. Its just they were much smaller than what they replaced.

I’m not sure whether to laugh at that or ask you define ‘salvage’!

We have a steel industry and a small coal industry. Land Rover and Jaguar still survive albeit under foreign ownership.

We’ve also got a large chemical industry a lot of which I’d say was heavy- and with one exception I can think of its never received any subsidy.

Coal was, and would have been profitable – it was one of the heavy industries that was doing ok, but Thatcher and Scargil saw it off in their war. We’d have much better energy security had we kept more mines open.

Our (well, the North East’s) real expertise in chemicals is men in sheds producing high quality chemicals. Unfortunately that isn’t a big employer.

So we know the expenses fiddling isn’t brown’s fault, and even though he and his cronies have had 10 long years to get their finger out and do something about it, they didn’t. but now Brown’s going to “clean things up” and restore the public’s faith in the political system and those who run it. He starts this off by promoting to depute head of the Labour Party one Peter Mandelson who has had to resign after being caught with his fingers in the till, not once, but TWICE
Well that’s my faith restored so it isn’t.

Have a look out of your window Capt Jon and you’ll probably see the chemical complex at Billingham. Looks plenty heavy to me. Don’t have any stats but it must employ a fair number even if it runs efficient continuous processes which don’t require much in the way of labour.

but a leader needs to be so much more than that.

Is that being a slick media operator like Blair or Cameron?

I think it’s quite true what Mandelson apparently had to say about Brown though:

The memos are understood to state that Mandelson thought Brown was too preoccupied with celebrity gimmicks and should concentrate on “strategic policy formulation” rather than “telling people that you watch The X-Factor”. Only last week the prime minister telephoned to inquire about the health of Susan Boyle, the Britain’s Got Talent runner-up who had been admitted to the Priory suffering from exhaustion.

Mandelson also suggested that Brown could not win the next general election unless he brought back more heavy hitters into the cabinet.

The disclosure of the e-mails, which claimed that the prime minister tried too hard to be a “normal” person

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6446325.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

TandemJeremy – Member

Que? It was not browns fault that american banks had got loads of toxic debt was it?

Oh yes, sorry I need to get on message, it’s a *global* problem that started in America.

Dave and John stand next to each other and douse themselves in petrol.

Dave lights a match and goes up in flames.

The fire immediately spreads to John.

Whose fault is it that John is burning?

a – Dave’s
b – John’s
c – Both of them, they’re both morons.

Is that being a slick media operator like Blair or Cameron?

Yes amongst other things if that’s what it takes. Blair no matter what you think of him is a natural communicator as is Cameron.

I’m no admirer of Blair but he’s more than just a slick media operator. Anyone who can get labour to drop clause three and make them electable again has got considerable leadership ability.

@uponthedowns

Yeah, there are big plants. But what i was referring to was areas of competitive advantage.

Blair no matter what you think of him is a natural communicator as is Cameron.

No he wasn’t. No one really knew what Blair stood for. In fact, even he didn’t know.

That’s how he won elections.

“Things can only get better” ………………….or something, whatever, you know what I mean …… trust me. Thank you.

.

It was Clause 4 btw.

LOL@ biscuit Powered.

Not sure I agree with your analysis but its the best post on this thread.

No he wasn’t. No one really knew what Blair stood for. In fact, even he didn’t know.

That’s how he won elections.

I thought he won with the message of ” I know you like Tory policies but you don’t like the Tories. Vote for Nu Labour I’ve removed the socialist bit from Labour so you can have the policies without the Tories”

I never heard him say that uponthedowns. How did the ‘Great Communicator’ communicate with you ?
Through telepathy ?

Stop being deliberately obtuse GG.

Stop being deliberately obtuse GG.

What do you mean “stop being deliberately obtuse” ? Don’t you mean, “stop disagreeing with me” ?

I think Tony Blair was a crap communicator. He never said the things which you claim he said. If he had it would have far more honest of him, and at least people would have been clear where exactly he stood.

In fact, I would say that Tony Blair was an exceptionally bad communicator, and also a rubbish public speaker.

I once saw him speak to a large audience of Labour Movement activists when he was shadow Home Secretary under John Smith. As I sat listening to him, I remember thinking ‘what the **** is this tw4t waffling on about’. Yes I could hear words, lots of them, but I couldn’t figure out what the **** he was trying to explain. It exactly like listening to a sermon delivered from a pulpit. Lots of stuff about being nice and decent and stuff, but utterly boring and without any coherent vision.

It was during the run up to local council elections (Labour where poised to win Croydon for the first time ever)and I thought what a **** waste of time, I could be out there doing something useful.

Then John Smith got up to speak and suddenly the whole hall was electrified. He spoke with passion about his vision for a new and different Britain and how we were on ‘a journey’ as he called it, to fight for social justice. I remember thinking after his speech, ‘yeah, let’s get out there and do it’.

Tony Blair might be the highest paid public speaker in the world, but that is only because of the Yanks. Only they, would be so gullible as to give him vast amounts of money in return for the pleasure of listening to him telling them just how much he loves them.

Remember it was Tony Blair the British Prime Minister, who was slow-clapped and heckled as he tried to give a speech to the Women’s Institute at their annual meeting.

WTF does The Women’s Institute slow-clapped and heckled ffs ? These ladies are about being nice and polite to people, and singing Jerusalem, and making jam……..and that.

Great communicator indeed 😕

What do you mean “stop being deliberately obtuse” ? Don’t you mean, “stop disagreeing with me” ?

Well if you genuinely couldn’t spot that that was the subtext of Nu Labour’s message then I guess you’re not being obtuse- just gullible

Thanks uponthedowns ……….. that sounds much better.

.

You obviously didn’t bother reading my post then…….

What tyres should Gordon Brown use when he leaves Downing Street?

“It is certainly true that his handling of the financial crisis has been far better than many on here would accept and across the globe he is considered to have done well in his financial management.”

Surely this misses the point.

Had Brown not been so singularly incompetent during his tenure as Chancellor, the government would have had significant reserves in hand.

e.g. Selling our entire gold reserve at a 75% discount to the current rate
e.g. Committing (with Tony Blair) to root and branch reform of the welfare state – they bottled it and dismissed Frank Field’s extremely detailed proposals
e.g. wasting Billions on an illegal war
e.g. wasting Billions on “grand projects” like New Deal, which several Billion pounds after starting has produced a rise in the numbers of long term unemployed young people
e.g. the £13.5B of errors as a result of the tax credit system complexity, which even the system developers warned Brown directly at the time would result in higher levels of fraud and increased administration costs
e.g. the £6.5B CSA write off
etc.
etc.

The only thing it’s really possible to conclude is that under Brown, the government wasted tens of Billions of hard earned money on projects that were either cancelled, failed to deliver, or resulted in increased administration costs. Which is precisely why HMRC now costs ten times the administration cost per client of the US’ Inland Revenue Service for a similar range of service lines.

Grumm I hate you…
I had to agree with TJ… Do you know how dirty I feel now :'(

Still looks crazy ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8088381.stm

Well I think it’s too late now for him to pull it back, so he might as well go. I just think most of the reasons why he is being forced out are petty and largely bogus.

I can’t help thinking that Brown is truly an expert on global macro economics, but struggles to apply the same clarity of thinking when it comes to direct management of a national economy. Hence why he can do the things he is doing to try to clean up the mess in the global banking system and thus be praised by people in America, but why this country was ill prepared to deal with such a financial crisis after Brown’s time as Chancellor. Also, if he is such a genius at solving the world’s banking problems, where was that analysis three years ago when it was rather obvious that the entire housing market and the banking system in support of it was grossly unsustainable?

Brown is like my missus – a first class degree in hindsight. And he can never seem to make a commitment to anything as it may be proven wrong in the future and the blame laid squarely on him.