Good job Gordon ended boom and bust!
Oh.....
Surely, there can be no doubt that Labour presided over one of the most stable and benign economic times any of us can remember?
Whether it was merely their good fortune to do so, a squandered opportunity or down to astute financial management by Brown will be debated for years and will inevitably be coloured by political opinion.
Like I said, its all academic. If we look at recent history
Labour Government = we're *ed
Tory Government = we're *ed
Con-Lib alliance = Hmmmmmmmmmm. Now let me see......
What its going to take is someone to finally point to the emperor's (not-so) new clothes
Fact: (or possibly my opinion): The Milton Friedman, Chicago school of unregulated market caplitalism advocated by all the major parties (YES, EVEN THE ****ING SNP BEFORE YOU START TJ) just leads to repetitions of the same boom and bust cycle. Except they're getting more and more severe ewith every cycle.
So... what chance of surviving the next (pretty immanent) one? We need an alternative. Except nobody in Westminster dares to mention this. We' really are doomed!
I will agree with you there Binners
Nooo, noooo - he must be right. I'm banking everything on the indisputable (TJ et al) [b]fact[/b] that there will be a 2nd recession followed by a financial meltdown, caused solely by the Tories of course, and I'll be able to purchase a house for thruppence halfpenny, which I will pay for cash, as obviously no mortgages will be available. In fact I may buy several and rent them out to people who have become jobless and had their homes repossessed. Obviously a good result for them as they will have a nice roof over their heads without the financial headache of paying a mortgage.You live in a contorted world of foamy-mouthed ranting TJ.
Then, once labour get back in and sort out the Tory mess and restore full employment, my properties will be worth a fortune.
Sounds like a win win situation to me 😐
😯
ahwiles is spot on.
i'm really not, i'm an idiot.
[i]we had the most financial stable time under Labour, of course we did cos they spent the next 25 years worth of budgets![/i]
Too right, well put !.
[i]These are the facts. stable growth, low inflation, low interest rates for more than a decade[/i]
TJ. Now this is what boils my urine with you. You insult us all by expecting us to swallow that.
Growth came cos GB employed eveyone. How on earth were we to keep going with so many people working for the government ?.
Low inflation ?, yeah, well only after GB decided to start using a different index, moving away from the RPI and using CPI.....
WHY ?, to suit and to hide his wreckless spending.
And you try to fool us into not seeing this.
You're not the only person to have been living in the UK since 1996, and I have to point out that your recollection and selection of certain economic [i]facts[/i] go only to suit your side of the arguement. Therefore by your very biased perspective, your comments are not taken seriously.
GB was a total borrow and spend freak and you know it.
How in the world did GB think he had the right to borrow and spend so much in my name ?.
The short answer is he didn't.
I recall listening to radio interviews where when he was asked about the massive debts he was getting us into, he replied by pointing out that other countries had greater deficits / debts.
WTF !, so he was saying that its OK, I'm gonna borrow and spend some more !!!
Totally bonkers and you know it.
Just when was the NU-Labour borrowing party going stop ?, when we all worked for the state ?, when we reached economic meltdown as they have in Greece ?.
You're away with the fairies if you think Labour ever had a clue.
Your NU-Labour economic growth was funded by borrowing, we all know it, yet you seek to portray this in an uneven and deceptive fashion to support your own political leanings.
Its really very sad.
Almost as sad as the realisation that you're too old and set in your ways to see the truth as regards Labour and their endemic short comings born of their idealogical baggage.
And after 13 years of messing it all up ?, yeah, right, someone, the tories, anyone. They're going to fix it all in less than a year ?.
Please, get a grip, this mess, the mess 13 years of Labour brought us to, isn't going to be cleared up in 11 months now, is it.
😉
**** knows why he is Chancellor
Chancellors aren't economists, they're politicians. What's important is who they go to for advice. I suspect one of the reason we're not in an even bigger hole is that Alistair Darling (who people forget was the chancellor when it all hit the fan) was prepared to listen to people who appeared to know what they were talking about, unlike his predecessor who thought he knew everything. So far I suspect Osborne is listening to other people, mainly because he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who can think for himself. Who knows how long that will last; chancellors with their own ideas are dangerous.
i'm really not, i'm an idiot.
That makes you more qualified than recent candidates. awhiles for Chancellor!
Captain
It is a FACT
Low inflation, stable growth, low interest rates for over a decade
On topic I reckon:
[url= http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/12/five-facts-about-osbornes-permanent-vat-rise/ ]5 facts about VAT rise[/url]
“When Mr Osborne said that “the years of debt and spending” made the £13 billion increase in VAT unavoidable you might just as well say it was his desire to cut other taxes that made it so”
I dont disagree with LFF on VAT.
Its a nasty regressive tax. If we're going to keep VAT it should be cut on a wider range of goods, be used more often as a tool to encourage consumption choices like energy efficient products/fuels/installations, and have variable rates to simulate a luxury good tax.
Some of the vagaries of VAT exemptions need to be sorted out.
No VAT on new build, but VAT on extensions etc...
just going through the VAT reclaim on my self-build now.
"Why dont you just ask what STW-leftie-forumworld think of Gary Glitter, or Maggie Thatcher?
They are one & the same I believe"
That is deeply offensive.
It is a FACT
Low inflation, stable growth, low interest rates for over a decade
Indisputable TJ.........and then the shit hit the fan due to problems entirely outside Mr Brown's control ! Shame really as he was damn near perfect and continually told us that it was [b]his policies and financial prudence[/b] which made UK Ltd solid as a rock. (errr not Northern obviously 😳 )
well acttually woody i think you are right the global economic meltdown was out of browns control
it would have been the same result whether we were under the torries or labour
yes you can criticis each parties reaction to events - do they improve the consequences or make it worse for example. Labour no more caused the sub prime housing market in the USA to collapse and the knock on effects in the global banking structire than the Tories caused the defecit. How each reacts to these scenarios can be judged. Brown did well IMHO re fiscal spending and convincingothers of this. The tory policy needs time to se if it is a great success or a dreadful failure.
Osbourne sis a lightweight IMHO and detahced from reality. I have little faith in him to care oir knwo what the average person actually wants ans he really only hangs with and knoews rich folk. All in this together ny arse
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
This is going to be the same old pish in this thread obviously but here's a couple of comments:
1) Anyone who calls George Osborne "Gideon", all you're doing is undermining your own argument. Childish meanspirited nonsense that just makes it look like you lack any actual content
2) Similiarly anyone who looks at UK debt and disregards the fact that the banking bailout is essentially secured lending on the assets of various banks, has absolutely no grasp of the facts.
rubbish calling gideon gideon is perfectly justified,
it serves as a reminder that he is not in this together with the rest of us and is infact the eldest son of four children. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet etc etc
feudalism is alive and well in the uk
Osborne worries me. Claimed on R4 this morning VAT was a more progressive tax than income tax.
"kimbers - Member
rubbish calling gideon gideon is perfectly justified,
it serves as a reminder that he is not in this together with the rest of us and is infact the eldest son of four children. His father, Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet etc etc"
It's making fun of the new kid with the funny name, for something he's got no control of. Ad hom attacks are pretty much the lowest common denominator. Get into what he's done not where he comes from, it's not particularily hard to do.
Fair enough if he calls himself Gideon.
But is his chosen name, George, a political deception?
As for...
Get into what he's done not where he comes from, it's not particularily hard to do.
Please enlighten? SFA comes to mind, except political croneyism and belong to an elite club (much the same as most of the career politicos TBH)
rkk01 - Member
"Fair enough if he calls himself Gideon.
But is his chosen name, George, a political deception?"
Obviously not- he chose it when he was 13. If he'd changed it with a view to making himself more electable then it'd be fair play.
No argument there Kimbers but when it happens under the auspices of a sanctimonious **** who was so utterly convinced that both he and his policies were infallible, he deserves all the flak he receives.it would have been the same result whether we were under the torries or labour
Regards Gideon calling himself George...
Meet Gordon:
[img] 
[/img]
you missed my point northwind his name is indicative of the fact that hes got his position by breeding rather than ability
i mean what name is more ballachingly posh than gideon?
pathetic ad-hominem
I fugging [i]hated[/i] the "Piers Gav" brigade. I don't need any other reason. 😈
Besides, given that it is axiomatic for Stoner that he is intellectually superior to everybody on STW (and possibly the internet), the real question should be: why doesn't he step up to the challenge? There's a [i]big[/i] pair of Hush Puppies awaitin'... can you fill 'em, comrade? I'm sure we could stump up for a bottle of cheap red (Seven Hills, screw top - a real keeper) as some kind of incentive. 😉
Behave Noteeth. Stoner's too frightened to even meet little harmless me lest I make him cry like a little girl, much less actually do something himself to actually genuinely benefit the society in which he lives. Too busy looking down on us all from his self-build VAT reclaimed loft....
C'mon Stoner; I'll buy you a pint and we can discuss economics.
kimbers - Member
"you missed my point northwind his name is indicative of the fact that hes got his position by breeding rather than ability"
No, I understand your argument perfectly, I just consider it pretty pathetic- that you want to criticise him and think that the best thing to go after him with is who his background is. What matters is how he does the job.
[i]Behave Noteeth[/i]
I swear to Gawd/Keith Bontrager, that if there was a group ride involving ALL STWers (inc all lurkers, trolls, attenshun whores, audi drivers, cheese nichers, the awesome & the banned), it would either usher in the New Golden Age of Consensus and Harmony or trigger another Civil War (dibbs on the roundhead body armour, please). Whatever, it's got to be worth a try...
Perhaps CG could look into it?
I'm with the Civil War idea. Although with me about it would be a particularly Un-Civil War...
As for the 'Gideon' thing; I don't get what the problem is? Just a name, no? I mean, Margaret Hilda Thatcher's hardly all that posh, is it? Surely something like Anthony Wedgewood Benn is a little more highbrow?
We need an alternative.
I have explained this before. It's [b][i]Elfinism[/i][/b]. The only answer to all this 'mess'.
Obviously not- he chose it when he was 13. If he'd changed it with a view to making himself more electable then it'd be fair play.
Like James Gordon Brown did, you mean?
Surely something like Anthony Wedgewood Benn is a little more highbrow?
C'mon Elfin, thats unfair!
now then a title like 2nd Viscount Stansgate - thats a proper example of feudalism being alive and well in the UK...
what, a millionaire, with one son being the heir apparent to the title, and the other an MP who became third generation of the family to serve in the cabinet, plus his Grandaughter ran as an MP as well..
now, if that 'aint feudalism, I don't know what is 😉
Surely something like Anthony Wedgewood Benn is a little more highbrow?
Indeed. Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate to be precise 🙂
Edit: Zulu beat me to it.
[img] 
[/img]
Watching Peter Mandelson toy with Osbourne on the documentary shown recently was amusing, and revealing. Irrespective of their policies or likeabilty, it was clear PM ran rings round GO. GO was left bemused, and not really understanding what had just happened to him. The guy is not the sharpest tool in the box.
I wasn't talking about feudalism as such; we know that the system we have is pretty much feudalism with just a thin veneer of democracy anyway. I was merely enquiring as to why a person's name is important? IE, what's so bad about Gideon?
Most of 'em are from privileged backgrounds anyway, so names like Rupert or Tarquin or Poncious aren't really going to be a surprise, are they?
Not enough good Muslim names in British Politics if you ask me. Why not? Bloody racist is why not. It's like they're ashamed to be Muslim...
Time for a few words from our Glorious Community Leader:
Such a normal background these guys come from. I bet they really understand what real life is
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Bozza's just put all the fares up in London. He's done this because he's obviously really in touch with the needs of 'ordinary' Londoners of course...
Welcome back to the 80's - up to our necks in shite and riots.
But seriously and I'm sure I will be opening myself up, Labour had reduced national debt and were continuing to do so until the [i]global[/i] financial crisis hit the fan and [i]we[/i] had to bail out the banks.
Interesting thing is that if we sold all the bank assets we own it would pretty much clear the debt. This makes for an interesting read:
So what ConDem and Osborn is doing with the with their cuts and VAT rise is beyond me.
what ConDem and Osborn is doing with the with their cuts and VAT rise is beyond me
I expect they're trying to reduce the deficit, not the debt. Easy mistake to make - many politicians don't understand the difference either.
Labour had reduced national debt and were continuing to do so until the global financial crisis hit the fan and we had to bail out the banks
Nulab ran with a deficit from 2002. Bank problems started in 2007 and didn't really have an impact until 2008, and as you have said selling of the government's stakes in the banks will reduce the debt but will not address the deficit.
