Economy at 60-year low, says Darling. And it will get worse

dopester

lynzpower wrote: »

Please dont forget that Labour did introduce the minimum wage, and I think most of us would agree that was a good thing. I do remember working for 1.75 an hour in late 90s, and boy was life a struggle.

Another great Labour idea. Force the market to pay people more than their market worth.

All part of the HPI lunacy as far as I'm concerned and expect to see it abolished.

baileysbattlebus

HPI & Boom before the Bust

Just some info for some posters - yes inflation was higher in the 80's - but interest rates were much higher.

The thing I do remember from the last time was feeling really hard up - although inflation was higher during the last recession I had a pay cut and then no payrises for 3 years, but like a lot of others at the time classed myself as being lucky to have a job. I'm not moaning, though. Such is life.
I can't see being any different under the Tories.

courtesy of Nationwide

average house prices

1979 17900 Mrs T
1989 61500

1997 61800 Mr B
2007 184000


average, not median wages

ASHE - National Statistics

1979 4680
1987 10608

1997 19448
2006 28080

Interest rates

1979 13.75% average for year

1989 may 14%
1989 oct 15%

1997 may 6.25%
1997 nov 5.5%

2007 may 5.5%
2007 oct 5.75%

inflation
1979 13.4%
1989 7.8%

1997 3.1%
2007 4.3%

WTF?_2

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

courtesy of Nationwide

average house prices

1979 17900 Mrs T
1989 61500

1997 61800 Mr B
2007 184000

Anyone deluding themselves into thinking prices will be back to the stupid level of last year any time soon just needs to look at that stat.

And that's nominal price - doesn't take into account inflation!

musemad

His honesty is stunning !!!

Why cannot all politicians be like this
I suspect it may cost him his job but hey , a honest politician who is prepared to give the people a true view of what is going on out in the real world

PRICELESS!!!!:T

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Yup. The Uk got a £1,000,000,000 loan from the US Government to consolidate war debts, loan lease etc as a part of a wider aid package to Europe called the Marshall Plan, the idea of which was that successful European economies wouldn't turn to communism and would be handy export markets for US goods. IMO the Marshall Plan is the single most successful interventionist economic policy followed by any government at any time.

The Atlee Government then started a disastrous program of nationalisation (about 20% of the UK economy was brought into Government ownership and it was usually illegal to compete with nationalised firms). By 1948 the country was on its knees again - rationning was made stricter on many things such as food, clothing and coal than it had been in the war. I think beer was rationned for the first time too (not sure about that last one).

When the Labour Government was finally got rid of in 1951, they would be in the wilderness for 13 years. When they finally got back in they were then responsible for the economic disaster that was the late 60s and 1970s.

You are forgetting that the private sector was broke and the infrastructure smashed after WW2. The only way body that could have rebuilt them was the government. In fact, if you look at the Tories in the 1930s, guess what, they nationalised several companies (eg the London Underground) and rebuilt industry with government guidance. Thank goodness they did or we would have lost WW2 long before the Americans joined in.

The only way the problems of 1948 could have been avoided would have been to make peace with Hitler, and I for one am quite glad the UK did not. The strict rationing was because Britain was close to famine after an exceptional hard winter in 1947/48. If the greatest post-War government had not been in power, Britain may well have literally starved.

And the following decade transformed the living standards of the UK, mainly because the Tories copied most of Labour's policies.

Austin_Allegro

Getting back to the OP, nobody seems to have considered that Darling's speech may all be part of some obscure in-fighting and point scoring in the Cabinet - perhaps the unsheathing of the 'long knives' for Brown.

Politicians rarely 'give it to us straight' and I suspect this is part of some power struggle or plot to oust Brown.

Alternatively, I would agree with the poster who said it's an attempt to prepare us for the worst in the hope that things don't get that bad and Labour can claim it was because of their sound management. Two million unemployed by Christmas is certainly scarey (and that's presumably in addition to the 7m or so 'economically inactive' crypto-unemployed we have already...)

Sir_Humphrey

Reading between the lines, I think it is pretty clear that Darling/Darling's allies have been briefing Guardian journalists against Brown. The objective would be to avoid Darling becoming the scapegoat for Brown's past mistakes, in order to preserve Darling's future reputation.

TBH, I feel a bit sorry for Darling right now, at the moment he just being pilloried for deciding to tell the truth, and has been f**ked over by his (maybe now former) friend Brown.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/01/alistairdarling.gordonbrown1

But while Brown and Darling share a virtually identical political outlook it is an open secret at Westminster that there have been tensions between the two men over the past year, though these have not become terminal. Darling believes he identified serious problems soon after entering the Treasury last year but was unable to win Brown's support for action before it was too late. The strongest example was the abolition of the 10p starting tax rate of tax, introduced by Brown in his last budget as chancellor last year.

Darling pressed for early action on the grounds that it would hit the less well off. Brown said there was not a problem, a position he held to until Darling eventually borrowed £2.7bn to solve the problem in May. It was against this background that Darling changed his operation earlier this year. He sharpened up his press team by hiring his old friend Catherine MacLeod, the respected former political editor of the Herald, to be his special adviser.

The chancellor made clear that he was not attempting to brief against the prime minister. His aim was simply to carve out his own - loyal - identity which would strengthen his, and therefore the government's, position. The new approach explains why Darling agreed to break the rule of a lifetime and conduct an in-depth personal interview with the Guardian. Under the influence of his vivacious and razor sharp wife Maggie - a former Sunday Times investigative journalist who is also an old friend of MacLeod - Darling spent two days at his croft on the Isle of Lewis talking about life and politics to the Guardian's Decca Aitkenhead.

I think that can safely be read as Darling's version of events, and that the source of that part of the story is Darling/his allies.

tomstickland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7591346.stm

Gordon Brown has defended his record on tackling the economic downturn, saying the government was proving "resilient in... dealing with these problems". He contrasted that with "previous governments that could not manage a way through... difficulties successfully".

He's so arrogant - he's not managed his way through the problem yet.

tomstickland

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

nobody seems to have considered that Darling's speech may all be part of some obscure in-fighting and point scoring in the Cabinet - perhaps the unsheathing of the 'long knives' for Brown.

I did say last night that I considered that it was probably an attempt of Darling to distance himself from Brown. The news yesterday said that the treasury "loathed" the plans beeing mooted by Brown.

Edit: in another, very similar thread.

Trollfever

Just testing my new signature.