Times poll sees Gordon Brown ahead of the Cameron

huntersc

ad9898 wrote: »

This is correct, yet it seems that the people out there cannot comprehend that he is at fault.

He must not be able to believe is eye when he reads this. The word 'sheeple' is slightly derogatory, yet in this case is justified. His record suggests he is a very poor PM and was an even worse chancellor, with at best, extremely poor judgement.

Is it correct? You want to look at Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Iceland, America, heck even Switzerland. In what way is the UK worse off than those nations?

As I say, I'm not a Brown fan at all but to suggest that he is at fault for what is happening is daft.

Furthermore you must understand the cyclical nature of economics. There are many aspects of economic downturn you cannot assign blame to, it's simply not in the control of a government nevermind that of a single person.

Brown may have his faults, just as Cameron does but singling out Brown for our problems is wrong. Criticise him for VCT changes, for ID cards, for public IT overspend etc etc etc but not for the credit crisis.

huntersc

Mr_Matey wrote: »

Surely you mean house prices HIGHEST for 25 years. In fact, if you look at affordability graphs, Australia's housing boom was worse than Britain's (I think something like 4 out of the top 10 least affordable cities in the world are in Aus). Bring on the Aus HPC!

The point is however that the Aus banking system is doing ok so far, but it would be naive to think that our share market etc would not be affected by global issues.

Sorry, I meant highest fall, or rather drop. And it's not 25 years, it's 30:

Recent reports show house prices fell by the most since 1978, building approvals had the biggest drop in two years, the services industry shrank for a seventh month and retail sales contracted as Australia's 17 years of economic growth comes to an end.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah_Fy_PhVYbI&refer=home

michaels

drc wrote: »

OMG. I just read this article in The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5127162.ece which says, (according to their poll) that "shows him comfortably beating David Cameron as the leader seen as best able to handle the recession" (quoted from The Times website). Can this be true? Are people stupid enough to believe that the man who has caused so many of the current problems is going to solve them. Are peoples memories so short. Gawd help us if New Lie-bour are re-elected, especially with Brown at the helm.:eek:

Wow - sounds like a BBC headline - a poll finds Labour x% behind the Tories in voting intentions but Brown ahead on one question so headlines with that question?!

Just like to add a major plank of Brown's economic policy the borrowing 'Golden rule' has been proved to be a total sham, only counting the good times. And yet there are still posters on here claiming it is all an 'International problem'. If that is the case why are the IMF and all other commentators prediciting that UK 'growth' will be at least 1% lower than that of Europe for each of the next two years?

PS I don't want to appear biased, I have no confidence that the Tories would have handled the boom any better and they may be even worse at handling the slump as they are likely to be more financially orthodox rather than having the Labour spend your way out of trouble economic theory at heart. I am not sure if we are looking at a 30s style depression and also not sure if Keynesian demand stimulation is the solution but if it is the solution then Labour are the party that will grasp it.

lostinrates

This is why I think US is now better off than us, one way or another they have a decision made for a term and can get on with the business at hand, both at govrmental and grass roots levels, we are still dithering over this and the indecision doesn't help people make choices about what to do with their future planning.

boyse7en

robin_banks wrote: »

I dont think Brown has been or will ever be a good PM, ditto Cameron.

In all honesty there is very little nay Government can do about a worldwide recession.

So vote Lib Dem, and get Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. Or vote for the Green party, Raving Loonies or BNP if that is your kind of thing.
There are more than two political parties, despite what the media would like you to think (apparently, three or more points of view confuses the public )

huntersc

michaels wrote: »

If that is the case why are the IMF and all other commentators prediciting that UK 'growth' will be at least 1% lower than that of Europe for each of the next two years?

The most recent IMF announcement predicated an overall international contraction. Therefore growth rate forecasts become relative to starting position and historical growth. Contractions are bound to be higher for those that have experienced sustained growth especially if the peak was as recent as 2007. One then also needs to look the make up of an economies strength industries and of course asset base.

Take Spain for example. What is unemployment there currently? 15%? I'd rather have a .5% decrease in growth than a 12% increase in unemployment. We're also extremely well positioned for a spurt by 2010 compared to Germany for example.

Mr_Matey

A bit off topic, though since you've raised Aus...

Another reason the govt surplus has been slashed is due to a large write-down in the expected revenues from... Stamp Duties! The housing market is slowing, and the government will not rake in the taxes they once did.

Also since our biggest industries are Mining and Tourism, a global downturn means less minerals sold to China, India etc, and less people travelling.

What this doesn't mean is the problems were caused at home, unlike in the UK and US. The housing bubble has gotten out of control, however so far there haven't been mass repossessions, banking problems etc.

The Aus government has wisely reduced national debt over the past 10 years but public debt has been allowed to increase. Reforms to banking and regulation have meant that the financial turmoil has not hit Aus as badly as other countries, so far...

Oh and unlike other countries the plan is not to "buy" our way out of trouble by borrowing more. At least that's what I gather.

huntersc

lostinrates wrote: »

This is why I think US is now better off than us, one way or another they have a decision made for a term and can get on with the business at hand, both at govrmental and grass roots levels, we are still dithering over this and the indecision doesn't help people make choices about what to do with their future planning.

How would you define 'better off than us'? I'm sure our government could start printing money if it wanted. But this 'dithering' is exactly what is needed. Pandering to the uneducated masses by making quick decisions with no thought for the consequence might be popular and may even result in a short term increase in confidence but it doesn't do much for long term prosperity.

'Dithering' as you out it is the way we need to run the economy, we need to take slow, calculated steps.

Otherwise we'll end up with a national debt of....

$10,636,654,962,218.88

Sorry, I mean

$10,636,664,902,499.73

Darn, I mean

$10,636,669,452,218.66

A $4bn increase in the national debt EVER DAY is not what I'd like to see for this country even if it makes all those red top readers a little happier.

StevieJ

huntersc wrote: »

Not that I'm a Brown supporter or anything but when you say "the man who has caused so many of the current problems" wht do you mean exactly?

Are you suggesting we're in a financial crisis because of Brown? If so could you name another developed country that is not in financial turmoil? It seems to me that to blame Brown for what has taken place here would mean that this crisis is not a world event, that Britain is alone in suffering.

Brown has his faults but to blame him for the credit crunch and economic crisis is a bit strange.

As for who's better equipped, well let me tell you something. It's not about Brown vs Cameron. It's about George Osbourne and his qualifications. Would you be surprised if I told you that I have exactly the same qualifications to run the economy as Osbourne, the potential Tory chancellor? When I say exactly, I mean that, he is no more qualified than me we hold all the same degrees etc.

I'll tell you one thing, I wouldn't be comfortable being chancellor right now.

If Kenneth Clarke was the shadow chancellor I think that poll would look a little different.

I wouldn't bother mate, you will not get through to them, they think we are the only country suffering. They don't even aknowledge that CDO's caused a problem for the banks so what hope have you got?

Cannon_Fodder

huntersc wrote: »

There are many aspects of economic downturn you cannot assign blame to, it's simply not in the control of a government nevermind that of a single person.

Broon was claiming credit during the boom, whether justified or not, he now has to carry the can for the bust, whether justified or not.

He claimed to have abolished boom and bust, but is rated as an astute economist. A contradiction in terms, I'd say.

And spouting "best placed" constantly when the IMF say the opposite...the man simply lies for a living.

Lots of reasons he directly weakened our position; dipping into pensions for £5bn, selling gold at the wrong time, shortening bankruptcy period; etc etc.

But, in those areas where he might not have DONE the damage directly, he/Govt provided the "framework" within which the population got to do their worst...and he helped make sure we were the worst of the worst.