Times poll sees Gordon Brown ahead of the Cameron

lostinrates

huntersc wrote: »

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.

In this context I use 'better off than us' to refer to the 'state of mind' of the poplace. They have a decison made as to the future and can now psychologically enter a new phase (that souds a bit new agey, but is not meant to be). The new govenmnent can set out its plans and people can decide how best to organise their finances within that. We have not got that relative security yet, and indeed, refering to your point of consumer confidence, that is essentially what strikes me as relevant. Taxation changes, policy changes are still very up in the air here. I think change in this instance, has obviously (over?)enthused many, and might do here, but I'm not talking about change, I'm talking about some longer trem stability of 'leadership' or representation.

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

Dithering is exactly the opposite of calculated. Sped is not the issue. US is not a quick change, it doesn't happen til January, but it is a dfinite change, a plannable factor, a definite. I think consumer confidence needs some certainty...change or not.

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.

Who does, ? but I don't see UK debt decreasing right now either. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but this is my opinion.

baileysbattlebus

You can't blame one man for the global economic crisis.
Surely this is the result of a deregulated financial system - and I didn't hear many complaining when times were good.

If Gordon Brown is to blame then it is only because he wasn't calling for regulation that nobody wanted. Not here in the UK, or the rest of Europe, or the Far East or the USA.

None of the experts spoke up either, the Conservatives certainly didn't, though they're all speaking up now.

A free market economy and a deregulated financial system and bankers who lied brought the system to it's knees.

If you want to lay the blame at someone's door it would probably be more appropriate to lay it at Greenspan's. But I suppose it wasn't entirely his fault either.

"Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a "mistake" in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works." "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7654647.stm

we aren't the only one's suffering

huntersc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

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.

Firstly, that's not how it works, you cannot assign blame to someone on the basis that they took credit at another point in time. That's ridiculous.

Second, you say that the IMF says Brown is wrong and that Britain is not best placed, where? (defining 'best placed' might also be worth doing)

Third, yes, he has weakened the UK economy, he has also strengthened it. It's swings and roundabouts. We also have a completely different economical beast compared to other European countries. The make up of our economy is very different to that of Germany for example.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

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?

Who are 'them'?

As someone who has savings in three currencies I'm three times as scared!

moggylover

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

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.


By exactly he same brush: the people of this Country have had a very long period (comparative in economic terms) of growth and prosperity, due in no small part to public sector spending and job creation.

There were very few really complaining during that period, although there were those that had very real concerns that the banks must be "up to something" for the amount of money that appeared be churning through there, and those that obviously accepted that "it could not last". However, it appears that very few were actually practising any kind of "financial prudence" themselves;) (it is always a case of do as I say, not as I do with the blame everyone else mob:rolleyes: ) - and had the boom period not been here they would have been screaming at the Government a damn sight sooner:D .

huntersc

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

Surely this is the result of a deregulated financial system - and I didn't hear many complaining when times were good.

If Gordon Brown is to blame then it is only because he wasn't calling for regulation that nobody wanted.

It's funny, I remember not so long ago, July, August 2007 there were two people shouting about deregulating the financial sector even more than it was.

Do you remember the idea of a deregulation minister?

Here's a quote from a minister from that party:

"...no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk."

Now I'll let you take a stab at who might have been calling for a deregulation minister, who was caqlling for an end to mortgage regulation.....


Can you guess?

......

David Cameron. :beer::rotfl::rotfl::T Go big Dave!

Now it's interesting to me that we've not heard much more about this deregulation minister or the deregulation of the mortgage market from the Tories. Why's that do you think?

BTW, if anyone thinks I'm making this up, here's just one of a number of sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-andpound14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

moggylover

huntersc wrote: »

Firstly, that's not how it works, you cannot assign blame to someone on the basis that they took credit at another point in time. That's ridiculous.

Second, you say that the IMF says Brown is wrong and that Britain is not best placed, where? (defining 'best placed' might also be worth doing)

Third, yes, he has weakened the UK economy, he has also strengthened it. It's swings and roundabouts. We also have a completely different economical beast compared to other European countries. The make up of our economy is very different to that of Germany for example.

Thank the Lord that there is a least one person on MSE who appears to have more than a fail grade in GCSE economics!

huntersc

Oh, by the way, here's more on the Tory proposal for mortgage deregulation.

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=463242

Funny stuff

StevieJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Who are 'them'?

As someone who has savings in three currencies I'm three times as scared!

They know who they are and they are proud of it, three currencies is sensible diversification (although it depends which ones you have gone for).

huntersc

lostinrates wrote: »

In this context I use 'better off than us' to refer to the 'state of mind' of the poplace. They have a decison made as to the future and can now psychologically enter a new phase (that souds a bit new agey, but is not meant to be). The new govenmnent can set out its plans and people can decide how best to organise their finances within that. We have not got that relative security yet, and indeed, refering to your point of consumer confidence, that is essentially what strikes me as relevant. Taxation changes, policy changes are still very up in the air here. I think change in this instance, has obviously (over?)enthused many, and might do here, but I'm not talking about change, I'm talking about some longer trem stability of 'leadership' or representation.

Dithering is exactly the opposite of calculated. Sped is not the issue. US is not a quick change, it doesn't happen til January, but it is a dfinite change, a plannable factor, a definite. I think consumer confidence needs some certainty...change or not.



Who does, ? but I don't see UK debt decreasing right now either. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but this is my opinion.

I think most of the security to which you refer is born out of a change in leadership, an election, certainly it's short term and the financial markets have not responded with this same confidence. The DJ is at around 8600 and the Nas at 1600. It's all well and good the general populace 'feeling' better for a month or two but at what cost? Long term Obama has inherited a position which will undermine everything America does for the next 20 years, the populace may feel better off right now but it won't in March.

So it's not so much about decisiveness or a leader taking a decisive position as a coincidental election which has resulted in an upswing in confidence.

Again, hardly something you can lay at Brown's door.