Is the recession really Brown's fault?

Rochdale_Pioneers

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

I'm saying that Individuals who are members of political parties are unlikely to have an unbiased opinion on the state of the economy or who's to blame.

Right. Because the various frothers on here who aren't a member of any party are completely unbiased. I can recognise the various !!!!-ups made by Brown and criticise him for it frequently. The anti-Brown camp however cannot recognise any errors made by the Conservatives.

whathavewedone

Well to be fair Rochdale, the conservatives haven't been in government for the last 11 years so can't really be blamed for the current situation.

Yes the conservatives brought in the RTB scheme and didn't build new houses but did labour ditch the scheme and start building new houses as soon as they got into power? No. Did labour try to move us away from financial services and back into manufacturing? No. They did nothing to rectify the mistakes made by the previous government and then went on and made plenty of their own most of which have already been detailed on this thread.

I just don't think it's feasible, when you have had a government that has been in for this long, to blame a government that was last in power 11 years ago for the problems in the economy that we have today.

When the economy was going well and labour hadn't been in power for long were you thinking that was down to Ken Clarke or Gordon Brown? Surely if the conservatives had ruined the economy labour would have inherited a mess

I think the conservatives made a lot of mistakes when they were in power but this thread isn't about what mistakes did the conservatives make when they were in power.

I voted labour in 1997 and was out in the pub that night singing "things can only get better". If I only seen how things would end. The war. All the money that's been poured into the NHS and we now have a worse service than we did before. Ditto schools. The nanny state. Id cards (only "needed" because we got roped into a war we didn't want therefore making us a target for terrorists). Anti smoking councillors, people employed to stop white van men from smoking in their vans (to protect the smoking workers from inhaling their smoking workmates' smoke) £100 to pregnant smokers and on and on.

Back in 1990 when I was on the dole for 6 months I got put on a secretarial course. A proper course that got me a decent job as soon as I finished it. I was watching the Politics show yesterday and a guy in his 50s who managed a Woolies store for years was told that after 6 months he was going to be put on a "confidence building course". He wanted to be put on a proper course to lead to a proper job but that would be too f ing easy and commonsense wouldn't it

I never, ever, in all my life thought I would vote tory. But I will do and I will never ever ever vote labour again.

JayScottGreenspan

whathavewedone wrote: »

I just don't think it's feasible, when you have had a government that has been in for this long, to blame a government that was last in power 11 years ago for the problems in the economy that we have today.

I'm not sure that's what RP was doing. FWIW, I think most of us can agree that some of the Tories exploits were pretty egregious, and that Nu Labour have done their best to plumb the depths too.
I think you're right, there are some posters who have been brainwashed to only see the faults of one side or the other, but their posts are a few pages back now (I think).

whathavewedone wrote: »

I voted labour in 1997 and was out in the pub that night singing "things can only get better".

Always makes me laugh, that. Boy were they wrong!:cheesy:

whathavewedone wrote: »

I never, ever, in all my life thought I would vote tory. But I will do and I will never ever ever vote labour again.

Things could all be very different in ten/five years time. I always think of it as voting for the PM and Chancellor, not the party (or the local candidate:rotfl: ). If the Tories or Labour suddenly found a decent, honest leader and a potentially capable Chancellor I'd consider voting for either. There's no one on the radar for either party that comes close to meeting these criteria, though!

MrFonzerelli

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Right. Because the various frothers on here who aren't a member of any party are completely unbiased. I can recognise the various !!!!-ups made by Brown and criticise him for it frequently. The anti-Brown camp however cannot recognise any errors made by the Conservatives.

Hey, the conservatives were in favour of deregulation of the banking industry too. As they were in favour of Iraq war. Tory councils also had the most held with Icelandic Banks. I won't e voting for the Burlington club either.

The thread is about whether Browns to blame for the recession. And he is partially to blame for overseeing boom and bust. He's also sold off the nations assets, taxed pension funds, indebted the nation with PFI and means tested a great deal so prudence was not rewarded under his govt.

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Right. Because the various frothers on here who aren't a member of any party are completely unbiased. I can recognise the various !!!!-ups made by Brown and criticise him for it frequently. The anti-Brown camp however cannot recognise any errors made by the Conservatives.

I can.

Any thoughts about the whole GDP/devaluation thing BTW?:

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government spending + exports - imports

If the value of sterling falls, GDP falls as the value of imports in sterling rise and the value of exports fall.

Longer term that may be offset by an improvement in the terms of trade due to a lower currency.

If the UK's buying power is reduced by a fall in the value of sterling, the typical person's standard of living falls. Of course anyone who doesn't consume imported goods (like gas, petrol, clothing, furniture, food or computers for example) won't see a drop in their standard of living.

Your argument has been used before by Harold Wilson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/on_...32_16x9_nb.asx

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Any thoughts about the whole GDP/devaluation thing BTW?:

Plenty of thoughts. The article I responded to did 2 things - claim that our economy had shrunk to being smaller than the French, and that this was a disasater.

I agree with you about what a devalued currency does - crash it far enough and you do massive damage. We get away with revaluing the pound vs the dollar back to its comfort level now because whatever damage that does to us is completely swallowed up by the damage being done to all of us byy the depression. You can't look at the effects of our recent devaluation and say "thats Britain knackered vs the others then" when we're contracting at a slower rate than they are.

whathavewedone wrote:

Well to be fair Rochdale, the conservatives haven't been in government for the last 11 years so can't really be blamed for the current situation.

You misunderstand. I am not blaming the Tories for Labour's mistakes. I am pointing out that Labour's mistakes are failing to regulate the market properly and that the Tory response to this for the last 10 years has been "Labour are killing the city through over-regulation. We need to deregulate". You cannot look at Labour faults and say "vote Tory to fix them" when they were cheering on ever more deregulation and according to their Shadow Chief Secretary see an opportunity for Britain to be less heavily regulated than America and Europe.

And ultimately we have a choice of Labour or Conservative governments. Its an outside chance that we end up with a coalition but thats not what our stupid electoral system is designed to produce. Ultimately people need to choose between the two choices - abstaining is not a responsible option for those screaming for something to be done.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

You can't look at the effects of our recent devaluation and say "thats Britain knackered vs the others then" when we're contracting at a slower rate than they are.

The point is though that Britain imports FAR more than it exports, therefore a devaluing pound cannot be a good thing for people's disposable income levels here.

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

The point is though that Britain imports FAR more than it exports, therefore a devaluing pound cannot be a good thing for people's disposable income levels here.

Could you have a word with Dopester

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I agree with you about what a devalued currency does - crash it far enough and you do massive damage. We get away with revaluing the pound vs the dollar back to its comfort level now because whatever damage that does to us is completely swallowed up by the damage being done to all of us byy the depression. You can't look at the effects of our recent devaluation and say "thats Britain knackered vs the others then" when we're contracting at a slower rate than they are.

You either miss or avoid the original point. You claimed that devaluation of sterling made no difference to standards of living as GDP measured output. It doesn't. It is a (relatively) simple calculation and it shows that devaluing the pound by a relatively small amount will have a larger impact on a nation that runs a large trade deficit.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

It is a (relatively) simple calculation and it shows that devaluing the pound by a relatively small amount will have a larger impact on a nation that runs a large trade deficit.

A prime example of a large trade deficit being the UK...