Is the recession really Brown's fault?

sabretoothtigger

Recession isnt browns fault but a depression would be

setmefree2

Japan's GDP figures in - quarterly drop of 3.3% - so the UK is still looking good on a relative basis.

So more evidence that it's not so great to be a exporting-saving sort of eceonomy imho.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7891849.stm

StevieJ

Wookster wrote: »

I'll break ranks then and tell you to p!ss off unless you have something pertinent to say.

Are you his Mr Hyde :eek:

MrFonzerelli

setmefree2 wrote: »

Japan's GDP figures in - quarterly drop of 3.3% - so the UKis still looking good on a relative basis.

So more evidence that it's not so great to be a exporting-saving sort of eceonomy imho.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7891849.stm

Maybe it's not so good for countries that are export based either. In times of turmoil as a whole I still think it better to be in a position where your country produces things that other countries want. Otherwise there's no limit to how far the countries currency could depreciate.

setmefree2

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

Maybe it's not so good for countries that are export based either. In times of turmoil as a whole I still think it better to be in a position where your country produces things that other countries want. Otherwise there's no limit to how far the countries currency could depreciate.

Economy's need to be balanced - strong exports AND strong internal consumption.

It's not true that the UK produces nothing:-

In the UK up until the credit crunch 10% of our exports were financial products and oil. 50% of our exports are manufacturing ( this is 13% of UK GDP - but this makes us the sixth biggest manufacturing economy in the world). Manufacturing in the UK is more than "metal bashing" it is high tech activities such as silicon design, bluetooth technology, fuel cells and plastic electronics, biotech and nano tech. Creative industries are also something else we export - advertising, computers and video games, industrial design, film & television.

Another source of the UKs strength is business services - advertising, accountancy, IT, law , marketing etc.

I could go on....

SGE1

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

They are politicians - of course they're not bright! Policy as defined by chased headlines is going to end in tears every time - not only will they never manage to please everyone but when you have an expectations horison only as long as tomorrow's headlines, things are bound to go horribly horribly wrong in the unconsidered medium and long terms.

What astounds me is that they never seem to learn this rather basic lesson. The politicians that everyone seems to respect are the ones who follow their convictions and stick to them regardless of short-term popularity. I may not like the politics of Ann Widdicombe or Dennis Skinner but you know where they stand. What does Cameron stand for? What does James Purnell stand for? Have the LibDems decided whether to stand for tax cuts or public services* (*delete as electorally expedient) yet?

Have to say I don't agree with you here. I assume you're being facetious when you suggest that being a politicians automatically precludes one from being clever.

The fact that you're astounded that politicians seem to be making these cliched "mistakes" over and over again should give you a hint really - do you really think that they're all that stupid? I rather think that they're playing within a system that is defined by strict rules, and they need to behave within certain guidelines.

The only way to stay in power is to hold down a minimum number of seats in strategic areas (i.e. conquer as many marginal seats as possible) to get a comfortable majority in Parliament. None of the 3 parties have a large enough of a traditional voter base to attract the support these need across the necessary geographic locations. Hence the race to conquer the middle, the "sway-able" voters. As by definition, anything in the middle is always harder to define. Policies become based not on automated theory, but decided on a ad-hoc basis. That does indeed give the impression that politicians don't stand for very much, and aren't particularly consistent (in the way that Widdecombe and Skinner are predictable in their behaviour). I'm sure that personally politicians do have convictions, but in order to stay in/come to power, a party needs to make itself as appealing as possible. After all, most politicians would agree that it's better to be in power and be able to push through 75% of your convictions, that adhere to your convictions 100% but as a result, not have the cross-population appeal that will get you in power in the first place - and so at the end of the day 0% of your convictions are seen through. If the Tories were made of Widdecombes, and Labour made up of Skinners, neither would do very well at all - even if they command 'respect', that just isn't enough.

As a counter-example, take Tony Blair - he had quite a firm set of convictions around liberal interventionism, for example, and that backfired for it significantly, as far as support from the electorate was concerned.

Rochdale_Pioneers

SGE1 wrote: »

As a counter-example, take Tony Blair - he had quite a firm set of convictions around liberal interventionism, for example, and that backfired for it significantly, as far as support from the electorate was concerned.

Did he cobblers. The "ethical foreign policy" lasted for about a year. Blair wanted to remake the world in his own image and in that he actually predated W Bush.

Ultimately Blair's election to lead the Labour party was on the footing that he would calm fears of the electorate, bring them over onto the centre ground then start doing actual Labour policies. He did the first bit then got blinded by focus groups and headlines. Noone wanted a return to the bad old days of the hard left, but what we got was centre right with some centre left stuff hidden in a drawer because things like redistributive taxes and Sure Start were somehow an embarassment to him.

nickmason

LauraW10 wrote: »

Mark Thatcher - Arms Dealer

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Mark Thatcher was so dim he could only manage a few o levels in a top public school, even the worse of the worse in Kirkbys schools would likely be picking up a hatful of o levels if they had a decent education. Intensive tutoring perhaps led his two brain cells to bang together and create the few tiny grains of intelligence needed to be able to sign cheques.

But how come someone who would struggle to collect the trolleys in a supermarket can accumulate a massive fortune of £60 Million pounds?

Mummies Boy.

blah-di-blah-di-blah

http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/news_items/2004_news/mark_thatcher.html
[/FONT]

I had been struggling to see the legitimacy of slagging off the Conservatives because of Mark Thatcher's actions.

Anyhow, I'm grateful that it gives me licence to note that David Mills - not a Labour MP, but Mr Tessa Jowell, and very definitely a Labour insider/broker - has just got his comeuppance. For, as has been pretty universally recognised here as a serious offence, giving false testimony - perjury to you and I.

Incidentally, Tessa Jowell, the innocent victim of her husband's behaviour (she didn't pay any attention to family financial matters of a mere £1/2M) is still in charge of the Olympics. I wonder whether her powers of scrutiny have improved.