Gordon Brown is an economic genius. Discuss.

nearlynew

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

If your post was anti-Labour/pro-Tory can you point out when they stuck to these "only" principles? Thatcher talked about the small state and spent a decade growing it. And sound money? Well we had the great monetarist failure which kept Britain in a prolongued recession.

Then we had a credit-fuelled boom (for half the country anyway - the northern half was still on the dole) from a Chancellor who proclaimed his own economic miracle (hmmmm, sounds familiar) before it went bust.

Is this the "Small government and sound money" you are remembering?

Anyway, do people want small government? Every poll I've seen has punters screaming for better and bigger public services like in France or Scandanavia, not smaller.

If you bothered to read my post, you will notice I said "it doesn't matter who is in government........" so it was not "pro tory"

You have not only failed to understand but you also do not seem to know what I mean by sound money and small government.

I suggest you do some research before you go mouthing off about something you do not understand.

Our elected politicians have gone from being our servants to our masters and no longer represent the interests of the people and the country. They either understand the above and are lying or they do not understand and are fools.

And as for democracy. Don't make me laugh. We have an unelected prime minister and his disgraced right-hand man (again unelected) running our country on behalf of their masters (the banking system)

As for your suggestion that people want big government, I would suggest they are unaware of the alternatives and just accept a debt based money system as a way of life.

Any government which has the power to provide its people everything the need also has the power to remove it.

Gorgeous_George

I'm not sure whether Gordon Brown is an economic genius or not. He certainly seems to understand the numbers better than most of the electorate.

I believe the effects of the credit crunch would have been (and would continue to be) far worse without his leadership.

I cannot imagine that a Tory government would have bailed out savers whose funds were in an Icelandic bank. I can imagine Maggie watching the people struggle with a smile oin her evil face.

GG

mbga9pgf

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I'm not sure whether Gordon Brown is an economic genius or not. He certainly seems to understand the numbers better than most of the electorate.

I believe the effects of the credit crunch would have been (and would continue to be) far worse without his leadership.

I cannot imagine that a Tory government would have bailed out savers whose funds were in an Icelandic bank. I can imagine Maggie watching the people struggle with a smile oin her evil face.

GG

All said without the slightest contemplation of the fact ALL THE MONEY BORROWED STILL HAS TO BE PAID BACK

I cannot imagine that a Tory government would have bailed out savers whose funds were in an Icelandic bank

They would have had no choice. The Kaputhing bank came under the deposit protection scheme.

The Tories may have let markets correct naturally. Yes, it would have been painful but we would also see a much quicker recovery.

headcone

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

You have something in common with "Dave" then.

Honestly, how some people have the vote.

Thank God fascist Chimps like you can`t decide who shall be worthy.

mbga9pgf

Says it all really. Typical bloody Labour. Take over a sound economy, screw it with lefty tax and spend policies, then hand over to the Tories who get a hard time over fixing the mistakes of the previous government.

Doing the right thing over doing the popular thing takes guts. Something the illiterati that infest labours ranks never have had. Var Tony Benn, I cant think of a single frontline member of the Labour party that has served in our armed forces.

All Jobsworth unionist scum.

headcone

" I cant think of a single frontline member of the Labour party that has served in our armed forces"

Have you?

And if not what`s you point?

bumpoowee

The fact that anybody in this country still thinks Gordon Brown is anything but an incompetent moron who doesn't care how much he financially cripples us for the next 50 years as long as he stays in power really worries me.

drc

I see it as analogous to a drug user. He/she can pump his body full of drugs to ward off the inevitable pain of cold-turkey (or death) and 'feel good' in the process, forever postponing the inevitable.

Likewise, Brown can pump the economic veins full of quantative easing and low interest rates and postpone the inevitable economic cold-turkey and all the pain and economic crash associated with it. That is all he is doing, postponing what will naturally happen once the system can no longer bear the weight of all these false 'drugs' keeping it propped up.

So, in that sense, yes he has stopped the crash but it will come and with even more ferocity for future generations unfortunately.

Masomnia

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Says it all really. Typical bloody Labour. Take over a sound economy, screw it with lefty tax and spend policies, then hand over to the Tories who get a hard time over fixing the mistakes of the previous government.

Doing the right thing over doing the popular thing takes guts. Something the illiterati that infest labours ranks never have had. Var Tony Benn, I cant think of a single frontline member of the Labour party that has served in our armed forces.

All Jobsworth unionist scum.

The second graph shows how pre-economic downturn net debt was lower than it was when Labour inherited the economy! Screwing the economy?

Not sure what serving in the army has anything to do with it.

Graham_Devon

Masomnia wrote: »

The second graph shows how pre-economic downturn net debt was lower than it was when Labour inherited the economy! Screwing the economy?

Only because the mess had just been cleaned up over a good few years after labours last ruining of the economy.