Is Gordon Brown an economic illiterate?

RobertoMoir

kabayiri wrote: »

Suppose we had a hung parliament.

I'll get the rope.

I've made my choice about who to vote for but frankly it feels like the best of a very bad lot rather than something I could truly get behind.

Degenerate

Exocet wrote: »

The tax change was cheered in by 'cretinous' Labour MP's who didn't understand it, it made some poor people WORSE off. And a further cobbled amendment still left some people WORSE off.

A small number of people a small amount worse off. And not the poorest people either. It only affected people earning below £18K with no entitlement to tax credits. It wasn't "cheered in" by anyone, it was an adjustment to simplify the system after tax credits were up and running. The 10p rate was introduced by Gordon in the first place, as a stop-gap whilst the tax credit system was being implemented - once that was done it was reversed.

I did not say they should have bailed out the hamper company. They should have refunded the money to the POOR people out of bottomless pit of free money they have managed to stump up for their banker friends.

As much as one may sympathize with poor people, do your really think the government should bail them out when they do stupid things with their money? For it is utterly, utterly stupid to put money into a savings scheme with a private, unregulated company when instead you could put it into a high interest saving account in a proper bank with deposit guarantees.

As for the bank bailouts, who do you think would have suffered most if the banking system had been allowed to collapse - the wealthy or poor people? (Hint, in an economic meltdown those with substantial physical assets such as large houses and land are the most protected.)

In addition I did not want an illegal and totally unneccesary adventure in Iraq.

That would be the one that was also supported by the party you intend to vote for

I did not want three times disgraced Mandelson brought in as a Lord for goodness sake.

That's a valid point, but pretty trivial in the scheme of things.

On the inheritance thing - tbh - I don't care. It's a drop in the ocean. Everyone will be paying more N.I. How come all of a sudden the aspirational Nu Labour party wants to tax anyone who is successful?

First you complain about Labour taxing the poor people when they made a minor change, then you complain about them taxing the successful, when they make a more significant change that is designed to raise revenue from middle and higher income earners. ...yet your answer to both these gripes is to vote for the party that's been promising ordinary people an era of Austerity whilst cutting tax for the very wealthiest.

I see my voting like this. I am successful'ish. I voted Labour in the past because I believed in 'fairness', didn't mind paying a bit more tax to help others. Well now, after 13 years, I have decided to vote with number one in mind on Thursday. Selfish? I suppose so. Disullusioned - most definitely.

You're a turkey voting for christmas. It's in very few people's interests (successful'ish or not) to have an economically illiterate clown like Osborne in charge of the economy.

Exocet

Degenerate wrote: »

You're a turkey voting for christmas.

Gobble, gobble.

hugheskevi

Suppose we had a hung parliament.

Am I right in thinking that the current PM remains at the helm?

How long would support last for Gordon in that situation?

Yes. Brown remains as Prime Minister.

I think it is the Guardian which is saying that the expectation is that there will be 18 days in which Brown can try to get a working Commons majority (ie form a coalition of some sort) before Parliament returns. This applies no matter whether Labour or Conservatives get most seats, just so long as no one has an outright majority.

If after 18 days Brown has not been able to form a coalition but has not resigned, then I think the Conservatives (or whoever) can table a motion of no confidence which Brown could not defend as he won't have a majority. The queen then invites the person most likely to be able to form a working coalition - presumably Cameron - to form a Government (which also happens should Brown resign before a vote of no confidence).

StevieJ

Degenerate wrote: »

As much as one may sympathize with poor people, do your really think the government should bail them out when they do stupid things with their money? For it is utterly, utterly stupid to put money into a savings scheme with a private, unregulated company when instead you could put it into a high interest saving account in a proper bank with deposit guarantees.

But they did bail out more wealthy people who stupidly had more than the guarantees of £50k in a foreign bank, didn't they?

A._Badger

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Very much. I can't believe all the people who still defend Brown and his cronies after that little incident made it quite clear what Brown's opinion of Labour supporters who don't see everything his way is.

I feel sorry for the supporters of the old fashioned traditional labour party - they haven't got a party left.

Be fair, neither have Conservatives. What 'call me Dave' has done to the Tory party is at least equal to what Blair and his cronies did to traditional Labour.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

grubby23 wrote: »

Hi,

I am not a economist, however, I think GB is even in his field of expertise - which is apparently the economy - quite clueless. He was saying in the last TV debate that he wants to keep inflation low with low interest rates. How on earth should that work? Hasn't he noticed the inflated property and stock market prices over the last decade thanks to the low interest rate.

This guy is a liability for UK Ltd and I am still surprised that 1/3 of the population consider voting for such a clueless man.

FCUK ME!!!!!!!!!


If you think Gordo is illiterate & liability when it comes to the economy what must you think of Cameron?


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


Cameron has at best severe numeracy problems!!

Degenerate

StevieJ wrote: »

But they did bail out more wealthy people who stupidly had more than the guarantees of £50k in a foreign bank, didn't they?

If you're referring to Icesave, no. What they did was make up the first £18K of deposit guarantee when the Icelandic government failed to honor it.

StevieJ

Degenerate wrote: »

If you're referring to Icesave, no. What they did was make up the first £18K of deposit guarantee when the Icelandic government failed to honor it.

Not so, just did a quick Google to confirm.

Darling’s interview this morning has changed everything. The government will now compensate all savers in Icesave with no limit on the compensation. That’s great news. The Chancellor didn’t extend the guarantee to other banks, but we’ll be listening carefully at lunchtime for more on that.

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/manage-your-finances/darling-backs-icesave-1973.aspx

http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/231913/220/Daily_news_archive/Protecting_Icesave_depositors,_was_it_a_mistake?.htm

Degenerate

StevieJ wrote: »

Not so, just did a quick Google to confirm.

Darling’s interview this morning has changed everything. The government will now compensate all savers in Icesave with no limit on the compensation. That’s great news. The Chancellor didn’t extend the guarantee to other banks, but we’ll be listening carefully at lunchtime for more on that.

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/manage-your-finances/darling-backs-icesave-1973.aspx

http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/231913/220/Daily_news_archive/Protecting_Icesave_depositors,_was_it_a_mistake?.htm

Hrm, well I stand corrected. I'd be curious to know how many people actually had more than 50K in icesave. I thought it was mostly ISAs?