Gordon Brown - Head of the IMF???

Really2

lynzpower wrote: »

Investment experts said the “Big Council Sell Off” was an ideal opportunity for shrewd buyers to snap up a historic building at a bargain price.

Docaster Council put Conisbrough Priory up for auction at a guide price of £275,000, while the Rotherham swimming baths went up for £150,000.

Lluesty Hospital in North Wales sold at auction for “£275,000 in February. The classical building, which is set around a court yard and complete with a parapet, was bought by property developers who plan to build 70 houses in its 7.4 acre grounds.
One auction house based in Yorkshire and London said 14 councils had listed 100 of their properties for its most recent sale.
Even central Government is trying to reduce its estate, with sales totalling £115 million in the past nine months - including historic buildings such as the former Land Registry headquarters in Lincoln's Inn Fields, London.
Property experts warned that some of the public buildings could be too large and dilapidated for an amateur developer, but others were considered more manageable.
Southwark Council sold off a split-level three bedroom flat in East Dulwich, south London, for £240,000 in February. The average price for a house in the area is £366,000.
For those looking to invest in a holiday property, a cottage next to the Tate in the seaside town of St Ives, Cornwall, is on sale for £150,000.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/8425711/Historic-houses-for-sale-at-bargain-prices-by-desperate-town-halls.html

Most of that is local government not central? there has been some Govern sales but is it madness selling empty buildings?

Makes you wonder why they did not sell them sooner? so they have been holding these building doing nothing with them and letting them fall in to disrepair.
By the sounds of them most are a waste of council tax payers money if they are held and refurbished, what would they be used for?

lynzpower

Really2 wrote: »

Most of that is local government not central? there has been some Govern sales but is it madness selling empty buildings?

Makes you wonder why they did not sell them sooner? so they have been holding these building doing nothing with them and letting them fall in to disrepair.
By the sounds of them most are a waste of council tax payers money if they are held and refurbished, what would they be used for?

Council housing?

I am not saying they shouldnt be disposed of. Not at all. But should they be disposed of at the bottom of the market.

Central or local its still a fire sale, central gov is doing it too. there was an artcle on London tonight about it but I cant find a write up.

lynzpower

Really2 wrote: »

But we have a massive debt problem (overseen by GB 2002-2007, I will give them the recession) so we have little choice to sell assets to maintain service and a credit rating.

Gordon Brown sold off the Gold in 1999 -2002 we were running a budget surplus then.

So sold assets when he did not need to, if we had it still we could sell it instead of other assets.

Where did I say I was in favour of Gordon brown selling off the Gold NOWHERE

I wasnt. In the same way Im not happy about the big forest sell off either.

Jonbvn

ninky wrote: »

gordon brown is a great man. i mean that very sincerely.

"One eyed" quoute of the year.;)

Really2

lynzpower wrote: »

I am not saying they shouldnt be disposed of. Not at all. But should they be disposed of at the bottom of the market.

Sorry I am losing your point here we have a massive amount of government debt.
So are you ignoring that and just going to raise revenue by other means?

You cant argue selling unused assets when in a time with massive amounts of debt and a sluggish economy is the same as selling all our gold reserves when we were not running a budget deficit?

vivatifosi

Whether or not GB is a nice person is irrelevant to the job and a side issue, what's needed is someone competent to do the it. Really2 is right about the gold issue, but what I really can't get my head round is why someone who made an error of Canutian proportions in believing that the economic tides of boom and bust no longer exists because he could turn them could be considered for such a role.

Really2

lynzpower wrote: »

Where did I say I was in favour of Gordon brown selling off the Gold NOWHERE

I wasnt. In the same way Im not happy about the big forest sell off either.

Sorry I thought your response to me saying about Gordon Brown Selling of the Gold was Local and Central goverment selling unused property assets was in a way justifying what he did.

Perhaps if you said, your right it was foolish to do so in a time of not needing the cash it would of been clearer?

Forest sell off shelved, did you miss that?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2011/02/17/fresh-humiliation-for-government-as-forest-sell-off-plans-shelved-86908-22930080/

Really2

vivatifosi wrote: »

Whether or not GB is a nice person is irrelevant to the job and a side issue, what's needed is someone competent to do the it. Really2 is right about the gold issue, but what I really can't get my head round is why someone who made an error of Canutian proportions in believing that the economic tides of boom and bust no longer exists because he could turn them could be considered for such a role.

Exactly Viva, most on here are putting it in an anti/pro tory, anti/pro labour argument.

My view on what GB has done is based on his track record as a Treasurer and a PM.
He Oversaw a massive global boom, sold assets, over spent massively over the boom leaving the coffers empty for a bust and our biggest debt burden since the 30's. Global recession or not we were stuffed when the inevitable bust came.
People go on here about thatcher (and rightly so in some cases), well I am sure their children are going to love the mess GB left the country in, they are going to pay for it longer than any other generation.

Now, should I approve of GB to head the IMF???

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

I agree with you it is very wrong to trash a British representative who could be in a very influential position, especially when he may need a loan after GDP takes tumble :eek:

It's not wrong at all. He is giving his opinion on Brown's suitability for the role.

A washed up politician is about right.

Quite frankly I would have thought someone with more of a career in banking or economics would be suitable.

However if it needs to be a politician Gordon Brown does not strike me as being the right candidate.

Spartacus_Mills

lynzpower wrote: »

Where did I say I was in favour of Gordon brown selling off the Gold NOWHERE

I wasnt. In the same way Im not happy about the big forest sell off either.

What, the forests sold off under Labour do you mean ?

Funny that Labour and its sycophants were so against the coalition forest sell off but impervious to Labour doing it. That seems to be how opposition works for Labour. Oppose coalition policy even if it is an extension of Labours own policy.