Who's your dream UK Chancellor?

callum9999

stevemcol wrote: »

Similar picture across the pond. Difficult to attribute the whole scenario to the UK PM / Chancellor

What "whole scenario"? This was only discussing the budget deficit - whatever America's deficit was is irrelevant and doesn't excuse anything the UK chancellor did. (Not saying that it was necessarily wrong to go into deficit, but they had the power not to).

Tripleeagle

happyinflorida wrote: »

why isn't there a "none of the above" option?

i'm not voting in this due to that = not one of those idiots is worth anything

Why on earth do you think that it is acceptable to call them idiots? They are people. And intelligent people, at that.

It is not because they are politicians that it is acceptable to call them idiots. If you think that you can do a better job, please do the nation a favour and sort out the country's finances. But Vince Cable, for instance, is an extremely intelligent man who has a very good understanding of economics. Do not call him an idiot, especially if you are not better yourself.

FATBALLZ

ceivegz wrote: »

Dull and characterless, maybe, and maybe even one of the worst prime ministers we've had, but this chart does prove that Gordon Brown was the best chancellor we've had ... does anyone remember what interest rates were like in the early to mid 90s? 12% at one point. And as for Vince Cable ... he'd just tax us all out of existence!

People like you really should be banned from voting. He was running a large deficit despite being in the middle of the biggest credit fuelled super-boom in history. What a !!!!ing retard. He has the financial skills of Mike Tyson.

Lestweforget

Who is competent??? Certainly not Labour who have a long long history and Bankruping this country. After the last 13 year sham they can be accredited with being the most successful liers as well. They never seemed to get the hang of paying for their programs in full - hence the horendous debt they left behind yet again. Maybe the British public at large still have to learn that everything should be paid for, its not free. Whether its this year, next year or 10 years down the line we still have to pay our way. Sooner than later is better.

6misterbenn

The economy did well under GB - while the global markets were all doing well. However he did sell off our gold at bargain basement prices; he was chancellor while the banking regulations were loosened; and he was a member of the G8 top financial people - whom the New Labour Party blame for the financial mess we now find ourselves in!
Even although I have no training in economics or finance, I believe that I could have done a better job at handling our great country's finances.

6misterbenn.

d-b_2

I'd be interested to know how much of the apparent surplus/small deficit under Major was due to the selling off of public companies such as utilities, British Steel, the trains etc now mostly owned by foreigners only intersted in the intellectual property and profits. Does anyone have the dates for these?

stevemcol

callum9999 wrote: »

What "whole scenario"? This was only discussing the budget deficit - whatever America's deficit was is irrelevant and doesn't excuse anything the UK chancellor did. (Not saying that it was necessarily wrong to go into deficit, but they had the power not to).

Callum, I'm not excusing anyone or anything. My post was in response to a previous one that looked at the UKs deficit and borrowing purely in the context of UK Chancellors. I was illustrating the fact though Chancellors will obvisouly influence the economy, the fundamentals are likely to mimic the global picture.

I think GB did c0ck up in a number of areas. He quietly admits to some of it. Would it have been different under any other chancellor or party? Not significantly, IMHO. Economies will always be slaved to fickle and selfish human behaviour. If GB had cut back and taxed when the good times rolled, the electorate would have kicked Labour out. It's like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Few people give credit to GB for having the balls to depoliticise monetry policy, handing it over to the BoE.

It has been said that the difference between a good Chancellor and a bad one is that a good Chancellor isn't around long enough to get found out.

mh8748

Why is Brown 2nd? Are people mis-reading the title as 'worst' Chancellor?

I'd vote for a drunken monkey before Brown.

advanta

Let's try and look at this dispassionately:

First, it is important to understand that Gordon Brown's record should be measured against the performance of the global economy, or perhaps comparable nation-states, rather than in absolute terms. Because the political weather is sunny, it doesn't mean the governing party is responsible

Gordon Brown initially presided as Chancellor over a long period of economic growth, which was part of a global trend.

He subsequently became Prime Minister. He then presided over a financial crisis, which was also part of a global trend.

Fallacies About Brown's period of governance

Responsibility For The Political Weather

Critics have contended that Brown was responsible for the recession and not the boom. Supporters have contended that he was responsible for the boom and not the recession. These viewpoints are obviously contradictory and logically absurd. He had very little influence over either. The variables involved in the composition of an economy are myriad and highly volatile, not under any one's direct control.

To a large extent, the perception that Brown was or was not responsible for some cherry-picked period of economic fluctuation, is a manifestation of a "sack the manager" syndrome among the statistically illiterate.

Brown/Labour "Overspent"

This is a complete myth. The Blair/Brown years spent less as an average of GDP (the most widely accepted yardstick) than the preceding Thatcher/Major premierships. The data is online and can be checked by any one.
This myth has become pervasive but there is no basis for it in fact whatsoever. It seems that the Labour Party has never questioned the accusation that it overspent on the basis that its supporters actually want it to, and it needs their core vote. But it simply isn't true.

Failure To Control Credit And Regulate The Markets

Although, literally, Brown did preside over an unsustainable credit boom and the de-regulation of the financial sector, it almost certainly would have happened anyway. Particularly duplicitous is the finger-pointing from the conservatives here: the very core of conservative thinking is market de-regulation. There was very little criticism of these policies at the time, indeed the then opposition often accused Labour Party of stealing its policies. Among the broader public the priority was increased expenditure on the NHS and to a lesser extent other public services.


However, there were certain other areas where Brown exerted a significant influence:

Factors In Brown's Favour

Bank Of England Independence

There were some decisions that Brown did which are generally agreed to have been good ones by impartial commentators. The decision to give the Bank Of England the independence to set interest rates is more or less universally commended, even by many conservatives.

"Saving" The NHS

There was a considerable backlog of repairs to the ageing NHS infratsructure which Labour quietly paid for without too much fuss. This was every much a debt as a financial one: the conservatives had allowed the NHS to creep towards "breaking point" in the eyes of many medical professionals. They may not have exactly "saved" the NHS, but the NHS would probably not exist in the same form without that period of Labour government.

"Saving" The World

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, the natural leaders of the Free World, the Americans were caught in gridlock as their congressional representatives threw out the financial rescue package put forward by their own president. Brown came out with his own UK rescue package in the void of that global leadership which was subsequently copied all round the world.

I hesitate to include this one as it is highly debatable whether bailing out the banks was a good thing. However, it did prevent a complete collapse of the financial system which did seem very plausible. Moreover, it was probably a good idea to do something, anything, to calm the markets other than dither endlessly as the Americans did.

Factors Counting Against Brown

The Great Gold Sell-off.

We should be careful with this one: it is too easy to judge people for making poorly-timed decisions on market behaviour. The fact that gold subsequently shut up in price is something that Brown should not be criticized for: it is almost impossible to predict the markets.
However, even taking that into consideration, the decision to sell gold is a decision to sell the nation's economic insurance policy. This is almost always a bad thing to do. You should never do anything that substantially increases your liabilities for a short-term gain unless you have to.

Lack Of Diversification

The economy became hopelessly focused on a few key sectors during Brown's period of governance and left us vulnerable to the global downturn in a way many other countries were not. Both Blair/Brown seemed utterly clueless as how technology was transforming economies and failed to support it. For example, we were five years behind the Americans in terms of broadband infrastructure. Although Brown did not preside over the beginning of the collapse of manufacturing industry, he did nothing to prevent it continuing apace.
The "we have abolished boom and bust" statement Brown infamously made indicated he had no understanding of the structural weaknesses of the economy he presided over, undoubtedly his most serious failing.

Expansion of PFI (Private Finance Iniative)

I hesistate to include this one, as PFI was an invention of John Major's conservative administration. Nonetheless, there has been a massive expansion of costly PFI projects which the taxpayer will be paying for, for years. The ghastly !!!!!!! offspring of socialism/conservativsm ,where the taxpayer takes on the risks, and the private sector keeps all the profit, will hopefully die with New Labour.





I don't believe Brown's record can be explained in terms of good/bad reductivism. He is more like the central character in a Shakespearean tragedy, doomed to be brought down by the very qualities which allowed him to rise to power in the first place.

The Tories should beware of criticizing Brown: his most significant failures arose from adopting their own ideology. Labour should beware of deifying someone who often displayed hubris and arrogance, arrogance which played its part in leading Brown himself and their party into the political wilderness.

Daisy_Bell

stevew8975 wrote: »

3 years of a surplus in an economic boom, but without the foresight to build a warchest? And what was he doing in the latter years if he wasn't squandering our money in a desperate attempt to buy the votes of the masses who were only interested in their own benefit, and not that of the nation, or the nations future?
In just 6 years he overspent by £270bn, and allowed his successor to overspend by a further £152bn on top of that?!

Just how exactly can that be seen as "the best chancellor we've had"? The nation will be paying off his debts for many many years.

He couldn't run a bath, let alone an economy.

Well said that man! :T