Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Realistbear

Gordon Seen As Applying "scorched Earth" Policies

Recommended Posts

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aCP0A2hWHZ94

Brown’s U.K. Budget Leaves Cuts for Next Government (Update1)

By Reed V. Landberg

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fighting the U.K.’s deepest recession in a generation with the biggest buildup of government debt on record, aiming to put off paying the bills until after his re-election campaign.

The 8 billion-pound ($13.2 billion) monthly budget deficit in July reported yesterday pushed up public debt to 801 billion pounds. That equals 56.8 percent of gross domestic product, the most since comparable records began in 1974 and more than when the U.K. received an International Monetary Fund loan in 1976.

“It’s scorched earth,†said Michael Ben-Gad, deputy head of the economics department at City University in London. “Whoever gets into government next will have to make very large cuts in services and also raise taxes. You’ll end up with U.S. levels of services and Scandinavian levels of tax.â€

The question for David--should he throw the next election to make sure Gordon inherits all that he has sown?

The effects of the bail out (debt) will be felt very soon and the idea that green shoots are appearing is what the French would describe as "La Grande Illusion," last heard in 1914 when they all thought it would be over by Christmas.

____________________________

Does anyone on here know whey the "indent" control has never worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“It’s scorched earth,†said Michael Ben-Gad, deputy head of the economics department at City University in London. “Whoever gets into government next will have to make very large cuts in services and also raise taxes. You’ll end up with U.S. levels of services and Scandinavian levels of tax.â€

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aCP0A2hWHZ94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mugs game he's playing though. He's creating a situation where anyone coming in will be able to pull the books out in front of the country immediately, do all the really deep cutting to the mess of the welfare state and blame it all on him anyway.

If I wanted to trash the whole stinking edifice Brown would be my dream to follow, as he makes it all inevitable anyway and I can say I had no option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aCP0A2hWHZ94

Brown’s U.K. Budget Leaves Cuts for Next Government (Update1)

By Reed V. Landberg

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown is fighting the U.K.’s deepest recession in a generation with the biggest buildup of government debt on record, aiming to put off paying the bills until after his re-election campaign.

The 8 billion-pound ($13.2 billion) monthly budget deficit in July reported yesterday pushed up public debt to 801 billion pounds. That equals 56.8 percent of gross domestic product, the most since comparable records began in 1974 and more than when the U.K. received an International Monetary Fund loan in 1976.

“It’s scorched earth,†said Michael Ben-Gad, deputy head of the economics department at City University in London. “Whoever gets into government next will have to make very large cuts in services and also raise taxes. You’ll end up with U.S. levels of services and Scandinavian levels of tax.â€

The question for David--should he throw the next election to make sure Gordon inherits all that he has sown?

The effects of the bail out (debt) will be felt very soon and the idea that green shoots are appearing is what the French would describe as "La Grande Illusion," last heard in 1914 when they all thought it would be over by Christmas.

____________________________

Does anyone on here know whey the "indent" control has never worked?

The easiest way for call-me -Dave would be to cut all our overseas troop commitments and let the Americans die in Afghanistan. Wars are expensive. Oh, and cancel any Trident replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this can in any way be proved, then he IS a traitor and the gallows need to be erected.

This country is NOT run for his benefit. It is run for the good of the people. He had best remember it. And so had Blair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, he is not. Check out what treason means.

wiki:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is about right and came to same conclusion a year or so ago.

At the moment it really hasn't affected me in the NHS. There still seems to be money sloshing around. This is possibly because the govenment is printing so much of it. QE is fine if you are first in the queue for the new money and can spend it (or convert it to real money) before it loses value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiki:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

In what way has he been disloyal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiki:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

In what way has he been disloyal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiki:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

In what way has he been disloyal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this can in any way be proved, then he IS a traitor and the gallows need to be erected.

This country is NOT run for his benefit. It is run for the good of the people. He had best remember it. And so had Blair.

Agree. If Brown ran a local council like this, he would be removed by Government inspectors and risk personal bankruptcy. Look at the way Dame Porter was pursued after running Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what way has he been disloyal?

well, I beleive that on becoming PM he swears allegiance to the Queen. He is a member of HER Government.

He is PM of UK, not Scotland.

If he is deliberately laying the economy to waste, and an email, letter, cry out in the night can show he is doing this deliberately, as policy, then he is guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, I beleive that on becoming PM he swears allegiance to the Queen. He is a member of HER Government.

He is PM of UK, not Scotland.

If he is deliberately laying the economy to waste, and an email, letter, cry out in the night can show he is doing this deliberately, as policy, then he is guilty.

In what way has he been disloyal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See above.

No, you must spell it out as you would in a court of law. No court could convict Brown of treason, no matter how reckless he has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you must spell it out as you would in a court of law. No court could convict Brown of treason, no matter how reckless he has been.

So what your saying is 'there is more money available for his defence than we can ever muster for our prosecution'.

That's how the courts work isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question for David--should he throw the next election to make sure Gordon inherits all that he has sown?

Surely there's nothing he could possibly say to lose this now? Oh wait yes there is, he could say house prices are too high and will (and should) come down. That would send the sheeple running for the hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Govt. ministers should be personally liable for government debt increases during their time in office.

Gordon, Tony, Jack, Harriet, Prescott, Mandelslime, Darling, Balls could then all be bankrupted on leaving office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Govt. ministers should be personally liable for government debt increases during their time in office.

Gordon, Tony, Jack, Harriet, Prescott, Mandelslime, Darling, Balls could then all be bankrupted on leaving office.

+1

We'd have far better govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, I beleive that on becoming PM he swears allegiance to the Queen. He is a member of HER Government.

He is PM of UK, not Scotland.

If he is deliberately laying the economy to waste, and an email, letter, cry out in the night can show he is doing this deliberately, as policy, then he is guilty.

He has certainly put his and Nulabours interest before the country's but I don't want to get involved in whether that is treason. He wouldn't be the first politician to have done so.

His motivation is more complicated than a child throwing his toys out of the pram as the headline implies.

Even in his wildest dreams he cannot believe be will win the next election but, hey, no point giving up yet. Dave might get caught rogering Osborne or die or something.

He has two other objectives IMO.

The first is to avoid a total wipeout with a massive Tory majority. In this situation the Tories will be able to reverse Nulabour policies and bring in new ones unopposed. As we saw with Nulabour this is not good for democracy.

The second is to leave a legacy for the Tories which will be so dire that policies to correct the damage will make them highly unpopular and ensure only a single term in office. This really depends on the memory and sophistocation of the electorate. The ploy did not stop Margaret Thatcher winning a second term despite massive unemployment and industrial reform but the electorate in the UK is particularly stupid as a group so it might work.

Best choice for Cameron IMO is to invite the IMF in immediately on the day he wins power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.