Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
worzel

Gordon Bashing

Recommended Posts

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently. There might have been marginally lower public spending, but there was not much opposition at the time. As far as I can tell they're all as corupt as each other and have not made the slightest noises about reforming the monetary system as would be required to prevent the speculation and mess that we are currently in.

Ps. Never voted labour or Tory, just making an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently.

Who knows what they would have done but, at the point they were kicked out in 1997, the government was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we all know theyre more or less the same...

Its just the condescending fairness, equality, we care BS from liebour that I take personally.

At least the tories dont hide the fact theyre out to screw you. I prefer to be looked in the eye while im being stabbed to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might have been marginally lower public spending

Marginally?

The difference between Gordon Brown 1997-2001 and the rest of his tenure is somewhat more than "marginal".

However, following Labour's election victory in 2001, he lost interest in 'prudence' and let public spending get completely out of hand: this Budget - marked the beginning of the rot. Embarking on a sort of 'Rake's Progress', Brown gradually plunged Britain ever deeper into debt, and after 2005 threw caution to the wind and boosted public spending in the most irresponsible manner, saddling the nation with today's massive structural deficit.

LINK

Had Brown kept to his original fiscal approach, we would have certainly been in a much less indebted position now, after all, in 1998 we didn't have a deficit that year, we had a (small) surplus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories under Thatcher started to a distrust in the civil service but nulabour were like a totalitarian dictatorship in comparison, They installed SPADs at all levels in the ministries and sidelined the very people who knew the intricate workings of the various ministries who could have created some results from their policies. When they began to see the poor results that their lack of trust was generating they create "target" for everyting and then used those to manufacture a false picture of success.

Tony Blair hid his dictatorial style behind spin as did Gordon, how ever the more I research nulabour the more I realise that they could have done even more damage if they'd been cleverer. Thank god they weren't.

Our country is now at the mercy of this political class, they all share the same thing, little knowledge of civil society nor respect for us. Look at the way that they've still got their noses in the trough and the way that the coalition have failed to reduce borrowing. There is little to chose between the various parties. They use the media to create a false impression that there still is a party system but they've abandoned that so that they can defend the interests of the political class over any true political difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what they would have done but, at the point they were kicked out in 1997, the government was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down.

As Did Broon at some point circa 2003 or whenever. He started paying down the national debt from about 45% to about 36%. The government was again in surplus.

Yes I loathe ZANU as much as the next man, but facts is facts.

Check the ONS for details if you doubt me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories under Thatcher started to a distrust in the civil service but nulabour were like a totalitarian dictatorship in comparison, They installed SPADs at all levels in the ministries and sidelined the very people who knew the intricate workings of the various ministries who could have created some results from their policies. When they began to see the poor results that their lack of trust was generating they create "target" for everyting and then used those to manufacture a false picture of success.

Tony Blair hid his dictatorial style behind spin as did Gordon, how ever the more I research nulabour the more I realise that they could have done even more damage if they'd been cleverer. Thank god they weren't.

Our country is now at the mercy of this political class, they all share the same thing, little knowledge of civil society nor respect for us. Look at the way that they've still got their noses in the trough and the way that the coalition have failed to reduce borrowing. There is little to chose between the various parties. They use the media to create a false impression that there still is a party system but they've abandoned that so that they can defend the interests of the political class over any true political difference.

Thats the irony. A truly right wing nutjob would look at history and stand as a liebour candidate. Why? Because the idiot electorate believe all the 'socialist' and 'liberal' claptrap.

Some observations

Stop and Search. Stopped in the early 80s because its 'tory' and 'wacist' Came back under liebour as 'counter terrorism'

ID cards. Got Michael Howard compared to Dracula. Bought back under liebour, and the left fell for it hook line and sinker.

Tax breaks for the rich. The rich routinely book their earnings as CGT to avoid PAYE. Darlings 2007 budget reduced it from PAYE rates to a flat 18%, the biggest reduction of the tax in its history.

Conclusion. If she we're running for PM today, Thatcher would stand as a liebour candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Did Broon at some point circa 2003 or whenever. He started paying down the national debt from about 45% to about 36%. The government was again in surplus.

Yes I loathe ZANU as much as the next man, but facts is facts.

Check the ONS for details if you doubt me.

...they were handed a clear surplus in 97/98....not from the debt but the deficit...do you have a link to the debt ratios...?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Did Broon at some point circa 2003 or whenever. He started paying down the national debt from about 45% to about 36%. The government was again in surplus.

Yes I loathe ZANU as much as the next man, but facts is facts.

Check the ONS for details if you doubt me.

Nope.

UK Budget Deficit:

2002: 1.53% of GDP

2003: 2.91% of GDP

2004: 2.94% of GDP

2005: 3.23% of GDP

Source: OECD - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3412495.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, following Labour's election victory in 2001, he lost interest in 'prudence' and let public spending get completely out of hand: this Budget - marked the beginning of the rot. Embarking on a sort of 'Rake's Progress', Brown gradually plunged Britain ever deeper into debt, and after 2005 threw caution to the wind and boosted public spending in the most irresponsible manner, saddling the nation with today's massive structural deficit."

indeed, and also led to previously affable and decent public sector workers becoming the nouveaux riches and enacting Animal Farm in real life with disturbing attention to detail

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

UK Budget Deficit:

2002: 1.53% of GDP

2003: 2.91% of GDP

2004: 2.94% of GDP

2005: 3.23% of GDP

Source: OECD - http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/3412495.stm

Come on guys, FFS. I realise you may be cheering for the blue kleptocrats but let's keep to facts.

Check this out for example.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

or even

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1692_2011&chart=G0-total&units=p

Debt not deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon was the New Labour project, because he was able to control almost everything - this book explains it very well, and it's a really good read (it's like reliving that period from the collapse of Major's government through the Labour years, but seeing it from the inside)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gordon-Brown-Tom-Bower/dp/0007175418/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1311984608&sr=8-2

I'll bet Blair's biggest regret was not getting rid of him earlier and his greatest satisfaction came watching Gordon eventually get knifed in the back by everyone he shafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys, FFS. I realise you may be cheering for the blue kleptocrats but let's keep to facts.

Check this out for example.

http://www.economics...-national-debt/

or even

http://www.ukpublics...0-total&units=p

Debt not deficit.

the simple fact is that he was constrained to tight public spending limits as a condition promised in order to win the 1996 General Election

following the 2001 General Election win he had no such constraints and let both the deficit and the debt spiral out of control in order to feather the nests of the public sector so he could become PM

FACT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the simple fact is that he was constrained to tight public spending limits as a condition promised in order to win the 1996 General Election

following the 2001 General Election win he had no such constraints and let both the deficit and the debt spiral out of control in order to feather the nests of the public sector so he could become PM

FACT

206.gif

Source : ONS.

I wasn't part of the kleptocracy, but I'd say that the debt spiral started circa 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys, FFS. I realise you may be cheering for the blue kleptocrats but let's keep to facts.

Check this out for example.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

or even

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1692_2011&chart=G0-total&units=p

Debt not deficit.

From your first link:

After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It was primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

I don't cheer for any political party any more.

OK, maybe Monster Raving Loony but they never stand in my ward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently. There might have been marginally lower public spending, but there was not much opposition at the time. As far as I can tell they're all as corupt as each other and have not made the slightest noises about reforming the monetary system as would be required to prevent the speculation and mess that we are currently in.

Ps. Never voted labour or Tory, just making an observation.

I think it's hoping against hope that the whole financial system isn't utterly ******ed in part - and in part plain old fashioned "blue = good, red = bad" ******wittery.

It's a debt based monetary system operating at interest. Either the total amount of debt keeps going up or the lot crashes and burns. Rather like every other leader and chancellor since before churchills time, bliar, crash and badger decided to kick the can down the road. That they couldn't kick it hard enough to not be there when it stopped and needed another kicking is just how it is.

Camera-on and bungle have also opted to the "coat over head, hope it all goes away approach" - but again theres nothing unusual in this, no politician has looked at these issues with any seriousness since before the first world war. It's been increasing debt and banking favours all the way.

Might as well say it plain again for the cheap seats - no mainstream politica are ever going to fix the underlying issues. They are going to keep printing and stealing until forced away from the printer, probably by an unruly mob. Until that final collapse moment arrives it's more debt, higher taxes, higher inflation and more and more rip offs from the political class and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I'd say that the debt spiral started circa 2008

Debt spiral? Where did that come from?

The original point Si1 was making was that that Gordon Brown changed his approach after the 2001 election. Those graphs bear this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's hoping against hope that the whole financial system isn't utterly ******ed in part - and in part plain old fashioned "blue = good, red = bad" ******wittery.

It's a debt based monetary system operating at interest. Either the total amount of debt keeps going up or the lot crashes and burns. Rather like every other leader and chancellor since before churchills time, bliar, crash and badger decided to kick the can down the road. That they couldn't kick it hard enough to not be there when it stopped and needed another kicking is just how it is.

Camera-on and bungle have also opted to the "coat over head, hope it all goes away approach" - but again theres nothing unusual in this, no politician has looked at these issues with any seriousness since before the first world war. It's been increasing debt and banking favours all the way.

Might as well say it plain again for the cheap seats - no mainstream politica are ever going to fix the underlying issues. They are going to keep printing and stealing until forced away from the printer, probably by an unruly mob. Until that final collapse moment arrives it's more debt, higher taxes, higher inflation and more and more rip offs from the political class and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Blimey. Agree with that word-for-word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

206.gif

Source : ONS.

I wasn't part of the kleptocracy, but I'd say that the debt spiral started circa 2008.

Actually, NO.

The debt started to increase slowly after 2001/2. It looked under control due to strong tax revenues and general GDP growth, funded in part by the rise in house prices. When the economy stuttered, and Gordon 'saved the world', then the massive rise in debt (and the cumulative effect of the annual deficits) showed from 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, NO.

The debt started to increase slowly after 2001/2. It looked under control due to strong tax revenues and general GDP growth, funded in part by the rise in house prices. When the economy stuttered, and Gordon 'saved the world', then the massive rise in debt (and the cumulative effect of the annual deficits) showed from 2008.

Ignore the "public/private" cobblers and look at total debt.

It always increases - it has to - a debt based monetary system, lending at interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, Governments buy re-election.

All of them, though I think New Labour had this down to a tee and turned it into an artform.

This article is about Greece, but well worth reading. It does go on a bit but as you go through it, compare with the UK.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010

The key differences between us and Greece are, I'd suggest:

1. The maturity date of our bonds hasn't been reached yet, so we have more time (though to reach the same theoretical outcome)

2. The markets believe that, unlike the Greeks, whose middle class practice tax avoidance en-masse in an endemic way with the complicity of the government, the UK government will make 'em pay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I appreciate that Brown and labour trashed the economy, what I don't get are the numerous comments that talk about it as if the Tories would have done it significantly differently. There might have been marginally lower public spending, but there was not much opposition at the time. As far as I can tell they're all as corupt as each other and have not made the slightest noises about reforming the monetary system as would be required to prevent the speculation and mess that we are currently in.

Ps. Never voted labour or Tory, just making an observation.

Personally I don't like any of the parties. They all attract egotistical bastards. I would speculate that the Tories might have learned a lesson or two from the 80's housing crash and the ERM debacle. The country was doing very well until 1997. Labour took that superior economic position and squandered it. The Tories are not nearly as corrupt and treacherous as Brown, Blair, Mandelson and Alastair Campbell.

Look at the damage: illegal wars, theft of private pensions, a bankrupt country, country full of undesirable immigrants, mass youth unemployment, poor education system, overpaid doctors and increased red tape for businesses......etc.

All the public "investment" went on inflated public salaries, war, creating bigger government and paying tax credits and benefits to all and sundry.

Make no mistakes, Blair and Brown are the most evil traitors in modern UK history. They committed treason and in doing so made the country a hellhole. Remember "No more boom and bust"?

Edited by Xurbia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Did Broon at some point circa 2003 or whenever. He started paying down the national debt from about 45% to about 36%. The government was again in surplus.

Yes I loathe ZANU as much as the next man, but facts is facts.

Check the ONS for details if you doubt me.

The only reversal was the successful sell of 3G licences. It was purely temporary, and I'm not even sure it counterbalanced the dreadful sell off of the "yellow stuff" decision.

He started off OK, following the Clarke/Major spending pattern, then became, without doubt the worst Chancellor and PM ever.

Also don't forget the dodgy budgets. Sounded good, but the bad stuff revealed in small print much later. Raiding private pensions, abolishing the 10p tax rate. Then there is the Nokia throwing and allegations of staff bullying, with Gus McDonald apparently having to take him to task. Really the list is endless, and it ought to be a criminal offence to run a country like that.

Edited by John Steed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we all know theyre more or less the same...

Its just the condescending fairness, equality, we care BS from liebour that I take personally.

At least the tories dont hide the fact theyre out to screw you. I prefer to be looked in the eye while im being stabbed to death.

That all the same propaganda was nurtured by Labour in the run up to the 1997 election, to try and sway Conservative voters. And today it still allows people to claim Conservatives would have done just the same as Labour did from 1997.

The 'fairness' and 'equality' put out by Labour over the years was very damaging. The big ugly difference. The Conservatives selfishness and 'screwing you' is just part of having to earn your way in gaining financial stability. It would have meant more balance as it has in the past under Conservatives, even if they have allowed some excesses which they then took measures to correct and not allow to get even worse. Eg: John Major, 'If it's not hurting it's not working." Where was all the QE then to save house prices?

Conservatives had little way of making headway with the electorate against Labour's HPI and good times, and many of them also became complacent and against Labour's and Brown's perceived economic success. Other conservative voters of course made out under Labour's time in power, free of shackles of regulation.

Labour's time in power, the manipulation of subjective concepts of fairness and equality, makes me think of this review of the subversive movie Forest Gump. University for everyone. Succeed naturally with little effort. Entitlement. I can't decide which part to quote because could use so much.

The message is that intelligence, indeed ability generally, are unimportant. Providence will watch out for those without gifts, therefore everyone is gifted.
There's no secret to excelling, the film tells us, just do what you're supposed to do.

In real life, people must earn their achievements. Of course, some steal and some inherit, but in general, people have to achieve through their efforts. At any rate, that would be a better lesson to teach, I submit, than that if you just blunder about, God or fate will take care of everything. No ability is necessary to make a fortune in the shrimp business—just make sure that your shrimp boat is the only one left intact after a hurricane. No ability is necessary to be a football hero-just run until they tell you to stop running.

http://www.thefreema...bversive-movie/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore the "public/private" cobblers and look at total debt.

It always increases - it has to - a debt based monetary system, lending at interest.

And what happens when private and public can't borrow anymore?

Default or Printy Printy.

Capture.PNG

post-13143-0-32111300-1312010224_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 331 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.