Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Dave Beans

Brown "most Chaotic Pm Since 1735"

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2428513/The-unstable-ill-suited-PM-Robert-Walpole-1735-says-Anthony-Seldon.html

The Brown premiership was certainly the most chaotic and unstable in the last century, and possibly in the entire 275 years of British premiership.

It was not without achievement but was fatally handicapped, not just by Brown’s inability to earn respect, but also by his squandering of national financial resources, much of it motivated by a desire for popularity in his bid as chancellor to gain power from Blair.

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Match this with the MacBride-Brown article the other day and my take is we have a spin machine to paint both Brown and Ed in a good light

Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander had become profoundly disillusioned with Brown, as well as with Balls, and repeatedly warned Brown about the damage McBride was causing him.

and maybe, help Ed get rid of Balls

The way Miliband conducts himself as leader is very different. But one key figure still lies at the heart of it. As long as he remains, Labour will never be free of the Brown legacy. That figure is Ed Balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Match this with the MacBride-Brown article the other day and my take is we have a spin machine to paint both Brown and Ed in a good light

and maybe, help Ed get rid of Balls

Personally I think that anyone involved in the cabinet in the last labour government, shouldn't be permitted to be any near current political activity....... They have all been party to straightforward treason against the very people they were elected to represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour cabinet, no party, was/is jam packed with liars, but I would not trust ANYTHING in the Mail.

This. ^^^

I'm also distrustful of a lot of the "it's still all Liebours fault" type press about at the moment, seemingly intent on exonerating the current bunch of useless, inept, corrupt, and frankly bonkers Tory elite/frontbench from any responsibility or blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. ^^^

I'm also distrustful of a lot of the "it's still all Liebours fault" type press about at the moment, seemingly intent on exonerating the current bunch of useless, inept, corrupt, and frankly bonkers Tory elite/frontbench from any responsibility or blame.

If everyone is so distrustful of politicians then why doesnt the UK become a Democracy? where citizens vote for each policy, whats stopping that apart from the UKs refusal to become a democracy? If LiblabcongreenArsekipmonsterravingloony doesnt satisfy why doesnt the UK become an actual democracy?

If thats not feasible then be honest tell it how it is, the UK is an autocracy and proud, there are far too many stupid people in the UK to give them a voice when superiors should have far more authority

This isnt denigrating to UK citizens, all countries treat their population as this thick, that they are simply batteries, but if a popn think they really arent that thick then surely theyd be genuine democracies

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. ^^^

I'm also distrustful of a lot of the "it's still all Liebours fault" type press about at the moment, seemingly intent on exonerating the current bunch of useless, inept, corrupt, and frankly bonkers Tory elite/frontbench from any responsibility or blame.

Oh, come now.

Labour had nearly two decades to perfect wrecking the economy.

Are you saying that the Tories are even better at it than Labour ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come now.

Labour had nearly two decades to perfect wrecking the economy.

Are you saying that the Tories are even better at it than Labour ?

they are exactly the same, their first lookout is personal security,themselves,their family, their freinds, this is entirely natural, these anthropoligical needs are entirely natural, then its their external needs, if people recognise this darwinist universal constant then its perfectly sensible to recognise that concentrating power among labour,lib,con,green,etc etc is diametrically opposed to fulfilling these basic anthropological needs.

Clearly the optimum strategy is democracy, the question is why are no countries willing to become mathematical democracies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that Mrs Balls is being touted as the next Labour leader.

So even if Ed is able to send the other Ed to the back benches it is very conceivable that at some point in the future he will be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are exactly the same, their first lookout is personal security,themselves,their family, their freinds, this is entirely natural, these anthropoligical needs are entirely natural, then its their external needs, if people recognise this darwinist universal constant then its perfectly sensible to recognise that concentrating power among labour,lib,con,green,etc etc is diametrically opposed to fulfilling these basic anthropological needs.

Clearly the optimum strategy is democracy, the question is why are no countries willing to become mathematical democracies

I think you have answered your own question.

Because we are part of nature.

Homo sapiens is broken up into units starting with the individual right up to races and so, H. sapiens follows evolutionary principles - survival of the fittest at all levels.

It is a puzzle to me that many don't see the way we act in those natural terms.

Perhaps it is because our evolution can only be see by subsequent generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come now.

Labour had nearly two decades to perfect wrecking the economy.

Are you saying that the Tories are even better at it than Labour ?

I'd consider them the same, and I'd actually say New Labour were pretty Thatcherite (it wasn't pretty of course). Almost all of our current problems started in the 80s. There was enough North Sea oil money and state owned things to sell off to avoid any problems during that decade, but we've reached a point where neither head of our two party monster knows what to do other than print, inflate, or borrow.

The Tories are doing nothing different to Labour other than a more pronounced spin aimed at blaming the poor (as opposed to financially appeasing them). If that sounds preferable and like it's saving money it really isn't - the benefit bill has dropped marginally, but the cost of regulating this (billions now spent on private workfare companies and ATOS) means spending keeps going up not down.

We have been stuck in negative political policy territory in this country for far too long. We need more jobs, more houses, and better regulation of tax avoiding companies/elite to take the tax pressure off the middle. Instead we get inaction, billions spent propping up the failing free market, blame culture and spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are the leader you have to be composed and calm at all times. If you start behaving like a raving lunatic throwning mobiles phones and behaving like a 5 year old everyone gets the impression events have control of you rather than the other way round.

Watching a documentary on the Apollo 13 mission and the flight director said his job was to remain calm at all times as this gave the right impression to those under him to focus on the task at hand. If Brown had been in charge of that mission I think NASA would have lost 3 astronauts in space.

It's incredible that the job of PM has no requirement for qualifications etc... any unstable loon is allowed to take power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd consider them the same, and I'd actually say New Labour were pretty Thatcherite (it wasn't pretty of course). Almost all of our current problems started in the 80s. There was enough North Sea oil money and state owned things to sell off to avoid any problems during that decade, but we've reached a point where neither head of our two party monster knows what to do other than print, inflate, or borrow.

The Tories are doing nothing different to Labour other than a more pronounced spin aimed at blaming the poor (as opposed to financially appeasing them). If that sounds preferable and like it's saving money it really isn't - the benefit bill has dropped marginally, but the cost of regulating this (billions now spent on private workfare companies and ATOS) means spending keeps going up not down.

We have been stuck in negative political policy territory in this country for far too long. We need more jobs, more houses, and better regulation of tax avoiding companies/elite to take the tax pressure off the middle. Instead we get inaction, billions spent propping up the failing free market, blame culture and spin.

So we need a new political movement/party - A sort of 'Ross Perot' that can stay the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we need a new political movement/party - A sort of 'Ross Perot' that can stay the course.

Nope, political parties are concentrations, to have a functioning democracy you need the right to individualism, the right for anyone to choose to be mandated or the right to actually choose and mandate themselves.

I do love the British concept of democracy where the majority are completely ignored

Edited by Maria Gorska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we need a new political movement/party - A sort of 'Ross Perot' that can stay the course.

Sort of.

Without the billionaire gun/war on drugs advocate, but possibly with his electronic direct voting principles.

I don't think things will change tbh. Both sides of the political spectrum are paid for and bought by the free marketeers now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of.

Without the billionaire gun/war on drugs advocate, but possibly with his electronic direct voting principles.

I don't think things will change tbh. Both sides of the political spectrum are paid for and bought by the free marketeers now.

Must be a billionaire really, how else will he be funded without pimping himself to the union/corporate interests? What free marketeers might these be you speak of, anyway. All I see is government must fund this, subsidize our loans etc etc.

Perot did really well in the polls for a while. If he'd been a bit younger, prettier and had a more bliarish charm about him rather than abrasive Texan, I think he could have won it. I dont like it, but 'likeability' seems to win more votes than 'ability'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I'd consider them the same, and I'd actually say New Labour were pretty Thatcherite (it wasn't pretty of course). Almost all of our current problems started in the 80s. There was enough North Sea oil money and state owned things to sell off to avoid any problems during that decade, but we've reached a point where neither head of our two party monster knows what to do other than print, inflate, or borrow.<br /><br />The Tories are doing nothing different to Labour other than a more pronounced spin aimed at blaming the poor (as opposed to financially appeasing them). If that sounds preferable and like it's saving money it really isn't - the benefit bill has dropped marginally, but the cost of regulating this (billions now spent on private workfare companies and ATOS) means spending keeps going up not down.<br /><br />We have been stuck in negative political policy territory in this country for far too long. We need more jobs, more houses, and better regulation of tax avoiding companies/elite to take the tax pressure off the middle. Instead we get inaction, billions spent propping up the failing free market, blame culture and spin.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

lmao

fatcher's fault

and the deficit is down about 6% or so since 2010, rather makes your assertions that nothing's changed, err, unfounded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a billionaire really, how else will he be funded without pimping himself to the union/corporate interests? What free marketeers might these be you speak of, anyway. All I see is government must fund this, subsidize our loans etc etc.

Perot did really well in the polls for a while. If he'd been a bit younger, prettier and had a more bliarish charm about him rather than abrasive Texan, I think he could have won it. I dont like it, but 'likeability' seems to win more votes than 'ability'

Perot might have got into the top job but would have been completely stymied by a Republican or Democrat congress as Obama is now.

In this country, you could acheive even less unless you were a monarch or a despot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

lmao

fatcher's fault

and the deficit is down about 6% or so since 2010, rather makes your assertions that nothing's changed, err, unfounded

Laughing your **** off is preferable to you talking out of it Ian.

How's your Universal Credit idea panning out?

I was a Tory throughout the 80s and trust me, nothing was solved there and plenty of long-term problems were sewn. Nobody has yet addressed how to solve the social, employment, and housing problems that came to light in that era. I'm not saying Thatcher created them (she didn't, they're mainly the result of globalisation that just happened to start during her era). What I am saying is that she didn't solve any of them either and was lucky enough to have several "short term fix" options to finance her terms and keep her in power. I'm at a bit of a loss as what you think would have happened during the 80s WITHOUT the North Sea oil billions and various multi billion state sell offs? Without those Thatcher's stint would have been beyond disastrous, and frankly would have devolved into violence and martial law very very quickly.

Yes I know the deficit is down 6% from 2010. Of course it is. The 2009/2010 deficits were blinking huge because of a blinking huge banking bailout. Compare net borrowing as a % of GDP prior to this bailout and we're still miles off. Frankly a government made up of lobotomised chimps could have reduced the deficit this term, being as the starting point is so grossly inflated by the banking bailout.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughing your **** off is preferable to you talking out of it Ian.

How's your Universal Credit idea panning out?

I was a Tory throughout the 80s and trust me, nothing was solved there and plenty of long-term problems were sewn. Nobody has yet addressed how to solve the social, employment, and housing problems that came to light in that era. I'm not saying Thatcher created them (she didn't, they're mainly the result of globalisation that just happened to start during her era). What I am saying is that she didn't solve any of them either and was lucky enough to have several "short term fix" options to finance her terms and keep her in power.

Yes I know the deficit is down 6% from 2010. Of course it is. The 2009/2010 deficits were blinking huge because of a blinking huge banking bailout. Compare net borrowing as a % of GDP prior to this bailout and we're still miles off. Frankly a government made up of lobotomised chimps could have reduced the deficit this term, being as the starting point is so grossly inflated by the banking bailout.

I was an 80's Tory boy too. What a fool I was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughing your **** off is preferable to you talking out of it Ian.

How's your Universal Credit idea panning out?

I was a Tory throughout the 80s and trust me, nothing was solved there and plenty of long-term problems were sewn. Nobody has yet addressed how to solve the social, employment, and housing problems that came to light in that era. I'm not saying Thatcher created them (she didn't, they're mainly the result of globalisation that just happened to start during her era). What I am saying is that she didn't solve any of them either and was lucky enough to have several "short term fix" options to finance her terms and keep her in power.

Yes I know the deficit is down 6% from 2010. Of course it is. The 2009/2010 deficits were blinking huge because of a blinking huge banking bailout. Compare net borrowing as a % of GDP prior to this bailout and we're still miles off. Frankly a government made up of lobotomised chimps could have reduced the deficit this term, being as the starting point is so grossly inflated by the banking bailout.

No, the banking bailouts arent counted in the deficit as they're not annual spending

Whoops

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the banking bailouts arent counted in the deficit as they're not annual spending

Whoops

If you think public finances didn't dive as a result of the banking bailout I'd flag you as beyond IDS stupid.

The banking crisis gave the UK economy a bloody heart attack. Between 2007-08 and 2009-10, nominal GDP fell by 1.4 per cent (£20.6bn). Tax receipts dropped by 5 per cent (£27.3bn).

The collapse of our 80s constructed service based

economy, brought on by the bursting of the bank-inflated credit bubble, is responsible for the vast bulk of the deficit.

I agree Brown could have cut spending as revenues fell, but that's hard to call as it might have made the slump deeper and the deficit still greater (the Tories didn't switch off this spending as soon as they got in. Actually they let pretty much all of it run and tapered it slowly, which suggests to me they probably would have adopted a similar approach to Brown).

UK public debt was estimated by the head of the Financial Service Authority to have increased by at least 50% of GDP as a result of the crisis and bailouts, even though the direct bailout costs themselves may not exceed 5%.

That suggests there's 45% to be clawed back, so frankly crowing about 6% is Gidiotic.

I realise I'm at risk of failing into the old "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" pit here, but frankly you come over as something of a rabid Tory numptie.

Successive governments have been kicking the can since the 80s. It's going to get interesting, but the Tories and New Labour are the cause - blame one party alone and you risk thinking the other provides the cure. Anything but.

Edited by byron78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think public finances didn't dive as a result of the banking bailout I'd flag you as beyond IDS stupid.

The banking crisis gave the UK economy a bloody heart attack. Between 2007-08 and 2009-10, nominal GDP fell by 1.4 per cent (£20.6bn). Tax receipts dropped by 5 per cent (£27.3bn).

The collapse of our 80s constructed service based

economy, brought on by the bursting of the bank-inflated credit bubble, is responsible for the vast bulk of the deficit.

I agree Brown could have cut spending as revenues fell, but that's hard to call as it might have made the slump deeper and the deficit still greater (the Tories didn't switch off this spending as soon as they got in. Actually they let pretty much all of it run and tapered it slowly, which suggests to me they probably would have adopted a similar approach to Brown).

UK public debt was estimated by the head of the Financial Service Authority to have increased by at least 50% of GDP as a result of the crisis and bailouts, even though the direct bailout costs themselves may not exceed 5%.

That suggests there's 45% to be clawed back, so frankly crowing about 6% is Gidiotic.

I realise I'm at risk of failing into the old "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" pit here, but frankly you come over as something of a rabid Tory numptie.

Successive governments have been kicking the can since the 80s. It's going to get interesting, but the Tories and New Labour are the cause - blame one party alone and you risk thinking the other provides the cure. Anything but.

Tw*t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 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.