Should Gordon Brown go?

[Mazen]

The pensions were always going to be plundered, I doubt he could of stopped foreign companies bidding for UK utilities - although some kind of price controls on utility bills should be in place.
The gold sales were a 'bit' disastrous but that was used to pay off the deficit?

Buying into Northern Rock is a solid move, and at least the man takes a holiday in the UK and not lavish jaunts to yachts. But i suppose that is neither here nor there.

If he would only stick with what he announces instead of flim-flamming and just making U-turns every 3 days.

I want to see him and Milliband fight Star Trek style for control of the New Labour party.

[Saracen]

Its not exactly big Gordo's fault the economy is starting to suffer a reccession.
He has'nt encouraged the sub-prime market, and is actually doing things useful for the economy.
I'd place more blame at the papers and news media, fanning the flames of panic amongst folk telling them their savings are gubbed.

The knives have been out since he started, I think we just lay off the man for a couple of months and see what happens.

The media certainly fanned the flames but, for the most part, they're simply reporting what's been going on. Credit didn't dry up because of the media. It dried up because greedy banks suddenly realised they'd been happily repackaging mortgages into securities and flogging them to each other, but that now that the sub-prime market was having defaulting issues, they didn't know what the securities they had were worth, so didn't know what they could sell them for and buyers didn't know the value of that they'd bought .... or were about to buy. Inter-bank lending dried up almost entirely, and with it, a major source of funds of lending. None of that is the media's fault.

The knives weren't out for Brown from the start, either. He was, initially, seen as the Golden Boy, the Great Hope, the not-Blair. He had a wonderful honeymoon .... for a couple of months, 'til things started getting screwed up. And what did for him was a whole series of things, some of which were directly, explicitly and personally his fault.

For instance, the non-election. Brown's supporters and ministers were going around actively pimping the notion of an election. That much is fact. And it only happens for one of three reasons :-

- he told them to
- he didn't tell them to, but failed to stop them doing so
- he didn't know they were doing it.

In the latter case, we'd have a PM who doesn't know his that his own people are priming colleagues for an election. And, when you do that. word WILL get out to the media, and the wider public. It's an appalling leadership lapse if he didn't even know it was going on. And, he must have been living under a rock, because he was about the only one of the 60 million people in this country that didn't know about, given that it was the lead story on every news program for a fortnight. So we can dismiss that option.

So, either he told them to, or tacitly supported it by failing to stop them. He could, after all, have shut the speculation down instantly just by publicly making a statement "There will be no election this year". But he didn't. In fact, he pointedly didn't, and ducked and dived to avoid either confirming it would happen, or wasn't going to happen. And, in political speech, he must know that refusing to deny a matter like that will be seen as him at the very least, considering it.

And the killer? Having waffled, ducked and dived for two or three weeks, he bottled out.

And THAT was the start of the major rot. It then got reinforced by a whole series of events. The failure to appear at inconvenient treaty signing, sneaking in on his own. That offended just about every other major European leader, and looked craven. At best, it was incredibly poor time management. So if he can't even manage his own diary, why should be trust him to manage the country? And then there were a series of farces. The Inland Revenue losing 25 million people's personal data (and, as Chancellor for 10 years, HMRC was his direct responsibility), the political vanity of using a visit to Iraq to see the troops in the middle of the Tory party conference .... and let's not forget the 10% tax debacle. That, of course, was purely and directly his fault as it was his decision as Chancellor to do it. He can't even pretend that was anyone else's fault, or that it's merely a "buck stops here" thing. He, personally, did it.

And while it may not be his fault that there are world-wide factors causing problems right now, like the price of food and fuel, and the sub-prime thing, the ability of the government to respond to it and to weather it most certainly is his fault. He, after all, has been running the country's finances for the last decade and despite years of economic prosperity (again, mostly due to worldwide conditions), he spent most of that 10 years boasting of his great "prudence", while signally failing to put any money aside for tough times when (and I mean when not if) they arrive. Instead, he spent like money was going out of fashion, exhausted our surplus, borrowed up to the hilt and then effectively 'borrowed' a vast amount more by shifting it off balance sheet, using PFI commitments to put the taxpayer in hock for about 30 years.

Not his fault? Gimme a break. If there's a single person in the country that had more control over any of these issues, I'd like to know who it was, because on these issues it certainly wasn't Blair.

Brown spent a decade crowing about how good he was at running the country, despite the fact that much of our economic 'prosperity' was financed by an ever-growing and absolutely vast level of personal debt, much of which was down to people feeling rich due to ever-spiralling house prices and the confidence they gained from that. Now, when it all starts to turn bad, all of a sudden it's nothing to do with him and it's all international factors? Sheer hogwash. Mr Brown, you ran us into the poop. You personally supervised the system that got us into this. Not only that, you boasted, wearing that smug smirk of yours, as you took credit for it. Now take the blame for the mess you got us into.

In my view, and as an economist, Brown is one of the worst Chancellors we've ever had. He was just incredibly lucky, until recently, with the international situation, and managed to hide the fact that he was paying for much of what he did either by putting the country into hock, or by encouraging individuals to do so.



PS. Do you think I'll still get invitations to dinner parties at No.10 or No.11 after that? Oh well, better mothball the DJ then.

[Mazen]

I stand corrected by Saracen's post, apart from the part about the knives being out.

As soon as Brown ascended to leader of the New Labour party David Millibands name was being bandied about as challenging him for leader.

As an economist what do you think Brown should do?

[Saracen]

....

As an economist what do you think Brown should do?

Resign in shame?

[Bluecube]

One thing to ask though - if he does go who will replace him? Milliband? Never have I seen such a greasy, slimey, disgusting little weasel as him (and I apologise to weasels in advance for that). If Brown and Blair were/ are untrustworthy then God knows what this disgusting little wretch will be like.

[Saracen]

One thing to ask though - if he does go who will replace him? Milliband? Never have I seen such a greasy, slimey, disgusting little weasel as him (and I apologise to weasels in advance for that). If Brown and Blair were/ are untrustworthy then God knows what this disgusting little wretch will be like.

And that is Labour's fundamental problem .... the uncomfortable spot they find themselves in, smack dab between a very large rock and an extremely hard place. Basically, it looks like they're screwed if they do, and screwed if they don't, precisely because of the fundamental lack of a credible and appealing alternative.

Good, init?

[TheAnimus]

The pensions were always going to be plundered, I doubt he could of stopped foreign companies bidding for UK utilities - although some kind of price controls on utility bills should be in place.

Wooh. Ok, first off no, no they weren't, they hadn't been for HUNDREADS OF YEARS. In fact for the history of pensions in this country.

Thankfully it dosen't matter too much because most common stock now adays don't pay divs because they are a pain in the arse. But either way it was a move to tax what few people will understand, in a way many people won't notice. Hardly a good move for a stable economy.

Now as for outsiders owning energy companies, whats the problem with that? We can still buy stock, pay CGT if it rises etc.

The gold sales were a 'bit' disastrous but that was used to pay off the deficit?

I think your trying to put a favourable spin on things, the gold standard has apprechated far more than the debt. The gold was sold off in far to bigger chunks, fetching very little money. It was a desperate move of a fool trying to raise money. So he squandred our savings, during a peroid of major world economic boom. Leaving us now in a recession (when gold is historically high) with no savings. How can you possibly think that was a good idea in any way. A fecking GCSE student could of said "but thats stupid sir".

Buying into Northern Rock is a solid move, and at least the man takes a holiday in the UK and not lavish jaunts to yachts. But i suppose that is neither here nor there.

Why? Why is it remotely a solid move? It puts the tax payer at great risk for minimal reward. No private company would touch it with a bardge poll because its going to hemerage cash like the sinking ship it is. I wounder if brown feels a connection with it? A person more synical than I might assume they only bought it because of the marginal seats it would effect. Also lets not forget that the reason it was such a fiasco is entirely down to mr brown's shake up of the tresury rules and regs. Meaning that it had to be announced and made public that at the time, a small chunk of LOLR funding was needed.

[Mazen]

How exactly did Brown plunder the pensions anyway?
I was'nt trying to put a favourable spin on anything TheAnimus.
I used the wee quotation marks around 'bit' to try to show how messed up the sale had got. Though in my earnest typings I had got my word order a bit muddled it should of read;
"The gold sales were a 'bit' disastrous but was that used to pay off the deficit?"
Did the sale of gold really lead to the recession?

I see buying into Northern Rock as a sound investment; it keeps afloat one of the biggest mortgage lenders in the uk, we know the money will come back eventually due to Granite and I don't see much risk involved.

[SilentDeath]

From what I read on the gold sale, it was more than a bit disastrous.. it couldnt really have possibly been any worse.

This is someone that is supposed to know the economy and how it works, yet he allowed this to happen. He should resign just for this one mistake.


Labour is dead.. however I think the conservatives need a good while to prepare before they are ready for power, espacially that **** cameroon, although I dont like him I am starting to belive he might be capable of doing a good job certinally capable of doing a far better job.

[TheAnimus]

How exactly did Brown plunder the pensions anyway?

When a company goes public, they produce Common Stock, which can be bought by members of the public (hence the phrase, publicly listed company).

In the days of old the idea was you'd buy the stock, and as the company did well, they'd share out the profit amoungst the investors via Dividends. Say the company had made £500 that year, and there where 500 share holders, they would each get £1 that year as a dividend.

So pension funds, which invest in companies would buy these stocks and accumulate more wealth for the pension holder by these dividends.

Gorden brown decided that saving for your old age is selfish, and taxed these dividends. Generating billions of revenue each year, with the average man on the street completely un-aware.

This is bad because its not a transparent tax, it effects only thouse who are planning for old age, and as we're already facing a major pension defecit (ie people are living too long, and not saving enough) its FECKING MORONIC. Words can not describe how much i hate anyone who would do something like that, its effectivly taxing hoping people won't understand. Granted most labour voters are morons, ok don't understand economics anyway, but still.

I was'nt trying to put a favourable spin on anything TheAnimus.
I used the wee quotation marks around 'bit' to try to show how messed up the sale had got. Though in my earnest typings I had got my word order a bit muddled it should of read;
"The gold sales were a 'bit' disastrous but was that used to pay off the deficit?"

It would be hard to imagine the sale been handled worse.

Did the sale of gold really lead to the recession?

Of course not, no one is trying to say it did. Think of it as eating all the food in the freezer one day, but eating it so fast your sick. You don't get any of the nutritional value of it, its just squandered. Then the next day it turns out theres no food left. Its not as a result of your eating all the food in the freezer, but if you hadn't done so you'd of been better prepaired. Its incredibly stupid.

I see buying into Northern Rock as a sound investment

Ok, When investing, always look at the golden ratio of risk vrs reward. Risk is how much money your likely to loose, Reward, how much you will gain. If your going too loose more than you will gain, its a BAD INVESTMENT.

In the case of northern wrek, they'd been selling mortgages for 25 year peroids to customers, and borrowing the money from 'proper banks' (ie banks that have business plans and aren't based in sh!t hole labour heartlands) at something called 3M LIBOR (3 Month, London Interbank Offer Rate)...

The LIBOR is the defacto lending rate banks will lend money to each other for in £ sterling. (hence london) What they where doing was selling 25 year debt, and buying 3M debt. Because most people don't like their money tied up for years, borrowing for a long time peroid is more expensive (because people would rather get their cash back in 3M, than in 25Y) so northern rock where re-packaging mortgages and funding them on a 3M basis. No one said hang on lads, what happens if LIBOR rises.

What this means is their customers might not be defaulting, but their business isn't sound because they rely on loosing money.

As such its not going to be a good investment anytime soon.

I'm not saying they shouldn't of helped the wreck, but its not going to make a profit, and they handled it completely incorectly (in no small part due to changes to the tresury guide lines brought in by none other than gordon brown... ******).

it keeps afloat one of the biggest mortgage lenders in the uk, we know the money will come back eventually due to Granite and I don't see much risk involved.

The risk is simple. They've agreed to lend money to people for long peroids of time, at rates that are BELOW base. This means money is been lost every day because of bad management. Its a bad investment and the tax payer is going to foot the bill.... Not too mention under EU law its 'slightly' illegal (but the french have been doing this for years so no one gives a toss).

In short, worse PM for many years.

[Saracen]

There was a report a year or two bad that assessed the effect of Brown's pension raid at "at least" £100 billion. It was done by a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. And he also described that as a minimum figure, and said that even £150 billion was likely to be conservative.

But even at the £100 billion mark, that amounts to £5,000 being paid by every single person in the country that's paying into a pension fund. It is also blamed as being one of the major factors responsible for most firms closing their final salary schemes.

There are also reports from ex-advisers to the then PM that Blair was against this move, but that, as Chancellor, Brown did it anyway. Of course, there's always they "they would say that" argument. However, it turns out (from official Treasury papers) that even senior Treasury civil servants warned Brown against this and warned of the effect it would have. Blair, however, felt that it was too early to have a major battle with his Chancellor over it and that it would show disunity within the party, so he let it slide.

Treasury ministers, like Ed Balls, tried to claim the CBI wanted it. That, of course, provoked a furious and almost apoplectic denial from the CBI ... nice one, Mr BallsUp.

For reference, the above-mentioned Treasury advice on the effect of this move came out in information released under a Freedom of Information Act request .... which the government fought for two years and only complied with when it lost. So it waited for Parliament to rise for the Easter break, Brown to naff off to Afghanistan, then released the info on it's website.

And some of that Treasury advice pointed out that the effect would be for money to flee from equities and for problems with final salary schemes. it also pointed out that the only way for contributors to maintain their pensions would be for them to pay additional contributions, which, of course, the more affluent could do and, due to getting decent advice, probably would do. Those on lower incomes, however, could not afford to significantly increase their pension contributions (one actuarial calculation suggested suggests that about a 20% increase in contributions would be needed just to stay level in terms of future pensions provision). So, the affluent will stump up the money, but the less well off will spend their retirement years with significantly reduced pensions because of this move.

One more point. As MPs, Ministers and even civil servants get their pensions funded by the taxpayer, and NOT by this type of contribution, this raid that leaves millions of people with reduced pensions won't adversely affect Brown's pension, or that of his civil service advisers.

[Saracen]

..... In short, worse PM for many years.

You think he's as good as that?

[Mazen]

What this means is their customers might not be defaulting, but their business isn't sound because they rely on loosing money.

As such its not going to be a good investment anytime soon.

I'm not saying they shouldn't of helped the wreck, but its not going to make a profit, and they handled it completely incorectly (in no small part due to changes to the tresury guide lines brought in by none other than gordon brown... ******).

The risk is simple. They've agreed to lend money to people for long peroids of time, at rates that are BELOW base. This means money is been lost every day because of bad management. Its a bad investment and the tax payer is going to foot the bill.... Not too mention under EU law its 'slightly' illegal (but the french have been doing this for years so no one gives a toss).

Aye but Granite is worth a lovely 45 billion, with 15 billion maturing within the next 2 years.
Thats a nice swadge of the loan paid back.
Who would you rather see as prime minister right now?

[TheAnimus]

Aye but Granite is worth a lovely 45 billion

No, no its not.

Defining worth can be tricky, do you use market cap?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3406368.ece

no, its not worth 45 billion is it? How could it possibly be.

Now, think about it this way, £49B been borrowed at market rate, sold onto customers makes little profit, but borrowing £25B from the government at an un-competative rate makes loss.

if profit < loss. Your a big enough retard to be Alister Darling.

Now Granite is another problem, because its not really garanteed that if rock goes under, granite will be the property of the gov. It gets better.

with 15 billion maturing within the next 2 years.

No, it dosen't work like that. These are credit securities they're not worth spit at the moment.

Thats a nice swadge of the loan paid back.

Only no, it won't work like that. All that will be able to pay back the loan is LIBOR falling.

Who would you rather see as prime minister right now?

Frankly anyone, even cameron could do no worse. Someone who just did in-actions would be better. Hell even Blair looks like a saint now.

[Mazen]

no, its not worth 45 billion is it? How could it possibly be.

I took my figures for that from wikipedia and thisismoney.co.uk when i was reading up on it earlier in the year. Not the most reliable but the easiest place to find information.

if profit < loss. Your a big enough retard to be Alister Darling.

Thanks that has helped my self esteem.

Frankly anyone, even cameron could do no worse. Someone who just did in-actions would be better. Hell even Blair looks like a saint now.

Scottish conservatives have the solution : Annabel Goldie

[TheAnimus]

Thanks that has helped my self esteem.

Enless your alister darling, or someoen who was involved in nationalising nothern rock, then it wasn't you who was been addressed by your.... damn i hate english.