the economy.

[Irwell]

What makes you think the "austerity" drive had anything to do with the economy of the nation?
It was purely an ideologically driven push towards the free market economy and the strive for a "purely for profit" country.
& yes, he has been a disaster for the citizens of the United Kingdom

That's exactly what I meant. I can understand the ideology behind it somewhat, but that in the middle of a recession is precisely the time you don't want to be implementing it. Depending on your political persuasion you may agree or disagree with austerity. I personally agree with the concept but disagree with the extent.

What can't be argued, however, and this is the point that I was trying to make, is that whether or not you agree with the concept, the timing of it was the worst possible. Any competent Chancellor would have put the stoppers on it for a while.

 

[metalblue]

Ermmmm no. He is the worst chancellor in history.

As usual you are wrong, but then I expect nothing less.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gordon Brown was a good Chancellor, he was a pretty dull non-entity just as he was as a Prime Minister. He was neither good or bad at either, he just existed. The economy ticked along nicely under his watch, but that wasn't exactly his doing he just didn't do anything that rocked the boat. He can't be blamed for the economic collapse, that was always going to happen and it wasn't even our country that triggered it.

What a Chancellor can be blamed for is the measures they put in place when faced with recession. This is why Osborne and Tory policy have been a resounding failure. To some extent I agree with certain aspects of their economic policies, though I wouldn't describe myself as a Tory, but it is quite clear that the policies they tried to implement at the time were exactly the policies they shouldn't be implementing. Fair enough if you want an austerity drive, but you can't do it in the middle of a recession. This is the very time when you need to maintain or increase spending. The austerity can come, in small packages, once the economy starts to recover. It's Economics 101.

The idea that debt levels were so high that we were unable to do so is completely flawed. Our debt levels were substantially below those of other countries, and indeed below the level they are at now. Yes, additional spending would have increased those levels more than austerity measures have led to, but it's an expectation that the levels of debt will increase during a recession. If wisely spent, however, the economic growth, or indeed the reduced contraction, resulting from the spending should outweigh the increased debt levels such that as a percentage of GDP they are actually lower.

Osborne has been an absolute disaster as Chancellor. The economy would have recovered faster with absolutely no changes than it has with the ones he has implemented.

How can you say someone is wrong and then not offer any evidence other than unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo...debt levels have never really been the issue, the structure is. Brown was a dreadful chancellor, driven by huge an ego...remember he declared boom and bust was off the menu under his steerage?

But lets focus on one aspect I consider is his greatest undoing. PFI, all those new hospitals and schools built at a cost of ~£11bn will cost us, the taxpayers, some 600-700% more (conservative estimate). We could hve easily afforded to pay the money without the need to finance it under such draconian terms. We have NHS trusts going "bust", that is Brown's main legacy. Yet you lambast Osborne for not investing wisely on infrastructure projects?

Brown's other legacy is austerity.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Ermmmm no. He is the worst chancellor in history.

As usual you are wrong, but then I expect nothing less.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Gordon Brown was a good Chancellor, he was a pretty dull non-entity just as he was as a Prime Minister. He was neither good or bad at either, he just existed. The economy ticked along nicely under his watch, but that wasn't exactly his doing he just didn't do anything that rocked the boat. He can't be blamed for the economic collapse, that was always going to happen and it wasn't even our country that triggered it.

What a Chancellor can be blamed for is the measures they put in place when faced with recession. This is why Osborne and Tory policy have been a resounding failure. To some extent I agree with certain aspects of their economic policies, though I wouldn't describe myself as a Tory, but it is quite clear that the policies they tried to implement at the time were exactly the policies they shouldn't be implementing. Fair enough if you want an austerity drive, but you can't do it in the middle of a recession. This is the very time when you need to maintain or increase spending. The austerity can come, in small packages, once the economy starts to recover. It's Economics 101.

The idea that debt levels were so high that we were unable to do so is completely flawed. Our debt levels were substantially below those of other countries, and indeed below the level they are at now. Yes, additional spending would have increased those levels more than austerity measures have led to, but it's an expectation that the levels of debt will increase during a recession. If wisely spent, however, the economic growth, or indeed the reduced contraction, resulting from the spending should outweigh the increased debt levels such that as a percentage of GDP they are actually lower.

Osborne has been an absolute disaster as Chancellor. The economy would have recovered faster with absolutely no changes than it has with the ones he has implemented.

How can you say someone is wrong and then not offer any evidence other than unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo...debt levels have never really been the issue, the structure is. Brown was a dreadful chancellor, driven by huge an ego...remember he declared boom and bust was off the menu under his steerage?

But lets focus on one aspect I consider is his greatest undoing. PFI, all those new hospitals and schools built at a cost of ~£11bn will cost us, the taxpayers, some 600-700% more (conservative estimate). We could hve easily afforded to pay the money without the need to finance it under such draconian terms. We have NHS trusts going "bust", that is Brown's main legacy. Yet you lambast Osborne for not investing wisely on infrastructure projects?

Brown's other legacy is austerity.

The PFI initiative was just one of numerous examples of Brown's mishandling of the economy, those estimates of repayments are frightening,we are stuck with astronomical repayments for donkey's years.
Throw in the brilliant government negotiation team who, with typical astuteness, virtually doubled Doctors pay, whilst ensuring their hours were slashed;don't try phoning your quack out at weekends.
A dreadful chancellor, a worse PM.

 

[Irwell]

How can you say someone is wrong and then not offer any evidence other than unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo...debt levels have never really been the issue, the structure is. Brown was a dreadful chancellor, driven by huge an ego...remember he declared boom and bust was off the menu under his steerage?

I don't remember any recessions starting under his steerage either. Was he wrong to state that? Yes, he had a huge ego and he was an awful person, but the fact is the economy improved whilst he was Chancellor. Most wasn't as a result of what he did, but the fact is that unlike some other Chancellors he didn't make it worse.

But lets focus on one aspect I consider is his greatest undoing. PFI, all those new hospitals and schools built at a cost of ~£11bn will cost us, the taxpayers, some 600-700% more (conservative estimate). We could hve easily afforded to pay the money without the need to finance it under such draconian terms. We have NHS trusts going "bust", that is Brown's main legacy. Yet you lambast Osborne for not investing wisely on infrastructure projects?

Strangely enough PFI was a Conservative tool implemented under John Major's Government. Many of the PFI initiatives signed off under Gordon Brown were originally developed by the Conservative Government and were a long way down the line by the time Labour came in. Yes, as a concept it proves costly for Government, but the theory behind it is sound. The theory behind it isn't the problem, the problem is the people in Government and the Civil Service responsible for contract negotiations not being up to scratch. I don't agree with the concept of PFI myself, but I can see the logic of it and it was a cross-party policy that Labour simply continued.

Brown's other legacy is austerity.

What a load of rubbish. Austerity is the legacy of this current Tory administration. Fluctuations in spending levels are normal. What isn't normal is this unnecessary concept of reducing spending in the middle of a recession. It's driven by the ideology of the administration to the detriment of the country itself. That is why Osborne is the worst Chancellor the country has seen by a country mile.

 

[metalblue]

How can you say someone is wrong and then not offer any evidence other than unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo...debt levels have never really been the issue, the structure is. Brown was a dreadful chancellor, driven by huge an ego...remember he declared boom and bust was off the menu under his steerage?

I don't remember any recessions starting under his steerage either. Was he wrong to state that? Yes, he had a huge ego and he was an awful person, but the fact is the economy improved whilst he was Chancellor. Most wasn't as a result of what he did, but the fact is that unlike some other Chancellors he didn't make it worse.

But lets focus on one aspect I consider is his greatest undoing. PFI, all those new hospitals and schools built at a cost of ~£11bn will cost us, the taxpayers, some 600-700% more (conservative estimate). We could hve easily afforded to pay the money without the need to finance it under such draconian terms. We have NHS trusts going "bust", that is Brown's main legacy. Yet you lambast Osborne for not investing wisely on infrastructure projects?

Strangely enough PFI was a Conservative tool implemented under John Major's Government. Many of the PFI initiatives signed off under Gordon Brown were originally developed by the Conservative Government and were a long way down the line by the time Labour came in. Yes, as a concept it proves costly for Government, but the theory behind it is sound. The theory behind it isn't the problem, the problem is the people in Government and the Civil Service responsible for contract negotiations not being up to scratch. I don't agree with the concept of PFI myself, but I can see the logic of it and it was a cross-party policy that Labour simply continued.

Brown's other legacy is austerity.

What a load of rubbish. Austerity is the legacy of this current Tory administration. Fluctuations in spending levels are normal. What isn't normal is this unnecessary concept of reducing spending in the middle of a recession. It's driven by the ideology of the administration to the detriment of the country itself. That is why Osborne is the worst Chancellor the country has seen by a country mile.

I'm on my way out so will respond in full later but a couple of points:

Here are all the PFI contracts, you'll see the inception dates, any talk of these being Tory plans are wishful thinking...you are correct that Tories originally introduced PFI but Brown took it to new heights, your argument is the same as me saying labour were responsible for allowing banks to offer mortgage's in the 1970s and that's the cause of the banking crisis. Nobody held a gun to Brown's head to make him set his pen on fire signing these things.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdG1KYW9VWWd1Q0puck5PNjBFNGlvbUE&pli=1

Re: recession. Are you making the point that you think he had mastered boom and bust? Recession was avoided in early 2000s due to increase spending (the US had one) this was never scaled back but only increased in never ending circles. We'll debate the 2008 recession later.

Austerity. Remember the infamous "no money left" letter? Anyway my view is we could have taken a slightly different approach (still austerity) but that is based on hindsight...in much the same way I won't criticise Brown for selling the gold based on hindsight.

 

[Irwell]

I'm on my way out so will respond in full later but a couple of points:

Here are all the PFI contracts, you'll see the inception dates, any talk of these being Tory plans are wishful thinking...you are correct that Tories originally introduced PFI but Brown took it to new heights, your argument is the same as me saying labour were responsible for allowing banks to offer mortgage's in the 1970s and that's the cause of the banking crisis. Nobody held a gun to Brown's head to make him set his pen on fire signing these things.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdG1KYW9VWWd1Q0puck5PNjBFNGlvbUE&pli=1

You are building a straw man with your argument. Firstly, PFI was cross-party. Secondly, it was party policy, not the recommendation of the Chancellor. Thirdly, it was introduced as a concept before Brown was in office. Fourthly, it has nothing to do with austerity measures that weren't an economic necessity. It's a completely bizarre argument. I don't, however, see the inception date on the file you linked to.

Re: recession. Are you making the point that you think he had mastered boom and bust? Recession was avoided in early 2000s due to increase spending (the US had one) this was never scaled back but only increased in never ending circles. We'll debate the 2008 recession later.

No, I'm saying there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent it entirely, but it cannot be blamed on Brown as it was caused by things that weren't his decisions in countries he didn't control and happened after he left office and could no longer try. Nor am I arguing that he was a good Chancellor, merely that he was acceptable in comparison to a buffoon like Osborne.

Austerity. Remember the infamous "no money left" letter? Anyway my view is we could have taken a slightly different approach (still austerity) but that is based on hindsight...in much the same way I won't criticise Brown for selling the gold based on hindsight.

The austerity measures were a fundamental mistake borne out of an unconditional belief in an ideology rather than having an understanding of the idea that there might by inappropriate times to implement things. You simply can't reduce spending during a recession. If you do that you get a substantially prolonged recession and lose more revenue than you saved with your cuts. It's just not something you try to do.

 

[metalblue]

I'm on my way out so will respond in full later but a couple of points:

Here are all the PFI contracts, you'll see the inception dates, any talk of these being Tory plans are wishful thinking...you are correct that Tories originally introduced PFI but Brown took it to new heights, your argument is the same as me saying labour were responsible for allowing banks to offer mortgage's in the 1970s and that's the cause of the banking crisis. Nobody held a gun to Brown's head to make him set his pen on fire signing these things.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdG1KYW9VWWd1Q0puck5PNjBFNGlvbUE&pli=1

You are building a straw man with your argument. Firstly, PFI was cross-party. Secondly, it was party policy, not the recommendation of the Chancellor. Thirdly, it was introduced as a concept before Brown was in office. Fourthly, it has nothing to do with austerity measures that weren't an economic necessity. It's a completely bizarre argument. I don't, however, see the inception date on the file you linked to.

Re: recession. Are you making the point that you think he had mastered boom and bust? Recession was avoided in early 2000s due to increase spending (the US had one) this was never scaled back but only increased in never ending circles. We'll debate the 2008 recession later.

No, I'm saying there is nothing anyone could have done to prevent it entirely, but it cannot be blamed on Brown as it was caused by things that weren't his decisions in countries he didn't control and happened after he left office and could no longer try. Nor am I arguing that he was a good Chancellor, merely that he was acceptable in comparison to a buffoon like Osborne.

Austerity. Remember the infamous "no money left" letter? Anyway my view is we could have taken a slightly different approach (still austerity) but that is based on hindsight...in much the same way I won't criticise Brown for selling the gold based on hindsight.

The austerity measures were a fundamental mistake borne out of an unconditional belief in an ideology rather than having an understanding of the idea that there might by inappropriate times to implement things. You simply can't reduce spending during a recession. If you do that you get a substantially prolonged recession and lose more revenue than you saved with your cuts. It's just not something you try to do.

Re: PFI

1. Cross-party. The Tories had always argued it was for major projects like the channel tunnel, although the current lot have deviated somewhat from that with their school program however they have also spent something like £1bn trying to undo he contracts signed by Labour.

2. Brown was a major advocate, he took on the unions on PFI. Let's not rewrite history.

3. Isn't that the same point you were making in 1?

4. At no point have I suggested that austerity is a result of PFI

I really don't see how you can blindly exonerate Brown, you can call it a straw man argument all you like but you really need to look at the facts, the dates are over to the right, they show your previous assertion that Brown was merely signing the contracts that the Tories had enacted as a fallacy. Your entire argument seems to be based, not on the merits of PFI (which is my central point to why Brown was a dreadful chancellor) but more on your chancellor was worse than mine.

Re: recession, Brown was no more or less blind than anyone else. To his credit he handled the crisis fairly well. Growth for many countries was fuelled by debt we were no different but the prevailing view that this party will never end (as Brown believed) meant nobody planned for anything other than perpetual growth.

Austerity isn't a fundemental mistake given where we were at and who we are. The depth of the austerity package is the only debate to be had.

 

[law74]

Brown was tory-lite
Osborne is tory extreme<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:15 pm --<br /><br />Brown was tory-lite
Osborne is tory extreme

 

[Bill]

Do we all agree now that it IS on the up.

Yes it is on the up in the last quarter -0.6 % from a very low base and a bit too early to say we've turned the corner , but fingers crossed.However I suspect you were trying to make a party political point on behalf of your beloved Conservative party?

So its agreed then.

 

[Rascal]

Wip fucking Woo 0.6%

Osborne has been the worst chancellor in history, he is fucking hopeless.


Shame is the best possible Chancellor in the HoC is stuck as Business secretary. What a waste of talent.

Scale up 0.6% and then castigate.


What recession?

You aint daft mate. You must realise that the 0.6% rise is probably hugely region centric. Perhaps London and the SE is growing at 2% whilst the North is still in recession around 1% It is simply impossible in my view to have widescale public sector redudancies across the public sector reliant North and expect its economy to grow without significant investment. Yet i think the figure was 95% of the UKs tall cranes are currently in London and the biggest infrastructure project at the moment Crossrail is also in London.

HS2 is the smokescreen for this. The promise of investment in some fantasy future that no hoe counties country could possibly support or even want to as the North matters not to them.

I think Airport passenger numbers are an interesting measure of prosperity. Manchester after years of growth has been in decline although they are just nudging back up, Other Northern airports are losing connections. London Heathrow is crying out for a 3 rd runway as its at 99% of capacity.