Well, I would say Labour found it impossible to weaken the unions because they had (and I think still have) a throd of the share of the votes on their NEC and in leadership elections.
Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
not sure that they couldn't do anything more likely it would hurt them to do it so they backed off
Tony Blair probably thanked God every night for what Thatcher did to the Unions so allowing him a free rein to introduce "New" Labour
The bile escalated from the last paragraph of your post 8!
I'm at work now and it's difficult to carry on the debate - I'd be happy to do so tonight.
The daily mail and any readers that take it seriously are a joke. Id rather read the sun.
It would certainly cause a big dispute. Didn't Roy Jenkins get booed at the Annual Conference for suggesting scrapping clause four?
Well, now the minimum deposit is 10%, 15% if you want to borrow over £250k - levels at which many people would happily set a regulatory minimum at. I think the minimum deposit in Germany is around those levels, and in France is higher, with the end result that many poor people don't get to own their houses, despite being totally credit worthy, more so than for equivalently poor people in the UK. The thing about the 5% deposit a few years ago was that you could also get 100% mortgages if you looked hard enough. And they will come back at some point.
Well, I do call that working - bubbles and busts are facts of economic life (in fact, less so in developed economies like the UK). Also an element of both events (losing your house and going bust) is usually due to personal actions. If you live within your means, you're unlikely to lose your house. Sometimes people get shafted by fate, but not in the huge numbers we're likely to see.
People here seem to think that Politicians can stop or start recessions. The truth is they cant, they can limit the effects of each yes, but only to an extent.
They (or central bankers) can't stop or start recessions but they can influence the booms and the busts. That's what interest rates and monetary targets are for.
You do realise that there's not much they can do about energy price rises? If they rebated tax on fuel, the consumer is unlikely to get the full benefit of the rebate.
I'm not seeing my cost of living rise dramatically. In fact, it's falling - food's getting cheaper, because I'm changing what and where I eat. I live in London.
You're also right in the sense that I don't face the prospect of losing my home or going into bankruptcy, and possibly being made redundant is just a fact of life for me. However, I'm not going to blame the government for the latter - my personal situation is entirely within my control. Any feck ups are mine, and I reap all the benefits and all the costs.
Actually, it causes a recession, doesn't pre empt it.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes - funny how all the people in this thread with long memories don't even remember 1997, when base rates were at 6 and a bit, mortgage rates about half a percent over where they are now.
You like alleviating the consequences of other people's personal actions? How about those poor immigrants then, since you're so selfless?
Is it me or are there some selfish, naive and/or deluded feckers on here?
It's probably you.
Maybe. But then I didn't make the 20% leveraged gains that the house owners probably will. How come you don't call that unfair?
Yes.
I don't think pps sock is trying to tell you how bad they felt. He's trying to tell you that although today feels bad, things were probably worst then. Like here:
See?
You should try it. Might reduce the amount of shit you post.
Good post.
You're right here.
At the moment, the Labour government can't at all. They've thrown the one tool they had (fiscal policy) out of the window, so it is true that they are partly to blame. However, many things are indeed outside their control.
after re reading them my comments in post 8 were too confrontational and didn't contain enough information, exactly what bothers me about the press so that was wrong of me
I intended to convey that in my view things are not bad enough in any sense to justify the attacks the current government are under, small issues are being blown way out of proportion simply because Brown is not liked personally, he doesn't have charisma or nice hair, which is why I likened the comments made to the tranfer muppets were a player with 'inho' on the end of his must be a better player.
You might be right about that, in the media sense anyway.
However, despite whatever staunch Labour supporters (me being one of them up till last year) want to believe, the government have fecked up on major issues close to the people's hearts and heads.
Again, the Police force, the NHS, schooling and Immigration are bigger issues in most people's minds than the economy, and they are all failing.
Unfortunately, the economy is on the downturn right now so rags have decided to use this now as a major focus point on ridiculing the government and adding to people's minds, which is wrong IMO. The economy is the one area where this government have managed to keep things going.
Well they still have monetary policy, although granted it is only supposed to deal with Inflation. Government policies can make situations better or worse, but generally cant change the course of the economic cycle.
To be deemed successful in government you need to be lucky enough to be voted in with the economy in good health. Gordon Brown hasnt.
I disagree. The Bank of England is pretty independent, and the Labour government has very little influence if any over it. Otherwise interest rates would have come down to a much lower level by now. Monetary policy isn't a tool available to the government.
Labour made the decision to hand control of interest rates to the Bank of England, they may be suffering politically because of that but it was the correct decision and deserve credit for it.
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the current government debt, wasn't Brown attacked as chancellor by the media for huge budget surpluses?
Remind us again which Cabinet post Gordon Brown held before becoming PM?
well I know a fair bit about the current schooling situation. Being a teacher on the front lines everyday (not an exaggeration) there is little that can be done. Without naming names I work in a school getting loads of praise for its improvement over the past few years, and its shite in every respect apart from results, staff are overworked and disaffected, but the school is still infinitely better than it was 10 years ago (apparently). The problems in schools are not policy issues on the whole but social issues that no government can do anything about.
tbh I know little about the problems you mention in the police and NHS, care to elaborate?
Not strictly true. The Bank of England's monetary policy is linked to the Government inflation target, currently 2%. If this value deviates by more than 1%, the Governor of the BOE must write an open letter to the Chancellor explaining why. It is in the BOE's interest not to rock the boat too much. Concerns over inflation has been cited as the main reason why interest rates remain high compared with the US and others. The Government reserved the right to step in on interest rates in extreme circumstances. In other words, we'll let you be seen to be independent, but watch your step or else.
Many home owners receive a double whammy - mortgage rates stay higher than they need to be and their wage negotiations are usually centred on the Consumer Prices Index CPI, which deliberately excludes mortgage repayments. The CPI is rising because of recent increases in e.g. fuel and food import prices, so it is a vicious circle.
The Labour Government changed the main inflation indicator from the Retail Price Index RPI to the CPI in 2003. Traditionally the RPI has always been significantly higher than the CPI and cynics at the time said that it was a deliberate attempt to distort the truth, and keep wage settlements artificially low.
For recent comparisons of RPI and CPI see http://http://www.gmb.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=91114
Fair enough. And now that I realise you are a teacher from your post below, perhaps we can at least be more civil. My eldest daughter is just finishing her teaching course at UWE Bristol and is looking for a Key Stage 1 appointment at a Primary School there.
I actually prefer Brown to Blair, precisely because he is not manufactured along the American lines. I dislike Blair and his odious wife intensely.
I gave up at this point. So your cost of living is falling and food's getting cheaper? Well we'd all better move to London then.
What's reality like on Planet Spinoza?
I wish I'd gone in for primary, much more scope to influence students lives at that age than secondary, although the pressure of SAT results on primary are completely out of proportion with the importance to the students.
I understand what you're saying about Blair, but his performance on everything apart from iraq is at least satisfactory in my view. His arrogance in going to war and his cosy relationship with bush are two things I can't forgive in hindsight.
Its far too early to judge brown, he's barely had a chance and it doesn't look like he's going to get one.
Not much difference between the two, both ''small minded bigotted'' papers, except the Mail uses longer words.
Not much difference between the two, both ''small minded bigotted'' papers, except the Mail uses longer words.
I don't particularly like the Mail or the Sun either, but over the age of 18, you have one vote and every small-minded bigot has one vote. In that sense you are no better or no worse than readers of those papers.
The newspapers like voters (and even politicians at times of difficulty), will often swing backwards and forwards on issues of note, whilst maintaining certain core views. The general consensus is strengthening that New Labour is past its sell by date and becoming increasingly desperate to cling to power (witness the recent tax handout, aka electorate bribe).
Not much difference between the two, both ''small minded bigotted'' papers, except the Mail uses longer words.
don't you think your comments are a tad bigotted toowhats this about pot and kettle
Not much difference between the two, both ''small minded bigotted'' papers, except the Mail uses longer words.
The Sun doesnt take itself seriously, spends half its time dedicated to silly stories about dogs stuck in chimneys etc. Whereas the dailymail tries to be serious whilst ranting on about immigrants...
But yes the sun is also rubbish
That kind of pathetic misquoting would get you a job on any spanish newspaper.
I was talking about his time as a PM.
In his first term he was attacked for running big surpluses at a time when he was keeping his promise to keep govt spending to previous Tory levels. The people attacking him tended to be those on the left. But running surpluses in a growing economy is actually a good thing to do.
The situation now is that he opened the spending floodgates after that, but too much at the wrong time. The result is the economy has been in the red despite having economic growth, and as the economy slows/goes into recession, he'll have to either borrow a *lot* more, or make cuts. Bascially cutting in a recession is a bad thing to do, so it looks like we're going deeper into the red.
Those with long memories will recall this is traditionally how Labour governments end: ballooning debts ending with a run on the pound.
New Labour is gone with Tony (who has been replaced by New Tory Cameron) what we've got now is non-Labour.
whats this about pot and kettle
Touche!
I love this thread. Havent got much clue about British politics before Tony Blair but it has been an amusing and most of all an informative read so far.
Originally Posted by GloryHunter07
Well they still have monetary policy, although granted it is only supposed to deal with Inflation. Government policies can make situations better or worse, but generally cant change the course of the economic cycle.
To be deemed successful in government you need to be lucky enough to be voted in with the economy in good health. Gordon Brown hasnt.
The point Ig was making was that Blair and his Chancellor supposedly had Britain in good shape economically due to the prowess of the then Chancellor Brown. So either that was a lie or if the economy was in bad shape it was Browns fault so luck had nowt to do with it
The point Ig was making was that Blair and his Chancellor supposedly had Britain in good shape economically due to the prowess of the then Chancellor Brown. So either that was a lie or if the economy was in bad shape it was Browns fault so luck had nowt to do with it
Not getting your point. Blair with brown as Chancellor was fortunate as economy was motoring along, Blair got out at the rite time as the economy starts to slide.
Luck, timing, call it what you will. Politicians are at the mercy of the economic cycle.
yet for all of Brown tenure as Chancellor over 10 years he was claiming that all the good things happening were his work - even pointing out the problems that were happening over this period in Europe that were being avoided in UK.
he never once mentioned it was luck or that the economic cycle was favourable to him - neither did his supporters ( you too presumably) but now.......
yet for all of Brown tenure as Chancellor over 10 years he was claiming that all the good things happening were his work - even pointing out the problems that were happening over this period in Europe that were being avoided in UK.
he never once mentioned it was luck or that the economic cycle was favourable to him - neither did his supporters ( you too presumably) but now.......
You clearly arent grasping my point; im in agreement with you. Brown was lucky as Chancellor (although he didnt do badly) but now is unlucky.
Comprende?
OK, Let's try to run through the point Topper and I are trying to make.
1. Blair and Brown have been a double act since 1997. Arguably these have been the two most powerful men in the UK, certainly in England during that period, of those people put into Government by the general electorate.
2. During Brown's period of Chancellorship, the economy has generally been doing well in the overall sense. Brown has been telling us for those ten years or so that it is down to his stewardship. Prudent and cautious are words that he likes to be associated with. He has taken credit for this on every occasion possible, and this is exemplified in every one of his Budget speeches and the last two party manifestos.
3. Hopefully, these two positions in Government are not based on whether two individuals are lucky or unlucky at any moment in time. It is based on their competence and ability to deal with situations as they arise.
4. Just as Brown has taken the credit for 10 years of a stable economy, he suddenly can't turn around now and claim that he is unlucky that there will be a downturn - he has to shoulder a large part of the responsibility as previous Chancellor.
5. Browns current predicament is therefore nothing to do with being lucky or unlucky, he is ultimately responsible for the economy beforehand. This was the point I was trying to make in post 136.
6. Blair either saw this coming or decided enough was enough, I'll make some money to stash into my back pocket or more likely Cherie's clutchbag. In other words he'll prepare himself for the lecture circuit, autobiograpy, company directorship etc. "retirement package".
7. As a result of this timing, whether fortuitous or not, he has completely shafted Brown as PM, Brown has shafted Darling as Chancellor and the New Labour ranks are scrambling about trying to save their own backsides.
8. Unless there is an astonishing turn round, Brown will be out on his ear before or after the next General Election. And New Labour will be replaced by God knows what.
an excellent summary Ig - thank you
Agreed, he cant claim that the good times were down to him but the bad times arent.
But of corse he will try to claim this. Dont get the idea im some kind of new labour appologist because im not!
When I started voting (1971) there was a clear division between left and right (Labour and Tory), and it produced major swings in policies as each party regained the initiative.
Now, all parties appear so centre to me, afraid to run with difficult or controversial issues, there's so little to choose between them. You then have to go with their manifesto promises and you still get shat on, like with this current lot.