PDA

View Full Version : Gordon Brown - off with the fairies?


Yak97
19th Dec 2008, 14:55
From Orange news:

Quote:

In his final Downing Street press conference of 2008, Mr Brown said: 'These are uncertain and difficult times but Britain can and must be a beacon of hope and opportunity for the future.

'The scale of the challenges that we face is matched by the strength of my optimism that Britain can rise to meet these challenges.

'With our fighting spirit and our can-do attitude, I am confident that we can meet all the challenges ahead.'

Mr Brown said the Government would be bringing forward measures for 'smart investment' in 'green' jobs and the digital economy.

There would also be investment in transport, with a decision on a third runway at Heathrow in the New Year, and on alternatives to oil, including nuclear power.

There will be measures too on retraining, social mobility, and reform of the banking system.

'An economic slowdown must not be an excuse to slow down the pace of investment and reform to strengthen our country for the future,' he said.

'The countries that invest through the downturn will be the countries that emerge stronger in the future.

'There is no credible plan for getting out of this downturn that is not also a plan for building a better long-term British economy.'

UNQUOTE

I like the line:

With our fighting spirit and our can-do attitude

How does this fit in with the reality of the 'elf & safety culture, the council jobsworths, climate change hysteria, the "my rights" attitude etc etc

ArthurR
19th Dec 2008, 14:58
To quote the cat in RED DWARF, yea but whats that mean? :confused:

VinRouge
19th Dec 2008, 15:15
Complete hype. This one has the legs to turn into a 10 year recession, possibly a depression next year. :eek:

Blacksheep
19th Dec 2008, 15:36
Britain can and must be a beacon of hopeWTF is a "beacon of hope"? :confused:

Words, without meaning.

Union Jack
19th Dec 2008, 15:42
Gordon Brown - off with the fairies?

No, just the one in all probability - Peter by name .......:}

Jack

AMF
19th Dec 2008, 17:08
Mr Brown said the Government would be bringing forward measures for 'smart investment' in 'green' jobs ....

What's a "green job"? The only ones I can think of are being the Lucky Charms leprechaun or The Jolly Green Giant, and last time I checked those jobs were already taken.

Rainboe
19th Dec 2008, 17:48
The green jobs the idiot is talking about are jobs that don't have enough profit to stand up on their own. They are useless, subsidised jobs created by civil servants using taxpayers money to bankroll them because they cannot make a profit in themselves. Look for massed ranks of 'child carers' with amazing child caring qualifications. people playing with 'work', massed ranks of people doing things in media studies etc. 'Wheelie bin inspectors' with the authority to hand out fines and give you a good telling off. An ever increasing state employment scheme (whilst the UK taxpayer goes bankrupt and companies can no longer support the costs of 50% public employment!). Can we expect to see more teachers to teach the scrotes to actually read and learn manners, or nurses to actually look after the sick? Not 'green'!

Saintsman
19th Dec 2008, 18:29
Recession is when your neighbour loses his job.

Depression is when you lose your job.

Recovery is when Gordon Brown loses his.

fireflybob
19th Dec 2008, 19:09
But this was the bit that made me laugh out loud at the TV:-

And he blamed international factors for the slump in Britain, insisting the country had been "the victim of a global downturn".

More spin and what a cop out! Make UK citizens think we are "victims" - nothing to do with Brown's government and the way "Noo" Labour have run the country over the last ten years, eh? - please bring back Thatcher, all is forgiven!

Yak97
19th Dec 2008, 21:58
According to the ONS the RBS debt is included in the public sector debt, making it around 2.7 trillion GBP (how many zero's it that?) or 184 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), worse than Japan (173 %) or even Italy (113 %).

Thanks Mr Brown

Avitor
19th Dec 2008, 22:09
One thing about the 80% of a normal human being, he knows whom to woo! :cool:

10DowningSt
19th Dec 2008, 22:23
Keep it coming, fellers, keep it coming.

Every post on this terrorist website, from 2001 onwards, is on our database filed against your computer's unique address. We know who you are, where you live, and what you think. And soon we'll know what your ID Card number is.

So enjoy yourselves while you can. Payment day is about to come. We didn't push through all that anti-terrorist legislation to let people like you whinge about our way of running the country, you know. From where we sit, you all look like subversives.

GB

Paradise Lost
19th Dec 2008, 22:46
This b*ll*cks comes from the same dude who spent 10 years telling us that he had ended boom+bust! He and his cronies have managed to do more long-term damage to GB than William The Conq. Woe is us.............

BOFH
19th Dec 2008, 22:48
What twaddle.

The megalomaniac blames anyone but himself. His deluded Weltanshauung makes him the victim of malignant foreign forces, yet when times were good, they were wholly due to his brilliant stewardship of the Treasury.

Pomposity like this deserves to be rewarded (http://scheggedivetro.blogosfere.it/images/Mussolini_loreto.jpg).

BOFH

TURIN
19th Dec 2008, 23:00
...........and so another rainforest is decimated as the Daily Mail "elite" fill their boots! :ugh:

I'm no fan of Gordon either especially after the ID cards madness but jeeeessus just listen to yourselves.

please bring back Thatcher, all is forgiven!

Time is an amazing healer isn't it?

If next years' slump gets anywhere near the severity of the debacle that was the Thatcher era then I'LL buy the bloody Daily Express/Mail!!!!!! :mad::mad:

Effluent Man
20th Dec 2008, 10:25
It's interesting to speculate exactly how Attila the Hen would have handled the current situation.For a start monetarist policies would have excluded the possibility of using public money to assist the banks,so presumably Northern Rock would have gone first.There would have been no guarantee of deposits in the Icelandic bank crash either,so those savers would have bit the dust. Then HBOS would have gone tubeside.Of course had the old genius Hopalong been running the good old US of A the car makers could have waved goodbye to any help.My guess is that by now we would have been looking at middle single figure DEflation and the unemployment rate pushing towards 20%. The Mail would have loved that.

Yak97
20th Dec 2008, 10:49
A question to be asked, amongst all this angst about how we can get out of this mess, is why are we in the mess in the first place? What other Government has continued to borrow during the middle of a boom (oh sorry, of course, no such thing as boom or bust in Gordoworld) rather than salting a few quid away for a rainy day, has overloaded the economy with thousands of public service non-jobs (who all will be expected to vote nuLabour - turkeys & Christmas etc) all of whom are on pension terms not now available in the productive side of the economy (thanks Gordon), has imposed layer after layer of red tape on businesses, and presided over a boom in personal credit to leave us in such a poor way?

Answers on the back of your P45

1DC
20th Dec 2008, 11:18
I nursed this slender hope that things would get better next year but now that the robber has said it will i am more worried than ever.
I suppose the solution should be that he be allowed to take over the running of every company in the UK, at least that way we could rebel and get payrises as good as the civil service , retire at 60, and a nice pension that is better than he allows the private sector. He always gives in to his own workforce so we would all be ok.

Sir Lee B´stard
20th Dec 2008, 11:30
Perhaps we are being a little hard on his truthfulness when he said he had abolished Boom And Bust. After all Boom has been utterly eradicated and he has left us with a rock solid Bust (of the wrong kind:uhoh:)

GrumpyOldFart
20th Dec 2008, 13:27
Did you ever Google 'Common Purpose'?

Yak97
20th Dec 2008, 14:18
You mean:

Common Purpose, a criminal organisation that abuses government posts for gain

http://eutruth.org.uk/cp.pdf

Squeegee Longtail
20th Dec 2008, 19:04
'These are uncertain and difficult times but Britain can and must be a beacon of hope and opportunity for the future.'

Well at least with the £ value, plenty of foreigners can come and marvel at your "beacon of hope" without it costing them too much.

The fat, one-eyed ***ker is being sooo spun by Campbell et al to come out with all this cobblers.

VinRouge
20th Dec 2008, 21:34
Turin, by 2010, I expect you to have a lifetime subscription to the Telegraph, Mail and express!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/MugabeBrownPA_468x326.jpg

Cant tell which one is which at the mo.

If you didnt know, quantitative easing is what Mugabe used to destroy his nation. Gordon is about to use it to destroy ours.

Turin, I expect you think 300% debt when compared to GDP is a good thing? Thats before we consider the worst house price crash in history, not just living memory.

BOFH
20th Dec 2008, 22:32
That's easy! One is a ruthless, odious, unelected Marxist who hates the English and proudly presides over a rotting economy and infrastructure, blind to its failings and the suffering of his people. Tumescent with his power, he is immune to any criticism , which is promptly mown down by his legions of lickspittle apparatchiks.

The other is Robert Mugabe.

BOFH

GrumpyOldFart
21st Dec 2008, 05:10
Common Purpose

You mean:

Common Purpose, a criminal organisation that abuses government posts for gain

http://eutruth.org.uk/cp.pdf (http://eutruth.org.uk/cp.pdf)



Yes, that one. Scary, isn't it?

Krystal n chips
21st Dec 2008, 05:52
And now we have this "enlightened" :ugh: piece of erm, legislation from the Orifice of the Great Leader.......I do love the bit about "a robust industry watchdog".....since when has any so called "industry watchdog" ever had any real effect other than being a cosmetic sap then ?........and for the "rent a thug...well 'ard" fraternity, does anybody really believe they will adhere to the legislation........:mad:

Bailiffs get power to use force on debtors - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5375668.ece)

Wod
21st Dec 2008, 08:28
I have no problem with us collectively pillorying the pollies. They claim credit for the good times, and blame external influences for the bad times.

BUT, that's what we ask them to do.

The current unpleasantness is owned by us all. Individually. We chased wild promises of riches; we took up mortgages which we could not service; and we cheerfully bid up the prices of things which we coveted.

Mea culpa! Mea culpa!!

Now, don't we all feel better:):sad:

Flap 5
21st Dec 2008, 09:03
Speak for yourself.

I don't have any loans. My credit card is paid off in full every month. I also don't have a mortagage, but a mortgage is necessary to buy a house. When I did have a mortagage I paid it off monthly and it was never more than I could afford.

Yes many people have been irresponsible and blame it on the bankers who allowed them to borrow 125% of the value of their house but I have never been like that. I suspect there are a few others like me who have been prudent. I don't think Gordon Brown is amongst them.

Lon More
21st Dec 2008, 12:50
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should
be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance
of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and
the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest
Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to
work, instead of living on public assistance."

Cicero - 55 BC


Re Thatcher A recent opinion poll showed that most people wanted her to be given a State Funeral. Strangely, very few insisted she be pronounced dead first. Several million Scots have expressed interest in helping to dig her grave abd personally delivering her over to Satan:O

BOFH
21st Dec 2008, 21:52
Should you dig a grave when you are on the sick?

BOFH

Rightbase
21st Dec 2008, 23:17
I don't have any loans. My credit card is paid off in full every month. I also don't have a mortagageI didn't borrow more than I could afford. I paid off my mortgage. Now my savings are going down the pan and my pension is not going to keep up with the ever-increasing shopping bill that Tesco's advertised price cuts perversely seem to generate.

How did it go wrong? Whenever there is a pool of stagnant money (savings) some financial whiz kid decides to make it work (good idea). It is sitting there doing nothing so it doesn't matter if somebody else borrows it for a bit (bad idea). Whilst the inflows and outflows can be managed (by interest rates) nobody notices the stagnant pool has in fact silted up and the reserves are not there any more. Supposedly they are somewhere working - whatever that means.

Then somebody suddenly notices that a small mismatch between inflow and outflow cannot be accommodated. It all goes T.U. As an aside, forcing interest rates to manage inflation rather than money supply made the naughty pool raiding harder to hide.

The financial industry needs the kind of very heavy regulation that makes it small, boring, unadventurous and an insignificant part of the economy. Big pools of reserves are simply too tempting for the clever people to leave alone, and even if they were left alone, as a token of stored 'goods and labour' a pool of savings cannot actually be redeemed for more 'goods and labour' than there is available to redeem it. The multi-zeroed numbers attached to accumulated wealth could suggest nobody had to work for a thousand years - but it would all be a fiction. The value could not be realised, Money is a lubricant, not an engine.

The last thing I would want the government to do with my taxes in boom times is to salt them away. I want any surplus spent on tangible infrastructure not ephemeral intangible money 'products'. My way, the ongoing value of the surpluses is assured. Sadly, neither was done. The surpluses were simply returned to the taxpaying public in return for the performance of non-jobs, either in the public sector or in private contracts paid for by the public purse.

What is the problem with public borrowing? Who says it has to be paid back? Nobody is going to pay back the savings I am losing. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If public borrowing gets us all moving again, gets food on the table, gets roofs over our heads and clothes on our backs, educates the kids and keeps the hospitals clean where's the problem? If we need more lubricant, pour it on.

We savers need to be re-educated. Short term surpluses are indeed a lubricant, and can be banked - but not for long. Long term surpluses should go into tangible durable monitored assets not into financial institutions where they can and will evaporate.

Whew. I feel better for that!

skydriller
21st Dec 2008, 23:30
I don't have any loans. My credit card is paid off in full every month. I also don't have a mortagage, but a mortgage is necessary to buy a house. When I did have a mortagage I paid it off monthly and it was never more than I could afford.
Yes many people have been irresponsible and blame it on the bankers who allowed them to borrow 125% of the value of their house but I have never been like that. I suspect there are a few others like me who have been prudent. I don't think Gordon Brown is amongst them.
:D:D:D

Likewise.... I totally agree with you. I hated having a mortgage, but its a necessary evil in order to buy a house, I did pay it off asap though. I am not in debt, maybe I've just been lucky, but I like to think I am carefull in that I buy only what I can afford.

If I personally had screwed up business as the banking industry has, would my bank say "oh never mind, here's all the money you lost, dont do it again"...would the government bail me out? My own view is that the banks should be allowed to go under if they have screwed up, and if the government feels the need to help anyone, then they could guarentee the savings of us poor sods with bank accounts in those banks that go bankrupt!!:=

Krystal n chips
22nd Dec 2008, 07:02
And now we have this little gem, straight from the horse's mouth as it were....which hardly inspires confidence I have to say...still 10/10 for "honesty"...:rolleyes:

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank 'did not understand crisis' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7794604.stm)

As for your man from Barclays, well I suspect we are going to see / hear a lot more hollow apologies from many of the financial sector institutions in order to give the appearance of some sort of "contrition" towards the public...although he has clearly never had the "pleasure" of the arrogance of his staff and never read the letter from Barclaycard....the one which told me they were a resposible lender :rolleyes: and as such my credit limit was being reduced significantly to the bare minimum....and that they may review it if they felt so inclined....but this was non-negotiable ...so there !....the fact that I had/ have a zero balance and rarely used the card makes me irresponsible does it ?. :mad:

keel beam
22nd Dec 2008, 07:19
"Speak for yourself.

I don't have any loans. My credit card is paid off in full every month. I also don't have a mortagage, but a mortgage is necessary to buy a house. When I did have a mortagage I paid it off monthly and it was never more than I could afford.

Yes many people have been irresponsible and blame it on the bankers who allowed them to borrow 125% of the value of their house but I have never been like that. I suspect there are a few others like me who have been prudent. I don't think Gordon Brown is amongst them.
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4604095)


Well done Flap 5. I wish I was in a totally similar situation (I do manage to pay off my credit cards every month)



At the end of the day it is the lack of financial self discipline that a lot of people and this government sffer from.

My kids are encouraged to be financially prudent.

Todays people (and institutions for that matter!) rely on the government to bail them out.

FFS doesn't anyone have any pride!!

Yak97
22nd Dec 2008, 08:54
Rightbase posted:

The last thing I would want the government to do with my taxes in boom times is to salt them away. I want any surplus spent on tangible infrastructure not ephemeral intangible money 'products'.


That's fine up to a point, but the first duty, in a boom time, should have been to reduce the National Debt, because that is one way to achieve long term prosperity. While the figures may be out of date see below:

What is the Real Level of UK National Debt?

However, it is argued that UK’s national debt is actually a lot higher. This is because national debt should include pension contributions which the government are obliged to pay.

The Centre for Policy Studies argues that the real national debt is actually £1,340 billion, which is 103.5 per cent of GDP. This figure includes all the public sector pension liabilities such as pensions, Private Finance Initiative contracts e.t.c (Northern Rock liabilities)

Another problem is that with the financial crisis, the government have added an extra £500bn of potential liabilities. Note: the Government has offered to back mortgage securities. They are unlikely to spend this money. But, in theory the government could be liable for extra debts of upto £500bn. If we include this bailout package as a contingent liability National debt would be over 100% of GDP.

Problems of National Debt

1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high, at least £30billion a year.
2. Higher Taxes in the future.
3. Crowding out of private sector investment / spending
4. The debt problem will only get worse as an ageing population places greater strain on the UK’s pension liabilities.

The interest payments are virtually the same as the Defence Budget. If the interests payments were reduced we could afford the kit the military needs (or a least keep the Post Offices open!!)

Sciolistes
22nd Dec 2008, 11:49
The current unpleasantness is owned by us all. Individually. We chased wild promises of riches; we took up mortgages which we could not service; and we cheerfully bid up the prices of things which we coveted.
Well I don't think that is actually quite true. Monetarism depends on debt as a means to maintain the supply of money in the system. But debt+interest must alway be more than the total supply of money which means that there is never enough money in the system to repay all the debt. The system depends on credit being issued to grow the economy and the economy to grow to permit debt to be issued, but it also depends on the debts being repaid and on people not wanting to access their funds in too great a number (liquidity risk).

The external influence was when the sub-primes were devalued meaning that the banks suffered a liquidity risk and hence the jitters and hence a reluctance to increase exposure by lending more money. If we don't lend then the money supply starts to shrink which leaves less money available to service debts and the whole thing comes crashing down.

We are in this situation because we have artificially propped up a boom long before it's sell by date. We should have been due a recession some time ago to reset the system and equalise the money supply to debt+interest equation. The longer we try not to enter recession the more it will hurt when it happens.

Recession is inevitable, it is necessary. It is part of bankings heads I win, tails you loose business model. But the UK in particular seems to me to be particularly at risk to both attempting to artificially minimize this recession by trying to stimulate more lending at a time when we really must take the hit and move on.

Remember the "No more boom and bust" speech? He knew it was complete bollocks at the time and he knows it now. It was never the fault or indeed anything to do with the man in the street. He doesn't have a clue what is happening.

Rightbase
22nd Dec 2008, 19:46
1. Interest Payments. The cost of paying interest on the government’s debt is very high, at least £30billion a year.
My trade is logic, not economics, so this is not a rhetorical question.

To whom is this interest paid?

Yak97
22nd Dec 2008, 20:09
As far as I am aware, Governments raise funds through the issue of Government Bonds, which include a return (interest). These bonds are sold to investors (including other Governments - so called Sovereign funds) and are normally a good bet because its not often a Government goes bust (although watch this space...) and, if necessary, they can print more currency to repay the bonds! However by issuing too many Bonds, the market may be reluctant to take them and they have to have a higher return. This is a position that UK Gov are in to fund all the bail-outs etc.

As stated this is my laymans view, welcome any additional / corrections

Rightbase
22nd Dec 2008, 20:42
So the smart guys in the city lend the government the money in return for an interest guarantee. The government makes it available to the banks to bail them out - at bank rate which is record low, then prints more money if necessary.

Who thought out this system? It wouldn't be the clever city chaps who own the banks would it, who are borrowing their own money back at a lower interest rate than they are charging for having lent it in the first place?

Why doesn't the government give back however many billions of the money it borrowed instead of lending that many billions more? Instead of getting another slice of cake, the city would then be losing some of the slice it has at present.

Methinks the real problem is that clever people all go into the city, and we elect politicians on the basis of their charisma.

Maybe Gordon isn't such a bad choice - but I wish he had redeemed the bonds before the Bank of England lowered the interest rate.

But then the city chaps would probably have cried foul because he is not allowed to be clever enough to outsmart them at their own game.

Somebody needs to sort this mess out. Does anybody out there understand this nonsense?

Yak97
22nd Dec 2008, 22:09
The problem is that high finance is so complicated now that there's probably only 1 bloke in an office somewhere who's got half a clue as to what's going on, what with Hedge Funds, Credit Default Swaps, and other credit derivatives that nobody understands.

For example:

To get the total present value of the credit default swap we multiply the probability of each outcome by its present value to give
PV\, =\, (1 - p_1) N(1-R) \delta_1\,
+ p_1 ( 1 - p_2 ) [ N(1-R) \delta_2 - \frac{Nc}{4} \delta_1 ]
+p_1 p_2 ( 1 - p_3 ) [ N(1-R) \delta_3 - \frac{Nc}{4} (\delta_1 + \delta_2) ]
+p_1 p_2 p_3 (1 - p_4) [ N(1-R) \delta_4 - \frac{Nc}{4} (\delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3) ]
-p_1 p_2 p_3 p_4 ( \delta_1 + \delta_2 + \delta_3 + \delta_4 ) \frac{Nc}{4}

Foxy Loxy
22nd Dec 2008, 22:33
Flap 5 said:
When I did have a mortagage I paid it off monthly and it was never more than I could afford.

I have a mortgage. I pay it off monthly. It's no more than I can afford.

Despite all that, despite not taking up the full amount I was being offered to borrow at the time - shy by some £80,000 - I'm in negative equity.

I don't have a credit card. I don't have a loan.

I work hard and I pay my taxes. Just who/what the F**K am I paying for? I simply don't get it.

I don't mind helping out the genuinely disadvantaged.

I'm 28 and deeply cynical. Who would like to predict how much of MY OWN TAXES i'll get back in benefits when I'm old and I need them?

Flap 5
22nd Dec 2008, 23:03
As the BBC's Robert Peston said the prudent savers are paying to bail out the feckless who have got us into this mess. Whoever said life was fair? :*

Rightbase
23rd Dec 2008, 01:38
Foxy -

You will own your house. That was the deal, and so long as you keep up the payments (in money of ever decreasing value on the international market) the house will be yours.

If you bought it as a financial investment, then like all such deals, what you get is what the clever experts let you have. But if you bought it as somewhere to live, that tangible value is for real. Enjoy living in it and keep reminding yourself it isn't a heap of vulnerable money, it's a real house. And when everything changes around it, it is still the same house. Your house.

You just have to keep up the payments .......

Sciolistes
23rd Dec 2008, 02:15
Foxy,

Good advice from RightBase. If you intend to live there for some time then you probably have little to worry about.

Flap 5,
As the BBC's Robert Peston said the prudent savers are paying to bail out the feckless who have got us into this mess. Whoever said life was fair?
The BBC and all other reporters mis-report such things consistently. All increased deposits do is reduce a bank's liquidity risk (which is important but not crucial), but depositing money and not borrowing (being prudent) will only serve to make the situation worse - as bizarre as it sounds.

Flap 5
23rd Dec 2008, 09:28
So being irresponsible is a good thing is it? I may be getting on a bit but I remember when it was the opposite. This irresponsibility lark has gone so far and being going on so long people are beginning to justify it as the right thing to be! It's good for the economy! They say. Well I hope you're right because that is the way thngs have been for a while now and if many others believe that way then we are stuck with it.

fireflybob
23rd Dec 2008, 11:04
The other point worth mentioning about houses is that the marketing people want us to think we have to keep moving hence the terms "Starter Homes", "Family Homes", "Retirement Homes". My parents lived in the same house for 47 years! The proceeds from the sale of the house paid for my mother's full time care after my father passed away. After she passed away the balance of her estate came to myself and the other siblings. Not the same as having them around but nevertheless a welcome inheritance.

Sciolistes
23rd Dec 2008, 11:06
Flap 5,
It's good for the economy! They say. Well I hope you're right because that is the way thngs have been for a while now and if many others believe that way then we are stuck with it.
From my viewpoint as purely an amateur/armchair economist it doesn't strike me as a question of good or bad. According to related economic theory recessions are an important part of the system of economic policy used by all Western, indeed most countries in the world. Boom and bust is the process we must follow. The longer the bust is put off the bigger it will be.

The Government (oops, I mean the Bank of England) is slashing interest rates to encourage more borrowing by making it difficult to save and cheaper to borrow. I think the Banks see the inherent danger, have been burned, are still not sufficiently liquid and so are not passing on the rate cuts(as well as other reasons as discussed elsewhere). The banks don't want to lend and as a result are saving us from a worse fate. I wonder if the banks would rather people defaulted, releasing their secured assets improving the liquidity situation.

In the meantime, sensible and prudent savers are being penalised with low returns.

Happy days!

frostbite
23rd Dec 2008, 13:04
One of HMG's answers to the current situation is the proposal to introduce personal finance education in schools.

What's the good of that if they haven't been taught maths to a reasonable standard first?

Yak97
1st Jan 2009, 12:24
As reported:

In a New Year message the Prime Minister insisted that Britain would pull through - but admitted the challenge was 'enormous'.

'This coming year won't be easy, but I am determined that this Government will be the rock of stability and fairness on which the British people can depend,' he wrote.

'The scale of the challenges we face is matched by the strength of my optimism that the British people can and will rise to meet them.'

Amid widespread pessimism about 2009, the premier sought to strike an optimistic note at the start of what will be a make-or-break year for the Labour government.

The prospects for a fourth consecutive term in office are likely to turn on the eventual length and extent of Britain's first recession since the early 1990s.

But Mr Brown insisted the British people, and the Government, had demonstrated their ability to get through similar challenges in the past.

He said the task for 2009 was to 'build tomorrow', with jobs for the digital age and the green agenda, new transport and communications infrastructure and enhanced skills.

Working together with Britain's world partners, he said, such actions would ensure the UK would 'hit the ground running' after the downturn.

"rock of stability and fairness", as long as you work in the public sector!

And the there's a conundrum for a start with "the green agenda, new transport and communications infrastructure", how can you balance bunny-huggers agenda against a 3rd runway at Heathrow? How about a sensible decision on Crossrail? Anyway even if they push forward with new transport infrastructure, the countries out-of-date planning mechanism's will still means it takes a decade to build anything worthwhile. Look how long it takes to even re-open a stretch of existing railway, for example restoring the link between Oxford & Cambridge, which has been talked about for years:

See East West Rail - Consortium (http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk)

Example:

2.4 This project is being advanced as part of the drive to provide infrastructure to support the growth of Milton Keynes and surrounding area in the period 2011 to 2031. The completion of the western section of EWR will enhance sustainability of this expansion, as well as other growth planned along the rail corridor, and it will facilitate development of high-density housing around the new stations. It will improve connectivity between Milton Keynes and Bedford to the east and Oxford and Aylesbury to the west.

6.1 The Key planned Programme Dates are:-
• Award contract for next phase - By end November 2008
• Surveys to Commence - January 2009
• Phase 1 Complete (GRIP 3/4)- By end April 2009
• Design Specification Fixed - By end May 2009
• Commencement of Phase 2 (GRIP 4) - By end June 2009
• GRIP 4 Review and Commission complete - By end December 2009

1 year gone just to move from one talking point to another! (and that's 2 years late as well:

GRIP Stage 4 Study

This is currently underway and is due to be completed towards the end of 2007. More information will appear here shortly.)

frostbite
1st Jan 2009, 12:55
Desptite my loathing of Labour and all they stand for, I get the impression that Brown, in some areas, means well.

It's just that he's so naive and incompetent.

Avitor
1st Jan 2009, 13:02
Correction...he talks well and means nothing. :cool:

Low Flier
1st Jan 2009, 13:38
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/The_Forester/ZanuBrown.jpg

Krystal n chips
1st Jan 2009, 13:38
Remorse.....ah yes, another offering of horse hair shirt piety.....I do concede however that he has a point in that it's not wholly the fault of the Banks....the "live beyond your means to impress the neighbours" populace have to share the blame as well.....that said, the use of the word "remorse" seem more to do with the loss of bonus payments ( which get mentioned rather a lot here...more than would be expected in fact if the "remorse" was directed at the consumer....and not at the wallets of those in Banking ) and about which we all, I am sure, share their pain....:rolleyes:

BBC NEWS | UK | Banks 'feel remorse' for downturn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7806857.stm)

More hand wringing, apologist angst to come methinks from others in the community......all of whom are no doubt hard at work trying to devise as yet unknown methods of returning to the salad days.....and without the remotest concern towards the public "customers".

A tangible demonstration of integrity and intent for the future by Banks would be a start.....it's probably never even entered the various CEO's heads that restoring public confidence by doing such would, possibly, help in the Banks recovery.

Flap 5
1st Jan 2009, 13:44
Did anyone actually listen to Brown's Christmas message, apart from the media? This government has taken propaganda to new levels. I find it all rather distasteful myself. :yuk:

Yak97
1st Jan 2009, 15:16
More from Gordoland:

Mr Brown will say: 'The failure of British governments in previous downturns was to succumb to political expediency and to cut back investment across the board, thereby stunting our ability to grow and strangling hope during the upturn.

'This will not happen on my watch. The threat that will come of doing too little is greater than the threat of attempting too much. We will direct the next stage of our strategy at creating jobs and making the investments our economy needs.'

Key: investment = our hard earned cash

"creating jobs" - how? The only jobs the Government can directly create are all those non-jobs (such as the "Climate Change Manager" for Braintree Council, a snip at 38,556GBP/yr - what the hell can Braintree Council do to affect Climate Change - or the "Enviro-Crime Enforcement Officer" at 30,774GBP/yr from Lambeth Council - why not employ a real Crime Enforcement Officer (a Policeman)?). The only way the Government can affect the creation of jobs in the "real" productive side of the economy is to ensure that the general environment is conducive for risk takers to put their own money in to create Companies & jobs i.e to the reduce the amount of "red tape" involved in doing business, ensuring that there is a suitable trained pool of potential employee's and to ensure that the costs of the public sector are not a large drain on the economy.

On this basis this Government scores 0 out of 10.

"making the investments our economy needs". When did this Government, or any Government for that matter, ever make the correct guess on investments (with our money). You only have to look back at the history of nationalised industries in the UK to see that the criteria for investment is skewed by other interests (such as pacifying the unions) rather than pure business. Remember the "investment" in Rover immediately before the last election?

Yak97
4th Jan 2009, 10:23
Gordon Brown has pledged to create 100,000 jobs in a public spending programme.

The Prime Minister said projects for school repairs, new rail links and a better broadband infrastructure would help stem rising unemployment.

Hasn't the Government already been running a major program of school repairs? New rail links won't help in the short term - see previous post, and better broadband, like that's going to help!

PS to put 100,000 in context, Woolworths (which had 807 stores across the UK) employed 27,000 staff.

Sallyann1234
4th Jan 2009, 13:18
and better broadband, like that's going to help!

BT's famous '21st Century Network' will be built from equipment manufactured by Huawei. Who are they?
"In addition to the R&D centers in Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Nanjing, Xi’an, Chengdu, and Wuhan in China, Huawei also has R&D centers in Stockholm, Sweden; Dallas and Silicon Valley, U.S.; Bangalore, India; Ferbane in Offaly, Ireland; Moscow, Russia."

Can anyone spot the country missing from this list?

At one time BT could have had a number of UK telecoms companies competing for this huge contract: Marconi, Plessey, Decca, Racal, Ferranti ...
These companies have all ceased to exist.

Yes, better broadband :sad:

birrddog
5th Jan 2009, 02:17
These are the jobs he is planning on creating; more policeman and government types to spy on the British public - Police set to step up hacking of home PCs - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece)

I am waiting for them to change the law to make habitual dole collectors who live in council flats an official job, so they can show how well they are increasing the unemployment numbers.

:ugh:

Sciolistes
5th Jan 2009, 13:25
"creating jobs" - how? The only jobs the Government can directly create are all those non-jobs (such as the "Climate Change Manager" for Braintree Council, a snip at 38,556GBP/yr - what the hell can Braintree Council do to affect Climate Change - or the "Enviro-Crime Enforcement Officer" at 30,774GBP/yr from Lambeth Council - why not employ a real Crime Enforcement Officer (a Policeman)?).
Gordon was accused of "crass Keynesianism" by the German finance minister. Lowering tax, public spending in combination with monataristic lowering of interest rates is why.

In light of the above quote and the related link, It is interesting that one criticism of Keynesian economics is the theories apparent predisposition to totalitarian tendencies.

Blacksheep
5th Jan 2009, 13:29
Clearing out Dad's papers, I found that he bought 36 Hallifield Street from a Mrs Wright in 1950 for £145 cash when he was a Yeoman of Signals in the navy and he sold it in 1960 for £1,000, using the proceeds plus his savings to buy 315 Norton Rd from his employer, Imperial Chemical Industries, for $1,400 in cold hard cash. Its worth more than ten times that much now.

He was a humble chap who never had a mortgage or owed any money to anybody in his life - everything he owned he saved up and bought for cash.

Evidently he was a much better economist than either Gordon or Alistair.

sitigeltfel
5th Jan 2009, 13:49
Evidently he was a much better economist than either Gordon or Alistair.

I would suggest that most people are.

GrumpyOldFart
5th Jan 2009, 14:17
[/URL][URL="http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/355234-gordon-brown-off-fairies-3.html#post4628919"]Gordon Brown - off with the fairies (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/355234-gordon-brown-off-fairies-3.html#post4628919)?
(http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/355234-gordon-brown-off-fairies-3.html#post4628919)

Errrm... does Gordon let you call them 'fairies' these days?


:uhoh:

frostbite
5th Jan 2009, 15:47
Obviously a reference to his new best friend, PM.