Gordon Brown

[Sonic]

What a co<k!

[Robinho]

did it really take this incident to realise this?

[Larsen]

He is an idiot, but i've seen him as an idiot ever since he took over number 10. Why people would still vote Labour i will never know

[Sonic]

did it really take this incident to realise this?

No. I guess not.

[driveace]

Now we all know how thick Brown really is,forgot he had the Sky microphone still on and recording,and blames his team for letting him meet that "BIGOTTED" woman.
Asked on Jeremy Vine show about it and could not believe what he had done,as all before say what a c*ck,will I vote for them,NEVER,the Labour party are taking the Pi**

[Robinho]

i was never going to vote for that shower anyway, but that just makes me all the more confident that he'll have no part in any government.

unfortunately whoever takes over will be inheriting a steaming pile and will be massively unpopular anyway

[Sonic]

i was never going to vote for that shower anyway, but that just makes me all the more confident that he'll have no part in any government.

unfortunately whoever takes over will be inheriting a steaming pile and will be massively unpopular anyway

Indeed. Poison chalice if ever I saw one, there are some pretty hard times-a-coming if we don't want to repeat Greece's fate.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What he has said is irrelevant.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gee...I notice who hasn't commented on this thread..and I can tell who MIGHT be voting for this dour miserable soul.

This UK election is so much fun..they oughta sell tickets!!

[Rollo]

I think that it's somewhat refreshing to hear that a politician has opinions.

FFS the TV debate on ITV had 76 rules covering everything from handshakes and podiums to the "eyeline of the moderators". That doesn't in my books equate to openness of democracy.

Whether you agree or not with Brown's comment is entirely up to you, but the fact remains that if you think someone is a bigot, then you should be allowed to express it.

The fact remains that she probably IS a bigot... and I aint apologising for that.

[fandango]

I don't think it's that big a deal that he called her a bigot. We've all done that kind of thing, been friendly to someone's face and then said or thought "What a ****" as soon as the conversation is over.

It shows how over sensitive these things have become in the media. They were having two different conversations. The woman was speaking to her Prime Minister, but Brown was trying to speak to everyone, through TV.

What every politician needs, though, is a person who's specific job is to watch out for microphones. This situation could happen to anyone.

[Sonic]

I think that it's somewhat refreshing to hear that a politician has opinions.

FFS the TV debate on ITV had 76 rules covering everything from handshakes and podiums to the "eyeline of the moderators". That doesn't in my books equate to openness of democracy.

Whether you agree or not with Brown's comment is entirely up to you, but the fact remains that if you think someone is a bigot, then you should be allowed to express it.

The fact remains that she probably IS a bigot... and I aint apologising for that.

I think the point here is say it to the persons face.

"Sorry Gillian, I don't agree with you" is a lot less damaging that "bigot".

As it happens I don't agree with her views either but I shan't be calling here a bigot, or anything else.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think that it's somewhat refreshing to hear that a politician has opinions.

FFS the TV debate on ITV had 76 rules covering everything from handshakes and podiums to the "eyeline of the moderators". That doesn't in my books equate to openness of democracy.

Whether you agree or not with Brown's comment is entirely up to you, but the fact remains that if you think someone is a bigot, then you should be allowed to express it.

The fact remains that she probably IS a bigot... and I aint apologising for that.


Although it's not bogotted to talk about immigration I do think the topic plays a far too important role in politic, and I hope this issue doesn't come up in tonights TV debate.

She did say something along the lines of 'all those Eastern Europeans coming over ere, there's no one helping English people' . As EU members Eastern Europeans, they have as much right to be here as I do in any other other EU country.

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So she did sound a bit like a bigot.

I wonder what Cameron says when he isn't on mic?

[EuroTroll]

Having watched videos of this on the BBC website, I also don't see what the big deal is. It's not very nice, obviously, but as Fandango says...

Let he who is without such sin cast the first stone.

[fizzicist]

Given that she's a core Labour voter, calling her a bigot is just plain dumb.

The New Labour experiment has failed majestically - whoever takes over has the mother of all clean up jobs to do.

We've ended up with colossal public sector where employment costs are absolutely astronomical and massively above the private sector. (i.e. wealth creation sector).

Our national debt will become toxic to our economy unless reduced and reduced massively.

The attempts to get more graduates from the higher education system has simply devalued the 'degree'. (At risk of sounding an old fart, I recently interviewed some graduates and I am seriously questioning their basic literacy skills - no way should some of these people have survived the intellectual rigours of University successfully.)

Immigration is a total disaster area, where Labour's policy of creating a low cost unskilled workforce has created a disenchanted underclass and allowed the rise of the real bigots in the BNP.

So well done Gordon and Tony. Congratulations - you have created a situation where my children will still be working in 60 years time to pay for your experiment.

No doubt the house of Lords and the after dinner circuit will treat you appallingly well...

[Sonic]

Given that she's a core Labour voter, calling her a bigot is just plain dumb.

The New Labour experiment has failed majestically - whoever takes over has the mother of all clean up jobs to do.

We've ended up with colossal public sector where employment costs are absolutely astronomical and massively above the private sector. (i.e. wealth creation sector).

Our national debt will become toxic to our economy unless reduced and reduced massively.

The attempts to get more graduates from the higher education system has simply devalued the 'degree'. (At risk of sounding an old fart, I recently interviewed some graduates and I am seriously questioning their basic literacy skills - no way should some of these people have survived the intellectual rigours of University successfully.)

Immigration is a total disaster area, where Labour's policy of creating a low cost unskilled workforce has created a disenchanted underclass and allowed the rise of the real bigots in the BNP.

So well done Gordon and Tony. Congratulations - you have created a situation where my children will still be working in 60 years time to pay for your experiment.

No doubt the house of Lords and the after dinner circuit will treat you appallingly well...

:up:

[Malbec]

We've ended up with colossal public sector where employment costs are absolutely astronomical and massively above the private sector. (i.e. wealth creation sector).

Yet that increase in the public sector is largely a response to public demand for more regulation and better public services. Witness the huge amount of legislation around child safety, CRBs and the like which is driven by the hysteria around paedophilia and cases like baby P, all of which requires a massive increase in civil servants to administer. People demand a greater say in the way NHS services are delivered, lo-and-behold hospitals employ more staff to handle patient enquiries and complaints and to act on them.

I don't doubt that the public sector needs cutting down but it will also require the public to understand that they will not get something for nothing and that they should learn to expect less from public services as budgets are cut.


The attempts to get more graduates from the higher education system has simply devalued the 'degree'. (At risk of sounding an old fart, I recently interviewed some graduates and I am seriously questioning their basic literacy skills - no way should some of these people have survived the intellectual rigours of University successfully.)

New Labour doesn't have a monopoly on dumbing down education, and neither is that dumbing down limited to university, it starts far far earlier. My entire school education was under the Conservative government and it was obvious to me then that the GCSEs and A-Levels I was sitting were considerably easier than the O-levels that had gone on before.

As long as the public are satisfied that increasing 'A' grade passes at GCSE and A-Level equals better education then the government (of whatever persuasion) will try to get away with merely lowering the exam difficulty to make sure more kids pass. I don't see any party that is willing to tackle this at the roots, they all seem to insist that instead what the public really wants is 'choice'.


Immigration is a total disaster area, where Labour's policy of creating a low cost unskilled workforce has created a disenchanted underclass and allowed the rise of the real bigots in the BNP.

Not sure I understand how immigration relates to the creation of an unskilled workforce? Migrants form the bulk of the unskilled workforce here in the agricultural and service sectors, jobs British people simply don't want to do. They also fulfil roles in high end sectors such as finance and medicine where there simply aren't enough British people to do the job. You talked earlier about wealth creation but there are plenty of sectors that rely on migrants to create wealth for all.

Where Labour has utterly failed is to tackle the misconceptions around immigration head on, letting itself be waylaid by the Tories and the BNP and starting off on the assumption that immigration is wrong and needs to be stopped. They have failed to explain why immigration is important and necessary and educate the public.

They have also failed to make clear (something Gordon ironically did very well yesterday) that the hypocritical attitude that exists in many parts of Britain whereby its not acceptable for other EU nationals to come to the UK but where it is desirable for Brits to retire in places like France, Italy or Spain needs to stop.

As for what happened yesterday, the greatest loser overall are probably the Tories. Labour have essentially handed the opposition the election on the plate, they have presided over Britain's entry into a massive recession, they are lead by someone with NO people skills, they have lost considerable public support over the years and they have been shown to be corrupt. Yet despite this the Conservatives with a slick campaign and a photogenic charismatic leader look set to only manage a hung parliament. Despite having an open goal in front of them it looks like the Tories are not going to score a clear goal. There should be some serious introspection if the Tories don't win this with a clear majority.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dylan..your last paragraph is dead on the money. I cant see why the Tories are not out in front by a mile. Cameron is an idiot...

[Rollo]

I wonder what Cameron says when he isn't on mic?

Absolutely nothing.

Why?

Because Sky News wouldn't have released this into the public awareness if Cameron had said it. The fact is that the Murdoch press is openly backing the Tories, and they have admitted as such.

[Dave B]

Rather telling is this quote attributed to The Sun's political editor:


“It is my job to see that Cameron f-----g well gets into Downing Street,” proclaimed Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of the Sun, to a group of journalists from rival papers, recently.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/04/murdoch-biographer-sun-editor

http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/450/murdoch-chronicles-is-rupert-pissed-at-james.html

Cameron was expected to walk this election, it was the equivalent of taking a penalty while the goalkeeper had nipped for a cigarette. With the leaders' debates massively backfiring on the Conservatives by giving Nick Clegg such a boost, their supporters are getting desperate.

Sky News are in a state of panic over the thought that Cameron might not be PM. Broadcasting rules say that TV networks - unlike newspapers - must remain impartial, so Sky can't overtly show bias. But when it was their turn to host the debate they managed to attract 700 complaints (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/28/leaders-debate-complaints). A Cameron government would stifle the BBC and give freedoms to Sky, and there's clearly a vested interest in subtly promoting the tories.

Back to Brown's "gaffe", and it was clearly a rookie error to forget his mic was still live. But fair's fair: she was making some pretty bigotted and ignorant comments.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Whatever our thoughts on Gordon Brown and Labour I think if we're being honest, we've all said things about a customer after they'd left the shop or put the phone down that we'd hate for them to know about. As Nick Clegg said, if we all had recordings of things we've muttered under our breath we'd be crimson.

[Dave B]

Exactly BeansBeansBeans, I agree with your eloquent post. :up:














What gibberish, and such a stupid user name. Moron. Is this thing on?

[Sonic]

Exactly BeansBeansBeans, I agree with your eloquent post. :up:














What gibberish, and such a stupid user name. Moron. Is this thing on?

PML! :D

[BeansBeansBeans]

Bravo :p :

[Daniel]

Couldn't agree more BBB. I slag people off all the time :p

[Dave B]

Nicely done :up:

[V12]

As Nick Clegg said, if we all had recordings of things we've muttered under our breath we'd be crimson.

I agree - and then there's the old quote "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to your death your right to say it." Brown is entitled to his opinion and anyone who doesn't agree with him simply doesn't have to vote Labour and then move on, that's the beauty of democracy.

[555-04Q2]

What a co<k!

Have to agree with you. I watched all three live debates and last night's debate was a total shocker for Gordon. Last night's debate was also the most interesting by far for me.

Bye bye Gordie...

[Wasted Talent]

I agree - and then there's the old quote "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to your death your right to say it." Brown is entitled to his opinion and anyone who doesn't agree with him simply doesn't have to vote Labour and then move on, that's the beauty of democracy.

But the point is Brown wasn't expressing an opinion, one minute he's praising her to her face the next, in the limo, he's calling her a "bigotted woman".

Having said that the issue is irrelevant to my mind, the real issue is the disastrous debt he has built up - going from a small fiscal surplus in 2002 to a £70 BILLION deficit in 2007 ie BEFORE the recession started.

I think a lot of people don't realise the technical difference between deficit and government debt - last years "deficit" was £163 billion ,but that is JUST the in-year increase. The accumulated debt is now £700bn, and, even on Labour plans, will double by 2014. Add on PFI costs and the future costs of public sector pensions and you arrive at a current, not 2014, figure of £90,000 government debt for each family in the country - and that doesn't reflect anything for peoples personal debt on loans, credit cards, and mortgages.

Now that is why he is a co<k.....

WT

[BDunnell]

As many have said, it is only natural to vent one's spleen in private in a way you wouldn't in public, even if you are the Prime Minister. But in not realising the microphone was still on Brown has lined himself up with the likes of Ronald Reagan and Ron Atkinson. Not good company to keep. As for the woman's remarks, they weren't really all that bigoted. Rambling, ill-thought-out and inarticulate, yes, but bigoted? Not especially.

[fizzicist]

Yet that increase in the public sector is largely a response to public demand for more regulation and better public services.........they should learn to expect less from public services as budgets are cut.


I'd question this - whilst in principle people want better public services, I very much doubt people want more regulation. The baby P case is a hugely emotive (and when arguing my point, somewhat misleading) example to use, but it is not a shortage of money that was behind the failure of the council. The colossal amount of beaurocracy that comes as a consequence of so much regulation has a big influence too.

Culturally the public sector is on another planet. If you work for a business and perform badly or fail to do your job, you can expect to be sacked or managed out of the business. This just doesn't seem to happen amongst the public sector - there is a lack of accountability.




New Labour doesn't have a monopoly on dumbing down education, and neither is that dumbing down limited to university, it starts far far earlier. My entire school education was under the Conservative government and it was obvious to me then that the GCSEs and A-Levels I was sitting were considerably easier than the O-levels that had gone on before.



As was mine - GCSE's & O Levels were very different in their structure and demands. O Levels were a much more direct exam where the pass/fail judgement was made on giving a straight answer. GCSE seems to reward the 'fluff' around the edges more.

However my point is that one of New Labour's primary objectives was to put more people through University. I am now an employer and the standard of basic literacy and numeracy in graduates is simply appalling. I'm only 31 but even my generation regarded University as something which prepared you for life.

Higher education seems to spit out vast swathes of people with a 2:2 or 3rd class degree in "Modern Cinema with American culture" who expect everything on a plate for them - they are completely unprepared for the realities of life.






Not sure I understand how immigration relates to the creation of an unskilled workforce? Migrants form the bulk of the unskilled workforce here in the agricultural and service sectors, jobs British people simply don't want to do.


I think this is a little misleading - the statement that British people simply 'don't want to do the jobs' is quite emotive and not always true - it's the stock in trade of the "shut the door" brigade. Where the govt has failed is in policing those who have come to the UK and their visa has expired & they're still here. There are also employment loopholes concerning immigrant workers on temporary contracts & visa's and minimum wage which is what has helped keep labour costs artificially low vs the minimum wage costs.


Ultimately I agree with you on your point that this should be a total walkover for Cameron, however I think I has tried to please all the people all the time. The country is in a total mess economically and some very uncomfortable decisions have to be made as we have been living beyond our means for a long time.

[Daniel]

I agree Fizzi, I'm working in the public sector at the moment and it's a completely different way of thinking, or not thinking.......

[fizzicist]

I agree Fizzi, I'm working in the public sector at the moment and it's a completely different way of thinking, or not thinking.......

I sincerely hope for your sake that you're on the gravy train properly, pension et al. If you are - cling on with all your strength!

I've spent ages trying myself but unfortunately I am a commercially minded person with a habit of running businesses profitably, destroying political structures and finding efficiencies in everything.

Consequently the public sector don't want me!

(No I don't have any principles)

[Daniel]

Nah I'm just a peasant :) It doesn't wash well with me though, I much prefer working in the private sector by a country mile.

[driveace]

The only reason this came out of the bag was that the Labour party was doing STAGE MANNAGED tours talking to the people,BUT Brown cannot talk to the people he is not that intellegent,so when the old lady turned up Brown thought he could deal with her quickly.He did not anticipate that she was going to stand and Question him more,this then became a situation that he had not got the intellegence to deal with,and the old lady got the better of him and made him look what he is a FOOL!!!,That is why when he got into his car,he was mad that one of his team had put him in this vunerable position.He is a thick politition who has Mandelson doing all the planning,as Brown can hardly open an envelope.As for Clegg trying to convince everyone he is a normal yORKSHIRE,poor lad .Well that is a total lie,he is very nearly a millionaire,of very wealthy parents,with mansions in France and massive ski lodges in Switzerland.
He wants us to be in the Euro too,but lied about that fact even though its in the LibDem manifesto,and his argument that 80% of all imegrants are from fellow EU states is TOTALLY wrong ,the figure fron fellow EU states is a mere 40%,the other 60% are from countrys outside the EU,and can be,and should be stopped,coming here as we are a soft touch.Now get yout teeth into that you Labour/Lib Dem supporters!!!

[Daniel]

Nice rant.

[Malbec]

I'd question this - whilst in principle people want better public services, I very much doubt people want more regulation. The baby P case is a hugely emotive (and when arguing my point, somewhat misleading) example to use, but it is not a shortage of money that was behind the failure of the council. The colossal amount of beaurocracy that comes as a consequence of so much regulation has a big influence too.

I didn't really explain my point very well and I guess it only partly relates to your original point.

To expand a little it seems to me that Britain is largely built on a climate of terror, whether its of crime, immigration, a poor NHS, paedophiles, poor education and the economy. This is the message the government gets too from opinion polls and the press. Remarkably the one thing people don't seem to be terrorised by is terrorism. Much of it is paradoxical, even the most pessimistic surveys and statistics show that crime has stayed largely stable over the past two decades, most show a drop yet people believe there is more. The NHS delivers a better service than in 1997 on just about any measure but people who aren't in contact with it generally believe its on its knees. Immigration is another, people concentrate on the number coming in without subtracting the numbers going out and panic. Its clear to me living in London that there's been a huge exodus of migrants back to the EU thanks to the economic crash and the fall of the pound, that barely gets mentioned. What are the real statistical chances of your kid getting into contact with a paedophile outside the family? Its miniscule.

The overwhelming tone especially from the media is that if there's a failure or a shortcoming then it is up to government to sort it out. Given those pressures what is the government expected to do? They can only react in two ways, legislate and expand the public sector to cope. And they've done so. We've only got ourselves to blame for demanding government action and intervention on just about everything.


Culturally the public sector is on another planet. If you work for a business and perform badly or fail to do your job, you can expect to be sacked or managed out of the business. This just doesn't seem to happen amongst the public sector - there is a lack of accountability.

I don't think you can ever get rid of that culture which is why I'm ALWAYS sceptical when some party claims they can save billions through merely making efficiencies within the civil service. They can cut budgets, they can shed staff but if making it so much more efficient was so easy it'd already have been done.


Ultimately I agree with you on your point that this should be a total walkover for Cameron, however I think I has tried to please all the people all the time. The country is in a total mess economically and some very uncomfortable decisions have to be made as we have been living beyond our means for a long time.

I don't trust Cameron because his policies seem to change on a daily basis, a few months ago he unveiled hard budget cuts to reduce the deficit. Has he mentioned them since?

But the main thing I also fear are deep early budget cuts. Effectively the state is the only part of the economy that is still freely spending, cutting spending massively now to reduce the deficit will freeze the economy, it will be the equivalent of several leading British corporations going bankrupt overnight. While I certainly agree that hard decisions need to be made I don't think rushing into slashing a budget will prove beneficial in either the short or long run.

In fact given the harsh decisions awaiting the next government in the first few years of its term I'm surprised any of them actually want the job. They may find it a poison chalice.

[fizzicist]

Oh it's a poisoned chalice alright!

Have a look at today's Times. They're talking an emergency budget if the tories get in.

I can see your point regarding the state still spending freely, but the issue isn't one of liquidity any more - the banks have shored up their balance sheets and are, by and large profitable again. The next step is for them to start lending to business again, which will happen naturally now they have taken the bad debts.

The problem now is state debt. This is why cuts are needed - yes the NHS is better than it was but nowhere near as good as it should be for the biblical sums of money spent on it. We still have operating theaters empty on a Friday afternoon because that's golf time, we still have more administrators than health professionals etc.

For example, much of the waste in a lot of the public sector is down to ministerial interference. Billions has been spent on IT solutions that don't work. Look at the NHS now - there's a massive IT system storing everything. However, every hospital visit you make, you will note that there are a team of administrators with your entire medical records in paper. What a waste!

Any technology upgrade in the public sector is a perfect example of the waste we're talking about - the civil service tries to do everything itself. Look at the public sector giants. They tender the job out, subcontract it and if the project goes over budget, tough ****. The budgetary control is the issue of the business employed to run it.

Ultimately the UK is in debt and is continuing to spend more than it receives in income.

Yet we're concerned that stopping spending will be dangerous?! No-one spent their way out of their overdraft....

[Daniel]

Yet we're concerned that stopping spending will be dangerous?! No-one spent their way out of their overdraft....

Perhaps things are different where you are Fizzi but here in our county a good deal of the employment is with the public sector. If you start pulling money and jobs out of the public sector then those people aren't going to be simply walking into other jobs. Now of course 2 or 3 years down the line if these cuts are made it's not going to be any better here but it'd be a big problem for some regions if public spending was cut so savagely now.

The way the public sector is geared is fundamentally wrong. The whole "oh cock it's the end of financial year we've got to spend the rest of our budget on anything" frame of mind has to go! How can you run your department efficiently and save money if you know that all that's going to happen next financial year is that you're going to have that money taken off you and that any request for a higher budget are going to be laughed at for years?

Do your or I do this? Oh crap it's the end of financial year, I've saved up some money by having a budget and underspending, I better spend it now rather than put it to use on something which I actually need it for? :mark:

[Malbec]

I can see your point regarding the state still spending freely, but the issue isn't one of liquidity any more - the banks have shored up their balance sheets and are, by and large profitable again. The next step is for them to start lending to business again, which will happen naturally now they have taken the bad debts.

I have friends in banking though who claim that while banks are trying to lend more to small businesses (the state owned ones are penalised heavily financially if they miss lending targets), that the overall trend is for companies to pay back debt rather than take more on. If this is the case then blaming banks, whilst easy, is not going to solve the problem.

British exporters are having a relatively good time thanks to the weakness of the pound but where are their profits going? Not on investment, not on expansion but on paying back debts. They aren't going to expand any time soon to drive the economy are they, and it looks like the pound advantage over the Euro is going to be much less as Greece goes down so if anything things will get worse.


The problem now is state debt. This is why cuts are needed - yes the NHS is better than it was but nowhere near as good as it should be for the biblical sums of money spent on it. We still have operating theaters empty on a Friday afternoon because that's golf time, we still have more administrators than health professionals etc.

True, much money was wasted under Blair on endless reforms of the NHS which never filtered down to the frontline. That fortunately has stopped now. But cutting down on NHS spending will result in greater unemployment and less cashflow in the greater economy too, how will that help with recovery?

BTW that tagline about operating theatres left empty on Friday afternoon because of golf is rather inaccurate. Traditionally operating lists are left empty on Friday for emergency cases to clear the way for the weekend.


For example, much of the waste in a lot of the public sector is down to ministerial interference. Billions has been spent on IT solutions that don't work. Look at the NHS now - there's a massive IT system storing everything. However, every hospital visit you make, you will note that there are a team of administrators with your entire medical records in paper. What a waste!

Again true, ministerial interference does raise costs especially in defence where contracts have to be rewritten as equipment specifications are changed halfway through the design process due to political pressures. As for the NHS spine which I believe you're referring to, again a colossal waste of money which was opposed by the medical profession and also eventually by the primary IT contractor Fujitsu who claimed that the system would be impossible to implement as they pulled out.


Any technology upgrade in the public sector is a perfect example of the waste we're talking about - the civil service tries to do everything itself. Look at the public sector giants. They tender the job out, subcontract it and if the project goes over budget, tough ****. The budgetary control is the issue of the business employed to run it.

In my experience the civil service does contract out, in fact if this government can be characterised by anything it is its willingness to contract out when there are state run options available. Most of the IT projects (which is what I believe you're referring to) have been contracted out for example.


Ultimately the UK is in debt and is continuing to spend more than it receives in income.

Yet we're concerned that stopping spending will be dangerous?! No-one spent their way out of their overdraft....

Comparing national level economics to personal economics is inaccurate.

I completely agree that state expenditure needs to be cut down but the biggest threat to the global economy now is a double dip recession. An immediate cut in spending is going to make that worse and needs to be phased in carefully. Also how much money are you going to save by sacking staff who then turn up at the benefits office the next day?

[Malbec]

Perhaps things are different where you are Fizzi but here in our county a good deal of the employment is with the public sector. If you start pulling money and jobs out of the public sector then those people aren't going to be simply walking into other jobs. Now of course 2 or 3 years down the line if these cuts are made it's not going to be any better here but it'd be a big problem for some regions if public spending was cut so savagely now.

Precisely, and unlike say banking which mainly affects London and the South East or manufacturing which is mainly located in the Midlands, cuts in state spending will affect every single part of the country.

[Daniel]

I have friends in banking though who claim that while banks are trying to lend more to small businesses (the state owned ones are penalised heavily financially if they miss lending targets), that the overall trend is for companies to pay back debt rather than take more on. If this is the case then blaming banks, whilst easy, is not going to solve the problem.

British exporters are having a relatively good time thanks to the weakness of the pound but where are their profits going? Not on investment, not on expansion but on paying back debts. They aren't going to expand any time soon to drive the economy are they, and it looks like the pound advantage over the Euro is going to be much less as Greece goes down so if anything things will get worse.



True, much money was wasted under Blair on endless reforms of the NHS which never filtered down to the frontline. That fortunately has stopped now. But cutting down on NHS spending will result in greater unemployment and less cashflow in the greater economy too, how will that help with recovery?

BTW that tagline about operating theatres left empty on Friday afternoon because of golf is rather inaccurate. Traditionally operating lists are left empty on Friday for emergency cases to clear the way for the weekend.



Again true, ministerial interference does raise costs especially in defence where contracts have to be rewritten as equipment specifications are changed halfway through the design process due to political pressures. As for the NHS spine which I believe you're referring to, again a colossal waste of money which was opposed by the medical profession and also eventually by the primary IT contractor Fujitsu who claimed that the system would be impossible to implement as they pulled out.



In my experience the civil service does contract out, in fact if this government can be characterised by anything it is its willingness to contract out when there are state run options available. Most of the IT projects (which is what I believe you're referring to) have been contracted out for example.

Comparing national level economics to personal economics is inaccurate.

I completely agree that state expenditure needs to be cut down but the biggest threat to the global economy now is a double dip recession. An immediate cut in spending is going to make that worse and needs to be phased in carefully. Also how much money are you going to save by sacking staff who then turn up at the benefits office the next day?

Your post pretty much indicates why you can't say that the future is either rosey or bleak for Britain because everything has a good and a bad side.

I completely agree with the last part of your post. The public sector is what's keeping the country afloat at the moment. Something that makes me laugh a little is all those public sector workers I was talking to about a year ago when I was working for a large credit card company selling PPC who said they'd never get made redundant. It's that sort of frame of mind which breads mediocrity because people think they don't need to do their best, just enough so they don't get fired for being rubbish.

[fizzicist]

Comparing national level economics to personal economics is inaccurate.



No it isn't! If you spend more than your income, then sooner or later you will run out of money. That is exactly what is happening.

The next parliament will be very painful for many, but the blame lies at Gordon's door for his remarkable imprudence and managing to squander 13 years of economic growth.

[BDunnell]

Culturally the public sector is on another planet. If you work for a business and perform badly or fail to do your job, you can expect to be sacked or managed out of the business. This just doesn't seem to happen amongst the public sector - there is a lack of accountability.

I am sure there is much truth in this. However, I think your view is maybe a trifle outdated given the changes which have taken place in certain elements of the UK's public sector at least. For one thing, exactly the same situation as you describe can and does apply in the private sector as well — not everyone within it is a beacon of competence and deserving of their position. And one can hardly say that the private sector has, in its involvement in British public services, shown the level of superiority over well-run public services that those with an exaggerated level of respect for the private sector may claim. The UK's railways are a classic example, and, contrary to some opinion, not just because of the muddled manner in which they were privatised. There is simply no comparison with the state-owned and -run networks one encounters in large parts of mainland Europe.



However my point is that one of New Labour's primary objectives was to put more people through University. I am now an employer and the standard of basic literacy and numeracy in graduates is simply appalling. I'm only 31 but even my generation regarded University as something which prepared you for life.

Higher education seems to spit out vast swathes of people with a 2:2 or 3rd class degree in "Modern Cinema with American culture" who expect everything on a plate for them - they are completely unprepared for the realities of life.

I think the policy of increasing numbers of students attending university has been one of the biggest disasters of the Labour administrations since 1997. This is not to demean the many talented, able, articulate individuals who do still go to university, and nor should one forget that a lot of people undeserving of a place have always ended up at uni; this is not merely a modern phenomenon. However, the situation is still worrying. Personally, I find appalling the manner in which a university education is increasingly being regarded as a vocational thing. This has always been the case with some subjects, of course, such as medicine and law. But now we see the budgets of subjects that are not deemed to be sufficiently directly-connected to the world of business, such as languages and history, being squeezed, or courses being adapted to serve those ends rather than being geared towards genuine learning. I am a traditionalist when it comes to university policy, and deplore the current focus — not least in terms of funding — that is placed on such as business and media studies departments.

[Malbec]

The next parliament will be very painful for many, but the blame lies at Gordon's door for his remarkable imprudence and managing to squander 13 years of economic growth.

Do you honestly think any other government would have been different? I didn't see much criticism of government spending before the credit crunch, and Brown hasn't been able to cut spending after the crunch despite falling tax returns for fear of worsening the recession. Had anyone else been in power they would have had to do exactly the same things as he did. In fact if you look at just about every other developed nation in the world, their reaction to the credit crunch has been broadly similar to ours.

There are plenty of things to criticise Labour over, I've certainly been one of their strongest critics but their running of the economy can only be criticised significantly with the benefit of hindsight.

[Rollo]

The next parliament will be very painful for many, but the blame lies at Gordon's door for his remarkable imprudence and managing to squander 13 years of economic growth.

So what you are saying in effect is that for those 13 years the country wasn't being taxed highly enough? Whose fault was that? Was it the populace who generally don't like being taxed, or was it The City who also don't like being taxed but can actually Government Policy?


No it isn't! If you spend more than your income, then sooner or later you will run out of money. That is exactly what is happening.

In the short term, maybe. But remember, if the government hadn't been making those injections into the economy, would it have shrunk further? Government Spending is an injection into the economy, which is one of the contributors to Aggregate Demand.

[fizzicist]

So what you are saying in effect is that for those 13 years the country wasn't being taxed highly enough?

Absolutely not.

We were spending massively beyond our means.

The state and public sector has grown massively, and to a large extent irreversibly. Numerous opportunities to reduce the national debt were ignored in pursuit of white elephants like the Millennium Dome, the 2012 Olympics (note that Greece have just had the bill for their Olympics) just being a few examples. Not to mention a few wars...

I was never a fan, but Blair's government did a lot of good things (The NHS is a lot better but also wildly inefficient and wasteful), but the latter half of the Labour government has been simply appalling in so many ways.

[BDunnell]

The state and public sector has grown massively, and to a large extent irreversibly. Numerous opportunities to reduce the national debt were ignored in pursuit of white elephants like the Millennium Dome, the 2012 Olympics (note that Greece have just had the bill for their Olympics) just being a few examples. Not to mention a few wars...

If it's that sort of wastage you're talking about, I am inclined to agree.

[Rollo]

We were spending massively beyond our means.

The state and public sector has grown massively, and to a large extent irreversibly. Numerous opportunities to reduce the national debt were ignored in pursuit of white elephants like the Millennium Dome, the 2012 Olympics (note that Greece have just had the bill for their Olympics) just being a few examples. Not to mention a few wars...

The flip side to all of this is that money was spent on something. Because it was spent, that means that businesses derived income from that spending.
Did I ever hear about business complaining that it was making all that money?

If memory serves me right, most of the national debt which has recently surfaced, is the result of governments assuming debt via either nationalisation of banks and/or discharging their obligations as lenders of last resort. In which case, isn't that a market failure?

[Mark in Oshawa]

The flip side to all of this is that money was spent on something. Because it was spent, that means that businesses derived income from that spending.
Did I ever hear about business complaining that it was making all that money?

If memory serves me right, most of the national debt which has recently surfaced, is the result of governments assuming debt via either nationalisation of banks and/or discharging their obligations as lenders of last resort. In which case, isn't that a market failure?

The thing is, if the government didn't regulate the banking sector and put laws in place to stop them from lending to people with no money (the crisis that the Americans really brought on the world, but I hear UK banks had bought some of these bad mortgages as well)so, yes they have to now assume some of the debt and obligation to stop the whole system from starting to collapse.

The fact is though, most governments who are rather glib about debt loads and use this idea that "we are spending money to keep the economy going" are like a drug user taking another hit to feel better because with drawl feels worse. The problem still continues, and the short term hit is to be balanced by the reality the debt just grew again.

I don't blame Blair and Brown for their motives, or the governments that try to spend their way out of a recession if their motives are truly in trying to help things. The problem is...it just doesn't work. When the government spends money they don't have, they have to borrow it or they have to print it. Too much of either is unhealthy and foolish. How many examples in history have shown this, and yet look how government operates? More entitlements for the citizenry. More government intervention in the economy. More this..more that...no one in Government seems capable of saying NO.

I get the nuances of what government is responsible for, what things it should provide, and I don't think I can knock a citizenry for electing people who offer more services if they are not afraid of paying the tax load for it up to a point. But when your net income is one half of what you earn, that means the government is taking 50% of your money...and who benefits? Who really? The poor? Well governments have been fighting poverty for the last 4 decades and we still have poor. The sick? Government healthcare works, but it is very inefficient at times. The economy? Government doesn't create jobs, unless you put them on the public payroll. Ask the Greeks how that is working. Government should create the climate for the private sector to create jobs.

Instead, I think the only people who truly benefit from governments taking 50% of the money you and I earn are the people who work for government. They make in most nations 30% more than the same jobs in the private sector, with better benefits and pensions. I have no problem with people making what ever they can get, but when I have to pay for things for people that I cannot have in my job, then I start to question the legitmacy of propping up this elitist class of people who figure they are entitled to more because they serve the public.....

[fizzicist]

The flip side to all of this is that money was spent on something. Because it was spent, that means that businesses derived income from that spending.
Did I ever hear about business complaining that it was making all that money?



I'm sure that even in your finest devil's advocate moments, would agree that the vast sums trashed on the Millennium Dome, and the biblical amounts due to be pissed up the wall on the Olympics could generate significantly better returns for business if that money was spent elsewhere. Such as paying off debt and reducing the level of interest your taxes go towards funding for a starter.

I don't think anyone made any money on the Millennium Dome to be honest...

[Dave B]

I'm sure that even in your finest devil's advocate moments, would agree that the vast sums trashed on the Millennium Dome, and the biblical amounts due to be pissed up the wall on the Olympics could generate significantly better returns for business if that money was spent elsewhere. Such as paying off debt and reducing the level of interest your taxes go towards funding for a starter.

I don't think anyone made any money on the Millennium Dome to be honest...
In fairness, the dome was paid for almost entirely from National Lottery funding, and in comparitive terms was a piss in the ocean compared to the cost of - say - the Iraq war.

[fizzicist]

Building it was...the funding of the after effects however....

[Rollo]

The fact is though, most governments who are rather glib about debt loads and use this idea that "we are spending money to keep the economy going" are like a drug user taking another hit to feel better because with drawl feels worse. The problem still continues, and the short term hit is to be balanced by the reality the debt just grew again.

The basic model of the economy is that:
Aggregate Income = (Consumer Spending + Investment Spending + Receipts from Export ) - (Savings + Taxation + Payments for Imports).

Or:
Y = C+I+G+X - (S+T+M)

If for some reason, investment spending ceases due to fear, then the shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Government must step in and make up the shortfall, because it can come from nowhere else.

If government is not "spending money to keep the economy going" then economy suffers through the economic cycle a lot worse. Perhaps a look into history may be instructive.
From the period of 1879 until 1901, there was a period of massive instablity and the US economy was in recession for 114 of the 253 months March 1879 until January 1901.
Furthermore, the Great Depression itself was caused by a failure of "lower aggregate expenditures in the economy which contributed to a massive decline in income".
If government does not spend money, then history proves, that the economy slows and or contracts to the point of general nastiness because nobody else does spend (or indeed can spend) the necessary volumes of money to keep it going.

Prudent management suggests that over the course of the cycle, taxation should be increased through periods of boom specifically so that government spending can increase through periods of bust. It actually helps to flatten out both the peaks and troughs of the cycle.

I reject your fantasy and substitute actual real-world history.

[Malbec]

I was never a fan, but Blair's government did a lot of good things (The NHS is a lot better but also wildly inefficient and wasteful), but the latter half of the Labour government has been simply appalling in so many ways.

You use the NHS as an example of how Brown has mismanaged compared to Blair but I disagree.

He stopped the endless reorganisation of the SHAs and PCTs which cost billions during Blair's time. He also stopped many of the expensive private contracts to hive work off the NHS.

The NHS itself is actually quite efficient and always has been both prior to and during this Labour government. The problem is that money has been wasted on projects that are health related but independent of the NHS such as the NHS spine IT project or the reorganisations I detailed above, both of which Brown has stopped anyway. If anything I'd say the greatest waste was under Blair.

The greatest tribute to what New Labour achieved is what isn't up for discussion in the current election. Noone is proposing to scrap the minimum wage, to regain government control over the BoE or to stop civil partnerships. Politicians are scrambling to proclaim that they're going to protect various flagship public services that New Labour built up. Even as a natural conservative I am happy to acknowledge that all those things are achievements Labour can be proud of.

[ioan]

What he has said is irrelevant.

Even worse, what he said was true! And everyone blamed him for saying the truth. What a sick society.

PS: Brown wasn't half as bad a prime minister people are trying to make him look like. But again, someone has to be at fault because this is how things work in the 'modern' society.