Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.
We're happy to drone these fuckers (wiping out the odd wedding, in the process) if we catch them in Syria.
I don't understand what it's to do with the Americans, surely they need to face an Iraqi court and Iraqi Justice ?
They murdered Americans and committed crimes against humanity both of which can be tried by the Americans. It's following old principles which allowed us to try Germans.
I was in prison (as many pb-ers know) in the 1980s, for a couple of months. Category A. Wormwood Scrubs. Proper murderers and the like, all around me. There was general contempt for cons who whined about their legal punishment. They got caught by America. Now they will face the legal consequences.
Indeed. Not much sympathy here. Isn't the real story though that the Home Secretary clearly feels able to make populist...and possibly popular policy on the hoof? Seems each Minister is now making it up as they go along with no fear of sanction.
Apparently the loophole has been in the policy for years, so he's not making new policy as such.
Setting a precedent then.
Perhaps so. But as far as government decision-making goes, that's a different thing and not something to be much bothered about.
I said at the weekend Javid is May replacement candidate with the momentum, I see this simply as electioneering in the two colleges ahead for him. In terms of becoming crowned leader of his own party I don’t think he has had a bad few days at all.
However, in all the everyone regardless of crime deserves the best evidence based trial or else we are no better than these savages/yeah but those droned to bits don’t get that/trying these two in Britain couldn’t have been sure of conviction which was basis of decision to strip their nationality arguments being had, healthy and necessary arguments, I think there is something big we are missing. Regardless of passport, They are still British in their socialisation and rite of passage. A failure of Britain today that leaves so many youngsters in a nihilistic existence, taking and peddling drugs, soft crime, like drones all the more easy to groom with idealistic bullshit. Were they always just wrong uns? Was it the ISIS propaganda? Or does Britain have a responsibility in the creation of their evil it can’t bring itself to own up to?
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.misc
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
Or maybe they are simply out of touch with the electorate? Are they merely an "out-of-touch conservative elite?" cf, Populist. Popular politician I don't approve of.
These are questions the "mainstream" Left and Right have not answered, or even really wanted to consider.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.misc
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.misc
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
Fight, fight and fight again.
Or not. They seem rather keener to try to ride out the storm in the hope that it'll pass without too much damage.
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of us.politics.misc
It is specific to these terrorists. Classic case on Sky paper review where Carole Malone supports it but then Stig Abel demurs. Carole speaks for the people, Stig for the liberal elite
Mate...I wish you'd stopping using the phrase liberal elite.....it's stupid, crass and is spiralling our politics into the gutter.......and maybe you personally are better than just banding around inane phrases exploited by the likes of Farage....
"Liberal bigots"?
A well used phrase for us fellow alumni of uk.politics.misc
Don't look at me! 'Twas Mr Robert Henderson
Clearly a man before his time...
It must be 4 years since I posted to uk.politics.misc, and even longer on a regular basis.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Based on evidence from Guy Verhofstadt, we are unconvinced that all of those involved in the Brexit negotiations fully understand the implications of cutting the UK out of shared data platforms, and moving to a model of ‘reciprocal’ data exchange. While we acknowledge that SIS II remains part of the Schengen package of measures, we call on EU27 countries to look beyond political considerations, consult their own law enforcement agencies, and engage fully with the operational impact of locking the UK out of EU law enforcement databases after Brexit.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, that's the problem. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees and you're used to no more than 15.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
I remember the riots in the early 80s when the Chief Constable of the Avon & Somerset Police was asked what he needed to help contain the trouble in Bristol. "Rain" was his one word answer. Also the R4 Today broadcasters breathlessly announcing that they were getting reports of disturbances and fighting in the Newcastle Bigg Market and were crossing urgently to Northumbria Police.....who said it was a 'typical Saturday night'....
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, and most people don't have air conditioning. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees.
Only in Britain would you start rioting because the weather is too good
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, and most people don't have air conditioning. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees.
Only in Britain would you start rioting because the weather is too good
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, and most people don't have air conditioning. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees.
Only in Britain would you start rioting because the weather is too good
I think it's unusual for riots to happen when it's raining, cold, windy, etc. Both the 1981 and 2011 riots happened during unusually warm weather IIRC.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, and most people don't have air conditioning. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees.
Only in Britain would you start rioting because the weather is too good
I think it's unusual for riots to happen when it's raining, cold, windy, etc. Both the 1981 and 2011 riots happened during unusually warm weather IIRC.
Didn't the 2011 riots happen because it was "Blackberry" season?
Based on evidence from Guy Verhofstadt, we are unconvinced that all of those involved in the Brexit negotiations fully understand the implications of cutting the UK out of shared data platforms, and moving to a model of ‘reciprocal’ data exchange. While we acknowledge that SIS II remains part of the Schengen package of measures, we call on EU27 countries to look beyond political considerations, consult their own law enforcement agencies, and engage fully with the operational impact of locking the UK out of EU law enforcement databases after Brexit.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
And don't think this heinous crime couldn't be inflicted on any of us. This poor guy was just opening his car boot in a suburban street and some guy he didn't know just decided to randomly chuck acid over him and scar him for life. The horrific pain lasts for weeks but the scars physical and mental can never go away.
Such incidents were almost unheard of a few years ago - now we have had hundreds of such attacks in just one London borough.
A crime so appalling the victim can never fully recover - I cannot ever think any punishment can be too harsh for the sort of digusting trash who commit such crimes.
As you say how and why have we allowed this to happen and why isn't there more outrage about it - I expect if it were more prevalent in south west London rather than east London it would be deemed worthy of more serious government action.
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
Why?
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
We're not used to it, and most people don't have air conditioning. It's difficult to get a good night's sleep when it's 20 degrees.
Only in Britain would you start rioting because the weather is too good
I think it's unusual for riots to happen when it's raining, cold, windy, etc. Both the 1981 and 2011 riots happened during unusually warm weather IIRC.
Didn't the 2011 riots happen because it was "Blackberry" season?
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
(I have to say that I find UAF and their ilk just as obnoxious.)
It does seem to be a modern trend, that the right wing idiots and left wing idiots have a habit of turning up to protest in the same place at the same time. Can’t be much fun for either the police or the general public caught up in it.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
The national credit card was not getting maxed out. Pre-meltdown borrowing and budget deficits were historically low and less than under the Conservatives.
I'm sure that other UK government had taken similar steps, failing known subversives when they took civil service exams. If anything it was a more subtle version of The Federal German Berufsverbot of 1972.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
The national credit card was not getting maxed out. Pre-meltdown borrowing and budget deficits were historically low and less than under the Conservatives.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
The national credit card was not getting maxed out. Pre-meltdown borrowing and budget deficits were historically low and less than under the Conservatives.
Governments generally get blamed for things happening under their watch, fairly or unfairly, regardless of what the opposition were thinking.
Which is why I was quite happy with a close defeat and letting the Conservatives handle Brexit. I did maybe underestimate how badly they would handle Brexit, great to get the political advantage but obviously I want it to go fairly well.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
The national credit card was not getting maxed out. Pre-meltdown borrowing and budget deficits were historically low and less than under the Conservatives.
Ah hem. Government borrowing was modest, but personal lending was through the roof
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That's remarkable considering the national credit card was getting maxed out.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
The national credit card was not getting maxed out. Pre-meltdown borrowing and budget deficits were historically low and less than under the Conservatives.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
Yes, he says stuff which is clearly false and outrageous, but then he goes and says stuff which is entirely true, which no one else will say. i.e. Muslim immigration into liberal democracies is severely problematic, and should be curtailed.
Who seriously disputes this? But who, amongst the "leaders" of Europe, would say it?
I honestly don't get this.
If I look at Reddit andave to be, and we, as a nation, have proved that. How Sweden integrates its 6% Muslim population, even if you follow the Reddit knuckle-draggers' line, is not a more illuminating example than how Leicester integrates its 19%.
I think that one need
I quite recommend this book on Generation M to give a more balanced view of young Muslims today, and how their ideas are changing our society. It reflects the experience of the Muslims that I work with rather better than some of the stereotypes that we see. It makes sense of the teenagers that I saw the other day on the Humberstone Rd, in miniskirts and yogapants, but also headscarves, playing on their phones and giggling with the teenage boys.
The problem, of course, is not individual Muslims, it is Islam.
Just as the problem was not Germans, as individuals. it was Nazism, disguised as German nationalism.
Fundamentalist Islamism has taken root, deeply, in many Muslim communities just as Nazism took root across Germany.
And yet, how many Germans were truly active supporters of Hitler? 20%? 15%? How many Germans would have agreed with the Holocaust, if asked? 2%? 0.5%? 0.005%?
It didn't matter. The centre did not hold. The extremists captured the majority.
Islam has been hijacked by Islamism just as the German national identity was hijacked by Nazism. Hopefully the religion will pass through and escape this psychotic stage, but until then we are right to be wary of Islam, as a whole, as we were wary of all Germans, from 1936-1945.
Added to that, unfortunately, is the internecine religious battle between Shia and Sunni, which now seems to be reaching Thirty Years War levels of savagery and hatred.
The only answer to all this is to quarantine ourselves from Islam, and severely restrict all Islamic immigration into the West, for the time being.
In other words, Trump is right. However painful it is to admit that. Anyone who denies this is an imbecile.
Goodnight.
Why not read the article, instead of simply remaining us all of your narrow minded idiocy? The numbers in there alone illustrate the nonsense of your post.
If populism is addressing the concerns of ordinary people, then by definition it will be popular. Therefore, were Thatcher and Blair the most populist leaders we have had? They were both 3 and 0. Or does populist merely mean policies which are popular which one happens to disagree with? I reckon the latter. Rail nationalisation is popular, but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Right. Clamping down on immigration is popular but is seen as populist by the bien pensant Left. Effectively it is meaningless.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One characteristic of Populism is simple, emotional solutions to complex problems and another is a whipping up af suspicion of long established institutions. Ultimately Populism is very dangerous to Conservatives (Or US Republicans) by breaking down confidence in such institutions and structures.
So Conservatives who cherish such institutions as the Rule of Law, Parliamentary Democracy, the Monarchy*, the Capitalist system. Left wingers need worry less about such things, because ripping up these is an existing aim. F*** Business would have been rather less shocking from the Shadow Front Bench than from the Foreign Secretary.
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
The Tories are heading in exactly the same direction. At the next GE we’ll have a populist Conservative party v a populist Labour party, and thanks to FPTP the choice for millions of voters will be no more than which do you hate less.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Yes, I understand: it had nothing to do with Brown, it was all someone else's fault.
If you think Brown's economic policies post-2001 were sensible then there is little hope for you. His entire aim was to create an economic boom that would help him get elected. Instead it led to disaster. If he had spent a little more time on the economy and less on his plotting and scheming, we might be in a better position now.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Yes, I understand: it had nothing to do with Brown, it was all someone else's fault.
If you think Brown's economic policies post-2001 were sensible then there is little hope for you. His entire aim was to create an economic boom that would help him get elected. Instead it led to disaster. If he had spent a little more time on the economy and less on his plotting and scheming, we might be in a better position now.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
It looks like CCHQ has not yet realised that Theresa May is not David Cameron. Labour made the same mistake a decade back, involving Gordon Brown in stunts surely devised for Tony Blair. Sometimes you have to wonder if any of the bright young things at either party HQ knows the slightest thing about politics. But then perhaps, in these febrile times, CCHQ is playing silly buggers and trying to undermine its own prime minister.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Yes, I understand: it had nothing to do with Brown, it was all someone else's fault.
If you think Brown's economic policies post-2001 were sensible then there is little hope for you. His entire aim was to create an economic boom that would help him get elected. Instead it led to disaster. If he had spent a little more time on the economy and less on his plotting and scheming, we might be in a better position now.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
I am looking at what really happened: a massive recession on his watch. You're the one excusing him and trying to push the blame elsewhere.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
What China are doing is currency manipulation, ensentially fixing the Yuan against the US$ at an artificially low rate. Eventually that peg will break as the Chinese economy overheats, but there’s an awful lot of economic development that can happen before we get to that point.
Politicians who need to be elected will of course mostly go for what’s in their short term interest of popularity. The UK government is still spending more than it earns, a decade after the last recession, and like most major economies is woefully unprepared for another downturn. There’s also the small amount of hugely inflated government debt levels over the past decade, which even with interest rates still on the floor are costing the UK an annual £53bn to service.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Brown in his arrogance destroyed the British economy, Any kind of recovery , however small, is not to his credit. If anything Darling should get some for fighting the dark forces in No 10, Brown deserves nothing for anything. He will never be honoured because he doesn't deserve it.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
What China are doing is currency manipulation, ensentially fixing the Yuan against the US$ at an artificially low rate.
That's not true at the moment: currently the Chinese government is intervening to prop up the value of the Yuan.
And the reason is because Donald Trump is making investors nervous. And when they are nervous they seek out safe haven currencies... of which the biggest is the US Dollar.
Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
You ALWAYS trot out this lie about Brown.
It seems "sustainable" is not in your vocabulary.
The economy he inherited from Ken Clark in 1997 was essentially very healthy. The economy he handed back was essentially fucked up big style.
In 1997, the economy was recovering from the complete collapse of the Conservatives' economic policy. Ken Clarke even remarked after Black Wednesday that it was the only time he'd known that the government did not have an economic policy.
I am not sure why you think it a lie that the economy was recovering from the global financial crisis. Clearly it was, even if for the purposes of the 2010 election, CCHQ and George Osborne might have denied it.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
I agree that the Chinese approach is unlikely to be problem-free. Nevertheless short-termism and debt financing is a Western disease. And it is everywhere. Politicians and businesspeople are focused on the electoral and business cycle, the next annual results or election, with active disincentives to think about the long-term future. It's a tendency reinforced by FPTP and hence most prominent in the US and UK.
One good idea Trump had (or picked up from somewhere), now seemingly forgotten, was to propose that debt interest should not be tax deductible.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Yes. PFI is an abomination for which Gordon Brown should be condemned.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Undoubtedly. PFI was, however, a Conservative invention, if one that provided irresistible to the Labour government that followed.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Brown in his arrogance destroyed the British economy, Any kind of recovery , however small, is not to his credit. If anything Darling should get some for fighting the dark forces in No 10, Brown deserves nothing for anything. He will never be honoured because he doesn't deserve it.
A post charmingly devoid of both evidence and argument.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Undoubtedly. PFI was, however, a Conservative invention, if one that provided irresistible to the Labour government that followed.
Yes, it was, and there were some crap contracts signed under Tory governments too. The scale of Brown’s PFI adventures - and the motivation behind them - was something of a different order, though.
Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
You ALWAYS trot out this lie about Brown.
It seems "sustainable" is not in your vocabulary.
The economy he inherited from Ken Clark in 1997 was essentially very healthy. The economy he handed back was essentially fucked up big style.
In 1997, the economy was recovering from the complete collapse of the Conservatives' economic policy. Ken Clarke even remarked after Black Wednesday that it was the only time he'd known that the government did not have an economic policy.
I am not sure why you think it a lie that the economy was recovering from the global financial crisis. Clearly it was, even if for the purposes of the 2010 election, CCHQ and George Osborne might have denied it.
Ultimately, we do see the resilience of the economy recover. Governments mostly tinker round the edges provided that the macro-environment continues. It was a slow recovery from the GFC, but it happenned in the end, just as the last couple of years have been the inevitable recovery from the EZ crisis. Government borrowing does matter a bit, but ultimately a cycle is a cycle with a recovery phase. The long Brown boom perhaps increased the amplitude of the bust, but advanced economies are fairly resilient, as we see with Brexit.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Yes. PFI is an abomination for which Gordon Brown should be condemned.
Rubbish. There are places where PFI can be used wisely (though I would argue that entities as complex as hospitals are generally not one of them). PFI and its ilk should be used where it makes sense; instead, Brown unwisely used them as a financial crutch.
But that does not make PFI an 'abomination'; it only makes Brown a ludicrous fool.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
What China are doing is currency manipulation, ensentially fixing the Yuan against the US$ at an artificially low rate.
That's not true at the moment: currently the Chinese government is intervening to prop up the value of the Yuan.
And the reason is because Donald Trump is making investors nervous. And when they are nervous they seek out safe haven currencies... of which the biggest is the US Dollar.
In general I'm left wondering what countermeasures China has left if the US does go through with sticking up tariffs against all Chinese goods. Surely at that point they would need to give in to Trump's demands.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Yes. PFI is an abomination for which Gordon Brown should be condemned.
Rubbish. There are places where PFI can be used wisely (though I would argue that entities as complex as hospitals are generally not one of them). PFI and its ilk should be used where it makes sense; instead, Brown unwisely used them as a financial crutch.
But that does not make PFI an 'abomination'; it only makes Brown a ludicrous fool.
It's principal attraction is as of a way of spending money now that you otherwise wouldn't have, and leaving your successors to carry the cost. Hence its widespread use in local government as an antidote to austerity
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about. (That and boosting public services, of course.)
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
Undoubtedly. PFI was, however, a Conservative invention, if one that provided irresistible to the Labour government that followed.
PFI / DBFO / etc can make a great deal of sense for things like new roads, where the operation of them is simple and the 'quality' if delivery and maintenance can be easy for all parties to check.
Schools are operationally much more complex entities, and hospitals are probably an order of magnitude more complex. This means the contracts required are also more complex, and leads to the classic light-bulb problem.
That does not mean that PFI cannot be used well for things like hospitals; just that all parties need to be mature and the contracts very well drafted. And that's where the difficulties come in.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
What China are doing is currency manipulation, ensentially fixing the Yuan against the US$ at an artificially low rate.
That's not true at the moment: currently the Chinese government is intervening to prop up the value of the Yuan.
And the reason is because Donald Trump is making investors nervous. And when they are nervous they seek out safe haven currencies... of which the biggest is the US Dollar.
In general I'm left wondering what countermeasures China has left if the US does go through with sticking up tariffs against all Chinese goods. Surely at that point they would need to give in to Trump's demands.
They hold an awful lot of American debt. Which cuts both ways, of course.
The aim of most politicians is to find ways of spending now and of shunting the bill off into the future. Osborne was just as adept, and continued with such tricks even after the financial crisis exposed the risks. Even pensions flexibility has the upside for the treasury of bringing forward both spending and taxation receipts from money that would otherwise have been spent in the future. PFI, student finance, there are examples everywhere.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
I am far from sure that China is going to escape problems. I do wonder if they're dong exactly the same sort of thing that Russia did in the 1970s and 1980s wrt their economic figures.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
What China are doing is currency manipulation, ensentially fixing the Yuan against the US$ at an artificially low rate.
That's not true at the moment: currently the Chinese government is intervening to prop up the value of the Yuan.
And the reason is because Donald Trump is making investors nervous. And when they are nervous they seek out safe haven currencies... of which the biggest is the US Dollar.
In general I'm left wondering what countermeasures China has left if the US does go through with sticking up tariffs against all Chinese goods. Surely at that point they would need to give in to Trump's demands.
They hold an awful lot of American debt. Which cuts both ways, of course.
It's a bond they have bought in NY under US law. I don't see that it really gives them any power at all. Even if they tried to crash the market for treasuries by selling all at once it would hurt them more as their own holdings would be devalued.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours -- remember the hubristic claim to have abolished (Tory) boom and bust -- that was what that was all about.
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
Undoubtedly. PFI was, however, a Conservative invention, if one that provided irresistible to the Labour government that followed.
PFI / DBFO / etc can make a great deal of sense for things like new roads, where the operation of them is simple and the 'quality' if delivery and maintenance can be easy for all parties to check.
Schools are operationally much more complex entities, and hospitals are probably an order of magnitude more complex. This means the contracts required are also more complex, and leads to the classic light-bulb problem.
That does not mean that PFI cannot be used well for things like hospitals; just that all parties need to be mature and the contracts very well drafted. And that's where the difficulties come in.
A common use in local government is for road maintenance. Councils have massive backlogs of needed maintenance and revenue budgets have been trimmed well below the level at which keeping up with it is possible. An escape route, at least for the short term, is to take a PFI 'mortgage' and spend it on doing thirty years' worth of maintenance over say five years, with the cost charged to future revenue budgets spread over a thirty year term.
As well as the obvious financial problem in ten or twenty years time, such arrangements have the additional downside of encouraging lots of marginal work to be done now, when money isn't tightly constrained, and cost control can go out the window. Each summer my council's contractor comes round to ask whether they can trim the vegetation on the wall adjacent to the road, and I know it's all being charged back to the PFI bill. I doubt the council would be actively seeking out tasks such as this otherwise. A further failing is that the council relies heavily on the contractor to identify what needs doing. And the contractor has the short term incentive of spending as much of the fund as it can.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
Contrary to Tory myth there were attempts by Gordon Brown to restrict government spending before the Crash. There was pay restraint in the civil service and other cuts. The deficit never came down as quickly as forecast because tax receipts consistently came in below forecast. One reason I remember being discussed at the time was VAT carousel fraud.
Given that Parliament is sovereign and A50 was backed by an Act of Parliament (thank you, Gina), why even bother with this case?!
Because it’s about what happens after Brexit and the interaction of the sovereignty of the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments in a situation that wasn’t anticipated when the devolution legislation was drafted.
Brown may have been a little cynical but every government's aim is to create a feel-good mood for the electorate at polling time. When he took over as PM, he wasn't looking a decade ahead, merely to the next GE as most do. The 'cynical' view is usually correct.
It's the same with Brexit. From Barnier's viewpoint, he is boxed in. What can he concede on? A good trade deal? No chance. The other 27 members would them ask why they were taking on the fill responsibilities of members when a non-member can get some of the same benefits.
Freedom of movement? No chance. All 27 countries would want the same benefits too and the whole ethos of the EU would crumble.
So Barnier has to do is what his predecessor, De Gaulle, did years ago. Say non.
I claimed I could do Barnier's job on here and I meant it. My job, should I accept it, would be to sit back and claim that the UK was being unhelpful by asking for impossible things (which they are, given Barnier's remit).
The first and most important thing is to keep the money coming in. Sort out the shortfall. Check. Next blame the UK for not being unco-operative. Check. For a bonus, delay and dissemble and if possible hold out the chance of a transition period, the lengthier the better. Check. Even if they're not daft enough to fall for a BINO, they may just be fed-up enough to give it all up and return chastened to the fold.
Labour may claim they could negotiate better but that's just politics. Yet no one is interested in being honest.
Politicians lie in various ways, but generally we're aware of it. This is where our biases take over. We know Brown was being cynical, we know Barnier is not negotiating, but we can choose to believe them.
Brown was not trying to create an economic boom, he was using counter-cyclical spending to avoid the downturns that hit our neighbours --
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well
Undoubtedly. PFI was, however, a Conservative invention, if one that provided irresistible to the Labour government that followed.
PFI / DBFO / etc can make a great deal of sense for things like new roads, where the operation of them is simple and the 'quality' if delivery and maintenance can be easy for all parties to check.
Schools are operationally much more complex entities, and hospitals are probably an order of magnitude more complex. This means the contracts required are also more complex, and leads to the classic light-bulb problem.
That does not mean that PFI cannot be used well for things like hospitals; just that all parties need to be mature and the contracts very well drafted. And that's where the difficulties come in.
A common use in local government is for road maintenance. Councils have massive backlogs of needed maintenance and revenue budgets have been trimmed well below the level at which keeping up with it is possible. An escape route, at least for the short term, is to take a PFI 'mortgage' and spend it on doing thirty years' worth of maintenance over say five years, with the cost charged to future revenue budgets spread over a thirty year term.
As well as the obvious financial problem in ten or twenty years time, such arrangements have the additional downside of encouraging lots of marginal work to be done now, when money isn't tightly constrained, and cost control can go out the window. Each summer my council's contractor comes round to ask whether they can trim the vegetation on the wall adjacent to the road, and I know it's all being charged back to the PFI bill. I doubt the council would be actively seeking out tasks such as this otherwise. A further failing is that the council relies heavily on the contractor to identify what needs doing. And the contractor has the short term incentive of spending as much of the fund as it can.
The Sheffield Tree slaughter seemed to be a similar example of a PFI contract grinding out profits whether the work needed doing or not.
My own Trust has brought portering and support services back in house after a succession of poorly performing service companies outsourcing. It does rather make the figures difficult to interpret, as despite the same people doing the same work, Trust headcount went up dramatically overnight.
A common use in local government is for road maintenance. Councils have massive backlogs of needed maintenance and revenue budgets have been trimmed well below the level at which keeping up with it is possible. An escape route, at least for the short term, is to take a PFI 'mortgage' and spend it on doing thirty years' worth of maintenance over say five years, with the cost charged to future revenue budgets spread over a thirty year term.
As well as the obvious financial problem in ten or twenty years time, such arrangements have the additional downside of encouraging lots of marginal work to be done now, when money isn't tightly constrained, and cost control can go out the window. Each summer my council's contractor comes round to ask whether they can trim the vegetation on the wall adjacent to the road, and I know it's all being charged back to the PFI bill. I doubt the council would be actively seeking out tasks such as this otherwise. A further failing is that the council relies heavily on the contractor to identify what needs doing. And the contractor has the short term incentive of spending as much of the fund as it can.
Indeed, but I was walking more of the build and maintain (i.e. DBFO) road schemes.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending? Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Better.
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
In 2005 the Conservative Party said they'd spend less but would cut taxes in their first budget, so they may well have borrowed more.
To be fair to Labour, they were at least running a surplus for a bit. The only trouble is they threw prudence out the window and were running a constant deficit for the seven years leading up to the recession.
They ran a surplus when Brown was following Conservative policies before the 2001 GE. After this it went out of control.
"Out of control" but still less than the previous Conservative administration.
Good. So you admit it was out of control. That's progress.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
Quoting you should not be taken as implying agreement. And Brown bequeathed an economy recovering from the global financial crisis -- a recovery which Osborne stopped in its tracks.
Brown in his arrogance destroyed the British economy, Any kind of recovery , however small, is not to his credit. If anything Darling should get some for fighting the dark forces in No 10, Brown deserves nothing for anything. He will never be honoured because he doesn't deserve it.
A post charmingly devoid of both evidence and argument.
Not that I have much time for Brown myself.
The evidence is out there if you look for it, If of course you wish to avoid the truth of his disastrous mismanagement of the economy, I guess that's your choice.
In summary, we are going to be a lot poorer for the sake of an Edwardian fantasy. Brilliant. Every voter should be send a copy before the 2nd referendum.
Mr. Borough, as an aside, I'm mildly surprised such isn't already happening as it'd both (legally) circumvent potential future spending limitations and (possibly) increase support for a second referendum.
Populism is not congrous with popular. Indeed many Populist parties are widely despised, but sufficiently popular with a minority to be electorally influential.
One
*Consider how Populists will regard Charles as King.
One of the wonders of the modern world is how the conservatives of the the GOP have swallowed this bullshit hook line and sinker.*
* John McCain excepted.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though? 25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages, Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
There's a report on the BBC website about household incomes.
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
Which helps to explain why it was working class areas which were swinging to the Conservatives after 2005.
And why the establishment was so taken by surprise by the bank crash and recession - what the Notting Hill dinner party crowd were experiencing from 2005 onwards being different to those at the Nuneaton chip shop.
A letter that utterly fails to even consider the democratic importance of doing things when you ask the electorate, and of upholding the social contract by ensuring that the people of this country benefit from the growth of this country.
At least it doesn’t bemoan the idea of rising wages, I guess.
Comments
However, in all the everyone regardless of crime deserves the best evidence based trial or else we are no better than these savages/yeah but those droned to bits don’t get that/trying these two in Britain couldn’t have been sure of conviction which was basis of decision to strip their nationality arguments being had, healthy and necessary arguments, I think there is something big we are missing. Regardless of passport, They are still British in their socialisation and rite of passage. A failure of Britain today that leaves so many youngsters in a nihilistic existence, taking and peddling drugs, soft crime, like drones all the more easy to groom with idealistic bullshit. Were they always just wrong uns? Was it the ISIS propaganda? Or does Britain have a responsibility in the creation of their evil it can’t bring itself to own up to?
Are they merely an "out-of-touch conservative elite?"
cf, Populist. Popular politician I don't approve of.
These are questions the "mainstream" Left and Right have not answered, or even really wanted to consider.
25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages,
Why should they be held in regard?
I wonder whether the government has made contingency plans for civil disturbances this summer? One gets the feeling that if this weather continues much longer tempers are going to start to fray eventually. (Obviously I hope it doesn't happen but you have to be prepared).
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/1356/135607.htm
Weather hotter than this is normal in much of the world and while we may lack Air Conditioning it isn't that hot.
I remember the riots in the early 80s when the Chief Constable of the Avon & Somerset Police was asked what he needed to help contain the trouble in Bristol. "Rain" was his one word answer. Also the R4 Today broadcasters breathlessly announcing that they were getting reports of disturbances and fighting in the Newcastle Bigg Market and were crossing urgently to Northumbria Police.....who said it was a 'typical Saturday night'....
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
I don't think they have. It's just that they have no idea how to deal with the fact that their party has been taken over - at the top and the bottom anyway - by populists.
True over here of Corbyns Labour party too, also characterised by simplistic yet emotionally appealing rhetorhic, and contempt for established institutions and mores. It also demonstrates the divisiveness of Populism. There are few politicians more prized by their own party and more despised by other parties than Farage and Corbyn.
Maybe established institutions deserve contempt though?
25 years of de-regulation and globalisation led to 10 years of stagnant wages,
Why should they be held in regard?
No 10 years of stagnant wages has been paying off the maxed out credit card that Gordon Brown ran up.
Its not that wages have been stagnant really, its that £100bn a year has been taken out of the economy from what should have been increasing wages and had to be spent instead on closing down the deficit.
That's the equivalent of about £3,700 on average per worker in this country.
That is my point though. At which point did the Conservative Party beg Brown to stop spending?
Would the GFC have been better, worse, or about the same had the Tories won in 2005? They had indistinguishable economic policies.
Such incidents were almost unheard of a few years ago - now we have had hundreds of such attacks in just one London borough.
A crime so appalling the victim can never fully recover - I cannot ever think any punishment can be too harsh for the sort of digusting trash who commit such crimes.
As you say how and why have we allowed this to happen and why isn't there more outrage about it - I expect if it were more prevalent in south west London rather than east London it would be deemed worthy of more serious government action.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-images-reveal-victims-horrific-facial-injuries-after-an-unprovoked-acid-attack-in-woodford-a3893446.html
In 2005 the Conservative Party were saying they'd borrow less but that then led to them getting attacked by Brown that they would be "investing" less in public services. Because all expenditure was rebranded to "investing".
They grew rapidly for all groups from 1994 to 2003. Then they just stopped growing for ten years (apart from pensioners' incomes). For the poorest 50%, incomes started falling after 2003, and kept falling till 2013. Higher income households saw slow growth till 2009, but then incomes dropped sharply till 2013 (presumably in response to the GFC).
Incomes for all household groups have risen since 2013, albeit at a much slower rate than in 1994-2003.
What's curious is that the economy was ostensibly growing from 2003-07, but living standards were going nowhere.
Honestly Gordon Brown did more damage to this nation than any form of Brexit could.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/tommy-robinson-antifa-cambridge-millwall-14935025
(I have to say that I find UAF and their ilk just as obnoxious.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/24/subversive-civil-servants-secretly-blacklisted-under-thatcher
I'm sure that other UK government had taken similar steps, failing known subversives when they took civil service exams. If anything it was a more subtle version of The Federal German Berufsverbot of 1972.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-did-labour-overspend-and-leave-a-deficit-that-was-out-of-control-41118
Which is why I was quite happy with a close defeat and letting the Conservatives handle Brexit. I did maybe underestimate how badly they would handle Brexit, great to get the political advantage but obviously I want it to go fairly well.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg
Its a testament to the superb media operation the Tories ran.
This story is also good:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html&hl=en-ET
To be fair, that 'only cloud' is easily enough to lose him the White House if he's standing in 2020.
And note that the Conservatives correct it before the end of their term, whereas Brown bequeathed them a hideous legacy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/23/theresa-may-maybot-another-wheat-field-moment
If you think Brown's economic policies post-2001 were sensible then there is little hope for you. His entire aim was to create an economic boom that would help him get elected. Instead it led to disaster. If he had spent a little more time on the economy and less on his plotting and scheming, we might be in a better position now.
It's a failing of our entire political system (and arguably of our business and financial systems also) that short-term performance is rewarded but there is a negligible payoff, and often a downside, to doing the right thing for the longer term. Perhaps we won't fully understand this until the Chinese rule the world?
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
I think whilst you are correct, it is simpler than that: it is about politicians lying to themselves. They know what they're doing, and hope that they won't be around when the sh*t hits the fan. But Brown did it more than most.
Not so much a cloud as a reason for optimism.
It seems "sustainable" is not in your vocabulary.
The economy he inherited from Ken Clark in 1997 was essentially very healthy. The economy he handed back was essentially fucked up big style.
Politicians who need to be elected will of course mostly go for what’s in their short term interest of popularity. The UK government is still spending more than it earns, a decade after the last recession, and like most major economies is woefully unprepared for another downturn. There’s also the small amount of hugely inflated government debt levels over the past decade, which even with interest rates still on the floor are costing the UK an annual £53bn to service.
And of course the global financial meltdown was not Gordon Brown's fault.
Forget the Tory attack lines from ten years ago. The 2010 election is done and dusted. Look at what really happened.
Spending got out of hand well before it was counter-cyclical - and large chunks of it through off balance sheet PFI vehicles which didn’t show in the headline figures, and in addition tied government in to multi decade obligations with no flexibility to deal with changing circumstances.
Anyone who’s had to deal with PFI legacy (think schools and hospitals, for example) will be well aware we’re still seeing malign effects, and will do so for decades yet.
(edited to remove the blockquote I screwed up....)
And the reason is because Donald Trump is making investors nervous. And when they are nervous they seek out safe haven currencies... of which the biggest is the US Dollar.
I am not sure why you think it a lie that the economy was recovering from the global financial crisis. Clearly it was, even if for the purposes of the 2010 election, CCHQ and George Osborne might have denied it.
One good idea Trump had (or picked up from somewhere), now seemingly forgotten, was to propose that debt interest should not be tax deductible.
Not that I have much time for Brown myself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44923384
But that does not make PFI an 'abomination'; it only makes Brown a ludicrous fool.
Schools are operationally much more complex entities, and hospitals are probably an order of magnitude more complex. This means the contracts required are also more complex, and leads to the classic light-bulb problem.
That does not mean that PFI cannot be used well for things like hospitals; just that all parties need to be mature and the contracts very well drafted. And that's where the difficulties come in.
As well as the obvious financial problem in ten or twenty years time, such arrangements have the additional downside of encouraging lots of marginal work to be done now, when money isn't tightly constrained, and cost control can go out the window. Each summer my council's contractor comes round to ask whether they can trim the vegetation on the wall adjacent to the road, and I know it's all being charged back to the PFI bill. I doubt the council would be actively seeking out tasks such as this otherwise. A further failing is that the council relies heavily on the contractor to identify what needs doing. And the contractor has the short term incentive of spending as much of the fund as it can.
It's the same with Brexit. From Barnier's viewpoint, he is boxed in. What can he concede on? A good trade deal? No chance. The other 27 members would them ask why they were taking on the fill responsibilities of members when a non-member can get some of the same benefits.
Freedom of movement? No chance. All 27 countries would want the same benefits too and the whole ethos of the EU would crumble.
So Barnier has to do is what his predecessor, De Gaulle, did years ago. Say non.
I claimed I could do Barnier's job on here and I meant it. My job, should I accept it, would be to sit back and claim that the UK was being unhelpful by asking for impossible things (which they are, given Barnier's remit).
The first and most important thing is to keep the money coming in. Sort out the shortfall. Check. Next blame the UK for not being unco-operative. Check. For a bonus, delay and dissemble and if possible hold out the chance of a transition period, the lengthier the better. Check. Even if they're not daft enough to fall for a BINO, they may just be fed-up enough to give it all up and return chastened to the fold.
Labour may claim they could negotiate better but that's just politics. Yet no one is interested in being honest.
Politicians lie in various ways, but generally we're aware of it. This is where our biases take over. We know Brown was being cynical, we know Barnier is not negotiating, but we can choose to believe them.
"I am sure that Brexit Groundhog Day on PB will restart shortly!"
Our biases need a good airing on a regular basis. Mine included.
My own Trust has brought portering and support services back in house after a succession of poorly performing service companies outsourcing. It does rather make the figures difficult to interpret, as despite the same people doing the same work, Trust headcount went up dramatically overnight.
Oh, and The Last Jedi is still as bad as Trump's twitter account.
he was totally shit btw
And why the establishment was so taken by surprise by the bank crash and recession - what the Notting Hill dinner party crowd were experiencing from 2005 onwards being different to those at the Nuneaton chip shop.
At least it doesn’t bemoan the idea of rising wages, I guess.