Double Dip?

[saint si]

I repeat again. Until the financial crisis, the national debt and the budget deficit were lower than when labour came to power.

 

Yes, and until my car crash, I was driving faster than ever before!

[Saintandy666]

We can't even trust the 0.5% retraction to be accurate. I expect that when the figure is revised it'll show a small amount of growth despite the weather.

 

That would be a MASSIVE revision. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but what are you basing this on?

[dune]

That would be a MASSIVE revision. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but what are you basing this on?

 

I've had a premonition.

[Saintandy666]

Yes, and until my car crash, I was driving faster than ever before!

 

That makes no sense. How would we have been 'driving faster' if debt levels were being reduced and deficits were low?

[saint si]

That makes no sense. How would we have been 'driving faster' if debt levels were being reduced and deficits were low?

 

Just making the point that you can't dish out praise for excellent management of the economy on the one hand, whilst simultaneously ignore that the same government presided over the biggest economic crisis since WW2.

[um pahars]

seriously...is that really a bad thing..?

 

I think it depends on what you're shrinking and what you're willing to accept in terms of shrinkage.

 

I personally think any drive for efficiencies (and the money being saved or recycled) should always be welcomed and often agree with some of the things that groups such as Taxpayers Alliance are saying as I often think too much is wasted on initiatives/ventures that people wouldn't spend their own money on.

 

After that you start getting in to ideological arguments.

 

Defence (wink, wink), health, protection and education make up just under half of the Total Government Spend so if you're going to cut here, then someone will probably get hurt somewhere along the line.

 

I'm not one for a bloated and inefficient public sector, but I can appreciate that a decent one contributes much to our society.

[scott_saints]

wrong frd.lolz

[Saintandy666]

Just making the point that you can't dish out praise for excellent management of the economy on the one hand, whilst simultaneously ignore that the same government presided over the biggest economic crisis since WW2.

 

That was pure chance though?

 

Every country in the western world went through this crisis, Germany had runs on SEVERAL banks, many countries fared worse than us. Is that all Labours fault as well?

 

I praise Labour in the 10 years up to the crisis, and I praise Labour for their action during the crisis because without it our country would have been bankrupted.

[um pahars]

Just making the point that you can't dish out praise for excellent management of the economy on the one hand, whilst simultaneously ignore that the same government presided over the biggest economic crisis since WW2.

 

I'm not so sure I'd call it the biggest economic crisis since WW2. If you look at the debt figures here (I accept only one feature of many by which to analyse your claim), then the position pre the sub prime meltdown in 2007/8 was comparable with previous years. Even allowing for billions being pumped in to shoring up banks, overspending etc etc etc and the 2010 figure isn't that bad (particularly when compared to earlier years).

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1950_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G1-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK National Debt As Pct GDP

[saint si]

That was pure chance though?

 

Every country in the western world went through this crisis, Germany had runs on SEVERAL banks, many countries fared worse than us. Is that all Labours fault as well?

 

I praise Labour in the 10 years up to the crisis, and I praise Labour for their action during the crisis because without it our country would have been bankrupted.

 

Don't actually disagree, though not all countries have been as sharply impacted as ours. I happen to agree with the bank bail out (as the lesser of two evils), but we should also acknowledge (in hindsight) that more could have been done at the regulatory level to prevent this kind of shock from being possible or at least as damaging when it did occur.

 

BUT, similarly, now that we have this huge budget deficit and millstone of a national debt, we must take immediate and decisive action to address it. Zero growth (taking the weather in to account) is not a disaster, particularly compared to the doom-saying that has been going on. At the end of this, we will emerge leaner and fitter and ready for a period of sustained growth.

[saintfully]

Don't actually disagree, though not all countries have been as sharply impacted as ours. I happen to agree with the bank bail out (as the lesser of two evils), but we should also acknowledge (in hindsight) that more could have been done at the regulatory level to prevent this kind of shock from being possible or at least as damaging when it did occur.

 

BUT, similarly, now that we have this huge budget deficit and millstone of a national debt, we must take immediate and decisive action to address it. Zero growth (taking the weather in to account) is not a disaster, particularly compared to the doom-saying that has been going on. At the end of this, we will emerge leaner and fitter and ready for a period of sustained growth.

 

Or, go into an extended period of stagflation: no growth due to excessive cuts, plus inflation imported as a consequence of a depreciating currency. That's what we had last quarter - -0.5% GDP plus 3% inflation. Eeeek.

[Johnny Bognor]

I repeat again. Until the financial crisis, the national debt and the budget deficit were lower than when labour came to power.

 

OK, you've changed tack a little bit.

 

Yes, granted that debt (as a percentage) was lower than when Labour came into power, but Brown adopted tory spending plans for the first two years therefore the initial falling debt as a %age of gdp is as much to do with Kenneth Clarke, so do you care to applaud the man in hush puppies? No, didn't think so.

 

However, rather than keeping it down (whilst taking more actual debt on as GDP was growing) Brown then believed he could walk on water and increased it again.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

 

It is there...plain for everyone to see.

 

At least you are not claiming that national debt (as a percentage of GDP) was steadliy falling as it is clear to see that it was steadily rising from 2002 onwards (after removing the interventions brought about by the financial crisis, so you can't blame it all on the bankers).

Edited 25 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor

[Saintandy666]

OK, you've changed tack a little bit.

 

Yes, granted that debt (as a percentage) was lower than when Labour came into power, but Brown adopted tory spending plans for the first two years therefore the initial falling debt as a %age of gdp is as much to do with Kenneth Clarke, so do you care to applaud the man in hush puppies? No, didn't think so.

 

However, rather than keeping it down (whilst taking more actual debt on as GDP was growing) Brown then believed he could walk on water and increased it again.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

 

It is there...plain for everyone to see.

 

At least you are not claiming that national debt (as a percentage of GDP) was steadliy falling as it is clear to see that it was steadily rising from 2002 onwards (after removing the interventions brought about by the financial crisis, so you can't blame it all on the bankers).

 

It was BARELY rising... and still much lower than when Labour came to power.

[Johnny Bognor]

It was BARELY rising... and still much lower than when Labour came to power.

 

Rubbish, had the trend continued (assuming there was no financial crisis and/or an election), it would have been back to 1997 levels by 2011 (and remember that the 1997 levels were off the back of a recession).

 

You have to ask why pretty much every 'pundit' was talking about it (prior to the crash) and you seem to be the only person that sees it differently. Even the EU gave 'us' a slap on the wrist for it.

 

Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

Edited 26 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor

[trousers]

Rubbish, had the trend continued (assuming there was no financial crisis and/or an election), it would have been back to 1997 levels by 2011 (and remember that the 1997 levels were off the back of a recession).

 

You have to ask why pretty much every 'pundit' was talking about it (prior to the crash) and you seem to be the only person that sees it differently. Even the EU gave 'us' a slap on the wrist for it.

 

Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

 

Funnily enough, there's a horse in the 3:15 at Newmarket this afternoon called "The Labour Party". It's the grey one wearing blinkers. The odds on favourite though is a filly called "Rose Tinted Glasses" although that fell at the first last time out.

 

This statement was brought to you by the Horse Analogy Party.

[Mao Cap]

Bad news. 1930s economics coming home to roost, and this is only the start.

 

Thhough it is funny as hell seeing dune going into spazzy overdrive and farting out a randomised mixture of copy 'n' paste Express editorials, utterly irrelevant Churchill/Maggie/Cecil Rhodes quotations and Youtube videos

[Special K]

Rubbish, had the trend continued (assuming there was no financial crisis and/or an election), it would have been back to 1997 levels by 2011 (and remember that the 1997 levels were off the back of a recession).

 

You have to ask why pretty much every 'pundit' was talking about it (prior to the crash) and you seem to be the only person that sees it differently. Even the EU gave 'us' a slap on the wrist for it.

 

Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

 

Absolutely. PFI debt, conveniently not appearing on the balance sheet thanks to Brown, runs into the hundreds of billions. As for the public sector pension hole - cripes - into the trillions.

[Whitey Grandad]

Measuring debt as a percentage of GDP is misleading if the growth in GDP is due to increased government borrowing.

[Joensuu]

Isn't this exactly what the government wanted though? By reducing government spending, they have taken money out of the economy. This reduction in income is rippling through both the public and private sectors as we speak. As other countries begin to leave their own recessions, the prices of imported goods is increasing, and will continue to increase. The net result is that in the UK inflation kicks off, while the government has a good excuse (economic stagnation) to keep interest rates low. The result of which means that anyone with substantial debts (in sterling), gets much of their debt erroded by the difference between the high inflation & low interest rates.

[pap]

I await the fruition of the Coalition's policies with a due sense of dread and a big "told you so" in my back pocket. We will see a lot of jobs go this year, especially in the public sector. Less people with jobs means less money flying about, and further contraction of the economy.

 

The big plan to replace those jobs with private sector positions is laughable.

 

With very few exceptions, there is nothing that can be done here that cannot be done more cheaply elsewhere. Manufacturing? The little that is left will soon be on the boat east. Services? If it can be offshored, it already has been. Financial services? Oh yeah, we are good at that. So good in fact, that our failure to apply proper legislation got us into the huge mess that we're in now.

 

In fact, the only way that UK PLC can attract the sort of jobs we need is to massively subsidise any new developments to entice multinationals here - which kinda defeats the point.

[Special K]

Isn't this exactly what the government wanted though? By reducing government spending, they have taken money out of the economy. This reduction in income is rippling through both the public and private sectors as we speak. As other countries begin to leave their own recessions, the prices of imported goods is increasing, and will continue to increase. The net result is that in the UK inflation kicks off, while the government has a good excuse (economic stagnation) to keep interest rates low. The result of which means that anyone with substantial debts (in sterling), gets much of their debt erroded by the difference between the high inflation & low interest rates.

 

The Government doesn't set interest rates anymore; the BoE MPC does. That was probably the best thing Brown ever did as Chancellor, tbf.

[Saintandy666]

I await the fruition of the Coalition's policies with a due sense of dread and a big "told you so" in my back pocket. We will see a lot of jobs go this year, especially in the public sector. Less people with jobs means less money flying about, and further contraction of the economy.

 

The big plan to replace those jobs with private sector positions is laughable.

 

With very few exceptions, there is nothing that can be done here that cannot be done more cheaply elsewhere. Manufacturing? The little that is left will soon be on the boat east. Services? If it can be offshored, it already has been. Financial services? Oh yeah, we are good at that. So good in fact, that our failure to apply proper legislation got us into the huge mess that we're in now.

 

In fact, the only way that UK PLC can attract the sort of jobs we need is to massively subsidise any new developments to entice multinationals here - which kinda defeats the point.

 

Indeed, we need to create a new niche for ourselves. I would personally say green technology and green jobs.

[Joensuu]

The Government doesn't set interest rates anymore; the BoE MPC does. That was probably the best thing Brown ever did as Chancellor, tbf.

 

Ay, you're right there.

 

The BoE seem to be rather reactive rather than proactive. Like a doctor arriving too late, so over prescribing medicine to try to make up for it.

 

Here's a candid snap of the BoE's latest meeting. Wonder how long they will continue ignoring that inflationary chap at the back? FWIW, my guess is they will keep finding reasons to ignore inflation, until either they run out of credible excuses, or when Georgie Gideon Oliver publically blames both the BoE and the 'Labour legacy' for the 'rampant inflation'*

 

*which surely is the starting point for a joke about typical tories, and their inability to keep their rampant inflation to themselves, or something.

[dune]

The Government doesn't set interest rates anymore; the BoE MPC does. That was probably the best thing Brown ever did as Chancellor, tbf.

 

I'm actually not that keen on the BOE setting the rates. In priciple it's a good idea, but in practice I don't think the panel that decides have performed very well. I think rates should have been put up by now to strengthen the pound a tad, but sadly it aint gonna happen after the latest growth figures.

[dune]

The BoE seem to be rather reactive rather than proactive. Like a doctor arriving too late, so over prescribing medicine to try to make up for it.

 

Exactly. They don't see past the end of their noses when they should be looking ahead more. Inflationary pressures are building and they should raise rates now rather than as a reactionary panic measure.

[Joensuu]

Exactly. They don't see past the end of their noses when they should be looking ahead more. Inflationary pressures are building and they should raise rates now rather than as a reactionary panic measure.

 

Are we, err, agreeing?

[um pahars]

Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

 

Is PFI really that big????

 

Additionally I'm not sure I would hold it against the last Government, when it was first introduced by Major (or whoever in the early 90's). As for Public Pensions, whilst I accept it is "off balance sheet", it's hardly something to whip the last Government with.

[um pahars]

much to do with Kenneth Clarke, so do you care to applaud the man in hush puppies? No, didn't think so.

 

I'd happily applaud dear old Ken, much maligned but IMHO a very astute fella and decent Chancellor with a decent record during his tenure.

[dune]

As for Public Pensions, whilst I accept it is "off balance sheet", it's hardly something to whip the last Government with.

 

I asked the other day whether Brown raided public sector pensions like he did private sector pensions, do you know the answer or are public sector pensions payed out of govt funds or something?

 

Brown killed many a final salary pension scheme with his idiotic grab.

[dune]

Are we, err, agreeing?

 

It would seem so. I feel physically sick.

[Fuengirola Saint]

Rubbish, had the trend continued (assuming there was no financial crisis and/or an election), it would have been back to 1997 levels by 2011 (and remember that the 1997 levels were off the back of a recession).

 

You have to ask why pretty much every 'pundit' was talking about it (prior to the crash) and you seem to be the only person that sees it differently. Even the EU gave 'us' a slap on the wrist for it.

 

Remember, that these figures do not include the public sector pension black holes or money for PFI projects. Include this and it is off the scale.

 

I completely agree re PFI, all PFI is right wing Tory policy put in place by a Labour government, i dare-say there are Tories that might even baulk at PFI. The problem was that GB was trying to please neo liberal markets whilst improving the infrastructure of the country. ( By god did it need improving after many years of neglect ) I just don't see how anyone can think that PFI e.g paying 200 million for a school that costs 50 million is a good idea. The only reason it was put in place was so the expenditure on schools, hospitals etc wouldn't show on the public sector borrowing requirement thus pleasing the right wing EU agenda

[bridge too far]

The pro PFI lobby would argue that its chief merit is the transfer of risk. In the past, many capital projects overran budgets and programmes, leading to huge increases in costs. Some of this was due to unidentified risk. I can remember a publicly funded scheme I worked on that was hugely over budget because a previously unknown gas main (dating from before WW2) was discovered and it cost a lot of time and money to work round this. With PFI, the successful bidder takes on such risks and, if the programme isn't delivered on time, the hospital / school etc. can charge for delays.

 

Also the 'deal' is usually for 30 years, with break clauses at 20 years. The private company 'owns' the building until the 30 years is up, at which point the building transfers to public ownership. This makes sense in many ways, as who knows what healthcare buildings are going to be needed in 30 years time. It would be up to the private company to dispose of what could be a white elephant.

 

However, balance sheets aside (and believe me, John Major's government spent a lot of money consulting lawyers and accountants about the off-balance sheet issue), one major downfall was this. At the outset of any scheme, the private company had to pay high interest rates on its borrowing because of the risk and this was reflected in the 'rent' it charged for its yet to be constructed buildings. Once the building started to go up, the risk was revised downwards, together with the interest rates. The resultant saving was not passed on to the client.

 

This was sharply addressed by the incoming government and rebates based on changes to borrowing rates were introduced into the contracts.

[Johnny Bognor]

Is PFI really that big????

 

The commitments to PFI contracts are in the region of £267bn, which is a fair old chunk @ approximately 20% of GDP. Add this to saintdreamer666's numbers and national debt is far higher than when Labour came into power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/pfi-private-finance-refuse-debt

 

Additionally I'm not sure I would hold it against the last Government, when it was first introduced by Major (or whoever in the early 90's). As for Public Pensions, whilst I accept it is "off balance sheet", it's hardly something to whip the last Government with.

 

True, but the last govt significantly increased the public sector head count (by some 800,000 peope) and thus significantly increased the pensions black hole as a result

 

I'd happily applaud dear old Ken, much maligned but IMHO a very astute fella and decent Chancellor with a decent record during his tenure.

 

You see, UM, you're one of the decent lefties on here and you will give credit where credit is due, so fair play. In fact, I would have you down as posting in your hush puppies. Having experience of both sides of the public/private divide has given you an insight many on here don't have (including me).

Edited 26 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

I completely agree re PFI, all PFI is right wing Tory policy put in place by a Labour government, i dare-say there are Tories that might even baulk at PFI. The problem was that GB was trying to please neo liberal markets whilst improving the infrastructure of the country. ( By god did it need improving after many years of neglect ) I just don't see how anyone can think that PFI e.g paying 200 million for a school that costs 50 million is a good idea. The only reason it was put in place was so the expenditure on schools, hospitals etc wouldn't show on the public sector borrowing requirement thus pleasing the right wing EU agenda

 

The issue I have with PFI is not with PFI in its own right, in all honesty I am probably 50/50 on the issue. For me, the issue is 'hiding' the debt from the all important debt figure. It enables any govt to go on a spending spree and not be held accountable which is exactly what Brown did. If a govt owes money, then that is debt and should be counted.

[Verbal]

The commitments to PFI contracts are in the region of £267bn, which is a fair old chunk @ approximately 20% of GDP. Add this to saintdreamer666's numbers and national debt is far higher than when Labour came into power.

 

But do you not find it at least mildly ironic that the crudely magic wand to DISGUISE higher public spending - placing it 'off the books' - was a TORY (Major/Lamont) invention? Just as Thatcher's (or more strictly Howe's and Lawson's) little innovation was to disguise RAISING the overall tax burden, and shifting it onto the poor with MASSIVE increases in indirect taxation?

 

For all Brown's faults, I would rather he was there than dear, dumb Norman Lamont, who, caught in the headlights of Black Wednesday, blew £27bn in government reserves trying and completely failing to prop up the pound as it moved swiftly to the ERM exit. And for all of the horror in 2008 of unimaginable quantities of public money being shovelled into propping up banks whose behaviour was by wide acknowledgement disgraceful, at least the bailout WORKED, in the sense that we are all still here, and there remains an even chance that the funds thrown at them will eventually be recovered.

 

God help us had Osborne been in charge then. All the Tories have are smoke and mirrors - not very good ones, of course, but good enough to fool the gullible and the venal.

[bridge too far]

Johnny B - I think the issue about PFI debt is a bit more complicated than just 'hiding' debt. The received wisdom was, and still is, that the buildings / bridges etc were rented, not owned, by the state. The state rents lots of buildings.

i

You could argue (and they have) that the state doesn't own the building until the end of the (usually) 30 year term. I guess it would then appear as an asset on the state's accounts.

 

The other part of PFI (and the main source of profit for the SPVs) is the service charge for hard and soft FM.i

[Johnny Bognor]

But do you not find it at least mildly ironic that the crudely magic wand to DISGUISE higher public spending - placing it 'off the books' - was a TORY (Major/Lamont) invention? Just as Thatcher's (or more strictly Howe's and Lawson's) little innovation was to disguise RAISING the overall tax burden, and shifting it onto the poor with MASSIVE increases in indirect taxation?

 

Yes it was a Tory invention and not to incude the debt was wrong (you see, I can criticise the existing or previous tory goverments where I see fit as I don't have to tow any party line, unlike some on here). I have been trying to find some stats (without success, due to the secrecy surrounding PFI contracts), but i would wager £500 with you right now that the outstanding moneys owed increased significantly under Brown. If I am wrong (which I seriously doubt), I will give you an IOU, pay it off over the next 30 years and not disclose the debt to my Mrs. A kind of JBPFI if you like.

 

For all Brown's faults, I would rather he was there than dear, dumb Norman Lamont, who, caught in the headlights of Black Wednesday, blew £27bn in government reserves trying and completely failing to prop up the pound as it moved swiftly to the ERM exit. And for all of the horror in 2008 of unimaginable quantities of public money being shovelled into propping up banks whose behaviour was by wide acknowledgement disgraceful, at least the bailout WORKED, in the sense that we are all still here, and there remains an even chance that the funds thrown at them will eventually be recovered.

 

To be honest, I would prefer neither. Ken Clarke for me all the way.....the most successful Chancellor in decades. I said in the run up to the election, that had Clarke been made shadow Chancellor, the tories would have won the election without doubt.

 

Gordon 'earned' his reputation by copying Ken for his first few years. They say immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

 

God help us had Osborne been in charge then. All the Tories have are smoke and mirrors - not very good ones, of course, but good enough to fool the gullible and the venal.

 

See above. Ditch Osborne and let a proper Chancellor do the job (despite his poor taste in footwear)

 

Johnny B - I think the issue about PFI debt is a bit more complicated than just 'hiding' debt. The received wisdom was, and still is, that the buildings / bridges etc were rented, not owned, by the state. The state rents lots of buildings.

i

You could argue (and they have) that the state doesn't own the building until the end of the (usually) 30 year term. I guess it would then appear as an asset on the state's accounts.

 

The other part of PFI (and the main source of profit for the SPVs) is the service charge for hard and soft FM.i

 

I agree BTF, but if you have a financial commitment, it is money you owe which is debt. If I lease a new printer at work, I am contractually committed to paying for it on a rental. At the end of the term, I can take ownership of it if I wish. Businesses have to report on commitments falling due in their statutory accounts, but it seems the govt don't have to, but I guess they make the rules whilst we have to follow them.

Edited 26 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

......

 

I agree BTF, but if you have a financial commitment, it is money you owe which is debt. If I lease a new printer at work, I am contractually committed to paying for it on a rental. At the end of the term, I can take ownership of it if I wish. Businesses have to report on commitments falling due in their statutory accounts, but it seems the govt don't have to, but I guess they make the rules whilst we have to follow them.

 

JB, I'm no accountant, and I have been opposed to PFI since it first came in (early 90s) for a number of reasons, mainly ideological. I still am, so I'm certainly not looking to justify it!

 

However, this might go some way to explain how the whole 'off balance sheet' pans out, far better than I ever could. You need to look at 'Annexe (a)' about half way down the page:

 

http://www.statscom.org.uk/C_1061.aspx

[Johnny Bognor]

JB, I'm no accountant, and I have been opposed to PFI since it first came in (early 90s) for a number of reasons, mainly ideological. I still am, so I'm certainly not looking to justify it!

 

However, this might go some way to explain how the whole 'off balance sheet' pans out, far better than I ever could. You need to look at 'Annexe (a)' about half way down the page:

 

http://www.statscom.org.uk/C_1061.aspx

 

I can see how that works, but I lease a building (built by a private contractor), for which I don't take ownership, so it is an operating lease, yet I have to state this commitment in my accounts, whilst the govt doesn't (unless I am missing something here).

[um pahars]

Businesses have to report on commitments falling due in their statutory accounts, but it seems the govt don't have to, but I guess they make the rules whilst we have to follow them.

 

We were forever sticking things off balance sheet to hide them in the companies I worked for!!!!!!

 

PS not even sure I'm a leftie (more Ken Clarke meets David Owen type LOL).

[View From The Top]

To be honest, I would prefer neither. Ken Clarke for me all the way.....the most successful Chancellor in decades. I said in the run up to the election, that had Clarke been made shadow Chancellor, the tories would have won the election without doubt.

 

And as I said at the time, I agree with the general trust of that.

 

Clarke adopted a One Nation Tory approach and the majority of the centre left can deal with that, myself included. It's the public school, Oxbridge idiots who are driven solely by dogma, from any party, that I despise. The current government has far to many of them.

 

The current resident of Number 11 looks so out of his depth it's scary.

[Verbal]

To be honest, I would prefer neither. Ken Clarke for me all the way.....the most successful Chancellor in decades. I said in the run up to the election, that had Clarke been made shadow Chancellor, the tories would have won the election without doubt.

 

Gordon 'earned' his reputation by copying Ken for his first few years. They say immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

Ditch Osborne and let a proper Chancellor do the job (despite his poor taste in footwear)

 

Dream on Johnny. Your Tory Party would NEVER allow Clarke near the Chancellorship. Yes, of course Clarke had the intellect and instincts to be far more impressive than Brown. He was just in the wrong party.

 

I'm no fan of Brown. PFI was a disaster he enthusiastically endorsed. Anyone who experienced the utterly reckless London Underground PFI schemes will tell you that. He also raided private pensions in a way that turned all but a few final salary schemes into unworkable monsters for companies. He just figured basically: why shouldn't the government rather than these over-rewarded pension funds reap the benefits. Of course, even the best of intentions - and this wasn't one of them - could have disastrous unintended consequences. Brown was by all accounts warned loudly and often, but wouldn't listen. In a government increasingly arrogant and adrift, he was a terrible choice for Chancellor, let alone PM.

[Johnny Bognor]

And as I said at the time, I agree with the general trust of that.

 

Clarke adopted a One Nation Tory approach and the majority of the centre left can deal with that, myself included. It's the public school, Oxbridge idiots who are driven solely by dogma, from any party, that I despise. The current government has far to many of them.

 

The current resident of Number 11 looks so out of his depth it's scary.

 

I agree with the Oxbrige idiots analogy. Right now is not a time for politics, but a time for people with credibility and experience to sort this mess out. People who would take the country with them, through these difficult times. I was kind of hopeful when it looked like there would be a coalition, that Vince Cable's skills would have been better utilised as well.

 

Dream on Johnny. Your Tory Party would NEVER allow Clarke near the Chancellorship. Yes, of course Clarke had the intellect and instincts to be far more impressive than Brown. He was just in the wrong party.

 

But they did once and looked what happened. He steered the UK away from recession and laid the foundations for the growth that became the golden legacy. Politics aside,he would be the best man for the job, without doubt and right now, this country needs someone of his calibre. Osborne, for me, is a jumped up little ****. At least Dave is likeable in a Blair Mk 2 kind of way.

 

I'm no fan of Brown. PFI was a disaster he enthusiastically endorsed. Anyone who experienced the utterly reckless London Underground PFI schemes will tell you that. He also raided private pensions in a way that turned all but a few final salary schemes into unworkable monsters for companies. He just figured basically: why shouldn't the government rather than these over-rewarded pension funds reap the benefits. Of course, even the best of intentions - and this wasn't one of them - could have disastrous unintended consequences. Brown was by all accounts warned loudly and often, but wouldn't listen. In a government increasingly arrogant and adrift, he was a terrible choice for Chancellor, let alone PM.

 

Fair play, Verbal. Many a leftie on here defended Brown to the hilt, despite what he was doing. You are clearly more balanced than I had given you credit for.

 

For me, if I was Dave, I would instill Clarke as Chancellor NOW, with Vince Cable as his number 2. For me, this would be the dream ticket - a Chancellor with a track record of buiding a solid post-recession economy working alongside one of the most respected politicians when it comes to economics. This would give the markets confidence, the people confidence and would ultimatey give hope to all. It is so bleedingly obvious, I cannot see why Dave cannot see it. That is, unless, he is not governing in the interests of the nation afterall?

Edited 27 January, 2011 by Johnny Bognor

[trousers]

For me, if I was Dave, I would instill Clarke as Chancellor NOW, with Vince Cable as his number 2. For me, this would be the dream ticket - a Chancellor with a track record of buiding a solid post-recession economy working alongside one of the most respected politicians when it comes to economics. This would give the markets confidence, the people confidence and would ultimatey give hope to all. It is so bleedingly obvious, I cannot see why Dave cannot see it. That is, unless, he is not governing in the interests of the nation afterall?

 

I agree with this.

 

I'm guessing the 'dream ticket' notion has also crossed Cameron's mind but (putting possible self-interest motives to one side for now) I assume that Cameron would be worried about the immediate impact such a re-shuffle would have. I've no doubt 'the markets' would have an initial negative knee-jerk reaction to such a move and for an economy so fragile that may be a 'straw on camel's back' risk that Cameron isn't prepared to take.

 

Ironically, it may work in the Government's (and the country's) favour if we do indeed have another quarter of negative growth (i.e. the dreaded double dip) and that would open the door for a reshuffle as "things couldn't get any worse".

 

My gut feel is that he'll stick with Osbourne through thick and thin though. In one respect that can be seen as a sign of strength (reference the Labour Party - Ed Milliband has been weakened IMHO by not having installed Ed Balls as shadow chancellor in the first place even though he is probably a better candidate than Johnson) but in another respect it can be seen as a weakness in not wanting to take tough decisions.

 

I wonder where Labour supporters stand on this. Bit of a ctach-22 for them? i.e. there's more chance of Labour getting back into power if Osbourne stays where he is and (potentially) screwing up over the next year or so, but by wishing that outcome they are looking more at party political interests rather than what is best for the country....

[buctootim]

I too would install Clarke as Chancellor. All you can hope for with Osbourne is that he realises he is new and out of his depth and allows himself to be dictated to by Mervyn King. The danger will come in a year or so (if he is still in the job) when he develop the belief, like Brown, that he has 'the touch' and strikes out on his own, making very poor decisions.

[Joensuu]

It's politics, isn't it. You don't play your economic trump cards (Ken and Vince) too soon, they are perfect to bail you out when some inevitable bad economic news forces you to reshuffle. Gideon Oliver is the perfect fall guy, universally seen as incompetent and slimy, he is in the cabinet simply to give Cameron a get out of jail free card.

 

Unfortunately, modern politics is rarely about doing what's best for the country, more about keeping a grip on the keys to number 10. Putting Ken and Vince in the treasury would be great for the country, but not so good for Cameron.

Edited 27 January, 2011 by Joensuu
logic

[Johnny Bognor]

RE: Clarke + Cable = Dream Team

 

Do I detect a general consensus from both sides that this is a generally good idea?

[buctootim]

RE: Clarke + Cable = Dream Team

 

Do I detect a general consensus from both sides that this is a generally good idea?

 

Yes.....but. I do wonder about Cable. He is possibly a little like Frank Field - very able, interesting and different ideas, but struggles to build consensus support for them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

RE: Clarke + Cable = Dream Team

 

Do I detect a general consensus from both sides that this is a generally good idea?

 

Not here, Clarke would split the Tory party and Cable has been shown to be a myth. From indiscreet talk to his changing position on the student finance proposals that he drafted (we had the bizzare sight of a minister thinking of abstaining when he designed the system they were voting on)Cable's credibility has headed south pretty quickly.

 

For all this talk of the Tories not having a mandate, they were still the largest party (with a share of the vote that would have given Labour a landslide), even in Camerons "wet" Tory party having these 2 would be a step too far. Clarke would have had us in the Euro by now and Cable should still be in the Labour party, the right of the party would rise up if this was to happen, playing right into Labour/UKIP's hands. Even Cameron's not that stupid.

[Johnny Bognor]

Not here, Clarke would split the Tory party and Cable has been shown to be a myth. From indiscreet talk to his changing position on the student finance proposals that he drafted (we had the bizzare sight of a minister thinking of abstaining when he designed the system they were voting on)Cable's credibility has headed south pretty quickly.

 

For all this talk of the Tories not having a mandate, they were still the largest party (with a share of the vote that would have given Labour a landslide), even in Camerons "wet" Tory party having these 2 would be a step too far. Clarke would have had us in the Euro by now and Cable should still be in the Labour party, the right of the party would rise up if this was to happen, playing right into Labour/UKIP's hands. Even Cameron's not that stupid.

 

You could be right, maybe that's why the lefties on here think it's a good idea