politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week after Helsinki and Trump’s ratings remain solid

david_herdson said:

dixiedean said:

david_herdson said:

dixiedean said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

asjohnstone said:

SeanT said:

thecommissioner said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040

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.

notme said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Polruan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

thecommissioner said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040

Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.

Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.

Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

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

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

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.

notme said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

notme said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Polruan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

thecommissioner said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1021506244358615040

Probably a vote winner with 80% of the population.

Another example why the liberals fail to connect with public opinion.

Looks like 80% was optimistic even 35 years ago. Now a minority sport it seems (unless there's been a recent upsurge in support)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

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...

AndyJS said:

O/T

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).

AndyJS said:

O/T

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).

AndyJS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

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.

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

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

CarlottaVance said:

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.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/1356/135607.htm

SeanT said:

AndyJS said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5984107/Worcester-acid-attack-boy-police-safe-house-police-say-motive-community-dispute.html

What have we done.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

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?

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

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.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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".

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

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.

That sort of claim demands a link.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

RobD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

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.

That sort of claim demands a link.

Here is one:
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-did-labour-overspend-and-leave-a-deficit-that-was-out-of-control-41118

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

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.

SeanT said:

Foxy said:

El_Capitano said:

SeanT said:

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/meet-generation-m-the-young-affluent-muslims-changing-the-world

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.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

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.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

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.

IanB2 said:

A handy mini-refresh of the risks to the Tories of sticking with May through another GE:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/23/theresa-may-maybot-another-wheat-field-moment

IanB2 said:

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?

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

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.

MarqueeMark said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

Nigelb said:

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....)

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

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.

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

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.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

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.

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

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.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

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.

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

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.

Sean_F said:

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.

MaxPB said:

Morris_Dancer said:

SNP/EU departure court case begins:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44923384

Given that Parliament is sovereign and A50 was backed by an Act of Parliament (thank you, Gina), why even bother with this case?!

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

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.

IanB2 said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

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.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/photobylines/2011/2/22/1298400212637/Budget-deficits-graphic-008.jpg

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.

Gardenwalker said:

https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1021635863510441986?s=21

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

I see Brexit has finally got the better of us and we have regressed to discussing the merits or otherwise of Gordon Brown's premiership.

Could be worse. How about the evil of Islam ?

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

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.

Morris_Dancer said:

SNP/EU departure court case begins:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44923384