Volkszone Forum banner

Why is Gordon Brown useless?

5.8K views 117 replies 30 participants last post by  kvwloon  
#1 · (Edited)
I've been reading the election threads on here and there's a few posts along the lines of;

'I'd vote Labour if wasn't for Gordon Brown.'

'I want to vote Libdem but it might mean Gordon Brown again if there's a coalition.'

etc,etc.

Is he really that bad? Alright, he looks a miserable sod but if I want to look at a grinning loon i'll go to the circus. Is this a personality thing or is he crap at the job?

For what it's worth, I think he's done okay in a crappy world climate.
 
#3 ·
10p tax rate.
banker bonuses
several wars
underfunding
PFI
not having house prices in the inflation measure
the inability to answer a question without resorting to tractor production statistics.
Ed Balls
Mandleson.
 
#12 ·
He's not useless. Imagine the state we'd be in if virtually anyone else had had their hands on the economy during the global crisis. People have short memories: under the Tories we had 10% inflation, 15% interest rate and the worst sort of 'man mind thy self' society. You want to go back there? Vote Conservative.
 
#14 · (Edited)
What was the rate of inflation when the tories came to power in 79? people seem to forget that too. Thatcher done a very good job of getting it back under control, granted, there were a couple of periods that it become very difficult, but, shit, people do forget.....

EDIT: now added pre 1970
Historic Inflation Rates
Year Rate
2006 2.30%
2005 2.10%
2004 1.30%
2003 1.40%
2002 1.30%
2001 1.20%
2000 0.80%
1999 1.30%
1998 1.60%
1997 1.80%
1996 2.50%
1995 2.60%
1994 2.00%
1993 2.50%
1992 4.30%
1991 7.50%
1990 7.00%
1989 5.20%
1988 4.90%
1987 4.20%
1986 3.40%
1985 6.10%
1984 5.00%
1983 4.60%
1982 8.60%
1981 11.90%
1980 18.00%
1979 13.40%
1978 8.30%
1977 15.80%
1976 16.50%
1975 24.20%
1974 16.00%
1973 9.20%
1972 7.10%
1971 9.40%
1970 6.40%
1969 5.40%
1968 4.70%
1967 2.50%
1966 3.90%
1965 4.80%
1964 3.30%
1963 2.00%
1962 4.30%
1961 3.40%
1960 1.00%
1959 0.60%
1958 3.00%
1957 3.70%
1956 4.90%
1955 4.50%
1954 1.80%
1953 3.10%
1952 9.20%
1951 9.10%
1950 3.10%
1949 2.80%
1948 7.70%
1947 7.00%
1946 3.10%
1945 2.80%
1944 2.70%
1943 3.40%
1942 7.10%
1941 10.80%
1940 16.80%
1939 2.80%
1938 1.60%
1937 3.40%
1936 0.70%
1935 0.70%
1934 0.00%
1933 -2.10%
1932 -2.60%
1931 -4.30%
1930 -2.80%
1929 -0.90%
1928 -0.30%
1927 -2.40%
1926 -0.80%
1925 0.30%
1924 -0.70%
1923 -6.00%
1922 -14.00%
1921 -8.60%
1920 15.40%
1919 10.10%
1918 22.00%
1917 25.20%
1916 18.10%
1915 12.50%
1914 -0.30%
1913 -0.40%
1912 3.00%
1911 0.10%
1910 0.90%
1909 0.50%
1908 0.50%
1907 1.20%
1906 0.00%
1905 0.40%
1904 -0.20%
1903 0.40%
1902 0.00%
1901 0.50%
1900 5.10%
 
#16 ·
I'm not really that well versed in economics (did one term and switched to politics A level) but I thought there was debate over wether there should be some inflation? As in a smallish amount is inevitable and a sign of prosperity and growth... and no inflation was indicative of stagnation?
 
#22 ·
What you are forgetting PC is that while the Tories were packed out with sleazy MPs in the run up to the 97 election, the guys in charge of the money (Clarke and the Bank of England) did a good job. Such a good job that Labour kept to the Tory spending plans from 97 to 99.

So Brown and Blair inherited a sound economy that was not based on borrowed money chasing up house prices - there were no such things as self-certified mortgages - you had to prove your income and you'd struggle to get one on more than 3.5x the first income income plus 1x the second income, even if you both had good jobs.

Brown un-picked all that, and pumped up spending on the welfare state, so we now have huge unemployment, but loads of Poles doing jobs that lazy f*ckers don't have to do because their benefits are so huge, threw money at the NHS (which went into salaries for doctors and profits for drug companies), and took government spending as a proportion of GDP from about 38% to over 50%.
 
#29 ·
To show you how Callaghan totally fucked the economy try to guess what amount I got as an inflationary pay rise just after the end of my first year in the Royal Navy in May 79 when Mrs T got in.

Not 5%



Not 10%



Not 15%



Not 20%



Not 25%



Not 30%



33% - yes, 33%, - that's how the Labour Government had messed up the economy and treated the Services.
 
#33 ·
To show you how Callaghan totally fucked the economy try to guess what amount I got as an inflationary pay rise just after the end of my first year in the Royal Navy in May 79 when Mrs T got in.

Not 5%

Not 10%

Not 15%

Not 20%

Not 25%

Not 30%

33% - yes, 33%, - that's how the Labour Government had messed up the economy and treated the Services.
My memory is longer than yours . . . as I recall, Callaghan inherited a completely FUCKED economy from Heath (or at least their governments - I try not to get involved in 'personalities') . . . The Labour Government of the time had its hands pretty much tied too as they didn't have a big enough majority to get many policies thru' without doing deals with the Liberals.

If we're gonna all get 'selective amnesia' . . . pay for the Armed Forces under Heath (and Wilson before him) wasn't great either.

Successive governments (of whatever hue) have ALWAYS tried to do war on the cheap ;)

Try not to let your own 'politics' cloud your memory ;)

They're all as bad/good as each other . . .

And YES, Thatcher DID give a huge payrise . . . mostly because she thought she might need HM Forces' backing to 'strike break' ;) Cynical? Me? :D
 
#39 ·
Anyway . . . I suspect we'll all never agree . . . everyone's politics/ideas are different . . .

I think the last 13 years haven't been perfect by any stretch of the imagination . . . but I think they've been better for 'the many' than what went before.

Again, just my opinion/memory . . . I respect the views of those with differing opinions. :)
 
#40 ·
If anything... my biggest gripe about Labour under Blair was that he wasn't Labour enough (if that makes sense). I voted Labour when he won his first term because I was fed up with greedy cynical government and I wanted something a bit more touchy feely (I can't put it any better than that). And didn't get it... instead we got a government which to me felt right of the Conservative party... even more driven by capitalism and greed.

As I have said before... although I have a natural drift towards the Conservative party, I am very much a floating voter. This time I really am at a loss about who to vote for. It's easy to say... but I mean it... I really do not like the politics (or feel) of any of the big two (three).
 
#63 ·
There are an amazing number of regular voters out there who really dont know how to vote this time, and an even greater number who wont vote because they do not understand, although they have always been there, I fear a very small turn out this time, mainly because of the indecision. The less people that vote each time, the more chance of the whole system going to pot, while I am not a big fan of our democratic system, it does work most of the time, to let it fail would open all sorts of doors. One of which is a chance for the more extremist parties to gain a foothold.
I do not believe that politicians are doing it for the people anymore, I feel they are only in it for what they can get out of it, maybe that isnt true, maybe they are doing what they think is right, but in my (and I'm not the only one) eyes they seem to be for themselves rather than us.

People have lost faith in their politicians, to get it back will be hard work and they sure dont seem to be helping us see them in a different light.
 
#92 ·
Why I would rather shove wasps up my arse than vote Tory... By Me.

Compulsory Competitive tendering. Which mean 'The cheapest at any price'.
Demolition of heavy industry in Britain in order to 'kill' the power of the Unions.
Asset stripping. Buy a failing company cheap. Sell it's stock. Show a massive profit. Close it down.
Care in the Community. Turn the old Psychiatric Institutions into real estate. Put the residents into the community.
I worked with young mentally ill in Coventry. At one point, in Earlsdon, there were a number of young men sleeping in the attic of a house. You could see the sky through the tiles, but it was the only accommodation they could get. Care in the Community then removed services from Council control and they were put out to Compulsory Competitive tendering. Charities then took on the contracts. Each Charity creating a local 'eaucracy' at going rate wages, but relying heavily on volunteers.
Care in the Community also decreed the closure of psychiatric wards in favour of the community services. No extra finance for the transition so both the wards and the community support were inadequate. Architect... Virginia Bottomley (tory)

From about 1981 to 2000, there were a stream of vehicles leaving industrial areas loaded with high tech industrial machinery, on route to Pakistan, India and China.
All at 10 quid a ton, electronics attached!

Industrial areas destroyed. Social cohesion demolished. Hope removed.

I have made my disappointment with Labour quite plain to everyone. How anyone could take a massive Commons majority and do so little to benefit society is beyond me.

Prisons that still don't improve people. Care in the Community that still has people falling through the cracks. Infrastructure that is still falling apart. Whole areas where someone with a job that pays enough to buy a house has to work for the Government.

When the fuck will people realize that the grotty looking old man in the duffel coat (Michael Foot) had an intellect that makes most of the smart young men of all parties nowadays, look like pigmies.

Just because he has a smart suit and he's smiling at you, doesn't mean he's not going to rob you, shag you and then fuck off with your family jewels.

MOst of the nasty things done in the World ever have been done by men in smart suits!

Brown is still the best of a very bad lot. BUt there's a tenner on the chance that if he forms the next Government, he'll have Frank Field in the Cabinet.
 
#97 ·
I wonder when (or if) anybody will mention the last time David Cameron was involved with decisions relating to the economy

For those too young to remember, he was Norman LaMont's 'special advisor' in 1992.

Now what memorable financial episode happened back then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/16/newsid_2519000/2519013.stm

I wouldn't trust David Cameron enough to lend him a fiver never mind run the country
 
#104 ·
This moment is the culmination of all other moments, so let's look at what brought the Callaghan Government down.
1: We were still paying for WWII.
2: Within industry and the Unions were the second generation of men who had been sent, like veal calves, in trucks across Europe to die, in order to create a Land Fit For Heroes. They'd languished in POW camps, watched their mates die in Normandy, seen the might of the British Empire trampled in hours by the Japanese,
and then watched the Victory in Europe turn into the Cold War. They then saw that their children were faced with, not another war, but Nuclear Extinction. They wanted and needed a certain amount of security, Job security, a security from war, freedom from the fear of illness causing ruin.
It sounds as if I've done everything, but I was a Union rep for the clerical workers union in Chrysler. I used to go to meetings in which the older reps would do nothing but vent their anger against a company that no longer resembled the one that caused their anger and a country that never came up to the one they thought they were fighting for. Unfortunately, the next generation caught the 'We've done our bit' mentality.
It was that mentality that caused the downfall of the '79 Labour Government.
There wasn't enough of anything to placate 2 or 3 generations of people whose suffering and dying seemed to be for nothing.
Even my family were devastated by war. My mother's first husband was an engineer in a ball bearing factory in Nottingham. Her second was a bomber pilot, then came my Dad (literally). When I went to a children's home in 1953, I went in a pair of wellingtons borrowed from next door. I went because my mother couldn't afford to keep me. My sisters, from her second marriage went to a different children's home and my older brother joined the forces.
Most of the kids I spent my early years with were ones whose parents had been either killed fighting or in the Blitz. Slightly later, my fellow inmates were kids from all over the comonwealth. We were black, white and brown, but mutually identifiable as 'Kid's home kids' by the uniform. We were, all of us, an 'ethnic minority'.

Leonard Cohen...Suzanne 'He spent a long time looking from his lonely wooden tower'.

I'm never really sure if I'm right, but I have spent a long time looking.

If you get a chance, read the Ben Fogle interview in the Daily Mail, with Gordon Brown. Even the Mail couldn't make Brown anything other than what he is.

In the land of the blind, the 'one eyed man' is King. Eh, Gordie? ;-l
 
#105 ·
I think there is one thing that everyone should be aware of that all three major parties support, eg. Cons, Lab and LibDems (which will be no good for everyone, regardless wether they drive or not) and that is road pricing :(

The only fairly major party I have seen who is against it is UKIP.
 
#106 ·
UKIP is jumping on every populist band wagon they can find. 'Christian Soldiers Against Europe' is one of their associates. Even their foray into BNP territory was as thick as the BNP itself.

Nobody is talking about our relationship with Russia, but in the coming century, they'll be the main owners of most fuel and water resources in Europe. They have untapped fuel reserves, the land that other pipelines and supplies will have to cross and the largest expanse of fresh water in Europe (Lake Biakal). The have most of the forests needed to keep oxygen in the atmosphere. Our different governments have treated them like shite for years, preferring to follow America into wars, litigation damaged, blame culture society, and fucking awful food outlets to provide employment and obesity.


In the land of the blind, the 'one eyed man' is King. Eh, Gordie? ;-l
 
#112 ·
UKIP is jumping on every populist band wagon they can find. 'Christian Soldiers Against Europe' is one of their associates. Even their foray into BNP territory was as thick as the BNP itself.

Nobody is talking about our relationship with Russia, but in the coming century, they'll be the main owners of most fuel and water resources in Europe. They have untapped fuel reserves, the land that other pipelines and supplies will have to cross and the largest expanse of fresh water in Europe (Lake Biakal). The have most of the forests needed to keep oxygen in the atmosphere. Our different governments have treated them like shite for years, preferring to follow America into wars, litigation damaged, blame culture society, and fucking awful food outlets to provide employment and obesity.

In the land of the blind, the 'one eyed man' is King. Eh, Gordie? ;-l
That's very true about Russia being poorly treated during the cold war and even now. They had in fact (in part) blew the lid on the "man made climatechange aka global warming" lies (driven by various US governments since 1961), which became climategate. They had released thier own temperature data as well as thier own conclusions as a PDF file (in russian).
 
#111 ·
Whilst I can understand that say something as obvious as advrtising can affect and effect how someone thinks and so maybe influences their choices - I still remain convinced that they can choose to plan their life and choose education for example over just smoking dope.
The above is aimed out our society - of course, but if you are close to a subsitence farmer in India your choices are limited. But even there Credit Union type activity offers just a small but life changing opportunity for choice

I still believe it is in the individual's compass to change and choose.


Thats why I was a Trotsk for a while.
 
#113 · (Edited)
Whilst I can understand that say something as obvious as advrtising can affect and effect how someone thinks and so maybe influences their choices - I still remain convinced that they can choose to plan their life and choose education for example over just smoking dope.
The above is aimed out our society - of course, but if you are close to a subsitence farmer in India your choices are limited. But even there Credit Union type activity offers just a small but life changing opportunity for choice

I still believe it is in the individual's compass to change and choose.

Thats why I was a Trotsk for a while.
I completely understand what you are saying, and recognise your human condition/human conditioning question as dovetailing with your own beliefs and assertions.

I think that the original point was yours, that no-one forced 'person A' to run up debt nor 'person B' to save, nor 'person C' to buy books whilst 'person D' chose to buy an X-Box. You were saying that the government, specifically, were not responsible for the choices individuals made. This much, I agree with, insofar as they were not individually forced or coerced into the choice they made.

My arguement is that we have a 'representative democratic state', that by the same logic, no-one forced or coerced into running up a national debt equal to ÂŁ150,000 per capita. Much of that accumulated through wars I never asked to be fought in my name, and many other fiscal excesses, but also, crucially, often spent by that same state to maintain it's own ability to coerce ME, and to maintain it's own hugely expensive and inefficient infrastructure... spent to facilitate and sustain it's ability to perpetuate itself, if you will.

If the state were organised differently, the state itself might provide for that which makes life more than merely tolerable, with such 'luxuries' being provided by the state to its citizens, from a small part of the surplus value of their labour. I then quoted circumstance where that has occurred (Uraguay) as an example.

My point being that in the ultimate manifestation of such a benign and egalitarian state, personal debt need not exist. So in that sense, yes the state IS responsible. Responsible for the system and circumstances in which individuals live, including implicitly, the circumstances in which some choose to borrow to meet their 'wants'.

Personally I would dispense with state (and with capitalism) altogether, but that is a seperate, and entirely other discussion.

p.s. At last years Anarchist Conference, half the people I spoke with were ex Trots who had evolved their thinking ;)
 
#114 ·
Its hard being a Trot - its a dying art :)

I follow what you say about the state, in whatever form, from Castro's Cuba to fascist America, will have direct and indirect influnce on a citizens' life - I still believe that there is ample opportunity for an individual to choose their own course and follow it.

In a way - this incorrectly mathematically modelled dust cloud has an resulted in a social experiment which is being observed by social and behavioural scientists.
Roughly for the purposes of this post - the stuck people have divided into two - the externally decided and the internaly decided.
The internally get up and fix their journey for themselves
The externally sit and consider it is the job of others to fix

I guess that you consider people to be external - I hope they are internal.
 
#115 ·
No, I think people are divided... are, collectively both. I suppose tbh, given the observations of the experiment, that is self evident.

I would like to think that personally, I would fix it for both myself, and anyone else I could help.

When I say we do not need a state, this is a theoretical position free from the many problems, restrictions and limitations imposed on that concept by the fact that we currently do have one (well many depending upon who one assumes to be 'we'). I believe in principle that a horizontally integrated system of freely co-operating but autonomous worker controlled, decentralised economic and social organisations would be a better form of society than any hierarchical arrangement.