Views on the Economy

Buff

So, this morning I open the paper to read that Gordon Brown will be hoping to talk at the G20 summit about pumping Billions of extra cash and shore it up against the nations already spiralling debt in order to kick start the economy... Mervyn King has gone against this saying it will be a very bad idea to increase the national debt in such a manner.

I originally thought the only guy to be able to get the nation out of this current situation would be Gordy, but now i'm having second thoughts after millions are staring unemploymnet in the face, losing homes and massive bonuses being handed out to people who quite frankly should be paying off the debts of their customers rather than the other way round.

I'm furious that I work damned hard for my money whilst "fat cats" are allowed to just sit there "earning" £m bonuses for putting us into this situation and just through guilt decide to give a small portion back.

What's your take on current affairs?

LondonMatt

I'm not sure if Brown is the man to fix things, but I am pretty sure that Cameron wouldn't do that much better. These things happen in cycles and I'm fairly confident that the economy will eventually turn its self around, back to boom years, no matter who is in power. The government can do only a limited number of things to speed things up, imho - and those things are usually unpopular.

I don't think I've heard much about what Cameron would actually do to fix the economy if he was in power - other than ban bonuses :001_rolleyes: - all he and Clegg seem to do is criticise Browns mistakes, with no real policy put forward - as far as I can tell anyway. I like the fact that Brown (elected on the back of 'hard working union folk') was defending millionaire bankers' bonuses and the Tories ("the party of business") was against them :confused1: Just seems to prove that the opposition can say anything, but it’s the government that has to make the hard decisions - a decision I agree with btw…..

Jon_1984

my thoughts are pretty much the same as londonmatt's:crying:

A-Vic

my view on the economy is

were in trouble


the end

AdamR

Neither Brown nor Cameron can fix it and neither can anybody else who tells you they can - this is something that will only get better with time. However, I personally hold Brown at least partly responsible for the seriousness of our country's crisis due to his years as Chancellor preaching that this could never happen and allowing the money markets to become what they did.

If the economy goes in circles like Matt suggests, then politics need to and so a new party should be elected next year. I imagine that if the Tories get in, they will do an equally good job of messing up a part of our society but I'm willing to give them the opportunity. Change is what keeps the world turning and as a country, we need some new direction soon.

They say "better the devil you know" but that's a dangerous game for the public to play when elected a leader - changing opinions keep them all on their toes.

LondonMatt

I would say that Brown is more than partly responsible, he is responsible. He was in charge of the economy at the time, so the buck stops with him, imho. Although, the Tories weren't exactly complaining about his policies out the time....

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that politics should go in circles. I don't think that the Tories (or the lib dems :laugh:) have a right to be elected, that its 'their turn'. They have to earn it, and for me, they haven't yet. The only issue I agree with them on (and disagree with NuLab on) is the EU. Everything else I either disaree with, or is too close to NuLab's policies to be different. That being said, I think the Tories will most likely get in power in the next election. Brown is just too unpopular.

PAMDILL

LondonMatt wrote: »

I would say that Brown is more than partly responsible, he is responsible. He was in charge of the economy at the time, so the buck stops with him, imho. Although, the Tories weren't exactly complaining about his policies out the time....

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that politics should go in circles. I don't think that the Tories (or the lib dems :laugh:) have a right to be elected, that its 'their turn'. They have to earn it, and for me, they haven't yet. The only issue I agree with them on (and disagree with NuLab on) is the EU. Everything else I either disaree with, or is too close to NuLab's policies to be different. That being said, I think the Tories will most likely get in power in the next election. Brown is just too unpopular.

I remember in the 70'sthen early 80's as a childthen young teen thinking that automatically the government went labour - tory - labour and getting quite miffed when the tories got in twice in a row I announced that the tories were 'cheating'.

Maybe they should change the rules and just have a cyclical government: labout, tory then lib dem turns around, 4 years each.

Ponder

Buff wrote: »

I'm furious that I work damned hard for my money whilst "fat cats" are allowed to just sit there "earning" £m bonuses for putting us into this situation and just through guilt decide to give a small portion back.

What's your take on current affairs?

I have to agree with this..its a direct end effect of the banks and their behaviour,wheeling and dealing that we are in this mess to begin with..sure could be argued its only partly their fault but then that they are receiving massive bonuses, pensions etc etc seems,...whats the right word that fits..galling, for starters..

PAMDILL wrote: »

Maybe they should change the rules and just have a cyclical government: labout, tory then lib dem turns around, 4 years each.

Interesting idea..could be times for some kind of government system change but what,,hmmm

mark130273

A-Vic wrote: »

my view on the economy is

were in trouble


the end

and guess what ?


DITTO !

AdamR

LondonMatt wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that politics should go in circles. I don't think that the Tories (or the lib dems :laugh:) have a right to be elected, that its 'their turn'. They have to earn it, and for me, they haven't yet. The only issue I agree with them on (and disagree with NuLab on) is the EU. Everything else I either disaree with, or is too close to NuLab's policies to be different. That being said, I think the Tories will most likely get in power in the next election. Brown is just too unpopular.

I'm not saying that every four or eight or however many years a new party must be elected - that sort of defeats the point. Having a rota of when a party is elected is not what I meant; I was merely saying that there should be change at some point. I'm sure whoever wins the next term will mess something up and be disliked for it but that comes with the job. However, I believe someone else should have that chance.

How possible is a Labour win if Gordon resigns before the election i.e. a different candidate for PM is chosen?

I don't think he would resign though - this whole Chancellor to PM promotion was all self-gratification. There were others better suited for the job but he convinced them not to run. Why would he give it up so soon?

Cullen

Ok Adam, I know what you are trying to do here.

Go on then. I will lead Labour at the next election.

Remember though, you made me do it...

farmergiles

I do believe that we should be like the states in that we should have fixed term goverments, with elections EVERY 4 years, not just when the current PM thinks that he/she is safe to call one!

LondonMatt

If you have fixed term governments, you can't get rid of them as easily I don't think? You are stuck with them for the whole fixed term, no matter how unpopular they are. Anyway, for me, that isn't the biggest flaw in our system, it’s the first past the post system which is. FPTP gives huge majorities to parties that get less than half the votes cast. It also means that I practically get dis-enfranchised and my vote is ignored - NuLab have something like a 10,000 vote majority in my area, the 3,000 odd people who voted for other parties are ignored, their votes meaningless. You add up all those other ignored votes across the country and a significant number of people don't have a representative in Parliament.

Cullen

May I refer you to a very interesting post I made on a different thread....

"I like voting. I could organise a proportional representational system. You have as many votes as candidates and then you allot them your preference, say number 1 or number 2 etc. When all the votes have been added up, the person with the least number wins as this means that they have the higher value preferences."

Yup, it's a good idea. It may need a bit more work though.

LondonMatt

Thats a good idea Cullen - you're not a Lib Dem in disguise are you? - but the problem with PR is that you get the small lunatic parties (B N P) elected and you get weaker governments - like the Italians have. There are work around to those problems, but finding a balance between having strong governments and as much PR as possible is quite difficult. I'm not against some form of PR, though

A-Vic

The main issue for me at the moment with MP's and PM is this 2nd house allowence entitlement and the other expenses that are set by themselves - its like going to your suppliers and giving them your bank accountant and telling them just help yourself charge what you like.

I know its been looked at, but it seems it will be another thing ignored to me.

Cullen

"Thats a good idea Cullen - you're not a Lib Dem in disguise are you"

Maybe I am, maybe not. However my mantra is:

What do we want? Gradual Change!

When do we want it? In due course!

I remember chanting that all the way on the walk from Jarrow down to the Big Smoke. (I also seem to remember having the **** beaten out of me by the other marchers. I always was a radical....)

LondonMatt

How old are you Cullen? Do you still have a fear of Lenin?

Cullen

Well I am old. I'll admit that.I have four sons, actual sons numbers 1 and 2 and cybersons 1 (that's you) and 2 (Adam)

I do not fear Lenin, no.

It's mexicans with ice picks that scare me....
(A pint to the first poster to identify the reference...)

Paul24

Cullen wrote: »

Well I am old. I'll admit that.I have four sons, actual sons numbers 1 and 2 and cybersons 1 (that's you) and 2 (Adam)

I do not fear Lenin, no.

It's mexicans with ice picks that scare me....
(A pint to the first poster to identify the reference...)

Trotsky reference - vodka please :-)

Cullen

A pint?? Of Vodka???

Ok, I'll have a sweet sherry with you....

Paul24

Guinness will do then :-) was trying to stick with the theme :-)

Cullen

Well I've got mine. Cheers!

CJC

Though Trotsky's assassin was actually Spanish not Mexican. So a pint of sherry for meeee!

SeanyBoy

CJC wrote: »

Though Trotsky's assassin was actually Spanish not Mexican. So a pint of sherry for meeee!

it was the mexican who stole the pick axe

marknotgeorge

I think that instead of the government pumping money into the banks for them to decide to give it to industry when they've paid their bonuses, they should do it the other way. Invest it in industry, and let it find its way to the banks that way. I don't just mean any industry of course. I'm talking about the sort of industry that builds stuff we need. Road projects, sustainable developments, innovative technologies. Car companies should be helped, as long as they're developing vehicles that get away from oil. Maybe the government should bail out Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port, as long as they build the new Ampera. We're all going to be running around in electric or fuel cell cars soon, so take the lead and make a start on the infrastructure, even if it's only providing grants for secure plug sockets at the kerbside.