Does anyone support Brown ?

[MrsC]

the thing is , present company excepted, the point never comes, because things are not made to last anymore, they are made to be replaced within 4-5 years on large goods, then you have your 'state of the art' market, people who HAVE to upgrade to every new thing, which is now every six months (witness processors in computers for example), so that growth is artificially engendered, which is fine, until there is a credit crunch and suddenly, noone wants the newest sofa/coffee maker, because they don't need one.
then that growth figure crashes, and we are exhorted by the government to get back out there and spend, its our 'duty' to save jobs by spending money we haven't got, by borrowing it at ridiculous rates of interest that we cannot afford cos we could lose our jobs tomorrow......... that's NOT a stable economy, that's a fantasy.

Strange ain't it, Mr Brown (as televised) says that we can now borrow on the many billions given to bail the banks out? Debt creates money! They bail the banks out creating a debt to the Government (from the bank) or whoever they believe gave them the money and then, they (the banks) charge interest back to them on a debt they already owe? The burden of the debt therefore, comes back to us!

[BrideXIII]

comes back on us twice, we paid for those billions in the first place through our taxes, then we get charged interest on what we borrow of our own money ? scary really just how many ways there are to shaft us.

and what is really annoying, is those 'billions' were so not available for the national health system, or education? but suddenly when they need to bail out a few banks, voila!! loadsa dosh?

[bubblewrap]

Money Money Money.

[Mcbee]

Strange ain't it, Mr Brown (as televised) says that we can now borrow on the many billions given to bail the banks out? Debt creates money! They bail the banks out creating a debt to the Government (from the bank) or whoever they believe gave them the money and then, they (the banks) charge interest back to them on a debt they already owe? The burden of the debt therefore, comes back to us!

I can understand why banks need to be given billions of £'s to save them - especially as the share holders wouldn't!. Its disappointing that those institutional investors were prepared to own shares in the banks when they were making huge profits on unsustainable loans, but all ran away as soon as the going gets tough!

There does seem to be something fundamentally wrong with the bonus structure that is paid to bankers etc. I mean if your bonus is dictated by the amount of money you make for your company, then as long as you work within the "rules" you are incentivised to make as much money as possible. This will lead to greater risks being taken (ie sub prime lending). For a few years, this will probably work, but as the current crisis shows us when those deals go bust, the house of cards collapses. But think about it - the individuals who were instrumental in the "risky deals" probably earnt huge bonuses all the time they were doing well, but they aren't asked to pay back their bonuses when it all goes wrong. This seems wrong to me as you can basically make risky investments where the consequences won't be known for a number of years, but until that time you can earn huge bonuses. And when it does go wrong - well you've got a tidy sum stashed away.

I have a distinct lack of trust for banks / investment companies now because whilst they may be the engine room of our whole economy they don't seem to fully appreciate how their actions impact on that. I often think that because of this they should be nationalised, but have concluded that this isn't the best solution. However if that isn't going to happen then there must be tighter regulation which holds people to account and prevents banks from acting in an irresponsible manner.

It is the goverments job to protect us and they will be negligent if they don't do it. What disturbs me is that when the "crunch" first started to have an impact, there seemed to be a general acceptance that things would have to change within the banking industry, but as time has moved on that momentum seems to have disappeared. I think there is a danger that no new regulations will be introduced and that this situation could arise again

[Two_Sheds]

bankers ... make as much money as possible. This will lead to greater risks being taken (ie sub prime lending). For a few years, this will probably work, but as the current crisis shows us when those deals go bust, the house of cards collapses.

Karl Marx in the 1800s, argued that Capitalism was prone to periodic crises. He suggested that over time, capitalists would invest more and more in new technologies, and less and less in labour (and our economy has indeed switched from labour (manufacturing) to technologies.
He concluded that the rate of profit would fall even as the economy grew. When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression
(I'm not a Marxist or a communist, I just did a bit for Sociology A Level)

[piskieinboots]

...If I earn my money I want to be able to spend it on what I want, not more taxes etc. ...

as do we all - but without taxes we would be an even more third-rate nation than we are currently in danger of becoming.

So, have we decided if he should be placed in the stocks or not?

[Paulottie]

So, have we decided if he should be placed in the stocks or not?

I don't know but I found a couple of rank pumpkins in the greenhouse that would be Ideal for the purpose

[piskieinboots]

I am apolitical - I make no apologies for this,
......I do find it hard to criticise any of the politicians (whomsoever at the time) because I couldn't do their job and if I can't do something myself I would not (try not to) slate someone who is trying to do the best they can.

[andrewo]

Okay, I'm rolling up my shirt sleeves and wading in, I come from a Labour heartland and there is one thing you need to know about Labour, they have nothing to do with their founding principals. They are not socialist, in fact I have seen three successive generations of my family betrayed by Labour and their policies. Really, none of you expected Labour to destroy the economy? When Brown was Chancellor, he showed a gross wanton attitude to economics, Labour created PFIs (which are another form of debt and all those lovely new hospitals and schools are not owned by us, they will one day be taken over by the real private owners and then, and many private company in PFIs have admitted this, they will call in the debt and will address the fact of whether the PFIs run at a loss or gain. In other words, if they run at a loss, they will be axed).

So, yet again Labour has looked to the short term. They never banished bang and bust economics, they merely used our gold reserves (which they sold at the lowest point, losing us billions of pounds) to boost the economy. Whose idea was this? Gordon Browns.

Last time Labour was in, they devalued the currency, and shillings where lost - this had nothing to do with decimilisation but to save us from recession. How long before Brown suggests the Euro?

Instead of boosting the economy, they have boosted bureaucracy and the spin on how much we are in debt by is ludicrous, it does not take into account bail out of banks, public ownership of banks and PFIs (which is the biggy and has major interest that will added along the way).

Labour say that we in debt by six hundred and forty billion pounds (unmoderated figures state that we are in the red by over two trillion, taking into account PFIs and public ownership). This will mean, with Brown's plans to borrow more, that your great grandchildren will be paying back the debt, that local councils cannot recoup much of their loss and that over the next 5 years you will see a scaling back of public services to a level that has not been seen since before the founding of the NHS.

And you think Labour is new to this? They've done it before, it was Labours mute handling of the Unions in the 70s, that led to the economic downturn of the 80s. Thatcher may have been hailed as the destroyer of the mines but it is Labour who sounded there death knell.

Now, these are just broad strokes and there is no definitive answer to solving political and social problems in a society built on capitalism (you should never marry it to democracy). I am not saying that the Tories or the Liberals will do any better, what I am saying is that party politics does not work, that we are creating a systems with no alternatives. I think party politics shouldn't be in councils, that these should be independent, there may be an argument for party politics on a national level but not on a local. But that is another argument.

The very problem we are in now, is a direct result of Brown's time as the Chancellor, and of Labours softly, softly, spin touch under Blair.

Regardless of that, it is Labour as a party that is the biggest problem, they are not socialists, and the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts all is more than apparent in this party. If they told you the truth tomorrow, you wouldn't believe them and that says alot.

I don't think Brown should go, I think he whole damn party should go and that they should readdress politics on a whole to not just consider what will happen in the next 4 years but what will happen in the next 4 centuries. We should be laying down plans, systems and structures that will benefit us a thousand years from now and get away from the want this attitude.

[Two_Sheds]

Political parties are like railway companies though .. they only expect to have the reins for one term (perhaps two) so they don't make long-term investment.

[sarraceniac]

Political parties are like railway companies though .. they only expect to have the reins for one term (perhaps two) so they don't make long-term investment.

Exactly Two Sheds. And horror of horrors, instead of doing the 'right' thing they have to pander to the great unwashed masses. The electorate. So they can lie, and next week (a week is a long time in politics) say they did not mean that at all.

We have a local councillor who was elected in his first term on the promise of DEFINITELY stopping a local development. Within 2 weeks of being elected he had joined the committee to plan the development. 'Things had changed' he said 4 years later at the next election. Result. Bigger majority.

So to get back to the original question about Gordon Brown - Yes. Many people do support Gordon Brown. He is no big a liar then any other politician. Me? I used to vote as duty at every election. But never again. I no longer believe any of them.

[HeyWayne]

There are no simple solutions.

[HeyWayne]

In fact, I'd go as far as to say there are no solutions.

[BrideXIII]

In fact, I'd go as far as to say there are no solutions.

I'd agree with that statement.......... and that's not a problem either, its about maintaining a balance, like everything else in life, we need a government that wont let the seesaw go to far one way of the other.

[Fluorescent green]

In fact, I'd go as far as to say there are no solutions.

There might be a solution, but not the one Gordon Brown is trying to impliment.
The Banks went bust, nearly, because of too much borrowing.
Yet the Government are borrrowing more (with our money), and they are trying to bail out the banks (with our money) so that borrowing can get back to normal.
Have you heard any politician saying that we were borrowing too much? And we need to let things sort themselves out, and have less borrowing in the future.
Or even changing the banking rules?

Has anyone tried voting for a non-main-stream party, before giving up on voting.

The Green Party, raving loonies, BNP, Libertarian !

FG