Given the economy is his alleged chosen field

[User removed 4]

Depends if he thought that £5bn a year would wreck the private pension system I guess.

If you look at the total amount of money paid into private pensions, £5bn a year is what proportion of the total, and how does that compare to the management fees taken out by the pension companies themselves?

He did it against treasury advice.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Can Brown turn it round now we are talking about the economy? Doubt it.

He might just. If he can get across the key message ...

... a vote for the Tories is a vote for immediate (and unnecessary) cuts in public services that will damage your sense of wellbeing and delay economic recovery. A vote for Labour is a vote for continuing economic recovery, followed by a sensible, considered, look at what needs to be done about public services.

Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Brown has the opportunity to get that message across - and, when Clegg says that he basically agrees with Brown, Cameron will just end up looking isolated.

The two week old boost of Clegg's credibility may well turn out to be Brown's biggest assest.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

He might just. If he can get across the key message ...

... a vote for the Tories is a vote for immediate (and unnecessary) cuts in public services that will damage your sense of wellbeing and delay economic recovery. A vote for Labour is a vote for continuing economic recovery, followed by a sensible, considered, look at what needs to be done about public services.

Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Brown has the opportunity to get that message across - and, when Clegg says that he basically agrees with Brown, Cameron will just end up looking isolated.

The two week old boost of Clegg's credibility may well turn out to be Brown's biggest assest.

What economic recovery what is the percentage of growth?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What economic recovery what is the percentage of growth?

That's exactly the sort of detail that most people aren't interested in.

Never mind the numbers, they only make sense to the fat cats who read the financial pages. The prospect of big cuts in public services, on the other hand, will frighten people off the Tories.

 

[beorhthelm]

... A vote for Labour is a vote for continuing economic recovery, followed by a sensible, considered, look at what needs to be done about public services.

would that be a Brian Clough style sensible, considered look, and decide Brown is right and we can carry on regardless?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

would that be a Brian Clough style sensible, considered look, and decide Brown is right and we can carry on regardless?

Quite possibly. Clough's genius was that people thought he was a genius and trusted him. Cameron will fail because people will work out that he isn't a genius and won't trust him. All the signs are that this is happening already.

 

[Hannibal smith]

That's exactly the sort of detail that most people aren't interested in.

Which was my point. Bushy and El pres can argue till the cows come home. The election will be decided by birds who think Samantha Cameron looks better dolled up than Gordon Brown’s missus or that Nick Clegg has nice hair. Most of the commentary about last week’s debate was about who cracked the best jokes. They’d be better off doing stand up than going into detail about what they would do about the economy.

I, incidentally, am one of the 36 people doing ‘The Worm’ this week. The downside is that I’ve got a sit through all 90 minutes of the debate and can’t switch it off and play on the Wii instead which is what I ended up doing last week. At least when I swear at the TV and say ‘What twat thought that? I know the answer is me.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

That's exactly the sort of detail that most people aren't interested in.

Never mind the numbers, they only make sense to the fat cats who read the financial pages. The prospect of big cuts in public services, on the other hand, will frighten people off the Tories.

If I may be so bold, economic growth is measured by an increase in the GDP. If such an increase cannot be expressed as a percentage then this fabled recovery claim, is at the very least a smoke screen to divert the public away from the fact that on a Net basis we are still in recession.

Cuts in public services? We been having them for a least 4 years, the public are becoming immune to them. Gordon's big card will not be called as trumps in this whist drive.

I think you will find a lot more people interested in the basic facts and figures of the economy then you might imagine.

 

[User removed 4]

Which was my point. Bushy and El pres can argue till the cows come home. The election will be decided by birds who think Samantha Cameron looks better dolled up than Gordon Brown’s missus or that Nick Clegg has nice hair. Most of the commentary about last week’s debate was about who cracked the best jokes. They’d be better off doing stand up than going into detail about what they would do about the economy.

I, incidentally, am one of the 36 people doing ‘The Worm’ this week. The downside is that I’ve got a sit through all 90 minutes of the debate and can’t switch it off and play on the Wii instead which is what I ended up doing last week. At least when I swear at the TV and say ‘What twat thought that? I know the answer is me.

I wouldnt presume to argue the finer points of economics with el pres

 

[BLOCK F]

That's exactly the sort of detail that most people aren't interested in.

Never mind the numbers, they only make sense to the fat cats who read the financial pages. The prospect of big cuts in public services, on the other hand, will frighten people off the Tories.

There will be cuts in public services whoever gets in.I am sure we could all get by without many of the non jobs that have been created by the Labour party over the past 13years.The private sector have taken most of the pain so far and now it is up to a strong responsible party,who are not beholden to the unions to reform those parts of the public sector that need sorting out....that includes the no longer sustainable pensions that they currently enjoy.For example,I for one object to 25% of the council tax I pay,going to fund local government pensions,whilst my own pension is dependent on the fortunes of the stockmarket.
Cuts in public services do not frighten me,but the thought of another 5 years of Labour gives me nightmares!

 

[drew]

who backed Blair in the aforementioned war, but didnt open the purse strings for the MoD. he also shafted the pension funds for millions of workers and brought misery to millions of families who were victims of the tax credit fuckup. oh and he presided over a recession after promising an end. nice honest Labour policies.

You bang on about the pensions but what about the tories. In the 80s and 90s, they allowed companies to take pension holidays if there was a 5% surplus against future liabilities. Unilever had a 7 year holiday! How much was lost to pensions because of that, the money being paid out, in many cases, as additonal profit and therefore dividends to shareholders and lost to the workforce.

no we weren't. he only applied the medicine the markets and economists told him he had to apply - the same as every other country did at the time. really, its clucthing at straws to suggest he led us from the precipice of doom

of course not, he only set up the regulatory framework that was completely oblivious to what was going on under their nose, failed to respond sufficiently to the klaxon that was Northern Rock, and had spent 10 years paying for everything on tick fueling the debt bubble himself. its quite desperate to try to spin Brown as some sort of saviour when being so anti-Blair, they are both part of the same govenment for 10 years and since Blair left so did any trace of actual leadership.

So what exactly were the Tories proposing at this time of financial meltdown.

The guy is an economic moron
-Sold 350 tonnes of gold at 250 $ an ounce at it's trough
-Increased NHS spending by 120% with a net 4.7% increase in delivered service possibly because the NHS had been underfunded by the Tories for 19 years. We now have a better, albeit not perfect, health service
-Raped £80 billion from our pensions without so much a by or leave see comment above re the Tories in the 80s and 90s
-Created 12 or was it 13 golden rules of economic stability
-Broke 12 or was it 13 golden rules of economic stability
-Deregulated the banks and let them run loose because the tories wouldn't have done the same! In fact, they wanted to go further. The deregulation of the banks was to allow them to remain competitive with the US who had deregulated in the 80s and 90s. If it hadn't happened all the true blues on here would be complaining about jobs going to other financial centres.
-Stated that he would now come tough on banks
-Failed to deliver tax incentives to small businesses to generate real delivered wealth
-Went for a pathetic 50% tax on those earning >150k , like fighting a fire with a thimble. Driving away our entrepreneurs in the process. It is a regurgitated myth that these people are leaving in their droves because of this. Were are your figures?
-Increased the gap betwen the poor and rick by more than 25% in the last 12 years. but are the poor better off now than they were 12 years ago?

In short , the man is a FUD and deserves to be kicked out to evermore obscurity on May 6th.

My advice? Tactically vote him an his bunch of desperados out, wherever!

TNBA

TTF

Very true - and the particularly annoying thing is that he seems to be getting away with it. A decent opposition would have held him to account on this. The biggest economic cock-up in history happened on his watch and he's more or less been allowed to get away with it.

Are you still blaming Brown for the collapse of the global economy?

If I may be so bold, economic growth is measured by an increase in the GDP. If such an increase cannot be expressed as a percentage then this fabled recovery claim, is at the very least a smoke screen to divert the public away from the fact that on a Net basis we are still in recession.

Cuts in public services? We been having them for a least 4 years, the public are becoming immune to them. Gordon's big card will not be called as trumps in this whist drive.

I think you will find a lot more people interested in the basic facts and figures of the economy then you might imagine.

Fabled recovery claim? Hasn't GDP risen in the last two quarters? Also, what cuts in public services are you referring too?

 

[El Presidente]

I wouldnt presume to argue the finer points of economics with el pres

Let's get back to what we know best Bushy, and discuss the finer points of

I know I would, I'd even go for sloppy seconds after you mate

 

[beorhthelm]

You bang on about the pensions but what about the tories. In the 80s and 90s, they allowed companies to take pension holidays if there was a 5% surplus against future liabilities.

poor policy. significnat differene thoug his it was down to the pension funds and their trustees (including employee representitives to make that choice. their choice. they have to then deal with the consequences.

So what exactly were the Tories proposing at this time of financial meltdown.

the same damn thing. it was only after the immediate problems in autumn '08 did they change policy. and yes they should have suggested more after northern rock, but they weren't in power (they might have, i wasnt paying attention to Osborne as he's a damp squib after bottling flat rate income tax). doesn't it get tiring to always fight causes that might or might not have happened in some crystal ball of past, present and future?

Are you still blaming Brown for the collapse of the global economy?

Are you still defending him for his part?

 

[drew]

the same damn thing. it was only after the immediate problems in autumn '08 did they change policy. and yes they should have suggested more after northern rock, but they weren't in power. doesn't it get tiring to always fight causes that might or might not have happened in some crystal ball of past, present and future?

Just as I get tired of you trotting out the excuse that they weren't in power so it doesn't matter and they don't have to offer an alternative. Isn't that the point of the opposition?

 

[El Presidente]

poor policy. significnat differene thoug his it was down to the pension funds and their trustees (including employee representitives to make that choice. their choice. they have to then deal with the consequences.

Employee representatives tend to know jack shit about schemes though, and will therefore just follow the advice given by the scheme actuary.

Tax credits on dividends were reduced to 10% for ALL taxpayers about 8 years ago, so the £5bn a year you refer to would only be about £2.4bn even if the pension rule not been utilised.

A far larger contribution to the pension black hole was caused by

1: Contribution holidays in the 90's
2: Poor performance of the equity markets 2000-2009 in terms of capital prices (30% decline over the decade).
3: A low interest rate regime throughout that decade that reduced yields on bonds, this both reduced the rate of asset growth, and increased the liabilities (which are discounted using a present value basis, so lower rates=higher liability).
4: Underestimates by actuaries of increases in life expectancy, which increased the liabilities on defined benefit schemes
5: The write off of billions of pounds of toxic assets held by pension funds sold to them by banks.


ALL of the above, including the changes in tax legislation, are factors in the pensions hole, to blame it all on Brown is oversimplistic.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just as I get tired of you trotting out the excuse that they weren't in power so it doesn't matter and they don't have to offer an alternative. Isn't that the point of the opposition?

yes it is. i'm the first to say the Tories have been light on policy. but seriously, doesnt it tire that Labour constantly act like they are in opposition, telling us what others would and wouldnt do rather than focusing on their own policy and what they will do? 13 years and they still attack the others forgetting they have the power. no wonder Liberals are gaining ground, they are the only lot who focus on their game. i dont mind Brown recounting his claimed improvments, but it irks so much when his case is to tell us what others might have done or might do (as if they have a copy of some secret second "real" manifesto). its the level of debate i expect in the pub, not from the Prime Minister.

ALL of the above, including the changes in tax legislation, are factors in the pensions hole, to blame it all on Brown is oversimplistic.

so that makes his contribution good policy then?

 

[El Presidente]

so that makes his contribution good policy then?

No, but I'm just trying to give things a sense of proportion x

 

[drew]

No, but I'm just trying to give things a sense of proportion x

You're wasting your time.

yes it is. i'm the first to say the Tories have been light on policy. but seriously, doesnt it tire that Labour constantly act like they are in opposition, telling us what others would and wouldnt do rather than focusing on their own policy and what they will do? 13 years and they still attack the others forgetting they have the power. no wonder Liberals are gaining ground, they are the only lot who focus on their game. i dont mind Brown recounting his claimed improvments, but it irks so much when his case is to tell us what others might have done or might do (as if they have a copy of some secret second "real" manifesto). its the level of debate i expect in the pub, not from the Prime Minister.

Constantly act like opposition! Are you saying they haven't implemented any policies in 13 years. Did they not support the quantative easing during the recession. They are attacked by the opposition, which is fair enough, but that will mean they will also question the validity of Tory proposed policy, if there is any.

 

[beorhthelm]

Constantly act like opposition! Are you saying they haven't implemented any policies in 13 years.

did i say that? no i said they dont promote themselves on their record, they would rather focus on beating some old tory creature from the lagoon of their bitter memories, which has since passed. for years we were told how this and that had to be done to repair the damage of the previous governments, then years more spent telling us how they needed to spend more, lower their targets because of the previous (but one) government, then yet more years of telling us more needs to be spent, the targets are to be lowered again because of the previous government (of 10 years hence). now we have a campaign where Brown and co talk more about how the others will rape and pillage the public sector rather than explain how he is going to make it better. and when the others state such and such wont be cut, they just say oh yes it will, and we are supposed to accept that as rational debate from a party in power. if the Tories have a policy they nick it, while in the absence of policy to attack they'll invent some.

i dont want to know what the Tories might have done in 1995, i would be more interested in what Labour are going to do now. do you think this plays out well in the electorate or are they sick off it, or worse still have switched off? just a thought like.

 

[Harty]

Let's get back to what we know best Bushy, and discuss the finer points of

I know I would, I'd even go for sloppy seconds after you mate

Lesley Judd and Tina Heath never looked like that