The UK economy: well on the road to recovery?

[Nibble]

Eh? Who was the Chancellor all the while Blair was Prime Minister then?

Gordon Brown. When he was given free reign he actually pulled together solid plan. It's a fact.

 

[Buzzer]

Gordon Brown. When he was given free reign he actually pulled together solid plan. It's a fact.

I rather think he was given free reign, selling the gold was Brown not Blair's decision. I dispute your 'facts' too. The economy got worse under Brown as PM. All the statistical data points to this.

 

[Nibble]

Brown was appalling at public presentation, that was why he was out, not his economic policy. However, we will never know but I have heard various economists (I will try and source) stating that they believed his policy of reacting differently than previous governments as far back as the 30's, ie not cutting but spending, would have been the key to a rapid global recovery. Labour have an undeserved reputation of propagating boom and bust since the 30's, that is in fact at odds with their actual economic acheivements.

 

[sten_super]

All total flummery I'm afraid. If you class NEA or work placement as employment you are sorely mistaken.

Nibs, to be honest I know buck all about them - I deal with data, not policy. What I'm trying to say is that the data suggests that unemployment is down, however you (or the ILO, or anyone else) want to define it. You can say that they are all doing bunkum training or unemployment schemes, and you may be right, but like it or not that does not count as unemployment. Until there is clear data on enrolment and dropout from these schemes we won't know whether they are bunkum or not, will we?

 

[beorhthelm]

Gordon Brown had a solid recovery plan in place and would have cleared up Blair's mess in a couple of years.

no Darling had a plan to clean up Brown's mess, though its doubtfull it would have worked any quicker (after all the deficit is still there, even after the cuts). It was Brown that let loose spending on everything for 10 years, with a general policy of "enough money will fix it" to every single issue facing the country. Brown redistriubuted future tax revenue, not wealth, through loose policy and borrowing. he believed he'd solved boom and bust when in reality it was just excess credit available. no one should ever forget this was Brown's recession.

 

[Nibble]

Nibs, to be honest I know buck all about them - I deal with data, not policy. What I'm trying to say is that the data suggests that unemployment is down, however you (or the ILO, or anyone else) want to define it. You can say that they are all doing bunkum training or unemployment schemes, and you may be right, but like it or not that does not count as unemployment. Until there is clear data on enrolment and dropout from these schemes we won't know whether they are bunkum or not, will we?

How can I explain it to the willfully ignorant? You are probably right mate, I
I'm, sure it is all just tickity boo and Cameron is being 100% transparent

 

[Nibble]

no Darling had a plan to clean up Brown's mess, though its doubtfull it would have worked any quicker (after all the deficit is still there, even after the cuts). It was Brown that let loose spending on everything for 10 years, with a general policy of "enough money will fix it" to every single issue facing the country. Brown redistriubuted future tax revenue, not wealth, through loose policy and borrowing. he believed he'd solved boom and bust when in reality it was just excess credit available. no one should ever forget this was Brown's recession.

No. don't buy it. Sorry.

 

[Nibble]

no Darling had a plan to clean up Brown's mess, though its doubtfull it would have worked any quicker (after all the deficit is still there, even after the cuts). It was Brown that let loose spending on everything for 10 years, with a general policy of "enough money will fix it" to every single issue facing the country. Brown redistriubuted future tax revenue, not wealth, through loose policy and borrowing. he believed he'd solved boom and bust when in reality it was just excess credit available. no one should ever forget this was Brown's recession.

No. don't buy it. Sorry.

 

[e77]

no Darling had a plan to clean up Brown's mess, though its doubtfull it would have worked any quicker (after all the deficit is still there, even after the cuts). It was Brown that let loose spending on everything for 10 years, with a general policy of "enough money will fix it" to every single issue facing the country. Brown redistriubuted future tax revenue, not wealth, through loose policy and borrowing. he believed he'd solved boom and bust when in reality it was just excess credit available. no one should ever forget this was Brown's recession.

How was a global recession Gordon Brown's fault?

 

[sten_super]

How can I explain it to the willfully ignorant? You are probably right mate, I
I'm, sure it is all just tickity boo and Cameron is being 100% transparent

I think you need to think carefully about who's being wilfully ignorant. All I'm asking for is evidence. The ONS (and ILO) methodology on unemployment is pretty transparent.,

 

[Nibble]

I agree with William Keegan, writing in This Is Money that given the chance to play out his economic policy he would have averted the mess we are in, as his proven track record attests to. Too many people are quick to blame someone from thepast for the present problems, it makes them feel helpless and thus less scared of the situation.

Anyway, here's what Keegan had to say. Only an opinion but well put I think and the facts speak for themselves. Apologies, I believe it's a Daily Mail site.


16 shares

113

View
comments

Although it is by now widely accepted that Gordon Brown did this country a great service in keeping our economy out of the eurozone, the sad truth is that one of our former prime minister’s other great causes has been sidelined, and as a result both the UK and the eurozone are suffering more economic hardship than is necessary.


I refer to Brown’s championing, at a national and international level, of a Keynesian approach to economic policy.


Domestically, this essentially involves concentrating on balancing the economy, rather than the budget.



A sad truth: Gordon Brown's championing of a Keynesian approach to economic policy has been sidelined
A sad truth: Gordon Brown's championing of a Keynesian approach to economic policy has been sidelined

Internationally it means regular consultation and co-ordination, so that different economies can conduct economic policy in a way that benefits each and every one of them, and does not involve a ‘beggar my neighbour’ approach.


The great lesson of the interwar years – a lesson which Keynesians hoped would never be forgotten – was that an obsession with balancing the budget can reinforce the natural tendency of a capitalist or market economy to settle at a level well below the full employment of the workforce and of the resources of plant, machinery and the various service sectors which make up a modern economy.


By intervening to boost demand when resources lie idle, governments can balance the budget at a much higher level of output.




More...
From the archive: Gordon Brown's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy
The Prime Ministers stock market league (and a surprise Labour star)
When will UK interest rates rise? Rate expectations inch forwards on improved economy


For all the bad-mouthing he suffered in this country during his ill-fated premiership, Gordon Brown was considered a hero by Presidents Obama and Sarkozy.


He was the driving force behind the recapitalisation of the Western banking system in 2008.


And, as chairman of the Group of 20 in April 2009, he masterminded the combined ‘stimulus’ – of tax cuts, spending increases and augmentation of the resources of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund – which arrested the dramatic decline in world trade that year.


That was the high point of international economic policy co-ordination in this relatively young century.


After the stimulus was agreed at the London G20 Summit, Brown tried to persuade Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, to build on this by signing up to a global economic growth target.


She refused, and proceeded to be a champion of the programme of austerity which has been impoverishing so many citizens of southern Europe, and whose ramifications are even beginning to drag down Germany’s own economic performance.


Merkel was not the sole culprit. The European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund were all in it together as preachers of austerity.


It is all very well for the ECB President Mario Draghi to promise to do ‘whatever it take’ to preserve the eurozone; but, unfortunately, it is a eurozone whose design is faulty, indeed pre-Keynesian, in the way it demands spending cuts and tax increases of economies that are already on their knees.


By not signing up to the eurozone, the UK has at least been able to adjust its exchange rate to the realities of its uncompetitive trading position. The Greeks, the Italians, the Spanish and even the French cannot do that.

But merely to air the subject of overvalued exchange rates and competitive devaluation – the Chinese, the Japanese, even the Americans seem to be happy to tolerate exchange rate depreciation – suggests there is a woeful lack of demand in the world economy. We cannot all devalue against Mars in order to boost exports and output.


After the Second World War policymakers were mindful of the social and economic horrors that can arise from protectionist pressures, and designed rules for international policy co-ordination which lasted for many decades.


Even after the breakup in the early 1970s of what was known as the Bretton Woods system, the spirit of such co-operation lingered on at the many international meetings attended by financial journalists over the years.


That spirit needs to be revived!

William Keegan’s latest book – Saving the World? Gordon Brown Reconsidered – is published by Searching Finance, £9.99


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...d-hes-economic-hero-others.html#ixzz2egOujdWX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Nibble]

I think you need to think carefully about who's being wilfully ignorant. All I'm asking for is evidence. The ONS (and ILO) methodology on unemployment is pretty transparent.,

You still receive 60 quid a week on work placement from government coffers so that is clearly not being employed. The NEA is designed to get people off JSA before the next election. I know that because my NEA mentor told me in January that is exactly what it is designed for, it's basically a thousand pound payout to politely **** off the JSA. You can ignore that all you like, the pedantry of what you wish to call it under Cameron's own standrds are wholly irrelevant I'm afraid.

 

[Nibble]

How was a global recession Gordon Brown's fault?

Gordon Brown had watertight policies to halt a global recession. He was ignored.

 

[beorhthelm]

How was a global recession Gordon Brown's fault?

i didnt say it was. our failure to react to it better was, we had already maxed out the credit card, the deficit was already growing, and economist where getting concerned how growth was to be sustained. some say that it was his loose policy towards regulation of the city (so they could fund his spending) that was a key cause (amongst others) to allowing the global economy to become overreliant on credit. people will say others may have done the same and maybe they would. but the fact is Brown did and nothing can ever hide that

 

[Nibble]

Yes. it's a bitter pill for simplistic Brown bashers to swallow. The man knew what he was doing.

 

[sten_super]

Gordon Brown had watertight policies to halt a global recession. He was ignored.

I think even you know this is an exaggeration. I agree with Keegan, in that Brown had some decent policies that slowed the decline in economic activity that took place in 2008. He had some policies which might have lessened the subsequent recession. However you can't give him plaudits for the positive without holding him to account for the negative. Alongside his presentational issues he also had a reputation for reckless spending and non-credible repayment strategies (from memory government balance of payments projections from the time always saw a return to zero within a few years, which Brown used as justification for upping spending levels). He was at the helm while regulation of the City and banks was (further) relaxed.

 

[Nibble]

I think even you know this is an exaggeration. I agree with Keegan, in that Brown had some decent policies that slowed the decline in economic activity that took place in 2008. He had some policies which might have lessened the subsequent recession. However you can't give him plaudits for the positive without holding him to account for the negative. Alongside his presentational issues he also had a reputation for reckless spending and non-credible repayment strategies (from memory government balance of payments projections from the time always saw a return to zero within a few years, which Brown used as justification for upping spending levels). He was at the helm while regulation of the City and banks was (further) relaxed.

You honestly believe a PM has much of a say in what banks do? Come off it. The difference between Brown and Cameron is that Cameron gets involved to profit out of it.

I've never voted labour in my life but Cameron is a malevolent profiteer and the worst leader the Conservatives have ever had and that's saying something.

 

[sten_super]

You honestly believe a PM has much of a say in what banks do? Come off it. The difference between Brown and Cameron is that Cameron gets involved to profit out of it.

I've never voted labour in my life but Cameron is a malevolent profiteer and the worst leader the Conservatives have ever had and that's saying something.

Brown could have highlighted that the banks had become 'too big to fail' - he must have known this was the case (in his previous job as Chancellor) - and suggested introducing legislation to do something about it. The fact that he didn't suggests that he was just as much in thrall to the banking sector as George, Dave and the rest are now. To castigate the Tories for inaction but refuse to do the same to Labour when they were in power is incredibly myopic.

I don't massively disagree with you re: Cameron, by the way. I just don't think Brown was the virginal heaven-sent saviour that you seem to think he was.

 

[Nibble]

Brown could have highlighted that the banks had become 'too big to fail' - he must have known this was the case (in his previous job as Chancellor) - and suggested introducing legislation to do something about it. The fact that he didn't suggests that he was just as much in thrall to the banking sector as George, Dave and the rest are now. To castigate the Tories for inaction but refuse to do the same to Labour when they were in power is incredibly myopic.

I don't massively disagree with you re: Cameron, by the way. I just don't think Brown was the virginal heaven-sent saviour that you seem to think he was.

Good points. He was a helluva looker though.

 

[Bwian]

I don't massively disagree with you re: Cameron, by the way. I just don't think Brown was the virginal heaven-sent saviour that you seem to think he was.

I've come to the conclusion that politicians of all political persuasions do nothing that makes my life any better/easier/enjoyable. That all comes from my efforts in spite of politicians-not through anything they've done. The first party that actually has the bollocks to make taxation fair for everybody would get my vote. Stop chasing me for a couple of grand and get some of the big money paid into the treasury-that'll make a difference to us all. Until that happens, I'm abstaining.

All this crap about 'the economy is well on the road to recovery' is news to me because in my line of business I see no evidence of a recovery anywhere. Nor do my customers in the motor trade.