NL saved.

[The Lone Gunman]

I don't recall the media and general public being particularly upset with him. Sure people whinged about tax but they ALWAYS do that... meanwhile interest and inflation stayed low and the world didn't collapse.

Troll or serious?
Interest rates are not in his control. He gave away that power almost as soon as he got the job. History will decide if it was a good idea.
Inflation has not remained low. The goods used to measure inflation get changed to keep it low. Real term costs have risen massively.
We have a black hole in our balance of payments, we have a black hole in our private pensions. Both of which were in fine fettle before he started.
Unemployment is being managed by not listing some (not a NL invention) and by trebleing the size of the public sector.

[edit]I would have written more but I had a meeting.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't recall the media and general public being particularly upset with him. Sure people whinged about tax but they ALWAYS do that... meanwhile interest and inflation stayed low and the world didn't collapse.

Well it has collapsed now, and because he has spent/wasted so much money on what amounts to buying power he has nothing left but huge debts. He therefore cannot refloat the economy by spending money on for example large infrastructure construction programs. Are you some sort of NL stooge, sent here to spin NL and GB out of trouble? in which case you are only making matters worse, because you are creating opportunities for us to line up criticisms of browne

[d000hg]

I am certainly not a Labour fan. I just think people are a bit too quick to blame GB for things which I believe were probably inevitable without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm more than happy to give people an opportunity to criticise the government/GB but it would be nice if people were a little more objective, like they're talking about who should run the country rather than their football team.

[stackpole]

I am certainly not a Labour fan. I just think people are a bit too quick to blame GB for things which I believe were probably inevitable without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm more than happy to give people an opportunity to criticise the government/GB but it would be nice if people were a little more objective, like they're talking about who should run the country rather than their football team.

I'll be objective.

Why was Brown considered a good chancellor?

He presided over years of steady growth.

What's the problem with that?

He presided over years of steadily increasing debt (personal and national) to fuel it. It was unsustainable.

He was burning the decks to keep the ship's boilers going. He was half-way through the hull when this sub-prime event triggered the crisis. If it hadn't been sub-prime it would have been something else.

Because of this, and in complete contrast to what he says, he has left the UK in a very poor position to cope:

1. Despite the mass of complex legislation, regulations and taxes that he introduced, not one of them reined in personal lending.

2. Any chancellor who runs a deficit like the UK's during the good times must be doing something wrong.

And this isn't hindsight

I've been consistent with this view since I realised what was going on about 5 years ago. I'm sure others have to.

[DimPrawn]

I'll be objective.

Why was Brown considered a good chancellor?

He presided over years of steady growth.

What's the problem with that?

He presided over years of steadily increasing debt (personal and national) to fuel it. It was unsustainable.

He was burning the decks to keep the ship's boilers going. He was half-way through the hull when this sub-prime event triggered the crisis. If it hadn't been sub-prime it would have been something else.

Because of this, and in complete contrast to what he says, he has left the UK in a very poor position to cope:

1. Despite the mass of complex legislation, regulations and taxes that he introduced not one of them reined in personal lending.

2. And any chancellor who runs a deficit like the UK's during the good times must be doing something wrong.

He also used PPI deals to take most of the long term debt off the books. I.e. having the private sector build hugely expensive (overpriced) hospitals that the government are tied into renting for at least 20 years. This type of long term debt doesn't appear on the books but sucks tax payers money for a very long time and at ridiculous costs.

[Cyberman]

What an idiotic cliche that again missies the point of Thatcher. Taxes may not have gone down in terms of revenues taken , but she created an environment of wealth creation that enabled people (all people including the working class) to make more money. With such an environment people had access to borrowing, and enjoyed more choice in how they spent their money. The wealth base went up and so probably did taxes.

The same thing happened in the USA. Reagan by reducing the tax levels actually increased the amount of tax that was paid.

You and the rest of your small minded lefties cannot bear to attribute credit to where it is due. Your attitude to Thatcher is exactly the inverse of your
own words- "people will believe what they want often according to blind loyalty rather than any basis of fact"

Very well said !!! Hear Hear !!!

[Cyberman]

He also used PPI deals to take most of the long term debt off the books. I.e. having the private sector build hugely expensive (overpriced) hospitals that the government are tied into renting for at least 20 years. This type of long term debt doesn't appear on the books but sucks tax payers money for a very long time and at ridiculous costs.

Rather ironically, this is also what the banks did with SIVs(securitised loans), which is precisely why we have our problems now.

[DodgyAgent]

I am certainly not a Labour fan. I just think people are a bit too quick to blame GB for things which I believe were probably inevitable without the benefit of hindsight.
I'm more than happy to give people an opportunity to criticise the government/GB but it would be nice if people were a little more objective, like they're talking about who should run the country rather than their football team.

I think that the criticism heaped on Brown has been supported by logic and evidence. If you want to try using a bit of this yourself instead of "it's not his fault" or "things are'nt that bad", then we can try and be even more objective.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Do you have another record you could play?

Yes I've got loads - I just play this one every time we get that "Labour are rubbish and eat babies and the Tories are absolutely super chaps who have never, ever done an thing wrong" record.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

What an idiotic cliche that again missies the point of Thatcher. Taxes may not have gone down in terms of revenues taken , but she created an environment of wealth creation that enabled people (all people including the working class) to make more money. With such an environment people had access to borrowing, and enjoyed more choice in how they spent their money. The wealth base went up and so probably did taxes.

The same thing happened in the USA. Reagan by reducing the tax levels actually increased the amount of tax that was paid.

You and the rest of your small minded lefties cannot bear to attribute credit to where it is due. Your attitude to Thatcher is exactly the inverse of your
own words- "people will believe what they want often according to blind loyalty rather than any basis of fact"

Dodgy - I think you have a great deal to contribute, but you let yourself when you sneeringly call me a small minded leftie, and it's ironic to accuse me of cliche when I'm actually arguing against a cliches that are often trotted out about the Thatcher years.

I have said before and I will say again that Thatcher deserves credit for some things and contempt for others, actually just like El Gordo. I've grown out of the football team approach to politics where everything one party does is evil and anything another does is brave and noble.