I'm neither here nor there on Gordon Brown really, same as I was with Tony Blair. I don't support the Labour party, and I don't vote for them, but i'm indifferent towards them. Advances and improvements have been made in the last ten years, and they sit in the middle ground in a pretty inoffensive place.

Whether he'd be an improvement or not I have no idea, but I'd guess they'll sit in the same middle ground they are now. The first noticable change would be a big cabinet change, bringing in lots of new faces to differentiate Brown's cabinet from Blair's.

A general election will either be at the end of the current 4 year term (2009? i think?) or one can be called before then. The Libieral Democrats are, I understand, tabling a Parliamentary motion to ask the Queen to disolve Parliament and call an election, which I can't see happening. When it does happen, I think the Conservatives will win. They made pretty big gains in the local elections and they seem to be on the up.

Mr Brown is simply a portlier and more Scottish incarnation of Mr Blair. His politics are a clone of the prime minister's, and any deficiency Brown has in conjuring messianic delusions is compensated for with his Politburo control-freakery. Gullable (or wilfully blind) people claim that Mr Brown is somehow more "left wing" than Mr Blair, a view that ignores the Chancellor's role in co-founding "new" Labour, and his fanatical support of PFI. I suspect that this alleged and tedious "feud" between the two men is actually a front to stifle real opposition within the party.

I'm not up on whether the Labour Party will precede Mr Brown's coronation with an election, but any such election would be a formality. (One of the many reasons I'm eager to see the sorry institution implode under the weight of its own irrelevance.) Since Labour have launched the worst attack on civil liberty since the Six Acts (and perhaps even since the Major Generals) I'm far from indifferent towards them. I'm genuinely scared about the Panopticon state they're building, and the public's indifference towards it.

Mr Brown's sheer incompetence (as his woeful record as Chancellor testifies) will probably finish this administration off for good. I can but hope that Albion survives its death-throes.

---

by Sandia
Has Labour been as damaged in Britain by the Iraq war as the Republican Party has been in the US?

---

Perhaps not as much (proportionately, we've lost fewer soldiers) but it's hard to tell with our different system. (Control of legislature and executive being fused over here.) However, in the 2005 General Election Labour's majority was slashed from 167 seats to 66, and they've just suffered a drubbing in local and Scottish elections. (In Scotland they've been overtaken by the Scottish National Party.)

A 66 majority is still pretty impressive; the Major Government began its sorry life with majority of just 21. (Whittled away still further as tales of its loucheness hit the press.) Apparently "sleaze" is worse than visiting aggressive war on a sovereign state. Repeatedly. (Kosovo occurred before the 2001 general election, where Labour's obese 1997 majority was virtually undented.) Rather like Congress judging a lie about oral sex to be worse than one about chemical weapons. Perhaps our two countries aren't so far apart as geography would suggest.

---

by Byron


Mr Brown's sheer incompetence (as his woeful record as Chancellor testifies)

---

Am curious (particularly as an economist) as to the evidence you have to back this up. A lot of what i've read and the statistics i've had to research as part of my course would suggest otherwise. Trust me, i'm the first to naysay statistics as there is not an independent board which qualifies them currently and they're always open to interpretation, but literature i've researched has generally been favouring the Treasury's past 10 year stint (and the Chancellor as a consequence, being head of the department), so it would be good to hear something different

---

by Ferretgirl
(quotes)

Am curious (particularly as an economist) as to the evidence you have to back this up. A lot of what i've read and the statistics i've had to research as part of my course would suggest otherwise. Trust me, i'm the first to naysay statistics as there is not an independent board which qualifies them currently and they're always open to interpretation, but literature i've researched has generally been favouring the Treasury's past 10 year stint (and the Chancellor as a consequence, being head of the department), so it would be good to hear something different

---

gordon brown was lucky enough to inherit one of the most stable economys in the developed world from the last conservative goverment - and while the conservatives had to contend with an almost constant series of boom-and-bust caused by several world-wide recessions, the global economy hasnt slipped into recession recently, meaning that it took almost no effort to maintain a relatively stable treasury.
hell, despite gordons best attempts to trash the economy, its remained pretty stable - if it wasnt for the fact i know he would fuck it up, i would say it would be interesting to see how he did during a recession...

---

by mad
(quotes)
the global economy hasnt slipped into recession recently,

---

Am pretty sure there was one during the 2001/2 cycle...granted not a bad one, but still it was generally noted. He has had an easy ride, it's true, but he could have really buggered that up with poor control on the economy, plus we've done better than most of the G7 countries overall. Also, he(well Labour) made monetary policy independent which meant he had less control (and less of a chance to cock it up) and a monetary policy system which beats the ECBs ass quite frankly.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think he's been fantastic, but he's hardly been a catastrophe. Not sure what he'd be like a PM though.

---

by Ferretgirl
Am curious (particularly as an economist) as to the evidence you have to back this up

---

Both Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins and Mr Brown's predecessor Kenneth Clarke point to the same problem with the Chancellor's policies: he presides over an Emperor's New Clothes economy dependant on spiraling debt and unsustainable borrowing.

Mr Brown is a big man addicted to big spending, and he's raided pension funds and imposed stealth-taxes to fund his habit. His fanatical support of creaking PFI schemes will squander tax money. Our "4th largest economy in the world" rests on a trembling edifice of public and private debt. Our tangible products -- manufacturing, industry etc -- have been allowed to wither by Labour, making us dependant on vast imports to fuel the boom. As a historian I know one thing about bubbles: they tend to burst.

Hopefully the inevitable "pop" will sound on Mr Brown's watch.

If a Treasury did good or not all depends on what your view of government is. As only depending on the role you think government should have can you determine the success factors to which you can measure the Treasury's performance.

This is something that always muddles these types of discussions as based on your individual views on the role of government and the economy (almost) all answers are correct, yet without knowing each others individual views on government it's hard to make heads or tails of it.

Take for example the view on manufacturing, industry etc. If you want to build an economy based on a strong service industry (highly lucrative market which requires a relatively high level of general eduction) than not having much manufacturing isn't actually such a big deal in an economically stable period, similarly to the heavy reduction of the stake of the agricultural industry earlier last century with the advent and rise of the manufacturing industry.

Also if you look at the debt issue there are many valid views one can take. Debt in itself can actually be a good thing for the economy however that is mainly dependent on the fact if it's cyclic or anti-cyclic debt and of course the high of it.

Same applies to government spending as high amounts of government spending, depending on your view on government, doesn't have to be a bad thing at all especially if government spending is anti-cyclic. Yet other people feel every penny spent by the government is one too many and other people will feel that every penny spent by individual is a penny too much.

True to an extent, but Mr Brown's pet projects (most notably PFI) are a hodge-podge approach that doesn't implement any philosophy of government properly. Using neo-liberal economics as the means to further state-socialist ends is a disaster waiting to happen, and is something people from all political camps can oppose.

Debt is of course essential in a capitalist society, and you're right, it isn't in itself a bad thing. Spiralling and unsustainable debt, however, is never a good thing. Neither is making debt itself an economic product! Debt should rest on a solid foundation, and best used to further industries and tangible products, not replace them. If it does, you've no collatoral when the bubble bursts.

Thanks, everyone for your replies about the PM and elections. From what I've read here, I get the idea that nothing much will change--that Brown's domestic and foreign policies will be very much like that of Blair's. Although, from what I'm hearing on this side of the water, he might be a bit less gung-ho about the whole Iraq fiasco. Blair had established a timetable for withdrawing a large percentage of the British troops now in Iraq. Perhaps Brown will speed that up? I have no idea. If he does, I guess that would at least be one positive thing to come out of the change in PMs.

The rest of the discussion was interesting to me as well. Because the more I read about the way many people outside of N.A. are feeling about the direction of their governments, the more I feel that many of us are in the same leaky boat. Attacks on civil liberties--and disturbing public indifference toward same, privatization of public assets and services, piling up of unsustainable debt by the government. You were discussing the UK, but you could have just as well have been discussing the US. I agree with the statement above by Byron that "Perhaps our two countries aren't so far apart as geography would suggest."

---

by Byron
Using neo-liberal economics as the means to further state-socialist ends is a disaster waiting to happen, and is something people from all political camps can oppose.

---

So why don't they? As sure if there is a majority against.....

---

by Byron
Debt is of course essential in a capitalist society, and you're right, it isn't in itself a bad thing. Spiralling and unsustainable debt, however, is never a good thing. Neither is making debt itself an economic product!

---

Unsustainable debt is indeed never a good thing.... but when it something unsustainable? I'm just very surprised you on the one hand say that debt is essential to a capitalist society yet you seem "outraged" that debt has become an economic product. Isn't the fact the debt has just become another "consumer good" a perfect example of the workings of capitalism?

Btw generating debt to pay back older debt is not ideal but is a completely valid economic approach which is however generally better applied to corporations & countries than to individuals.

---

Sandia
the more I feel that many of us are in the same leaky boat. [snip] I agree with the statement above by Byron that "Perhaps our two countries aren't so far apart as geography would suggest."

---

For the majority of countries it is indeed not a case "if" they are leaking but just a question of how long it will take until they'll sink. Historically the US and the UK are relatively closely linked and if you compare the US & UK and the UK & the EU you'll notice that on many area's (legal / political etc) the UK shares a close resemblance with the US were based on it's geological position you would assume it would be closer linked to the EU. Could have something to do with the "island mentality" which is (historically) deeply embedded within the UK population.

(Edited by Chambler 14/05/2007 14:26)

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
Could have something to do with the "island mentality" which is (historically) deeply embedded within the UK population.

(Edited by Chambler 14/05/2007 14:26)

---

its not so much an island mentality as not wanting to have anything to do with the french and the germans.

---

by mad
its not so much an island mentality as not wanting to have anything to do with the french and the germans.

---

See I don't share that... the French and Germans are good folks.

Bring on the democratically elected Federal European state

---

by mad
its not so much an island mentality as not wanting to have anything to do with the french and the germans.

---

You're not seriously suggesting that for example the full introduction of the metric system in the UK marketplace has now been halted because the British want nothing to do with the French and the Germans? I think it has more to do with a deep rooted general adversity to change and somewhat of a shared "superiority complex" which is only strengthened and supported by natural geographic boundaries.

sarcasm - its a wonderful thing...
and re: the metric system - this is something that was foisted on the UK by europe - IIRC, it wasnt actually ratified by the british parliment.
i know that i get complaints from some of the customers at work when i tell them the price of fruit and veg in a measure they dont understand.

them:: why are you telling me the price in kilos? i want to know what they are in pounds.
me:: im not allowed to - i can only tell you if you ask.
them:: huh? whys that?
me:: i can go to jail if i tell you the price in pounds - i am only allowed to tell you in kilos.

and they look at me very strangely, as if im having them on...

---

by mad
sarcasm - its a wonderful thing...
and re: the metric system - this is something that was foisted on the UK by europe - IIRC, it wasnt actually ratified by the british parliment.

---

Doesn't it make sense that if you want to create one internal market within Europe that you all work using the same measurements and that you would pick the official measurement system which is used by all but 5 (and soon to be 4) nations on this planet? Although the metric system was invented by the French in the 1790s so I guess that explains it all

---

by Chambler
Unsustainable debt is indeed never a good thing.... but when it something unsustainable? I'm just very surprised you on the one hand say that debt is essential to a capitalist society yet you seem "outraged" that debt has become an economic product. Isn't the fact the debt has just become another "consumer good" a perfect example of the workings of capitalism?

---

It's a perfect example of capitalism gone wrong.

The type of debt is key. There's a world of difference between using debt to further another product (ie, taking out a loan to start a furniture business) and making debt itself the product. Industries like banking may harness debt for profit, but they're a very specific field. Basing our "4th largest economy" on the turnover generated by personal debt is entirely different. Very often the money is "created" with credit-card loans. When people can't pay, the cash-flow dries up, ergo the businesses dependent on the cash-flow go bust.

The irony of a Labour government encouraging robber-baron capitalism speaks volumes about the bankrupt "Blairite" (actually bastardised Thatcherism) project.

---

by Sandia
The rest of the discussion was interesting to me as well. Because the more I read about the way many people outside of N.A. are feeling about the direction of their governments, the more I feel that many of us are in the same leaky boat. Attacks on civil liberties--and disturbing public indifference toward same, privatization of public assets and services, piling up of unsustainable debt by the government. You were discussing the UK, but you could have just as well have been discussing the US. I agree with the statement above by Byron that "Perhaps our two countries aren't so far apart as geography would suggest."

---

I reckon you guys have it better. America has an entrenched Bill of Rights whereas the UK relies on the feeble Human Rights Act. This toy constitution is big on platitudes about human dignity and abstract concepts like "privacy"; but it's very, very weak on specific rights and restrictions on government. Any "bill of rights" that doesn't even mention habeas corpus, jury trial, unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy or self-incrimination isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Nor does it give judges the power to strike down laws. The UK has now abolished three of the last four rights, and trial by jury is already under attack.

Yet most people, if they care at all, get worked up about foreign dictators like Robert Mugabe. How odd that people who defend foreign liberties show total indifference about their own. Three centuries of freedom have made us complacent: we think liberty is natural. It isn't. Perhaps we'll wake up, or perhaps decadence has finally set in. Time will tell.

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
Doesn't it make sense that if you want to create one internal market within Europe that you all work using the same measurements and that you would pick the official measurement system which is used by all but 5 (and soon to be 4) nations on this planet? Although the metric system was invented by the French in the 1790s so I guess that explains it all

---

the same could be said of the single currency, but countries were allowed to opt out of that - which means that the enforced metrication is all the more surprising.