Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

The disaster that is Gordon Brown

That Gordon Brown is in trouble should come as no surprise. As Chancellor from 1997, he, together with his right-hand man, Ed Balls, must be regarded as the principal author of the economic disaster so far as it has affected Britain. In New Labour's early years, the Chancellor took credit for successes which were no more than the upswing of the economic cycle following the recession of 1992. Of course the country would not have been unaffected by the problems originating in the USA, but with prudent management the worst would have been avoided and Britain would have been in good shape to withstand the economic storm.

As Chancellor, Brown should have seen the coming trouble in 2007, when Blair was about to retire. If he did not, it is proof that he did not understand that with which he was dealing. If he did see what was about to happen, he must have been either a complete fool, or pathologically arrogant, to want to take on the task of being Prime Minister in such circumstances. He could, for instance, have taken his place in the House of Lords and given his advice, for what little it would have been worth, in the background. The other issue of course, is that his assumption of the post of Prime Minister had no democratic mandate but was more in the nature of a coronation.

All has now fallen apart. At one level one must feel sorry for the man, but he has brought it all on himself - and - of more importance, on the entire country.

The real worry is that there is no convincing alternative in sight, either in the Labour Party or the other two.

Kommentarer

Laurence sa…
Doubtless he's a buffoon.

But Sarkozy is facing civil unrest and protest too in France.

In Spain unemployment has gone past 4 million.

This is a big deal. Every country is getting battered. UK is getting battered too.
2 maj 2009 kl. 10:45
Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins. The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds. It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main l...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...
Skicka en kommentar
Läs mer