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.

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...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

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...