Gordon Brown

[josiewassit]

I am not a follower of politics by any means, but considering the state of the economy and the fact that we are supposed to be in a recession.....does anyone else think the PM has been very quiet lately??

I just thought there would be lots of speaking to the nation and reassurances and definite stuff being done......or have I missed something?

[*debbie*]

there isnt alot he can say that we dont already know really...we are in a recession is old news now :hysterica

[Justt]

He is by definition a dictator (unelected man in power refusing elections) and they never confirm how badly they are doing.

[diddlepops]

He is by definition a dictator (unelected man in power refusing elections) and they never confirm how badly they are doing.

Hmmm T - that's food for thought - never thought of him as that!

[Emsickle]

What can he say though?? TBH it wouldn't matter what he said - every night on the news, which I no longer turn on, all you hear are about professional predictors saying how much worse its going to get - well, yes of course it is, if you keep telling us that!! If I'm being told that a situation is going to get much worse and how retailers are going bust one after the other, I'm not going to spend so much and then that has a knock on effect, because everyone then does the same, and so it gets worse - bit of a vicious circle really.

I think if he directly addressed the nation on the situation, it would make us all fear it was far worse than it is and tbh, I think I'd prefer not to end up in a panic situation.

[Justt]

Hmmm T - that's food for thought - never thought of him as that!

Ha! Now i feel better. :D

i try not to read anything about him any more as i always end up screaming at DP. Its always the same "Cant you people kick him out? Do something hes killing your country! Cant the queen do something then?"

He always replies "I dont have a clue about politics and before you say it, no we cant have a revolution and we cant kill him!".:hysterica

[MrTempleDene]

He is by definition a dictator (unelected man in power refusing elections) and they never confirm how badly they are doing.

We do NOT elect prime ministers in this country, never have, the Prime minister is decided by parliament (who you do vote for) We are not a republic like America, and thank god we're not, I'd hate American style presidential elections like they have.

No-one voted for Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher or John Major either

And he never refused to call an election, don't believe everything you read in the Daily Fail.

[victoria81]

What can he say though?? TBH it wouldn't matter what he said - every night on the news, which I no longer turn on, all you hear are about professional predictors saying how much worse its going to get - well, yes of course it is, if you keep telling us that!! If I'm being told that a situation is going to get much worse and how retailers are going bust one after the other, I'm not going to spend so much and then that has a knock on effect, because everyone then does the same, and so it gets worse - bit of a vicious circle really.

I think if he directly addressed the nation on the situation, it would make us all fear it was far worse than it is and tbh, I think I'd prefer not to end up in a panic situation.

I have to agree with this because the crisis is a global problem, not something specific to England so no matter who is in power, things aren't good and they are not easy to mend either.

I have quite a few American friends and many people over there seem to be under the impression that is Bush' legacy (the crisis). The matter is complicated and is linked to bad banking practices and since all banks are international in a way or another well, we'll have to hope that things improve at some stage (tend to work in cycles) but we are in for a few tough years I reckon.

I do have to agree that making investors or savers panic for instance deepens the problem.

I'm not a Gordon Brown fan in any way at all but I see this as a much larger problem that bad government in our particular country.

[Justt]

You (as in the people) voted for Labour (wel majority did anyway) headed by tony blair. If he stepped down new elections should of been convened, not give power to some arbitrary man that "the people" didnt vote in.He has refused election, hes contantly saying the same "now is not the time!" when most people want elections.

I dont think being a republic is a bad thing. Not all are the circus the USA has, Portugal has a republic and its certainly not the hu-hah the USA make of it. You cant compare them of course, as other european countries are also republics but USA is a federal consitutional republic and that alone is a whole diferent can of fish.

[MrTempleDene]

You (as in the people) voted for Labour (wel majority did anyway) headed by tony blair. If he stepped down new elections should of been convened, not give power to some arbitrary man that "the people" didnt vote in.He has refused election, hes contantly saying the same "now is not the time!" when most people want elections.


Rubbish, that's not how British politics works.

When Thatcher stepped down people didn't whine and whinge when John Major stepped in.

you vote for your MP, that's IT! You don't even vote for a party offically, although most people blindly vote for the MP representing the party they like.

if you don't believe me go look it up.

[Emsickle]

You (as in the people) voted for Labour (wel majority did anyway) headed by tony blair. If he stepped down new elections should of been convened, not give power to some arbitrary man that "the people" didnt vote in.He has refused election, hes contantly saying the same "now is not the time!" when most people want elections.

I dont think being a republic is a bad thing. Not all are the circus the USA has, Portugal has a republic and its certainly not the hu-hah the USA make of it. You cant compare them of course, as other european countries are also republics but USA is a federal consitutional republic and that alone is a whole diferent can of fish.

That didn't happen when Margaret Thatcher stood down, or John Major, and I don't think it ever has happened either (?!)

We, the British People, voted in the Labour Party, as we had done the Conservative Party, years before. In the next general election, it may well swing back to the Tories again, but its not massively any different to voting in George Bush and then a year later wanting him gone, but being stuck with him for another 3 years is it?

There are fors and againsts all parties and I keep my voting preference to myself, but it has to be said, that just because his face isn't appearing on my telly, telling me nothing different to what I already know, it doesn't make him any worse a politician than the rest of them.

[Justt]

I have to agree with this because the crisis is a global problem, not something specific to England so no matter who is in power, things aren't good and they are not easy to mend either.

I have quite a few American friends and many people over there seem to be under the impression that is Bush' legacy (the crisis). The matter is complicated and is linked to bad banking practices and since all banks are international in a way or another well, we'll have to hope that things improve at some stage (tend to work in cycles) but we are in for a few tough years I reckon.

I do have to agree that making investors or savers panic for instance deepens the problem.

I'm not a Gordon Brown fan in any way at all but I see this as a much larger problem that bad government in our particular country.

I agree that there is more at play than JUSt bad governing of a country but i do think this is a time when peopl eshould feel confident they have the best person at the helm so to speak and i have yet to hear one person say they think Brown is the man for the job. If he had been the head of any other big company or financial institution (and a country is very much a business) he probably would of had the sack by now.

If a person on the verge of bankruptcy takes on more debt they can be thrown in prison, i know this because of my own experience in bankruptcy, yet hes generating more debt. Hes breaking every basic rule of economics.

I dont think there is a way to get out of the current crisis but i am concerned he is making it all very much worse.

[Emsickle]

I don't seem to remember anyone being forced out during the recession of the 80's when the Tories were at the helm.

[diddlepops]

I think what we have to remember is that this problem in this country and globally has not just happened overnight and certainly not since Mr Brown took charge. I am not a fan of the man - I think he is dangerous but the problem has lain with this country having it far too good for far too long. We have all got used to the complacency of the housing market being exceptionally buoyant and the banks throwing credit at us left right and centre. For instance, at the end of the 80s early 90s when we bought our first home, the MOST we could have by way of a mortgage was 2.5 times our joint salary!!!!!! When we bought this house 3 years ago, we could have up to 5 times our joint salary - there's the problem!!!!!

Whilst I feel the government has a role to play and sometimes I feel they are throwing good money after bad, I do think that the buck for this current recession should stop with the banks and the City. I know DH is concerned for his job which is in designing for the automotive industry. The projects are on the table at the car companies - its the finance that is causing them to be held up!

Just my opinion - don't always shoot the organ grinder - its sometimes the monkey that has to take responsibility for its own shortcomings.

[Justt]

That didn't happen when Margaret Thatcher stood down, or John Major, and I don't think it ever has happened either (?!)

We, the British People, voted in the Labour Party, as we had done the Conservative Party, years before. In the next general election, it may well swing back to the Tories again, but its not massively any different to voting in George Bush and then a year later wanting him gone, but being stuck with him for another 3 years is it?

There are fors and againsts all parties and I keep my voting preference to myself, but it has to be said, that just because his face isn't appearing on my telly, telling me nothing different to what I already know, it doesn't make him any worse a politician than the rest of them.

Im not saying this or that man should be in power because every political party has their downpoints and at some stage they have all messed up.

Im also not saying that you hold elections after every person steps down, but i do think you should. I think the person who is heading each party is essentially the face of it and many elections have been decided by that. I dont know.. i just see it as a basic thing. I really do think that if someone steps down the people should be given a chance to vote again.

[MrTempleDene]

Trouble is what you think, and how it works, are two very different things, and you can't go calling the Prime Minister of the UK a dictator just because you don't understand how it works.

By your reasoning John Major was also a dictator. So where lots of other Prime Ministers, and so was every vice president of the USA who took over when the President stepped down or died.

[diddlepops]

Don't forget that we only had Tony Blair as Prime Minister because John Smith who was the leader of the Labour party died just after being elected!!!

[Justt]

Now you are putting words in my mouth. And its not just the ignorant foreigner here who calls him a dictator, a lot of british do aswell!

Fact remains HE was not voted in. The deputy prime minister is to step in if the prime minister cannot? Am i right? Then why does the chancellor step in?

Just because things ARE does not mean things cannot change. In this matter or many others.

[victoria81]

Justt, I'm wondering about your comment re bankuptcy and custodial sentences. I'm trying to figure out how this can be done technically since I have worked in legal environments and in fact started a law degree years back. The only think I can think of that could make this possible is that they deemed the debt acquired when knowing that they would not be able to pay back would be classed as "obtaining by deception" in other words by lying on the application or failing to disclose or in effect misleading the lender in one way or another. Of course, bankruptcy means that you don't have to repay your debt, so I guess it would come under this obtaining by deception business. Just to clarify the matter, and I'm sorry if I'm getting a little pedantic, debt comes under civil law not criminal law, hence sanctions, fines etc can be imposed by not jail sentences. Of course, obtaining by debtion, in contrast would come under criminal but what I'm trying to say that if anyone has debts that they are unable to pay don't panic and think that you will be thrown in jail. Also I gather that Courts would only take that type of measures if someone has been clearly trying to take advantage of the fact that they knew they wouldn't pay back. Offences normally range within a scale from x to y and it's up to the Judge to decide to go for the highest penalty, the lowest or anything in between.

I know I have gone off topic here but just saying that if anyone is worried about debt, please do not panic! Also, for anyone in trouble with debt issues, do check with a solicitor or the CAB. Do not trust everything debt collecting companies tell you. I have known them to approach people about debts that had been dormant (no contact between debtor and creditor for over 6 years) and which are irrecoverable under the Statute of Limitation but someone new has bought the bad debts of a lender for peanuts and are trying to get what they can by sending very intimidating letters. I'm certainly not encouraging people to evade responsibility but is worth checking your exact legal rights in many of these instances.

[Justt]

Justt, I'm wondering about your comment re bankuptcy and custodial sentences. I'm trying to figure out how this can be done technically since I have worked in legal environments and in fact started a law degree years back. The only think I can think of that could make this possible is that they deemed the debt acquired when knowing that they would not be able to pay back would be classed as "obtaining by deception" in other words by lying on the application or failing to disclose or in effect misleading the lender in one way or another. Of course, bankruptcy means that you don't have to repay your debt, so I guess it would come under this obtaining by deception business. Just to clarify the matter, and I'm sorry if I'm getting a little pedantic, debt comes under civil law not criminal law, hence sanctions, fines etc can be imposed by not jail sentences. Of course, obtaining by debtion, in contrast would come under criminal but what I'm trying to say that if anyone has debts that they are unable to pay don't panic and think that you will be thrown in jail. Also I gather that Courts would only take that type of measures if someone has been clearly trying to take advantage of the fact that they knew they wouldn't pay back. Offences normally range within a scale from x to y and it's up to the Judge to decide to go for the highest penalty, the lowest or anything in between.

I know I have gone off topic here but just saying that if anyone is worried about debt, please do not panic! Also, for anyone in trouble with debt issues, do check with a solicitor or the CAB. Do not trust everything debt collecting companies tell you. I have known them to approach people about debts that had been dormant (no contact between debtor and creditor for over 6 years) and which are irrecoverable under the Statute of Limitation but someone new has bought the bad debts of a lender for peanuts and are trying to get what they can by sending very intimidating letters. I'm certainly not encouraging people to evade responsibility but is worth checking your exact legal rights in many of these instances.

Its exactly as you said. As it was explained to me if you are already in debt and acquire more debt that isnt reasonable ( lets say to buy a flash new car or a house or posh clothes or hollidays NOT to feed your family as thats a reasonable debt) then you could be liable for a custodial sentence as you were buying items with the intention of not paying for them.

A lot of people feel that since they are going to go bankrupt they can go splurge out and add it to the bankruptcy and thats just wrong.

When i went through my bankruptcy everything that was included in it, including loans had to be explained. For example if you took a 20k loan they want to know where the money went, penny for penny. I would say that anyone considering bankruptcy should go to an insolvency expert, as i did. He went through all my paperwork, checked everything, made sure there was no other option.Very helpfull man.

[MrTempleDene]

He is by definition a dictator (unelected man in power refusing elections) and they never confirm how badly they are doing.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, and I never said anything about you being a foreigner, I wasn't even aware that was the case?

[victoria81]

Oh, thanks for clarifying this as it got me thinking. Possibly this is not the right thread for this topic and maybe someone should set up a debt thread or something but I was feeling worried that someone out there may panic.

Of course, we don't know everyone's circumstances and with businesses and jobs as they are at the moment I'm sure that is bound to be someone in here affected at some given point (hopefully not of course, but just in case). I hate to see the most vulnerable thrown into a panic but I'm glad you put this concept forward so that we could get to the bottom of it.

You certainly seemed to had done the correct thing by going to an insolvency expert. The crooks of course know all the tricks themselves, however is the people with the lesser paid jobs or the unemployed who often don't trust the system and think they cannot win and sometimes this prevents them from exercising their rights and the sharks tend to bite them harder than they would do someone with more resources, so it was just a case of me trying to fight the corner of the underdog I suppose. I guess I'm one of these people who can get carried away trying to be helpful!:laugh:

[Girlzmum]

Can I just say that we (as in Northern ireland!) don't vote for Labour/Tory/Lib Dem at all - we just have it put on us......

[ruthie]

I think some of the trouble is that Gordon Brown is not an inspiration leader (and I for one am not happy that a Scot is running England) though that is irrelevant. The problem has been people living beyond their means too much borrowing too much lending (to those unable to pay back). I prefer Brown to Blair but wouldn't vote Labour who ever was Prime Minister. I do think people are swayed by who is running the party as to who they vote for so in those terms no one voted Brown in. The only good thing, if it is possible to find something good about this recession is that people may start to realise just what is important in life.

[Girlzmum]

He's running the UK, not just England.

[josiewassit]

Blimey! You go out for a day and look what happens! I can tell a lot of you follow politics far more than I! I just find it odd that he has not much to say on the matter, no words of reassurance. Surely he needs to be at the forefront, to show his people that he cares and is working on it....even if he isn't.

[ruthie]

He's running the UK, not just England.

Ah but the Scots, Welsh and Irish have their own local parliments why don't the English?

[ruthie]

Ha! Now i feel better. :D

i try not to read anything about him any more as i always end up screaming at DP. Its always the same "Cant you people kick him out? Do something hes killing your country! Cant the queen do something then?"

He always replies "I dont have a clue about politics and before you say it, no we cant have a revolution and we cant kill him!".:hysterica

The Labour party killed the country and everything it stood for before Brown was Prime Minister, The Queen is not political and so can do nothing and unfortunatly until there is an Election we are stuck with him and his party.

[MrTempleDene]

I would say the rot set in when Thatcher destroyed this countries manufacturing base and privatised everything, we don't even own most of our own water and electric companies anymore, they're mostly owned by foreign investors.

Labour didn't help matters by carrying on with the Tories disasterous PFI policies but at least Gordon Brown did sort out the mountain of debt 18 years of Tory rule left us with.

What has been borrowed now still doesn't match what the country owed in 1997.

[ruthie]

I would say the rot set in when Thatcher destroyed this countries manufacturing base and privatised everything, we don't even own most of our own water and electric companies anymore, they're mostly owned by foreign investors.

Labour didn't help matters by carrying on with the Tories disasterous PFI policies but at least Gordon Brown did sort out the mountain of debt 18 years of Tory rule left us with.

What has been borrowed now still doesn't match what the country owed in 1997.

Can't argue the point with you (re what we owe now compared to 1997) as don't know the facts but that does surprise me. Still they do say never discuss Religion or Politics!

[victoria81]

I think discussion can be healthy and help us all understand other perspectives better as long as things don't get personal, although it's easy for all of us to get a bit heated up because of the nature of the topic and how passionate most people feel about it.

Whilst I agree that Brown is not awfully inspirational, all leaders follow party policy so I doubt a different person would be able to make so much a departure.

As to consumer borrowing being the main reason for the recession well... up to a point but the borrowing that banks take from other financial institutions and groups etc, their investments, mergers, acquisitions etc can have even a bigger impact. Yes, perhaps too much money was lent to individuals but the individual borrowing alone didn't cause a mess of these proportions.