UK Politics v2.

[Klio]

Very bad news for the YES campaign:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...port-collapses


The NO campaign's negative tactics seem to be paying off.




EDIT
Another interesting link. Finally somebody who agrees with me that Labour's 'sae old Tories' analysis is likely to be the entirely wrong reaction to what's going on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-public-sector

[Kevin]

Negative campaigning tends to work, you only have to look at American Politics to see that in action. If the NO vote wins then it'll be more about a judgement on the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg rather than the need for some form of electoral reform. Win or Lose the AV vote, this is probably one of the seeds that will eventually lead to the destruction of the coalition.
As for Labour ? It's a holding pattern until the policy review is done and dusted with. I hope Ed Miliband will move the Party forwards and not backwards. For all of Nu Labour's faults it achieved some good things (along with a lot of bad things like the attack on civil liberties, not a fan of the anti terror laws that stopped us togs from getting on with taking photographs).

Poor old Gordon, Cameron really has it in for him -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ad-of-IMF.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...te-imf-cameron

The IMF has apparently wanted Brown for a number of years now, so Cameron's refusal may backfire down the line if Osborne needs a bailout from the IMF (that will only happen if everything blows up in the coalition's faces). Also it might be Cameron not wanting Brown in the wings if the coalition has to go cap in hand to the IMF.
I guess the big danger for Osbornes plans is the US enacting it's own cuts as that will suck demand out of the global economy. S&P have basically pulled the same move on the US as they did with the UK prior to the general election - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-credit-rating
--------

NHS wise ? If the reform goes through then In my eyes there is no coming back for the Liberal Democrats. This is the sort of issue that the Liberal Democrats should be standing up against the Tories. Instead of meekly going along with it for the sake of the stability of the coalition. Power appears to have corrupted the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats. I'm not being tribal here. This is more about my absolute love for the NHS, that is need of reform but not the Lansley kind. In fact as time goes on I get increasingly more angry about Clegg the Politician rather than the Party. However that anger is not going to cloud my judgement on the AV vote (I'm voting Yes, First Past the Post is past it's sell by date).

The NHS reforms will only benefit the private healthcare companies in the long term - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...private-sector

[Melaszka]

I think Cameron's attempt to block Brown's appointment is petty, spiteful and trying to bring domestic party politics into an international arena where it has no place.

Depressed but not surprised at reports of the Yes campaign trailing. It's always harder to persuade people to change the status quo than to stick with it, AV is much harder to explain to Joe Public than FPTP and then you've got the divisions in the pro-change camp between those who think that AV is not ideal but better than FPTP and those who just think that AV is not ideal and we should hold out for PR.

[skistar123]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I think Cameron's attempt to block Brown's appointment is petty, spiteful and trying to bring domestic party politics into an international arena where it has no place.

It's shocking. Brown is a highly intelligent man and is right for the job. He knows what it's like to be in control of our economy, through the good and the bad times. The fact is, Cameron cannot blame a global recession on Gordon Brown. His attempting to block his appointment is purely partisan and political bias. Brown did his best in the recession, in fact, he was following what the IMF and the World Bank told countries to do, rather than George Osborne, who seems to have his own ideas...

[Wab]

Although it's been studiously avoided here but I will make a comment on the Royal wedding if only a tangental one. The Middleton's have invested in a coat of arms and, IMO, it is a shocker. It looks more like a gift-tag than a coat of arms.

[Klio]

well.....

Plenty of Labour people have attested to Brown's lack of leadership qualities - such as red boxes never finished, big decisions not made, and instead various irrelvant things micro-managed. The picture is pretty consistent, and that's coming from Labour (and not juyst the Blairites, if you look at what's been said after he left).

Personally, I think that Brown's bailing out of the banks was right - and no, one can't blame him for the economic crisis.

But come ON.... he still doesn't come across as somebody who should head the IMF!
His claim that he abolished boom and bust doesn't suggest that kind of far-sighted analysis one wants from the head of the IMF - neither does his decision to sell the UK's gold reserves (even if you don't take into account the time when it happened which was, erm, unfortunate but timing is difficult - I understand. I object to the sale - at least at that scale - in principle, not merely on the basis of the price he got). The structural deficit run at the time of the boom also isn't exactly a sign of the kind of prudence you'd really like to see for that position...

I am trying to look at this as dispassionately as I can, but I have to say, I don't want to see Gordon Brown at the head of the IMF, I really don't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Klio

well.....

Plenty of Labour people have attested to Brown's lack of leadership qualities - such as red boxes never finished, big decisions not made, and instead various irrelvant things micro-managed. The picture is pretty consistent, and that's coming from Labour (and not juyst the Blairites, if you look at what's been said after he left).

That is the one great flaw in Brown's character, he was far more suited to number 11 than number 10 because of his micromanging ways. Brown overspent, but that is no different to any of his predecessors. We have always been a nation that has spent more than it earns. It's the hallmark of the Treasury's failures since the end of WWII.

Personally, I think that Brown's bailing out of the banks was right - and no, one can't blame him for the economic crisis.

That took some balls to do. Osborne would have probably not gone as far as Brown and Darling went. Tory monetryism and the market solves all problems would have got in the way.

But come ON.... he still doesn't come across as somebody who should head the IMF!
His claim that he abolished boom and bust doesn't suggest that kind of far-sighted analysis one wants from the head of the IMF - neither does his decision to sell the UK's gold reserves (even if you don't take into account the time when it happened which was, erm, unfortunate but timing is difficult - I understand. I object to the sale - at least at that scale - in principle, not merely on the basis of the price he got). The structural deficit run at the time of the boom also isn't exactly a sign of the kind of prudence you'd really like to see for that position...

Boom and Bust ? That was a rather crude political line to bash the tories with over their economic record. The problem for Brown and those around him and the Treasury at large was they got used to 10 years of growth and forgot about the possibilities of failure. However Brown is good in a crisis and that's the reason why he would make a good head of the IMF.
Deficits are a fact of life for Governments, the only reason it's so high now is because the bank bailouts. The fallacy of Osborne is his attempt to brush over the systematic and worldwide failures to control the bankers and stock market traders. Then to blame Labour for overspending and running up debt is the oldest of the old Politics tricks. It's a cynical bit of electioneering and politics. As I've said before I doubt that any of our politicians have any real idea about how to fix the Economy. I'm guessing the Tories are hoping for a 1980's like economic recovery after the cuts and repositioning of the economy.

The gold reserve sell off was probably one of Brown's biggest mistakes, however lets not forget that Blair basically forced Brown to open up the spending floodgates due to Blair's promise to raise the funding in the NHS to European levels. It's a complicated story between warring factions between Blair and Brown and the resistance of the Treasury to Brown's vision for the economy until he systemically cut the dead wood out and replaced the dead with younger saplings (civil servants). That of course meant that the treasury was at a loss in terms of having experience in dealing with reccessions. However Darling did a sterling job of propping up the Economy when the doo doo hit the fan.

One of the best decisions Brown made at number 11 was to give the Bank of England the powers to control interest rates. That's a power that should probably not be in the hands of politicians unless the situation is very grave indeed.

I am trying to look at this as dispassionately as I can, but I have to say, I don't want to see Gordon Brown at the head of the IMF, I really don't.

Brown is probably the best man for the job and if he screwed up ? The US would have him out the door faster than you could blink. I'm being completey dispassionate about this. I do not like Blair or Brown as it's because of their personal squabbles that lead Labour into making the mistakes it did.

As far Cameron goes ? This boils down to his personal feelings towards Brown and the fear of what would happen should the coalition need to go cap in hand to the IMF (it's a remote but very real possibility) with Brown in charge of the body that would basically have carte blanche to decide how the UK Economy is run.

Brown is a technocrat at heart and the IMF is probably where he belongs. If he doesn't get the job this time around he will probably get it in the future.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by Kevin

One of the best decisions Brown made at number 11 was to give the Bank of England the powers to control interest rates. That's a power that should probably not be in the hands of politicians unless the situation is very grave indeed.

Indeed. And that's why it was, in fact, a long-sytanding LibDem policy, which finally seeped across to Labour - I assume that was through the secret Blair-Ashdown negotiations before the 1997 election. That's how LibDems *used* to get their policies put into practice.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Brown is probably the best man for the job and if he screwed up ? The US would have him out the door faster than you could blink.

The best man for the job? And who else have you considered? I find this argument less than convincing. OK - you find some positive qualities (so do I), but even you concede plenty of drawbacks with Brown. And that defines 'the best man for the job'? REALLY? There has to be someone better out there! I am no expert in financial experts, but I'd really dispair if Brown really were the best man for the job.

We have to stop obsessing over the idea that people are automatically better for such positions because they are British. That kind of thinking got us that waste of space which is Baroness Ashdon as EU fireign policy person. David Miliband didn't want the job (he wuld have been good, I think) - and Brown used his leverage to get us a Brit anyway. Frankly, I'd have preferred somebody actually effective and competent, rather than somebody purely qualified by having a British passport at the right time.... Let's not make the same mistake over something as crucial as the IMF.

There have to be people with better credentials and fewer known flaws than Brown out there, somewhere in the world.

[Morgoth]

closed, pending version 3.