Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to say.....bring back Gordon!

173 replies

MangoMonster · 14/12/2011 21:11

Gordon Brown that is, at least he was qualified and knew what he was doing... Ok, I do have a bit of a crush, but I am trying to be objective...:)

Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are a joke...

OP posts:
penguinpenguin · 15/12/2011 17:06

YADNBU!

ViviPrudolf · 15/12/2011 17:11

Officially the most unreasonable AIBU I have ever read. Have a Tufty Badge.

AngryFeet · 15/12/2011 17:13

Of course people love him. He threw money about like it grew on trees. Complete idiot and he DOES have a large part to play in the mess we find ourselves in now.

Very surprised that so many agree with you but then there are lots of labour voters on here so understandable really.

Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 19:38

vivi thanks for the tufty badge and only my second aibu, got to be some kind of record :)

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 15/12/2011 19:49

but I am trying to be objective...

OK, let's try to be objective here.

  1. Gordon Brown was chancellor for ten years. He inherited a balanced budget. He left with the largest deficit the UK's ever had in peacetime. Larger than even Greece's! Even if you exclude the cost of the banking crisis, the numbers are mindboggling. During the time where Germany turned their 4% deficit into a surplus, Japan halved their deficit and France reduced theirs by a third, ours went up.
  1. He famously declared he'd ended "boom & bust" which anyone who actually understood how free market economics works will know is impossible. Not a problem for most people to not understand. Scary for the chancellor of one of the biggest economies in the world though.
  1. He sold our gold reserves at rock bottom prices. Worse than that, instead of drip feeding the gold over time to get the best price possible, he announced that he was selling it which instantly pushed prices down.
  1. He was ahead in the polls shortly after he took power and would more than likely won the election albeit with a reduced majority. Not uncommon for the incumbent government but he bottled it which is about the only reason the Tories are in now.
  1. He didn't tuck any money aside during the boom, to use in a bust. And to answer the poster who asked which one does. Well for starters Germany, Sweden, Norway. Many didn't but that's hardly an excuse is it? Just because all your mates are bankrupt it hardly makes it ok for you to be too.
  1. Yes, he introduced some 'fantastic' ideas such as EMA, tax credits and full disregard for child maintenance. Only problem is that he didn't fund these from tax receipts. He simply borrowed the money. Any idiot can do good with borrowed money. You can be a hero to your kids tomorrow. Just go to Toys R Us and buy all the stuff you can on plastic. What do you mean you don't want to because you don't want to pay it back with interest?
  1. Gordon famously trumpeted his 'golden rule' that government's could only borrow to invest over an economic cycle was thrown out at the first serious challenge.

God I could carry on. Don't get me wrong. As a person I think his heart was in the right place. But as a chancellor he was seriously lacking in some areas and he certainly didn't have any of the charisma and consensus building skills you need to be PM. Do I want him back? No way!

Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 19:55

Fair enough, all taken on board. I still don't think the current government is any better...and I do agree his heart was in the right place, which is quite rare at the moment it seems.

OP posts:
Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 19:57

Have to say, it's nice to have a thread where everyone is debating rather than slapping each other :)

OP posts:
MrsWembley · 15/12/2011 19:58

What niceguy said...
Angry

alistron1 · 15/12/2011 20:05

Aside from all the boring political/financial stuff he was rather more brooding and manly than Blair/Cameron. In a leader you want a bit of brooding manliness IMHO.

smallwhitecat · 15/12/2011 20:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

alistron1 · 15/12/2011 20:06

He'd walk you home after a night out, Blair/Cameron would leave you to fend for yourself whilst they went on to a trendy bar with their friends...

Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 20:08

smallwhitecat that was a rock and a very hard place...Murdoch has a lot of influence when it comes coverage and brown had no proof.

OP posts:
smallwhitecat · 15/12/2011 20:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

niceguy2 · 15/12/2011 20:11

I disagree Alistron. A good PM is someone who is able to bring people together who have totally opposite views and get them to agree. Someone who is a natural leader and unflappable when the shit hits the fan.

Brown had a tendancy to lose his temper which is never good for a manager in a company, let alone the prime minister. And who can forget the head in his hands saga after he called that woman a bigot? I mean we all make mistakes and everyone knew he'd made a stupid but understandable mistake there. He'd have been quickly forgiven for that one but his whole body language was more finished old man than vibrant leader.

One thing I also noticed during Blair's time was that when there was good news to share, he was there. When Blair was going to get a kicking he'd be nowhere to be seen. Case in point was the petrol crisis. He was totally absent. No statements, no appearances, nothing. Radio silence. A great leader is most needed in tough times. He can't just hide and let someone else take the blame.

Hardgoing · 15/12/2011 20:16

Absolutely no desire to have him back, agree with everything MrNiceGuy said, add to that lack of control over the financial sector...

spiderslegs · 15/12/2011 20:23

Pension plundering anyone?

Another one of Gordo's excellent plans.

JuliaScurr · 15/12/2011 20:39

It isn't meant to be a beauty contest. GB was not responsible for the collapse of the US banking system; they managed that on their own by borrowing money to lend to desperate people who couldn't pay it back once they lost their jobs. The problem of GB and TB before him was their love of the City and putting all their eggs in the unreliable basket of the financial sector. But it's as nothing compared to CallmeDave and the Boy Wonder Gideon. Unemployment How high?? Economic growth How flat?? Plan A isn't working and there's no plan B

Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 20:41

Agree julia

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 15/12/2011 20:57

It's funny Julia. On the one hand you are ever so forgiving of GB's thirteen year reign and attribute the collapse of the banking system on the US. Forget the fact that even without the crash (aka the structural deficit) rose to £160 billion per year under his tenure. Or that the Tories handed over a booming economy and a balanced budget. His sole economic decision seems to have been making the BOE independant (one which I agree with).

The coalition inherited a shambles of a budget, a global economic crisis, a Eurozone disaster and a note which said there was no money left. Yet somehow less than two years in charge it's their fault for the increased unemployment and flat growth? Your position is most illogical.

Let me put it another way. Your partner puts you in charge of your household budget. At that moment in time, you are not overspending, nor saving. Both your job prospects look great too and you both are doing really well at work with lots of payrises on the way. Ten years later you are up to your neck in debt and overspending by 25% of your income each month. Is that your fault, or the fault of your mate who lives in another country?

And when your partner takes back control of the finances and starts to cut out all the things you've grown accustomed to like big house with the big mortgage and the monthly donations to the RSPCA and the NSPCC, is he a heartless ideological wanker who hates children and animals or someone who is just making tough decisions in desperate times?

Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 21:08

niceguy that's a but patronising... And I think you are forgetting fb isn't the only one who made these mistakes... Technological advances blurred the boom bust cycle and yes, fb made a mistake, as did most other leaders. He is not solely to blame, yes he was part of it, but Cameron had no clue and is going to make things much much worse.

OP posts:
Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 21:11

I'm not saying we don't need to cut in order to rein in deficit but where's the growth, it's been stopped dead in its tracks. Food inflation alone is phenomenal let alone petrol, gas, electricity etc. how is the economy supposed to keep momentum with no incentive. It's dead in the water, which IMO is because cameron was too gun ho, these things take time to build up and fail, they take time to fix.

OP posts:
Original poster
MangoMonster · 15/12/2011 21:13

Gb not fb, autocorrect in overdrive.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 15/12/2011 21:21

I dont believe it's patronising at all. I just think many people cannot see the woods for the trees.

Growth was always going to suffer. Remember that all the parties were promising to make cuts and the cuts made by the Tories believe it or not are exactly the same size as what Labour promised. In short, they've not been able to cut as deeply as they wanted because of the state of the national & international economies.

So growth would have disappeared no matter who was in charge.

Now let's for a moment assume that the Tories came in with a more soft approach. Well our credibility would never have recovered. Our financial credibility was shot to pieces when the Tories took over. Nobody really believed Labour could/would do what it takes. The deep cuts (which incidentally are only a drop in the ocean of what's actually needed) helped us maintain our AAA status where other huge economies like the USA and even France have lost/will lose theirs. This means we're able to continue to borrow money which we still need at attractive rates. If we hadn't have done this then we'd be screwed like Italy, not to mention Greece.

There was no easy solution. There IS no easy solution. We've grown addicted to debt. Weaning ourselves off it will be painful. We'll suffer, our kids will suffer the most since they'll be still paying our debts off whilst not being able to receive the final salary pensions of today.

If you have a sensible costed plan which doesn't involve hitting the poor then I'm sure Cameron will be all ears. Hell, I'd vote for you.

Thruaglassdarkly · 16/12/2011 01:46

Those crushing on GB...I'm just not feeling it at all...
OP - if you want him back because you think he's a hotty, apart from having NO taste in men, YADBVVVU. Why? Because he was like King Midas, apart from the fact that everything he touched turned to shit, instead of gold. He was crap. My 3 year old could've ran the economy better than him. So, OP, if this is just a lust issue for you then stop it right now, buy a BIG poster of him and stick it on your wall. But don't, for the love of God, inflict the idiot on the rest of us. He'll fast track us to the economic equivalent of a small, as yet unknown developing world state.

PoppyAmex · 16/12/2011 02:43

Genuine question...

I'm not British so might lack some historical perspective on this, but with that caveat would like to ask: do you not feel that most (if not all) Tories' cuts were based on ideology rather than macro economics and were always going to happen with them in power?