Brad wrote:
Aquw VettelS 776 wrote:
Nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes. As Chancellor, I think Gordon Brown will go down in history as one of the most important and successful figures in British politics. As for the recession- while, the whole World's in the crap. And yes, the UK's reliance on the banking and financial services sector probably did mean we got hit harder than most other countries. But it is because of our booming post-recession economy that the UK is now the sixth most wealthy country in the World, and third most in Europe. I'm not saying that we, and specifically Brown, did everything right and made all the best decisions, but I think I can join most people in this country in saying that our encouragement and management of the economy is one of the UKs greatest assets.
Thatcher, however controversial her policies, achieved great things with this country's economy. But that came at the price of social unrest and injustice, and whilst I can't talk in detail about 1990s politics, I do know that this sort of iron fist regime is not needed now. It may have worked in the '90s, but what we need now is thoughtful and considered action to tackle the economic situation, whilst causing as little damage to our social structure as possible. Gordon Brown is one of the country's most experienced and accomplished economic figures, and I have no doubt that he is the most suited to sorting out our current problems. Labour is the peoples' party, and with the expertise of Brown also comes the morals and social understanding of the Labour party. We simply do not need the drastic action that was required in the Thatcher era, and with the Tories in charge we're up for a series of massive public spending cuts. Cuts are fine when they're needed, and of course the recession should be the first priority, but this needn't come at the cost of such changes. The last thing our public services need is less money, and Labour understands this. Sadly, our current government either does not, or is too incompetent to tackle both the deficit and protect public services at the same time.
Labour's campaign was full of rubbish. Your remarks further prove the comment in my last post that people believe that Labour could of gotten us out of this mess without taking any hard decisions. No matter who'd won this election massive cuts would have been incoming. This year our debt as a % of GDP is going to pass the level of debt Greece has. Saying we don't need "drastic action" is an understatement of the highest caliber. Remember about a year or so ago when Gordon Brown kept trotting out the line "Labour Investment Vs. Tory Cuts"? Look at how quickly he ditched that mantra when even he realised he couldn't fool the British people into believing it. By failing to cut as hard and as deep as is needed Labour would have jeopardized the future prosperity of this economy, it's better we go through a painful decade or so now, than try and sustain the grossly high levels of public spending that we have in this country.
That's another thing Labour has got wrong on the economy, the massive overspending and growth in the public sector. We have one of the highest % of workforce in the public of any country in the world. The public sector does not create growth nor does it in any way help the economy, it is merely a burden on it. A burden that is in many ways necessary, but not at the size that Labour has allowed it to balloon to. When you have a national health service that has more managers and administrators than it has hospital beds, you know something is drastically wrong.
Sadly it seems you have an affection for the Labour party and Brown that seems to detach you from any reality to the many bad things New Labour have done to this country over the years, You say Thatcher caused social strife, and yes, that is very true. But when you come to the crux of it, would you rather live in a country where we're all chummy and friendly but that is going to hell in a hand basket, or in a country that has a robust economy and government and where perhaps we don't all get along. Shouldn't be a difficult choice for even the pro-Labour lunatic fringe.
I'm not saying cuts aren't necessary, but the cuts the Tories are planning are both too drastic and in the wrong areas- you shouldn't take money out of our health service, policing and education, especially when you don't need to. Waste in public spending needs to be eliminated, and that's excatly what Labour would have also done. The difference between Brown and Cameron is that Brown values our public services enough to protect them at all costs, whilst still tackling the deficit. The Tories will not manage any better than Labour on the economic front, and in the process they will wreck our NHS and schools.
Our debt may certainly pass that of Greece's, so why then do we still maintain an AAA credit rating? Despite our difficulties, the UK as an extremely strong economy, and I think that our ability to take such hard hits economically and then get up and continue almost as normal speaks for Gordon Brown's management of the economy over recent years. As for the state of public spending, if we based this purely on economic benefits, we'd have very few public services left. Take the US for example- they may be the richest nation on Earth, but they're only just beginning to provide health care to its citizens.
I'd also add that I
don't consider myself necessarily pro-Labour; more anti-Conservative. When it comes to social vs. economic policy, there has to be a balance. No, there is very little point in being "all chummy and friendly" whilst having an economy "in a hand basket"- it's all about a balance. A balance, I will add, that I think we have spot on at the moment.
