Disagree With the First Part

The second is very good.

What made Gordon Brown a great Chancellor of the Exchequer is exactly what makes him an awful PM; the man has the charisma of ground carp.

12 thoughts on “Disagree With the First Part”

  1. “Great Chancellor”…? WTF? The man was a f*****g disaster – certainly the worst in the 38 years that I’ve been enfranchised!

  2. I find it difficult to believe there are still people stupid enough to buy this ‘best chancellor’ shit. The man has been a menace since NL got into power in 1997.

    Independence for the wank of England – wahay (but then quietly remove their regulatory role and create the tripartate shitheap which resulted in Northern Rock fiasco. Brilliant!)

  3. I find it difficult to believe there are still people stupid enough to buy this ‘best chancellor’ shit.

    I can’t believe there are people mad enough not to remember 10 years of record economic growth, but each to their own.

    [my money’s still firmly on growth above 1% this year and a recovery to 1997-2007 growth levels next year, based on the fact that there’s no sane reason to expect anything else. I accept that if the majority of people choose, for insane reasons, to believe that we’re all doomed, then Keynesian self-fulfilling prophesy will come to pass…]

  4. Andrew Paterson


    I fail to understand how this record 10 years of economic growth can be attributed to the government. For example, Brown had the good fortune to be Chancellor while the internet revolutionised almost every industry on the planet, leading to huge economic impact. What exactly did Brown do there exactly? How does he take credit for this?

  5. Every industry on the planet? Including window cleaning and timber milling…?

    And, to put it bluntly, because he didn’t f*** it up, despite the myriad ways in which chancellors are able to.

    Even this year, the UK economy is projected to outperform the US and most major European economies – and we’ve still got plenty of room [in ‘national debt as % of GDP’ terms] for Keynesian stimulus measures to keep us growing.

  6. John B,

    Over his decade at HMT he managed to turn a budget surplus he inherited from the Tories into one of the biggest budget deficits, despite that decade seeing ten years of growth.

    Or should that be “because”, not “despite”. Anyone can produce short term increases in income whilst borrowing and spending – but it’s not sustainable in the long run…as we’re finding out now. At this stage of the economic cycle we should be in budget surplus, having enjoyed years of growth. But we aren’t, and that spells trouble.

  7. No it doesn’t. The point is, the sustainable long-term budget deficit as % of GDP is the same as long-term trend GDP growth (since this keeps debt constant as a proportion of our ability to service it). It isn’t zero.

    The deficit in 2007 was 2.7%; GDP growth was 3.1%; and GDP growth outstripped deficits throughout Brown’s chancellorship. This means there’s plenty of room to increase the deficit temporarily in 2008-09.

    Nothing to see here, move along please…

  8. [oh, and for the avoidance of doubt – I’m sure the Association of Flamboyant and Charismatic Ground Carp is contemplating a defamation case against Ms McArdle; and watching the current lot shift propose endless halfwitted populist measures so ineptly that each one makes them *less* popular is very nearly embarrassing and appalling enough to make me vote for the other side…]

  9. The measure of Brown as a Labour chancellor is that it took him 10 years to do what his predecessors had done in two, or at the most, three years.

    If he was a giant, it was because he was standing on the shoulders of dwarves. Or something

  10. I would say every industry yes. Prior to the internet how could you have identified a window-cleaning firm in Dundee while you were in London, if you so desired?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *