The world isn't behind Gordon - however much he wants it to be

strapworld

Mr Nelson,

What is strange, the way all the media are falling for the Labour Spin! It is quite unnatural. Whilst Trevor Kavanagh appears to be allowed to say what he thinks - he certainly is not in tune with the editorial. As in the Mail where Littlejohn gives so much ammunition to Cameron (and ignored!)the editor and editorials are very supportive of our world master Brown! The Telegraph is no longer the Torygraph. Andrew Peirce is not allowed to write serious political articles it appears- only who is the next presenter of Countdown !! The Times is unbelievable except of course like SKY is in the hands of Murdoch.##It is left to BLOGS and the internet for anyone to get the truth of what is going on.

Cameron, for the umpteenth time has got to get massive help NOW both on his front bench team but in his office.

A WAR CABINET is required TODAY!

Travis Bickle

I see that shares in the banks the taxpayer bailed out have continued to tumble.

I await to see how Brown and his chums plan to blame this on the nasty Toreez.

Jules Harris

Fraser - I do hope that in George Osborne's reply to Darling next week contains much of the substance of your analysis of Brown's misrepresented boasts and Brownies (although I'd rather see these described in stronger terms!) I would hope that the views of bloggers and their respondants form part of the daily required reading for his researchers, in which case he must be aware of the real strength of feeling among Conservative supporters for him to step up the narrative and expose this disgraceful government for what it is!

oldtimer

No doubt he will. It is noteworthy that he is, today, praying in aid the MD of the IMF to support his predicted fiscal stimulus. The G-20 statement, of which he was a signatory, made two comments that got my attention:
The first on "Root causes of the current crisis"...paragraph 3 says..."Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and
address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace
with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic
ramifications of domestic regulatory actions."
That sounds to me like a ticking off for Mr Brown.

Under "Actions taken and to be taken"...para 7 says..."Use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect, as appropriate, while maintaining a policy framework conducive to fiscal sustainability."

That vindicates Mr Osborne`s critique, robustly made on the Sunday Marr programme. I see that Mr Robert Peston of the BBC quotes the first part about fiscal measures but, for some reason, fails to mention the last part about fiscal sustainability.

The G-20 statement is also critical of the use of opaque financial instruments (think PFI and unfunded pension liabilities) and weak financial controls (think qualified EU accounts).

Is Mr Brown about to disown this staement before the ink is dry?

Postcript; The Spectator advertises itself as "champagne for the mind". I have to say that some of the stuff posted here recently by Spectator staff hardly qualifies. More like idle gossip.

Paul Lettan

Fraser, you and I must read totally different American newspapers and websites. I was struck how often US pundits, politicians and economists praised Gordon and his grasp of the issues. This year's Nobel prize winner for Economics was fulsome in his praise. Today, Obama has given his support to the London conference. Bretton Woods 2 here we come. Will this be Gordon's Swan song?

Short the UK

Fraser, this is worth a read. It is based on the American debacle but it neatly parallels our travails:

'Before I build up to a proposal, I want to lay down the foundation with a basic principle. Ultimately, the fork in the road ahead is between (a) deflation and depression or (b) hyperinflation and destruction of our currency. But there can be no debate whatsoever as to which is the lesser of the evils.

The deflation road is extremely arduous, but ultimately leads to recovery. The hyperinflation road can provide a temporary palliative, but it ultimately leads to the destruction of our society and culture.'

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/a-fictional-scenario-of-the-future-the-final-bailout-28046

Andrew Lilico

Fraser,

On the Barker Review, another reason it may not be much discussed is that from the moment of its publication it was clear that the idea that there was a housing shortage was a statistical illusion produced by flawed demographic forecasts in the late 1990s. I wrote on this in 2003, here: http://www.cpre.co.uk/filegrab/basis-on-which-to-build-rpt.pdf?ref=1666

Chuck Unsworth

And the whole wide world wants Motherhood and Apple Pie.

I don't think Osborne should go. Why should he? Who gains? Brown.

Yet Brown is fast running out of hiding places. The public do not believe a word he says.

ChrisD

"Iain Martin’s column calling for him to go echoes much Tory sentiment I have heard."

Why do you need to back up Martin this week?...
I think that Andrew Rawnsley got it spot on in the Observer this weekend.
The negative collective attacks on Osborne by the Telegraph have backfired spectacularly.

euro

Cassius has it the same way, only the British Press is swallowing this nonsense:

http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/osborne-and-emperors-new-clothes.html

Hoolio

As you say, "Except the world doesn't". Completely right.

(1) The final G20 text on fiscal stimulus was watered down in what I take to be a huge snub to Brown.

(2) The IMF (Mr Strauss-Kahn) noted, "that the Summit Declaration recognizes that some countries have more room for maneuver than others. "We believe that those countries-advanced and emerging economies-with the strongest fiscal policy frameworks, the best ability to finance fiscal expansion, and the most clearly sustainable debt should take the lead," he said, surely in reference to countries such as the UK which have no room to borrow even more.

In truth it's Labour vs. the rest of the world. The trouble is that this evening in the pub I will be hoping for tax cuts even if I know I'll have to pay for them later.

John Page

If it's all so predictable, why does it cause the Tories such trouble?

Alex R

Will be interesting to see what happens with the Crosby review and if its recommendations are published next Monday. Have read of no leaks so far.

Ted

Paul,
Odd I read on line the New York Times report on G20, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Spiegel. Gordon hardly mentioned, Sarkozy given credit for calling for the summit and for the follow up one.

Most reported it didn't achieve anything, specifically it didn't achieve either of Brown's declared immediate objectives: no additional funding for the IMF nor any co-ordinated fiscal actions.

Brown is a peripheral figure, bigging himself up for domestic audiences, a figure of fun to his fellow leaders for his pretentions.

TGF UKIP

"Osborne is on trial this week" and from your highly enjoyable NOW piece yesterday, "Our young Shadow Chancellor has about eight days to redeem himself. And the clock starts now."

So, Fraser, unless Boy George publicly dismantles and exposes Gordon's mendacious claims and wipes the floor with Gordon and Darling next Monday, do I understand that you are finally ready and able to confess your error and pronounce him to be the toff tosser such a goodly slice of the electorate and Coffee House have long perceived him to be?

Short the UK

Here is Nouriel Roubini's latest missive on America:

One can count at least 20 separate or complementary causes that will sharply reduce consumption in the next several years:

• The US consumer is shopped-out having spent for the last few years well above its means.

• The US consumer is saving-less as the already low household savings rate at the beginning of this decade went to zero/negative by 2006 and has now to raise to more sustainable levels.

• The US consumer is debt burdened with the debt to disposable income having increased from 70% in the early 1990s to 100% in 2000 and to 140% in 2008.

• Not only debt ratios are high and rising but debt servicing ratios are also high and rising having gone from 11% in 2000 to almost 15% now as the interest rate on mortgages and consumer debt is resetting at higher levels.

• The value of housing wealth is now sharply falling by over $6 trillion as home price depreciation will soon be 30% and reach a cumulative fall of over 40% by 2010. Recent estimates of this wealth effect suggest that the effect may be closer to 12-14% rather than the historical 5-7%....

• Mortgage equity withdrawal (MEW) is collapsing from $700 billion annualized in 2005 to less than $20 in Q2 of this year. Thus, with falling housing wealth and collapsing MEH US households cannot use their homes anymore as ATM machines borrowing against them.

• The value of the equity wealth of US households has fallen by almost 50%, another ugly wealth effect on consumption.

• The credit crunch is becoming more severe as the recent Q2 flow of funds data and the Fed Loan Officers’ Survey suggests: it is spreading from sub-prime to near prime to prime mortgages and home equity loans; and from mortgages to credit cards, auto loans and student loans. Both the price and the quantity of credit are sharply tightening.

• Consumer confidence is down to levels not seen since the 1973-75 and 1980-82 recessions.

• Real wage growth and real income growth has been stagnant in the last few years as income and wealth inequality has been rising. And now with GDP and real incomes falling real consumption will fall sharply.

• The Fed is reaching the zero-bound on interest rates as the economy gets close to deflation given the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets. Deflation means that consumers will postpone consumption as future prices are lower than current prices, as real rates are positive and rising and as debt deflation increases the real value of the households nominal debts

• Employment has been falling for 10 months in a row and the rate of job losses is now accelerating... In this cycle job losses have been so far “only” slightly over 1 million while labor market conditions are severely worsening based on all forward looking indicators...Massive job losses and concerns about job losses will further dampen current and expected income and further contract consumption.

• Tax rebates of over $100 billion failed to stimulate real consumption earlier in 2008. Only 25% of the tax rebate was spent as US consumers are worried about jobs and need to use funds to pay their credit card and mortgage....another general tax rebate would be as ineffective as the first one in boosting consumption.

• The 1990-91 and 2001 recessions were not global; this time around the IMF is forecasting a global recession for 2009.

• The recent rise in inflation – that is only now slowing down – reduced real incomes even further for lower income households who spend more than the average households on gas, transportation, energy and food. The recent sharp fall in gasoline and energy prices will increase real incomes by a modest amount (about $150 billion) but the losses of real disposable income and thus falling consumption from other sources (wealth, income, debt servicing ratios) are much larger and more significant.

• The trade weighted fall in the value of the U.S. dollar since 2002 has worsened the terms of trade of the US and reduced further real disposable income and the purchasing power of US consumers over foreign goods.

• With consumption being over 71% of GDP a sharp and persistent contraction of consumption all the way through at least Q4 of 2009 implies a more severe recession than otherwise. Consumption did not fall even a single quarter in the 2001 recession and one has to go back to 1990-91 to see a single quarter of negative consumption growth...

• Monetary easing will not stimulate durable consumption and demand for residential housing as demand for such capital goods becomes interest rate insensitive when there is a glut of capital goods; monetary policy becomes like pushing on a string. In the previous recession the Fed cut the Fed Funds rate from 6.5% to 1% and long rates fell by 200bps. In spite of that capex spending of the corporate sector fell by 4% of GDP between 2000 and 2004 as there was a glut of tech capital goods and it took years to work out such a glut. Today there is a glut of housing, consumer durables and autos/motor vehicles; so it will take years to work out this glut...

• While policy rates are sharply falling the nominal and real rates faced by households are rising rather than falling.... together with less availability of credit are severely dampening the ability of households to borrow and spend.

• To bring back the household savings rate to the level of a decade ago (about 6% of GDP) consumption will have to fall – relative to current GDP levels – by almost a trillion dollar. If all of this adjustment were to occur in 12 months GDP would contract directly by 7% and indirectly (including the further collapse of residential and corporate capex spending in a severe recession) by 10%, an exemplification of the Keynesian “paradox of thrift”. If such an adjustment were to occur over 24 months rather than 12 months you would still have negative GDP growth of 5% for two years in a row with a cumulative fall in GDP from its peak of 10% (note that in the worst US recession since WWII such cumulative fall in GDP was only 3.7% in 1957-58). One can thus only hope that this adjustment of consumption and savings rates occurs only slowly over time – four years rather than two. Even in that scenario the cumulative fall of GDP could be of the order of 4-5%, i.e. the worst US recession since WWII. Note that the cumulative fall in GDP in the 2001 recession was only 0.4% and in the 1990-9 recession was only 1.3%. So, the current recession may end up being three times as long and at least three times as deep (in terms of output contraction) than the last two and worse than any other post WWII recession.

=====

The UK is in a far worse state than America.

TrevorsDen

Mr Nelson - you are a pillock.

I have just read that 5-Live for instance put on Browns statement and then cut away when Cameron stood up to reply.

So just how do the Conservatives do anything with that kind of treatment.

Yet again you totally miss the target. Cameron any Tory leader or front bench is not going to get a fair hearing.
Only if and when the tax bills hit home and the pound slides and imports spiral (thanks to a hose piping of more tax cut fuelled debt)

Tiberius

TGF: I assume you're in Screwtape mode at present.

There were plenty of posters on here and other blogs (even Nick Robinson's, I believe) who supported what Osborne said on Saturday, and what he followed up with yesterday, particularly on that "Guardian of Independent Reporting Show", Marr.

Anyway, Fraser gave him until Easter, the time of year when Screwtape is at his weakest!

Chuck Unsworth

@ TGF UKIP

What is a 'toff tosser'? Is it sort of like a dwarf tosser - but posh?

Fed Up with Labour

have just read that 5-Live for instance put on Browns statement and then cut away when Cameron stood up to reply.
So just how do the Conservatives do anything with that kind of treatment.

They can't the public only get told ehat the Tories said by Labour and the BBC and now Sky it seems. Of course it is not what they said at all but hey why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If public fall for this spin then they deserve in spades and spades what Nu Labour will do over the next 5 years.

TrevorsDen

Re Five live - this would seem to be correct because I have read it in two different places.

Maybe the BBC is getting cold feet because when I went to their news web page Camerons reply was given prominence.

It does not take away from the original disgraceful treatment by the BBC.
TV did show it though, but how many would have been watching?

BTW - its not new - it regularly happens at Budgets. I certainly remember it happening on BBC TV when Hague was leader

Susan Hill

I say, Sarkozy really is quite tiny isn`t he ?

Damien Vaugh

Prof Roubinni's missive reported above seems to support the G20 statement supporting further public spending.

Without the driver of the consumer how else can you sustain employment and plan for a recovery from the predicted world recession?.

Instead of looking at this as a risk to the future it might be an opportunity to replace and refurbish the crumbling infrastructure here and around the country.

It would also be a good time to redirect our economy towards a 'green' economy. Maybe even America under President Obama take a new direction away from the production of gas guzzlers and dirty coal burning plants.

The USA could then rename the 'rust belt' the 'green belt' !

Ben

There is a some debate on here about how much credit Brown was given in America with various people saying what they read. I live in America, however I am originally from England and in the past i have voted both Conservative and Labour, so i dont feel i hold a bias when i say this, America gave HUGE credit to Brown for his ideas and actions. A lot of the bailout put forth by the US government was based on Browns ideas, and they credited him for it (much to the annoyance of my American wife who hates the idea of a bailout). Whether, you like Brown or not is one issue, whether you think he is a good leader is another fair question, but to suggest no other leaders in the world repect or listens to him or credit him is quite possible one of the most stupid things i have heard since fox news claimed Obama couldnt prove he was a US citizen. There is a lot of respect this side of the pond for Brown in the way he went about the crisis, and as CNN reporter noted..."at least he had a plan for the crisis, unlike the conservative party of Great Britian"

ben

as a follow up to my last point, there was also a nobel peace prize winner in economics who appeared on most major networks prasing Brown.

M. Cawdery

Most interesting reading.
It seems that the world really is not interested in Brown's fabrications. Most already knew he lives in dreamland, and his emmissions (what else?) are simply a figment of his poor deluded brain.

The other fact, unfortunately, is that the HYS section of many media sites tend to moderated out any comments that are anti-Brown or his sycophantic followers. In a way since supporters are under represented I suppose that this is defined as "BALANCED"

However this begs the question why the supporters are under represented. May I suggest there are very few of them.