NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080913/tpl-uk-britain-brown-87aac06.html

LONDON (Reuters) - A senior member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour Party said on Saturday he should face a leadership challenge, piling more pressure on a premier struggling with economic downturn and weak poll ratings.
(Advertisement)

Joan Ryan, a Labour vice chairman, said Brown's future as leader was being discussed privately at all levels of the party and it was time for a leadership election.

Brown, who took over from Tony Blair last year and does not have to hold a national election until May 2010, is trying to relaunch his premiership after months of speculation about his fate following a series of crushing local election defeats.

The former chancellor trails the revitalised Conservatives and faces public disquiet over rising household bills, a housing market slump and a gloomy economic outlook.

Ryan's call for a leadership challenge came a week before the party's annual conference, seen as a crucial event in Brown's planned fight back after months of negative headlines.

"I want a leadership election, I want a choice of candidates, I want to have a debate," she told BBC radio.

"We need to have this debate about the direction and leadership of our country out in the open now. It is happening at all levels of the party and it should be happening in a more open and honest way."

Brown's opponents within Labour say their party has no chance of winning the election if he stays as leader. After 11 years in power, Labour lags the Conservatives in opinion polls by about 20 points.

The Conservatives' Shadow Welfare Secretary Chris Grayling said Labour was in "a state of civil war" and called for an early election.

On Friday, Brown sacked a member of his government after she called for a leadership contest. Siobhain McDonagh, a party official, said a "huge number" of Labour legislators wanted a leadership contest, a claim strongly disputed by party leaders.

Brown ally and Schools Secretary Ed Balls played down talk of a leadership challenge and said Labour could still bounce back and win the next election.

"You never know what is going to happen in politics. He (Brown) might get run over by a bus. But I think there is very little chance of the Labour Party deciding it wants to change its leader," he told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

So, I think nothing's gonna come of this and the Tories are gonna get in next election, but what goes NSG think?

She was sacked. Also, no chance. They're fucked in the next election, basically. Although putting Brown back as chancellor to replace Darling, and having David Miliband as PM so that his career gets tanked might be a good thing.

No. David Milliband is a smug little shit, and according to a survey I read in the Independent would get even lower ratings than Brown.

No. David Milliband is a smug little shit, and according to a survey I read in the Independent would get even lower ratings than Brown.
Labour are going to lose anyway, and it's because I hate Miliband that I vaguely want him as PM. Because it will tank his career completely.

Sorry, I've never come across tanked in that context before.

She was sacked. Also, no chance. They're fucked in the next election, basically.
Yup.

What's more, I don't see what a change in leadership would do to help New Labour. Who in the party could change round their fortunes in less than two years? Certainly not Slimy Miliband.

Yup.

What's more, I don't see what a change in leadership would do to help New Labour. Who in the party could change round their fortunes in less than two years? Certainly not Slimy Miliband.
Yeah, my point here isn't that Miliband would be a good choice to lead the party, just that they need to absolutely devastate his political chances before the elections in 2014, in which he will be nominated for not being Brown, and being sort of young, like Cameron.

I like to look at it this way. This is the current membership of the house of Commons:

Labour - 349
Conservatives - 193
Liberal Democrats - 63
SNP/Plaid Cymru - 10
(Total oppositioon - 266)

To say that 70 members are needed to launch a membership challenge misses one key fact - if they're willing, all that is needed is for 42 Labour members to splinter and form a coalition with the rest of the opposition (that number varies depending on how much support Labour has from the other parties). Then, not only is there a bigger pool of Ministerial candidates to choose from, but it also gives Labour a chance to organise themselves while they serve as a primarily supporting role in coalition government (which would be useful help in the current economic crisis) before they get ousted completely in the next general election.

You're forgetting the DUP.

You're forgetting the DUP.
Yeah, but there are also several independents and minority parties (total breakdown (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/stateparties.cfm)), and while the 9 seats of the DUP might support Brown, having a New Labour / DUP coalition government is such a horrifying prospect that pretty much every other swing voter in the commons would side with the other half to prevent it.

The electorate don't like Labour.
The leader isn't important.
They're on their way out.
All of this fuss is great for the Tories as it stops anyone asking them to come up with any specifics.

You're forgetting the DUP.
I spit on the DUP.
The electorate don't like Labour.
True.
The leader isn't important.
Not quite so true. It's just that Brown is the best they have, which is a shame.
They're on their way out.
Correct.
All of this fuss is great for the Tories as it stops anyone asking them to come up with any specifics.
Aye.

"Choice-driven healthcare" - wtf is that other than more privatisation of the NHS?

If it were possible for parties to step down, then that'd be Labour's best bet. See how the Tories deal with the economy. That'll wipe the smirk off Cameron's face.

Not quite so true. It's just that Brown is the best they have, which is a shame.


It's not that a leader doesn't have a very obvious role to play it's that voters are rejecting Labour and the things Labour have done. Even if you get a capable charasmatic replacement for Brown, it is hard to see him winning an election unless he changes things the Labour party are susposed to stand for - and even then voter cynisism could prove insurmountable.

If it were possible for parties to step down, then that'd be Labour's best bet. See how the Tories deal with the economy. That'll wipe the smirk off Cameron's face.
Give it four or five months to really brew up and then call an election.

It's not that a leader doesn't have a very obvious role to play it's that voters are rejecting Labour and the things Labour have done. Even if you get a capable charasmatic replacement for Brown, it is hard to see him winning an election unless he changes things the Labour party are susposed to stand for - and even then voter cynisism could prove insurmountable.
Aye it's going to take a lot to get socialists back on New Labour's side, especially the unions.

If it were possible for parties to step down, then that'd be Labour's best bet. See how the Tories deal with the economy. That'll wipe the smirk off Cameron's face.
It'd be good for a laugh, perhaps, but that really is national-level irresponsibility, and if that happened, I'd look into getting Brown arrested. Brown should be involved in cross-party talks with his likely successor as to how to get things on the right track, because the duty to help fix the shit he's gotten us all into isn't something he can shirk through simple resignation.

It'd be good for a laugh, perhaps, but that really is national-level irresponsibility, and if that happened, I'd look into getting Brown arrested. Brown should be involved in cross-party talks with his likely successor as to how to get things on the right track, because the duty to help fix the shit he's gotten us all into isn't something he can shirk through simple resignation.
All the shit he's gotten us into? Are you fucking kidding me? He ran the economy staggeringly well for a decade. Can't say much better than that. The current crisis is not his fault, it stems from US banks giving crappy, crappy loans out to people who they basically knew they couldn't repay them, and the entire banking sector being super surprised about this.

All the shit he's gotten us into? Are you fucking kidding me? He ran the economy staggeringly well for a decade. Can't say much better than that. The current crisis is not his fault, it stems from US banks giving crappy, crappy loans out to people who they basically knew they couldn't repay them, and the entire banking sector being super surprised about this.

US banks made Northern Rock collapse? Hardly.

The UK was drinking from the credit bubble well just as deeply as the US - if not more so! The UK recession would have happened anyway, because UK banks were making even crappier loans to people who couldn't pay.

Brown was chancellor, he ran FSA, he let this shit go on for a decade. It's his fault as much as anybody's.

The BBC also helps with ruining the economy.

US banks made Northern Rock collapse? Hardly.
Basically, that and the BBC. Northern Rock got its money from other banks, so when people started losing lots of money in the US and stopped lending to other banks they were left high and dry. The BBC then ran a couple of scare stories on it and the stupid, stupid public went out en-masse to take all of the remaining money which Northern Rock had.
The UK was drinking from the credit bubble well just as deeply as the US - if not more so!
Incorrect, we've had no losses which have put a bank under other than the whole Northern Rock débâcle. Even HBOS, our most affected banking company, made about £4.5 billion in profit in the first half of the year after writing off most of their US assets.
The UK recession would have happened anyway
There was always going to be a bit of a slowdown after ten years of the economy building up, that it could have been less severe than the current situation is pretty much certain.
because UK banks were making even crappier loans to people who couldn't pay.
Not really...
Brown was chancellor, he ran FSA, he let this shit go on for a decade. It's his fault as much as anybody's.
I'm pretty sure that he didn't run the FSA, since we took it out of government hands.

The BBC always does that, as I mentioned earlier. If they just shut the fuck, things'll pick up a bit.

Basically, that and the BBC. Northern Rock got its money from other banks, so when people started losing lots of money in the US and stopped lending to other banks they were left high and dry. The BBC then ran a couple of scare stories on it and the stupid, stupid public went out en-masse to take all of the remaining money which Northern Rock had.

Northern Rock didn't lend in dollars. If there were no underlying asset problems with northern rocks portfolio (well Granite really), everything would have been fine. Trouble was Northern Rock was lending 125% the value of a house on self certified income statements. That's insanity anyway you slice it, and would have led to their demise. You just can't blame the seizure of the sterling markets on the US.

Incorrect, we've had no losses which have put a bank under other than the whole Northern Rock débâcle. Even HBOS, our most affected banking company, made about £4.5 billion in profit in the first half of the year after writing off most of their US assets.

The UK operates a covered bond system for mortgage financing I believe. The losses haven't been recognized yet. But buy to let shops like B&B are going to be toast. None of that can be laid at the door of the US. Don't worry the losses will come as foreclosures mount.


Not really...

I'm pretty sure that he didn't run the FSA, since we took it out of government hands.

The Treasury appoints the governor and the board of the FSA, and it's not as if he couldn't - as chancellor - have raised the poor oversight of British Banks in parliament (which is the ulitmate authority in the UK last I looked).

I'm not saying that the US is some financial paragon, because it isn't. The behavior here has been absolutely disgraceful. All I am pointing out is that exactly the same sort of thing has been going on in the UK, so to blame Brown's current problems on the US - when he oversaw the creation of much of his own trouble - is disingenuous. He really wasn't all that as chancellor. Good at kicking the shit can down the road is about it.

(Also, had the BoE not panicked in 2005, it's likely that the 'subprime' problems would have started in the UK).

Northern Rock didn't lend in dollars.
If there were no underlying asset problems with northern rocks portfolio (well Granite really), everything would have been fine. Trouble was Northern Rock was lending 125% the value of a house on self certified income statements. That's insanity anyway you slice it, and would have led to their demise. You just can't blame the seizure of the sterling markets on the US.
Quite true. On the other hand, larger UK banks did lend in dollars, like HBOS. When your business model requires getting loans from other banks, and those banks have been stung by their losses in the US and won't give you the money you need, you are screwed. That can be laid partially at the door of Northern Rock for their own choice of how to operate, but also at the US housing economy's door for completely devaluing assets by building way too much housing, and meaning that if and when banks do start to order foreclosures, they get much less in terms of asset value than what they first lent out.
The UK operates a covered bond system for mortgage financing I believe.
In most banks, aye.
The losses haven't been recognized yet.
That would be because there haven't been many problems in the home market by comparison. The problem here is more for consumers trying to get credit than for banks to get their money's worth.
But buy to let shops like B&B are going to be toast.
Seeing as the buy to let market is generally regarded as the most stable at the moment, I couldn't disagree with you more.
None of that can be laid at the door of the US.
Other than the fact that people are foreclosing because housing isn't all that hard to come by or expensive (to my eyes, at least) in the US by comparison to the UK, so people seem to be more willing to do it. Which causes massive problems for the banks involved, because their assets have actually devalued over time.
Don't worry the losses will come as foreclosures mount.
Aye but I don't think that they will. It's very rare in the UK for people to foreclose, even in the early 1990s when we had a 'problem' with it, hardly anyone was losing their house.
The Treasury appoints the governor and the board of the FSA, and it's not as if he couldn't - as chancellor - have raised the poor oversight of British Banks in parliament (which is the ulitmate authority in the UK last I looked).

I'm not saying that the US is some financial paragon, because it isn't. The behavior here has been absolutely disgraceful. All I am pointing out is that exactly the same sort of thing has been going on in the UK, so to blame Brown's current problems on the US - when he oversaw the creation of much of his own trouble - is disingenuous. He really wasn't all that as chancellor. Good at kicking the shit can down the road is about it.
He might have been able to tell them off a bit and warn the FSA, but he couldn't fundamentally do anything, because it's a non-governmental and essentially independent agency which has a long tradition of not really doing its job properly.
(Also, had the BoE not panicked in 2005, it's likely that the 'subprime' problems would have started in the UK).
Aye but your issue here is that I reckon that foreclosures are not going to mount in the UK in anything like the same amount as the US. We aren't building many houses at all, and if you get off the housing market at 40, you won't be getting back on it. House prices in London regularly top a million dollars for a 3-story terraced house with even the most meagre garden in any of the richer areas. In York, you'd have trouble getting a house outside of Clifton (eugh), Acomb (eugh) or Tang Hall (mega eugh) for less than $500,000.

You can't earn enough money if you've had your house foreclosed to get on the market again if you're older than about thirty, and even then you're going to have a very expensive mortgage.

All the shit he's gotten us into? Are you fucking kidding me? He ran the economy staggeringly well for a decade. Can't say much better than that. The current crisis is not his fault, it stems from US banks giving crappy, crappy loans out to people who they basically knew they couldn't repay them, and the entire banking sector being super surprised about this.
For as long as Brown was chancellor, economic growth was based entirely on the swing of the housing market. Was there an attempt to balance this growth through attention to other markets, or to prepare for the inevitable reversing of house prices? No, unless you count huge expenditures on failed IT projects. Brown simply harvested it all as taxes (specifically from the public, and the poorer sections of the public too) and threw it at ineffectively managed public services. In the process, he sold off the nation's gold reserves at a low in the market, threw education and healthcare into total disarray with his unhelpful initiatives, and expected the Bank of England to take care of any money problems that might arise.

Staggeringly well? Hah. Criminal negligence, I call it.

For as long as Brown was chancellor, economic growth was based entirely on the swing of the housing market.
Also every single commodities market, as well as the financial services market, farming, currency exchange, manufacturing, the rest of the services industries, CAP subsidies, the EU's influence in the market and doubtless a whole load of other things I've forgotten.
Was there an attempt to balance this growth through attention to other markets, or to prepare for the inevitable reversing of house prices? No, unless you count huge expenditures on failed IT projects.
As someone who is obviously against government-run services, what could the government have done about some supposed growth imbalance, then?
Brown simply harvested it all as taxes (specifically from the public, and the poorer sections of the public too) and threw it at ineffectively managed public services.
Ah, which would explain ten years of very steady growth how? I thought he was snatching all of our money and such, seems a bit odd to have a couple of percent growth for so long, no?
In the process, he sold off the nation's gold reserves at a low in the market
Which was a mistake.
threw education and healthcare into total disarray with his unhelpful initiatives
No, education has been better than it's ever been in the country, and the problems with healthcare are the same as those in most other western countries - patients are getting twattier about suing hospitals, and an increasingly large amount of them are getting older, and hence less fit, more prone to various diseases etc. etc.

We're much better equipped to handle people getting old, because immigration keeps our population fairly young compared to most of Europe.
and expected the Bank of England to take care of any money problems that might arise.
Not sure about that one.
Staggeringly well? Hah. Criminal negligence, I call it.
... uhu...

Wanted: politician to lead divided party into near-certain defeat.

Who would volunteer for that role? If they want to ruin their career they should just get involved in a sex scandal, at least that would be more fun.

As someone who is obviously against government-run services, what could the government have done about some supposed growth imbalance, then?
As an aside, I do not disagree with the idea of public services. I merely disagree with this stupid idea of the "Public-Private Partnership" that New Labour seems to harp on about - especially and particularly when bringing in private companies as consultants increases the cost to the taxpayer to do what could have been done previously by public sector workers with half an ounce of common sense.

There're at least a couple of things that could be done about an imbalance of growth. One is applying the age old policy of Saving for a Rainy Day and reducing the national debt. Government practice of spending money it doesn't have works fine during periods of sustained economic growth, but when everything comes down again, you don't want to have to pay £30bn a year just to deal with historical fiscal irresponsibility when there are failed resource providers to bail out.

Another might be to use the economic high to encourage the creation or stimulation of markets that might previously have been outsourced. In particular, why isn't the UK a player in the global consumer Electronics market? (Actually, I do have an answer and potential solution to that, but that's another story)

Also every single commodities market, as well as the financial services market, farming, currency exchange, manufacturing, the rest of the services industries, CAP subsidies, the EU's influence in the market and doubtless a whole load of other things I've forgotten.
I'll give you the farming subsidies and the role of the EU, but everything else there simply grew because of people's confidence in the value of the housing market. Because most peoples' property outstrips the combined value of everything else they own by huge fortunes, when it increases in value, they become more confident in spending habits, whereas when it goes down, they tighten up.

Ah, which would explain ten years of very steady growth how? I thought he was snatching all of our money and such, seems a bit odd to have a couple of percent growth for so long, no?
Like I said. The Property market was the basis of the growth, and that happened regardless of Brown's action. What's odd is how this growth was squandered paying people to throw ideas about that never led to any actual improvement in the standard of living or the economic situation.

No, education has been better than it's ever been in the country...
Lawl.

... and the problems with healthcare are the same as those in most other western countries - patients are getting twattier about suing hospitals, and an increasingly large amount of them are getting older, and hence less fit, more prone to various diseases etc. etc.

We're much better equipped to handle people getting old, because immigration keeps our population fairly young compared to most of Europe.
So you wouldn't say blowing the budget on inflated and poorly managed computing systems and overpricing GP working hours to the point that I'm lucky to get an appointment in 5 days time, while turning away a huge number of trained doctors that might have been able to actually do some medical practice, under-recruiting cleaning staff that maintain basic levels of sanitation in hospitals and practically destroying NHS dentistry coverage, was a mishandling of the healthcare budget?

Aye but your issue here is that I reckon that foreclosures are not going to mount in the UK in anything like the same amount as the US. We aren't building many houses at all, and if you get off the housing market at 40, you won't be getting back on it. House prices in London regularly top a million dollars for a 3-story terraced house with even the most meagre garden in any of the richer areas. In York, you'd have trouble getting a house outside of Clifton (eugh), Acomb (eugh) or Tang Hall (mega eugh) for less than $500,000.

You can't earn enough money if you've had your house foreclosed to get on the market again if you're older than about thirty, and even then you're going to have a very expensive mortgage.

I'll agree that the UK won't see the same foreclosure rate as the US, but that's just because a lot of US mortgages are non-recourse so jingle mail is a no brainer in a lot of states.

The issue with the UK however is fundamentally the same as the US: extremely poor underwriting of mortgages. Saying that credit for housing has disappeared is wrong, it simply has gone back to the standard that it always was prior to the global credit binge; i.e. 15-20% down 36% DTI fully documented. If you meet those standards it is easy to get a mortgage in the UK. Most people don't however, and so by that standard housing is just as overpriced in the UK as a the US. (Both countries relied upon constantly appreciating house prices above a certain rate to support the lax underwriting standards, now that this has stopped, things have sort have reset).

The spectacular falls in house prices (traditionally a very stable asset class) are a function of the poor underwriting, and realistically have very little to do with what was or wasn't built in the US). They will however go on to do much further damage to the UK economy, but this can't be blamed on americans.

(Moreover the overbuilding in the US is a red herring. House prices are to do with land leverage really, not the number of houses. Since land is - for all intents and purposes - virtually limitless, US RMBS at the valuations offered were always going to be a bad bet. Stupid HBOS).

A lot of things will scupper Brown and Labor.
The oil price hike and war weariness don't go down well with the Labor rank and file. Also, the British public never took to Brown as they did with Blair. In fact, I think the only way Labor would have a chance is in the most unlikely event of Blair making a comeback and picking up a seat in a byt-election.
Why did the British public buy Blair's brand of Tory snake oil bottled as "New Labour"? I think it is because Britain is Tory at heart and Blair was the best Tory since Thatcher.
Under Blair, Britain went down the "primrose path to the everlasting bonfire." Once the going got so tough with Blair (He got sick of wearing his "I'm with stupid" t-shirt while standing next to George W) there was nowhere for a new Labour leader to go.
Maybe Gordon Brown was destined to be an adequate Chancellor of the Exchequor but a dismal PM.

Good to see consensus on Millband at least. He's like some bastard concentrate clone-child of Mandelson & Blair, powered by Turbo-Slime.