Ian H
Shaman
The UK suffered in both instances. Their actions may have helped or hindered but the fact remains that they were not in control.
Commentary that I've read suggests they made a significant difference each in their own way.
The UK suffered in both instances. Their actions may have helped or hindered but the fact remains that they were not in control.
Oh I don't know. Osborne's austerity measures in a recession were pretty devastating, whereas Brown is credited with mitigating in the UK the effects of the world banking crash.
Gordon Brown and his Chancellor , Alistair Darling, agreed on an emergency package of macro economic policies to deal with the crash. These included a cut in VAT, a substantial programme of public investment in school buildings and other projects. These measures were quickly successful and led to Britain’s economy growing 3.1% between the autumns of 2009 and 2010Wasn't it Alastair Darling rather than Brown?
Keep the expenditure off the govt. books to appease the right wing and they still whinge.Adding to the pfi disaster.
That bit has worked surely?
That one shows a choice has been made surely?
Perhaps I could have better phrased it as how you define 'worked'. Back to the tired amputation analogy, but you could say that amputating a leg for an ingrowing toenail 'worked', if your narrow definition of 'worked' is that you no longer have an ingrowing toenail.
You just need to focus on all the positive decisions that have been made. For example, farmers now need to do stuff for their money. Fishermen need to not do stuff.
From a fisherman:
“I believe it was 4 January we shipped £47,000 worth of our first shipment of largely ray and dover sole,” he says. “The first thing you have to do is be VAT registered in France. You cannot export into France without that. You’ve got to employ a French accountant to do that for you. The cost of that is £2,000 a month. That first load was held up for five days.”
It was ruined. Under a compensation scheme set up by the government as the disaster unfolded, Rutherford got £11,000 back.
“That was our first encounter,” he says. “You have got other costs: you need a health certificate that costs £85 a go. You need a transport company to do the import documents: £245 a go. So every shipment is an extra £330.
“If you ship three times a week it is a thousand quid. There are other costs. Bearing in mind we are really a husband-and-wife team, it is £70,000 right out of my back pocket. It is horrendous.”
Then there is French customs. “On a health certificate, which is 16 sheets long, you have got eight sheets in English and eight sheets in French,” Rutherford says.
“If you miss one digit of a 10-digit code, your whole shipment is condemned the other side. Since Brexit we have lost about eight loads – anything from £15,000 to £50,000.”
He adds: “A lot of merchants in the south-west of England say: ‘I just can’t do it – it is not worth exporting.’ I’ll be exporting this Friday and I will have all the costs and all the worries until I get an email on Saturday saying customs cleared.” Does he regret his vote? “One hundred per cent – anybody would.
But the UK government is looking after the fish better.