michael howard
 

just read on the net that michael howard has quit as leader of the conservitives following the election defeat, great pity labour could have stayed in power for years if he would have remained,still thats life.

Re: michael howard
 

Ladbrokes are giving odds of 150/1 on a certain P.Britcliffe replacing him as leader.

Re: michael howard
 

wouldn't put a tenner on britcliffe at 1.000,000-1 lol

Re: michael howard
 

He hasn't quit yet, but I reckon he will do within the year.

I reckon Tony Blair will go within the next 2 years.

Re: michael howard
 

what channel are you watching vorlon ive seen and heard him quit,agree about blair and hope you are correct,p.s. he said he was only staying on till certain things are sorted but basically hes history.(howard i mean)

Re: michael howard
 

As a Labour supporter the only man I fear is Ken Clarke,the names that were given out on sky news John Redwood etc etc would get no more votes than MH! They must learn like we had to that if you want to win power you must try to get the centre ground and not just appeal to their own voters!
as for TB,I agree he'll move over in a couple of years and then let Gordon Brown or who ever (they'll be others who'll want the job as well) take over in good time for the next election.

Re: michael howard
 

clarke has always been a political heavyweight and would agree wholeheartedly they need to capture the middle ground, as conservitive means conserve for oneself they might find that a bitter pill to swallow. why can't we have a bet on when blair stands down?

Re: michael howard
 

The interesting scenario is the future Blair/Brown relationship. Given the major structural weaknesses within the economy - which Brown is primarily responsible for - all the key financial indicators are now firmly pointing towards a substancial recession. Will Brown put the knife in Blair's back before that recession rolls in and move next door into number 10? Or will Blair hang on and let Brown stew in his own broth as private sector unemployment climbs remorselesly, house repocessions rise and people finally realise that Brown's stewardship of the economy has been an unmitigated disaster.

Re: michael howard
 

what are you taking tealeaf ?lol

Re: michael howard
 

I thought that was quite succintly put, personally!

Re: michael howard
 

Does this mean that Bliar has Maggie's endorsement? Perhaps he should apply for Howard's job, somehow I think they would turn him down as being too right wing. My choice as successor to Michael Howard is Boris Johnson. How could the Conservatives lose with Boris as leader?

Re: michael howard
 

Re: michael howard
 

I suggest you read something like the FT or the financial sections of our more serious newspapers, or failing that listen to the business report on Radio 4 at 6 each morning. All the signs are there - manufacturing inventories being run down, quarterly manufacturing output down, like-for-like retail sales down, housing market slowdown, repocessions already up, large job losses being announced (Rover, IBM, Marconi), small company business failures rapidly rising. Meanwhile, zero or little growth in the western part of the EU, output growth slowing rapidly in the US....

A recession is on its way- have no doubt about it.

Re: michael howard
 

come on mate rover closed down cos people had stopped buying the crappy outdated cars they produced,the job losses are tragic,but it wouldn't have mattered a jot who was in power,i think these days things are on a downturn mainly due to the technilogical deveopments that are becoming mainstream,just like 100 years ago when the automatic looms were brought in.the computor age is marvellous in some respects,but theres always a downside.

Re: michael howard
 

Exactly. All capitalist economies work in cycles of boom and downside. The problem is that Brown has claimed 50 quarters of continuous economic growth, the longest ever sustained period in UK history. His memory is somewhat faulty, however, because the first 5 years of this boom were, under conservative rule (1992-1997).

After all this time of sustained growth, Brown has to borrow the equivalent of 3.5% of GNP in order to meet the difference between tax revenue and spending, because government spending which was 34% of GNP in 1997 is now almost 40% of GNP; in other words, government spending has grown far faster than the ability of the taxpayer to pay for it.

Where is all this additional spending going? Well, its not on new hospitals and schools because most of those are PPP and off the balance sheet; to some extent its going on additional police, teachers, nurses, etc but for the most part its going on extra bureaucrats (600,000 at the last count). You have a guess at how many of these are graduates in lesbian and media studies and otherwise unemployable. If they were on the rock & roll on seventy quid a week, it would'nt be too bad; but they're not, they're pi**ing it away on 30 or 40K a year plus all the pension liability stack-up

So we're paying for this lot now by borrowing. What is going to happen when a recession starts and tax revenue falls...More borrowing? You can rule that one out straightaway, because we're already on our limit. Public sector lay-offs? Unlikely - that won't happen (not amongst bureaucrats, anyway). The only answer is a hitch in the tax rates. What happens then? Less investment and less growth and we again end up the crap hole of Europe as we were back in 1979.