If I were to be rude I'd say that my grasp of economics, however tenuous, is a clear sign that I'm not a high-flying City financier. The last thing a Forex or derivatives trader needs is a mind filled with complicated theories of macroeconomics, no they need to spend their time monitoring which direction the herd is moving so they can at least be guaranteed of matching the performance of their peers. So don't worry, I am a bona fide hopeless male pattern baldness loser
who just happens to have an unhealthy interest in economics and also, because I invest in the Stock Market, in business news in general.
Much as it pains me to do this I'll now turn my thoughts to our beloved leader (well mine, not yours).
Starting with the relatively straight-forward issue of his successor - a certain Mr. Gordon Brown, currently working from No. 11 Downing Street but residing in No. 10 (he and Blair swapped homes as No. 11 has extra living space), is as much of a sure thing for next leader of the Labour Party as you could get in politics. After so many years in opposition Labour will be desperate to maintain the facade of a united Party so, at least in the public arena, you'll have a graceful exit by Blair rather than a coup d'tat. As in so many aspects of life it's the timing that's all important and, to confuse matters, Blair will fight the '05 election on the basis of serving a full term to counter the potentially effective Tory slogan of 'vote for Blair, get Brown'. So how long will he go on for? I suspect that two years into his third term in office he'll stand aside, citing personal reasons, and the dour Scotsman will take up the reins.
You can assume from this that I have absolutely no faith in the Tories pulling themselves together to mount a serious challenge in less than a year's time. Howard is clearly an academically intelligent man but he, like William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith, has failed to offer a distinct alternative to the tax and spend policies of 'New' Labour, so why vote for them? The economy is too strong, even if it is based on Govt. and personal borrowing, to offer the Tories salvation and they've failed to address issues such as unfettered immigration, soaring violent crime, the lack of affordable housing or the appalling state of our transport system with any remotely revolutionary, or eye-catching, ideas. The most the Conservatives could hope for is to gain 70 to 80 seats to at least give them a larger pool of talent to pick from, hopefully that would include some younger, charismatic MP's with, like me, a belief in Britain's future as a strong, globally trading, yet politically independent, Nation.
So what would Brown mean for Britain? He'd be an easier target for the opposition parties, Teflon Tony can brush off minor issues like lying to Parliament but Brown lacks that salesman-like quality of Blair, so a Tory win in '09 or '10 would be far more likely. Though the public could be so tired of Labour by that stage that, no matter who is leading them, a loss would be unavoidable. Brown's main problem as PM is that he is, from what I've read, something of a megalomaniac and hence likes to micro-manage when he should be delegating, this may be possible for a Chancellor to achieve within the Treasury but not for a PM with responsibility for an entire Country. The most positive aspect of a Brown led Govt. is that he'd no longer be inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts' onto our economy - though I can't think of another Labour MP with the gravitas to be Chancellor.
That was a nice, succinct response - I'm never going to build up my posts tally at this rate, I'll stick to one word answers from now on.
Now how would Kerry fund all his spending commitments? An article in a business paper a couple of weeks back reckoned they'd exceed the additional tax revenues he'd raise by at least $500 billion after ten years, you've already got a sizeable budget deficit so what's his master plan?
Slarti