Originally by: Patch86

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

Originally by: Keorythe

---

Originally by: Smith

---

But seriously it wouldnt matter if it was Brown or Cameron in charge because the economy really has little to do with them, although we the joe public seem to think they can wave a magic wand cut all the taxes and its all better.

---

Its the same in many countries. When the economy is good someone or something gets credit. When its bad its the leader's fault. I remember hearing people complain about the stimulus program and then later complain that their checks aren't coming fast enough to pay off the massive credit card bills they've racked up or other expenditures they couldn't afford in the first place. Go figure.

It would be nice if they took some responsibility for themselves.

---

You could argue that's one of the primary functions of a leader. To take the blame when the **** hits the fan, even if they weren't personally at fault. Anyway, the PM does have some measure of influence in the economy, simply by setting tax levels and interest rates.

---

He doesn't set interest rates. The Bank of England's MPC does that. The MPC is 9 members, 4 of which are selected by the Treasury, and the other 5 not. Technically he doesn't set tax either (the Treasury does, and the Chancellor doesn't have any obligation to do as the PM asks), but its probably fair to say the PM has huge influence there.


Bearing in mind there is massive economic downturn all over the world (including the USA, the "engine of the world economy") its not really fair to blame any UK individuals for it. In fact, the only suggestion that the Tory opposition have put forward as their alternative is for "better regulation"- which is odd, considering what regulation there is now (the FSA, for example) was set up under Blair & Browns first term in office (and the Tories complained about it at the time). Fact is, no-one can reasonably say what Labour could have done differently to avoid this situation.

---