One year on...

As someone who considered Blair the best PM this country has had in my lifetime, going back to Churchill, and probably longer, I never expected Brown to be anything like as good. And he has shown that he's not.

He has certainly made some bizarre mistakes, and the media have invented a several more. However, I still think it is too soon to write him off just yet. He has been doing a lot better at PMQs lately, and has successfully (IMO) exposed Cameron's shallowness. He has begun to front some difficult and undoubtedly controversial decisions (nuclear power, wind power, 42 days, changing the law after the Davis decision, positive action on inequality and so on), and if he keeps doing that he will get rid of his 'ditherer' tag which was mainly a media construct anyway. His strategy seems now to be to contrast his willingness to confront difficult problems, and take action on them, with Cameron's seeming inability to do anything that might damage his 'cuddly' image.

It will be difficult, but I remember previous occasions where one side was 'obviously' going to lose, and went on to win (Heath v Wilson, Major v Kinnock for example). His biggest asset is undoubtedly (IMO) the weakness of the opposition; their strongest members are Hague and Clark, neither of whom were much of a success when they had their chance. The rest are very lightweight, none more so than Osborne (on his performance so far).

While there is some sympathy for leaders who are buffeted by global events they have to take some responsibility. When times are good you should save, build up a buffer so when the bad time come you have a few extras in the bank. Gordon spent during the good times and is not going to find it very difficult to dip into his pocket during the hard times.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick - Gordon Brown is the worst chancellor this country has ever had! He inherited a 'Golden Goose' and has reduced the economy to a 'Dead Duck'. This was going to happen anyway its just the credit crunch has accelerated the decline.
In 97 Ken Clarke left this economy in incredible shape, all Brown did was squander this inheritance with typical Socilaist Tax-Spend-Waste policies. He was very lucky that the world economic conditions were good for 10 years. Now he is PM his unpopularity is 100% down to the fact he ruined our economy.
I know this is hard to believe for all you left-wingers at the BBC but those are the facts!

"It is not that there is that much more he could have done given there was no money."

But why was there no money, Nick? If Brown had had the foresight to run a counter-cyclical economic policy like Spain (i.e. store up money when the times are good), then he could have done more in rougher times. And why are house prices likely to fall as much as they will? Because this government allowed them to become 30% overavlued, according to the IMF (although it isn't just the government that caused this, they didn't help - after all, why is there only a planning bill now?).

Yes, many of the economic troubles are locked up in the world economy, but were Brown allies thanking their lucky stars at having ruled throughout the NICE decade? No, he simply took all the credit.

This is not just bad economic luck. This is about Gordon Brown trying to claim every economic success but disown every economic failure. It is about him having already failed to take the right decisions long ago, in blocking school or health reform whilst at the Treasury. Everyone knew North Sea oil was running out, so why is the recent rush to nuclear energy long-term thinking? Surely long-term thinking would have been underway around the turn of the decade?

So please, I cannot stand people who constantly moan about the BBC being left wing, but on this occasion I think that you have represented the Brown line of 'bad luck' much too incritically. The current Brown malaise is not due to any bad luck, but due to bad judgement, with a healthy dose of decade-long government fatigue exacerbating the situation.

Interestingly I chose this subject to open my blog this morning and while I was writing I found myself wondering about, among other things, 42 days. It occurs that this decision may not be as unpopular as one might first think. Certainly the Human Rights issue is front and center, but how many people publicly admonish and privately praise such decisions as this? How many people shout loudly about human rights and whisper quietly about personal safety?

"Things can only get better"

Was there ever a more inspired anthem? Even more appropriate now than it was in 1997...

Brown has been in total control over the last eleven years, there is little happening now that can not be blamed on him!

It is unbelievable that Labour still blame Thatcher for some problems.

Brown and Blair had a massive majority for Eleven years, they could do anything that they wanted to!

What did they do?

Ruin the country, health, law and order, housing, utilities, transport defense and pension.


Never forget that Gordon stole your old age!

Nick

Still trying to make excuses for GB?

He was perfectly happy to take the credit for things going well, even though they mostly weren't of his making (global steady growth, credit boom, house price bubble) but wont take any of the blame or responsibility when they unravel and / or the economic cycle turns.

Still worse, every time GB has had a hard choice to make since he became Prime Minister he's taken the party political advantage route, and even then has mucked it up - early general election, Northern Rock, 10p tax, 42 days, sucking up to the City, you name it.

A successful PM needs the ability to communicate, which he lacks; he also seems to have the interpersonal skills of a warthog (apologies to any warthogs who may be reading this: no warthogs were killed or injured in writing it).

So while Cameron may be untested (as was Blair in 1997), most people have now seen enough of GB to conclude they'd rather give the other lot a go, after 11 years of broken promises and spin. At least we'll get some new broken promises to talk about, and we'd have a government no more right wing than the current lot.

Summary:

We have all seen through GB, even if you have not quite yet.

"They hope that one day their man will be given credit for those long term decisions he likes to talk of so much - expanding nuclear power, speeding up the planning system and his recent efforts to improve the working of oil markets - all designed to make us a stronger economy in the long run."


He already IS getting credit for the long term decisions that he's made - those he's made for ten years as chancellor.

He sold off the gold reserves, hid loads of debt with PFI scams, created a bank regulatory system that thoroughly failed and got us into a position where we have nothing left from the boom times to help us through the inevitable hard times.

As for what he's doing know, "speeding up the planning system" means removing the tiresome and inefficient process of being accountable to the people. His solution is to remove the need to consult local residents and decisions made by an unelected and unaccountable board.

And "improving the workings of oil markets" has mainly consisted of grovelling to a criminal cartel and despotic tyrants.


It's not just the mistakes that are the problem, it's the adamant denial that a problem exists even when everyone can see it. He behaves as if he thinks that if he denies something firmly enough, it will eventually just stop being a problem and reality will align itself with his declarations. The only places you find that kind of thinking are in governments and people who live in compounds waiting for aliens/god to collect them in the End Times.

Why would anyone trust him to fix anything else ever again?

On the nuclear power front he and his party fought tooth and nail against the industry for years,running it down stunting development and selling off valuable assets to overseas concerns.

This is not prudent , dithering has left our country open to energy blackmail our foreign run energy firms are fleecing us .

When windmills are built down the Thames in London i will then believe in the green vision but like many policy's there is no joined up thinking.For every extra kw of wind energy there has to be extra back up .
Now who in their right mind is going to build a power station to sit off line and to only provide power when the wind doesn't blow,Cumbria is one of the windiest ares of the country yet 20 % of the time there is not enough wind .It is flawed economics to run any fueled power station at below its design capacity just so we can say we have working windmills.

Mercifully, things will get better when we get a new government in 2010. However, it is is going to take a gargantuan effort to repair the damage that has been done to this country over the past ten years. Candidly, I've had enough and I am emigrating like so many others.

5. At 11:53am on 27 Jun 2008, Gingerbridgeman wrote:
"But why was there no money, Nick? If Brown had had the foresight to run a counter-cyclical economic policy like Spain (i.e. store up money when the times are good), then he could have done more in rougher times."


Maybe someone should send Brown some tickets for Joseph. The fat cows/starving cows analogy might be more his level.

Bottom line is that NuLabour didn't think it would make it into a second term, let alone beyond. And it was because of this that they set about borrowing like crazy when they had no need as money was aplenty.

As far as they were concerned, they didn't have to worry about paying it back because the next administration would.

Even during their second term they couldn't see it running into a third and so made a series of short-term money-grabbing mistakes (sold our gold and raided our pension funds etc).

Now their worst nightmares have come true - and it is they, not the Conservatives as they had planned, who are left carrying the baby.

It is too late to start talking about "the long term strategy". They should have done that in terms 1 and 2. Long term strategies need long term investment. And you can't invest when you are trying to service a £720billion debt.

"They hope that one day their man will be given credit for those long term decisions he likes to talk of so much - expanding nuclear power, speeding up the planning system and his recent efforts to improve the working of oil markets - all designed to make us a stronger economy in the long run."

Well the problem is that all he is done is talk, not made the decisions, he (and the previous Labour Government) faffed about and told the press they have been considering it for the past 11 years, and nothing has so far been done, no decisions, just more "consultation".

The Tories and Liberals are calling Brown a ditherer, and the way he is acting at present makes it look true. I know he likes looking carefully at the problems and working through them, but as PM you don’t have that chance, you need to be decisive and bold. And at present he is appearing to be neither.

"all designed to make us a stronger economy in the long run."

Stating this without any note of reservation or qualification. I presume you reckon Gordon Brown is/was a great gold trader as well!

it was always going to happen this way - it was entirely predictable, as was the credit crunch, rising oil etc.
Its a shame journalists don't seem to have the knowledge (or the guts?) to actually report the truth about the state of the economy that many people have been warning about for years (the imf has been warning the UK since 2003).

Nick I usually agree with you but...

"It is not that Gordon Brown, or indeed any politician, could have averted the economic crisis".

OK I am no economist but if he was being prudent then he should have been asking questions about impacts when sub-primes hit the US market - and presumably before a lot of "the action" was laid off to British banks. People were asking questions straight away and we all know when the US gets the flu we get pneumonia.

Even if he had missed that when things turned sour you would have expected the formal and informal apparatus (like his investment banker friends) to have prompted him to a much earlier action. Maybe he did know and put his head in the sand.

Everything else is like watching a man very carefully machine gun his feet. 10p!

My favourite though is Brown saying he would listen at roughly the same time that food prices caught the news. Largely fuelled by biofuel strategies.

I thought to myself "He wouldn't be that stupid!". But yes he would.

Woolas gets prodded by the GM companies and announces that the Government will lead a debate on GM as a solution to the food price problem. After 80% of the population showed in a consultation process they were against GM. No new information.

I am still waiting for the debate and to hear Gordon is applying for nuclear waste to be stored in his constituency.

Its looking to be a massacre at the next election. I am not sure the Tories would actually buy into it in the timescales. But if they accepted PR and the Lib Dems agreed an election strategy it would be almost beyond a bloodbath.

"Team Brown curse their economic bad luck"

Great leaders make their own luck.

In other words incompetence blames bad luck for its failings while successfull leadership prepares as much as possible for the bad times as well as enjoying the good.

No sign from Brown of any planning for an economic downturn over the last 11 years. To blame global events misses the point that Brown should have put money aside for just such a possiblility.

Nick

I see things a little differently.

The "long term decisions" you talk about may not have any impact at all - no commercial organisation is stepping forward to build nuclear plants (without a govt guarantee), nothing big will be built any time soon under the planning changes and Mr Brown's attempt to improve the working of oil markets is farcical

On the other hand, the decisions Mr Brown makes which have had an impact are all short term political calculations - the election which wasn't, the inheritance tax change, the income tax base rate change, 42 days ... etc etc.

I think people realise that Mr Brown's actions are intended mainly to improve his own political position rather than the lot of the general public.

'Bad economic luck'? Are Team Brown taking the Mickey Bliss? The current problems have been the horizon for around 18 months now, and a more competent then-chancellor, now-PM had the opportunity in order to batten down the hatches and make their own luck in this climate.

A decade of New Labour increasing the public sector, spend-spend-spend attitude and Browns predilection for Enron-style accounting practices to fudge his economic cycle and PPI expenditure have been the foundation for this mess.

From Blair's era of smoke and mirrors, we now have smoke and fire - hardly an improvement. We now have a PM who aspires to averageness, and for whom competency is a long, winding journey with little hope of a destination.

In some ways it reminds me of Majors government, only of course John Major ran away from the circus whereas Brown thoughtfully brought the clowns along with him for the ride.

I'd hoped Brown would be a statesman, although his ability to disappear whenever something went wrong during the Blair tenure ought to have highlighted otherwise, so instead we got a obstinate study in denial.

Sadly I can't things being improved much when Blair 2.0 (Tory Edition) smarms into Number 10.

They blame inflation on the credit crunch and oil prices. Interestingly inflation (Real Retail Price Index not the "Conceal Price Increases index ") has been higher since December 2006 well before the oil price rises, than at any time in the last Tory Government.

Yvette Cooper was in denial on Question Time last night and she is supposed to be First Secretary to the Treasury. A clear case of at least 2 Ministers promoted well beyond their ability.

The chickens have come home to roost at Farmer Brown's hen barn. What a mess we are in.

To be a strategist you have to plan ahead of your time concentrate on future needs.Gordon Brown is like a cricket captain moving the fielders around after the last shot.

Nuclear power try finding out who is to invest and build these where the specialist staff are.
Let me help they are in India and the east
building plants commissioned years ago.
Wind power is a dubious one not sure the economics work must be why Shell pulled out!
The investors being sought are not in the Eu
but oil/export rich wealth funds.Great strategy giving control of energy to those outside of your sphere of influence.
Flawed thinking based on a lack of funds due to waste and inefficiency spawned of Gordon Brown's need to evaluate every option.This is not leadership this is self
indulgence trying to restore credibility. It doesn't work strong decisions would be no new nuclear deterrents no waste on 2 carriers that we can't afford the planes for!

I am sorry the anniversary is about Gordons
future but it should be about ours. He has no mandate is unelected and the best way
forward is to let the people decide who they want as their leader not the labour party

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Many British people are simply directed by the media. Yes Gordon Brown has made some bad mistakes but to suggest that he is responsible for the over-audaciousness of Hedge Funds in the US mortgage market is nonsense. Even the most skilled risk analysts, usually the most pessimistic of commentators, did not foresee how bad the credit crunch would be this time 12 months ago. The mistakes Brown has made are the 10p tax, the inheritance tax and most of all, the election dithering. Had he not allowed speculation to mount during conference season he would have won it. He made the cardinal sin by allowing Cameron, then a beleagured leader, and a far less talented one in every respect, to regain the stump with his, admittedly excellent oratory skills. This combined with mistakes and incredibly bad luck has allowed right wing newspapers to present a situation where Britain is supposedly in crisis. Within two years the credit crunch will be over. British people will then decide whether to trust the man who presided over its recovery (when in fact he will have done no such thing) or a lightweight Blair clone who within months will alienate vast portions of his traditional party base. For the record, I do not believe either Brown or Cameron are particularly good PMs. However, while one was an excellent minister (something that history and cooler heads will prove) the other is a posturing poster boy with little or no substance behind his fancy talk

This post feels like:

a) the first bit is Nick's opinion about the situation, and then

b) a regurgitated piece of spin by Stephen Carter and mates who want to shape the media agenda and draw the sting of the Electorate's criticisms.

It seems as though we're supposed to go "ah, diddums" and ignore the fact that this version of events is plainly not credible.

What we have here is what the Administration's inner circle think. What strikes me is how out of touch they are, and the extent to which the Electorate is waking up to spin, and no substance.

The upside (I hope) is a more savvy Electorate which will ask pointed questions of any potential Representative.

The whole situation could well "tip" to a catastrophic defeat at the next GE.

U3254125 Wrote

"...It is unbelievable that Labour still blame Thatcher for some problems...."

Quite legitimate to do so. 18 years of government is inevitably going to have a strong influence on the state of this country.

For example the countries infrastructure being damaged because of miserly underspending to fund tax cuts to win elections. The destruction of British industry because of her ideological quest to smash the unions.

I didn't approve of labour left who were unwittingly Thatchers greatest allies. then there was putting people on the sick to massage unemployment figures. Many people now think that was labours doing. but it wasn't(source panarama).

Labour has spent money upgrading the infrastructure. Now its 'Can we go back to our tax cuts now?" from the southerners who have the only votes that count in our voting system.

You have the current government, more information and media that often seems to be friendly to your cause.

We only have history to judge the Conservatives. Who's line seems to be "Give us a try, we might be ok, you never know!". In truth they will be more of the same except slightly nastier.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone thinks Gordon Brown was a good Chancellor. He presided over massive house price inflation and permitted that to fuel huge increases in personal debt, at the same time making huge increases in public debt, in order to drive current expenditure (or growth as he proudly calls it). Inflation was held down by big reductions in import prices from China and elsewhere. It was an insane bubble economy that was bound to burst under pressure sooner or later. So, take away his Iron Chancellor cloak and the King is left naked. If he had had the humilty to accept a stint at the Home Office and the Foreign Office to broaden his experience he might have had more to offer as PM, but, on the other hand, it didn't help Sunny Jim Callaghan. Gordon's failings go back 11 years, his shortcomings are not a recent phenomenon about 10p tax and sub-prime mortgages, he's just not up to it and never has been.

"Blair the best PM this country has had in my lifetime, going back to Churchill"

I think you're confusing "Best" with "most dishonest".

Look, when are we going to have a proper debate about oil (and generally market) speculators? It's all very well Gordo muching about at Opec but oh no, we can't go messing with the markets, can we?

Not even when they're sloshing cash in and out of bubbles they create all over the place and making all "normal" people's life misery...

It's time to rein in the suits. Preferably using imprisonment.

Nick,

Like many people I have been sadly disappointed by Gordon Brown's first year. As an intelligent man, I had hoped for someone who would properly tackle and articulate the issues facing the country while not indulging in shallow politicking like the 'snap' election, or stunts like having Mrs T for tea.

However, no matter how bad he has been, we can be confident that David Cameron and his team would be no better. They shy away from any hard decisions, content to conjure up straw men such as their 'Broken Britain' to which their solutions are as predictable as they are inadequate.

If I was Gordon Brown, the desperate opinion polls ought perhaps to be forgotten about. He could see the polls instead as liberating. There is no turning them around, there is no point in appeasing or pandering to audiences such as the Daily Mail or News Corp. He can't turn them around so don't try.

He has some talented cabinet ministers, he also has maybe 18 months at most to craft some decent strategies for improving life in this country, without resorting to the mistakes of the Blair govt. So why not try and really engage with problems properly without worrying about reviving doomed opinion polls?

He probably won't of course. Sadly.

Blair's indulgence in supporting the illegal and unjustiied version of Iraq was the fist nail in Labour's coffin. Gordon Brown is busy screwing down the lid. Worse, though the indulgence of right wing policies and his enjoyment of being PM mean that Brown will ensure that we are all permanently shafted under a Tory government.

#17 dr_johnm: "the imf has been warning the UK since 2003."

It would have been nice to see some evidence to support that statement. Here's some from last month's IMF report: ":"For over a decade, the United Kingdom has sustained low inflation and rapid economic growth - an exceptional achievement. More recently, the economy grew by 3 percent in 2007, and inflation returned to target after a temporary elevation. All this is the fruit of strong policies and policy frameworks, which provide a strong foundation to weather global shocks."

Perhaps the IMF in 2003 got it wrong, and now see the error of their ways? In any event, I would like 'dr_johnm' try to square his statement with what the IMF actually are saying.

While I'm on, can I just challenge the frequently repeated line summarised as 'not mending the roof while the sun was shining', or some similar folksy analogy. To fall into the same sort of over-simplification of a complex area, perhaps I can suggest an alternative. You have a business that depends on machinery to keep you competetive; now if you find that your kit is run down, and you have some spare cash, do you put the money in the bank for a rainy day, or spend it to replace your plant? Getting back to the real world, given the run-down state of our infrastructure in 1997 (transport, education, health, the police etc etc) it was entirely sensible to spend money to invest in the future, rather than either save it or cut taxes. And it worked (though you wouldn't think so from either this board or from the scandal-obsessed media).

Personally I think that letting GB take over the labour party is the best thing they have done since gaining power.

At least now they dont have the charismatic king of spin in charge to hide all the blundering gaffes they keep making.

Keep him in charge, at least then we're guarenteed a Conservative government next time round!

@27, dhwilkinson

Labour have had 11 years to reverse the Tories reductions in the nations infrastructure, so its really not reasonable at all to keep blaming the Tories.

Moreover, there gets to a point where the problem isn't lack of funds but how those funds are used. I've worked with Councils, the NHS and the Fire Service and the vast amounts of waste beggars belief.

I expected a certain amount of wastage, but the real amount - most notably in the NHS - shocked me to the core.

So, yes I want to see tax cuts - ones funded by removing the wastage and dead wood in the public sector which can be done whilst actually improving services.

>>It is not that there is that much more he could have done given there was no money.

The important question here is "How can an allegedly self-proclaimed prudent Chancellor leave himself with *NO MONEY* when he became a PM ?" If he was truly prudent, then there should have been lots of money in the kitty !!

The only answer I can think of is that he threw away masses of money on wild, crazy, politically-motivated, unwise schemes like those horribly failed IT projects that left him having to borrow to the hilt when the times were good and, now that the times are bad, he has no more money to hand out !! The billions/trillions he wasted there could have allowed him to cut the taxes on fuel by a massive amount !!

He did exactly the *reverse* of what Joseph advised the Pharaoh to do - save for a rainy day !!

Never mind the spin-doctoring and the hype. The facts and figures show him up as one of the worst Chancellors in history !! And he has carried his skills, or lack thereof, into his Prime Ministry !!

Come back, Mrs Thatcher !! We desperately need you now !!

Base_Experience, any attempt to regulate the UK market will merely mean the speculators will move to pastures new.

Any suggestions at how we'd implement UK regulations in, say, Wall Street?

Or are we forgetting the markets are a little wider reaching than the UK government?

Hi Nick, I think the PLP and labour party managers should take a lot of the blame for what has happened in the first year of the Brown premiership. By ensuring that GB has a free run in the leadership vote we saw a coronation rather than a contest. In doing so they prevented the debate of ideas which an incumbent party needs from time to time.

The Labour Party has only to look over to the US to see how the Democrats rather than crown Clinton had a long drawn out election that did get bitter at times but got all the ideas and skeletons out in the open and excited and energised the electorate. Her in the UK we had a series our dour unexciting speeches by Gordon Brown of which the only fact I remember is that he liked Gazza's goal agaisnt Scotlant in Euro 96. Had someone in the Labour party been challenging economic policy a lot earlier gaffes like the £0.10 tax row could have been prepared for.

The line of Labour MP's looking at their majorities with one eye on the Guardian jobs supplement must be kicking themselves for taking the easy option a year ago and enduring the slow painfull death of the administration.

Its fascinating to see the different perspectives from different people but ultimately all people agree that Gordon Brown has been a bad Prime Minister. What I fail to see, however, is a great deal of discussion about what the alternatives are. Some people have rightly commented on the prospect of having Cameron in power. The Conservatives seem to be taking the classic stance of all oppositions throughout history, which is to attack the government's policies without really having any positive policies of their own. "Ask not what we can do for you, but what they can't do for you".

If we are to see any kind of revival in this country then it needs to start at the top. Enough of the constant bashing of one another in order to score points with constituents. Lets have some honest and above all constructive debate about real issues. Both parties need to take responsibility for the state of the country; they have both made their share of mistakes that over time have most certianly contributed. But why is it so difficult for our politicians to build a coalition on ANYTHING? Surely the current problems faced by this country should go beyond political game-playing and questions of "who messed things up worse?".

I genuinely believe that the politics practised in this country is not about running the country but about winning, or more accurately, the other guys losing. Its a petty playground squabble on a national scale and until it is resolved nothing positive is likely to get done. It may be that my perception is wrong, but is it not the perception that is important, and how many other people feel as I do?

Apologies for the double-post.

To Frank-Castle no.35:

I agree completely that there is a massive problem in the public sector with wastage and I suspect that a huge amount of money is disappearing through the ridiculous beaurocracy that this country seems so fond of. Perhaps this is something that the government should be looking at more closely instead of wasting even more money on the ridiculous new ammendments to the equality legislation. How many millions of our hard-earned pounds are being squandered on this?

I still think that the majority of people in this country would still vote Labour if Brown gets his house in order because I dont think people like DC at all and are only voting tories to punish the government, not to commend DC. A year is a long time in politics (as we have seen!) and dont be surprised if Brown manages to get back up in the polls.

# 39 TeaBeam

I totally agree with you with respect to politics being practised primarily as a slug-fest between Labour and and Tories, to the detriment of the wider country.

I believe that post-2010, we will be in a totally new political framework within England.

It will be a very distorted political picture in England because there will probably be a huge number of Tory MP's, a lesser amount of Lib-Dems, the rump of whatever is left of Labour and a few others.

This obviously will not be a very healthy outcome in England but nevertheless, I expect that within a few years you will see the emergence of new political entities, such as the English Democrats, whom I have mentioned before.

I expect the economic cycle will start to revive sround 2011/12 so all-in-all I think we English have got quite a lot to look forward to.

My advice is to stay sanguine about the dying days of the political entity 'Britain', New Labour et al and look forward to better times.

Every dog has its day, and the aforementioned have had theirs.

I think you are skirting the real reason for Gordon's demise - the EU referendum. Whilst deep-down most people know Gordon can't fix global oil, global food or the US mortgage market (anymore than Cameron can) - he could - and should - have kept his manifesto promise on an EU referendum. It was there the first promise was broken, and it was there we saw the failure of nerve to argue his case and trust the people. Politicians can get away with mistakes, events and bad-luck. They don't get away with deliberately saying one thing to get elected and then reneging on it.

1. jimbrant

Not actually a bad summary of things, though a tad glossy in part is my view.

Much of Browns wows have, to be fair, not really been of his making, the global down turn and huge rises in certain commodities have certainly been way beyond his control.

Blair was a PR man to me, being better than Churchill made me smile a little.

We forget that we as a nation were so fed up of spin and PR from the Blair team that most of us wanted a good dose of dour pragmatism and principle. Well I did. But It hasn’t worked. People want to see inspirational leadership and a promise to listen and learn followed by an expensive review by some Quango.

He promised renewal and hasn’t delivered. (Id actually forgotten that term)

Perhaps we should have spotted it before, but no inspirational leader sits in the wings for 10 years; waiting for his turn to have a go, but now hes had it and he has failed. If he has any sort of honor he would resign and let the party really renew. If hes waiting for the benefits from such long term projects like nuclear power, fighting inequality and 42 day his plan, then you must right him off now. (wasn’t fighting inequality a promise in 1992)
Anyhow the media sense blood and that pack just cant be stopped. We saw that with Major.

Every Labour government has left office broken by an economic crisis. Brown and Blair initially gave priority to destroying Labours reputation as a party of high taxation and devaluation. However, much less noted is that Brown inherited a very prudent official policymaking machine from the Tories. He also stuck to Tory spending plans for the first 2 years. Hence his reputation for prudence. But the old tendency to tax, spend and waste emerged.

My take is that as chancellor he just wasn’t as prudent as some claim. He therefore has no room for maneuver now the tough times have arrived. If he had been as tough on waste as well as being determined to improve public services he would have reduced debt or even accumulated a surplus to ease us through these difficulties

All he can do now on an economic level is reduce spending or increase taxation or find some waste to cut away. But he definitely should have laid down a little more fat for winter.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Frank Castle@35

11 years isn't actually enough to solve all the long term problems of our poor infrastructure investment over the conservatives 18 years in power.

The railways and public transport are probably a good example. Mrs T. Didn't believe in them. She thought we should all be driving cars. That perception now being the norm in this country is bad enough. But the problems of putting right problems from underinvestment and the lack of any long term goals in this area and a botched privatisation. Of this very long term industry has left this country miles behind. At a cost to this country.

Labour haven't done enough for fear of offending Middle England either. So tories still cause economic problems even when they are out of office.

I know this point has been made before, but still, I feel it's worth making again.

Gordon takes the credit for steering the economy prudently during the time of plenty (did he in fact? Personal indebtedness etc...), but the downturn has been caused by international factors beyond his control - so not his fault, he's just very unluckly it's happening on his watch as PM. But surely the boom was a global one too over which he had little influence...

NO:1 jimbrant
Osborne light weight? You forget Sir it was Georgie boy's tax policies he stole for the last budget. Difficult decisions! He has got a 67 seat majority so what's so difficult let's see 42 days mmm gave everything away including the family jewels to buy the vote of the Irish bejasus if it's not the Scots it's Welsh Labour depend on to get their policies through. No doms, Business tax they are so busted they have not one policy of their own. Nuclear it's taken them 11 years to make the decision. Windmills not enough turbines to supply the project only one boat in the World that can erect them and 2 to be erected every day until 2020 to bring it online. You can just hear the excuses now IT WAS NOT ME, IT WAS NOT ME they conspired against me how dare others want these supplies as well. What a Muppet.

#40 TeaBeam: "I suspect that a huge amount of money is disappearing through the ridiculous beaurocracy [sic] that this country seems so fond of."

You are probably right that there is a lot of waste, but it's not quite so easy as you suggest to get rid of it. Remember the old saw from business? - " I know that 50% of my spend on advertising is wasted. But which 50%?". All you can be fairly sure of is that in any big organisation there will be waste.

However, you seem to see this as peculiarly a problem for 'this' country, and the evidence there is not obvious. To take just one example, the proportion of the NHS's spending on bureaucracy (note sp!), ie management, is 3.6%. In Canada it is 10%, and in the USA 17%.

The usual response to this is, of course, "Ah! - but we don't believe the figures - nobody trusts this government (but we did the Tories when the equivalent figure was 5%) - everybody knows etc etc.". Just occasionally somebody comes up with some evidence, and that's a nice change whichever side of the argument they are coming from.

Prudence, what prudence? Certainly not being prudent when you dip your hands in the kitty leaving nothing for a rainy day... and selling Gold to Del-Boy.

Sorry Gordon a politician you may be but a leader you are certainly not, the Chuckle Brothers could do a better job.

Yet again a Prime Minister is only as good as the cabinet, I would certainly have wanted to start with a clean slate.... getting shut of all the 'iffy' dealings that I find strange, very strange that you appear to be not aware of, the problem being you persevered with all the deadwood, this explains why so many bogus ideas and U-turns originating from No.10.

Whats more, I never even got to vote for or against Gordon Brown. Labor has had it's day.

You've done it again Nick. You've assumed it's all to do with the economy.

You forget ...
his contempt for the electorate,
the false start general election,
the broken referendum promise,
the missing data,
buying favours to win the 42 day vote,
Northern Rock,
Not allowing a free vote on the embryology bill,
Signing the Lisbon treaty in a back room on his own,
Not putting up a candidate against David Davis,
his patronising attempts at Public Relations (nice smile!),
his copy cat policies,
his shameless use of the troops for during the conservative conference

Not a bad list for just 1 year in office. That's why we disdain him so much. I might forgive him some of the economic stuff given the global climate, but the rest of the list is of his own doing (or undoing).

Meanwhile, a YouGov opinion poll for the Daily Telegraph suggests Labour has closed the gap on the Tories over the past month.

#5 - absolutely right.

Gordon's biggest mistake has been to assume that he did actually reinvent the laws of supply and demand and vanquish the economic cycle.

By spending spending spending his legacy is one of debt, inexcusable against a background of 16 years of uninterupted growth.

"It is not that Gordon Brown, or indeed any politician, could have averted the economic crisis."

Really, Nick? To me that's self-evidently untrue as he's personally responsible for most of the economic problems we've got at the moment in the uk, and the same logic applies to some other countries such as the US.

Yes, there's a global downturn, but the impact of that could have been massively reduced almost to the point of not even noticing it nationally if he'd been running the economy properly for the last 11 years.

He was the person who made/managed/oversaw all the rules regarding the financial markets; he was the one who personally allowed all the dodgy trading/business to continue here in the UK even though he was warned against it. He was the one who was on-watch when Northern Rock got away with years of management based on totally unsound principles; he saw it all happening, was warned against it over and over, and just did what he could to make things even worse.

He transferred the responsibilities for policing it about without thinking between different government quangos and generally mucked it all up leaving us with virtually no useful financial oversight.

While doing all this, despite being in a long global boom he still managed to spend more money than he received from the tax payer, and in doing that even managed to not significantly improve the end-services.

"It is not that there is that much more he could have done given there was no money."

Really, Nick, and who's fault was it that there's no money left? And could he really do nothing to fix the economy? If that's the case then why do we have a PM/Chancellor at all if they can't do anything?

Do they/you not understand basic economics?

There are 100's of things they could do to fix things.

You should swot up on basic economics, Nick, because your topic displayed an unbelievable lack of understanding (or bias) of the situation.

Those posters who in Brown's defence still point to his "success" as Chancellor seem not to consider his influence upon our national savings. By his successive tax grabs on pension funds, PEP dividends etc together with his obsession with means tested benefits and tax credits, he presided over, nay orchestrated, the destruction of the savings and thrift which had put this country into a good position to weather economic storms such as that the world is now experiencing. What, after all, is the point in striving to save for old age when the tax man grabs it? Many current pensioners, who did the right thing and saved hard for retirement, are now in fuel poverty because Gordon Brown raided their pension funds and reduced the amount they subsequently received. Some record to be proud of!

Gordon Brown is a dreamer, who may well have good intentions, but he is out of his depth in government, let alone running it, and would have served his country better by following his father's footsteps into the Ministry. I don't mean one in Whitehall!

#44 : RussellHolmstoel"Blair was a PR man to me, being better than Churchill made me smile a little."

Churchill was IMO a great war leader because he could inspire people with wonderful speeches, and make them ignore much of the reality. In other words, and in today's argot, he was a master of spin. However, many of his actual decisions were not so great and cost a lot of lives. And more to the point, he was pretty much a failure as a peacetime PM - perhaps because he was just too old.

You may not be aware that Churchill's almost god-like reputation was not universally shared in this country. The 'working class' in the North held him in much lower esteem both during and after the war. (I speak from personal experience).

The problem with Gordon Brown is that during his chancellorship he announced 3-4 year plans on Tax rises and now he is PM the tax rises have come home to roost.

He should have realised that the Soviet Union and other communist countries failed because they had a bankrupt system with their 5 year plans but brown arrogantly ignored this.

# 49

Maybe a better question than arguing the toss about the percentage spend on 'management' is this :

Why does a small country on the edge of Europe have a organisation, namely the NHS, which is the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railway.

On the surface, that does seem very odd but maybe somebody has a plausible explanation.

#48 rockyhippo: "Osborne light weight? You forget Sir it was Georgie boy's tax policies he stole for the last budget."

Well no, he didn't actually, though that is what the Tory propaganda machine would have you believe. If anything it was the other way round, I suspect. The opposition probably knew that the Treasury had been working on 'non-dom' taxation, and decided to get their retaliation in first. Unfortunately for Osborne he then got the sums all wrong, and thought he would get an order of magnitude more money from that tax than was likely - and he based his proposed tax giveaways on stamp duty and inheritance tax on that error.

The government's change to inheritance tax and stamp duty bore no relation to that proposed by Osborne, and were simply a continuation of a series of changes (I think I read that there were 5 or 6 previous tweaks) to keep the level in line with changing circumstances, especially house prices and tax dodges available to the well-off but not to the poorer members of society.

My opinion, on the evidence so far, is that Osborne is very lightweight. I sometimes think that his main value for Cameron is to make him look good by comparison. But I might someday be proved wrong.

@46, dhwilkinson

I disagree - 11 years is plenty of time. And if you want to go down the route of 'blame the previous incumbent', lets not forget the Tories had the utter mess Labour managed to create in the 70's. We could do that dance all day long, and it was nothing but a poor excuse when the Tories trotted it out in the 90's, and its nothing but a poor excuse now.

Fact is, Labour inherited an economy on the mend, an era of low-inflation growth and a wealth of goodwill by a public sick of the Tories. They had the political ability to do anything married to unprecedented good economic conditions. And they frittered it away.

You point out to public transport - what happened to the 10 year plan? Where'd that get to? Still stuffed in Tracey Temples lingerie drawer, where Prescott left it, presumably?

Public transport is one area where Labour can be truly be brought to task, true the Tories botched the privatisation (something Major should hang his head in shame over), but Labour had the opportunity to fix most of it, yet actually made it worse (unless you're a pensioner of leisure of course).

Nick,
I'm not sure why my #45 entry was blocked, so here we go again. It seems that the scales have almost fallen from your eyes. I actually think that Gordon Brown is fundamentally a decent man. However, I disagree with his ideology and I don't think he really understands how markets work and that ultimately they can't be manipulated. His mistake has to bve surround himslef with callow youths such as the Ed Balls and Andrew "Call me Andy" Burnham. These young man are dazzled by celebrity and don't understand that politics is a serious business. And we need to accept that politics should be dull, not dazzling. That way fewer mistakes would be made. Meanwhile, it's probably over for GB; he is in Darwin's waiting room.

33. jimbrant

The warnings started in 2005. Well that’s the first I saw of them.

Early in that year The IMF warned that the Government would have to increase taxation by 12bn per annum to prevent a crisis in the public finances without huge spending cuts. This was the equivalent to 3.5p on the basic rate of income tax

They urged the UK to cut spending over the coming parliament. The Treasury disagreed with the IMF on the forecasts. If I recall correctly GB got the projections on growth about right but revenues were well short. Their last report in May was much more positive.

The rub at that moment is that the government, with the IMFs agreement, is that holding down pay is part of the solution. Given that the real cost of living for some has gone through the roof. Its hurting.

Some fat right now would be helpful, it would ease the pain.

I can see you are going to be in for a busy day Jim, especially with that too old comment.

Ill try to catch up later

Whilst the current world economic crisis is just that - a world crisis. Brown's policies over the last 10 years has certainly contributed to making the crisis far more severe in Britain than most other places. Selling Gold at the lowest price it had for years; preventing the BoE including house prices in its inflation control - hence causing hyper-inflation of houses; profligate spending during a boom, building huge debts and leaving no room for borrowing during the ensuing bust; masking unemployment by creating armies of civil service bureaucrats all of whom have pensions that we will still be paying in 40 years time; raiding everyone's pension year on year; massive tax hikes; etc.

Also, some of the more cynical policies are frustrating. Promising a referendum on the european constitution and then refusing it. Trying to scare the hell out of everyone and introducing lots of anti-human rights laws which then get misused, all at a time when the terrorist threat to the UK is well below what it was in the 80s. Who can forget an old heckler at the labour conference being removed under terrorism legislation, or people's bins being monitored under terrorism legislation, or anti-war protestors being arrested under terrorism legislation.

Brown has been a disaster, as both chancellor and PM, it will be great to see him go.

So it's the economy.

We could have a strong economy as we had in the last 11 years, and yet although we had a stronger Sterling, the Dollar was also stronger then what it is today. In fact, value for value, (Sterling vis a' vis the Dollar), is the same as it was say 5 years ago.

Some people are omitting the fact that if we had a strong currency in a global slowdaown we would then have big problems exporting our goods, = higher unemployment. UK exports order books (although not full) are actually better then the rest of the EU, partly due to the weaker Sterling.

We need to keep in mind, that in a global slowdaown, from America all the way to the East, an economy should have the tools in place to keep employment as high as possible, because during such times very high unemployment would be the curse of an economy. High unemployment dries up any extra in the coffers, that would be required to inject into the economy, to stimulate growth when the black clouds start to shift, (if they shift.) At the moment, even if a budget has a surplus, like that of Germany, it would be unwise to inject money in circulation, as this would have an adverse effect on inflation, especially when there is imported inflation on an unprecedented scale as we have at the moment.

That was one of the reasons why back in the 80s and 90s, we had years of higher taxes and constant cuts in services, because the economy could not generate sufficient wealth to take on more workers, and therefore sufficient tax revenues to run the country. Injecting money now to stimulate growth = self inflicted inflation. Those days are over.

The only solution that other EU countries are coming up with, is cuts and more cuts in services, cancellation of major projects, reduction in certain subsidies etc. The next on their agenda is the introduction of fees for services like Health Care to control expenditure even further. Sometimes one wonders why the media are so economical with news from around the world!

The Global economic problems have just started. If we do not belt up, the capitalist system that we want and enjoy is going to fail us, and whether we like it or not, we would have to endure the hard times of the thirties for the second time.

At this stage I believe that belting up is the only way forward, whoever is or might be in office.

Never mind media influence, PMQs, Question Time etc

People can see for themselves that the economy is teetering: friends losing jobs, increased prices, increased taxes.....

But the really scary thing to me is the true level of PFI debt. If the Conservatives manage to gain power at the next election, they must declare to the country (if the UK actually still exists) the exact figure of debt.

Sadly I think the lesson from the last year is that British politics requires a strong, charismatic media manager in the PMs chair, with a brain and an 'enforcer' behind them (Blair/Brown/Mandleson). This change started in the later years of the Thatcher administration - Neil Kinnock didn't spot it and neither did John Major, nor a host of hard-to-like Tories who followed.

Unforunately Labour have made a grave mistake; confused what the public told them with what they wanted. Brown's best hope if for the Tories to rediscover the self-destruct button (step forward David Davies/Boris Johnson)...

@49, jimbrant

Actually it'd be pretty basic to remove quite a lot of the waste.

In the public sector there is a large amount of incompetence at management level married to a lack of responsibility and ownership of projects, which ensure projects overrun both in time and budget.

Managers frequently don't understand what their staff do, or have the relevant knowledge to properly manage projects meaning those projects are doomed from day 1.

Frontline staff usually are asked to use new technology with minimal training and incomplete basic IT skills.

Inbetween these are staff, contractors and third parties who start of with the best of intentions, and eventually just see all their hard work wasted and give trying to do a good job.

Bringing in some Private Sector nous (*not* privatisation), proper training and booting out some of the useless management would do wonders.

#44, #56

Churchill was indeed the king of spin. He manipulated his reputation very adroitly. He allegedly said "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it".

In those days, of course, you could get away with that. Nowadays TV and the Internet make it much more difficult, as Mr and Mrs Blair have found.

GB, however, can't even do spin properly. And as far as I know he has never said anything remotely quotable or amusing...

#58 JohnConstable: "Why does a small country on the edge of Europe have a organisation, namely the NHS, which is the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railway."

Well you might as well ask why the country with the fifth (I think) biggest economy in the world should not have the third biggest organisation in terms of employees. Perhaps it's just that the UK is the most civilised nation on earth, and puts a lot of resources into looking after the wellbeing of its people.

BTW, I have seen similar statements to this before, and I'm not sure that they are correct. Not that it would make any real difference to your argument if it turned out that (for example) the Indian and/or North Korean armies were bigger, of course.

#58

"Why does a small country on the edge of Europe have a organisation, namely the NHS, which is the third largest employer in the world, after the Chinese Army and the Indian Railway."

Actually the NHS is an umbrella term for over 10,000 employers all serving a common goal, that of providing cost effective healthcare for 60 million people through funding organised by the state.

eg GPs and their staff are actually not NHS employees but contractors.

The NHS doesn't always work as well or as cost-effectively as it ought (often because of political interference and constant reorganisation), but at least they are trying to do so.

If you put all the healthcare staff in Germany or the USA together in this way I would risk a small wager they would total more than the NHS headcount.

Brown is a decent, honourable man with a much truer sense of right and wrong than his predecessor. However he is not Prime Minister material and never was – Peter Mandleson was spot on when he advised Brown and Blair that Tony was the natural choice to succeed John Smith.

What a shame that Brown could not be content to be one of the best Chancellors of the 20th Century. Never has the quote "a man ought to know his limitations" been more appropriate.

#52 Onlywayup
Meanwhile, a YouGov opinion poll for the Daily Telegraph suggests Labour has closed the gap on the Tories over the past month.
-------------------------

You have forgotten to add the following from that survey/report;

But 61% of those surveyed thought Gordon Brown was a liability to the party, compared to 21% when he came to power a year ago.

Last year, 62% thought Labour would win the next general election, but that has dropped to 16% while 67% now think that the Conservatives are on course for victory, the poll suggests.

Economic with the truth - Well I guess that’s what NuLabour do best after spin, deceit and lies!

#63 dave_h: "..... the crisis far more severe in Britain than most other places."

evidence?

"Team Brown curse their economic bad luck"

Team electorate curse their economic incompetence.

What has disappointed me, are the comments of people close to Blair such as Lord Levy. They come across as anti-Brown because they were pro-Blair. I have nothing against labour people critisising the leader if they think he is bad for the country but it should be done privately.

Having said that, if someone won't listen privately, then you have to go public! I just question the motives of Lord Levy and what he wanted from politics.

I would like an explanation of where the money went in the good times. If it was spent on health, education, etc then it will silence a lot of people.

#67 Frank-Castle: I've worked in both the private and public sectors, and the difference in terms of waste is negligible in my opinion. Overall, I found a higher level of competence among public sector managers (though not all of them!). In fact one of my problems when bringing in a manager from the private sector to 'my' public sector organisation was finding anyone who had the ability to handle the relatively much greater complexity involved. To generalise, the problems were a lot harder.

Going back to the figures I quoted last time: the NHS (public) 3.6% spent on management/bureaucracy, the USA health system (private) 17% spent on management/ bureaucracy. Those figures tend to support my position rather than yours, I think, though of course there are always problems in comparing very different structures.

Happy anniversaty Gordon. Good luck, you need it!!!

Just back from coffee where the Western daily Press had three items that pretty much sum up the state of things.

1 You probably heard this morning that a Bristol market stall holder was raided by snoopers from the Dept of Ag etc, (too long to rememeber). They weighed his Kiwifruits (he's got 5000) and some of them were about 4gm under the permitted EU standard Kiwfruit. (this is nothing to di with kiwilegs byt he way).

So if he tried to sell them he would be committing a criminal offence. Even more stupid, if he tried to give them away he would ALSO be committing a criminal offence. So he has to dump 5000 perfectly good fruits.

You couldn't make it up.

2 A journalist was approached by a woman whose four children are being taken into care. She spoke to him then did a runner with the girls.

The police broke down his door and arrested him together with confiscating his computer and notebooks believing he knows where they are.

I suppose he's lucky. He could have ended up with several bullets in the head, or arrested under the Terrorism Act.

3 Finally and very sadly a 92 years old man committed suicide the day after the budget, surrounded by papers open at the pages covering the budget. Apparently he was really worried how he was going to manage, only put his heating on for short periods through the winter and thought the best way out was to kill himself. And here was a man who fought through the war.

Is this the Britain we want to live in? If I feel depressed these three stories sum up why.

Thank God its Friday - Parliament doesn't meet over the weekend.

Nick: "And yet even when it comes to the economy, apparently Gordon Brown's strongest suit, mistakes have been made again and again".

Yeah Nick mistakes have been made since 1997. The problem is if you keep on repeating spin you begin to believe it. Look back at the reality: Pensions (your future) raided. Except if you are in Govt - then the cost went up. Gold sold off cheap, 3G windfall waste.

And where has the money gone? Mostly into inefficient Government. Why don't you tell us the increase in the cost of government over the last 10 years Nick?

Long term decisions? Yeah wait until oil price goes over $100/b and then think about it. Nuclear dither. Wind power? Has anyone told the government that sometimes it doesn't blow? Hence whatever you build for wind has to be backed up by a reliable source!

I note the legislation machine is in full tilt - undoing the legislative mistakes of the last few years.

The real problem is the Govt has/had no clever people and, albeit too late, the voters are now realising the fact.

Nick herewith a quote from GB on the Henley result (from the BBC) :

Giving his reaction to the result, Mr Brown, who is on a visit to Manchester, said: "By-elections come and by-elections go and of course we will listen to what people say."

The people are demonstrably saying GO, but will he listen? of course he will! and the moon is made of cheese.

From the BBC website


"SECOND BREAK-IN FOR HAZEL BLEARS

Cabinet minister Hazel Blears has suffered another break-in, two weeks after a computer containing official files was stolen from her office.

This time it was her official car that was broken into, as it parked outside her constituency office in Salford.

No ministerial paperwork was in the car but her driver's mobile phone and a satellite navigation system were taken. "

Third time lucky and perhaps someone will nick her!!!

Her official car? Where was her chauffeur?

56 and 33 jimbrant


Odd you pick the Churchill point to come back on, but I will accept your points about him. Not really my subject but I tend to blame Hitler for the loss of life though. Just thought most people will be surprised that you are comparing the two and claiming Blair was a better PM.

Ok to business… I manage a factory, the machinery is old, keeps breaking down and costs to much to maintain. But business is up in these heady days, even I seem to be able to turn a profit.

I need to invest in machinery to make more grommets and I need a better qualified mechanic to maintain the machinery and I have to take out loans to buy the machines.

The dilemma is how much investment and over what timetable, which machine, do I buy the latest kit or perhaps something that has been around for a few years, what level of mechanic do I employ and can I afford all the payments on the loans.

A prudent businessman would ensure that the costs of what ever level of investment he undertakes can also be met during a slight down turn. Its not prudent to base your calculations on continued levels of high growth.

There is no point in filling the factory with shiny new kit, hiring an over paid mechanic and adding several more tiers of management, a consultant or two and a Quango to boot only to experience a slight down turn in business not be able to afford to pay all the commitments and then expect the staff to accept a pay freeze and the shareholders to take a drop in dividend.

The staff get fed up and don’t work the machines properly and the mechanic goes off to find another job. The shareholders kick you out for incompetent financial planning and you are out of a job.

You will argue of course that the Tories will just keep the old machine in place and give all the profits to the shareholders. Well Perhaps.

I on the other hand argue that there is a middle ground. Investment levels should not have been based on the assumption of continued high levels of growth and should have allowed for a slight down turn.

A percentage of the profits should have been put aside at least to cover a years repayments on the new machinery and perhaps a years salary for the all essential mechanic. I also would also not have added the cost of even more machinery to the buildings mortgage and hoped no one noticed.

The waste element of the whole investment process is another story, but one that Labour have got very wrong. I have given you examples of this in previous posts showing poor value and probably hundreds of billions of pounds of waste and unnecessary projects,

But even worse in my view is the culture of complete and utter indifference to the matter from officials.

Where is the old challenging, incisive and above all equitable Nick Robinson that used to cut a dash on ITV....????

Brown is reaping what he has sown these past 11 long, long years.....

#58

98% of all statistics are made up and yours is one of them.

re 73:
our deficit is bigger than anyone else's despite there being a global boom for years, we have no money saved up, our taxes are higher than everybody else's, our financial oversight institutions are absolute pants, we've had the only bank run for many many years, our true inflation is way higher than a lot of other countries, nobody can get a mortgage, etc etc etc; the list is endless thanks to Brown.

The excellent blog of Shadow culture minister, Jeremy Hunt, characterises Brown as a tragic Hamlet. And there's more than a grain of truth in that analogy.

Brown - a jinx according Guido - appears to be Hamlet's alter ego in so many respects; as haunted by the subconscious demands of his domineering family, the compulsion for revenge and the accursed fate he's too weak to escape..

Hunt's blog provides a fascinating peep behind the curtain of both the shadow cabinet and the subconscious forces that drive David Cameron.

Following Mark Lawson's speculation about which Shakespearian character David Cameron would be, Hunt asked for Cameron's opinion at a shadow cabinet meeting:

"Prince Hal of course," he said - and then went on to suggest which member of the Shadow Cabinet was Falstaff."

Hal, the one nation unifier, who, following a wild and virtually criminal youth, grew into a great leader who restored the English language and beat the French.

No worries there then.

"68. At 3:18pm on 27 Jun 2008, badgercourage wrote:
#44, #56

Churchill was indeed the king of spin.

GB, however, can't even do spin properly. And as far as I know he has never said anything remotely quotable or amusing..."



NOthing quotable. Oh Badger! Do you not remember his famous statement to Blair, that there was no way he would ever again believe anything Bliar had to say.

If that's not quotable, I don't know what is.

Nick

I more or less agree with your piece (for a change).

To add my thoughts; I wonder if the Tories may actually be worried that they may actually win the next election. After all, they are as wet a bunch of politicians I have seen in decades, and as they must realise themselves that as the current economic situation has very little bearing on the current government, how would they explain there complete failure to improve the situation once in power. I guess they could either blame the previous administration or the Global economic climate.

And as for the usual stupid comments from those that say they have had enough and are going to emigrate, please hurry up and do so - you may make this country a happier place for the rest of us.

The BBC have an article from 2002

https://news.bbc.co.uk /1 /hi / uk_politics/ 2521965.stm

"The chancellor went on the offensive on Thursday, saying he was ready to stake his reputation on his borrowing decision"

OK He did - he's lost.

"I take full responsibility for the figures and the decisions that I make,"

So he should resign as a matter of principle.

"Of course we will take all the right decisions for the British economy in the future."

Sort of makes you doubt his prescience doesn't it.

Much is made of Gordon Brown's intelligence. For me, however, he brings to mind this quote from Alfred North Whitehead in 1939:

"Intelligence is quickness to apprehend as distinct from ability, which is capacity to act wisely on the thing apprehended."

Brown seems to be very good at identifying the right questions - a valuable assest, not shared by all leading politicians - but then comes paralysis by analysis (aka dithering) followed by wrong answers or circular revisiting of the question - usually both.

Lacking charisma? For sure.

Lacking ability? Begins to look that way, perhaps heavily disguised as lack of charisma.

We could always ask the City how he did.
FT100 in May 1997 4400
FT100 now in 2008 5500

Government Debt 1997 £500bn
Government Debt 2008 £540bn plus about £180bn off balance sheet on PPI,
Gov Deficit 1997 £7bn
Gov. Deficit 2008 £30bn official, actually getting close to £50bn.

Not much to show for 11 years of economic growth, under Gordon Brown.

@77 Mikepko

3 Finally and very sadly a 92 years old man committed suicide the day after the budget, surrounded by papers open at the pages covering the budget. Apparently he was really worried how he was going to manage, only put his heating on for short periods through the winter and thought the best way out was to kill himself. And here was a man who fought through the war.

Is this the Britain we want to live in? If I feel depressed these three stories sum up why - unquote

Well, let one add another to your list.

Old age pensioners are being found frozen to death because they cannot afford to switch their heating on - 1991/2/3/4/5.

That's when the cost of oil was 1/7 of what it is today.

Thank God we have a Labour Governement in this GLOBAL difficult times.

We had a lot of Tories like you in 2002,2003 and 2004 trying to predict elections, but come 2005, the people REJECTED the Tories once again, because ex Tories like myself were not convinced that a change in Goverment meant better standard of living, even though we built our wealth under a Tory Government.

If you are depressed it is because you cannot stomach the fact that the Tories are not coming up with alternatives in the economy except cuts, cuts, and more cuts, to throw us back into the dark ages when one had to wait for 4 years for a hip replacement, or two years for a by-pass operation.

#84 getridofgordonnow: Sorry to be a bore, but evidence? I would be surprised if you have any for most of the facts you claim (our inflation higher than 'a lot' of others, higher tax rates than anybody else, our deficit is bigger than anybody elses, nobody can get a mortgage), and I just disagree with the opinions you express.

How can you suggest: "It is not that Gordon Brown, or indeed any politician, could have averted the economic crisis." ??

It was obvious several years ago that the economy was hollow. The UK government cannot control what happens in other countries but the can at least take action to mitigate adverse situations.

Mr Brown was never a great Chancellor; he was merely lucky that his incompetence and folly was masked events elsewhere in the world.

Now that the storm has come his house is found to be made of cards and built on sand.

79 blog police The people are not saying go only some of the people are saying go, please dont presume to speak for the millions that dont agree with you.

@76, jimbrant

I too work in both public and private sectors, and whilst I agree that the private sector certainly isn't a paragon of efficiency, the only times I have found it to be as equally inefficient as the public sector is in banking and aerospace.

As for the 3.6%, I know for a fact that doesn't take in excess staff and contractors (the wage bill is around 50% of the budget).

It also doesn't take into account the effects that 3.6% has over the rest of the budget.

Using your very same argument I could claim climate change is a sham on the basis the atmosphere only contains 0.04% CO2. I'm not going to, but I'm just illustrating that its not as simple as breaking down into parts, you have to take into account how certain parts can have a disproportionate effect on the whole.

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of disapproval of Gordon Brown's premiership.

I hope he has a thoroughly miserable anniversary, and that his minions finally summon up the courage to tell him to take the only honourable course left open to him: resign.

@87, Laurie_M

Be careful of what you wish for, Labour has presided over a massive brain drain.

If you want to live in a nation where all the skilled have left, leaving you in a nation where its workforce consists of economic migrants and the bulk of the population are unemployable (can't write, can't count, but got 5 A-C GCSE's somehow), have fun with that.

I can't see it being a happy nation however, expect possibly for the BNP who'll have all the unemployed and undereducated targets they could ever have wished for.

# 83

"98% of all statistics are made up and yours is one of them"

Well...maybe...but you might have checked before you posted.

The "Facts and Figures" on the official website of the NHS Confederation (Employers) Company Ltd. states:

"The NHS is the third largest employer in the world. In England and Wales over 10,000 employers employ around 1.3 million people. This is around one in every 40 people, or 2.5% of the population, working for the NHS."

Doesn't necessarily make it true without caveats, I agree, but "made up" is a tad unfair.

Too few will mention the economy, you say.

Is that the same economy that one G Brown "ran" for ten years?

Aside from that, is there not the basic point that he is an extraordinarily irritating man? Most people I know dislike him intensely.

I suspect he will never recover from that.

# 86

Not sure that the quote you mention is verified as genuine. But it's a good one, and I had forgotten it. Thanks.

Far more pointed is the quote *about* him from Vince Cable:

"The House has noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable transformation in the past few weeks, from Stalin to Mr. Bean."