One year on...
It was not meant to be like this. Gordon Brown badgered Tony Blair to leave office so that Labour could be renewed. He entered No 10 promising change. There has been no renewal and the most obvious change is a collapse in support for his party.
On this unhappy anniversary friends will mutter, foes will shout about the prime minister's misjudgements ranging from 'the election that never was' to the 10p tax debacle.
Too few, though, will mention the economy or note that, across the channel, a politician with none of Gordon Brown's alleged flaws - the charismatic master of communications Nicolas Sarkozy is not faring much better. And yet even when it comes to the economy, apparently Gordon Brown's strongest suit, mistakes have been made again and again.
Last summer when the red warning lights were flashing on Wall Street, the chancellor was persuaded to deliver an inheritance tax cutting pre-budget report aimed not at the averting or ameliorating the crisis ahead but, instead, at winning an election that was never, in fact, called. He now regrets it.
As the credit crunch bit, fuel and food prices soared and the scrapping of 10p tax rate loomed, a gloomy budget did - well - almost nothing. The prime minister has told friends that he regards this as a "missed opportunity". The chancellor has told his friends that he could do nothing about the 10p tax problem because Gordon Brown was still in denial about it. As it was, weeks later an emergency statement conjured up £2.7 billion to help hard pressed families.
It is not that Gordon Brown, or indeed any politician, could have averted the economic crisis. It is not that there is that much more he could have done given there was no money. What insiders do accept, though, is that the PM has looked behind the economic curve and his government have made a series of tax decisions that have had to be amended or abandoned reducing confidence in the government's economic decision taking.
Team Brown curse their bad economic luck. They regret their economic mistakes. 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.
They - he - must hope that in the words of that old election song "things can only get better" in year two...or, if not then, year three.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
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).
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
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!
Complain about this comment
"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.
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
"Things can only get better"
Was there ever a more inspired anthem? Even more appropriate now than it was in 1997...
Complain about this comment
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!
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
"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?
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
"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.
Complain about this comment
"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!
Complain about this comment
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).
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
"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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
'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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
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
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
"Blair the best PM this country has had in my lifetime, going back to Churchill"
I think you're confusing "Best" with "most dishonest".
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
#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).
Complain about this comment
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!
Complain about this comment
@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.
Complain about this comment
>>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 !!
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
# 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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
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.
Complain about this comment
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...
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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).
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile, a YouGov opinion poll for the Daily Telegraph suggests Labour has closed the gap on the Tories over the past month.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
"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.
Complain about this comment
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!
Complain about this comment
#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).
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
# 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.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
@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).
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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)...
Complain about this comment
@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.
Complain about this comment
#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...
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
#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!
Complain about this comment
#63 dave_h: "..... the crisis far more severe in Britain than most other places."
evidence?
Complain about this comment
"Team Brown curse their economic bad luck"
Team electorate curse their economic incompetence.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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?
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.....
Complain about this comment
#58
98% of all statistics are made up and yours is one of them.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
"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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
The BBC have an article from 2002
http://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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
@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.
Complain about this comment
#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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
@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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
@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.
Complain about this comment
# 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.
Complain about this comment
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.
Complain about this comment
# 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."
Complain about this comment
Can someone please explain to me why MPs are never held accountable. Look at the disgraceful decisions made in the last 11 years and beyond. Why can GB get away with selling our gold, sending our forces to their deaths etc. Just losing their seat is not enough they should be hauled back before a tribunal. Do you think the tax man would write off any mistakes we made just because we were no longer in the job. And while we are at it get Blair back and fine him a few millions for the Iraq debacle.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, there is not much mileage in speculating what precisely the Tories might or might not do post the 2010 General Election.
Pre the general election, they really do not have to do much except sit there, look inoffensive and watch Labour dig their own grave.
Post the election, there will be general themes that will have to be addressed ... as I mentioned, negotiating the best possible arrangement with the Scots as they depart via full independence.
As the Tories will then, in effect just be governing England, that sets up a totally different political scenario.
English people are, in my opinion, generally less socialist than the Scots or Welsh, so the Tories will have an easier ride with more 'radical' proposals than would otherwise have been the case.
So we might well see, in a Tory Government, proposals for more 'private' initiatives in education and health.
That is roughly what I'm expecting anyhow.
Complain about this comment
91 onlywayup
Why are you Labour people so incredibly defensive. Well that is a stupid question, isn't it.
I quote something that is happening now and you go back to the 1990s. Of course it was wrong then just as it is wrong now.
But you have had 11 years to build another "New Jerusalem" and failed. I commented this morning about the social mobility survey which just seems to show the same thing.
And before you go on again, Cameron isn't Thatcher or Major just as Blair wasn't Wilson or Callaghan. Brown I have no idea about at all.
So instead of being like Brown in PMQs and asking me questions (after all I am the opposition)
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE BROWN?
WHAT IS YOUR GRAND NEW STRATEGY?
After all you are in government.
Complain about this comment
#95 Frank-Castle: I wouldn't disagree with much of what you say, but your original post seemed to be saying that 'nous' was only available in the private sector. It's not, as I think you have agreed, and my experience is that when you try to apply it to the public sector it often falls down because it can't take account of the much greater complexity.
Of course it is simplistic to take single sets of figures to examine a complex set of circumstances - but it is difficult to argue that (to take the example I used before) the US private health care system is more efficient than the NHS, or is less bureaucratic.
I can add manufacturing industry generally to your list of wasteful private sectors; and publishing; and private bus companies.
I do take your point about the 0.04%, but in this case it depends on an assumption the NHS managers are generally poor. That has not been my experience.
Complain about this comment
# 98
The most interesting part from the NHS Confederation (Employers) is the political bit i.e. "... In England and Wales over ..."
There is an NHS in Scotland of course but it is obviously a Scottish NHS i.e. in another country, so the number of people working in the Scottish NHS are not counted.
So many times we see on the TV, read in a newspaper/web or hear on the radio something prefixed "... in England and Wales ... ", that the most surprising thing is that anybody still believes there is still such a thing as a 'United Kingdom'.
Complain about this comment
#97 Frank-Castle: "Labour has presided over a massive brain drain."
I remember the brain drain. Highly skilled people were fighting to get out of the country for better salaries, and we were having to recruit nurses, doctors, academics and others from the Thirld World. But that was more than 10 years ago, and the situation has largely been turned round; now it is the same groups from the US and Europe who are clamouring for jobs in our high skill sectors (well, that's a slight overstatement, though it's true in some sreas of employment that I know!).
As usual, I would be interested in the evidence for your statement.
Complain about this comment
Tories and Conservatives?
Little history lesson here.
The term Tory dates back to the 18th Century when it meant King, Country and Empire.
The term Conservative dates to the 19th Century when after the Reform Act (Robert Peel) there were Tories and Conservatives who were more Liberal and supporters of extending the franchise.
Gladstone was a Conservative but ultimately became a Liberal.
Since we no longer have an Empire can I suggest that the term Tory isn't valid any more.
Since I am rather more Liberal than Tory please call me a Conservative and not a Tory.
Complain about this comment
@97 Frank-Castle
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 - unquote.
Is that what one has achieved?
My daughter went to Government run schools, managed to get sponsorships for both her Degrees.
11 O levels all A* except 2 which were As.
4 Advanced levels, all As.
A First Degree in Engineering at Laughborough.
A First Degree in Clinical Sciences as well.
In both courses she was actually paid while she was studying!
Now how about that for a pupil that never required private schools or private tuition?
Even though she works full time, she is inundated with calls from Companies asking her to work for them, and when she worked for a well known British Co. she used to be amazed how intransigent the management was towards perfection, and productivity, including targets. These are BRITISH managers and not some foreigner that does not even understand our language.
All the above Uni. degrees were achieved under a Labour Government.
Beat that one if you can, and don't come up with stupid statistics as if we are in the same league as we were in 1997.
Put up with the progress or shut up.
Have a rest and go to sleep. Tomorrow is another day, not the end of the world.
Your contribution on this blog is an insult to people like my daughter.
Complain about this comment
68. badgercourage wrote
You clearly missed:
I did maths for a year at university. I don't think I was very good at it. And some people would say it shows.
Gordon Brown April 2007
Complain about this comment
His most irritating feature is the way he sucks in one side of his mouth when nervous to take a breath, but I could live with that easily if only he had more humility.
I sort of quite like him as I think his heart is in the right place as the son of minister. I hate it that Socialism has become a term of abuse in the way that Trotskyism was in the past. Neither 'ism' deserved its opprobrium.
Methodism, the Cooperative Movement and the Levelers have valuable inputs into Socialism, just as Marx did. Things change and 'isms' develop but the essential ideas are valuable to us all.
Tories believe that there is 'no such thing as society'. Socialists believe in 'Society'. Socialism gave us the elements of our society that we value most - the NHS. Remember that the Tories and its friends tried to stop it, and when Churchill came to power again he wanted to abolish it and that is the attitude of all true Tories.
Gordon must expound, and be true to, his political philosophy if he is to regain the Nation's respect. Sucking up to the rabid right wing media will not work.
Complain about this comment
Mikepko, read no:64 and you have the reply you are asking for.
Complain about this comment
#98
Apply some common sense rather than blindly quoting what you read on the web - it makes you look extremely gullible.
Do you really believe that the NHS employs more people than the US Army, US Government, Russian Army, Russian Government etc etc?
Britain is ranked 33rd in the world in terms of population size making it statistically impossible for one of our public bodies to be the third largest employer in the World.
Complain about this comment
One year on and a year of failure by an illegitimate leader.
Nick, he didn't 'badger' the Tony Blair to quit, he undermined and obstructed the elected PM for 10 years, then in a constitutional coup became Labour Party leader and PM without an election. And we lecture other countries about democracy! Its been a shameful episode which has already cost the Labour Party dear - Ken Livingstone, Crewe and Nantwhich and now coming 5th behind the BNP! What more humiliation do Labour MPs need before they wake up and smell the coffee? As Lord Levy says, its time for Brown to go.
Complain about this comment
@104, jimbrant
I still say there is more nous in the private sector than public - one of the primary problems in the public sector is the difficulty in removing bad or lazy staff (hence why many PCTs use temps or contractors) and the promotion of people partially based upon time served.
In any NHS service I have yet to encounter a manager of the calibre I have in the private sector. To find a manager who'll meet up to discuss a project, have the knowledge you need and to remain contactable is find a piece of rocking horse excrement on a blue moon!
I've certainly met jackasses in the private sector, but its only in the public sector that a 1 month development can last 6 months without any real fallout.
Complain about this comment
77 mikepko Well Mike I accepted the financial times but I see its the Western Daily Press thats feeding you all these stories and I thought it was the Times.
!/ the guy with the kiwi fruit, your trying to tell us that these people turned up at his shop and individually weighed 5000 kiwi fruit,that I dont believe, never happened if they did anything they tested random fruit, if they were under the weight prescribed by the law then he was breaking the law by selling them. his position then was to sue the company that sold them to him. the inspectors would have gone to his supplier and taken them to court and then probably the importer, if he was provented from giving them away it was probably because the fruit had become evidence if they did'nt need them for evidence then of course he could have given them away, the law was to stop him selling undersize fruit not for giving it away.
2/ If a woman was speaking to this reporter and she told him her three girls were being taken into care and then obvously with this knowledge he saw her do a runner and this was obvously observed by someone who informed the police,and thats wrong?,
How can we expect all these terrible tragedies with children that are happening to stop. if when the authorities are taking action by taking these children into care certainly for some good reason and a journalist thinking he may be onto a good story decides not to inform the police, then he must face the consequences by the police removing the equipment, which may reveal were these children are. what if she had taken the children and killed herself and her children which seems to happening a lot lately, not such an amusing story then.
3/ So some old guy of 92 decides he's had enough well I've got a bit to go before I reach 92 and believe me I am not going to, like him I'll make sure of that only sooner, all this guff about he had the pages of the budget over the floor, perhaps when I go I'll have open newspapers of the Tories winning the election, and this nonsense of eat or heat raising its head again is absolute nonsense. how does any one have any idea what was going though his head the old guy probably just thought Ive had enough. the fact that he was a old soldier has nothing to do with it, that bit is only put in for a little emotion. I have the greatest respect for the man but I think its a bit disingenuous of the newspaper for using this old soldiers death to try to prove a point.
Well Mike if this is not the world you want to live in , I was going to say cast you mind back to the war years and just before but of course you cant. When people used to have to go on the Parrish if they were out of work which they often were, the inspector would come to your home and say how many people live here you might reply four he would say well you have six chairs he would then instruct you to sell two of them ,the same if he considered that you had more than you need of anything if you had a couple of rag mats on the floor they would tell you to sell one if you did'nt sell them you did'nt get any money, Ive seen children running around with no shoes on their feet and not from choice. now they run around in designer trainers, you think the life we live in this country is bad, then just thank your lucky stars you did.nt live in those times, or even now in some countries.
Complain about this comment
@106, jimbrant
The source is the OECD and the ONS. We are second only to Mexico in the number of people emigrating, and we have lost over 10% of our skilled workforce during Labours reign.
iirc, the trend is actually accelerating, although that could be a spike due to the recent junior doctor debacle.
It's a disturbing trend as any nations true wealth lies in its skilled workforce, that we're exporting our most able graduates is a cause for worry and one that needs to be dealt with.
Complain about this comment
100 badgeofcourage yes Vince Cable is quite funny but then he made a fool of himself when he tried to be too funny when he told the little red riding hood story and got it totally wrong.
Complain about this comment
All those tax rises have come home to roost. The interest rate rises and fuel price rises are hiting pockets and we need reductions in public spending and therefore tax reductions.
We simply can not afford the tax and spend policies of Gordon Brown. He has shown no leadership on the financial crisis facing the country, and the electorate can see this at every election and by-election that comes up. Why can't he see it too?
Complain about this comment
77 mikepko
Yeah Mike remember the war and be gratefull for those shoes.
Complain about this comment
115. grandantidote
Got ya... see you do read
Complain about this comment
@108, Onlywayup
No, its not what we've achieved, but its certainly the direction we're heading in.
Our children are getting increasingly better grades, yet reading, writing and math abilities are decreasing as is the UK's standing in global education rankings.
Statistically we are improving across the board, yet in measurable reality we are getting worse. Which begs a few questions.
Out of the top 50 universities, only 5 are British and just 2 are in the top 20, meanwhile the number the number of students who leave school without any GCSE's (A-C) is increasing - the recent 'failed schools' list highlights this nicely.
Imperial College has now added an extra year to a Math degree course to offset how degraded A level math has become, and other universities are thinking of following suit - and not just for math.
I suppose that is progress if you don't give a damn about the UK's future and place more values in the awarding of paper qualifications than the quality of the education itself.
So perhaps you should wake up and smell what Labour are shovelling?
Congratulations to your daughter by the way, the issues with the education system should in no way reflect on her victories and it is a pity that Labour are hellbent on devaluing her hard work in achieving them.
Complain about this comment
#112
"Apply some common sense rather than blindly quoting what you read on the web"
Eh? Read my post! I didn't "blindly quote" I said: "Doesn't necessarily make it true without caveats, I agree, but 'made up' is a tad unfair."
I was making the point that it all depends how you agglomorate the 10,000 plus organisations in the NHS, and other large organisations worldwide - eg the Iranian Army claims it is over 12 million strong, by including all males of military age. Definition is all!
The you compound it by asserting:
"Britain is ranked 33rd in the world in terms of population size making it statistically impossible for one of our public bodies to be the third largest employer in the World."
Unlikely, yes; impossible, no. Things like this can't be "statistically impossible".
And there is no such country as "Britain". The UK (which I assume is what you mean) is actually the 22nd largest country in terms of population, according to the UN.
A few minutes spent on Wikipedia or Google will soon show you that it's possible to slice this argument up a large number of ways.
I'd take evidence over "common sense" any day! Not all statistics are made up, but few of them are completely accurate, and all population estimates are out-of-date almost as soon as they are finalised.
Complain about this comment
#116 Frank-Castle:
Thanks for giving me your sources, though I suspect from what you say that your immediate source was probably the Daily Torygraph.
As with most sets of statistics you have to look behind the headlines - particularly if they are newspaper headlines. For example, of the numbers of skilled UK people living abroad 80% left the country more than 10 years ago, and it appears that the rate of skilled emigration might have been declining somewhat recently. Quite apart from that, there are reasons for this sort of emigration that are not down to problems in the UK. They might well reflect the relative strength of the UK economy, allowing people to exercise a very long-standing predeliction for experiencing life overses for a bit; the language helps.
Just to make the point, and to go some way to explain why our stats are not the same as the Germans, this is a quote from the OECD when the report you quote was issued
"British people have lots of opportunities to move and work abroad so very highly-skilled people are travelling around. It is seen by many British people as part of their personal development to have some experience abroad."
If you are interested, I found this website very helpful and illuminating. Better than the Torygraph - even the Times did a better job of reporting the study than that.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/2008/02/26/more-gain-than-brain-drain/
Complain about this comment
#113
"the elected PM for 10 years"
I don't remember voting for Tony Blair, still less got Gordon Brown.
Our PMs are appointed by the Queen and conventionally this is the leader of the party with a majority (or at least the largest number of seats) in the House of Commons. Only the electorate of Sedgefield voted for Blair as an MP, and the Labour Party then chose him as their leader. GB wasn't even opposed.
I'm not sure whether this is a bad or a good thing - it may be better than having a US or French style presidency, but let's not pretend TB or GB was elected PM.
Complain about this comment
re 113: yes, it did make me wince somewhat when Gordon Brown boasted about being "elected unopposed", he was proud of it for some reason.
If I was the leader of a supposed democracy, I wouldn't be boasting about having been "elected" without having anyone actually vote for me.
At least John Major got elected by his fellow MPs prior to his general election; not perfect, but at least he had some form of legitimacy; Brown's got absolutely none.
Personally, I think that when Blair announced that he wouldn't serve a full term prior to his 3rd election, he never should have been allowed to continue as leader; it's an insult to democracy to say "vote for me and you'll get someone else, and you'll like it or lump it."
Complain about this comment
One year on and Brown is evidently finished. This is pretty much the assessment of Anthony King in the Telegraph today. I can tell you that King is a man I have the utmost respect for. I can also say that I believe the great man is wrong. What throws governments off course "events dear boy, events" as per Harold Macmillan. There is no way the next 12 months will show a run of "events" to match Northern Rock and the lost data discs. The Murdoch media is slowly coming round to Brown again. Even today's YouGov poll (in The Telegraph) shows Labour up 5 points from last month.
The tide will gently turn over the next few months. Cameron will come under more and scrutiny as well. On the economy he will be found wanting. The economic problems of today are caused by global factors. Cameron has no magic wand. What is required is intellect, gravitas and competence. Who is going to deliver those traits? Our current Prime Minister - Gordon Brown.
Complain about this comment
There have been plenty of bad PMs Nick and Brown is amongst the worst but it is his cowardice which marks him out as unique in the annals of British history. The British people will suffer a scoundrel but will never tolerate a coward. That is the shameful epitaph which must attach to a this (hopefully brief) sordid,arrogant and corrupt administration.
Complain about this comment
re 126: "What is required is intellect, gravitas and competence."
very true
"Who is going to deliver those traits? Our current Prime Minister - Gordon Brown."
are you having a laugh?! is that the same Gordon Brown who kept telling everybody that 10 plus 10 equals zero when talking about the doubling of the tax rate? I don't think I'd consider intellect being his strong point; he never ever wins arguments because he has no understanding of basic logic/maths, he just throws his toys out the pram and goes off in a huff.
is this the same competence that oversaw the financial system while Northern Rock spent years trading using a totally flawed policy and then bailed them out with over 100 billion of our money?
or the same competence who created/managed/rubber-stamped all the rules at hmrc that led directly to the loss of the discs?
or the same competence who refused to give the information commissioner the powers to be able to do his job and then got caught out when it became public knowledge that the government had been actively blocking the IC for years?
Complain about this comment
"is this the same competence that oversaw the financial system while Northern Rock spent years trading using a totally flawed policy and then bailed them out with over 100 billion of our money"
dear oh dear. ignorance and partisanship are features of both wings of political debate. i would advise either just checking your facts, which are easy to find, or merely recognising your own inability to contribute and go back to reading the daily mail.
would you really have chosen to let northern rock go to the wall? really? for the sake of a loan, which is being paid back as we speak, you would unlease chaos both on local economies and the overall banking sector? 100 billion is a grotesque exaggeration. its around 20, and is being paid back by the billions. consumers are better off for northern rock still operating and the government is likely to make a profit when it sells it off, ultimately benefitting us.
total flawed policy; well, it was a very bad strategy when we had an unforeseen credit crunch. in fairness to adam applegarth, there are few CEOs who can claim to be omnipotent. in the years preceding that, shareholders would attest to its effectiveness. ultimately, we would have to look at the overall conversion of building societies to banks, which many agree has been a bad transition. im sure you are aware that labour werent responsible for that, and indeed the liberal approach to the economy, the dominant marco-economic policy post-Thatcher, was hardly pioneered by Brown, who im sure would far rather take a more "traditional" approach to the economy if it wasnt for his desire not to be voted out.
"At least John Major got elected by his fellow MPs prior to his general election"
how, exactly, do you think Brown became PM? this isnt the tory party of three decades ago, labour has a strong tradition of internal democracy. he was elected by his MPs, on the basis that nearly all of them chose him over alternatives; e.g. Meacher, McDonnell. Though of course i doubt you know anything about it.
Complain about this comment
Outrageous that in your review in tonight's 10pm news of GB's first year, you failed to mention his biggest failure and the one for which history will condemn him - namely forcing thro' the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the British people and without giving us the referendum we were promised.
You, as an informed commentator, are not ignorant of the significance of this. You chose to gloss over it! Are you complicit in the policy of the pro-EU, pro-NuLab BBC to "help" the British people to forget this shameful episode?
It will never be forgotten. If or when the consequences become apparent of yielding governance of this nation to the corrupt Commissioners in Brussels, many Brits will justifiably be very, very angry.
In matters concerning nuLabour and the EU you and the BBC are failing in your responsibilities to provide us with objective jounalism.
Complain about this comment
119 russell holmstead, You would do well to remember the war, its the reason your able to write on these blogs, as for shoe's thank your lucky stars that you have never gone without.
120 got ya! how do you work that out you'll have to be more explicit. of course I read how on earth do you think I get through all this Tory diatribe. It's newspapers that I dont read but I did read that article by Jan Morris,quite interesting.
Complain about this comment
Nick:
It has been only 1 year since Tony Blair left office....
Complain about this comment
131. grandantidote
Morning Sir... Well said on point 1
Im with you all the way.
Pleased you liked Jan Morris, it was an interesting perspective.
Complain about this comment
Ref 49 jimbrant
Your point to TeaBeam on 40 (You say its hard to stop the waste)
Might this rather mediocre private sector director suggest that you start with Harriet Harmans recent initiative to monitor the numbers of transsexuals working for companies bidding for government contracts.
Cant help but wonder how much body armour that money could buy.
Oh yes and if this Quango has a logo do post.
And let me know if you need any more pointers. I have hundreds.
Complain about this comment
Wendy Alexander's resignation today as leader of the Labour group at Holyrood is a misfortune for the SNP in so far as it has clearly benefited enormously from her failure to measure up to the job.
The graceless manner in which she has vacated this position discredits her and her party further. In seeking to represent the parliamentary standards committee determination concerning her improper conduct as flawed by virtue of being allegedly partisan demonstrates her inability to accept responsibility for her own misdemeanours. Her cavalier disregard for the rules governing members of the Scottish Parliament could hardly be ignored. The committee in question is in any case not controlled by any one party, as we know.
The Labour Party's attempt to smear the SNP at the very moment of its own disgrace shows graphically just how unfit that party is to represent the people of Scotland. It is to be hoped that in the expected Glasgow East UK parliamentary by-election the people of even that traditionally safe Labour seat will send that message to the Labour Party loudly and clearly.
Complain about this comment
107 Mikepko, In answer to your last sentence, Sorry Mike, no.
Complain about this comment
126 #
Well said!!!
If people just take a look at where Cameron was just a year ago and bear in mind, he was under no scrutiny what-so-ever then, take a look at the figures now and note their is still no decent scrutiny of anything he says or does.
Then one could rightly conclude that it is hardly surprising the polls are showing what they are.
Next Andrew Porter of the Daily Torygraph has also got Brown politically dead and buried, We will see.
I would ask people to look at the ratings of ALL the Heads of State in the free world, one will find that with the exception of where there has been a recent change of Government they are all down.
Brown will take us through this Global economic downturn and we will see the results probably sooner rather than later.
Enough time I am sure to counter these bad poll ratings, which are more to do with World Wide downturn, than anything team Cameron has so far come up with.
Brown's back is against the wall and I have watched the last three PMQ's from afar and the PM has wiped the floor with the shallow, no substance or principles, leader of HM opposition David Cameron.
A week as they say is a long time in politics 1 year and 10 Months is a hell of a lot more for Cameron et-al to slip up.
He has been very lucky so far, luck always runs out sooner or later.
Cameron's is now long overdue to run out.
Complain about this comment
124 badgercourage,
"I dont remember voting for Tony Blair, much less Gordon brown."
Well did you live in the constuency of either TB or GB, if not then you were'nt able to were you?
I personally voted for a Labour Government, they won three elections, that is, the Labour party, the labour party then elected TB to become their leader thus making him prime minister, when TB decided to resign from the labour party.
Then the Labour party voted again which was their right but since there was only one aplicant that is GB then he was elected leader of there labour party and since the Labour party were the party in power he became the prime minister.
Unless your answer to my first sentence is "yes I was" or you were a Labour MP then you obviously didnt vote for either.
The Queen has no control whatsoever over the houses of parliament , her acceptance of who has been made PM is asked for only as an act of courtesy.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Its not the year that we have just had that worries me, it’s the two that are to come that I dread!
Complain about this comment
#135 Neo-unionist: I think your comment is at least slightly unfair. Observing events from well south of the border, it seems to me that:
- the Electoral Commission said that while she did not take every precaution, she did take significant steps to ensure that the donations in question were correctly registered. In particular, the Scottish Parliament officials she consulted told her there was no requirement to declare the donations. This guidance was subsequently changed by the Parliamentary Commissioner;
- in consequence of their investigation the Commission recommended taking no action. Essentially they cleared her.
- notwithstanding the Commission's findings the SNP continued to press for her to be found guilty, and called the Commission's investigation a whitewash;
- there is a split decision in the Standards Committee on whether to find that she broke the rules; and four of the seven members of the Committee vote to ban her for one day.
It would be interesting to know whether you accept this as an accurate summary of what has happened. If you do, it hardly supports your characterisation of Alexander's actions as 'cavalier', and seems to give some substance to her accusation that the Parliamentary Committee took its decision on party lines. However, I accept that it is certainly possible that there is information about the affair that is not obvious to someone in the middle of England.
Complain about this comment
June 2007 on the steps of number 10 ClimbDowning Street:
"Let the work of change begin"
It did begin, Gordon Brown has presided over the fastest reversal of NewLabour fortunes in histroy.
The tripartite system collapsed at the first hurdle and is now being revised.
We had the first run on a bank in 140 years.
Half the nation's documents were lost after the consolidation of HMRC under Gordon Brown and the review has pointed the finger squarely at the government.
After ten years of non stop erosion of civil liberties Gordon Brown extended this further with the demolition job on habeus corpus through 42 day detention.
And on and on.
More dithering, more indecision and quite clearly a continuation of dishonest politics.
Let the work of change begin? Clear off then.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick
I think you are being far too generous with your views on Gordon Brown. I think you have fallen for the spin that has tried to portray Brown as anti-spin, 'Just Gordon'. He was supposed to be a man of integrity, who was going to guided by a moral compass but it is obvious that everything he has done, and is doing, is guided by self interest.
Let's begin with all the Machiavellian stuff when he and his Brownite cronies were stabbing Tony Blair in the back and bullying him to go. It hardly inspired me to trust the man. More importantly, to name but a few, look at some of his disasterous policies like the '42 day detention' and the 10p Tax band (I'm one of the victims of that) I know some people will disagree that the 42 day detention is a disaster but I felt that if the public were against it he wouldn't have pushed it through. I wonder if most of the public think that it's only Muslims or possible terrorists that will be affected and haven't thought through the possibility of it affecting them. There was also the way it was pushed through that was so outrageous. He bribed, bullied and cajoled and this just demonstrated how desperate a man he is. How can this man ever be called a 'man of integrity' again?
Not everything that has happened under GB is bad. I must confess to being impressed with Harriet Harman's initiative of creating equality of pay/opportunities for all. I have always felt myself to be left of centre but David Cameron is starting to look strangely attractive. Labour are beginning to feel like an lover you are tired of but they keep clinging on, desperately trying to please you. This just makes you despise them more. It's time for a change! As someone who has always voted labour, I am pleased to declare, 'Labour you're dumped!'
Complain about this comment
When it comes to Gordon Brown I just believe he is an innately decent human being. The last year has been awful for him and for the Labour Party. Perhaps the balance of 2 party democracy will see Labour lose the next election. Perhaps not.
I like Brown's background, how hard he works and what he has had to overcome in life. If you contrast all of this to David Cameron, the son of a stockbroker who attended Eton and became an active member of the Bullingdon Club then the choice is a stark one.
I want my Prime Minister to believe in social justice, to look after the inetersts of the many and not the privileged few. I don't believe David Cameron is any way shape or form better equipped to do this than Gordon Brown.
It is about substance and intellect and gravitas. It is also about CHARACTER. On that basis Brown has my support and David Cameron does not. Speech over!
Complain about this comment
#135 Neo-unionist
Interesting blog.
Another very interesting by-election in the offing is the one for Jack McConnell when he leaves to take up his position as British High Commissioner to Malawi.
His majority, for Motherwell and Wishaw, at the last Holyrood election was cut to 5,938 with a 6.9% swing from Labour to the SNP.
Alas its another by-election that NuLabour cannot afford, in more ways than one!
Complain about this comment
I think the main reason that Gordon Brown has dropped so spectacularly in popularity is that many (like myself) hoped that he would quietly sweep away the unpopular Blair policies (ID cards, local authority snooping, database state etc) and turn nu labour into something that was recognisably different to the Labour of Blair - a government of substance not spin. Gordon even promised that he was a force for change.
The reality is, however, that all is as normal in the Labour household. We still have a government addicted to micromanaging our lives, addicted to expensive, intrusive databases, a government that doesn't know how to deal with anything other than to pass new laws or impose new taxes. Despite years of banging on about "Green Politics" what have they done other than raise a few new taxes and make a lot of noise? There is no commitment to spending tax money on new infrastructure, instead there are just vague ideas about encouraging private companies to build new (nuclear?) power stations. There is no leadership, just some vague posturing.
What made Britain great in the years after the first world war was the governments commitment to improving Britain by investing in science, engineering and education. As an example, the problem with asking private companies to build our new power stations, is that they will build what is cheapest, and what will make the fastest return on investment. What we need is for the government (or a public/private partnership - I'm not against private involvement completely) to initiate the research needed to build new Integrated Fast Breeder reactors. They will be more expensive than traditional designs, but they are orders of magnitude better in terms of safety and efficiency. The waste they produce will return to safe levels in about 4-500 years, rather than the thousands or millions of years of conventional waste, and the reactors can be used to reprocess and use existing nuclear waste that we're lumbered with. All it needs is a government with the vision and courage to do it, what we have is a government too preoccupied with asserting control and raising new taxes from an already overtaxed populace.
Complain about this comment
Nick
The 10p tax saga is a far bigger debacle than you have reported. The Chancellor is scuttling around trying to make the budget tax neutral for the lowest paid. But this is at a time when the budget gave significant tax cuts to most other payers. So the Government weren't even thinking about the plight of the poor in the first place. They should have had the courage to admit they got it all wrong and reverse the changes rather than trying to fudge their way out of the problem created by their own ineptitude.
Complain about this comment
141: "demolition job on habeus corpus through 42 day detention" - this really is the worst tory spin. so when the tories (david davis included) vote for 28 days detention, habeus corpus isnt broken, yet when it is extended to 42 days, with commons and lords votes on it it is? its a hard principle to understand.
how exactly can you blame Brown for the run on the bank?
"Half the nation's documents were lost after the consolidation of HMRC under Gordon Brown"
generally speaking, when civil servants are sacked and departments downsized after being recommended by independant review to save money, such action is usaully applauded, and no doubt if the tories did so in the name of "cutting waste" you would have applauded it. the failure of a civil servant to follow the guidelines is hardly browns fault either.
"The tripartite system collapsed at the first hurdle and is now being revised."
can you explain this? presumbably you mean the division of responsbilities for finances between fsa/boe/government? not a perfect system, but hardly failed at first hurdle, after existing for around a decade and working well for that time
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
143. peteholly
You could be talking about John Major in 1995. I felt sorry for him too. He was useless as well mind.
Sympathy and commonality are no reason to vote for someone.
Though it seems to be rather a common around here.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting that at PMQ's on Wednesday GB claimed that he had decided on Nuclear Power, nothing has been done, it should have been decided 5 years ago.
3 Million homes? now highly unlikely to be built within the timescale.
Airport expansion? Should have been decided years ago, Heathrow is now at full capacity for most of the day. As we have seen any delays have a huge knock on effect for hours or days. Hardly a brilliant record of a Party that has been in power for 10 years.
The reality is that this Government has ducked decisions left right and centre, the very claim that he attempted to put on the Conservative opposition.
Who does Gordon Brown really think is is power? On the evidence of PMQ's he seems more interested in asking questions rather than answering them.
The reality is he would be happier in opposition rather than in power.
Complain about this comment
We've had slightly exagerated comparisons with Mugabe with Zanu Labour comments and sometimes hitler. How long before someone compares Brown to Davros? Cameron will be the Doctor of course. Putting the jadoon back on the beat, Too many powers handed over to the shadow proclamation etc. Its been an hour now I'm suprised it hasn't happened already.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I can honestly say, it seems an awful lot longer than one year since Brown took over. The sequence of events since then is hard to believe, with the fall from favour of the Labour Party, the key good point of the political year. Brown has achieved the near impossible, including the debacle that is Wendy Alexander. For those in middle England who think that she followed the rules and is a victim of partisan politics, it would be worth remembering that she accepted an illegal donation. No, not one that she was advised was OK, but one that was illegal. In point of fact, she is lucky she does not have a criminal record.
Labour in Scotland, his own fiefdom as we are reliably told by the BBC, is at each others throats and will soon be a minor irritant. At that point, Labour will cease to have any prospect of regaining power in the UK Parliament. Quite some achievement for a Labour leader.
As for the future, Brown is a lame duck in the same way that Bush is now occupying the office of President. The only question is will he be pushed, or will he be dragged kicking and screaming?
Complain about this comment
#152 smfcbuddie: I am still waiting for somebody from north of the border to tell me why my summary (#140) of the recent events surrounding Alexander's resignation is incorrect. If it's not, then the suspicion of political back-stabbing seems not unreasonable.
As for your criminal offence, I think you must be referring to her campaign's decision to accept the princely sum of £950 from a businessman - only 'illegal' because his business was based in Jersey. Not exactly mafia-like! In fact while strictly illegal, it was much less morally questionable than many others who have benefitted personally by their actions (eg the Wintertons) while maybe staying just inside the law.
Complain about this comment
#121 frankcastle. In this big wide world how many top rankings should a little country like Britain have? Are you seriously suggesting 5 in the top 50 isn't a good showing for such a little country.
Any way I dare say you got all your qualifications when they were really difficult to get back in the good old days. The people that got all those really difficult to get qualifications in the good old days ended up running the country. Look at as now we are reaping the benefits
Complain about this comment
#121,#154: I didn't respond to frankcastle's original post because he didn't give any provenance for his statement. In fact there are several league tables of world (and indeed UK universities), most of which are more or less spurious. It all depends what criteria you use, and many are based on historical reputation rather than current performance.
The table here:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2207256,00.html
gives one version, which shows UK institutions in positions 2,3, 5 and 9. US universities usually dominate such tables, partly because they are a lot wealthier; but if you look at Europe then it is the UK that dominates.
Complain about this comment
I will only accept Brown's assertion that the current situation is all down to global forces if he admits
1) the performance of the UK economy over the 10 years he was Chancellor was all down to the same global forces and not his skill
2) he shouldn't have made ridiculous statements like "the end of boom and bust" which were patently untrue and would have resulted in a fail grade for an A level Economics student (even today)
3) the government he was a significant part of failed to save anything during the good times to provide an umbrella for the rainy days.
If he did, my respect for him as a man would increase but I would still not believe he has the skill to be Prime Minister. He is the typical CFO who thought he was running the business and could dispense of the CEO without issue. In fact he ran one admittedly important department but which only had to provide answers to one area of the political agenda and could practice a blocking tactic towards everyone elses creativity without ever having to be creative itself.
When the Finance Department tries to get creative, it is not unusual to see results like the Tax Credit system. Beautifully polished on the drawing board and utterly useless in practice.
The UK electorate is rapidly turning its back on the political class. Brown is the living example of everything a politician is like and as a result will never be accepted as our leader.
Complain about this comment
'With Labour facing financial difficulties over the repayment of millions of pounds worth of loans, the desertion of backers could be disastrous.
Sir Maurice Hatter, a millionaire businessman who has given more than £176,000, told the Sunday Times he would not donate more to a Brown-led party.
"He was a good number two, but he is not a number one. I was a Tony Blair supporter and I think his successor is doing very poorly. I believe that Brown is a nonrunner. The party would be better without him being prime minister."'
Is this just the tip of the iceberg or the individual stance of a committed Blairite?
Complain about this comment
153. jimbrant
Morning Sir
Did someone mention the Scottish Parliament…Oh good. Wonder if there is any waste in there, lets have a peek.
1997 Labour said construction of the building would cost between £10m and £40m.
1998 The cost went up to £50m.
That year we saw the decision to use the "construction management" method for the building, in which the client has full control but also carries all the risk.
The client being the government……
Hands up who can see where this is going?
After the first Holyrood election in 1999, the then Scottish Office handed responsibility for the project over to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body of senior MSPs. (This is called cut an run in the private sector)
First Minister Donald Dewar put the cost at £109m.
Costs rose, timetables were extended, MSPs came and went in the 2003 election
2004 building was finished.
3 years late and had cost about 10 times the original price tag. Approx 430 Mill.
Expert valuation of the completed building discovered that it is worth 350 million a full 80 million less than the cost of construction. (a brand new build with neg equity WOW)
A spokesman said managers had always known that delays and problems with its design meant that the parliament had cost more to build than its value would be on completion. Oh thats OK then.
An inquiry was held by Lord Fraser.
He found systemic failures but no single "villain of the piece” but made it clear, everyone involved in the project - consultants, contractors, MSPs, staff - might have managed it better.
Funny how that always happens in the public sector isn’t it.
It did win the UK's richest architecture award though !!!
I see what you mean Jim its dam hard to find this illusive government waste stuff isnt it.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown has proved in his first year he was promoted beyond his level of competence. The year has also shown the flaws in his years as Chancellor.
Unfortunately our children and grandchildren will still be seeing the sour fruits of PFI paying off the massive debts.
The Northern Rock fiasco, was compounded by dithering and lack of control.
Have we all forgot the white elephant of the Millenium dome
Education Education Education was the cry, children who started and in their first years at school at the start of the Labour term are now starting work, will basic jobs be available, unemployment predicted to rise. My Local paper reported a large supermarket company recruiting in Poland for shelf stacker's yet we have young unemployed
We had Blair's legacy of war and spin, Brown promised a better way 12 months on failed to deliver.
If the Labour party wants to survive in its present form then it can't wait for a general election, it has to act.
Complain about this comment
Labour’s auditors have been able to sign off the accounts.
It emerged this weekend that Derek Simpson, the joint general secretary of the Unite union, has written a formal letter promising to continue funding Labour, which has debts of more than £20m.
The unions, who now account for almost 90% of Labours donations, are demanding reforms to employment law, including increased redundancy payments and a relaxation on the ban on secondary strike action.
Do you remember the greedy tanker drivers who recently held the UK to ransom and got a 14% raise, surprise, surprise, members of the Unite Union.
At the time John Hutton said the deal reflected the particular conditions in the industry. He said: "There needs to be discipline in public and private sector pay if we are to keep inflation under control."
Simpson also wants to see John Hutton, the pro-City business secretary, removed from his job. Describing the cabinet minister as a “bogeyman”, Simpson said: “I don’t think his approach gains any respect from the people I represent. I don’t know anyone who has a good word to say about him.”
Looks like Brown is behind the wheel but he has got a strong back seat navigator;
Simpson - Jump Brown
Brown - Yes Derek, how high?
But it appears that NuLabour may at last rediscover its roots. The party has also made contingency plans to sell party constituency offices around the country.
Well, Well back to the smoke filled back room of bars and a pint of beer of the old days! But dont worry all is not lost, with some, rare, NuLabour hindsight the rooms will at least be smoke free!
Complain about this comment
Not that this is in any way of huge significance but even the father of The Williams tennis sisters has come out and said that GB looked good when he was behind someone else (I'm assuming he meant GB). And this from someone who has no real interest in politics.
Complain about this comment
Nick
This opening paragraph, in an article from a recent issue of the Times Online, sums up my thoughts about NuLabour, one year on.
A year after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, the Labour Party seems to have adopted the Gerald Ratner approach to its leader. Ministers, backbenchers, party activists all declare that the product is “crap” but they still want the voters to buy it at the next election.
Absolutely fantastic!
Complain about this comment
The money dried up for Nu Labour. Thats what happens when you dont offer value.
If half of this is true, it must be the beginning of the end.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4232384.ece
Complain about this comment
It's simple really; the NewLabour project is dead as are its two key architects, Blair and Brown.
Blair responsible for a disasterous and unlawful war in Iraq.
Brown responsible for wilful mismanagement of the economy.
Both responsible for vacillation and waste. Endless reviews and prodigous amounts of money spent.
Ten reviews of the NHS and a budget of £97bn per annum - triple what they inherited.
Education. education, education was the shout yet universities are refusing to accept some A levels and many are having to give first year students catch up training.
A ridiculous culture of entitlement leading to children being awarded prizes for coming last and group therapy sessions in class.
A dizzying array of meddling initiatives with nothing achieved. Announcements about nuclear power which are utterly meaningless and without manner or method of introduction.
The NewLabour project is falling on its own sword. Party sponsors are refusing to give them money and they will now be in hock to the trades union movement who will take us straight back to the secondary picketing of the 1970s.
Fifth place in a byelection behind the BNP is an achievement unmatched in history.
It's time for some hard work to put right what these vacillators have messed up and it will be a long haul back to put the national accounts in order after eleven years of NewLabour grave robbing.
NewLabour, NewVivienneNichols... "I'm going to spend, spend, spend". She ended up bankrupt and so will we until these incompetents are ejected from Westminster.
Complain about this comment
I'm just a factory worker and don't claim to understand big business but it seems that to attract businesses into this country the handcuffs have been taken off them and they are running wild, ravishing Joe public who have little defence other than our govenment. Yes we need to attract companies, and they will come to make money but the lack of control shown by this government either due to greed or weakness, and lets face it probably both, is criminal. Gordon Brown never had a chance to be voted prime minister after raping our pension and all the stealth taxes, I do believe he thinks we are to stupid to remember this, but this whole govenment is now so weak it has to go. A prime example of there weakness, instead of sorting such as oil and power prices to get inflation he tells Joe public to keep down pay rises. Well perhaps Mr Brown if you took control of the greed at your end of the spectrum we wouldn't need large pay rise in the first place.
Mr. Brown if you are so cock sure what you are doing for the country is right, you've had a year now, call an election, go on, I dare you
Complain about this comment
Dear mods
Is there any chance of the characters in the blog reflecting what is typed on the keyboard.
It does make reading interesting when
the pound sign comes out as £
inverted commas come out as "
exclamation marks as !
and brackets are ().
Is the blog by any chance set up for the USA keyboard layout (question) ?
Complain about this comment
Some people quite rightly blame Gordon Brown for selling off the gold reserves for a low price compared to what the value is today.
May I say that I used to be employed by a Merchant bank in the City and they were also bullion dealers. They were also responsible for setting the price of gold every day with other banks in the City. It was a bad, no disastrous move to sell the gold reserves.
However, we should blame all governments and organisations going back to when the British National Oil Corporation (BNOC) was set up. We have sold off our oil and gas reserves and now there is effectively ever dwindling reserves. Yet what are we asking the middle east countries do, yes, sell their oil and gas cheaply so that we can maintain an unsustainable standard of living.
I think some people fail to understand that foreigners are not stupid. Why should they dig us out of a hole of our making. It's not only the gold it is, well, everything. It's nearly all gone!
Complain about this comment
"Blair the best PM in a lifetime going back to Churchill..."
Blair conned the whole country in 97 and only a few people saw through him. It seems that some poor deluded souls continue to be taken in by the wafer thin image he projected and the impossible to deliver promises he made.
The person in the UK with the biggest smile about Brown's demise is Blair himself.
The only talented thing Blair ever did was to jump ship before it sank and he's left us all to put the boot in Brown (something he was never prepared to do).
And where is Blair now, "saving" the middle east. A middle east that he personally helped explode.
There truely is no justice.
Complain about this comment
#163 RussellHolmstoel Russell you have said much on NuLabour waste. The following link shows not only waste but an insight into how NuLabour tackle our most vulnerable workers. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Actually, having read many of these comments, I wonder how many of these authors actually voted for Blair and Co in the last 3 elections.
They should all hang their heads in shame for being so gullable and easily taken in. In many ways we are getting what we (or should I say you) voted for.
Maybe next time you'll be a little more careful.
Oh and by the way, if we let Brown (and most of the politicians in Westminster) sell off this countries democracy to Brussels, fairly soon it wont matter who you vote for because everything will be decided by an unelected quango in Brussels.
Hey Ho Happy times.
The only thing to do is to move to Totnes where nobody worries abouth anything.
In conclusion, I actually feel sorry poor old Gordon. What was that old song "Gordon is a moron...." he actually thought for all those years that he was our saviour when it turns out he's only a third rate, self seeking, inexperienced (real world - what real job has he ever had?), I know better than everyone else, jumped up politician, who can only try and blame others for his mistakes or talk about tough decisions.
Seems to me he's made a mess of every tough decision he's had to make. In the real world he would have been fired long ago.
Dont worry be happy!
Complain about this comment
Not many comments on The Cameron Blog. or the Cameron HYS page. Looks like the Conservatives on here don't like him either. The Davis stunt is starting to make sense.
It looks like its going to rain outside. Is that Gordon Browns fault?
If you get good weather I suggest you go outdoors a bit more and stop sucking the joy out of life on here and HYS with your right wing obsessive Gordon Brown hating comments.
Then maybe you can try and be positive talking a bit about the Conservative party and how it will be great for the country and how the country will be so successful at producing better looking figures on a spreadsheet. Then you produce nice charts showing how successful this country is mathematically.
Complain about this comment
The problem Gordon Brown has had is that people generally have seen his decisions as mistakes long before he comes round to this conclusion. This is what makes him look consistently deluded and a bad decision maker.
For example, I watched the 10p budget speech and immediately thought 'So he's taken money from me and given it to my boss...?' I didn't have a calculator or an economics degree, just the knowledge that I am not favoured with tax credits and he was announcing he was unfairly increasing my taxes with that big lobsided grin on his face.
Journalists and fellow politicians fawn over him as a man of principle. Unfortunately waxing lyrical about emotive issues doesn't mean that he actually has any solutions. Ideas devoid of imagination usually equate to 'you are a social problem - er - here's more money for you, don't spend it all at once.' This doesn't tackle anything beyond raise a graph on a spreadsheet.
On the strength of what has gone before I conclude it ain't going to get better. For those waiting for the 'real' Gordon to shine through with 'vision' and 'character' will be waiting forever. Actions speak louder than words.
Complain about this comment
# 159 mikethebiscuit, I disagree with everything you say about the state of the country, I wont go into detail but I am a working class pensioner and I am doing very well, I would like a little more cash but then so would everybody and that applies however much your getting, so all in all I and millions of pensioners are doing quite well.
What I would like to take issue with is the Dome, first conceived by John Major's Tories and later taken over by Labour because they trusted that the costings and expected attendance had been accessed by none other than William Hague, when challenged on this in PMs question time he admitted it rather sheepishly which was rather unusual as Hague does'nt normaly do sheepish.
I am not trying to say that all the blame for the building of the Dome is the fault of the Tories, but they kept a pretty low profile on their part in its conception whilst berrating the government for its construction until their part in it was revealed.
Complain about this comment
173. grandantidote wrote
Ref millions of pensioners are doing quite well.
First time Ive heard that statement.
Isnt it about £150 a week for a couple
Well I for one think it should be a lot more.
Interesting fact on the dome. The Tories did started it but they actually ran it all by TB first, they didnt want to start such an expensive project with out his agreement. He agreed it was a good idea.
What a waste
Complain about this comment
The cost of the gold sale was 2 billion
Complain about this comment
Re #171.
Excellent comment. There is no sense of balance from some of the bloggers on here.
"It looks like its going to rain outside. Is that Gordon Browns fault?"
Absolutely correct.
For all the anti-Brown commentary nobody puts up a compelling argument for voting for Cameron. What is the vision? Where is the substance? In a period unique in terms of global economic pressures what is the Cameron doctrine? Where is the evidence of his previous ability to run anything, create anything of substance or solve any real world issues?
The usual suspects who are manic in their hatred of Gordon Brown should come up with a compelling argument as to why our salvation is going to come from David Cameron. The answer to the country's problems must lie in the ability to produce soundbites at PMQ's and alleviate from penury those who will pay inheritance tax on properties worth over 600K?
Complain about this comment
re: 129 moderateprogressive
"would you really have chosen to let northern rock go to the wall?"
no, I wouldn't have allowed myself to get into that position in the first place if I'd been chancellor; I'd have listened years beforehand when people were constantly telling me that the rules needed proper oversight/tightening, and I wouldn't have just sat back and waited until a disaster happened.
"100 billion is a grotesque exaggeration. its around 20, and is being paid back by the billions."
ok, well, only 20 billion, I guess that's alright then. That's not what I heard/read though; from what I heard/read on every single news source it's well over 100 billion in liability, and a massive amount in actual physical cash/bonds)
The whole point when it comes to Northern Rock is that Brown was in charge when they were trading with such bad policies, he was warned about it and did absolutely nothing despite constantly being warned that the whole system was a disaster in waiting as he'd basically let the oversight/rules go down the toilet and the banks could all do pretty much whatever they wanted while he was in charge.
"how, exactly, do you think Brown became PM? this isnt the tory party of three decades ago, labour has a strong tradition of internal democracy. he was elected by his MPs, on the basis that nearly all of them chose him over alternatives"
lies ! he wasn't elected at all; nobody voted for him; there was no election. He simply bullied/threatened/bribed his colleagues into not allowing anyone else to stand against him. It was absolutely obscene.
Complain about this comment
#173 grandantidote
so all in all I and millions of pensioners are doing quite well.
So grandantidote just how many millions of pensioners do you represent 1, 2, 3…..
Or is it you just talking generalities, twaddle again!
Complain about this comment
#163 RussellHolmstoel
Russell you have said much on NuLabour waste.
I have tried to include a link, to the daily mail @169, shows not only waste but an insight into how NuLabour tackle our most vulnerable workers. The disabled workers at Remploy! But it has been referred to the moderators. So the following is the article without the glossy photos.
Last March Remploy sacked half its workforce, leaving many facing an uncertain future.
But for managers at the country's biggest employer of the disabled, the outlook is not so bleak.
Although 2,500 of their workers will lose their jobs by the end of this month as state-owned Remploy cuts costs, the top team are driving around in company cars worth a total of £8 million.
The firm, set up in 1945 to provide skilled work for the disabled, employs workers in 83 factories making items from school furniture to nuclear protection suits.
About 80 per cent of its staff are disabled. The closures will halve the numbers, although some will be found work with mainstream firms.
Critics said yesterday that the taxpayer-funded cars bosses still enjoy will rub salt in the wounds of those worrying about their future.
Remploy's Whitehall company car scheme covers 441 managers and sales staff. Bob Warner, the chief executive, drives a 2.7 litre diesel Mercedes sports car, which would sell for about £29,000. Others drive sports cars and off-road vehicles. Only three of the cars driven by managers and sales staff cost less than £10,000.
Critics disagreed. Phil Davis, of the GMB union, said: "The fact that there was this spending by the Remploy management is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the waste and mismanagement of the organisation over the years.
"The failed management are still in place as 28 factories are shut with 2,500 job losses."
John Grogan, Labour MP for Selby, said: "There's a real sense of anger and resentment over this. The workers at the York factory met the Prime Minister in person to save their factory to no avail.
"Now to hear that management is riding round in Mercedes rubs salt into the wound for people whose lives have been completely devastated. How can they justify abusing public money in this way?"
The vehicles driven by managers and sales staff include;
2 Land Rover Freelanders,
7 Nissan XTrail 4x4s,
10 Saab 9-3 SportWagons,
5 Toyota Rav4 4x4s,
5 Volkswagen Sharan seven-seaters,
3 seven-seat Volkswagen Tourans,
5 Ford Galaxys,
14 Volvo S60s,
2 Volvo S80s,
15 Audi
3 Sportbacks,
38 Audi A4 saloons
2 Audi A6s
Complain about this comment
re: 176 peteholly
"The usual suspects who are manic in their hatred of Gordon Brown should come up with a compelling argument as to why our salvation is going to come from David Cameron."
I'd switch it around the other way actually, I'd say that no matter who's in charge, they can't do/be any worse than brown, so I'm prepared to take a risk on a relative unknown.
Besides, Cameron, even if you don't like his politics or smarm, does seem to have a basic grasp of maths/economics/logic, which is more than Brown's got, as Brown's been either lying or negligent ever since he got the chancellorship.
"we're not meeting my fiscal rules? hey, lets just change the rules then, and then hide all the debt too; we can do the same thing with inflation and unemployment stats too"
Complain about this comment
this 100bn myth was started by the reporter who broke this story. dividing the loans and guarantees(money at risk) over every taxpayer and calling it £3000 per taxpayer. Immediately everyone assumed an extra tax of £3000 per taxpayer. Especially on Have Your Say website. This misunderstanding was allowed to go on unchallenged. There was a marked dis proportionality amount of coverage and reporting enthusiasm given between Northern Rocks problems and the other major banks similar problems. Perhaps that was because it is based in a major labour heartland.
I was watching This Week last Thursday. and Michael Portillo said that he thought the bad press for Brown was revenge for the press thinking it had been bullied during the Blair years.
If this is correct, I hope the Northern Rock coverage was not part of that revenge. We in the North East might mostly vote labour(I don't*), but we are not the labour party. and don't deserve to loose 3000+ jobs partially because BBC journalists were upset with labour.
I am well aware that there was problems with Northern Rock's over risky strategy as a business it was trying to maximise profits. It was t taking excecisive risks,but it could have been controlled if the FSA could have been bothered to travel to the North East. A problem with the employees of that organisation rather than the organisation itself maybe.
Also these sub prime mortgage investments were labelled as safe investments. Which is why every other bank is having problems.
*I don't vote conservative either by the way very few people do here. Who don't live in new suburbs, in the country or on the coast.
Complain about this comment
171
The reason why there appears to be a lot of comments against Gordon Brown is because the blog is reflecting what most of the public feel. The term 'obsessive Gordon Brown hating comments' seems to suggest that those who disapprove of GB are all hysterical, over-emotional plebs who have no real understanding of politics. I certainly don't understand the connection between hating GB and being 'right wing'. Are you seriously suggesting that GB is a left-wing socialist? (He's a great admirer of Margaret Thatcher, remember.) The fact is that the majority of people are turning against GB for obvious reasons and as we live in a democracy, it's time for him to go.
You may have a point that some of the GB 'haters' can't say why they would vote for Cameron apart from the fact he isn't Gordon Brown. However, doesn't this speak volumes? People in this country are desperate for change.
I do take your point about getting 'outside' more. It's work tomorrow and I'm sat here obsessing over this interesting blog.
Complain about this comment
peteholly @176 wrote:
"For all the anti-Brown commentary nobody puts up a compelling argument for voting for Cameron."
The fact that Cameron is not Brown is sufficient for most people.
Hell, I'd vote for a turnip so long as it was not a Nu-Labour turnip. You really don't seem to appreciate how sick and tired the nation is with Brown, Nu Labour and all their works.
(And, to cap it all, Rab C. Nesbitt's 'wife' is probably going to topple Nu Labour from Glasgow East.)
Complain about this comment
179. Roll_On_2010
Thanks a lot, I found the article on This is London.
Don’t for get to tell Jimbrant.(49) apparently this waste is just too hard to get rid of and we in the private sector just don’t understand the complexities of the problem.
I have to say I am learning fast how to manage in the public sector. It seems you just chuck a ton of money at things and start with your perks and pension.
I liked the CEOs comments :
"I drive 25,000 miles a year on Remploy business and need a car that is reliable. It is only a small Mercedes and it has a diesel engine which is more environmentally friendly”
Oh yes and Bobs salary was £143k in 2006 so he must be on 175k by now. Wouldnt be surprise if he got a bonus for the savings made from the lay offs either.
I loved the way they laid off the disabled workers but kept the managers and the cars. Very NuLabour
Keep em coming.
Complain about this comment
Thanks a lot, I found the article on This is London.
Don’t for get to tell Jimbrant.(49) apparently this waste is just too hard to get rid of and we in the private sector just don’t understand the complexities of the problem.
I have to say I am learning fast how to manage in the public sector. It seems you just chuck a ton of money at things and start with your perks and pension.
I liked the CEOs comments :
“I need a car that is reliable and it is only a small Mercedes”
Oh yes and Bobs salary was £143k in 2006 so he must be on 175k by now.
I loved the way they laid off the disabled workers but kept the managers and the cars. I wonder if he gets a bonus due to the savings made from the layoffs.
Keep em coming.
Complain about this comment
#179. Roll_On_2010 and #185 RussellHolmstoel: I agree that the Remploy case looks scandalous on the surface, but I don't know whether there is more to it than has appeared in the press. For example, the CEO is quoted as saying:
"In a survey of 123 companies comparable with Remploy, the Remploy company car fleet of 441 vehicles is lower than the 493 vehicles average in other companies. The average list price of cars driven by Remploy staff is £19,000 which is also comparable with other organisations of similar size."
In any event, I wouldn't see Remploy as being typical of the public sector. More typical would be the fact that the Perm Sec who overlooks Remploy has a Civic 1.4 hybrid diesel.
You can always find examples of waste, and this might be one; but you can find waste in private companies as well. Perhaps you might look at a water company?
Complain about this comment
Just for Sceptic @ 183 because I know he/she will come back with something witty:
"Hell, I'd vote for a turnip so long as it was not a Nu-Labour turnip."
Indeed. Come 2010 you will literally get your opportunity in the shape of Dave Cameron.
The argument is we hate Gordon Brown with such vehemence that we will vote for anybody. The worst example of this spectacular logic is post 180. The author is partly right though. Cameron "does seem to have a basic grasp of economics and maths". Very basic indeed. That is one of the reasons why he is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Complain about this comment
#186 jimbrant
You can always find examples of waste, and this might be one; but you can find waste in private companies as well. Perhaps you might look at a water company?
---------------------
jimboy I really don’t give a monkey about how much private companies waste we end up paying through the nose for their products anyway. What hacks me of is when taxpayers money is wasted.
The other more important part to the comment I raised was NuLabours treatment of disabled workers. NuLabour represents the working people of the UK What a load of tosh!
Complain about this comment
Yellowpolitix@182
and the impartial getridofgordonnow@180
Its is difficult to believe that their is this much enthusiasm for attacking Gordon Brown is on the basis of the feeble "At least David Cameron isn't Gordon Brown!" arguement. What is he then? Why should Cameron be better just because he isn't Gordon Brown? The arguement is bogus. You are fed up with Brown because you are Conservatives. Not the great British public starting a Cyber revolution like you say.
Although I am a lib dem voter, I know they won't win the next election. There was some talk about a hung parliament before but now I don't know. Yellowpolitix are you a lib dem? if so, do you not think that Cameron is PRETENDING to be Liberal to wipeout the lib dems and deny britain a third choice once and for all? I do. I don't trust Cameron's over clever, open to interpretation use of language.
What about if the Conservatives win? Like the SNP would like happen. Will England we be left with a Conservative government forever as Scotland wins their vote of independance? Scotland has good reason to hate the Conservatives. the Poll tax experiment for a start.
Complain about this comment
Is the SNP behind Gordon Brown's demise?
This seems to be the consensus on the BBC's website with regards to Ms Alexander who has resigned her post at Leader of the Opposition at Holyrood.
She ignored Gordon Brown's plea to stay on and jumped ship before it sinks and drags her down with the rest of the Labour crew.
Ignore the law that Labour brought in (not the SNP), break rules, try to fix donation levels below acceptable levels and take a holier than thou stance.
It's the SNP's fault, it wisnae me mister honest.
Who will take the helm when the Scottish Labour Party's next steely ship sets sail?
Kapitan Kerr?
Complain about this comment
#189 dhwilkinson
What about if the Conservatives win? Like the SNP would like happen. Will England we be left with a Conservative government forever as Scotland wins their vote of independance? Scotland has good reason to hate the Conservatives. the Poll tax experiment for a start.
Well it does look as though the NuLabour goose is well and truly cooked!
Complain about this comment
Ref jimbrant wrote:
You missed out:
Phil Davis, of the GMB union, said: "The fact that there was this spending by the Remploy management is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the waste and mismanagement of the organisation over the years.
"The failed management are still in place as 28 factories are shut with 2,500 job losses."
John Grogan, Labour MP for Selby, said: "There's a real sense of anger and resentment over this. The workers at the York factory met the Prime Minister in person to save their factory to no avail.
"Now to hear that management is riding round in Mercedes rubs salt into the wound for people whose lives have been completely devastated. How can they justify abusing public money in this way?"
Complain about this comment
peteholly @187 wrote:
Indeed. Come 2010 you will literally get your opportunity in the shape of Dave Cameron.
No. David Cameron isn't quite a turnip. But he will still win.
So long as we're agreed that Brown can't and won't win an election I'm happy. (Surely you don't dispute this very obvious fact of life?)
Complain about this comment
#188 Roll_On_2010:
1) I pay for the water I use as well as my taxes. Don't you?
2) You have to make your mind up. If a Remploy factory is losing money (ie wasting taxpayers' money), do I understand you to be saying that you would keep it open? In fact the best way of protecting the disabled workers is the same as it is for the rest of us - make sure that their employer continues to be profitable (or in this case stays within the acceptable limit of loss set by the government).
3) As it happens none of the disabled workers for whom you feel so deeply is to be made redundant.
Complain about this comment
#190 davesubsea: see my #153 and #140 posts.
Since you seem to know the details of the Alexander case, would you comment on whether my summary is accurate?
Complain about this comment
#177getridofgordonnowwell I dont know what your problem is but your posts are getting more bizarre by the day, your so full of hate that even if the truth was staring you in the face you still would'nt believe it.
"he was elected by his MPs,on the basis of nearly all of them chose him over any alternatives" nothing wrong with that, its what happens in democracy,why have you got a problem with that.
Then you turn into manic mode every thing is lies except of course what you have to say and that of course is gospel, you had a special insight into what was going on in the Labour party, you actually saw Gordon Brown bully threaten and bribe his colleagues into not allowing anyone else to stand against him, and of course they welcomed Getridofgordonnow into their meetings so that you could report all this abhorrent nonsense onto these blogs. is that why your so knowledgable about what happened.?
Your nonsense about Northern Rock, you read this and heard that, I am afraid that is what is wrong with you tory armchair politicians, you believe to much about any given subject that you read in the Daily Mail
or you listen to the rantings of people like Peter Hitchens, Piers Morgan and people of that ilk, if your going to have a rant atleast have a rant about a subject your conversant with. look forward to hearing from you when you come back from Mars.
Complain about this comment
173 grandanitdote
I am please that as pensioner you are doing well, I too am a pensioner and very happy with my position, however you miss the point and may be are looking through red coloured spectacles. For the record working class, worked every day from 15 to 65. never been left a penny, so worked for everything.
Some of my friends are die hard labour supporters and some others are nu labour. Whilst I have never been ashamed to say I am Conservative. Unfortunately for GB both old and nu labour supporters are unhappy and will not vote Labour next time. Brown and Blair have succeeded in alienating its core voters and it floating voters.
I hope you will answer what is your solution if you disagree about PFI, unemployment and why we should be recruiting workforces outside the UK.
Even today one of its loyal backers are saying Brown has to go.(BBC news)
Complain about this comment
THE boss of the Government Quango blamed for axing weekly dustbin collections
earns more than the PM.
Jennie Price was paid 212k in 2006 as the CEO the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – the body which advised councils to introduce fortnightly collections in the winter to avoid a public backlash over smells. They also advised on the micro chip fiasco in bins that worked so well
4 other WRAP staff enjoyed six-figure salaries in 2006
The Quangos salary bill has soared 561 per cent in the last five years. 1.3 Mill to 8.5 Mill
Wonder if Jennie drives a Civic 1.4
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the CEO of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) on 212k pa drives a Civic 4
Anyone checked ?
Complain about this comment
#178 rollon 2010, you ask how many pensioners I represent, well I guess its about the same numberof people that you claim to represent when you say the people want gordon to go, give or take a few thousand. so I suppose we are both talking twaddle, but I think my twaddle is more acurate than yours, my ill informed friend.
Complain about this comment
Ref grandantidote
Evening Sir
The number of people living in relative poverty climbed by some 400,000 between 2005/6 and 2006/7. And most of this increase was concentrated among pensioners
The IFS estimates that the number of pensioners living in relative poverty rose by 300,000 to 2.5 million over that one year period.
That’s just one year up to 2007
How bad is it now do you think with recent rises in fuel, council tax and food.
But at least those QUANGO CEOs get super salaries oh yes and final salary pensions, they will be fine.
Doesnt that make you just a little bit mad. does me.
Complain about this comment
Well we are pensioners and when I compare my parents circumstances with ours, one could not talk about it in the same breath.
Quite honestly there is no comparison.
We have Winter fuel allowance, a Christmas Bonus (Which incidentally Hague said he would stop if he was elected) and next year we will have a free TV licence. Free Bus Services, Half price rail.
We have had people around to the house to see if we require extra insulating which fortunately we did not.
need to take up.
The Fire Brigade fitted us free of charge a door safety chain without us even asking. We also were inspected for fire alarms, once again we had them installed so did not require them.
And they made sure our Gas Alarm monitor was in first class working order
I had to wait only 4 months for attention to an inherited medical problem, which my late Father had to wait just over 5 years for to be corrected.
He was in Hospital for 6 days, I was in and out on the same day.
Admitted in the Morning and allowed to go Home after the effects of the anaesthetic wore off.
My Dad had the Op done in a crumbling Hospital, which reeked of fags and smelled of Urine as it was a Geriatric Hospital.
My Op was done in a new state of the art Multi Million Pound Complex which the people of this area have waited for since just after the end of WW2.
So my little cross will be GB's at the next GE.
As health is the thing I place above all else.
BTW.
I have just returned after a few weeks in the USA.
My parents had to use life savings to make that trip only once in their lives.
I will be there again later on this year as well as Jaffa in Israel and God willing Petermarisburg in S. Africa.
We were never rich, both worked hard, educated our family well and my husband paid into a pension from being a young man.
So we do not owe the State a thing, it was by our own endeavour, as it should be.
And I am proud to say I am Labour to the backbone and would never vote anything else.
Complain about this comment
# 198
The CE of WRAP may be paid £212 K but I very much doubt if she earns that amount.
One of the greatest failings (and missed opportunities) of 11 years of Blair and Brown has been their abject capitulation to the greed of senior management in public and private sectors alike. No wonder relative inequality is increasing so fast!
Every time I hear a fat cat or a "remuneration committee" justifying obscence salaries by saying they have to pay the market rate I have a hollow laugh. They never test this so-called market; in fact they fix it.
Complain about this comment
#200 globalartichoke
#178 rollon 2010, you ask how many pensioners I represent, well I guess its about the same numberof people that you claim to represent when you say the people want gordon to go, give or take a few thousand. so I suppose we are both talking twaddle, but I think my twaddle is more acurate than yours, my ill informed friend.
Show me any of my blogs where I have actually said what you claim above or anything even remotely like your claims in the paragraph above. I have at no time claimed to represent anyone but myself.
In this blog you say give or take a few thousand. In your previous blog you say millions. If you don’t do accuracy then maybe a little consistency would be appreciated!
I can only say that you, not I, are talking twaddle, even in your latest blog!!
I could be bitchy and say, If you are such a stickler for accuracy try checking what you type, but I wont.
I suggest you go and have a lie down it sounds as though you have had a long day!
Complain about this comment
Trudy_Victoria @202 wrote:
"And I am proud to say I am Labour to the backbone and would never vote anything else."
Great: an unthinking, slavish tribalism is now something to be proud of.
Complain about this comment
202 Trudi Victoria
Delighted for you and as you say Labour to the backbone. You are better off than your parents which is fine so is everyone else but Labour set out to reduce poverty especially child poverty, fact is they have not succeeded.
Labour has never solved a problem only when there is a problem throw money at it and hope it goes a away 2.7 billion 10ptax now still hitting over a million people wrongly targeted both you and I gained, shot gun approach miss the target.
Agree about hospitals but they are not paid for PFI.
Schools improved but not paid for, falling rolls and soon some will close owing millions to PFI.
Complain about this comment
202. Trudy_Victoria
That was one of the longest “Im alright jack” rants I have heard on here. But I am genuinely pleased that you are doing so well. I am also pleased to hear that some of my tax is getting through to the services that you mention.
Complain about this comment
202. Trudy_Victoria
Next time you head off on Saffari spend a moments thought for the old girl trying to live on 90 a week and faced with her latest fuel bill.
Complain about this comment
Trudy_Victoria wrote:
"We have Winter fuel allowance, a Christmas Bonus (Which incidentally Hague said he would stop if he was elected) and next year we will have a free TV licence. Free Bus Services, Half price rail."
I am glad you are reaping the benefit of all the goodies that Labour bestow upon you. But then as a pensioner you are a Favoured One.
The bonuses and free stuff is not actually free: it is funded by someone's else's wages. Someone perhaps on a low wage, who has to worry whether they can afford to heat their home or fill their car up this week. (Someone who perhaps won't be voting Labour like you.)
And if you can afford so many foreign holidays, do you really need our help to heat your home?
Complain about this comment
What will Dave do come 2010 when he finds himself the last PM of the UK and the first Prime Minster of England, as the Scots depart via the independence referendum, with the Welsh rapidly following.
I think that the economy will start picking up, far too late to save Labour, who will be probably be virtually wiped out in England at the General Election.
I do not think that English people will be too happy to have such a preponderence of Tories at Westminster, after all, 30 million pound Dave and his toffish chums do not really represent working people, so I expect that we'll see some other political entities in England gaining support.
At least the Tories might leave us alone for a while, I think we've all had enough of 'Government' to last a lifetime, in the last decade.
Complain about this comment
davesubsea@190
It worries me slightly that the SNP will help Cameron win the next election. So that the SNP can win its referendum. Lumbering us with the Conservatives forever. I have not suggested the SNP is responsible for Browns "Downfall" as you so optimistically call it.
I do hope the SNP can survive if Scotland becomes Independent and its single issue becomes irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
202:
Without dyed in the wool labour supporters like you to support him GB would almost certainly be dead and buried by now. I admire your loyalty but would question your judgement as is my right on this forum.
Complain about this comment
204 Rollon2010 so you have never said that people want Gordon to go, well so you dont think people want gordon to go. I'll make a point of making a closer scrutiny of your posts in future.
The use of the words give or take a few thousand was the difference that might be between the millions of people you represent who you think want
Gordon to go and the millions of people who I claim to represent, not the total.
You were being facetious and so was I.
I dont do blogs I do posts, you could'nt help being bitchy could you? but we've been through all that guff before it means nothing other than you are more ill mannered than I.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
209#
The foreign holidays comes via a pension that for years we went without to accumulate, it did not come cheap or easy.
And whilst that pension was being accumulated, do not forget, we were paying taxes to pay family allowance and pensions for others.
So what goes around comes around.
Plus with the exception of our mortgaged family home, we never EVER got into debt.
What we could not afford to buy right out, we either bought second hand OR! went without.
We brought up a family of 6, two of whom went to University, One for 7 years, one for 6 years.
We had to support both of them.
The others either went to college, day release and night school, all of them are now in good jobs. They all required help at some time or other.
And I would not mind having in a wage what they pay in taxes.
So No! we are not taking anything that has not been hard earned.
Last but not least, when my husband was offered the chance to go into the pension scheme, quite a few others who worked with him were offered the same opportunity, they turned it down, preferring to spend that money at the boozer.
That was their right, just as it is now our right to reap the benefits of hard work and a frugal thrifty lifestyle now.
I only ever voted Tory once. That was for Margaret Thatcher.
She said "Trust me go throught he picket lines your jobs are safe" they did around here, and less than a year later 84.000 men lost their livelihoods , placed on the scrapheap. some as young as 50 years old, never to work again.
Due to the fact that the jobs were not there, what few their was went to the young
NEVER AGAIN ! thank you very much. I will slavishly vote Labour. I quite like the habit of eating.
Complain about this comment
209# Alloyd
Have you asked the same question of David Cameron's Millionaire Stockbroker Father, or Samantha Cameron's Parents who are Millionaire Landowners, if they really need the allowances to help heat their homes?
Oh! and I am quite sure that as Tories they would have turned the money down.
Our jaunts are like a weekend away at Butlins compared to the holidays those people take on their private Yachts etc .
And NO! I do not grudge them that, the politics of envy never enters my head.
And did your Mother really need the family allowance she got for you and if not, did she turn it down?
Complain about this comment
If you go back to just before Tony did a bunk you will find that the knives were out for the dour Scot. I monitored the English press at that time. It struck me that before he could really be blamed for anything it was the fact that he was Scottish seemed to be drawing a lot of flak. The press started to draw attention to the fact that here was a Scotsman going to be in charge of the UK. The cheek of it! After those selfish Scots wanting more of a say in their own affairs. A Scotsman is going to lord it over the English. Yes and there are loads of them on the front benches too. So that was the start of it. Now that there do appear to be reasons to have a go at him we don't have to rely on just the fact that he's Scottish. Now don't go thinking that I care about Gordon Brown because I don't. What I do care about is the demise of the only party that was there to try and create a better society for all. This party died at the birth of new labour. New Labour started with promise but as usual with power came corruption. There are also some pretty unprincipled people amongst their lot. I have perceptions about them. I see them speak of commendable things but their actions don't bear these out. For example Harriet Harman and Diane Abbot have sent their children to private schools. These are the ones I know about but I am pretty sure this unprincipled behaviour is rife. It's not that they were asked to sacrifice their children in the biblical sense but just to support state education for all. They coudn't do it because it goes against middle class values that demand that you must instill in your children the will to scale that greasy pole of success. You do this by sending them to schools that have this as their ethos. Oh I appear to have went off at a bit of a tangent. Anyway back to Broon. It's just as well that there appears areas where he can be blamed or it might have appeared everyone was having a go because he was Scottish.
Complain about this comment
I find it sad that a large proportion of posts seem to be unable to separate a personal dislike from a disagreement regarding policies etc. - even subsiding into personal attacks on other posters . Thatcher's strong personality ; Major's taste for curry ; Blair's ability to spin so fast he appeared to have two faces and Brown's charismatic lack of charisma have no real bearing on the policies they pursued . What really matters is what they did . The practice of politicians holding at arms length the departments for which they are theoretically responsible via the use of 'Agencies' is now endemic - thus relieving them of any need to resign ( or take the blame ) . Remember Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman discussing the Prisons. This has given rise to fiascos such as Northern Rock in as much as the FSA was left to get on with it ensuring the then Chancellor did not get involved - and when the wheel came off could claim to be essentially blameless . A variation is the wonderful world of PFI's which in effect moves the debt from the government's books to some other organisation - however we will still have to pay for it ( or our children will ) for years to come . The gerrymandering of the indices used to calculate inflation figures is truly barefaced deception . I have no personal feelings against Brown but I think he has followed in the footsteps of all the others - not so much interested in the welfare of the country as a whole but in the interests of a select few . Do I trust Dave any more than him - hard to say . In 1997 I and many others thought we had the start of the reversal of the disgraceful policies of the Tories - how wrong we were . NuLabour are really born again Tories . At least with Dave we know what we may be getting even if we don't like it.
Complain about this comment
# 214,
Good call!
Complain about this comment
#213 grandantidote
After reading blog #218, and in respect to other contributor to this topic I have binned my original lengthy reply to you at #204.
In blog #173 you state:
(quote) so all in all I and millions of pensioners are doing quite well. (unquote)
So grandantidote just how many millions of pensioners do you represent 1, 2, 3…..
Simple question, a simple answer would suffice!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
218:
This personal abuse thing is actually confined to a small group of bloggers who can only put their point across by attempting to destroy the opinions of individuals with ill thought out character assassination attacks. It negates any credibility that they may have even though some of their points may in fact be very valid and is totally counter productive. If you to state your case on the basis of good arguments the abuse will soon subside. I must admit I fell into this wind up trap when I first started on here and tended to respond in kind. Some of my posts were removed by The Moderators as a result. I refer to individuals from all parts of the political divide here.
Complain about this comment
#222 waldorf29
Yes I agree, I have been drawn into that position but jabber_jabber at #218 and now you have made me realise the futility of that position.
Thank you to both of you!
Complain about this comment
222 Warldof29
Totally agree good argument and debate is what we want not personal attacks.
Of the 222 postings less than half are on the original subject.
Maybe the moderator should limit the number on each blog from and individual to say to 2 but also the length say to 250 words.
Complain about this comment
219#
How sad to turn so nasty on a person who for years done you no harm what-so-ever.
The only difference being political.
Shame on you for personalising differences and using it as a mini personal vendetta.
Complain about this comment
221:
Looks as if I hit a raw nerve here!
Complain about this comment
Comment #9 - spot on.
When are the NuLabour supporters going to wake up to the fact that GB inherited a good economy from the Tories in 1997? At the very LEAST he could have maintained it. Instead he squandered our money and sold off our gold reserves to the lowest bidder and now is moaning that the 'global' recesssion is solely to blame for his ineptitude.
Complain about this comment
On a lighter note:
I wonder if its policies like these that have had anything to do with Browns downfall over the last 12 months… I quote:
Government have been preparing guidelines "to encourage civil servants engage with on-line social networks", such as Facebook and MySpace.
Tom Watson the Cabinet Officer minister said – “Civil servants will be seconded from their trivial jobs running the country to "enlighten their counterparts in more senior positions" to the joys of photo sharing, instant messaging and virtual 'poking'.
With all the recent failings one might think they had more important things on their mind; clearly not.
The “trivial jobs” comment speaks volumes.
Sounds fun though…. Im off to virtually poke a few officals ..…… don’t tell the wife.
Complain about this comment
I am sure Gordon Brown means well but
I find it difficult to feel sorry for him.
Gordon has spent 10 years back stabbing and preparing to be PM - but given the chance he has demonstrated:
1. He is not a leader
2. He has no vision for what he wants to achieve
3. He fiddles about with sideline policies and doesn't tackle the big issues
4. He takes decisions for political benefit and not for the good of the country.
Labour need to lose a general election and re-group. It is time for change.
Complain about this comment
It has struck me on hearing that two major financial contributors to the labour party are critical of Gordon Brown is no bad thing for his image.
Both figures, Robinson and Levy, have been the subject of inquiries because of their financial support of the Labour party... And as I've said before elsewhere on this newslog, it is the individual membership and support of political parties which should count towards funds for electioneering and lobbying for parliament in a true democracy.
This is the whole point of this Government's recent legislation which has set limits on party donations and seeks to declare the source of all major party donations. This is political reform in its truest sense, but if it results in the demise of the reformers, so be it. Whoever wins the next election will hopefully do so with more individual support from the electorate and on perceived merit. If it is won on false hopes and perceptions, exacerbated by media propaganda, however, a complete change of government is likely to disappoint.
Complain about this comment
#220 roll on 2010, My! My! Oh! Your such a clever fellow are'nt you?
My assumption regarding that millions of pensioners were doing quite well was based on observation , in the same way as 95% of the Tories on these blogs base their beliefs on how many people want Gordon to go.
You can see in these blogs that two people have agreed with me, and their pensioners, I live in an area dedicated to pensioners and discuss affairs with them on a daily basis, a news paper has a poll of maybe 1000 people and decide how the country is going to vote, so I am, I think as they are, that if at least 80% of the people I'm in contact with think their doing OK then I think its fairly safe to assume that most if not all pensioners are doing quite well. I know that you have not said that pensioners are doing badly, but by your rather childish and unnecessary agression you are implying just that.
If indeed you think I do pensioners an injustice and that you do think pensioners are doing badly, how many pensioners do you represent?
Maybe its you that should take a morning nap, your the one who by your own admission is being bitchy, so a little nap might help you to see the world in a different light.
Complain about this comment
The explanation of Labour’s humbling is fourfold. Firstly, Brown made a great deal of his non-partisan integrity, his spinlessness, before maladroitly revealing in the election-that-never-was that this was a pose. Secondly, Brown is suffering from the resentment of a commentariat forced to spend a lot of its time with its eyes focused on a deeply uncharismatic, boring man. Thirdly, Brown spent so long crafting his political identity in opposition to Tony Blair that when it became necessary to define himself against the Tories, he was seen to cynically reverse his previous positions. Fourthly, the economy has gone to the devil.
The answer to the question “Where did it all go wrong?” is that Brown adopted the wrong tactics in 2007, had the wrong character for a shallow entertainment-hungry commentariat, was hampered by his previous political positioning and suffered the ill-luck of the turn in the global economy.
To read more of my views, search my blog on wordpress.com.
Complain about this comment
22:
On this subject of self advancement Ken Livingstone bless his soul is in the process of criticising Boris Johnson for 'taking decisions that benefit The Tory Party not London.' The guy has only been in office a month or so and Ken is already on his back saying that he won't last more than one term. No doubt he is hoping against hope that his opponent will be a miserable failure and that Londoners will have the common sense to have him back.
Complain about this comment
#218 Jabber Jabber I could'nt agree more, if you voice an opinion on any subject on these blogs then some one will attempt to belittle you to try to win their argument ,If you retaliate in the same way then they are unable to cope and look for any chink in your armour to try to better you, not with facts but with personal abuse, usually Grammer or spelling or maybe typing errors.
This has become more prevalent amongst those that consider themselves to be intellectuals and or statisticians sad to say.
You say " that at least with Dave we know what we may be getting even if we dont like it,"well Jabber if you know what you are going to get if we get Dave I will be surprised because I dont think Dave knows what were going to get if we get Dave.
Complain about this comment
#231 grandantidote
So you are saying you do not represent millions of pensioners. That your remarks were based on an assumption?
Complain about this comment
@176 (and numerous others)
While parliament is sitting, it is not actually the constitutional responsibility of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to put forward their proposals for how they would do things if they were in power. Those promises belong in an election manifesto. It is the reponsibility of the opposition to provide a counterpoint to the government's position, to play devil's advocate as it were (the clue's in the name). If they were to put forward their proposals for if they were in government, what's to stop other party's nicking their ideas and passing them off as their own? (I'm talking hypothetically here as there's conflicting evidence as to who came up with inheritance taxes changes etc first)
@153
So a Labour official has fallen foul of a "morally dubious" law and you seem to be suggesting that she should be let off, because it's not a sensible law, I've heard that before, where was that? Oh yes, it was Nu Labour supporters talking in the canabis debate. The basic arguement there was laws are laws, and you can't change them because you don't like them. I present that back to you as being just as applicable in this case.
@151
Brilliant metaphor, liked it a lot. I know it was meant in jest, but it still made me smile, if only coz I'm a Who fan, and it was nice to see the reference.
Complain about this comment
# 207 russell holmstead, The term I'm alright Jack refers to people who are doing fine and dont give a damn about anyone else, that could never be said about Trudie Victoria she is a champion of the working class and has a decent sense of fair play, unlike many on these blogs, we share similar experiences of life and we have long memories, many of the experiences that she discribes and the benifits that she has recieved from labour are the same as mine,
how can any one of you question her right to a holliday abroad, waldorf put me right on that one and I'm happy to say I was wrong. as she say's, she looked after her money she did'nt as they say "pee it against the wall" and niether did I, If many of the people who complain that they dont get enough money stopped smoking and drinking they would have plenty of cash to spend on food heating and other things.
Oh! some will proclaim taking away peoples enjoyment, well I dont smoke or drink but my pleasure is sailing so I guess I could say why dont they pay for the wife and I to go sailing, the money your given is for the essentials in lfe if you want luxury then you have to or should have saved for it but at least under this government you get enough money to make a choice.
Russell dont try to pull your tax nonsense do you not think that anyone else pays tax and dont you think that my tax and that of Trudie did'nt help pay for your Mums family allowance and possibly your education.
Complain about this comment
#226
You almost hit another raw nerve when you suggested someone would have you banned.
Not so on my part.
You would be the first to know if it had have been who I am thinking off, as that person would have told you outright and STRAIGHT! first and foremost leaving you without a shadow of a doubt.
Complain about this comment
#206
Bearing in mind the state Hospitals and Schools were in after 18 years of Tory Mis-Rule and what it costs just to BUILD a Hospital never mind equip it ,or put a workforce in.
How much do you think we would be paying in taxes if it was left to the tax-payer alone?
It would be mind blowing.
We needed PFI or we would still have most of the shambles the Tory left.
Complain about this comment
#153 jimbrant
I find it odd that you care what happened with Wendy since this blog is primarily about the past year for Brown, and you appear to be from south of the border. Were you thinking of donating some money to the Scottish Labour Party?
However, your characterisation of the events surrounding Wendy are partial, pretty much as appears to have been provided by Wendy and the Beeb alike.
Wendy went out of her way in conjunction with Charlie Gordon to get businessmen to sign cheques to the value of £950, just below a particular threshhold which then required a different form of disclosure. As part of this process, both Wendy and Charlie knowingly obtained a personal cheque from a businessman who lives in Jersey.
The letter of thanks penned by Wendy was in fact addressed to his home in Jersey, and not the company address as she first claimed. You would think that an astute person would not have provided one excuse to then have to change it. Equally you would you expect that same astute person to have considered the likelihood that the Jersey address was indicative of the case that the individual concerned was not permitted in law to make such a donation.
When pushed, Wendy did not claim that she acted unknowingly, or that she was badly advised, only that she did not intentionally break the rules. Try that defence next time the police come calling - I am sure it will fall on deaf ears, unlike Wendy's plea.
I hope this helps you to understand the events a bit more clearly. For your information, there are some links within the Beeb pages that take you to Scottish politics and even to Scottish newspaper sites.
Perhaps you might wish to address the point of my post which was that the achievements of Brown are notable only by their absence, and that Labour will come to regret his short period of tenure. The seeds of doom were set in the dying embers of the Blair years - Brown has managed to fan those embers into some pretty large flames, and he himself will be consumed by that fire in the near future. What prospect then of a subsequent left of centre government in England in our lifetime?
Complain about this comment
239 Trudy_Victoria
I don't think anyone doubts that investment in public infrastructure wss required.
The issue is that people are not satisfied with the value for money achieved.
Quangos are one source of waste and anger. PFI is another.
Over 700 PFI contracts have been let, yet detailed financial analysis of only 6 PFI contracts has been released under the Freedom of Information act.
Analysis of these 6 contracts show that companies are reaping 12 times the value they invested.
People are concerned that there is systemic failure in the Governments ability to extract value for money from PFI.
Complain about this comment
#112
Sometimes what you read on the web is correct. The NHS, with about 1.3 million employees, is the third largest employer in the world. See here: http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2004/08/10/25041/facing-nhs-problems-head-on.html
Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. I can make this claim because I recently finished working on the NHS ESR project and I can verify that we moved about 1.3 million employees onto the new system. (To the best of my knowledge we didn't leave any details on trains or lose them in any other way).
Complain about this comment
237. grandantidote
Afternoon Sir.
Point taken.
Let me put 2 direct questions to you.
How do people single pensioners survive on 95 or couples on 150 a week.
Do these rates seem fair to you while the government wastes massive amounts of cash on endless daft initiatives, (See 228)Quangos and wacky CEO salaries. When it does try to trim a Quango it and lays off 2500 disabled but retains the management.
Complain about this comment
236:
I don't support your football team (Man Utd sorry!) but I like the cut of your gib. Keep it up for goodness sake. The bit about not needing to show one's policy hand until the Election Manifesto comes out is a pearler and certainly buttons up a few good mouths on here. Was always a Stones and Beatles fan myself but love The Who tracks used for the intro to CSI!
Complain about this comment
#206
No one will ever eliminate child poverty, however NUlabour have done more to reduce it than any other government in the last Century.
And ALL from the Labour party have admitted what they have done so far is not nearly enough.
They say they will try harder to fulfill that promise.
Just as an aside regarding child poverty.
How many people do you know who could fill a large families bellies with a 3LB bag of flour, 1LB cheap lard, 1 can sliced apples and a cartload of fresh vegetables, pint of milk and a packet of custard?
Not many I would suggest, I did and had to when my husband was thrown on the scrap heap after Thatcher's top down economics failed miserably and caused him to become redundant.
With 4 boys, heights ranging from 5'10"- 6'6" nothing short of eating machines with wolves in their bellies, plus two fussy girls who turned their noses up at everything.
I had to try exceedingly hard to please and keep them all sustained.
There lies the biggest part of child poverty, brought about through ignorance, a lack of both domestic skill and a make do and mend attitude.
There would be less child poverty if parents just had a little more domestic nous and did not live in this live now pay later throw away society, which we have all become accustomed to.
That is where the majority of child poverty ills belong not the lack of government intervention.
People who bring children into this world should remember it is their first and foremost duty and responsibility to nurture and care for their offspring, not for others to pick up the tab, directly or indirectly.
With the exception of those who cannot fulfill their obligations due to infirmity or other exceptional reasons.
The rest is just excuse.
Complain about this comment
#241
Yes but you are moving the goal posts, now please stick to one point at a time.
I responded to the original question asked, not add on's
Complain about this comment
re 189/196 dhwilkinson wrote:
"You are fed up with Brown because you are Conservatives."
not true; I'm fed up with Brown because he's an incompetent lying control freak idiot, whether he was tory or labour or lib dem wouldn't make any difference to me; I'd still want someone with his "skills" booted out of public office.
"he was elected by his MPs,on the basis of nearly all of them chose him over any alternatives"
no he wasn't, that's the whole point; nobody ever elected him as their leader; he made sure that nobody stood against him and thereby succeeded in a coup. Being "elected" without having anyone else run against you is not an election, it's a coup. You can debate about why nobody stood against him, but the fact remains that as the only candidate there was effectively no election.
Maybe you think the view that Brown wasn't elected as PM is that of someone from Mars, and that the view that he's not competent is also a view from Mars, but I'd suggest that those views are a more commonly held set of views than you're willing to admit.
If you think those views are bizarre then I'd suggest you speak to other people or read other entries on the blog, as your views of Brown being a highly intelligent democratically elected PM who's never done anything wrong is clearly in the minority.
Complain about this comment
239 Trudi_Victoria
The post you were replying to - Mikethebiscuit - was pointing out that although PFI has enabled us to build hospitals, the cost to tax payers is unacceptable.
Many people think that PFI is just an exercise to keep government borrowing 'off the accounting books'.
Mikethebiscuit is pointing out that we are going to be paying a fortune for these PFI deals for years to come and by implication it would have been cheaper for the tax payer, if we had just funded the hospitals directly than try and fudge government borrowing figures.
Labour have chosen to pay for our hospitals on the most expensive loan rate imaginable. Prudence would have been a better option.
Complain about this comment
235 rollon 2010 of course it was based on a assumption that was in turn based on my observations, had you imagined that I had been out and canvassed a few million pensioners to get their opinion. Does that make you happy. do you feel as if you have established a point, well it should'nt Dave gets up every week and makes assumptions so according to you being as Dave's your man then I am in good company.
If one wanted to you could pursue every statement made on these blogs, It also implies that every statement you make on here is statisticlly factually and emphaticaly correct and yet there are many on here that disagree with you, so one can assume that every thing that you say is based on fact.
I look foreward to you questioning all the posts on here that say the whole country wants you to go Gordon, that should be fun or is it only labour supporters that you chase for details.I have just had a look through some of you posts practically all are transcrpts of what some one else said, with very little input from you.
Being as you imply that all your remarks on these blogs are accurate and no conjecture, or assumption perhaps you can tell me what all this was about.
"Recently a group of greedy workers, Tanker drivers, held this country to ransom and Brown and NuLabour did very little to castigate or deplore their actions!
Indeed the government actually voiced support for their actions in obtaining a 14% pay award. John Huttonsaid the deal reflected the particular conditions in the industry" Now did it never occur to you to find out the facts before writing this post. This group of workers, not greedy workers, although working for a very rich company that through the massive increase in fuel were having a bonanza had not had a pay rise in twelve years, The drivers had carried on doing the work they were asked to do during this twelve years,with the sudden huge increase in profit, the company were making they felt that it was time for their wages to be brought up to the level of other tanker drivers in other companies,
They approached shell being the company they were working for and requested that their wages be brought to the required level. Shell refused, so the drivers after trying to negotiate decided to strike. Not in any way trying to hold the country to ransoms as you erroneously claim
but legally holding shell to ransome with strike action, not the country, since the Shell garages only consist of about 12% of the garages in this country then it was hardly holding the country to ransome [do I see an assumption in there or a inept summing up of the situation] their Tanker drivers got their deserved pay rise and the situation was resolved.
This dispute was nothing to do with the government and they had enough sense to keep out of it had they have intervened then that might have brought a lot of other tanker drivers out in sympathy, John Hutton was absolutly right,
So you did'nt get that right did you, you assumed that the drivers were greedy you told us incorrectly that the greedy drivers held the country to ransome, and you implied that the government should have intervened when it was patently obvious that they should'nt, so there you are you picky little man.
Complain about this comment
This black and white party political divide is a strange thing. I agree with some policies and issue stances on both sides of the Labour/Tory coin. If you were to read the comments on here you would think that none of us has anything good to say about the other. We are merely responding knee jerk fashion to comments we happen to strongly disagree with. The issue I have with Gordon Brown is that I find him to be weak and indecisive which for the country is a couple of massive negatives. I also dislike his projected persona and distrust his motives although I'm sure in private he may be perfectly okay. It was the plotting to remove TB from office and the stories of spiteful rows behind the scenes that first put me off him. You might argue that has nothing to do with his policies but I'm sorry such feelings are difficult to dismiss. DC may prove to have a good projected persona but poor policies but until he has had a chance to project them and make them work I can't really judge him and nor can anyone else. If he fails then he will be judged by his incompetence and will die by the swords of both the media and The General Public.
Complain about this comment
#240 smfcbuddie: Thank you for finally responding to my request for more information about the Wendy Alexander case. You apparently find it odd that I should be interested in what appears on the face of it to be something of a miscarriage of justice; I'm just funny that way I suppose. I might also just point out, since you seem to object to discussing this case here, that my first post (#140) was a response to comments by Neo-unionist at #135, so I didn't introduce the topic to this blog.
Your recent comments relate only to the question of the £950 donation, and you do give one bit of information of which I was not aware, for which thanks again. However, I could have done without the tendentious assumptions of knowledge on Alexander's part, for which so far as I know there is no evidence; certainly you have provided none.
In any event, the Electoral Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to prove any offence, so in English law she has the right to the assumption of innocence. It might be different in Scotland for all I know.
The more recent episode, involving the decision of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, was as I understand it quite separate from the £950 case. I set out my understanding of that in my earlier post, and asked if anyone in Scotland could provide additional information to that in my summary. Nobody, (including you) have provided any such extra information, so I have to assume that there isn't any. So Alexander appears to have been found guilty because she acted on the advice of the Clerk to the Standards Committee, which was later overturned by the Commissioner. As soon as the 'correct' ruling was given, she complied.
As I say, from down here in the civilised south, that looks unfair. No wonder the Scots aren't much good at cricket.
Complain about this comment
248#
Pehaps you two would find it more acceptable for the tax-payer to pick the tab up and then enjoy the services we have now in the year 2020.
I do not share your sentiment, sorry.
The neglect and decay the Conservatives left both in the NHS and Schools was so severe I doubt if the tax-payer alone would ever catch up the level both these services are today.
Are you aware that if you lived in anywhere in the E, Midlands, had you the misfortune to have a bad heart condition you would have been sent to Leics.
Are you aware that if a female who had a lump around a breast you would be sent to Notts.
And if you had a bad head accident you would have been sent to Sheffield, sometimes even airlifted there.
Is this the sort of thing you wish to see to save money on PFI?
Is life so cheap to you that you would even consider this scenario?
I am sorry lives mean more to me than Cash.
But then unlike the Tory , who know the price of everything and value of nothing, I place human beings well above money.
It is called being a decent human being!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#243 russell holmstead first qestion .
Very care fully.
second question
no it does'nt seem fair but its a lot fairer than when Maggie was selling the country and there was no sign of were the money went.
Complain about this comment
248 jonathan_cook
It actually goes beyond PFIs
The government has taken some every day expenses off the books to stay with the golden rule
Network Rail loan interest is not included and spending once put down to road maintenance is now investment in new roads.
Imagine if you didn’t allow for your interest only mortgage in your monthly outgoings. What would people call you.
Hands up for prudent……mmmmmm thought not.
Complain about this comment
254:
Let's concentrate on the more recent past shall we? We know where some of the Treasury money went in the last 8 years but we don't know about the rest of it because it disappeared down a deep dark hole of administartion, perks, quangos and daft initiatives. We could argue about spending mistakes all day long when it comes to it. All Governments are equally to blame when it comes to wasting taxpayer's money.
Complain about this comment
Getrid...@247
Only the first comment is mine. I didn't say anything about Gordon Browns leadership election.
What did he do to stop anyone standing against him threaten contenders with a couple of heavys and a baseball bat? I think you are wandering into the realms of fantasy with this Mr Big rubbish you keeip implying. It was because the other contenders realised they had little chance of winning. So opted out of a defeat by standing down and saying it was for party unity.
If you lot are so confident that the Conservatives will be better for this country. Why not give us the reasons for that and I and others will try our best to rubbish them for you. What do the Conservatives have to offer. Apart from the ability to make everyone miserable.
Your comment about complaining about any leader doesn't seem to apply to Cameron. How is the opposition front bench holding together?
Complain about this comment
#251
I am sorry if my having other things to do means that I can't reply to your posts as promptly as you may wish. I am not in the least surprised that anyone in England is worried about a miscarriage of justice, only that you think that it relates to the topic of this blog. It is indeed a pity that you have not addressed what a complete and utter failure that Brown is and was. I suppose I can expect no less since Brown himself fails to address whatever he is asked at PMQs.
Meanwhile at planet Wendy. Your argument seems to be that yuou can just skip over a clear breach of the law by Wendy, and instead focus in on what is a very narrow technical point. Let me deal with the former first. At no stage has Wendy denied soliciting the donation of £950, so why you think this is an assumption on my part is beyond me. Charlie Gordon obtained these donations as part of a campaign for the leadership election for which he was acting on her behalf. Bear in mind, the money was for an election that never took place.
With regard to the technical aspect of your post, for the avoidance of doubt, obtaining (legal) advice does not dismiss a strict legal responsibility when that advice is then challenged and/or overturned. This is an old principle set down in law both here in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. If, for example, your accountant gives you bad advice, it is you who pays the penalty to HMRC or whoever, albeit you can always sue. A parallel can be seen for football clubs. The Police decide that a match can only be played if they are able to determine how many police should be inattendance, and the club has to pay for the privilige. If there are then policing problems at a given match, guess who carries the can (and it is not the Police)?
The Scottish Parliament operates a system of scrutiny that leads, where appropriate, to investigation by someone independent of Parliament (a chap called Jim Dyer). As I understand matters, he investigated and decided that there was indeed a case to answer.
In turn, the Committee having heard the evidence, decided to suspend Wendy for one day, something yet to be ratified by the Parliament. Whether you choose to think that this is a breach of natural justice or not is neither here nor there since no punishment has yet been meted out. In the meantime, she has jumped the gun, and set about demeaning the process by introducing allegations of partisan behaviour, something she will find very hard to prove if required by Mr Dyer.
Finally, have I missed something? Does ability to play cricket = an innate sense of fair play? If it does, then England is indeed in danger of losing the traditional sense of British fair play. Perhaps you might want to ruminate on the position adopted by the Home Secretary with regard to 42 day detention, and the killing of Jean Charles Menezes on the streets of London before you lay claim to such great moral heights.
Complain about this comment
#251
so you assume politicians resign for no reason whatsoever?
the most thick skinned animal on the planet living off the taxpayer just resigns because she feels it's all got too much?
I don't think so.
No smoke without fire.
Complain about this comment
#251 jimbrandt
Re you comments on theWendy Alexander case -
I think the position is slightly less clear cut than you believe.
First point is that the Standards Commissioner who found that Wendy Alexander was in breach of the rules is an wholly independent offficial, with no connection to the clerks from whom Wendy Alexander sought advice. His duty was to make a finding on the facts - which is what he did.
If the breaking of the rules was preceded by advice from the clerks, that does not alter the fact that there has been a breach. If, as he did, the Commissioner found that there had been a breach, he had no choice but to make that finding and report it to the Standards Committee.
Clearly if the failure to comply was caused or contributed to by wrong advice from the clerks, then it would be reasonable to take that into account as a mitigating factor. However, mitigation is not a factor to be taken into account by the Commissioner but by the Standards Committee in responding to his report.
(See the BBC online news item headed "Standards watchdog defends role")
Even on the advice point, the position is not straightforward.
Wendy asked for advice from the clerks in November - 60 days after some of the campaign cheques had been banked, despite the law clearly stating that MSPs have 30 days to declare gifts.
Put simply, she asked for advice on registration well after she had already broken the rules.
In summary, I do not think the decision of the Commissioner can be characterised as unfair or unjust. Whether the Standards Committee were harsh in recommending suspension for one day in light of the mitigating factor is more open to argument but I don't think it is quite the blatant case of denial of natural justice that you imply. In any event, the decision has to be ratified by the full Scottish Parliament.
Re the implication that Scots and cricket/fair play don't sit well together - is Paul Collingwood Scottish ?
Complain about this comment
@108 - I am not SO long out of univeristy and despite my 13 higher GCSEs, 3 good A Levels and a 2.1 from one of the world's best universities, I am not convinced by the British system.
All my "achievements" were attained with the bare minimum of effort, my degree was a three year holiday camp and - now working in recruitment - I find things are only getting worse.
And for the record, your daughter winces
everytime you spell it "Laughborough".
Complain about this comment
254. grandantidote
Ok 2 more:
1 How would you respond the the argument.
I could never vote labour after the mess Harold Wilson made of the country
2 Do you think your ploitcis should be a bit more current, than comparing everything with 1995 and Thatcher
Complain about this comment
re: 257 dhwilkinson
"Your comment about complaining about any leader doesn't seem to apply to Cameron"
d'oh! Cameron's not in power; Brown is! If Cameron was destroying the country then I'd blame Cameron. If Brown's destroying the country then I'd blame Brown; it really is that simple.
If you want a positive reason to vote for Cameron, rather than simply a negative reason to not vote for Brown, then try this....
Cameron uses logic and reason and develops/uses a reasoned debate/argument which makes sense when you hear him speak, whereas Brown just sticks to ancient dogma, sticks his fingers in his ears, and and never ever uses sound logic/reason (or maths/economics for that matter)
Just listen to PMQs and you'll see what I mean. Simply quoting reams of misleading and pointless statistics isn't pulling the wool over anyone's eyes anymore, at least not for the people who listen to argument/debate rather than just have blind tribal allegiance.
(and remember; it's Prime Ministers Questions, not Opposition Questions; it's Brown who's supposed to be answering the opposition questions, not vice-versa as Brown seems to think)
Complain about this comment
251 jimbrant
Evening Jim
Forgive me if this sounds too simple, I havent followed it in detail.
Can I ask why she just didnt declare the donations in the first place rather than try to skirt around what are clearly some fairly complicated rules and regs.
It isnt as though this wasnt a hot topic at the time
Given the fact that the public and press have been screaming for transparency for several years now. I would instruct my staff very clearly to list every donation even the pennies at the end of each week. How hard can it be.
The whole episode has done nothing to enhance the political process, every one looks bad. Which is exactly why we need Whiter than White politicians.
I hope someone makes that promise soon.
Complain about this comment
jimbrant gone a bit quiet?
Complain about this comment
Dhwilkinson
In response to a question you asked earlier, the answer is, no, I do not vote Lib Dem. Do I think David Cameron is a liberal? I think he one of the most liberal of Tory leaders yet. No I don't think he is pretending. Why do you think he is pretending. Do you think that once he's in power he will revert to being a 'true blue Tory and send the unemployed and single mothers to the workhouse?
I have always voted labour but I suppose I am now slowly coming around to the idea of being what you accusingly call a 'Conservative'. This word conjures up many connotations of zenophopia, racism, bigotry and privilege. None of these apply to me I can assure you and I think it's time to move on from that stereotypical view of the Tories. David Cameron has really turned his party around and nothing he has put forward so far has been offensive to me. In fact, some of his better policies have been pinched by New Labour. I will be watching him carefully over the next year and if I still like what I see, I will vote for him.
I would like to ask you a direct question. As a Lib Dem you seem to spending a lot of energy defending GB. I would like to know why you feel that Nick Clegg would be a better PM than GB?
Complain about this comment
#262 russell holmstead, no more questions russell but one for you why do you think that Roll On 2010 bottled it and is now having all my posts referred to the moderater, be quick or you'll miss it he's pretty quick on the trigger, its a while since we had a referrer on the blog but he's started but I dont think he'll finish.
Complain about this comment
266yellowpolitix so nothing Cameron has done has been offensive to you. So you wold say that his opposition to the minimum wage was inspirational and allowing you not to have to pay inheritence tax on your mums million pound home when she passes away is a good move and the fact that anyone needing a operationunder Dave who have got half the cost of having a operation can have the other half taken from the NHS to pay for it in the meanwhile those that have'nt got the cash move back on step, does'nt that sound really good for the poorer people in this country, of course I could go on but your happy with what he's proposing so you will be happy under Dangerous Dave.
Complain about this comment
yellowpolitix@266
There seems to be quite a few former life long supporters of labour. Who are being persuaded by Cameron. I'm not persuaded and no amount of listening to "former life long labour supporters" will change that. I am not sheep. If you are genuine though I apologise but it still won't happen.
But I must say you sound like a life long conservative to me. I think people will be insulted if this "former life long labour supporter" line many are using is false and just an attempt to sway peoples opinion.
Nick Clegg doesn't have a blog and Have Your Say entitled "Nick Clegg as prime minister?" Because he won't be. I broadly support the lib dems but nick Clegg and the lib dems need to get their act together. and we need a better voting system. That might make them a bit more successful and attract better people.
Cameron has his own blog and a Have your say and everyone is still talking about Brown on those sites. Very few Conservatives talking about Cameron as prime minister
To clear up my allegiances. Democracy is about choosing a party that you think will be to yours and the countries best interest. Conservative is out for me I'm afraid. So I would like to choose between Lib Dems and labour.
I am Centre Left. I do not support a party like a football team.
yellowpolitix is why I thought you might be a lib dem. Its probably something to do with that so called "bottled out election" thing last year. This name sounds more like an enthusiastic conservative rather than a disappointed former labour supporter like you say you are.
Complain about this comment
263 Getrid...
Cameron is challenging to be prime minister. Therefore he deserves to be challenged as much as Gordon Brown on his ability to do the job. Or David Davis or whoever it will be.
I disagree with the tribal voting that goes on in the North but Voting conservatives are big no,no. No chance ever. most people here feel the same. Which is why this is a very safe labour seat. Not good for this area at all. We need a stronger lib dems. and a voting system where the seats in parliament bear more relation to votes cast.
I'm sorry but I will always be a lifelong "Moaning Minnie".
Complain about this comment
yellowpolitix@266
"Do you think that once he's in power he will revert to being a 'true blue Tory and send the unemployed and single mothers to the workhouse?"
Yes I do, as for your single mothers and unemployed suggestion. Why does he instead of talking about people say "Hard working families" and Preach marriage. They are also still Xenophobic as well as not being interested in ordinary working people. By getting rid of the European social chapter which stops people working long hours. (more than 48 thats more than 6 days 8 hours a day). Cutting health and safety "red tape" prefering a red severed arm, and getting rid of the human rights act. I think that is a hint that the party is still stuck in the 19th century.
Complain about this comment
#245 Trudy-Victoria. I got a bit confused by this blog. I know you were trying to defend Labour's record on poverty especially child poverty, but to blame the poor old under class for being ignorant and skill less and the creators of their own misery seems a bit harsh to me and shows a total lack of understanding of the plight of the under class. I use the term under class because I now believe we have a class even further down the poverty scale.
Your endeavours to nourish your offspring are to be commended.
You showed great thrift and dilligence in managing your situation. Wait a minute this is starting to sound like something Norman Tebbit has had a hand in.
In fact I think in a previous life you might have been a Tory and you have taken the huff because your old man got thrown on the heap with the rest of the "acceptable" unemployed.
Further more you are a bit of a defeatist you say you can not erradicate child poverty. That is the attitude that stops it being erradicated. Im not having a go at you but don't stand on a socialist soap box and spout right wing veiws. This is what New labour has done to the Working and under classes of this country. They delude themselves into thinking they represent us and in turn we get deluded to thinking they do as well.
Complain about this comment
272#
I think you require a sharp history lesson in recent past history.
What I desribed was the way EVERY FAMILY! lived from the start of the last Century up until Thatcher came into power.
People used to pass these domestic skills down from Mother -to- Daughter, it was the normal way of life for all.
Thatcher devastated all of the close knit communties when we had mass unemployment, and they were broken up when people had to travel to find work.
Hence splitting families up, with the evil of unmployment, where she had 3 men chasing one job. A classic Conservative ploy to keep the working classes in line.
So young Mothers who would have learned all these domestiuc and social skills were miles away from the maternal home.
We are now reaping what she sown.
Ask any person who helped run food kitchens during Thatchers era!
YES we did have them "FOOD KITCHENS" Ask how they helped feed umpteem Men , women and umpteen children who otherwise would have gone hungry.
Once again a sharp lesson in your Countries recent past history would be a useful learning curve for you.
I think if you lived through it, you were either cosseted by Conservative parents or were lucky enough for them to be employed.
Others were not so fortunate.
Come back to me then argue with me, when you update your education of the recent past, not a moment before!
Complain about this comment
272#
Next, as for being a defeatist on child poverty.
We will never stop child poverty while we have irresponsible young men and women who do not wish to know the benefits of birth control.
No good blaming lack of knowlege it is drummed into them via magazines and even the TV.
So that is not an excuse I would swallow lightly.
In my day and age it was shameful for a young woman to find herself single and pregnant.
The alternatives for the young lady was either to go to the alter whether one wished to or not, being supported through it by parents, or an unmarried Mothers home, where they had to learn to look after baby properly and work at the same time.
Not I am not advocating that for one minute. That was what brought about the back street abortionists and a lot of young women lost their lives through that illegal, evil practice.
What I do suggest is this:
Any female can make a mistake and that Lady should be helped ONCE!!
After that then it is down to herself and the errant Fathers to undertake the responsibility, not the States, via handouts.
And if that help is not forthcoming then vouchers only should be issued to help nurture and sustain the child not Cash.
If the Cash incentive was not so easy to get, and totally withdrawn it would concentrate many more minds on responsibility, birth control and what is more, self control which is sadly lacking these days.
We all know what makes babies and the best Contraceptive in this world is the word NO!!
If a female is good enough to bed, she certainly is good enough to wed.
That is my view and we have brough our family up following those principles they are now being passed on to a further young generation by our offspring.
Things have been made far too easy by all political parties for these errant single Mothers and fly by night errant Fathers.
And I do not wish you or anybody else to confuse those people I mention above with those that were in a stable relationship, who now find themselves destitute and alone. Those people are a different kettle of fish altogether.
I would never advocate staying in a bad or abusive relationship, those specific cases should be helped by all.
Those that I am targeting are the irresponsible who for reasons of their own, cast caution and common sense to the wind and expect others to pick up the bill. Namely the tax-payer.
Those are the people I mean, not the unfortunate who through circumstances and no fault of their own find themselves with single status.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
249 glad to see that this post was put back on the blog. Their was obviously nothing offensive in it, much to Roll On 2010s disapointment. It'good to see that some moderaters aleast actualy read reverred posts and return them if they are acceptable. We have had a number of posts in the past removed for no other reason than the referrer losing an argument as was the case with this one. Good on you moderater
Complain about this comment
256 nigela awesome, the difference is that during the time that the money that this government supposed to have wasted we have had full employment , whereas when Maggie's money disappeared there were three and a half million unemployed.
Complain about this comment
274 Trudy_Victoria
Is it safe to assume that you don’t approve of the few Mill spent on make overs for teen Mums in order to boost their self esteem then ?
Complain about this comment
277:
Right so it's okay to waste taxpayer's money as long as there is full employment. Got it!
Complain about this comment
#276
When are you going to request #214 be reinstated? Or is reinstatement like re-writing history, only should been done by the left, for the benefit of the left, and make the common oiks pay taxes to support it?
Hypocrite is too polite. [Hi Trudy!]
Complain about this comment
The biggest waste of tax-payers money ever was on unemployment.
Between 3.5 Million-5 Million people were unemployed thanks to Conservative Policies, of which 3.5 Million were in receipt of some form or other of unemployment benefit. The rest was diguised under other names like RMP for instance.
More was spent keeping people on the dole, who did not wish to be on the dole than there was on the whole of the National Defence Budget.
A pure disgrace in any civilised society to say the least.
And if the Conservatives are ever returned, history will repeat itself.
make no mistake about that.
That is what really IS! called wasting tax-payers money.
Complain about this comment
280#
Hi Fluffy, does it feel good for you to run a nasty personal vendetta against a person who for years done you in particular no harm?
In fact there were times we had some comical exchanges even although we had different political points of view.
Why turn so vindictive and spiteful now?
I left the site you post on is that not sufficient enough for you?
Or do you just prefer to make a persons life a misery for the sheer hell of it, just because you can?
This is beneath contempt and cowardly of you to say the least.
Now be quick pulling the plug on this before people see the miserable apology for a man you profess to be
Complain about this comment
Right now there is a great deal of money wasted on tens of thousands of individuals who falsely claim to be disabled, billions of it as exposed by a recent documentary particularly in parts of Wales strangely enough. If these wastrels could be brought to book and benefit payments were tightened up perhaps we'd have more money for The NHS, Education and the Armed Forces. It pays for them to be on the dole because the money is better. Why bother working for a living when The State can bail you out for free?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
274 Trudie Victoria, this government undisputed by the Tories have lifted six hundred thousand children out of poverty,
It appears that there are a lot of chidren in poverty which of course there are but as the standard of living has increased so much, the level of children in poverty are not at the same level of poverty that they were ten years ago, even in poverty they are a hell of a lot better of than under the Tories.
That being said we need to do more to get children out of poverty,I am afraid that smoking and drinking play a large part in child poverty.
Maybe one answer would be to only give to families who earn under thirty five thousand or there abouts family allowance, that could then raise the help to poorer families. I saw one woman being interviewed on TV some while ago she was obviously well off, when asked if she needed the family allowance, she replied of course not my dear, the interviewer then said I suppose you send the book back, to which she replied Oh no I leave it there until it mounts up and then I go out and buy a little painting to hang on my wall. Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
279 waldorf , Put it this way its a hell of a lot better than wasting it when there are three and a half thousand unemployed,
the money could have been used to create employment not frittered away with nothing to show for it.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
280 fluffy thoughts, I may be misunderstanding you your post is a little vague,Forgive me if I'm wrong, but am I to understand that your suggesting that I ask for someone else's post to be restored, why is that what you did, you asked for my post to be restored if you did then I thank you but somehow I dont think you did.Its not my place to ask for anyones post to be restored, thats the job of the moderaters, I have had posts removed before and for no apparent reason, they were not removed by the moderaters until some one referred them to them, it was a nasty little vendetta by some one whose pseudonym no longer seems to appear on these blogs.[ Its not you is it with a changed name] the moderaters on this occassion with no prompting from me read my post and found it did not break the rules.
if you consider that your an oik then who am I to argue with you, although to be fair to you, you do sound like an oik.
Where hypocrite comes into this I have no Idea.
From a life long tax payer probably longer than you've been alive, if your older than that then you ought to have more sense.
By the way nice choice of pseudonym it really suits you.
Complain about this comment
Moderator, I sincerely hope I have not broken the blog rules.
If so I apologise profusely and accept your conditions unconditionally.
I thought that by offering a true account of my reasons the abuse would stop.
I leave it with your good auspices to resolve and deal effectively with the matter I refer to..
Complain about this comment
280 Fluffy
282 Trudi_Victoria
As the author of 214, I am totally and genuinely bemused as to why it was removed or why Fluffy responding by saying "Good call" prompted Trudi to talk of him turning nasty and waging a mini-personal vendetta ?
Clearly I am missing something. What ?
Complain about this comment
279 waldorf, You make your point and then end it with Got it! is this some sort of colloquial expression or is it just a mild form of aggression, incidently it's not the first time you've used it.
Complain about this comment
290 only jocking. Your bemused? I have tried to answer what I think were accusations against me because my post was restored, how I became involved in your case I dont have a clue, hope you escape in one piece, good luck.
Complain about this comment
290#
Only Jocking, the moderators in their wisdom deemed you broke house rules @ #214, as I have no doubt they will do with my post @ #287.
Accept their findings as I intend doing.
It is my wish to return to the subject of the thread and to suffer no personal abuse due to my political beliefs which is my right to express freely whether people like it or not.
That is my right.
Freedom of speech is not the sole reserve of the Conservative, nor should it be.
Please return to politics as I intend doing and allow the moderators to carry out their jobs.
They see the whole picture, we do not.
Complain about this comment
278 russell holmstead, with reference to make overs to help restore young girls confidence, at the least presumably they were innocent girls.
When dear old Maggie was in power . She had young car thieves given access to tracks were they could race around to the little hearts content, to make them more responsible drivers, it did'nt occur to her that these thieves would then go out and steal a few more cars so that they could get back on the track.
She also sent them to schools to show them how to strip motors down and rebuild them a prerequisite for serious car thieves.
On top of that she thought it a good idea to send these thieves on nice little holidays abroad.
Could you imagine the furore if TB or GB even sugested doing that.
Complain about this comment
290 Trudi_Victoria
Personal abuse? Freedom of speech?
Did you read 214? Genuinely - I can't see how that note could be deemed to have broken the house rules and I'm guessing that the moderators didn't think
so either until someone complained.
I wasn't challenging the moderators decision - just puzzled. Now I'm just bored.
By the way, if it matters, I am not now and have never been a conservative.
Complain about this comment
Trudie Victoria, Why is it that practicaly every one of the posts that are particularly offensive to the Labour party and at the same time always defending the conservatives. Claim that they are not conservative and never have been. It makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are.
Complain about this comment
295#
Only Jocking you passed an innocent remark, it was jumped upon by political detractors from another blogsite and used.
You were the innocent by stander which gave the opening some have been waiting for.
Be very careful in future who you identify as you can innocently, open up a can of worms.
Please return to the topic of the thread, please put this behind you with no hard feelings on my behalf as I hope you will reciprocate.
It was not your fault..end of story!!!
Complain about this comment
296#
Grandantidote, people have been trying for years to break my belief in the Labour Party.
You now see at first hand the levels they will go to.
They could not stop me then, they will not stop me now.
They took over another blog-site and in turn that site lost every Labour person with one exception, and another who likes to go in and out just to annoy.
Not happy with that, they are trying it on here.
They do not find it quite so easy on this site though to get past moderators thank goodness.
All I wish for is to express my political beliefs without being hounded by a rag tag bunch from another site.
Those whose mission is seek and destroy.
Well I have news for them they have backed a looser as I will never alter my political views.
Not all of it was political some was sheer unaduterated jealousy and nothing short of that.
They got away with it as the site is mainly Conservative favoured.
Complain about this comment
291:
Copy and paste for me an example when I have used the phrase 'Got it' before in any of my posts. In this context it was meant to be a sarcastic 'I understand but I don't understand your drift.' If you take that as being aggressive so be it. It was actually said 'with tongue in cheek' because you seem to imply that only The Conservatives waste money which is patently untrue. When is there ever going to be an acknowledgement from die hard Labour supporters on here that GB may have made some big mistakes in his governing of the country? This is also weakness of GB himself. I have very rarely heard him say the little word 'sorry'. If he did he might make himself more popular.
Complain about this comment
299#
Now waldorf, I take exception to your remark
Re: Gordon Brown and saying sorry.
He did so over the tax fiasco and whatsmore he did it not only in the Commons, where he said it was a mistake, he said the same on TV. for the world and his Uncle to hear.
Yes Gordon Brownhas made some huge mistakes, not calling the election last year was one, then allowing it to drift on was an even bigger mistake. He has also acknowledged that more than once.
You are being extremely disingenuous towards him.
One of the biggest Tory errors of judgement in my view was the "Poll Tax".
Which Conservative apologised for that and when?
When did we hear of a Conservative apologise for the millions unemployed?
The businessess that went under during their tenure.?
The communities they destroyed with their top down economics?
The neglect they left the Schools and NHS in, for NuLabour to try and mend?
You would have a hard job trying to cut and paste those as they are non-existant.
Complain about this comment
#258/259/260/264: Sorry, I've just seen these. I had thought that the topic was dead when nobody was giving any further factual information, and I went on to the next blog.
Anyway, thanks. I still think that there is confusion between the £950 donation, dealt with by the Electoral Commission, and the donations that she didn't report as gifts to the Parliamentary Commissioner having been told that they were donations (I think properly reported to the EC) and not personal gifts. The Parliamentary Commissioner said they should have been reported as gifts, so she did what he said, and he reported the matter to the Committee. What still seems to me to be unfair is that the Committee took no notice of what one of you has (I think correctly) described as a mitigating circumstance.
To take an example one of you has already used, if you ask the tax office for advice and their advice is subsequently overturned by the Commissioners there isn't a court in the land that would penalise you for following the original advice in good faith, even though you end up breaking the law.
The reasons she resigned were clearly explained in her statement. RobinJD's 'no smoke without fire' comment just doesn't stnd up to scrutiny at all.
Complain about this comment
#297
Trudi_Victoria
Innocent remark - but censored. Interesting example of freedom of speech.
There was less to my message than met somebody's eye but I guess, in some parallel universe, more behind the censorship of it than met mine.
I only ever raised the subject of the removal of my item as I was bemused - not offended or indignant, just bemused.
I remain bemused but grateful to you for taking the trouble to try to explain. Thanks - case closed.
Complain about this comment
300:
I said 'very rarely', not 'not at all' and only when it suited him to do so because he would have lost the support of his backbenchers if he hadn't. More often than not it's when circumstances force him to backtrack, apologise and rethink that he appears to think better of his wrong decisions. In these cases it's very much a matter of his own self preservation that he u turns. I don't blame him either. If I'd fought tooth and nail over 10 years to slot into the top job I'd probably do the same.
Complain about this comment
#301 jimbrandt
You are correct in stating that the 950 item is quite distinct. Interestingly, in that regard, the same Commissioner reached what in some quarters was felt to be a decision which was generous to Wendy A.
He decided that she had broken the law and had failed to take 'all reasonable steps' to ensure compliance. However he decided not to pass the matter to the Procurator Fiscal on the grounds that she had taken 'some significant steps'.
On the other issue, I think there is scope to argue that the Committee's decision might be harsh. However, I don't think it's fair to assume they did not take account of the mitigating factor. More likely they did take account of it but decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was insufficient to justify either rejecting the Commissioner's finding or accepting it but with no penalty imposed.
You have not mentioned in your response the fact that the mitigating factor was weakened somewhat by the advice having been sought post-mortem - ie after the offence had been committed. Maybe the Committee gave more weight to that than you appear to do ?
Another factor which might have come into play is the widely reported suspicion that Wendy A's team had deliberately set out in the first place to try to organise the donations in a way which would by-pass the regulations.
It is interesting the the Commissioner has gone on record to register his disappointment that his full report has not been made public.
As I've said before, based on the available information, I can see an argument that the proposed penalty is harsh - though not, I think the Commissioner's finding - and may be overturned by the full Parliament.
However I think there is scope to argue that the offence merits some punishment. Most certainly, I think the case is miles removed from the "contrary to natural justice" picture you have been painting.
Complain about this comment
299 waldorf and there was I being nice to you. Thats the trouble with being nice to a Tory sympathiser, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If you look again at my post you will see that I gave you two alternatives and I certainly did'nt say you were being agressive I merely asked if this was some form of mild aggression, in my part of the world if someone makes a remark to you and puts "got it!" on the end of it, its usually meant to be agressive, that why I asked you if it was a colloquialism you need to cool down Dutchy. You have used it before on your untracable Dutchy posts, I remember it well because I was going to question you about it then but if you want to say you did'nt thats OK i'm a pretty easy going guy I'll take your word for it.
Complain about this comment
299 waldorf Even after you say GB never says sorry and you are proved wrong you try to wriggle out of it by trying to dis Gordon. Even if you cant vote for the Tories and it makes you a bit disgruntled at least have the courtesy to admit when your wrong, I thought better of you than that waldorf.
Complain about this comment
Trudi-Victoria I am not going to enter into a childish game where we try and outdo each other as to who had it worse under Thatcher. Or else it starts to get a bit like the Monty Python sketch of " luxury! there were ten of us had to sleep in a matchbox" or something like that. I wouldn't presume to to think I was any better or worse off than anbody else because I wouldn't make that assumption.
As for the recent history of this country I am well aware of it.
You paint the time under Thatcher using the language that harks back to the 1920's depression. It's like you are stuck in a version of "When the boat comes in". Now for all I know you may be that old that you lived through both these eras and in your dotage your mind is merging them both together. I put it to you again that you have know empathy with the people you pupport to align yourself with. Do you see the middle and upper classes:- carrying knives and stabbing people, obtaining low( or none at all) qualifications , lying around all day getting stoned or drunk, living in the most horrible violent housing estates with no get out and working for a wage that guarentees they will never accumulate wealth. Given the list I have just mentioned do you really think that people make this as a life choice? As I said before you have a really simplistic veiw and you are patronising with it . Nobody wants to hear your life story and this is not a social networking site. So lets stick to debates on the issues and if you havn't got anything interesting to say don,t bore everybody with your personal life stories.
Complain about this comment
307#
You approached me, I did not seek you out.
You asked the questions I gave you the answers.
You did not like the answers you recieved, so you reverted to type by being rude and abusive.
If you do not wish to hear the truth, do not ask the questions.
And when you do ask questions, and people do you the courtesy of replying, have the good manners to be polite whether you agree with the person or not.
Your post was totally uncalled for and rude to say the least.
A reply from you will not be neccessary thank you very much and a Good Night to you.
Complain about this comment
# 304 Only jocking: thanks for that reasoned response. There is obviously a degree of judgement in this matter, and in spite of what you say I think my judgement is still rather different fron yours. But I don't pretend to know all the facts or details - my posts were largely asking for further information rather thansetting out to paint any particular picture.
One detail you might have got wrong - the decision on the £950 donation was taken by the Electoral Commission I think, not the Parliamentary Commissioner (Dyer) . The EC is concerned with extra-parliamentary issues, while the PC is concerned with the correct reports to the Parliament. I think - please correct me if I'm wrong.
Complain about this comment
#307 Expensemonster: ".......carrying knives and stabbing people, obtaining low( or none at all) qualifications , lying around all day getting stoned or drunk...."
Sounds a lot like the aristocracy a couple of hundred years ago!
Sorry to be flippant.
Complain about this comment
#309
jimbrandt
Your right on the Electoral Commission point. Sorry about that.
I'm not sure that we are that far apart on the outcome. Seems to me that you are sure it was wrong whereas I am not sure whether it was right or wrong.
My main point in response to your earlier postings was that I think the process was rather more sound than you implied.
I don't think the Commissioner had much choice on the evidence but to find that Wendy A was in breach. I would bet big money that he got it right and the clerks got it wrong. Perhaps not surprising given that he is an independent Commissioner and they are clerks.
As for the mitigation point, it can't have helped Weny A's case that she sought to check the legality of her actions only after the event. Also, to take the tax analogy, one has to wonder if any real or perceived attempt to steeer a course between avoidance' and 'evasion' would, or should, have cut much ice in the circumstances.
Based on what is in the public domain, I do not think it was perverse for the Committee to reach the decision it did though, equally, I don't think it would have been perverse for them to take another view.
My judgment is that neither you or I are as well placed to make a judgment as the Committee who had to make it.
Final thought, maybe it would be beetter if the independent Commissioner was the party who comes up with the sentence as well as the verdict.
Complain about this comment
#311 Only jocking: "My judgment is that neither you or I are as well placed to make a judgment as the Committee who had to make it. "
I agree. But my concern is that the decision was clearly on party lines, so the suspicion remains that it was at least partly politically motivated. I can't help feeling that if Alexander had just been a normal MSP there would have been no penalty proposed, but the temptation to damage the Labour leader was just too great to resist!
But I accept that I don't know.
Complain about this comment
#312 jimbrandt
If by "the decision" you mean the decision to impose a penalty - you could be right, though there are two sides to the politically motivated coin proposition. Did non-Labour members of the Committee vote for a penalty because they thought it was right or was it for political reasons? Reasonable question. But - did Labour members vote against a penalty because they thought that was right or for was that political reasons?
You may also be right that an ordinary SMP would have received better treatment though I beg leave to doubt it. I'm only surprised that the clerk didn't carry the can.
Be all that as it may so far as the penalty is concerned - I really don't think there can be any reasonable suggestion that the 'guilty' finding by the Commissioner was politically motivated.
So, with the £950 incident, two failures to comply by the Scottish leader of the party who formulated the rules.
Not too clever.
Complain about this comment
re: 270 dhwilkinson
"Cameron is challenging to be prime minister. Therefore he deserves to be challenged as much as Gordon Brown on his ability to do the job."
yes, I agree, but Brown never responds to similar challenges (PMQs being a classic example), he just lies and obfuscates and misdirects.
There is a limit to how much Cameron can physically prepare when it comes to the fine detail in what would be his own spending/saving plans because there are too many variables that the government hides from the public or which will change massively between now and 2010.
Perfect example being the NHS budget that was mentioned on Newsnight last night where they said that given the current levels of inefficiency the budget would need to increase in real terms massively just to stand still on the end-service side (assuming that the inefficiencies aren't dramatically sorted out, which they won't be).
The same kind of logic applies to other government areas too; the level of waste and un-needed over-spending will vary massively between now and 2010. The next government will basically need to get their hands dirty and really get into the nitty-gritty in 2010 once they have control over that waste/over-spending; there's a limit to what they can do/say now because new wasteful initiatives are being dreamed up every day by brown/labour so the goalposts are constantly moving.
Complain about this comment
Re getrid..@314
David Cameron has a similar strategy to Scepticmax on these blogs. He makes an abusive speech rather than asking a question and hopes to wind up the prime minister. Unfortunately this seems to work. Often Cameron accuses Brown of not asking a question when he has. If he responds calmly and does not ask questions of Cameron. Rhetorical or otherwise. the abuse will bounce of Cameron and he will start to look the fool. Obfuscates and misdirects? maybe but you may be asking too much of politicians if you expect them to be saints. Even Cameron!
We obviously don't expect great detail from Cameron but we expect more than marketing jargon that can be read in different ways by people with different points of view. Is he worried about Global warming or motoring taxes? How exactly can deal with global warming without taxing wasteful petrol use?
Also this talk of tax cuts helped by cutting waste is garbage. and this suggestion was probably used to cover up borrowing for tax cuts at election time. To cut waste you have to know what is waste and what is say to cover contingency. Get that wrong and you could lose more money than if you hadn't bothered. It has been said many times by both parties and we have always still had waste and it often goes wrong.
Complain about this comment
315 dhwilkinson
"Also this talk of tax cuts helped by cutting waste is garbage"
The producers of the government-requested/sanctioned NHS review would say differently, as would most economists; there's a massive proportion of public money that's pure avoidable waste.
I thought it was bad, but when I heard just how bad it was on Newsnight that surprised even me; I was horrified by it.
I'd agree with lots of other people on the blog, who say it's best to listen to the independent economists and accountants rather than the politicians (on either side), and they all seem to be saying the same thing, namely that there's massive avoidable waste and bad management/processes.
Complain about this comment
its hard not to feel sorry for Gordan Brown. He really seems to be struggling. The only problem is would the Conservative party really do things differently?
They are like clones of the Labour party really. They really should change thei party name. As they are an insult to conservatism
Complain about this comment
Bad management at all levels I would agree has held us back for a long time now. For too long we have concentrated far too much on the performance of the lower echelons of the work force.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS