Shock! Gordon isn't dreadful- Labour have improved this country imo

[mrsruffallo]

I thought that his speech was great, he seems very sincere, intelligent and caring
Is the media induced hate campaign having an influence on us all?

Does nobody remember why or understand why the media is so against NuLab?

What about when Greg Dyke was forced to resign because of the Alistair Campbell Fiasco (re David Kelly)

What about when the journalist was treated so badly by the Labour govt because he uncovered the David kelly stuff

What about Peter Mandelson banning the BBC form mentioning the fact that he is gay

Labour has attempted to silence the means of communcation with the people

Brave New World anyone

They are still better than Thatcher et al. Everyone has forgotten how vile the Tories were.

haven't read it all but this country is much better than it was when Blair/Brown took over. Much nicer place to be and much more at ease with itself.

Much of the problem is global. I am a city lad who has done well but I do think some regulation is in order. I think Cameron is a nice guy but he doesn't seem to be articulating how he would improve things. he and Osbourne said that they would have let Northern Rock fail (?) well what good would that have done?

Brown's problem is that he doesn't fit the modern style of presentation politics. I will vote on substance and morals even though I think that the Tories would probably favour the higher paid which would benefit me.

Labour only saved Northern Rock because most of its mortgages are in the North, ie Labour voting country.

DH is going to dinner with SB next week - he is a fund manager and says it is really hard to not have written a letter to leave lying around the house telling Gordy how he has wanked up the economy - no matter what you do in terms of heating allowances and surestart you wank up the economy and everyone feels it and it will wipe out all the good you have done when peoples homes start being repossesed (sp?) and jobs are going to the wall!

And what about letting EDF build and run four new nuclear reactors? Am furious that this has been allowed and haven't heard of any opposition to it.

Miffy - if there has not been any opposition then that is why it has been allowed. We need more energy and if proposals are put forward that nobody objects to then they are likely to be given the go-ahead. If there are good arguments against the reactors then you and others should have campaigned.

MadameC "no matter what you do in terms of heating allowances and surestart you wank up the economy and everyone feels it and it will wipe out all the good you have done when peoples homes start being repossesed (sp?) and jobs are going to the wall!"

Well said!!

But is it the UK Government that "wanked up the economy"? Its a global problem caused my many complicated factors most of which are outisde of the hands of the UK Government (not least the irresponsbile behaviour of City types who hate the idea of financial regulation and then blame the Government when the markets go haywire).

It's also to do with the fact that govenemnts encouraged as to go into debt and so create unsustainable growth. The whole "sub-prime" fiasoc is based on a culture not nececassily of greed but of materialism. A "have it now", not "save for it" attitude.

The wbankers fed off that and benefitted from it - but it was endemic throughout society.

Has anyone actually pointed out that it was John Major who started the Northern Ireland peace process, not Tony?

I'm thrilled about the nuclear reactors and that's one thing I do give them credit for. Much better than those silly windmills cluttering up the countryside and providing about ten houses with enough power to turn on a small radio.

artichokes Gordon Brown separated the responsibilities of the bank of England and the financial services authority - reducing accountability. The bank of England was given a target for inflation which excluded house prices - at a time of hyper inflation in house prices and the government did nothing whatsoever about this. In France, if your mortgage is more than your house is worth, you don't have to pay the bank the difference so they are more cautious than they were here.

In general Labour policies in practise have been about forgetting sustainability in favour of short term gains, no matter if tax payers in the future have to sort out the mess they have created. There are global problems in the markets, but thanks to government policies we are particularly exposed to this downturn.

I am sorry but now it seems that we want to blame Labour for not containing the free market more! I wonder if you have checked whether nice Mr Cameron is planning to intervene? Has Mr Osbourne been critical of govt intervention. I am sorry, but we cannot blame the Labour govt for the global/western culture of debt!

Upwind- the separation of the FSA from BoE was lauded at the time because of previous failures.

It is easy to turn around in the face of the global shock and blame everything on what was deemed to be sensible decisions about the past but I didn't hear the opposition criticising at the time!?

Upwind- to a certain extent, i see your point about inflation target not explicitly including asset price (house) inflation BUT the Band of England (and other central banks) are the ones who REALLY failed. Their mission is to control current and forward (future) inflation. They are meant to refer to inflationary pressures ESPECIALLY asset inflation. BUT as with the US FED they failed (we scared) to put the brakes on. Even now the BoE has been pretty dumb about inflation- they are looking at current inflation and keeping rates up IGNORING: (i) that much of inflationary pressures are interest rate insensitive (fuel etc) (11) forward inflation will collapse because of expected recession/projected unemployment etc.

So the MPC (BoE) have been on the sidelines allowing the boom and now they are doing the same with the recession. I understand the govnor's mission to teach the market a lesson BUT he is not meant to be an academic observer- he should be acting to dampen the top as well as the bottom of the cycle- that is his job. He has failed on both counts.

Britain is still one of the best countries to live in.

We in the West need to come to terms with a structural change that we are undergoing: in the past we have over consumed and underpaid and have been wasteful. We consume much more than we produce; much more than our fair share. Guess what- we are not as rich as we thought. We should be grateful that we are still so so much better off than the real poor in the developing world.

And whilst Dubya has been spending his reserves on "shock and awe" in Iraq, China has been grabbing the low hanging fruit in Africa. And now the US govt could really use those reserves to save the insolvent US banking system. It will be a bumpy ride whoever is at the helm!

One thing I've always found interesting is, in a general election, do people vote the the MP they like locally, or the leader of party they like, nationally? I find it very difficult to get emotive about any PM/party leader as there as so many factions involved in every part of the process that I can never blame or praise individuals in high office to a great extent. I don't feel inspired by Gordon Brown, but neither do I think anyone else would have produced anything drastically different at this stage.

He's an arse.

He seems sincere, intelligent and caring because a lot of people, earning a lot of money, have been making him over.

He sold our gold reserves .. bad mistake. As an economist, he rode high for a few years on the back of Tory policy. It's no secret that he didn't seek to change any of their policies when he became Chancellor.

He should go run Scotland now. For better or worse.

No one elected him into power. This is the most singular period of political malaise that I've ever lived through. He has to go.

I think the issue is that at the moment, for me, there is no one leader of any party that I would vote for.

I think the issue with Gordon is that a) he wasn't "voted" in so people are pissy about that and b) becasue of his job before PM, people lay the blame of the current economy state at his feet.

FWIW, the UK financial state is not only caused by UK issues, its driven by the US issues & not helped by the hemorrhage of cash on a war we should not be fighting.

If there was an election next week, I would be wanting a party who would be looking to do the following:

• Bring the troops home
• Regulate the prices of the gas / electric companies
• Make the country "greener" - the recycling program in the UK is haphazard and dependant intirely on postcode
• Provide some stability to the housing / banking areas.

I think the whole nanny state thing scares me and interfering in family life, someone said
'I completely disagree with their stragegy of encouraging women with young children to return to work and leave their children in nurseries all day.'

I totally agree. It should be about CHOICE, not the choice to do one thing only!

I fail to see how we are better off with both parents slaving away full time, surely progress should be more family/leisure time. How is that a step forward? Both parents working flexibly or part time would be better surely?

I also disagree with GB interfering in the stupidly high house prices which he encouraged anyway.

He has had a bit of an odd term of office.

The economic situation would have happened whoever was in power, there isn't really an opposition party in terms of policy and world affairs have dropped off many people's radar since the economic downturn. How do you put a positive spin on being in charge of a country in/approaching recession? Most of his job has been shit shoveling.

In an era where its difficult to tell the difference between the two main parties in terms of policies, how do you stand out as a leader when you aren't interested/aren't good at being a 'personality'?

Desiderata- you distract from your points of substance with your anti-Scottish sentiment. I am a southern middle Englander but find that a bit on the offensive side.

People say that they don't want a nany state. Fine, but if that is the case then we should hold ourselves responsible for our personal debt and NOT the govt!

You can put it like this. We in the West (a broad generalisation, I know) have had a long run living above our means and now we find out that the party is over. It is we who borrowed the money, not some aliens from out of space? So it is we who have to adjust back to reality. Now we try turn around and blame the govt for everything. I am still not clear what those who might vote conservative think about their free market philosophy?