Poor Gordon, poor us

Gordon Brown has some very difficult decisions to make over the coming weeks. He really wants to get a mandate from the electorate but he is a very very cautious man; he is aware of the historical precedents when delaying holding an election in the UK but he really fears losing. Adding to his problems is the EU Constitution Treaty becoming a newsworthy story and the increasing calls for a referendum. If he calls an election soon enough then maybe he can have the election before the referendum calls become even louder, or perhaps he can do a Tony and promise a referendum to reduce the Conservative vote. Another problem is that the economy really does look as though it is about to go "belly up". First the housing market is poised to crash as repossessions rise and the warnings of more interest rate rises and calls to make sure you can afford the repayments before taking on a mortgage increase in stridency. Second, the sub-prime lending market in the USA is failing and the UK market seems doomed to follow. Third the world debt markets are tightening, $60bn of deals have been pulled in the last month from the corporate credit markets and $87bn has been wiped off the value of 10 of the world's largest corporate lending banks since January. More worryingly it is reported that banks in both the USA and Europe have been left with $500bn in leveraged loans that have been agreed but they cannot syndicate out. If this all unravels then the fallout could be very very messy for all of us in the UK. Fourth, the fall of the US economy is very close and when it happens Gordon Brown's decision to put so much of the UK reserves into US Treasuries over the last 12 months - UK investments have almost trebled from $55bn to $167bn - whilst other European countries have not followed suit and the Chinese look set to dump dollars. Looked at another way Gordon has "invested" $110bn in the US over the last year whilst the exchange rate has moved so far against the dollar, that could be around $2bn that he has lost us over 2007 so far. That can be added to the lost he made when he sold off much of the UK gold reserves in such an inept way.

I really think this could be the big one, the economy looks in a bad way and if Gordon's PFI fiddles finally have to be reported on the UK balance sheet due to changes in International Accounting Standards then the truth about "Prudence" will come out.

I said in 1992 that that was the election that the Conservative party didn't think it would win and secretly hoped it wouldn't as the ERM disaster beckoned. This time it might be best, if Gordon does call an election, for the Conservatives not to win it. A Conservative election victory followed by the economy collapsing would be blamed by the MSM on the incoming Conservative Government, unless the incoming administration really go to town over the fiddles they have discovered in the Treasury files and there will be a lot to discover. Maybe it would be better for the country for Labour under Gordon Brown to win with a reduced majority and for him to take all of the flack when the economy dives. The recovery will be even more painful than it was in the 1980's when a Conservative Government last had to pull the UK out of a Labour economic mess but at least everyone would know who to blame - Gordon "Prudence" Brown.

So as you enjoy the warm weather this weekend, spare a thought for Gordon in Dorset. He has a lot to think about, I hope he's packed a teddy to cuddle for comfort.

Poor Gordon, poor us (part 2)

I blogged last Friday that Gordon must be beside himself with indecision as to whether to call an early election in October/November or whether and risk losing the election and so becoming the shortest serving Prime Minister or to wait and risk the economy going phut. As the economic signs look worse so the chances increase that Gordon will overcome his natural hesitancy and call a snap election, probably under the pretext of wanting a renewed mandate. I see that he has appointed an election director. The same Labour Party Mouthpiece BBC article manages not to mention the worsening economy as a possible reason for a snap election, presumably because in BBC land all is sunny under Gordon Brown's premiership - "Never a frown with Gordon Brown". Any mention of the worsening economy is linked to the "evil empire", not the USSR this time but, the USA, whose fault any crash would be.

You will notice that there is no mention of Gordon Browns' "No more boom and bust" slogan. This could be because he has spent ten years stoking up the economy with a huge amount of credit and now we are heading towards a crash like we have not seen since the 1930s. If credit becomes harder to get, see my earlier posts, then the housing market will fall which will lead to massive negative equity, much worse than in the 1980s as this time more has been borrowed at low rates of interest that are now rising and have further to go. At the same time unemployment is rising, it is now heavier than it was in 1979 and that is without taking into account the NEETs who this Government have deliberately allowed to rise in number to massage the unemployment figures. Also there has been a huge rise in the numbers of university students since this Labour Government came to power. Much of the increased numbers are there on a lie, they have been told that University Graduates earn more than non-graduates, whilst this was the case before the massive increase in numbers, it isn't now. The reasons for this are two-fold, first because of simple numbers and secondly because the calibre of these extra graduates is so low; A levels have been made so much easier to allow more to get good A level results so as to get to University. We are churning out lots of low quality graduates who end up in the same sort of jobs that they could have entered in earlier times without a degree, except now they have a student loan to pay off; they have however done this Labour government a great service by staying off the unemployment register; to paraphrase JFK, "Ask not what the Labor Party can do for you, ask what you can do for the Labour Party"

So we have the UK and much of the world economy heading for a fall. The Chinese could accelerate this and bring down the US economy if it withdrew investment but this is unlikely to happen. Gordon can see this and knows that he should hold an early election but he has to spin it into a brave determined solution. I predict that he will go to the country in October and aided by the faithful BBC he will win albeit with a reduced majority. I actually hope that he does win because like the 1992 election (but more so) this is the election to lose; when the economy fails the government in charge will be blamed. So don't campaign too hard David Cameron, hold back on you Brest shots and let Gordon get back in. I so much want to see his face as the economy that he has talked up for so long tips over into recession. The blame for the misery this will cause for millions in this country will have to laid upon Gordon Brown and even the best efforts of the BBC and the rest of the MSM will persuade the public otherwise. The crash will be painful and many will suffer but that is a given anyway (it is all but unavoidable), the important thing is that Gordon Brown and the rest of this sorry government take the blame and the opprobrium of the British public.

Poor Gordon, poor us (part 4)

I blogged twice in August about Gordon's indecision about calling an election this year. As I said in the second article "I actually hope that he does win because like the 1992 election (but more so) this is the election to lose; when the economy fails the government in charge will be blamed. So don't campaign too hard David Cameron, hold back on you best shots and let Gordon get back in. I so much want to see his face as the economy that he has talked up for so long tips over into recession. The blame for the misery this will cause for millions in this country will have to laid upon Gordon Brown and even the best efforts of the BBC and the rest of the MSM will persuade the public otherwise. The crash will be painful and many will suffer but that is a given anyway (it is all but unavoidable), the important thing is that Gordon Brown and the rest of this sorry government take the blame and the opprobrium of the British public." Since I wrote that article we have had the Northern Rock debacle and Alan Greenspan's exceedingly pessimistic predictions for the UK economy (which the BBC let Gordon Brown skate over so easily yesterday on the Toady programme), so what will Gordon Brown decide to do?

A slip of the tongue by David Cameron and a potential problem question for Gordon Brown to answer?

John Rentoul's comment article in The Independent has some interesting ideas, one of which is this "The only insight offered by Cameron's speaking from the having-learned-by heart was in the quality of his mistakes. If you mis-read off an autocue, it might tell us about the poor sentence structure of that part of the speech. If you mis-speak off the cuff, it tells us what is going on inside the speaker's head.

And Cameron fluffed in the middle of his section, lifted from recent leading articles in The Independent on Sunday, about how Labour had broken the Military Covenant between the nation and its soldiers. He spoke of the "three battalions that should never have been abolished by the last – by this Government". It is not just bravado, then. He really does think Brown can be beaten in a general election which, as he went on to say later, could be "in one month or one year"."

An interesting idea or was it a calculated "slip" by David Cameron


John Rentoul's other interesting point is this, "The moment the election is over, the question moves on to: "Are you going to fight the next one? Who will be the next leader, Ed Balls or David Miliband?""


Poor, poor Gordon, to be Prime Minister is all he has wanted for so long and now I don't think it tastes as sweet as he had expected. "enough, no more, 'tis not so sweet now as it was before". Now that is why I got into blogging, so I can quote from the old The Passage song XOYO in an article about Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

Laying it in with a trowel

Nick Robinson as usual decides to cover a major story from a Labour supportive angle:

"Dressed in a dark suit and sombre tie, his voice deeper and more gravelly than usual - suggesting he'd had even less sleep than usual - and with damp eyes occasionally glistening in the camera lights, Gordon Brown sought to limit the damage created by a carelessly written letter to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

The prime minister's tone was, at times, painfully personal as he strove to demonstrate the emotional connection which modern politics demands and with which he is so obviously uncomfortable.

So, after describing himself as "shy" he insisted that he did "feel the pain of those who'd lost loved ones". Without directly referring to the death of his own baby daughter, he declared that "I'm a parent who understands the feelings when things go dreadfully wrong".

His message was that he had been trying to offer comfort, to do his duty and would never have intended to cause further grief."

Good grief; anyone would think that Gordon Brown was the only man working in Britain. All managers need to get their work/life balance right. It is accepted by most that Gordon Brown does not delegate enough and thinks that appearing to work 24/7 will make him seem dependable and hard-working.It used to but I think people have realised that it is the quality of work that counts not the hours spent.

Over the last week Gordon Brown did not need to break with tradition and campaign in Glasgow North East, he chose to have photo-opportunities at the G20 and Berlin Wall celebrations were they necessary for the man who claims to be saving the world economy?

Gordon Brown seems to micro-manage, I have worked for such bosses and they make very bad leaders. Either they delegate more and trust in those they delegate to or the businesses suffer. Gordon Brown is unwilling to delegate after all who in Cabinet is up to the task other than him? When leaders try and do too much the result is mistakes and a dispirited workforce. In this case we have mistakes by the lorry load and a dispirited Cabinet, Labour party and Country.


Nick Robinson takes a breath and continues:

"Like any public gathering a prime ministerial news conference develops its own mood and personality. Often with Gordon Brown it's been one of irritation or anger at his unwillingness to answer straight questions.

On this occasion though the mood was more sympathetic. Many journalists know first-hand that Gordon Brown has poor eyesight and poor handwriting and feel that his staff should have checked this letter and prevented it from being sent.

They know that the prime minister struggles to express sincerely held emotions. They know that the Sun is out to get him and is channelling the raw grief of those who have lost family in Afghanistan to do so. It's clear from the phone-ins, the text messages, the blogs and the like that many share that sympathy."

Really I have heard very little sympathy for Gordon Brown over the past few days, most people's detestation of him has grown and even people who I have not really thought of as 'political' have expressed their displeasure with his actions.

The Sun is out to get him? This is along the lines of The Today programme this morning and it won't wash. The BBC didn't point out that the press was anti-John Major in 1995-1997, nor did they point out how the Labour spin machine and the media were working together in 1995-2000. It is strange that Nick Robinson like the Today programme now decide that it is so unfair.

Nick Robinson tries to blame Gordon Brown's staff; has it occurred to the experienced political journalist that they are possibly scared to correct anything Gordon Brown does, his temper is well attested to.


Nick Robinson continues:

"It is equally clear, though, that many will feel passionately that the prime minister has got it wrong again. They will point out that the prime minister said he'd apologised to Jacqui Janes when in fact he only did so in a statement issued the day after they spoke on the phone.

They will feel that he tried to explain away her anger about the lack of equipment for British troops by putting it all down to her grief. They will feel that Gordon Brown himself used the emotions surrounding Remembrance Day, the return of five more bodies from Helmand Province and even his own personal grief to avoid the tough questions about Afghanistan."

Many do feel this way because the lack of funding for the armed forces is blatantly true, also that Gordon Brown's decisions to use the army for party political purposes stink.


Nick Robinson continues:

"People's reaction to this story will, in large part, be determined by their pre-existing attitude to Gordon Brown and to the continuing presence of British troops in Afghanistan.

What must follow now - at least once President Obama unveils his plan - is a debate about whether there is another strategy which would more effectively safeguard Britain.

Gordon Brown made clear that he'd looked at and rejected the option of bringing the troops home and creating "Fortress Britain" with money saved.

He made plain that he'd examined and rejected the idea of focussing the military effort exclusively on al-Qaeda while ignoring the rise of the Taliban."

I disagree, there are many who agree with Gordon Brown about the need to continue the operation in Afghanistan who think he was crass in his attempts to right a wrong. There are many who have sympathy for Gordon Brown who think he has screwed up here.


Nick Robinson concludes:

"The real debate - beneath all this anguish - is surely whether men like Guardsman Janes died in vain or made a sacrifice that is vital to protecting their country. It is a debate that has scarcely begun."

No, that is the debate the BBC want us to have with the desired conclusion that it is all in vain and that the troops must come home leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban. The debate many want is when can we have an election and rid ourselves of this control-freak, incompetent who still thinks he's the best man for the job when so much evidence is to the contrary.

It's the 1970s all over again

War with Iceland, a Labour government bankrupting the country, fear that a government may try and wriggle out of calling a general election. In 1978 it seemed possible enough for Tom Robinson to record "The Winter of '79" including the lines:

"It was us poor bastards took the chop
When the tubes gone up and the buses stopped
The top people still come out on top
The government never resigned"

Back in June I wondered whether we were looking at a re-run of the end of the 1970s:

"Are we heading for a repeat of the "Winter of Discontent"?... One of the great songs of 1979 was the Tom Robinson Band's "Winter of '79" with the key line "The government never resigned". This was a time when the left believed that the Labour government might declare martial law rather than let an election be called... Does anyone else believe that Gordon Brown might use the Civil Contingencies Act and other legislation to "postpone" a general election for reasons of internal security? Don't forget that Tony Blair trialled this move back in 2001."

Gordon Brown has already used anti-terrorism legislation, the Crime and Security Act 2001, Part 2, Article 4, to seize the UK assets of Icelands Landsbanki bank. This has been done because the act was so loosely worded that this action was allowed if the government

"reasonably believe" that "action to the detriment of the United Kingdom's economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons, or action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the United Kingdom..."

Does anyone still believe that this and other legislation would not be used against the UK population by Gordon Brown's government if they felt able to do so? If Gordon Brown could say that he reasonably believe that a Conservative government would be of "detriment of the United Kingdom's economy" might he seize the assets of the Conservative party? How tightly worded is the Counter-Terrorism Bill that is about to get a reading in the House of Lords? How confident are you that it would not be used against people "hoarding" petrol or food or "indulging" in other activities deemed to be detrimental to the interests of the UK? Since Tony Blair declared the Labour party to be "the political wing of the British people", could Gordon Brown argue that anything that is against the interests of the Labour party is against the interests of the Country and so could be classified as terrorism? How confident are you that this could never happen?

"All you kids that just sit and whine
You should have been there back in '79
You say we're giving you a real hard time
You boys are really breaking my heart
Spurs beat Arsenal, what a game
The blood was running in the drains
Intercity took the trains
And really took the place apart
That was the year Nan Harris died
And Charlie Jones committed suicide
The world we knew busted open wide
In the winter of '79

I'd been working on and off
A pint of beer was still ten bob
My brand new Bonneville got ripped off
I more or less give up trying
They stopped the Social in the spring
And quite a few communists got run in
And National Service come back in
In the winter of '79
When Marco's caff went up in flames
The Vambo boys took the blame
The SAS come and took our names
In the winter of '79

It was us poor bastards took the chop
When the tubes gone up and the buses stopped
The top people still come out on top
The government never resigned
The Carib Club got petrol bombed
The National Front was getting awful strong
They done in Dave and Dagenham Ron
In the winter of '79
When all the gay geezers got put inside
And coloured kids was getting crucified
A few fought back and a few folks died
In the winter of '79

Yes a few of us fought
And a few of us died
In the winter of '79"

Poor Gordon, poor us (part 3)

Further to my previous blogs on this matter, Iain Dale's Diary: Scottish Poll Could Mean Early Election Is Less Likely points out a factor that might cause Gordon Brown to pause in his early election plans, namely the SNP riding high at 48% in latest opinion polls. Mind you I still think that the economic factors are worrying him more and the signs of him putting an advertising team on standby may prove me right.

No-election rumours

It would appear that the polls have moved against Labour, the first hint was when Gordon's chum, Michael White said on Radio 4 that Brown has NEVER said he would call an election and that "it is all speculation drummed up by the media and David Cameron.", how on earth these people can keep a straight face I do not know.

Iain Dale has this afternoon written that "Sources close to The Guardian are indicating to me that their poll tomorrow will show a Tory lead of three points. If that is true (and I have no way of verifying it at the moment), and the YouGov poll for the Telegraph shows a similarly dramatic turnaround, then it would surely mean that all election bets are off. It doesn't indicate how Brown will explain the volte face, but that is something for us all to look forward to and relish.

UPDATE: I've just been told the Channel 4 News/YouGov poll shows a Labour lead of 3% - again, a massive turnaround. I'm trying to verify these figures at the moment, but I thought you'd all want to know, even if they are at the moment unconfirmed.

UPDATE 4.40pm: Well the plot thickens. The Guardian figures were apparently from the early results, but Labour have now firmed to hold a small lead, which is thought to be nearer to the Channel 4 figures."


Poor poor Gordon, now he will have to back down and suffer the indignity of being mocked for cowardice. I suggest a campaign of "Gordon is frit" for the long time Conservative supporters and "Gordon is a coward" for the rest whenever he appears in public. The next Prime Ministers question time should be worth a watch!

More on the Data disks

I turn to the The Guardian again today (my comments in italics) -

"The Tories have demanded that Gordon Brown reveal the "whole truth" about the loss of the personal information of 25 million people after it emerged that senior Revenue & Customs officials authorised sending the sensitive data to the National Audit Office. Alistair Darling has blamed the loss of two CDs relating to child benefit claimants on a "junior official" who acted alone in breaching procedures.

Brown backed his chancellor's version of events during prime minister's questions yesterday."

He would, he is organ-grinder for Darling's monkey.


"But Sir John Bourn, the outgoing comptroller and auditor general, told a secret session of the public accounts committee yesterday that a senior business manager at Revenue & Customs had authorised the information to be released in its full form.
His email approving the sharing of the data was copied to an assistant director."

I would love to see that email, come on publish it.


"These startling revelations from the NAO call into question the entire defence mounted by the prime minister of this catastrophic failure in his government," said the shadow chancellor, George Osborne.

"This was systemic failure, not individual error by a junior official.

"Gordon Brown needs to tell us the whole truth of why the security of all families in the country has been put at risk."

Gordon Brown tell the truth, it's a long-shot.


"Bourn's submissions to the public accounts committee were revealed by the committee chair, Tory MP Edward Leigh."

Edward Leigh has a fine forensic mind, his stewardship of the Public Accounts Committee has been masterly.


"The NAO said yesterday that it specifically stated that it did not need all the information being offered by Revenue & Customs.

It asked for all child benefit numbers, national insurance numbers and but did not want bank accounts and addresses and dates of birth."

Why woudl they want those details and why indeed would they want extra data cluttering up their database?


"According to Bourn, Revenue & Customs told the NAO that removing the extra information would be too costly."

Too costly, too costly! So they just sent the whole file, brilliant. This is so incompetent that I could scream.


"Revenue & Customs yesterday denied it was at odds with the NAO over its version of events and the government is expected to release documents relating to the exchange today."

They also claimed that "black" was "white" and will be calling Michael Jackson as a witness.


"As the Tories stepped up pressure over the "catastrophic failure", concerns were also raised from within Labour's own ranks.

John McFall, a senior backbencher and chairman of the House of Commons Treasury committee, said that the government's "competence" had been called into question."

Competence and this government will soon be as closely linked in the public's mind as Heather Mills McCartney and black pudding eating.


""I think there is a serious issue here in terms of confidence in the government, and that has to be restored," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The core issue is competence. I think there is a challenge here now for Gordon Brown in terms of leadership."

The first time I read that, I thought he was calling for a challenge to Gordon Brown's leadership, that will come soon enough...


"He has been good in crises since he took over. This is a crisis. Can he fix this department?"

Gordon Brown hasn't been good in a crisis, he has presided over many crises since becoming PM and most have been due to his and his predecessor's abject failures whilst in power - that's power and not control.


"Can he ensure it is fit for purpose? Can he ensure people have confidence in it?"

Too late, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding NO.


"He added: "Is there a fatal flaw in government? I don't think there is, but is it time for iron to get into the body politic? It is, and that is for Gordon Brown to do.""

In a few months time there will be a long list of people ready to put the iron, the steel, the wood and any other sharp object that comes to hand into the body politic, or more exactly the rather flabby body of Gordon Brown.



I have been accused recently of ranting in this blog and I think that might be fair. However, if I am ranting it is only because this government have gone from being a joke to being a serious danger to us all and I believe this needs pointing out.



As Mr Eugenides points out so astutely today -
"It's a well-worn rule of thumb in these situations that it's not the original crime or blunder that causes ministerial heads to roll, but the subsequent cover-up. For too many ministers in this government, lying seems to be the default position; they wear their mendacity like second skins. It's therefore unsurprising that cover-ups have claimed so many ministerial scalps over the last decade; they can't help themselves."

He is right it is the cover-up that tends to bring down the miscreant and in this case it should be both Gordon and his Darling. However I fear that Darling will be the sacrificial lamb, leaving Gordon to limp on for a while yet.

At some point the decision will be made that Gordon is a liability and that a replacement must be found to carry the BBC/NuLab government forward. At this point you will notice one minister getting a "bigging up" slightly too often by the BBC, he will be the chosen one and he will succeed Gordon Brown. I am sorry, you thought we lived in a democracy; you poor deluded fools...

"The central deceit behind Budget 2009"

Fraser Nelson explodes the deceit at the heart of Alistair Darling/Gordon Brown's 2009 budget:

"The central deceit behind Budget 2009 – Alistair Darling’s trampoline recovery theory – is steadily crumbling. CoffeeHousers will remember the scam. He pretends that Britain will, from April 2011, enjoy three years of turbo-charged growth averaging 3.5 per cent a year, hence justifying his pre-election splurge. It was, in my view, an extraordinary moment – where the Treasury didn’t even pretend to be operating within the parameters of the possible."

Do read the rest of Fraser Nelson's piece and the transcript of the Treasury briefing.

The more I think about it the more I think that my comment from November 2007 that

"This government and its advisers are rapidly losing the plot, maybe they realise that their time in power is coming to an end and they are now pursuing a scorched earth policy."

might be rather accurate. It seems that Gordon Brown and his cabal are quite prepared to drive the UK economy and society into dust so as to make the Conservatives' job as hard as possible, in the hope of re-election in 2015.

In July 2008 Fraser Nelson wrote that:

"The Scorched Earth policy has begun... In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending.

...

My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at all.

...

Brown, however, is on a mission to raise state spending - and, right now, it looks likely to be a Tory government that pays tomorrow for the money he borrows today. It is impossible to understand Gordon Brown without understanding his approach to debt. It is his weapon of choice, and if he loses the next election he can right now start turning that weapon on the Tories. So he will have to feast on humble pie, and his own words, as he tears up his rules and lets debt soar above 40%. Yes, he may lose the election. But he has realised one upside to this inevitability: he can start spending David Cameron's budget now."

At the time I commented that:

"...when times are tough, any sensible person looks at their income and spending and adjusts them until there is a small surplus or at least balance. The alternative is to run up short term debt which is not a sensible long term solution. The trouble is that Gordon Brown now realises that one way or another he isn't going to be around in the political long term. So why not spend, spend, spend and let those two "toffs" David Cameron and George Osborne take the flak for having to cut public spending and increase taxation. It's a cynical strategy but then Gordon Brown is a deeply cynical politician. Gordon Brown's whole political career since the death of John Smith has been about what is best for Gordon Brown, he doesn't really care about the United Kingdom except as that links up to his future. Gordon was prudent only for a short time, but long enough to persuade the easily suggestible in Fleet Street and the rest of the media that he was "prudence" incarnate. Gordon Brown then went on a spending spree that has probably screwed the economy for the foreseeable future; however thanks to his friends at the BBC, blame for the necessary rises in taxation and cuts in public spending will be laid at the feet of the 2010-2014 Conservative government. If the policy wasn't quite so cynically deceitful you might even grudgingly admire it.

In a fair world Gordon Brown would be made to pay for his deception and destruction, but this is not a fair world. Gordon Brown will retire on his fat publicly funded pension to live a life of some luxury whilst we, the poor shmucks who funded his wastefulness, will suffer the economic consequences of his cynical decisions.

There has been much press about the opposition to a state funeral being given to Lady Margaret Thatcher. However I think it fair to say that there will no support for a state funeral for Gordon Brown when he dies. I for one hope that when he does die; it is painful, humiliating and public. "

I sense that the UK population may be nearing the point where they fling open their windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this any more" More on that tomorrow... In the meantime here's that extract:

A scorched earth policy?

Last November I first used the phrase "scorched earth policy" to describe the way that I thought that:

"This government and its advisers are rapidly losing the plot, maybe they realise that their time in power is coming to an end and they are now pursuing a scorched earth policy."

This policy has continued and Fraser Nelson has gone big on this story in The Spectator in a piece entitled "Brown is not playing by the rules any more". Here's a few extracts (my emphasis), but do go and read the whole article and my comments at the end of this piece: "The Scorched Earth policy has begun... In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending.

...

My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at all.

...

Brown, however, is on a mission to raise state spending - and, right now, it looks likely to be a Tory government that pays tomorrow for the money he borrows today. It is impossible to understand Gordon Brown without understanding his approach to debt. It is his weapon of choice, and if he loses the next election he can right now start turning that weapon on the Tories. So he will have to feast on humble pie, and his own words, as he tears up his rules and lets debt soar above 40%. Yes, he may lose the election. But he has realised one upside to this inevitability: he can start spending David Cameron's budget now."

Fraser Nelson is correct as when times are tough, any sensible person looks at their income and spending and adjusts them until there is a small surplus or at least balance. The alternative is to run up short term debt which is not a sensible long term solution. The trouble is that Gordon Brown now realises that one way or another he isn't going to be around in the political long term. So why not spend, spend, spend and let those two "toffs" David Cameron and George Osborne take the flak for having to cut public spending and increase taxation. It's a cynical strategy but then Gordon Brown is a deeply cynical politician. Gordon Brown's whole political career since the death of John Smith has been about what is best for Gordon Brown, he doesn't really care about the United Kingdom except as that links up to his future. Gordon was prudent only for a short time, but long enough to persuade the easily suggestible in Fleet Street and the rest of the media that he was "prudence" incarnate. Gordon Brown then went on a spending spree that has probably screwed the economy for the foreseeable future; however thanks to his friends at the BBC, blame for the necessary rises in taxation and cuts in public spending will be laid at the feet of the 2010-2014 Conservative government. If the policy wasn't quite so cynically deceitful you might even grudgingly admire it.

In a fair world Gordon Brown would be made to pay for his deception and destruction, but this is not a fair world. Gordon Brown will retire on his fat publicly funded pension to live a life of some luxury whilst we, the poor shmucks who funded his wastefulness, will suffer the economic consequences of his cynical decisions.

There has been much press about the opposition to a state funeral being given to Lady Margaret Thatcher. However I think it fair to say that there will no support for a state funeral for Gordon Brown when he dies. I for one hope that when he does die; it is painful, humiliating and public.

Gordon Brown is not flavour of the month any more, in fact he's become a joke - albeit a sick one

Simon Hoggart in today's Guardian comments on Gordon Brown's appearance in front of the Liaison Committee thus "This meeting was his excuse for not being in Lisbon for the EU treaty signing. Actually the lads and lasses of the liaison committee are so compliant they would have postponed the meeting till Boxing Day, if asked." He continues "They asked about police pay. He told them he would like to pay the police more, oh how he would - he told us many times - but there might be short term political decisions for political gain, but we would have lost sight of inflation, and interest rates only came down this week because he had taken difficult long term decisions...

MPs asked why he'd let police pay go to arbitration if he wasn't prepared to honour the award.

"I value the police. I would like to pay the police more," he said again. And again."

Do read the rest, I think Simon Hoggart realises what sort of a person Gordon Brown is.

Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail comments on the same appearance thus "Shortly after breakfast Gordon Brown did his first turn in front of the "Liaison Committee", the ageing liggers, losers, placemen and palmed-off sycophants who chair select committees at the Commons.

Sorry. Deplorable manners. I meant "Parliament's most distinguished elected Honourable Members who bring the wealth of years of experience to their doughty deliberations". Cough."

I watched Gordon Brown's performance, I even tried a bit of light blogging to keep me awake but it was boring. Quentin Lettes picked up on the biggest lie told in the session "Mr Brown was soon claiming that he did not believe in "top-down government" - as blatant a lie as I have heard from him. My notebook records: "9.41, man in 2nd row of public seats, pink tie, marvellously asleep". He was not the only one. At 9.43 one of Mr Brown's Downing Street aides, a bald, camp creature, also lost the battle. Eyes shut. Another snoozer! "


Gordon Brown has, as I have commented before (here and here) a figure of fun, a joke, a laughing stock. Comedians, commentators and random people I meet are now commenting on the sheer ridiculousness of the "man". Simon Hoggart in yesterday's Guardian remarked "Gordon tried to use humour against him. It was a mistake. Gordon doing jokes is like me doing ballet - you really don't know where to look." Read the rest of this "sketch" it is to the point

For your delectation, Simon Hoggart last week "The Tories never liked Tony Blair, except in secret. They yelled at him, they resented his electoral success, they thought he was a charlatan, and they were outraged by his endless lists of non-existent triumphs. But they rarely laughed at him. They laugh at Gordon Brown. Sometimes the house is like a medieval village green where cruel boys throw insults and fruit at the local idiot, who shouts back and waves his arms like a broken windmill.

There seems to be no price to pay for mocking him. Take yesterday, when the Tory MP for Hammersmith and Fulham, Greg Hands, said: "With three different police investigations under way, two members of his cabinet ... falling foul of the law, and his general secretary facing charges, is this what he meant when he called himself a 'conviction' politician?"
Not a new gag, but delivered with enough aplomb to get a massive shout of laughter - openly from the Tories, behind-hands from many Labour MPs...The poor village daftie once again had no riposte. I hope things will improve soon: it is getting rather painful to watch."

Not painful, Simon, bloody enjoyable. Gordon Brown has well and truly fucked the citizens of this country over the past 10 years and as the economic pigeons come home to roost and even more people suffer the fruits of his stupidity, the one pleasure will be watching his jowly visage age even more as he has to shoulder the blame. This pleasure will, it is true, be reduced by the fact that his pension pot will be unaffected by the economies collapse, but I and others will just have to berate him all the more and make his life as miserable as possible so he suffers nearly as much as the people whose lives he will have ruined.

The Community Reinvestment Act is remembered and allocated its share of the blame at last

The reason blog reports that:

''twas Wall Street greed what done it, some folks say, when it comes to explaining the spectacular housing meltdown of recent years, which had its roots in a great many astonishingly risky loans.

Other folks suggest that the federal government just may have played something of a role in inducing, even strong-arming, banks to take risks they otherwise would have avoided. Specifically, the Community Reinvestment Act and related policy pressures are pointed to as culprits, part of a government effort to extend home-ownership in lower-income neighborhoods. Now comes a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that says, quite bluntly. that the CRA played a major role. In the academic world, mealy-mouthed delivery of even powerful conclusions is the norm, so it's refreshing to see authors Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru answer the title's question, "Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?," with the clear, "Yes, it did. ... We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks."'

Do read the whole article at the above link but also remember that I've covered this before:

First in September 2008:

I have wanted to blog about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for some months now but have been cautious of doing so for obvious reasons. However the vitriol being spewed out, by the usual suspects in the left wing media, at the banking community has really pissed me off. So here we go, as Forbes tells us:

"The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring."

I know this is not the agreed narrative but it is the truth.

In February 2009:

I have blogged many times about the Community Reinvestment Act and how it was one of the key factors in creating the US housing bubble as well as its effect on UK housing finance. You should read my earlier articles - here, here, here, here (in October 2008) the links to Barack Obama and here the links to UK policy.

I raise the matter today because Christopher Booker in The Telegraph yesterday wrote

"It is all very well for President Obama to vent his anger on all those US bankers who continued to claim billions of dollars in bonuses while expecting Washington to bail them out after the sub-prime mortgage scandal brought the banks to their knees. But conveniently overlooked has been the curious part Mr Obama himself played in the sub-prime debacle.

At the heart of it was a 1995 amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act which legally required banks to lend money to buy homes to millions of poor, mainly black Americans, guaranteed by the two biggest mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And no one campaigned more actively for this change to the law than Mr Obama, as a young but already influential Chicago politician.

It was this Act which, more than anything, helped to create the US housing bubble, well beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. And in 2005 no one more actively opposed moves to halt Fannie Mae's reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, as he was by then. As the official records show, no senator received more donations from Fannie Mae than he did (although Hillary Clinton ran him close). Thus no US politician arguably did more to promote the sub-prime disaster than the man now expected to pick up the pieces, Rather like Gordon Brown, really. "

I couldn't have put it better myself and somehow I doubt that this story will get anywhere near the BBC where the Obamamessiah is beyond criticism and will remain so so long as he follows the BBC approved line.

 In March 2009:

'A very interesting article in the New York Times should be read here. It's from 30 September 1999 that's whilst Bill Clinton was President and in the light of the current sub-prime crisis it is quite enlightening:

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' "

Read the whole article and wonder at how the MSM and especially the BBC have just ignored this angle on the banking crisis. Anyone would think they had an agenda...'

What are the chances of the BBC reporting this analysis? Zero?

Is time running out for Gordon Brown?

An almost unbelievable leader article in today's Times. It is headlined "The Choice for Labour" and has the subtitle

"The Labour party is about to suffer a serious electoral defeat. The Cabinet now has a big decision to make - whether or not to act"

Do go and read the whole piece but here are some key extracts:

"A week today the country goes to the polls for European and local elections that will almost certainly result in an historic drubbing for Gordon Brown's Labour Party.

The likelihood is that Labour will end up at best as loser and at worst as a laughing stock... The vital choice lies with his Cabinet colleagues. This, if they choose to seize it, is their moment.

The likes of John Denham and Jack Straw, David Miliband and James Purnell, John Hutton and Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon and Alistair Darling must spend the next week asking themselves what they will do in the event of a shattering defeat. Mr Denham has grown tired of being promised funds that never materialise. Mr Miliband and Mr Purnell are exasperated at being regular victims of the self-harming tendencies of Downing Street briefings. Ms Blears has not been the only member of the Cabinet to have something to say about the Prime Minister's performance on YouTube. Mr Darling has made his frustration plain, in private at least, about being made to sell plans handed to him by his next-door neighbour. It is open to them to translate these private frustrations into public action. The fact is that Cabinet members have the power and, within a few days, the opportunity to change Labour's course and they now has to decide.

They could choose action. This would involve a Cabinet minister (or ministers) resigning, voicing in public the frustration with Mr Brown's leadership that is common currency among them. Senior resignations would trigger a leadership contest that, with the slightly mysterious emergence of Alan Johnson as the likely winner, would lead in short order to a general election.

The disadvantage of this course is that the electorate may punish a party that changed its leader for a second time in the course of a single Parliament. It may be that every potential assassin fears the charge of disloyalty. But the advantages suddenly look very marked...

Of course, Cabinet members may choose not to act. This would involve closing ranks around Mr Brown on the ground that economic recovery will provide a political dividend...

The question is now whether any of them is prepared to act. For a long while they have steadfastly maintained, at least in public, that the cost of removing the Prime Minister from office was greater than the benefit. Perhaps the verdict of the electorate will steel one or more of them to speak the truth about power. But doing nothing is itself a choice. Either way, Labour's future is not just Mr Brown's but the Cabinet's collective responsibility. "

I am not sure what the Cabinet will do after the EU and local elections. The result will be dire for Labour; they will almost certainly finish with less of the popular vote than the Lib Dems. Rumours that UKIP might overtake Labour are widespread but in my view unlikely, although if that was the result then Gordon Brown's Labour party would be humiliated and all hell could be let loose within the Labour party.

Let us assume for a moment that Labour finish a poor third, maybe with less than 18% of the popular vote, what then? Could Gordon Brown fight back with just a reshuffle? If bringing back David Blunkett is the answer then what is the question? Would any of the current Cabinet have the courage to openly challenge the Great Clunking Fist? Would Jack Straw and Peter Mandelson wield their knives in private and persuade Gordon Brown that time is up? Would a "big beast" no longer in the Cabinet have to stand as a stalking horse? Is Charles Clarke a "big beast" or just big? Would Jack Straw stand as a temporary "safe pair of hands" candidate? Would he do that just for the ex-Prime Minister extra pension? Would Alan Johnston stand in a leadership election after saying he wasn't up to the job? Does David Miliband really think he could be Prime Minister? Is Ed Balls so deluded that he thinks the British public could imagine him as Prime Minister? Does Harriet Harman really think? If Gordon Brown does get replaced by a new man/woman/Ed Balls how long could they realistically delay calling a general election? Does the new leader really want to go into history as the man/woman/Ed Balls who lead Labour to their worst ever election defeat? Who really wants to be portrayed as a bigger electoral liability than Michael Foot?

Many, many questions all of which may be answered over the next few months; it will be interesting?

Gordon Brown's economic "genius" exposed

BrackenWorld exposes Gordon Brown's economic "genius" for what it is. Much of the article reiterates what I have been saying for a while, here are some extracts:

"Not only has he borrowed, he has taxed the rest of us to penury, so the ability of the private sector to finance all these jobs - for it is the private sector who pays - has been diminished. State spending represents an absurd portion of the economy, and this is unsustainable

...

The state was active in forcing irresponsible lending - I have pointed out the Community Reinvestment Act before - if this crisis started in the USA, it started with this piece of legislation from 1977 which forced banks to lend to poor credit risks. "innovative products" were aplauded by the regulators, who were instead focussing on investment advisors' dilligence in form filling. "Access" to credit was the byword of banking regulation under Labour in the UK. If bad debts are the problem (and they aren't particularly) then the Reglator is at least as much to blame.

The idea that the banking and financial system was "unregulated" is just ludicrous.

...

Just as it will be several decades before British Banks return to their pomp of 2007, it will be the work of many years to undo the damage that Brown has wrought on the UK economy. He has overseen a vast bloating of the public sector, which will fight hard to maintain its headcount. Any attempt to reduce the number of Diversity outreach co-ordinators will result in failure, because it suits the Aparatchiks' purpose to fire front line service providors rather than administrators in the long bureaucratic tail. They will do this in order to make the "Tory cuts" charge stick."

Read the rest and then spread the word. Don't let Gordon Brown and the media falsify what happened and who is to blame. Gordon Brown must be made to face up to his many failures and his responsibility for the economic disaster that is yet to fully visit the UK. At some point Gordon Brown must be held to account; could what he has done be classified as treason?

Gordon Brown's Labour conference speech

For reaction to Gordon Brown's conference speech on the BBC you could read Reeta Chakrabarti's "analysis"

"Serious about the economy - and substantial when talking about the Labour agenda."

Or you could read Nick Robinson's blog

"The conference reacted with joy and relief at seeing a Gordon Brown that some had never seen before. He restored some of their faith in him and themselves. It is, though, the public's verdict that will decide whether the party will keep him as their leader."

Or you could look at what the public think at Have Your Say, here's the first page of most recommended:

"I bet when he is "bigging himself up" over his mythical & delusional prowess as Chancellor, he neglects to mention some very big bills that future generations of taxpayers in Britain, some not even born yet, will have to deal with:

* Hundreds of millions of pounds committed to PFI projects.

* Uncosted & unfunded public sector pensions

* Northern Rock

* Massive overseas aid committment via the Department for International Development

He shouldn't be sacked, he should be prosecuted.

Righty Rightwing



I predict more of the usual,

Britain well placed...........I'm right man for the job.........mass immigration good for Britain.......all good news down to me........all bad news down to others......blah...blah

But whatever he says, he's finished!!

Politically Incorrect



I would like to hear:

I am sorry! We are sorry! I am very sorry! We are very sorry!
I am sorry! We are sorry! I am very sorry! We are very sorry! ... ad nauseam


For losing touch with reality; for leading the British people up the garden path, for our entire cabal of politicians who (as I've said before) are immersed Mouth, Body & Soul in the Trough with only their gleefully wiggling tails being seen; while pensioners die of cold and serving plus returning soldiers are left high and dry!

Captain In-the-Dock, Lost 'n' Found in Britain



Gordon Brown has finished giving one of the most important speeches of his political career. What did you think of it?

BBC Host,

The only important speech that imbecile will ever give is his resignation speech, and the day cant come soon enough.

[Liberal_left_bias]



I will not even listen I would not trust this traitor if he wrote it personally in his own blood!

Louis Cannell, Northampton, United Kingdom



It took 10 years as chancellor to blow 640 billion of our cash.
it took only a few months to bankrupt this country.
it will take years to put this country back on its feet it took labour 11 years to put it on its knees.

boom and bust gone forever he said tax and spend never left labour.
We are broke
We are taxed to the hilt
We are going to see more stealth taxes under labour.
We are sick of talk.
call the election NOW.

leon hughes, mold, United Kingdom



The prime minister is expected to underline his experience and commitment to create a fairer society.

Labour have, over their tenure, widened the gap between the rich and the poor more so than any previous Government.

Labour have failed. They've failed themselves and they've failed the country.

No speech can rectify the damage they've done to this nation over the last ten years. They should do the only honourable thing left - call a General Election.

[CeeofGee], Oxford, United Kingdom



His last conference speech he stole an oft touted & common sense BNP slogan:

"British Jobs for British Workers".

Which common sense BNP policy statement will McStalin steal this time I wonder?...no doubt never to implement.....

If Gordooms career were a horse, it would be illegal to leave it suffering.

Someone do the decent thing......

PS BBC: Marr & Robinson - what planet are they on? Planet Brown?

Righty RightProud, Coalville



All we've had under NuLabour is immigration immigration immigration.

What happened to 'Education education education'?

[Replicant]



Reduce immigration and stop paying the workshy to watch sky TV,

Reduce the tax burdon on the low paid ( How about a 10% entry tax, thats a novel idea)

Stop bailing the banks out with taxpayers money whilst they buy new yachts with their annual bonus's

gey MP's to live in the real world and see what its like to pay a third of their take home pay on get to work costs

Resign!

john Adair, England Not Britain, Virgin Islands (UK)



My views?

Lies, spin, and repeated garbage.

I notice that he turned the place into a fortress - is that to prevent us tax payers from making an appearance and spoiling it for him by hanging him in public?

badger fruit, resistance hq, United Kingdom



I wonder if he will still give us his favourite line "no return to boom and bust"

I somehow doubt it!

steve jones, Liverpool



Unless the speech amounts to his resignation, and the promise of an immediate General Election, I'm not really interested.

Chris, Hartlepool



What would I like to hear?

" Good afternoon - I resign - goodbye"

Totally Disgruntled, Wokingham



"People, I spent the last 11 years taxing, borrowing and squandering. Now that there is a global economic crisis, the UK is badly placed to weather the storm. After proving yet again that all Labour governments end in financial chaos, I hereby tender my resignation."

That's what we want to hear.

[SecretSkivver], Stockport"

That's the public speaking; it's a shame Gordon isn't in listening mode any more, if he ever was.

The Labour party are very short of money but the taxpayer can always be used to subsidise them

I note that whilst the Labour party are running short of money they are not running out of ways to spend taxpayers money on supporting Labour's pre-election campaign. Whilst The Times reports that:

"Labour’s Cabinet tour of the country was engulfed in controversy last night after it emerged that ministers were using the regional visits to stage party events before an election campaign.

As Gordon Brown takes his Government on the road to the North East, it was revealed that Harriet Harman, the party’s deputy leader, used a publicly funded trip to Exeter to hold an election meeting with activists.

In a leaked letter from Ms Harman seen by The Times, she made plans to meet candidates, officials and trade unionists from across the South West region to discuss campaign strategy.

The letter, sent 12 days before the February 5 visit, said: “This will be a chance for me to hear directly from you as party members in a private meeting to talk about the issues and campaigning activity in the South West. It will be particularly helpful for me to hear from you in the run-up to the general election about the activities taking place in the area.”

...

The Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “Gordon Brown has been caught red-handed using government money to fund political activity. It is clear that these meetings are simply designed to ship the Cabinet into marginal seats to secure good PR for Labour’s election campaign at taxpayers’ expense.”

Mr Carswell has written to Sir Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service, asking him to consider blocking further regional Cabinet meetings and to investigate whether the meeting breached ministerial rules, which say that public money must not be used for political or electioneering events. "

Harriet Harman's defence is frankly beyond satire:

"Ms Harman denied breaking the ministerial code. Her office said that the taxpayer would have paid for her to travel to Exeter but that the party would have picked up costs to and from the event at Exeter Labour Hall."

Maybe us poor taxpayers could be allowed to compare the two figures; something tells me that the cost of transporting Ms Harman from London, whether via first class train, chauffeured car or plane (along with officials and aides) will somewhat exceed the cost of travelling across Exeter and hiring a hall. Let's see the figures...

However the key passage was this:

"Mr Brown held two regional Cabinets in 2008 and five last year. There will be two this month alone. All were close to or in key marginal seats. "

I wonder what might account for this increase in such regional Cabinet meetings if not being in the run-up to an election?


The other thing that I have noticed is that the Government's advertising campaign is running full blast; not only are there posters everywhere and radio ads extolling the virtues of direct.gov.uk but some ITV ad breaks are solely filled by Labour Government advisories.

Labour are near insolvency and have nearly bankrupted the Country; well done to all the fools who fell for Tony 'pretty straight guy' Blair and Gordon 'Prudence' Brown in 1997, some of us did warn you!

He really has the anti-Midas touch

Apparently :

"Madame Tussauds has decided against having a Gordon Brown waxwork amongst its world leaders - he dithered over whether to sit for its sculptors and they got fed up waiting for a reply. "Since then we have had no response and, reflecting the climate after the Government's performance in the recent local elections, our guests have become decidedly split about whether we should feature Mr Brown at all," general manager Edward Fuller said."

Poor Gordon, maybe he should just ride off into the sunset and leave us all in peace.

"All we want is for Gordon Brown to fulfil his promise. He said British jobs for British workers."

So said a protester called George on Friday from Wilton, on Teesside. Sorry George but Gordon Brown made a promise he couldn't deliver on (yes just like "ending boom and bust"). Whilst we are in the EU we cannot stop anyone resident in another EU country from coming and working here. Either Gordon Brown knew that but thought he might get away with a Brownie or he didn't know, in which case he's even less well informed than I thought.

The wild cat strikes breaking out over Britain might be the start of something bigger, could British workers be about to turn French and take on the Labour government? If they do, could this be the excuse Gordon Brown needs to use the Civil Contingencies Act to quash dissent and rule by decree?

Reduced working weeks, strikes breaking out all over the Country; welcome back to the 1970s. This time maybe the Government won't resign:

"It was us poor bastards took the chop
When the tubes gone up and the buses stopped
The top people still come out on top
The government never resigned
The Carib Club got petrol bombed
The National Front was getting awful strong
They done in Dave and Dagenham Ron
In the winter of '79
When all the gay geezers got put inside
And coloured kids was getting crucified
A few fought back and a few folks died
In the winter of '79"

The Community Reinvestment Act (reminder)

I have blogged many times about the Community Reinvestment Act and how it was one of the key factors in creating the US housing bubble as well as its effect on UK housing finance. You should read my earlier articles - here, here, here, here (in October 2008) the links to Barack Obama and here the links to UK policy.

I raise the matter today because Christopher Booker in The Telegraph yesterday wrote

"It is all very well for President Obama to vent his anger on all those US bankers who continued to claim billions of dollars in bonuses while expecting Washington to bail them out after the sub-prime mortgage scandal brought the banks to their knees. But conveniently overlooked has been the curious part Mr Obama himself played in the sub-prime debacle.

At the heart of it was a 1995 amendment to the Community Reinvestment Act which legally required banks to lend money to buy homes to millions of poor, mainly black Americans, guaranteed by the two biggest mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And no one campaigned more actively for this change to the law than Mr Obama, as a young but already influential Chicago politician.

It was this Act which, more than anything, helped to create the US housing bubble, well beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. And in 2005 no one more actively opposed moves to halt Fannie Mae's reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, as he was by then. As the official records show, no senator received more donations from Fannie Mae than he did (although Hillary Clinton ran him close). Thus no US politician arguably did more to promote the sub-prime disaster than the man now expected to pick up the pieces, Rather like Gordon Brown, really. "

I couldn't have put it better myself and somehow I doubt that this story will get anywhere near the BBC where the Obamamessiah is beyond criticism and will remain so so long as he follows the BBC approved line.