Gordon: this is how you'll defeat Cameron on the economy

We have got about three months' window in the economic recovery before QE and the American recovery start a massive inflation. If we do not hold an election in that short period, we are finished as a party and the LibDems will take over from us as the opposition. Reform - and this means slashing the corrupt politicians even those in the cabinet - is URGENT!
Doesn't anyone else see this?

Guy, life isn't just about reading from psychometric tests and polls. They can be useful guidlines and indicators but beyond that you have to make your own judgement and get on with things. That's an experience thing.

I write because I enjoy conversation. I've led opinion in a way that satisfies me and like the social side of it. Maybe, if you were more interested in what people had to say and less prickly you'd discover that.

"The Belbin test as well as the more useful psychometric test say used by Gallop are very useful in seeing what type of role an individual is best suited to. Brown is not leadership material and it's painful watching him pretend to be a leader."

I once worked at a company that brought in nonsense "psychometric tests". Within a year all the best people left since they got fed up with being told what "colour" they were, or some cryptic jumble of letters that was supposed to say more about them than their list of achievements.

The fact that you are putting so much confidence in these silly tests gives you little credibility.

"What I have a problem with is bullying and gossipy old women like Cameron who pretend to deliver the goods but ripped people off like timeshare fraudsters."

Top Up Fees - Labour Party Manifesto promise - BROKEN
Vote on the European Treaty - Labour Party Manifesto promise - BROKEN

Just two examples of broken promises - who's ripped the public off Charles? This labour government were
in a position to deliver on their promises - to continue with your gambling analogy - they had the dream hand
they had the ability to stack the deck and mark the cards, and deal themselves all the aces - but they failed and broke the promises.


A broken party, broken government, broken ideology, broken promises to a broken society.

SHAME ON THEM ALL!

Zen originated in Japan, a country that has been in the doldrums economically for the ten years or so. If Zen were the answer to economic and political woes don't you think that the country which invented it, where it is best understood (if that is the world) and practiced most diligently would be back into fiscal balance by now? You preach Zen as if you yourself are an enlightened master; as a consequence I personally find your sense of self-importance, arrogance and vanity insulting at best and delusional at worst.

Give it a rest.

It is quite depressing that Labour still do not realize they are a busted flush. GB is no longer seen as a great Chancellor. People see that he inherited a golden economy from the Conservatives, spent and wasted like there was no tomorrow and will walk away leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill for Decades. He will come to be known as the most loathed and useless politician in living memory. Get rid of him now or he will take both the Country and the Labour Party down with him.

"The alternative is to cut spending at a time when we disparately need public services. It does not take many brain cells to realize that when the country is wealthy it can pay off its debt. Indeed, Brown had done that year-on-year as chancellor. But in time of recession it is pure lunacy to try and pay off the debt. The Brown/Darling plan is to restrain public spending and get efficiency savings. Cameron's plan is to cut spending to the bone and plunge us deeper into recession."

So... "When the country is wealthy" it can pay off it's debts eh? You seem to have a fundamental misinterpretation of wealth and future perceived wealth. Can you enlighten us, the public, how exactly Brown has "realized that when the country is wealthy it can pay off its debt" and conversely that when a country is poor it cannot pay off it's debt? I take it that you believe that Britain has been wealthy during 12 years of Labour rule. How much of Britain's debt has been paid off during these wealthy years? How much has been paid off in real terms? Is there scope to pay off Britain's debt at the moment?

"But in time of recession it is pure lunacy to try and pay off the debt."

So this is different from an individual's circumstances in what way? Do you also advocate that a person in debt "spend" their way out of debt rather than paying it back? Do you understand what fiat currency is and the result of "printing money"? I would like you to back the above quoted statement up. Can you explain or justify any of the consequences of your proposal to extend debt maturity and repayment deterioration in a falling market as you suggest? It is easy to say "spend" when you have no idea where said spending money will come from. Where will the UK (through misguided policies you advocate) obtain the credit to pursue expansionist fiscal policies in light on diminishing tax returns? Will Gilt bondholders demand a higher return for their increased risk of default?
If you can answer any of these questions with a fraction of your "brain cells" I would be most thankful. Please reply in full and in detail so we can have a proper debate on the future of this nation's finances. Any representation of economical acumen would be most appreciated, would be most appreciated.

I've posted elsewhere on this but all politicians are bottling it. They're all hoping their message is "just good enough" but nobody has committed to the rigrous constitional convention and binding referendum I'm looking for on pain of an instant general election.

They lack vision, are greedy, and are weak. If politicans truly believed in meaningful reform they'd quit with the posturing and ethical pledges and sign up to this programme. Instead, we get Vista SP2 and the promise of Windows 8 tomorrow. Yeah, right.

It would be an absolute disaster to sell any kind of GB comeback on a FTSE rally - Sod's law says it crashes
the very next day.

Brown will defeat Cameron on the economy by either getting him locked up under the Anti-Terrorism Act or hitting him with the fax machine he's just thrown across the room in a fit of temper (apologies to the fax machine).

the issue of politcians not delivering on promises is coming to the fore now....


so the electoral and constitutional reform, either will be done by Oct - i have no idea of what is practical, although the majority of the House will support it.


(and the election will take place in Oct)


Failing that a referendum (on - including electoral reform) will take place on the day of the election - the contents of which will be supported by Labour and the Libdems.


It seems to me.



The summer recess for Parliament will be a rather busy time for the world of politics. I think.

I've found the mixed signals thing in Cameron's message since day one. It's been effective in presenting something that appears workable while glossing over the real Tory agenda. You're right. It lacks integrity.

Cameron's latest waffle over trimming the power of the Prime Minister and giving backbenchers more say is, I suspect, more half-truths and misdirection. I don't expect him to do anything that trims his power and the Tory party will just vote like drunks flushed with whiskey.

Cameron's big claim when he first called for an election was that the NHS was the last policy area that needed sorting out. Clearly, the Tories weren't ready and their NHS policy still isn't what it says on the tin. Any mouth can create headlines but where's the follow-up?

I don't have a problem with privatisation or redistributing capital from the public to private sector. Doing a good job and caring for people is a universal principle. What I have a problem with is bullying and gossipy old women like Cameron who pretend to deliver the goods but rip people off like timeshare fraudsters.

Camerons calls Brown a coward, accusses him of dithering, and says he's got a brass neck but the guy is talking about himself. He's relying on people being sucked in by the bling and forgetful like a bent Las Vegas casino operator. The game is rigged and the drinks are free but the only winner if Cameron has his way is Cameron. Anyone who believes different is a rube.

"the Tories just have a scattergun collection of policies and are still addicted to screwing everyone for their personal gain."

That may well be true. The only Tory policy document that I have read through thoroughly so far is their health policy. I have compared it to the current health policy and I can find that they say they "will do this and do that", as if they came up with the idea, but in fact they are talking about existing government policies.

There are pledges like the two I highlighted above, but the government has *already* pledged to end mixed wards, so that policy is not new. The question is how it could be funded with the Tory cuts.

You really need to read it more carefully to see the real policy in that dopcument. What is interesting is how many times the Tory policy document talks about private health. Indeed, they list their version of the NHS Constitution which enshrines private involvement in the NHS. Whereas the government's constitution talks about ideals and commitment to the public and staff, the Tories constitution talks about "working with others", which can only means privatisation.

Further, Cameron is proposing a centralised organisation (NHS Board) and the policy says: "Commissioning of NHS services will be separate from healthcare providers and overseen by the independent NHS Board". And then the document says that "[NHS Board] commissioners will then be able to judge providers by their results and make their choices over where to go for care accordingly." This means that the centralised NHS board will impose services upon hospitals. This worries me, because at the moment (and particularly with the decentralisation through Foundation Trusts) local hospital managers choose the services they will use. Cameron's plan can only lead to privatisation, from above, through stealth.

The man is dishonest. He must be pressed to tell the electorate what he really has in store for the NHS.

Yes the Tories will cut public spending (as will Labour as they have admitted by the way) and have less government.

I do feel slightly light headed when I read nonsense like this, the Labour government has given us mass debt that has to be paid back. You have 2 choices, increase taxation or reduce spending (it will be a mixture of both but the question here is where the focus should be).

The raw fact that you don't seem to have thought about is what the average member of "middle England" i.e. those few tens of thousands of floating voters who will decide the next election will decide they want, tax increases or spending cuts.

If you think your average family already facing a massive increase in taxation under Labour and watching the wastage of ID cards for example as well as MP excesses will support increased taxation over spending you are deluded.

As it is this government has increased employment in the public sector to ludicrous levels and yes there needs to be cuts.

At the last election the Labour Party lambasted the Tories over "cuts", when Labour has already admitted to the need for cuts after 2010 but refuses to spell out where they will be and with the country near bankruptcy, you think those floating voters will listen to another scare story over "tory cuts"?

As for the comment about Belbin and it's like, all you do is along with Charles show that Labour supporters have no idea of business or wealth creation. What you are good at is tax, borrow and spend and that's about it.

You seem to think you can endlessly draw on the wealth creating classes and borrow and spend as much as you want never having to worry about payback time. Well you've been found out and the result won't be pretty for you at the ballot box.

Your time is fast running out and you deserve every bit of what's waiting for you

Once qagain Charles so out of touch with both modern business and the feeling in the country.

Brown is an aweful man manager with his tantrums and desire to factionalise everything. He is exactly the mould of the perter principle a mna promted beyond his level of competance and is typical of middle management incapable of doing anything other than sitting there blocking as it's "his turn".

The Belbin test as well as the more useful psychometric test say used by Gallop are very useful in seeing what type of role an individual is best suited to. Brown is not leadership material and it's painful watching him pretend to be a leader.

I really don't care what model yu use, my guess is you have never held a high position in anything and just troll on here with your zen nonsense to cover a deep seated sense of personal failure.

Anyway enough of you as you are an irrelevance, the Tories win the next election and you can moan on the sidelines for a decade or so.

"So your solution for getting us through the recession is to increase personal taxation (kill consumption) and business taxation (kill employment increases) to allow this Labour Government to continue spending money like water with no decrease?"

The alternative is to cut spending at a time when we desparately need public services. It does not take many brain cells to realise that when the country is wealthy it can pay off its debt. Indeed, Brown had done that year-on-year as chancellor. But in time of recession it is pure lunacy to try and pay off the debt. The Brown/Darling plan is to restrain public spending and get efficiency savings. Cameron's plan is to cut spending to the bone and plunge us deeper into recession.

"It is exactly this thinking that is so out of touch with the floating voter who will decide your fate. The floating voter doesn't want yet more of his income taken away by the state to be put into ID Cards, National Children's databases etc.etc."

The floating voter does not want NHS cuts and cuts to their kids' schools, all of which will happen if Cameron gets in. His spending cuts simply do not add up with his pledge to the NHS (which everyone knows is a hollow promise). When in power Cameron will announce that we are in austerity and so the NHS will have to suffer too.

"Back in 1997 there was a groundswell for increased state spending, it's been reversed now and you haven't recognised it. That's why you'll lose badly."

Nonsense. When you ask people the right question: do you want cuts in your hospitals to get long waiting lists, and cuts to education to get large class sizes, people will answer NO.

I have my own vision so being here is no endorsement of Labour. But, you make a good case and we agree on a lot. I think, people get that. There's a bigger thing here than Gordon, Labour, or Britain. I'm just doing what I can to help it along.

I've made every mistake in the book and had my share of bad luck. I understand what Gordon's going through and have my own sack to carry. It's not always easy. People will say it can't be done or give you a hard time. Letting go can help.

One of my heroes, John Harvey Jones, is a great example for Gordon Brown to follow. He's a similar sort of guy but displays more confidence and affability. Maybe an attitude like that, long hair, and a loud tie is all Gordon needs?

Nice photos Dan. Running a state well, good sex, and great photograhy are all the same thing. In some ways this touches on why Zen has a thing about the natural world and producing art in one breath. Life is amazing.

Dan, that'll be 'Tory' as in 'noticed this government are donkies and have nothing to do with Labour' will it?

Thanks, Charles.

I see the Tories are still camped out in the comment area of our website. At least there's some comments worth reading.

pe ratios are about 10 at the moment. If they go over 20 you can talk about irrational exuberance.

Dan,

Here’s a post from Bill

People are still talking about us going to war for the wrong reasons, talk to someone on a low income about tax and they'll bring up 10p tax, then ask them about the economy. The perceived view of the economic collapse, especially now the MP expense issue has been brought out in the open, is that many bankers got rich, politicians got rich and now the rest of us are paying the price. Do you really want to focus on that one issue?

On the doorstep, how do you suppose campaigners explain that while the householder has lost their job, the weekly shop is becoming increasingly expensive and utility bills are unaffordable, the bankers and politicians that lead their lives from above haven't been effected one bit? The bankers walked away with millions in bonuses, the MPs just put it all on expenses.

Maybe you mean the fight should be on the television or in the media. So we'll have GB waving his hands about and talking frankly about the economy, but on the other channel or the next page we'll have Cameron telling everyone that they've been lied to, again and again, so why trust what GB is saying now?


..... and this is answer from the resident Labour Economist Duncan

Bill,

I agree.

It's a mess.

But we can fight on the basis that we want those who benifitted benefitted most during the boom to pay for the recovery. We can fight on how we want to rebalance the books through tax rises (mainly) whilst the Tories want to cut spending on things that matter to voters.

These is the issues:

Others want the perpetrators of the economic crimes of the last 12 years re-elected; where is the remorse, the apology to the working classes – That’ll be you Duncan.
Some are in denial – the mess is nothing to do with Gordon – That’ll be you Dan

My advice to anyone who has a brain: tomorrow get out of bed without your indoctrinated bias and say to yourself:

What am I.
What do I believe.
What has really happened over the last 12 years.
What does the country need.
Who is going to give me the society I want.


.... The answer will not be Broon.

Belbin's model doesn't really make sense and smacks a little of the independent studies the Transcendental Meditation bunch use to support their claims. In any case, Guy is completely clueless in allocating Brown and Cameron to the defined roles. It runs against the top models, history, and personal experience. I don't use that model and my analysis agrees with some professor who produced an article for one of the broadsheets not long afterwards.

Yup. Good call on the Tory policies and intent. My impression is that beneath the headline grabbing grandstanding and sentimentality, the Tories just have a scattergun collection of policies and are still addicted to screwing everyone for their personal gain. That's not a coherent or balanced approach by any measure and why I believe why they remain unfit for government.

I can't think of anywhere else to shove it but Cameron's headline grabbing attempt to make the Tories look like the people's party? He's only canvassing for head teachers and businessmen, and only in those constituences where the add Tory gets deselected for embezzling expenses. That's not a coherent policy and certainly not opening up the Tories to the common man, and I'll take it as another indicator Cameron is a thickie playing a partisan game.

"
Here's a list of principles, ideas and policy that the Conservatives believe in to get you started:"

Whoa, hold on a minute, Left's first start with what Cameron *really* wants. He wants to cut cut cut. He has said that he wants less government and a real cut in spending (yes, I know, a crazy thing to do in a recession, but he's not the most sane of people).

Now tell me, with the current "efficiency savings" in the NHS which are expected to rise to 5% if Cameron gets in, can you explain how Cameron plans to do these:

"* Provide 45,000 more single rooms in NHS hospitals over 5 years
* Reform drug pricing to ensure new effcetive drugs are made available to the NHS"

Both of these will cost money. Where will that money come from?

"I've taken many psychometric tests such as Belbins in my business life."

Oh are they those silly machines that the scientologists use to con people into thinking that the world is run by lizards or something?

Miaymoto Musashi comments that the man who is scared of losing his life has already lost it. He attacks the gates of hell and is driven away by his own fear but when he passes through he discovers heaven. This is the place Gordon is at. Unless he is prepared to let go, kill himself or change (they are synonymous) he will continue beating himself up and running away.

Gordon Brown can still win the lection. It's a mere stretching out of the arm and grasping the apple away but because he has his wires crossed he serves it to Cameron on a plate. The thickie Cameron and most of his own party can't believe their own luck. Cameron tried it on and the media mob turned nasty and Gordon just kept dancing to their tune and emptying his pockets for them. It's embarassing.

"Wake up, Neo." *sheesh*

Gordon had the right intent but had his wires crossed. Pulling his finger out and ruthlessly dispatching friends isn't his first choice but he's going to have to do it if he's going to be effective and connect with the public. What is more important? Securing a Labour win that can deliver on the goals or mere presentation which hands a victory to the Tories and sets us all back 20 years?

Sometimes, it's the role of leader not to do what they want but to do what is necessary. This is why the Tao comments that the man of principle has no principles, and the man of loyalty has no loyalities. Clinging to ideas and sentiments is fine but when they get in the way of execution they become a mere vanity. Brown's morality becomes immorality. The robber baron Cameron appears like a saviour.

Gordon must embrace "no mind". He mustn't stop to think or feel, but act as the moment dictates and without fear. Unless he learns to do this his understanding and compassion will always get in the way of him. Only when he lets of of his "self", or the ego, will he be able to grow in authority, drive away his enemies, and prevail. However, this is no excuse for chaos or brutality. He must be good and kind unless, of course, he mustn't. This is a bit tricky for people that don't get Zen but, hey, I didn't build the universe.

come out fighting, dan?.

No chance. If he hasnt got the guts to sack the micro talented spoilt millionaires wife barbara follett, to name but one, he has no fight left in him.

if *gordon* is to stand any chance of minimizing the damage, to put it crudely and bluntly, he needs to get his finger out.

Stop the talk, and do like cameron has done, force people like, anne and alan keen *mr & mrs expenses*; follett and moran to stand down. Sack mcnulty and blears. While he wrings his hands like the dithering old woman he is, his mps are holding up 2 fingers to is - and him

Nice try but the bluster, sloganised emotionalism, and insults don't budge me. All the clever tricks you've used to wangle yourself a "top rate taxpayer" job and impress your clients doesn't touch the sides. Maybe you want to try taking another swipe to see if you hit anything?

The current strategy is mostly silence; I think the view is that given his handling of the economy is akin to his media skills its best to stay silent on his guilt and to find a scapegoat for the blame at No11. Alistair are you free?

"Cameron doesn't care for principles, ideas or arguments"

So at the European elections the "principle" of giving the electorate a vote on the treaty is which party position?

Here's a list of principles, ideas and policy that the Conservatives believe in to get you started:

* Reduction in corporation tax to 25%
* Formation of a Border Police Force
* Scrapping the ID cards
* Scrapping the child database
* Repair the broken military covenant
* Improve discipline and behaviour in schools
* Provide 45,000 more single rooms in NHS hospitals over 5 years
* Reform drug pricing to ensure new effcetive drugs are made available to the NHS
* Abolish stamp duty for 9 out of 10 first time buyers
* Raise inheritance tax thresholds to £1 million
* Freeze council tax increases for 2 years

These and many many more are available on the Conservative Party web pages across 25 specific policy areas.

Just because you keep repeating something Charles doesn't mean it's right. The Tory policies are there and more will come as the election gets closer.

You are a perfect representative of the nasty spiteful Labour party currently in government. You are bereft of anything than attacking "thickie" Cameron. This is the Cameron who went to Oxford and was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton before becoming an MP? He seems to have a background well suited to being called "thickie" by some delusional nut spouting "zen" every 5 minutes.

The Tories have principles, ideas and arguments, the reality is Labour has been in government for too long and none of the same.

I've taken many psychometric tests such as Belbins in my business life. Cameron gives off the qualities you'd associate with Leadership and Chairmanship, Brown on the other hand shows the qualities of one of the back ground "finishers". Both are vital components to a functioning company, organisation or government, but only one of them is suited to be PM and it isn't Brown.

Analog man for a digital age is what Cameron called Brown, I can't think of an analogy more appropriate.

Anyway Charles you go back to the head in sand approach, i'll get ready for your raucous squawk of:

"NOOOOO POLICY...... NOOOOOOO IDEASSSSS"

"ZEN ZEN ZEEEEEEENNNNN"

"POLLY WANT A CRACKER"

"THICKIE THICKIE CAMERON............. ZEN ZEN"

Good topic, Dan. I've touched all the bullet points before. I'm not going to repeat that but your focus on personal development and continuous effort is sound. The problem Gordon has is he confuses the unvarnished Gordon with effectiveness, and has a see-saw approach to building success. This is typical of someone like him but the lack of polish creates mistakes people pick up on, and the brilliant successes are undermined by the crashing failures. People remember the mistakes and failures. Dropping those mistakes and evening out the performance to create a steady drumbeat would help avoid that.

Cameron doesn't care for principles, ideas, or arguments. Seriously, those just pass straight through a guy like that. He's geared up to cling to an ideology, is more emotional and people orientated, and will just grind out his formula in his sleep. He's not great or particularly nice and have seen examples of that. He's the ultimate yes man who only thinks in terms of hierarchy and who is on or off his team. he's not a leader, just an over-promoted bag carrier.

Gordon needs to "invest in loss" at a personal, policy, and campaign level. He has to work against himself and aim for the opposite. That means action, connecting with peoples emotional concerns, and now rather than later. He has to start delivering and stop whining, and aim for achievable now rather than perfection later. People don't want the windy language or greedy con artists getting away with it but unless Gordon can stand on his own feet the playground bully will get the prize again. That might not be right or fair but that's how it works. Smash Cameron up: get ahead of the thickie and stay on him like a rash. When he goes down the rest will fold like a cheap blanket.

"Then every now and then out of the blue he'll grins (or grimace) like a reptile for no apparent reason."


He's had 'media training' but I hope he got our money back.

Is it just me or have any of the rest of you noticed Gordon Brown's recent adoption of a set of bizarre self-conscious hand gestures into his oratorical repertoire? As he speaks he makes strange, disjointed, almost spastic movements with his hands which seem to have no relationship whatever with what he is saying. It's as if he's speaking orally in English while his hands are communicating non-verbally in Chinese sign language. Then every now and then out of the blue he'll grins (or grimace) like a reptile for no apparent reason.

Gordon shine?

No matter how hard you polish a cow-pat, Dan, you'll never burnish it enough to make it shine how ever hard you try!

"it transpired that about five million people did end up worse off"


The important thing there was that Gordon got to smirk at Dave for 5 seconds before anyone realised what he had just done.

Gordon Brown is terrible; the low water mark for political oratory.

Not only is Brown stilted, wooden, clockwork and witless but the general public now actually expect him to be exaggerating, lying or wrong whenever he opens his mouth. For example, Brown repeatedly denied that discontinuing the 10p tax rate for low paid workers would leave anyone in that band worse off, even though hundreds of MPs, accountants and economists told him that it would. In the event it transpired that about five million people did end up worse off than before leading Darling to "unpack the budget", something he said initially that was impossible, and subsequently borrow millions of pounds on the wholesale markets to "compensate" people who incomes were harmed by Brown's incautious "tax cutting" agenda. Throughout his career Gordon Brown has been proven to be wrong, wrong, wrong on so many issues that the public tend not to believe anything he says these days at face value.

He is the devalued Prime Minister.

Dan,

Greenspan coined the phrase in the mid-90s but it was Shiller who turned that into an critical piece of economic analysis. I have read Shiller's book, I take it you have too?

Irrational Exhuberance is now a popular term used to describe speculation that has no foundation on the underlying fundamentals of the economy. Shiller used it to explain the dot-com boom and a later second edition; to explain the US housing boom.

The fact that stocks have had a very long bull run in the pits of a recession is just another example. The underlying fundamentals of the economy are completely at odds with the price expectation of stocks and shares. It's all about the PE ratios.

Recently the phrase has been used on everything from the current boom in conceptual art prices through to recent price hikes in oil (despite a near glut) and now in stocks.

My facts are perfectly correct.

"rebalance the books through tax rises"

So your solution for getting us through the recession is to increase personal taxation (kill consumption) and business taxation (kill employment increases) to allow this Labour Government to continue spending money like water with no decrease?

It is exactly this thinking that is so out of touch with the floating voter who will decide your fate. The floating voter doesn't want yet more of his income taken away by the state to be put into ID Cards, National Children's databases etc.etc.

Back in 1997 there was a groundswell for increased state spending, it's been reversed now and you haven't recognised it. That's why you'll lose badly.

Thats a hard fight though. I mean look at it from the average persons point of view. They have a choice between paying more tax on top of fairly high taxes already, or they can have the option of reduced public services and more money in their pockets.

From a personal perspective I think there could be cut backs in public spending, if it were done sensibly, removing some of the unnecessary help lines, cutting back on the advertising budget (Some of the adverts produced are ludicrously expensive, then never really get aired) and although it may not be easy, shifting the balance from management to frontline service.

For instance, I took my wife to hospital the other day. Its a newly built hospital, and the interior resembled a shopping centre rather than the hospitals we're used to. The areas where colour coded to make it easy to get round, so we quickly found the reception we needed. Unfortunately there were no staff to cover that reception, so we returned to the main reception. No staff there either. After about 10 minutes a very stressed woman turned up and announced she had to service several receptions in the hospital. All the while this was going on, we saw at least 6 managers walking around with one of them calling in the cleaners to remove dust from the top of a drinks machine. In the time it took him to call in the cleaners, he could have wiped it over with a cloth himself.

All I'm saying is that money isn't always spent as well as it could be, and going back to the point you made, would the voter want to see more of the same sort of spending we've seen recently and tax increases, or taxes stay the same, but the public services are dratically altered?

Wouldn't it be better to campaign by righting some perceived wrongs? Maybe if GB gets in there first with an EU referendum as I saw suggested on the LL the other day? But he would have to do it before an election, not promise to do it afterwards. That goes for anything he suggests, I really do believe he has lost the confidence of the British people and only action will regain it.

"and that's why I'm calling for him to come out fighting."


That's not really his style though, Clunking Deluded Drudgery is what we'll get, that and a few fake and rather scarey grimaces. Four or five days after they would have been slightly relevant. And then a retreat back to the bunker.

I must have missed this

It certainly wasn't in any of the newspapers I read, nor did it make it to the BBC, but the spat with the BoE governor did. Is that where Brown made these remarks about the governor being overly pessimistic?

It's the general mood of recovery that will turn our fortunes, not a specific indicator such as the FTSE, but I'm pointing to the this indicator because I'm speaking to you guys who I tend to assume are a well-informed bunch. The real question is whether the media start backing Gordon again and that's why I'm calling for him to come out fighting.

You're not very well informed. Irrational Exuberance was a speech made at the top of a bull rally not a downturn. Get your facts right if you want to comment.

Bill,

I agree.

It's a mess.

But we can fight on the basis that we want those who benifitted most during the boom to pay for the recovery. We can fight on how we want to rebalance the books through tax rises (mainly) whilst the Tories want to cut spending on things that matter to voters.

I'm not pretending that this will be an easy fight at all. And of course people are, rightly, furious about the expenses issue - but we need to move beyond that over the coming year.

Dan, I do need to warn you that LSD can take you down as well as up.

But surely its not about just one issue. I recieved a Conservative leaflet through the door yesterday. Bank Holiday Monday and there on my door mat is a leaflet telling me that GB didn't give me the referendum on Europe that was promised, but the Conservatives will.

People are still talking about us going to war for the wrong reasons, talk to someone on a low income about tax and they'll bring up 10p tax, then ask them about the economy. The perceived view of the economic collapse, especially now the MP expense issue has been brought out in the open, is that many bankers got rich, politicians got rich and now the rest of us are paying the price. Do you really want to focus on that one issue?

On the doorstep, how do you suppose campaigners explain that while the householder has lost their job, the weekly shop is becoming increasingly expensive and utility bills are unaffordable, the bankers and politicians that lead their lives from above haven't been effected one bit? The bankers walked away with millions in bonuses, the MPs just put it all on expenses.

Maybe you mean the fight should be on the television or in the media. So we'll have GB waving his hands about and talking frankly about the economy, but on the other channel or the next page we'll have Cameron telling everyone that they've been lied to, again and again, so why trust what GB is saying now?

GB can say anything he wants, the hardest task is making sure the electorate is actually listening.

I think I saw a completely different video.

The Gordon I saw was - as ever - wooden and clunky, and mixed facts with distortion and outright porkies (OK, lies) in equal measure (also, as usual).

Other than himself (and possibly you, Dan) who does he think he is deluding?

Dan,

Look up the phrase 'Irrational Exuberance" by a chap called Greenspan and elaborated further by Shiller. This is where we are now. Speculative pressures in a series of mini-bubbles. It was oil last year, stocks this year.

The only economic indicator people really care about is unemployment.

Add to that now, debt.

This country needs to know how the debt is going to be repaid, how painful it is going to be and how the economy is going to be fixed.

They really couldn't give a monkey's about speculators... after all, weren't they practically the spawn of Satan according to Brown only a few months ago?

Brown was good and I do think we can, and should fight a good campaign on the basis of managing a transition economy and who pays for the debt.

But I'd be very reluctant to fight on the basis that the FTSE is up over the last few months. It's alien to most people.

The real issue is unemployment and that is likely to still be rising come the next election. Even if the economy is growing again.