Clarke's 'private chat'

I think the real problem here is that no one really wants the job because they know that they will be unable to win the next election.

Whilst Milliband and others might want the job they know that it will be best to wait and lead in opposition first. I think most will be quite glad for Brown to lead them to defeat and resign.

Not on .. this is putting words into someone's mouth on matter of great public interest ... clearly suggesting that Labour are dead in the water which will then become a self fulfilling prophecy ... how is this objective reporting? ... this could easily have been written up on a Tory Blog. If Nick wants to write this kind of stuff he should leave the BBC.

In the final analysis, it is not, or should not be, about these people.

It is about what is the most sensible way to proceed for the English people.

That is, a pragmatic strategy needs to be mapped out, stripped of political dogma, that when implemented, attempts to take us to a better place.

Frankly, I do not think that NL or the Tories who are destined to replace them, are capable of delivering on that.

English people, if they have time to think beyond next months paycheck, might consider where else to put their precious vote.

It is the only political power we English have.

Nick wrote;
"It will ensure that the party's and the media's focus is not on the economic renewal plan that never was but on the Brown renewal plan that better had be ..."

A true statesman would concentrate on an economic renewal plan for the nations as a whole rather than party or personal self interest. I cannot claim to be over confident that we will see any statesman like behaviour.

They need to stop worrying about winning the next election and get a headstart on preparing for opposition.

Does Clarke really imagine he (or anyone else) will be more popular with the voters than Brown?

He's deluding himself. House prices are going to keep faling, nothing can be done about it. The prices were never affordable and people have finally realised it.

Clarke, Cameron, Clegg or anyone else, it makes no difference to the inevitability of this fall.

Clarke is not the one who needs to be saying this - now, if Ed Balls were to suddenly come to his senses and say that Gordon's days are numbered or, heaven forefend, Harriet H were to say 'Yup, better off without him', others might listen. But they won't. Jack Straw has seen to that.

So they are all going down with Gordon. Gordon, are you SURE your being PM is more important than your party's chances?

Nothing new here and Clarke should not be criticised for speaking what we're all thinking.

I've had enough of Labour. I am a Scotsman living in London and my family have supported Labour all our lives.

However, since the Iraq war and the over-reliance on spin, my support has been reducing. Whilst I liked Brown as a chancellor I am suprised at how low I rate him as a PM and his cabinet. Blair's tenure meant that whoever was taking over needed to build lost ground. Sadly, Brown is not that man. He wouldn't even last as a top director in my company or in any decent company nevermind PM. You can learn lessons once Gordon, maybe twice, okay at a push a few times but not on every major incident. Brown hasn't got the ability to match Blair nevermind perform better. I stopped voting Labour and will continue to do so.

I like David Cameron but the thought of Tories in Govt. is awful. I am now resigned to watching the political farce from the sidelines.

It is evident that Charles Clarke is now spelling out the story that almost nobody is willing or wants to hear.

After Brown is gone, who is there? None of the pretenders have the credentials to take on the role and out in opposition, Labur could well be there for at least two General Elections.

I am not a Labour supporter, so I do find it most amusing watching this party squirm on its long death in the lead-up to the next election which they are going to lose.

One final thought. Where is Alan Milburn in all of this. Is he going to be the knight on the charger that comes out from the shadows to take the lead when Labour is in such disarray?

The questionable part of your analysis on behalf of Clarke is "anyone would do better than this" - as the recent polling evidence showed. And maybe this is losing sight of the Labour party's goal - which is not to keep Mr Clarke happy and on-board. He is part of a group that was recently rejected, and were not high (and not rising) in approval ratings.

It may be that Clarke makes some good points, but a scenario with Clarke making some good points and some overstated ones from the sidelines and Brown sticking to the job towards an election in 2010 seems sustainable. Major was never highly charismatic either. The public don't put all the weight on charisma and none on competence.

Nobody can win an election for Labour from here. The job of taking over from GB would be a poisoned chalice. This state of incompetence and inertia will drag on for a year or more while the country falls apart.

Can I give some advice to our Head of State in these times when support for the monarchy may be waning - force an election. You would be the most popular person in the country!

Your imagined Minister is right to point out there are no credible alternatives. Miliband shouted too early and looked petulant and immature; Johnson doesn't want it and by his own estimation isn't up to it; Balls is too hated, too close to GB, and has screwed up the SATs system; Blears is too chirpy; Burnham is too young and too gaffe-prone; Hutton is too Blairite for the PLP; Clarke himself has burned his bridges on all sides; Darling is too grey, and is appearing to be a bad ChEx because GB is pulling the strings hamfistedly from No 10; Jacqui Smith has no charisma; Straw's too old and too implicated in everything to be anything more than a caretaker leader. Labour's going down at the next election, and they might as well stick with Brown so that at least they can blame it on him.

Whilst this is all delicious and will provide wonderful entertainment over the coming months, we have potentially another 2 years of this rubbish.
Is there nobody strong enough in the Labour party to get this over and done with? I would have more respect for them if they said 'you know what, we're out of our depth, we've messed up, we'll have an election (but change leadership after our defeat.)'
Now that would be better for the country and better for Labour in the long run. Otherwise they may well be totally wiped out. It seems like a rock and hard place - and it is. Keep going - I look forward to seeing them all disappear!

Dear Nick.
There is "ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT"
Brown is finished, so is Darlijng, Smith, Harman, Balls, and Milliband what a buch of No Hopers.

Nick,

all that has been happening is that Clarke and other labour MPs have been reading the various blogs during their summer holidays.

I am no Johnny-come-lately to the irrefutable fact that Gordon made the worst mistake by any politician in living memory by not coming to the electorate.

It was obvious that as soon as Tony Blair announced that he was not going to serve a full term that labour should have immediately selected Gordon as leader of the labour party and that a general election ought to be held.

Blair lied to the country over the war against Iraq. This must never be forgotten, no matter what gloss you put on his reasons, a war of aggression is a war of aggression no matter how you want to describe it.

Furthermore, the problem with the army is that in a large number of cases, with a few notable exceptions, they followed orders. Under the Nurembourg principles, victors justice if you like, the leaders should have said no. They did not and they have the same blood on their hands as the Prime Minister.

That means both the former PM and the current one, he paid for it as Chancellor, if he was any sort of man he should have said no. He didn't, and that is why he did not deserve to take over, as a result of a bloodless coup if I may be so bold as to say.

As I have said before Gordon Brown lacks any legitimacy and must go, if you like to teach any subsequent leader a lesson. The lesson being that we still live in a democracy and that there is still freedom of speech no matter what injunctions the courts may pass by order of the MoD, or what the moderators of the BBC may attempt to keep those of a passion for a need for change out of the debate.

Brown must go, this parliament must end, and it must end soon, because there are alternatives and the alternatives I see on the rise are not the ones that I want to see in power.

So now we have a fantastic collision of unhappy events:

The Newlabour party is tearing itself to pieces.

The pound is collapsing as a direct result of the chancellor saying we are in the worst position for 60 years.

The housing market is imploding and the government through HMRC has (temporarily, they say) suspended the data

The energy companies and the EU are refusing to back the prime ministers attempts to help wihth fuel price rises.

The public sector borrowing requirement is spiralling out of controll as Gordon Brown dreams up ever grander schemes of largesse.

The OECD has downgraded its forecasts for the EU to recession for the 2H.

Foreign policy in Georgia is currently being left to the oppostion to sort out.

The Home Secretary is predicting a rise in crime levels which she cannot control.

But don't worry because exam results rose for the eleventh year iin a row and the prime minister now has a personal trainer.

Charles Clarke has a monumental case of bad judgement and bad timing, so it's no wonder he doesn't represent the majority Labour Party view and is out of the cabinet. His comment isn't really worth giving much attention to as it's got nothing to do with developing solutions and pulling the country back together, so I'd rather just ignore it and not feed than monster.

The structural and attitude issues are simple, and as folks are coming to understand that and how other influences have an impact, things will calm down and something better will emerge. The government could bang heads and go on a charge but, I figure, it's actually strong enough to make a case and get folks moving down the right path. So, nothing to worry about.

Personally, I'd rather see a focus on solutions. Business is too much of a cottage industry, and folks are too caught up in small time wheeling and dealing. Britain needs world class products, more loyalty instead of hiring and firing, and not getting a dose of the jitters when the wagon rolls over a grain of sand. Do that and in 20 years the UK will be a powerhouse.

Just listened to the Radio 4 news at 11.00

Did not catch name of person talking but the gist of it was that Clarke is embittred and that he ought to 'shutup', that's the basis of the relaunch is it, the electorate is 'pissed off' and that critics of Gordon Brown ought to 'shutup', that's it is it? That's democracy is it, and 'they' wonder why we are pissed off.

If you are going to go then go now, please just go!

Some great comments here.

Labour are definitely doomed and they deserve to be. I love the point that a general election be called because the public would like a change now. However the grubby MP's want to hold on to power, their jobs or whatever which actually runs opposite to what being an MP should really be about - representing people and making a difference.

Every day I am amazed at how bad these adults/professionals are at their jobs.

And a further thought to dampen our day - what is the alternative to a Labour government - crikey it is the Tories.....

I vote for having "none of the above" on the ballot because that is where I am and no doubt many others.

Hi Nick. So it looks like there's not really any "good" option for the labour party here - either with or without Gordon it looks like they will lose the next election. The motivation for the party now is to limit the damage.

What if someone like Alan Milburn got together with David Milliband and said "let me be leader now, with you as my deputy and we'll introduce a whole raft of radical ideas. We won't win the next election but it should make it closer. After that you can take over as leader."

They would need to promise the country an election within 12-18 months to stop complaining about another unelected PM.

Not sure if it would work but it couldnt be worse than the alternative, could it?

T A Griffin (TAG)

EXACTLY. That is exactly it.

Not enough people get it though - that has always been the problem and will always continue to be the problem.

Gordon Brown was so slow that he missed the mood of the country with regards to the war in Iraq. He could have made amends. He's a gutless fool in my opinion.

Ding dong, the Brown is dead, which old Brown? Gordon Brown!

That means both the former PM and the current one, he paid for it as Chancellor, if he was any sort of man he should have said no. He didn't, and that is why he did not deserve to take over, as a result of a bloodless coup if I may be so bold as to say.

The Cabinet is acting like the party-goers who know that the designated driver (Gordon Brown) is blind drunk and shouldn't be at the wheel, but don't have the common sense or guts to take his keys away from him.

#16

Please keep up to date. Have you not also heard that EMA payments have been grossly delayed. I wonder which minister is head of the department responsible for that.

Could it be another Balls up, because surely his time is up that is. Surely it must be time for Gordon Brown to have his 'night of the long knives', aka MacMillan.

Where is the equivalent of Lord Home in the labour party, oh that's right bring back Michael Foot, or even better Tony Benn.

Democracy needs a government and a party giving alternatives.
A massacre of the Tories in '97 gave Labour free reign since then with no effective alternative.
GB is leading the Labour party to a similar massacre and potentially the Tories will have a similar period un-opposed.
My opinion is that Labours goose is well and truely cooked - the question for me is under GB will it burnt to a cinder at the next election and make Labour unelectable for 10 years OR would a change of leader mean that the goose is only burnt round the edges and Labour can form an opposition to temper the Tories.
A prime minister would have that as a consideration - I don't think GB does - yet..

Labour MPs have two options:
1. get rid of Brown now, which requires an immediate election, then unemployment.
2. hang on in for two years, collecting expenses and big pension contributions, then election and unemployment.

We all know which option they will go for, don't we ?

Thanks for the clever little sketch, Nick, it helps to put it into context.

But I think it goes further than what you imply.

Clarke's outburst wasn't anything new.

But it's all about timing and making sure that Blairite policies are kept at the forefront of Brown's government, as I point out here:

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarke-browns-downfall-blairite.html

Labour have spent the last 2 years doing little but plotting and scheming amongst themselves.The various machinations,plots and schemes going on within the party seem to have taken precedence over running the country.Maybe if they concentrated more on that than on their feuding and expense claims they just might have spared us such clangers as the 10p tax fiasco,the car tax rise that only Brown can see the fairness and logic of e.t.c.With a few honourable exceptions such as Frank Field they appear to be politically inept at best,incompetent and corrupt at worst.
As a former Labour supporter I really feel that the best thing that could happen is for them to take a real hammering at the next election,the end of the "New Labour" project and a return to the old values...or at least some values.

I seem unable to make a post at the moment.

Can't Brown defend himself ? Come on me old mucker, get on a platform and teach Clarkey a thing or two instead of popping out to a run-down flat for a cup of tea to meet the 'little people' that you clearly hold in such contempt.

I'm a staunch socialist and Labour supporter, but he's doomed, we're doomed. Guess we can welcome the conservatives into power the next election, an old boys club full of rich white men looking for nothing more to plunder public spending to increase their own bank accounts while the whole country slides 'back to beige'

Though If the conservatives come back into power i'm investing in private member's only mayfair clubs, with the way they see they do business i'll make a mint.

Nick,

Spot on.

Labour will continue ignoring the problem and sit their hand wringing.

The public have their part to play too. Demonstration over the Poll Tax forced the politicians to start the necessary change of government.

If Labour are unable to face up to reality in their Septemebr conference then I nominate Halloween - 31st October - as the date that the public give the politicians a helping hand in forcing change.

re: 5 MonkeyBot5000

"They need to stop worrying about winning the next election and get a headstart on preparing for opposition."

I disagree, for the simple reason that I don't think they'll even be in opposition; they'll be a minority party; my guess is that the libdems will become the official opposition in 2010 and labour will be consigned to history with a handful of stragglers left over in the commons.

I for one look forward to Brown's "Portillo Moment" in 2010 when he stands on the podium awaiting his own results.

However, until that happens, we have another 2 years of labour's scorched earth policy; we need these people out now before the country is damaged beyond repair; if they don't all go right now and hold an election then it'll take almost a whole generation to get us out of this mess, and I think that's the general thought behind what Clarke is worried about.

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

Nu-Labour has proved to be reckless
In throwing our cash at the feckless,
The rot comes from the top
So when we give them the chop
They'll know what it's like to be cheque-less!

Labour are done for and what should happen in the future could have saved Labour and Brown.

I think its fair to say that many people (especially swing voters that get governments in or out) vote for the Leader of a party that has some good ideas, or the appearance of a good record. But essentially its the person that counts.

The system should be changed so that never again can anyone take the Prime Ministers place without an election... death might be an exception with a known deputy leader at the election.

Brown would probably have been elected as his legacy had not quite surfaced. As it was it was left to him, he dithered and lost the opportunity for a full term to ride out these problems.

I am not a member of any political party, but if I were anyone in the Labout Party with influence I would argue as NR has argued above - Gordon Brown has completely lost it as far as the electorate are concerned so we got nothing to lose to change him and you never know......... just look what happened to the England cricket team since Petersen took over from Vaughan - essentially still the same players but what a differnce in the resluts ! Why ? no one can say exactly, but just by changing things around does work sometimes.

I coudlnt agree more Nick.

Clarke has forced the Cabinet to look into the abyss and face the fact that there is no alternative. After all who would want to take over now, only to go down in flames in a few months time.

As time goes on, the Labour party will become more like the Furher Bunker. The Cabinet will disintegrate in an orgy of drunken self-recrimination and futile in-fighting.

Its just pathetic.

Labour relegegated to third party status at the next election?

I hope so.

Labour has about as much hope of electoral recovery as a boat which is holed below the waterline and heading for Niagara. The captain is lost and the crew are discredited.

The biggest single problem is that Brown and others have kept telling us that Britain is "best-placed to weather the economic slump", but this has been flatly contradicted by the OECD, which thinks we'll be the only big economy to go into full-scale recession. The game is up.

This being so, and with the whole crew discredited, only a political outsider could rescue the ship. Frank Field, maybe?

Who cares what Clark has to say he wasn't much of a minister himself so he's hardly qualified. Maybe because he's miffed at being passed over by Brown. The fact is whoever is in charge now it doesn't matter. Years of living in a debt ridden fairyland has put the Uk where it is. This recession is going to hurt a good deal more than the last one. Think Japan and see where they are after twelve years from their crash. Well you had reality TV and now you've got a reality in life, deal with it!

#23

The problem is that people are not over it, they never will be Charles. I will never 'calm down', by the way are you fom Liverpool.

Who are these folks, as bad a term as communities, you refer to, I don't know any folk in Team GB. Furthermore, I am not an egoist nor do I have any vested interests, as I think you may well have asserted but without the guts to say so directly, you imply something but don't say it or name names.

The level of debate in this country is shocking when all that can be requested is that critics 'shut up'.

By the way it is not only Iraq which is the problem, it contiues to be Afghanistan. Consider this, if you ask any of the soldiers who served in that country after the occupation things very quickly returned to some sort of normality. It is because we and the Americans were diverted by the appalling decision to take action against Iraq, that things imploded.

Should we really be proud of our boys that they moved a generator through Talibhan territory, killing over 200 insurgents in the process. How many did we lose, oh that's right, none, zero. This is getting like the imperialist wars of the 20th century, let's kill foreigners. We after all have the answer to all the problems. When the bodies are counted we will be shamed.

Hey, never mind we are keeping these terrorists off the streets of London, the ends justifies the means, we are just following orders. We shall reap as we sow, we use Reapers and Predators to kill and maim at a distance.

Finally, has anybody else noticed how it is that there are never any injuries and prisoners, amongst the insurgents. Well that solves the problem of extra-ordinary rendition and they can never be tortured, not much point if they are dead.

I'm enjoying the posts from those who think it is all ok and Gordon will cruise to an election victory. The Westminster bubble clearly extends wide and far.
The government need to look at what they have squandered over the last 11 years, and then realise why we are pissed off.
Boom and bust is certainly back, and our whole economy is reliant on the housing market, and therefore extremely susceptible right now. Manufacturing has all but disappeared. Family silver has been sold/propped up by the treasury for little in return, and we have wasted a fortune in Iraq with nothing in return in terms of contracts etc.
Boot them out - the sooner the better please! At least with the tories we will have some honour of falling on swords when things go wrong!

Labour should never have pandered to Tony Blair's ego by allowing him to take them into a third term he never intended to finish - the whole first two years of the third term were absolute nonsense with his contrived "farewell tour" amongst other things. If they'd won that election under the Brown leadership, a lot of his problems would not exist today - there would be no talk of needing an election to "validate" his premiership (since when did we vote for the Prime Minister, rather than the governing party?), and he would have had a couple of years under his belt before the proverbial hit the fan last year.

Of course, the whole situation is essentially Brown reaping what he sowed - as Chancellor, HE signed the cheques that put the country into mountains of debt, under the incredibly naive assumption that the "sustained economic growth" would remain sustained infinitely; HE implemented the various tax loopholes that have allowed massive corporations, hedge funds and overseas investors to procure massive profits while paying little or no tax; and HE was the one who encouraged the country to rely on debt to make the economy grow.

Labour cannot possibly win the next election, and like the Thatcher/Major front benches before them, the entire Labour elite will have to be long gone before Labour stand any chance of re-election. Hopefully, for my own sake, Scotland will have gained it's independence by then.

Given the respect (or lack of) that Charles Clarke is held in by his colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party I always wonder if he's used as a tool to rally ministers and others around Gordon Brown.

It is increasingly unlikely that Labour will win the next election so they need to decide if they want to choose a new leader before or after it.
I think it's in their interest to choose before and take the bounce that dumping Brown should give and call an election quickly reducing what could be a massacre to a hard loss.
They should also then have some level of organisation against a new government that has never zero experience of being in power. I.e. the best time to attack the Conservatives will be before they have their feet comfortably under the table.
Should they go to defeat with Brown and then have an internal squabble about the direction of the party they could be out of power for a generation.
I think Purnell looks the most likely next leader at the moment, but given that most of the candiates look about 10 years old that could change quickly.

The problem is Gordon Browns selfishness.

If he cared about his party and the country, he would call an election now.

Everyone knows labour are dead
Everyone knows brown is dead

How long will he (and his cowardly cabinet) make the British people wait, before we can put this all behind us and move on with a fresh new government?

Until he is gone, we cannot move on, noone is prepared to make him move on, so we have to wait, the longer we are made to wait the longer it will take for memories to fade...

Gordon Brown will not lead Labour into the next election, but not because he'll be removed in a cabinet coup (history shows Labour doesn't do that sort of thing) nor will Brown go to save the party (though that is the reason he'll give). Brown will not lead Labour into a general election because it's against his character to do so.

In the1983 election, Brown stood in the safest possible seat that could be found for him. In 1992, he could have stood for the Labour leadership, but didn't. He pulled out of the 1994 leadership contest, which he would probably have won. In 2007 he made sure that he went unopposed in that year's leadership election, and then last October he could have called an election (which again he probably would have won) but didn't.

Gordon Brown's whole personality is of someone who will only enter into a fight if he is absolutely certain of winning – someone who is terrified of defeat. So the belief held by most of the senior political analysts, that Brown will fight on until the end and then to an inevitable defeat at the hands of David Cameron is without any foundation. Brown will step down as Labour leader, maybe not this year or next year, but definitely before the next general election.

Nick,

Interest rates to remain the same and the pound keeps falling against the dollar so no respite on the oil price front or the mortgage front. Combine this with Labour infighting, do you think that the news can get any worse for Brown?

Apart from those that despise the Conservatives, is there anybody out there who actually BELIEVE in this Government anymore?

No need to respond Charles, we know your answer already.

All the best

Slightly off topic, but my daughter finally received her KS2 SATS results today - just as she left for her new school.

Meanwhile Ed Balls was on GMTV being rigorously examined (!) about the amount of salt in school dinners.

This is a good discussion. I am enjoying reading these posts and for me there are not many suprises.

Why is it then that Gordon Brown fails to see what it so obviouse.

Have some guts man, it is still not too late!

So Darling is not a puppet, he is his own man and so is Millibrand?
Gordon cannot fire them now
So Clarke is now getting in on the action

Can Gordon not see the writing on the wall?
He should resign immediately
I am tired of hearing "they are getting on with the job"
They have been in power 11 years why are we in this mess?
I have never voted labour in my life but also dont want theTories back either
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I marvel at these politicians. It is like reading a novel about the machinations of a Royal court, rather than politicians who are employed by us, and who should have the best interests of the country at heart, and not this crass obsession with their own careers. It is no wonder that the general public are sick to death of hearing about politicians.

It doesn't matter who is in charge, it is just a case of rearranging the deckchairs of the Titanic, as Gordon or any labour MP must be fully aware of, should they ever read the BBC HYS or any other blog.

The least they could do for the country, is to end this tragic government and call a general election so the electorate can decide for themselves who have the best ideas for leading this country, instead of allowing this rudderless old junk flounder on a sandbank for another 2 years.

re: 47

Gordon Brown's whole personality is of someone who will only enter into a fight if he is absolutely certain of winning ? someone who is terrified of defeat. So the belief held by most of the senior political analysts, that Brown will fight on until the end and then to an inevitable defeat at the hands of David Cameron is without any foundation. Brown will step down as Labour leader, maybe not this year or next year, but definitely before the next general election.

Surely fighting on to an inevitable defeat would be more consistent with Brown's personality? You say yourself he is terrified of defeat. In his eyes he's always in with a chance if he keeps on fighting, even though the rest of us know he has none. To resign would be to embrace the defeat he fears so much. I reckon he'll have to be dragged out, kicking and screaming...

@5
"They need to stop worrying about winning the next election and get a head-start on preparing for opposition."

This comment just gave me a smile as it immediately reminded me of David Steels infamous posturing. I can now envisage the PM at the Labour Party Conference giving his final rallying call:
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for opposition.

I personally regret to believe that the Tories are now in a position to take power in the next government, but who would really want the job in the current economic climate - I can't see either side making any headway against the global backdrop of economic doom and disaster.

#42 T A Griffin wrote:

"Should we really be proud of our boys that they moved a generator through Talibhan territory, killing over 200 insurgents in the process. How many did we lose, oh that's right, none, zero. This is getting like the imperialist wars of the 20th century"

In a word : yes, we should. They did that at great risk to improve the lives of innocent Afghans. You seem disappointed that the cost in British lives was zero - what figure would you have preferred?

Your constant complaints about the war in Afghanistan (Iraq is a different story) simply demonstrate how little you understand about the threats facing the world today, whichever government is in power in the UK. Events in Afghanistan have a direct impact on security not just for Britain, but IN Britain. The British armed forces are doing something constructive to help. You are simply ranting about your prejudice on an internet blog.

The problem is that people are not over it, they never will be Charles. I will never 'calm down'

Charles Clarke is right to try and save what might be left of the Labour party.
The country will also need a strong opposition to the Tories and having a party in shreds for another generation as the Tories were is not healthy for the state of the nation as a whole.
What I find pitiful to watch are some of the previously anonymous Labour MP's who covet their own jobs before country.
They are completely in denial and I think some of them must have been hiding in a broom cupboard somewhere for the last decade.
Clarke was kind enough to give Brown more time. This country hasn't got the time to give him.

#42

Please read if you can and then listen to what the former head fo the UN has to say, Khoffi Annan, has said on the News at 1 on Radio 4. The truth is out there, seek and you shall find.

ps To some who say that I am heading for a nervous breakdown, it could not be further from the truth.

Thank you BBC, the moderators are getting back up to speed, well done.

Oh, and apparently Brown not only has blood on his hands it is also on his neck, the man can't even shave properly, he's doomed. Please put him out of his misery.

smfcbuddie - you make a good point. The amount of people who believe that Gordon Brown handled the economy well for 11 years is falling exponentially each day. I however never believed anything and was in mourning on the 1 May 1997 when everybody else was jumping around in glee. The Labour party does not understand the economy, it never has.

The devaluation of sterling is probably necessary for the rebalancing of the UK economy away from debt driven domestic demand to a more export driven economy. As you say, however, this means that the falls in oil prices we have seen over the last month or so have been partially offset by the fall in sterling. This rebalancing is going to hurt.

On your last point I don't think things can get much worse for Brown. It's hard to imagine how.

#42 TAG

Well said - it is a tragic legacy of eleven years of NewLabour that all opponents are shut out of the debate. Just like shouting 'racist' at anyone who questions the actions of a non white has become a popular 'shut-up'. These bully boy tactics are the stuff of the NewLabour propoganda machine which clealry believes it has the intellectual and moral high ground on any subject it chooses.

Of course this is rubbish; they are discredited on the economy; discredited on education having lowered standards; discredited on the private pensions system robbery; discredited on looking after the poor after cutting 10p tax; discredited on anon existent energy policy; discredited on an inability to work effectively with the EU; discredited for winning the Olympics with an outrageously low estimate of costs; discredited on surestart having failed to keep on top of food price inflation and pushed the whole country's living standards back down again.

Any NewLabour minister or apologist attempting this kind of 'shut-up' in future should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

We should all stand up for freedom of speech and an open debate on what are some very important questions facing the country for which the government has no credible answers.

Re #47

I think that's a very astute observation, PND. GB will plough on to the GE announcement in 18 months' time, and then bemoan the lack of support from the people for his attempt to save the UK (for UK, read himself) in his resignation speech. He seems to be one who just has it his way, not interested in debating or letting anyone else have a free opportunity to criticise. So he'll want to leave on his terms, and not look like he's been pushed out by his lessers. How that reconciles with the office of Prime Minister is something he'll have to reflect upon.

Ben Bradshaw for promotion. He is such a lapdog, unprecented global breakdown, blah blah blah.

He and we know how media savvy he is, the man ought to be ashamed of himself. The words of support he gives to Gordon Brown will come back to haunt him, mark my words, his loyalty is miplaced, he is looking after his own interests rather than those of Britain.

He is at risk of losing his seat, and like many other MPs and all he wants to do is to remain on the gravy train. Like Gordon he serves no useful purpose at all, and as for his continued support for the occupation of Iraq and why does he, and others, not come out against all the murder, killing and general mayhem in Afghanistan.

He like many MPs has the blood of many innocents on his hands and the sooner he and others admit it the better.

I believe that these MPs are delusional, they are on another planet, they just don't understand or they don't want to understand. Well at election day they will have to face up to the truth.

There is absolutely no point in Labour changing the leader ... Brown is rubbish as PM but he has his qualities and, although Dodgy Dave will win in 2010, it won't be a landslide.

Furthermore, the UK economy is going to be a basket case for many years so 2010 will be great election to lose.

TAG a few things that 'll you'll ignore i'm sure

1) The reason you dont ehar about injured or captured insugents is because it isnt "news". That break out by the Taliban from the prison the other month was actually just the fourth series of Prisonbreak being filmed, wasn't it?

2) I must have been mistaken, there I was thinking the Twin Trade tower attacks happened before we went into Afghanistan, not after as you suggest, what with us invading being the only reason those misunderstood religious lunatics were aiding and abetting the Taliban and they the model of peacefulness and tollerance before hand.

3) you are an egotist because you always bang on about the same thing, as you were the only person clever enough to see it and if anyone disagrees or doesnt seem eye to eye, they must be wrong, deluded or out to get you. Like a certain G Brown esq. or dhwilkinson or Charles Headwig.

Me, I'm not a Labour supporter, although I believe that they have done a number of good things, Surestart being something that should get more praise and recognition than it does, but I also think that they deserve a dman good shoeing when they get it wrong, or when they lie blatently or refuse to accept deserved blame.

Charles, Labour have been in power since 1997, therefore they should have been able to sort the economy out, therefore anything that happens now is their responisbility, not previous governments/party's, but theirs alone.


Is my opinion and my opinion alone, I might be right I might be wrong, but I'm big enough, ugly enough and have my head far enough out of my bottom to recognsie that.

@56 - and teh reason it's going down the ban as you put it, must be mainly due to which ever party ahs been in power for the last decade which has such large majorities that it could do anything it wanted.

Now which party was that again?

Oh if brown scrapped ID cards I'd think about voting for him.

Surely fighting on to an inevitable defeat would be more consistent with Brown's personality? You say yourself he is terrified of defeat. In his eyes he's always in with a chance if he keeps on fighting, even though the rest of us know he has none. To resign would be to embrace the defeat he fears so much. I reckon he'll have to be dragged out, kicking and screaming...

Clarke has had an interesting effect.

This blog piece has had an interesting effect also.....


Over recent weeks on this blog we have seen the same old debate range back and forth between the same individuals.

Today - however - there has been a huge upsurge in the number of new bloggers with the same core message "Brown has failed. Labour has failed. We want an election - and Labour won't win it".

The people defending Brown and Labour on this blog, known variously as the "old troopers" or "red flag wavers" have been a minority on this blog for a while. What do they make of the volume of people who are saying that "Labour have failed and must depart office"?

#55

I'm afraid you don't get my point. What sort of war is it where we invade a foreign country, effectively impose a puppet government, just like Vichey France, and then kill what many would regard as freedom fighters.

Just because they won't accept British and American rule does not make them suitable for killing.

I have said before and I say it again, Germany defeated France in WWII and yet people fought to free an enslaved Europe. If Germany had invaded and defeated Britain do you honestly think that the British people for whatever reason would have just rolled over and been lap dogs, I think not. Why should the people who live in a an area which we call Afghanistan not defend their country. Mind you if you asked the people of that area, would they even accept that it is acountry called Afghanistan, it is a complex area made of people of various tribes and affiliations. We may not like it, we may want to create nation states all over the world, but we are the invaders, we are the enemy and the sooner people realise this the sooner they will realise that there can be no victors.

@63 "Furthermore, the UK economy is going to be a basket case for many years so 2010 will be great election to lose"

A fairly good point to make. Mid-term polls are not going to be an indication of how the things will fall in 2010, because that's when the election will be.

Things have changed radically over the course of just a year.In the intervening 18 months or so things could get worse, stay much the same or get radically better. And of ocurse, while the Troy line is holding fairly firm now, it may not always do so. The public and press can be very fickle and the political landscape may look very different by April 2010.

Perhaps many of the more febrile Labour MP's running around like Dad's Army's Corporal Jones might pause to consider that. The more they keep wiffling about Brown, the harder it makes his job and the less likely things are to get better. But I suppose the herd instinct is most pronounced in Westmnster

Well said - it is a tragic legacy of eleven years of NewLabour that all opponents are shut out of the debate. Just like shouting 'racist' at anyone who questions the actions of a non white has become a popular 'shut-up'. These bully boy tactics are the stuff of the NewLabour propoganda machine which clealry believes it has the intellectual and moral high ground on any subject it chooses.

I must appologise for my typing/fat fingers/spelling.

It's all NuLabour's fault

#64

Exactly where were most of the individuals who destroyed the Twin Towers come from, you know where were they born and educated. Let me answer my own question, yes that's right Saudi Arabia.

As fro me banging on about the same things I think you will find that statement is incorrect. If you seek it you will find my blog. If you refer to my local newspaper, seek and you will find, you will see that in fact I am able to contribute to the debate on quite a lot of issues.

I do not see myself as any sort of egoist, I say what I believe to be true, and I say it because it needs to be said. Surely, that is the opportunity which the wonderful internet offers us. The freedom to speak to a huge number of people, who may or may not agree with me but who will defend my right to say it, even at the expense of their own lives.

This is what many fear, that the internet has become the voice of revolution, not in historic terms but in bringing about change, blood does not have to be spilt. Knowledge is power, but power need not corrupt, it can and will enhance lives.

I may be naive, but Gordon is the emperor with no clothes, it has been obvious for years, but he is now completely naked, and also deluded. It is, as I have said before, actually quite sad because it is almost like watching a car crash in slow motion!

#17
"Charles Clarke has a monumental case of bad judgement and bad timing, so it's no wonder he doesn't represent the majority Labour Party view"

And that is a bad thing because?.........

Today - however - there has been a huge upsurge in the number of new bloggers with the same core message "Brown has failed. Labour has failed. We want an election - and Labour won't win it".

The people defending Brown and Labour on this blog, known variously as the "old troopers" or "red flag wavers" have been a minority on this blog for a while. What do they make of the volume of people who are saying that "Labour have failed and must depart office"?

#68 TAG

This is probably straying off the thread's subject matter, but as you so often complain about British involvement in Afghanistan it is important that you are disabused of the idea that we are there as invaders in the imperial sense. The Taliban were feared and dispised by the ordinary Afghan - they imposed an extreme version of Islam upon a subjegated population. They imposed this by force. They denied women an education, they forced men to grow beards, they executed dissenters. They were not / are not valiant freedom fighters, and your analogy with partisans in occupied Europe in WW2 is both absurd and offensive.

So far so bad, but the real reason we are there is because they exported this lethal brand of extremist ideology to mosques in the UK. They encouraged and trained impressionable young men who travelled to camps from the UK via Pakistan to wreak "Holy War" upon this country. They harboured those who went on to plan and execute the attacks in New York of Sept. 11th 2001. (Before the Iraqi war). They declared war upon the West. THAT is why we are there, and that is why it is a war we must win.

By all means criticise the Iraq war, but don't confuse it with the one being waged by our troops in Afghanistan. Above all, don't from the safety and anonymity of an internet blog cast unjustified smears against those troops who are coping with conditions beyond your imagination or understanding, and doing so with courage which should humble rather than rile you. Your ability to do speak your mind is something which, if you were an Afghan, the Taliban would deny you. Please try to use it responsibly.

#27
"Labour MPs have two options:
1. get rid of Brown now, which requires an immediate election, then unemployment.
2. hang on in for two years, collecting expenses and big pension contributions, then election and unemployment.
We all know which option they will go for, don't we ?"

That sums up the attitude of Labour MP's pretty well I'd say. Remember their snouts in the trough over the so called "John Lewis" list?

We are litterally watching a labour 'smash and grab' before their inevitable long demise.

It is highly amusing to see Labour MP's like Charles Clarke scatterbraining around in a total panic over the next election. I am not surprised in the least to see Charles Clarke on the front line attacks. After all, his majority in Norwich South over the Liberal Democrats at the last election was only 3000 votes.

But there's time for plenty of surprises yet, as John Major proved in 1992.

Brown may be a dead duck, but do you honestly believe Labour can be saved? the likes of smith and harman are just as disliked and the whole party now has a rotten smell about it - were Brown to be pushed off I don't think it would make a jot of difference, because the polls would have to be opened immediately, or they would really suffer with having 2 unelected premiers in one term - political memories may be short but the dissatisfaction with Labour will still be fresh and they will lose

But then maybe it would be damage control - if Brown heads into a general how many seats will Labour win? it could be a record low (eg. 5 based on current results) - of course by-elections are a different kettle of fish and in a general election the labour safe seats may return labour MPs to protect themselves from a tory whitewash, but maybe if there was a new leader those usual supporters would have something to sink their teeth into - they will lose government either way, but now I think they have to focus on maintaining their party roots - not that I'm a labour voter, but I have no desire to see a Tory landslide when they haven't got any policies or credentials

of course, Clarke, no hero himself, may be trying to secure his own position - Norwich may be a labour seat but it's in a sea of conservative voters, if he comes out as a rebel who dislikes the government as much as the public then he'll probably be safe

Hi TAG - I have a little sympathy for what you say but I would be interested in your alternative to going into Afghanistan. Are you non-interventionist under all circumstances?

I don't think your comparison of Hitler in 1940 with the coalition in 2001 is pertinent but since you are fond of historical parallels with Nazism, Hitler was born and educated in Austria. We and the Red Army however made a B-line not for Vienna but Berlin.

#70

"Folks say the want a better politics, and when push comes to shove they wheel out the same failed politics. It's why revolutions fail. People say they want change but when it comes down to it their monkey brain hasn't caught up with the stated aspirations."

I never said I wanted better politics I just said your politics have failed as played out on our screens on a daily basis.

As for all revelutions fail - in what regard? I think the French might take issue with this who ridded themselves of a greedy and selfish aristocracy. The Russians might take issue with you Chuck, having rid themselves of a greedy and selfish royal family. You really do need to check your facts before trotting out these broad bush generalisations.

Too much Zen meditation leads to fuzzy thinking.

#37 Harlech
"essentially still the same players but what a differnce in the resluts"

I knew there must be a reason why people enjoyed cricket.

Charles C states the blindingly obvious as far as I have been concerned, indeed I recall a discussion with a 'sky' journalist who was chasing a story during the expected election of Mr Cameron for the Tories. I said then that although it looked that Blair would not last very much longer, Brown was not for me, and I have largely followed him when he gave the Shadow Chancellor rebuttal, under John Smith. Perhaps this was actually his highest point, albeit he went on to electoral office, as progression seemed upward successfully then; when in fact he has since been checked at every turn.

I know it is trivial, and in any case it is not my only criticism, but I don't like his manner, his jowls, his mouth agape, and his expressionless eyes; thus his physical presence is "dull, dull dull".

Also he is endlessly repetitive in his use of words, when another use of phraseology and synonym would throw another picture. I dislike his emphasis on the low grade and the poor, as if he sought 'brownie points' in a Christian sort of way, for thinking the 'correct' way, and would be allowed into heaven. His analysis may have been appropriate from the thirties to the late sixties, but I believe it wholly falls short under the actualities of today. Indeed his Policies are over complicated and require a vast administrative machinery to unravel, which is enormously expensive in time and salary on the Exchequeor. He, and many of the Labour Party cling to the model that the poor are down trodden, and held in place by other groups, but it is presently nonsense. The only group that holds them down is their own lack of education, general indolence socially, lack of cooperation with those outside their 'class' to advance themselves, and the fiction 'myth' which is perpetrated by such individuals in their daily discourse.

What Clarke fails to take into consideration, is that historically the Government have run out of 'time', that change is largely cyclical, and that new blood is required. I believe the majority of the population think this - but whether the Tories will be as good as their PR is to be discovered. Perhaps they will go back to type. He also fails to identify that the Brown clique are somehow revolting. I can't off hand remember their names - but the Education Secretary, turns my stomach with his boyish energetic grins. Milibrand does not fill me with confidence as Foreign Secretary, he is just too young, or his youthful image defeats his intellect, because I don't think he has enough knowledge to pursue international relations abroad, he hasn't lived long enough to have experienced the viscitudes. They probably look upon him as I do! "Long pants do not make a grown-up."

" Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
Britain needs world class products, more loyalty instead of hiring and firing, and not getting a dose of the jitters when the wagon rolls over a grain of sand. Do that and in 20 years the UK will be a powerhouse."

I haven't laughed so much in ages!

How, exactly, will the UK be a powerhouse? All it can offer are service and financial industries, both of which can be done more cheaply and effectively elsewhere. We absolutely refuse to adopt the Euro and closer political integration with Europe, which would at least give us some chance of hitting above our weight.

The last thing we should consider doing if we truly want the UK to "be a powerhouse", is to back this inept, socially-limited buffoon, whom we have the misfortunate to call our leader.

70. At 2:26pm on 04 Sep 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
"I fear, the UK will become the unwanted basket case of Europe"

Just like after the previous Labour Government of Wilson/Callaghan eh Charles? They made sure that we had to be bailed out by the EMF
Labour governments ALWAYS end in disaster, this one even more so.

#75

So why no action against Pakistan, why not invade that country as well.

Furthermore, why not mention in your response Saudi Arabia, where the attackers against the Twin Towers originally came from.

By the way I must point out that I have worked in Saudi Arabia, and so do have some idea as to what some of the problems are in that country.

By the way you must also understand that I do have an idea as to the conditions 'our troops' are having to face in Afghanistan, my own son served there, so don't tell me that I do not understand.

Do you not understand that if we had not transferred resources to Iraq we would not be in such an appalling situation in Afghanistan. If as you say we are at war in Aghanistan, rather than a force of occupation, then what exactly is the point. To kill people there so that they do not kill on the streets of London.

The troops are being used by an illegitimate British government, tell me why they are dying and killing. You won't be able to.

"I've been watching other indicators and trends, and things are shifting in a more realistic and positive direction for Labour."
Charles_E_Hardwidge

Name 3 things that are shifting in a positive direction for Labour - apart from Labour MPs claiming their gold-plated pensions when they are kicked out

Nick

Clarke was a dreadful Home Secretary who was sacked by Blair - why does anyone care what the guy thinks?

Any attempt by Charles Clarke
To rekindle the lost Labour spark
Is bound to fall through---
It's a catch-22---
Labour's future is thankfully dark!

The red-flaggers are clearly insane
To think Labour will continue their reign
Of soaring inflation
(O I weep for our nation!)
When they're gone we'll all drink champagne!

#79

You ask if I am anti-intervenionist in all circumstances.

I will answer in this way. For all of its faults there is the United Nations. What should have happened, should have been, and should be in the future, the blue helmets of the UN who take action. Not individual countries with their own rules of engagement.

Another analogy if you like, consider America at the time of Pearl Harbour. I know of nobody who doesn't think that America had enough information to know that there was an imminent attack. They had to let it happen to give it the moral high ground. Did America ignore all the early warnings it had?

The same with Britain and the enigma machine, they had broken German codes and knew what was going to happen with regard to bombing raids, they had to let them happen and then used the destruction of some of our cities to attack and destroy Dresden, nothing but revenge.

Consider the Great War, where you must realise that the first country to mobilise was Britain, research the naval review held weeks before the outbreak of war and see that it was not returned to base but kept on action stations, by Churchill by the way.

The Great War was meant to have suddenly happened yet how was it that the British army was able to be sent to France so quickly and to take part in some of the bloodiest battles of the war, no planning there then.

Consider that before the Great War the British troops in Ireland were in a state of mutiny, how very convenient that we were able to bring the country together because of German action, not in Luxembourg, which was the first country invaded, but because of Belgium.

Our action in Afghanistan reminds me of a repeat of the Great Game between Britain and Russia in the 19th and early 20th century. This is nothing but unfinished business, the Russians failed and of course we will succeed, won't we?

Tell me does anybody agree with our politicians and army leaders who allowed the situation in Iraq to divert them from Afghanistan. There must a full inquiry by parliament, in public, as to who took actions, and when they took them. The troops were on the border of Iraq just waiting to receive the order. The order came and they went in, when was the decision taken to put our troops on the border, long before the decision to attack.

History will not look kindly on this period in our history. Oh, and what action have we taken to save sovereign Georgian territory, oh that's right, none, we are gutless and cowardly. It's so easy easy to kill 200-250 Afghans, easy isn't it.

The Herald Tribune has described Brown's economic relaunch for what it is - a 'Ponzi' scheme.

Such a scheme tries to encourage new investors (Ftb's without a deposit) to part with their money in order to maintain the unsustainable returns of exsisting investors.

And why encourage ftb's without a deposit to take on 100% loans (70% from the banks + 30% from HMG) inorder to save 1% stamp duty when as prices continue to fall, they can wait a year and save 15-20%? Infact why would HMG encourage FTB@S to put themselves in such immediate negative equity?

This administration isn't just bankrupt of ideas...it bankrupt of morals also. Relegation to being the third party in Parliament after the next General Election is far far too good for them!

Nick - an entertaining cameo. I hope you don't become bored by this saga and keep us alive to what they are mumbling off the record.

What I would be interested in hearing is if Brown really is as bad tempered and rude to his staff as has been reported elsewhere.

How Brown must miss having the leadership of Blair to direct him and tell him which beans to count. Without this he is nothing. A sad case of the Peter Principle, where people get promoted once too many times and end up in a job above their ability.

As for Mr Earwig, @74 above, stating that he reads Labour's recovery in the Runes - FOFL!

@84
Andrew Marr's recent book mentions the IMF situation in some detail and has some sympathy with Callaghan and Healey.

The irony was that, had they had better data available to them, they might have seen that calling in the IMF wasn't even necessary. And the inflation that Thatcher beat them over the head with in 1979 came as a result of the pressures of the aftermath of 1973. The myth of labour economic mismanagement in the 1970's is partly that: a myth. They made mistakes, all governments do, but they certainly weren't the basket cases the Thatcherites painted them as.

The current mob aren't great but looking at the principal alternative isn't particularly confidence inspiring. In fact, a lot of the hot air and fury floating around this topic is amusingly off-beam because the macroeconomic policy pursued by Brown and Darling wouldn't be radically different under a Cameron Tory government. Notice how George Osborne is throwing the insults around but is oddly light on what, if anything, different he would do as chancellor.

The last thing we should consider doing if we truly want the UK to "be a powerhouse", is to back this inept, socially-limited buffoon, whom we have the misfortunate to call our leader.

I love the guys on in here debating the side issue about Afghanistan. Some of you don't even get the origins of the Taleban and the history of Afghanistan nevermind the US and British involvement in that country for a long number of years.

The British should not be in Afghanistan. Anyone who tries to argue and defend that point just doesn't get it. And even if more respources were deployed and re-directed - it would still be a mess - their is no viable end goal. Tell me what the end goal is in Afganistan? I thought it was looking for Bin Laden, or is it the terrorist camps, or is the cells.

The soldiers are dying for nothing. It's nothing! It's hard but it's true.

T A Griffin (TAG) has called it right. Some of you can't face up to it.

Now back to Labour. What a waste? I really believe they are a shameful bunch. This country could have gone 50 years without the Tories coming in after the way they bothched things up and were found out to be truly behind the times. Look now? Even they look appealing.

Brown is bad. He needs lessons after lessons to understand. What has he been doing all is his life?

I've been a Labour supporter most of my adult life.However, since the Iraq war and the over-reliance on spin, my support has been reducing. Whilst I liked Brown as a chancellor I am suprised at how low I rate him as a PM and his cabinet. Blair's tenure meant that whoever was taking over needed to build lost ground. Sadly, Brown is not that man. He wouldn't even last as a top director in my company or in any decent company nevermind PM. You can learn lessons once Gordon, maybe twice, okay at a push a few times but not on every major incident. Brown hasn't got the ability to match Blair nevermind perform better. I stopped voting Labour and will continue to do so.

I like David Cameron but the thought of Tories in Govt. is awful. I am

I am horrified at this betrayal by Charles Clarke - I can only assume that his unnecessary attack is entirely motivated by his need to fuel the media frenzy for his own ends. Luckily I know that Labour supporters will ignore his rantings and focus on the job in hand which means supporting the government and ensuring that Labour values are further communicated to the public. Gordon Brown is a good leader and needs our support.

The sound of government ministers rushing to back up Gordon Brown and play down Clarke is deafening.

#92

and what is your ever so plausible explanation for the winter of discontent; rats on the streets of London; the dad left unburied; three months of rubbish uncollected?

the reason the tories are 'oddly light' on what alternative they would offer is every day it becoems clearer that they will inherit an even bigger mess than thye anticipated.

unlike NewLabour broken promise to end boom and bust they probably feel rather reluctant to start offering a sunlit upland that neither party can deliver thanks to eleven years of newLabour squandering.

#92 illuminatusmagister

You must be on the wrong blog! You are making a balanced comment based on evidence.

Here you are required to type while foaming at the mouth that the government are the worst ever.

Then in a few year's time, with a different government of a different party, that they are the worst ever.

Since no UK based party will deliver for my country, I look on with benign amusement.

A number of posters on this thread complain about the Tories.

Which is a bit odd as they have'nt been in power for a consderable amount of time.

So why should the curent situation, which in reality is at the precise moment more of a political storm than an econmic one (according to the raw data) pertain in any way to the Tories.

I am not a Tory supporter in any way but there must be a certain irrationality here.

New Labour are 'in charge' and New Labour must sort it out or effectively die at the next General Election.

The Tories do not have to do anything except just sit there, they don't even have to put anything even half-sensible in their manifesto, because since NL broke a cardinal promise to have a referendum on the EU constitution and a judge said that was OK .. then why should we, the English public, believe anything published therein a party manifesto?

BTW, the pound is weakening at the mooment so the economic experts tell us that exports should grow significantly.

Perhaps somebody could remind me precisely what we export these days that brings in significant amounts of cash?

@92

I agree that inflationary pressures were in the system way before 1979. Sir Edward Heath didn't have much luck in that department either.

However it's hard to absolve Callaghan from a large portion of blame when you watch his famous return from Guadaloupe. He makes Gordon Brown look frighteningly efficient and dynamic.