So its now the wrong type of spending and wrong type of recovery and wrong type of growth ....from the party that spun flat lined growth after triple dip after 5 million unemployed after no wage growth after .......
The endless desperate spinning from the socialists is straight from 1984 speak re-writing the line "We have always been at war with x".
Just chuck enough smelly stuff at the wall and hope some will stick?
No need to spin
There is an election in May and the Electorate will pass judgement.
I think Ed is crap will be PM
You dont.
I think 5 years of Dave and George has been 5 years of failure
You disagree.
Either way the electorate decide.
All i can say George has failed to meet his own targets on the defecit Dave has failed to meet his own target on immigration and lied to the Electorate about the NHS reorganisation.
As I say maybe I am biased maybe you are maybe we both are so lets see what the Electorates judgement is.
In case you missed it, Peter Kellner has done an article just for you
Uniform swing is now worse than useless – it is positively misleading
If Kellner is right it completely destroys the basic premise underpinning everything on here for the last 5 years - ie that if votes are close, Lab will be miles ahead on seats.
Of course Kellner may prove to be wrong - but who knows. I think it would be very foolish to be confident either way - ie confident that he is right or confident that he is wrong.
There is a significant element of Kellnerism in my ARSE projections, of which ....
The latest ARSE 2015 General Election and JackW Projections Countdown :
Lucky guy- the squandering you mentioned was a world wide phenomenon not only in Britain.The good old Tories wanted more freedom for the bankers not less.Furthermore Liam Byrne's comment was obviously a joke , your attributed comment from Brown has no basis in fact.Please show your proof.
"A controversial Tory leaflet referring to a Ukip candidate by his Turkish name is not racist and will probably "do him a favour", according to the Conservative MP who will fight him at the next election.
Jackie Doyle-Price told The Telegraph the flier calling Tim Aker "Timür" in an apparent attempt to remind voters of his foreign root would give him "credibility" with the electorate.
She admitted the move was "childish" but rejected the comment was racist, saying: "Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal at all."
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
Tears of what, I wonder?
Gordonzilla features in the first full issue of The National today - the pilot scheme having sold very well indeed. However I can't find the cartoon, so this will have to do
Lucky guy- the squandering you mentioned was a world wide phenomenon not only in Britain.The good old Tories wanted more freedom for the bankers not less.Furthermore Liam Byrne's comment was obviously a joke , your attributed comment from Brown has no basis in fact.Please show your proof.
Which part of "is said to have happened" and "no idea if it is true" did you struggle with?
[I'm sure Lucky Guy can fight his own battles, but when the f*ck did an internet forum require academic levels of proof?]
A dog's breakfast of a poll. And, frankly, the thread doesn't look much better (Mike, you've used the GB figures for England). What an almighty cock up.
I've said before I don't trust his polling and this confirms his joke status. This England-only poll is also replete with sampling issues.
It would be more accurate to pin a tail on a donkey's backside.
Crap. Utter crap.
His Lordship's polls do seem to swing more wildly than the Krankies.....
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
Like it not, there's a good case that can be made he did just that. See, for example, The End Of The Party [A Rawnsley] pp 621-636.
Of course many will say he made his contribution to the crisis by inflating just at the wrong time and by ignoring the ominous reports that were coming in, notably from the USA. But if Rawnsley is to be believed - and he is a pretty decent scout - he not only rescued the UK from the worst possible type of economic meltdown, he provided a template which other world leaders were happy to follow.
In my not so humble opinion, I consider him a poor PM with one great plus to his name - his management of that crisis. His Premiership thus stands, for me, in a curious contrast with that of Blair, who was a highly capable PM with one massive blot to his name - Iraq.
Who stands higher today then, in the PtP Book of The Great And Not So Great?
Well, given the potentially dreadful and world-wide consequences of the failure of the G20 (in fact it wouldn't even have taken place but for Brown) I suppose I have to put him higher than Blair, whose subservience to the the benighted policies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld contributed hugely to the current mess in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I know this is not likely to be a hugely popular view on PB, but it is what I think, and not without some good cause.
Blimey. He doesn't like it up him, does he. Agressive body language, megawatt stares, pointing, invasion of personal space. Looks like a thug squaring up for a fight.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Labour's past pledges. John Prescott. On 6 June 1997, he said: "I will have failed if in five years time there are not...far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it." However, by June 2002, car traffic was up by 7%.
The socialists actually did achieve that goal 5+ years later when they nurtured the great recession... which reduced traffic.
Tim Walker@ThatTimWalker·33 mins33 minutes ago Only in this country could we start eulogising a man who has cost us all quite as much as Gordon Brown.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
Like it not, there's a good case that can be made he did just that. See, for example, The End Of The Party [A Rawnsley] pp 621-636.
Of course many will say he made his contribution to the crisis by inflating just at the wrong time and by ignoring the ominous reports that were coming in, notably from the USA. But if Rawnsley is to be believed - and he is a pretty decent scout - he not only rescued the UK from the worst possible type of economic meltdown, he provided a template which other world leaders were happy to follow.
In my not so humble opinion, I consider him a poor PM with one great plus to his name - his management of that crisis. His Premiership thus stands, for me, in a curious contrast with that of Blair, who was a highly capable PM with one massive blot to his name - Iraq.
Who stands higher today then, in the PtP Book of The Great And Not So Great?
Well, given the potentially dreadful and world-wide consequences of the failure of the G20 (in fact it wouldn't even have taken place but for Brown) I suppose I have to put him higher than Blair, whose subservience to the the benighted policies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld contributed hugely to the current mess in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I know this is not likely to be a hugely popular view on PB, but it is what I think, and not without some good cause.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
I think much of his CoE record will be viewed favourably - BoE independence, no Euro (how much worse shape would we be in if Blair had had his way?) and sensibłe spending until Blair spontaneously committed to match European health spending on the NHS - for once Gordon was out manoeuvred.
Then Prudence was jilted and it was downhill from there.
He was not PM material - his tragedy is that he did not realise it and poisoned his relationship with Blair as a result.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Gordon wasn't that bad, just not very personable and suffered from the Guidoisation of politics (if i can use such a term). And I speak as a Tory voter. Also, his timing sucked!
As for EdM vs. Cameron, I suspect the much-cited donkey-in-a-red-rosette would have struggled to poll at less than 30% after 5 years of Tory-led cuts and the stagnation of public sector pay.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Since Brown did wreck the public finances, compared to EdM all we have is the threat of trouble and the hope that he will not. All EdM has wrecked is our energy market through the green levies etc.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
Like it not, there's a good case that can be made he did just that. See, for example, The End Of The Party [A Rawnsley] pp 621-636.
Of course many will say he made his contribution to the crisis by inflating just at the wrong time and by ignoring the ominous reports that were coming in, notably from the USA. But if Rawnsley is to be believed - and he is a pretty decent scout - he not only rescued the UK from the worst possible type of economic meltdown, he provided a template which other world leaders were happy to follow.
In my not so humble opinion, I consider him a poor PM with one great plus to his name - his management of that crisis. His Premiership thus stands, for me, in a curious contrast with that of Blair, who was a highly capable PM with one massive blot to his name - Iraq.
Who stands higher today then, in the PtP Book of The Great And Not So Great?
Well, given the potentially dreadful and world-wide consequences of the failure of the G20 (in fact it wouldn't even have taken place but for Brown) I suppose I have to put him higher than Blair, whose subservience to the the benighted policies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld contributed hugely to the current mess in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I know this is not likely to be a hugely popular view on PB, but it is what I think, and not without some good cause.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
I think much of his CoE record will be viewed favourably - BoE independence, no Euro (how much worse shape would we be in if Blair had had his way?) and sensibłe spending until Blair spontaneously committed to match European health spending on the NHS - for once Gordon was out manoeuvred.
Then Prudence was jilted and it was downhill from there.
He was not PM material - his tragedy is that he did not realise it and poisoned his relationship with Blair as a result.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
The first of those statements is certainly true ( the 'titan' bit, not the 'softening' bit!). I'd also agree, reluctantly, with the second. Disastrous though Brown was, and temperamentally completely unsuited to the role of PM as he was, he at least wasn't actively anti-business as Ed M is. He was also smart enough to take advice from Peter Mandelson.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Since Brown did wreck the public finances, compared to EdM all we have is the threat of trouble and the hope that he will not. All EdM has wrecked is our energy market through the green levies etc.
I suspect any Labour chancellor would have done exactly the same. The pressure from within the party to spend when tax revenues were rising so quickly would have been irresistable. Gordon understood exactly what he was doing, and probably understood the risks. He lost the gamble, and we all lost as a result.
EdM, on the other hand, would have spent the entire financial crisis running around shouting, "don't panic, don't panic", forming endless focus groups, and promising to revive the banks with a tax on bankers' bonuses.
Slightly discomforted by the fact I seem to be defending Gordon.
Blimey. He doesn't like it up him, does he. Agressive body language, megawatt stares, pointing, invasion of personal space. Looks like a thug squaring up for a fight.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Cameron did help to inflict Labour's biggest defeat since the '30s, even though he didn't secure a majority Tory government.
Good riddance to Gordon Brown. The man who destroyed private pension schemes in the UK. The man who spent money faster than it was flowing into the coffers. The man who didn't understand that every "business" has an overdraft limit and that it is overtrading which sends most businesses down. The man who claimed to save the world but neither Canada nor Australia suffered the sort of crash UK plc did because they had Finance Ministers who understood economics. The man who ran the Scottish Labour Party like a mafia don and has a pathological hatred of Tories. The man whom Blair was happier letting ruin UK plc than risking Labour party control of the country.
He might be a good father and husband. He might be a life-long fan of Raith Rovers. Had he never entered politics in 1983, I for one would be a great deal wealthier today than I am.
Under Brown my pension fund lost more than 1/3 of its value between 1997 and 2010.
Under Cameron my pension fund has doubled in value from its 2010 value and is now 1/3 more valuable than 1997.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Gordon wasn't that bad, just not very personable and suffered from the Guidoisation of politics (if i can use such a term). And I speak as a Tory voter. Also, his timing sucked!
As for EdM vs. Cameron, I suspect the much-cited donkey-in-a-red-rosette would have struggled to poll at less than 30% after 5 years of Tory-led cuts and the stagnation of public sector pay.
There's something in that, Anorak, although I suspect a more fundamental fragmentation of the main political blocs also plays a big part.
What won't wash is the idea that Ed M is some kind of village idiot. OK, it's fun for those of us that like to post on places like this, but it bears no more relation to the reality than the idea that DC is some kind of crass insensitive Bullingdon toff.
Party supporters who indulge in those sorts of caricatures are either fools or, more likely, just waving the Party flag. They are of little merit, and certainly of no use to us punters!
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Cameron did help to inflict Labour's biggest defeat since the '30s, even though he didn't secure a majority Tory government.
I think Lord A is overstating Con 1st time incumbency though. I really don't think it'll help all that much.
On the face of it, it does look helpful. Both Stockton South and Watford would fall on a swing of 4.9%, but Ashcroft has the Tory incumbent narrowly ahead,
I would vote for James Wharton if I lived in Stockton South.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Gordon wasn't that bad, just not very personable and suffered from the Guidoisation of politics (if i can use such a term). And I speak as a Tory voter. Also, his timing sucked!
As for EdM vs. Cameron, I suspect the much-cited donkey-in-a-red-rosette would have struggled to poll at less than 30% after 5 years of Tory-led cuts and the stagnation of public sector pay.
There's something in that, Anorak, although I suspect a more fundamental fragmentation of the main political blocs also plays a big part.
What won't wash is the idea that Ed M is some kind of village idiot. OK, it's fun for those of us that like to post on places like this, but it bears no more relation to the reality than the idea that DC is some kind of crass insensitive Bullingdon toff.
Party supporters who indulge in those sorts of caricatures are either fools or, more likely, just waving the Party flag. They are of little merit, and certainly of no use to us punters!
I'm guilty of Ed bashing. Truth is he didn't get where he is today by being a muppet.
That said: I dislike him, dislike the divisive, insidious envy politics he promotes, and am genuinely fearful of what he would do to my (and my children's) economic prospects were he to be PM.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Since Brown did wreck the public finances, compared to EdM all we have is the threat of trouble and the hope that he will not. All EdM has wrecked is our energy market through the green levies etc.
I suspect any Labour chancellor would have done exactly the same. The pressure from within the party to spend when tax revenues were rising so quickly would have been irresistable. Gordon understood exactly what he was doing, and probably understood the risks. He lost the gamble, and we all lost as a result.
EdM, on the other hand, would have spent the entire financial crisis running around shouting, "don't panic, don't panic", forming endless focus groups, and promising to revive the banks with a tax on bankers' bonuses.
Slightly discomforted by the fact I seem to be defending Gordon.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, Anorak.
Brown was certainly a prudent Chancellor in the early years. I suspect however that this was largely because he wanted to be Santa Claus, handing out goodies, when he took over from Blair. Brown certainly became a lot more political in his stewardship of the economy towards the end of Labour's period of office, and ignored sound financial advice from the Treasury (and Darling) while he went on a spending spree.
So, no I don't think he had no choice. But I do think a lot of Labour Chancellors would have acted similarly.
Everyone got the tissues out for the tearful tv farewells to dear old Gordo - the man that saved the world ?
His biggest claim was that he ended boom and bust. Probably the worst socialist lie.
It's probably my memories softening with time, but compared to EdM, Gordon was/is a political titan. Given a forced choice between the two of them, with the economy in it's current state, it would be Brown every time.
Knee-jerk partisan Tory flag wavers have a bit of a problem there.
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
Gordon wasn't that bad, just not very personable and suffered from the Guidoisation of politics (if i can use such a term). And I speak as a Tory voter. Also, his timing sucked!
As for EdM vs. Cameron, I suspect the much-cited donkey-in-a-red-rosette would have struggled to poll at less than 30% after 5 years of Tory-led cuts and the stagnation of public sector pay.
There's something in that, Anorak, although I suspect a more fundamental fragmentation of the main political blocs also plays a big part.
What won't wash is the idea that Ed M is some kind of village idiot. OK, it's fun for those of us that like to post on places like this, but it bears no more relation to the reality than the idea that DC is some kind of crass insensitive Bullingdon toff.
Party supporters who indulge in those sorts of caricatures are either fools or, more likely, just waving the Party flag. They are of little merit, and certainly of no use to us punters!
I'm guilty of Ed bashing. Truth is he didn't get where he is today by being a muppet.
That said: I dislike him, dislike the divisive, insidious envy politics he promotes, and am genuinely fearful of what he would do to my (and my children's) economic prospects were he to be PM.
Fairy nuff.
Do you mind if I reserve judgement? I'm not being evasive, I'm genuinely unsure.
I found the Peter Kellner article interesting. OGH keeps spouting that the Tories need a 7% lead over Labour to win a majority. I have often said they only need to lead Labour by 326 votes as long as that is 1 vote in each of 326 seats.
Before the rise of the LibDems in 1987, majority governments rose and fell on swings as low as 2%. The numbers I have been hypothecating of Tory 35, Labour 25, UKIP 20 and LibDem 15 would see a Tory majority according to UNS and Baxter. That would be a swing of less than 2% from Labour to Conservative.
If we get Tory 33 Labour 29, UKIP 18 and LibDem 15, because of 1st term incumbency and effect of SNP, Greens and UKIP the Tories would remain well ahead of Labour, probably by 30 or more seats.
Comments
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk
I came out equally blue yellow with Greens in third myself. It is based on the 2010 manifesto though that Nigel dismissed as drivel.
Lulu cover
Nirvana cover
Bowie original
"A controversial Tory leaflet referring to a Ukip candidate by his Turkish name is not racist and will probably "do him a favour", according to the Conservative MP who will fight him at the next election.
Jackie Doyle-Price told The Telegraph the flier calling Tim Aker "Timür" in an apparent attempt to remind voters of his foreign root would give him "credibility" with the electorate.
She admitted the move was "childish" but rejected the comment was racist, saying: "Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal at all."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11265911/Calling-Ukip-candidate-by-Turkish-name-did-him-a-favour-says-Tory-MP-over-controversial-campaign-leaflet.html
Gordonzilla features in the first full issue of The National today - the pilot scheme having sold very well indeed. However I can't find the cartoon, so this will have to do
http://gregmoodie.com/sleepy-time-for-gordon/
[I'm sure Lucky Guy can fight his own battles, but when the f*ck did an internet forum require academic levels of proof?]
Of course many will say he made his contribution to the crisis by inflating just at the wrong time and by ignoring the ominous reports that were coming in, notably from the USA. But if Rawnsley is to be believed - and he is a pretty decent scout - he not only rescued the UK from the worst possible type of economic meltdown, he provided a template which other world leaders were happy to follow.
In my not so humble opinion, I consider him a poor PM with one great plus to his name - his management of that crisis. His Premiership thus stands, for me, in a curious contrast with that of Blair, who was a highly capable PM with one massive blot to his name - Iraq.
Who stands higher today then, in the PtP Book of The Great And Not So Great?
Well, given the potentially dreadful and world-wide consequences of the failure of the G20 (in fact it wouldn't even have taken place but for Brown) I suppose I have to put him higher than Blair, whose subservience to the the benighted policies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld contributed hugely to the current mess in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I know this is not likely to be a hugely popular view on PB, but it is what I think, and not without some good cause.
http://order-order.com/2014/12/01/russell-brand-flips-out-at-media-drags-female-human-shield
If Gordon was that bad, how come Cameron beat him so narrowly and is governing only in a coalition Government?
And if Ed is worse than Gordon, why is Cameron not leading in the polls?
I guess it's all down to the silly voters who just can't see things straight. ;-)
The socialists actually did achieve that goal 5+ years later when they nurtured the great recession... which reduced traffic.
Tim Walker@ThatTimWalker·33 mins33 minutes ago
Only in this country could we start eulogising a man who has cost us all quite as much as Gordon Brown.
I think much of his CoE record will be viewed favourably - BoE independence, no Euro (how much worse shape would we be in if Blair had had his way?) and sensibłe spending until Blair spontaneously committed to match European health spending on the NHS - for once Gordon was out manoeuvred.
Then Prudence was jilted and it was downhill from there.
He was not PM material - his tragedy is that he did not realise it and poisoned his relationship with Blair as a result.
As for EdM vs. Cameron, I suspect the much-cited donkey-in-a-red-rosette would have struggled to poll at less than 30% after 5 years of Tory-led cuts and the stagnation of public sector pay.
That is my view entirely.
Then come back to me and tell me just how accurately you think he depicts events.
Ad hominem attacks don't pass muster. Consider the facts.
EdM, on the other hand, would have spent the entire financial crisis running around shouting, "don't panic, don't panic", forming endless focus groups, and promising to revive the banks with a tax on bankers' bonuses.
Slightly discomforted by the fact I seem to be defending Gordon.
The man who destroyed private pension schemes in the UK.
The man who spent money faster than it was flowing into the coffers.
The man who didn't understand that every "business" has an overdraft limit and that it is overtrading which sends most businesses down.
The man who claimed to save the world but neither Canada nor Australia suffered the sort of crash UK plc did because they had Finance Ministers who understood economics.
The man who ran the Scottish Labour Party like a mafia don and has a pathological hatred of Tories.
The man whom Blair was happier letting ruin UK plc than risking Labour party control of the country.
He might be a good father and husband. He might be a life-long fan of Raith Rovers. Had he never entered politics in 1983, I for one would be a great deal wealthier today than I am.
Under Brown my pension fund lost more than 1/3 of its value between 1997 and 2010.
Under Cameron my pension fund has doubled in value from its 2010 value and is now 1/3 more valuable than 1997.
What won't wash is the idea that Ed M is some kind of village idiot. OK, it's fun for those of us that like to post on places like this, but it bears no more relation to the reality than the idea that DC is some kind of crass insensitive Bullingdon toff.
Party supporters who indulge in those sorts of caricatures are either fools or, more likely, just waving the Party flag. They are of little merit, and certainly of no use to us punters!
That said: I dislike him, dislike the divisive, insidious envy politics he promotes, and am genuinely fearful of what he would do to my (and my children's) economic prospects were he to be PM.
Brown was certainly a prudent Chancellor in the early years. I suspect however that this was largely because he wanted to be Santa Claus, handing out goodies, when he took over from Blair. Brown certainly became a lot more political in his stewardship of the economy towards the end of Labour's period of office, and ignored sound financial advice from the Treasury (and Darling) while he went on a spending spree.
So, no I don't think he had no choice. But I do think a lot of Labour Chancellors would have acted similarly.
Do you mind if I reserve judgement? I'm not being evasive, I'm genuinely unsure.
I am pretty sure he's not stupid though.
Before the rise of the LibDems in 1987, majority governments rose and fell on swings as low as 2%. The numbers I have been hypothecating of Tory 35, Labour 25, UKIP 20 and LibDem 15 would see a Tory majority according to UNS and Baxter. That would be a swing of less than 2% from Labour to Conservative.
If we get Tory 33 Labour 29, UKIP 18 and LibDem 15, because of 1st term incumbency and effect of SNP, Greens and UKIP the Tories would remain well ahead of Labour, probably by 30 or more seats.