Richard Tol gets a kicking in the comments.

Via Plato Says; "Venal, secretive, sloppy environmentalists - staff at the CRU"

Professor Richard Tol writes: Public trust in climate science hit by 'Climategate'

"Climate change is a complex problem. We will need 50, probably 100 years to resolve it. We will need global co-operation. We will need to spend hundreds of billions of euro. This cannot succeed unless the debate is fair and based on rigorous scientific results that do not hide that there are still many things about which we simply do not have a clue."

In a nutshell this is policy based evidence making. You have decided that climate change *is* a problem based on nothing concrete. You have decided that much *must* be done based on that flim flam and worst of all, you have decided a great many people's living standards must fall to satisfy your position.

Is the science settled or not? The CRU science has not been replicated as required by the scientific method - this dictates that data and computer code is released so that other people (expert or not, qualified or not it does not matter - science is not meant to be a closed shop) can pick over the guts of your paper. It is a combative process and getting a paper published is only the start of it. CRU and other groups have proclaimed that peer reviewed science is settled science. It ain't. Worse than that they actively attempted to deny competing theories and deconstructions of their work being published. That is not the actions of grown-ups who are confident of their position but of bullies confident of their authority.

There two crucial facts that are glossed over. Firstly the bulk of the data CRU used comes from the self same data other climate science centres used to get surprisingly (or suspicously) similar results. The competing centres cannot be said to have independently confirmed the CRU output because their starting point was the same as CRU. Nor have they replicated the CRU method because they picked different sites, adjusted them differently and used their own computer code. Secondly there are quality and longevity issues over the data all these climate scientists use - stations are moved, instruments updated, stations drop off the network or have only recently been put on it. Adjustments for urban heat island are sometimes quite major despite the UNIPCC backed scientists proclaiming UHI is a minor effect. Other adjustments defy belief. There is a great lack of consistency in the data that underpins the science of climate reconstruction and prediction.

The precautionary principle holds a lot of sway here - that we must stop what we're doing unless we can prove it is safe. That is arse first thinking, anti-progress, anti-efficiency and plainly anti-human. If the science is uncertain logically we must take a course of action that does not put at risk competition, progress and wealth creation. A wealthier world is a more adaptable world. Even Nicholas Stern agrees with that. The politics of climate change appear to me to be a mechanism for goverments to regain some of the control they have lost through globalisation.

Look at what is being called for - a fund to move money from the productive to the unproductive at the whim of a priviledged, unaccountable few. Wouldn't it be better for poorer nations to trade their way to prosperity and to adapt to climate change on their own dollar? Free trade would redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor *by choice* without needing a Government at either end to cream off their fees. Our cost of living would fall. The living standards in producing nations would increase as the people (rather than their Governments) become richer. Richer populations are healthier and have fewer children - they are too busy to work to keep popping out sprogs, plan having children because it affects their ability to earn a living and they do not need a football team of offspring to ensure a couple or three survive long enough to care for the parents.

In the long term a richer world is a less populated one without the need for warfare or eugenics. Competition for resources will still drive up prices which continue to make people seek to be more efficient and look for alternatives. All without needing Government micro-managing.

People by and large make rational choices. When we spend our own money that is. Government spending is rarely good value or has the desired effect and an association of Governments deciding how much and on what a global climate fund should be spent will never be an efficient solution.

By far the most pernicious aspect of the things being discussed at Copenhagen is that it attempts to maintain the status quo. Poor nations reliant on handouts and rich nations paying to soothe the consciences of their politicians. All based on not much at all.

As a professor of the economics of climate change I assume you know that the computer model climate projections are based on the various families of economic predictions. We now know the climate science is very suspect. What if the economic assumptions that those computer projections are reliant on are wrong as well?

Labour launch an insurgency campaign.

Gordon Brown: we are the insurgents now.

Admitting the odds are against him and his party, he said: "I accept we are the insurgents, we are not the incumbents."

Distasteful.

"Everything has been hard. My life has been about fighting against difficulties that sometimes appear insuperable."

Bollocks. Apart from health matters many of Brown's difficulties have been of his own making.

"Sun readers, when they get a chance to hear what we are saying on anti-social behaviour, on cancer, they will see that this is very much in line with the mainstream middle of this country."

Surely Sun readers, like most of the rest of us, have been waiting 12 years for headway to be made on these issues.

"I am as open and honest as possible. I don't parade my family around the place. I came from a pretty ordinary background in Scotland."

You're not. You do (including the dead one). You don't.

In a BBC television interview, Mr Brown said that his economic policies have not yet paid off, but when they do, Labour's position will improve. "When people see that the action we took, which was quite unique, they will be able to see results."

But you've already claimed to have saved the world. What more is there to come? Presumably all the results are scheduled for 'after the election' and if the nasty Tories get in will somehow be derailed or destroyed. If there are results to be had and they are set in stone a change of Government won't put them at risk.

In his speech to the conference on Tuesday, he pledged voters will be given the power to throw out MPs who break the rules under a series of reforms designed to win back public support in the wake of the expenses scandal.

Only after a quango gives us permission to recall an MP that is.

"However, he failed to address substantially the question of Britain’s growing public debt and the continuing impact of the recession.

In a repeat of last year’s conference appearance, Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s wife, introduced her husband, hailing him as “my hero”."

Reheat. Repeat. Rehash. Even homes for harlots is a decade old plan.

Nadine Dorries is back!

Yay. Good for her. The last thing we need is for MPs keeping their mouthes shut and trying to hide in the shadows.

Anyhow, Ms. Dorries says at the end of her piece:

"Because if democracy is damaged as a result of the increased wealth of two men as a result of a minority of fraudsters and crooks, we will all in the long term be much worse off than we are today."

To those outside the Westminster bubble the fraudsters and crooks are not the minority in Parliament (as so many MPs are simply not doing their duty to hold Government to account) and the damage to democracy was done years ago, either when a sovereign Parliament was utterly undermined by this centrist, statist Labour Government and civil service, or even earlier when Parliament began offloading as much responsibilities as it could to outside bodies. Quangos, the EU, 'expert opinion', consultants or whatever. You get the pay and perks but you do not want to shoulder the responsibilities. You engineer a position where there is always someone else to blame. This must end.

As Harold Macmillan once said: "We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts."

Sovereignty remains with Parliament because they are who we vote for. Far too many MPs believe it doesn't or refuse to exercise it. I suspect the reason voter apathy is rife is not that people are content but that they know Parliament is no longer there to defend us and this nation. Our membership of the EU is just a symptom of this problem. We never voted for it in this way, MPs did. We were even promised a referendum and things were fiddled to get MPs off the hook. This is not some crackpot anti-EU bile I am venting but railing against what I know has been and is being done without our permission. Too few MPs realise quite the mess they have got into and got us into. Stop dictating what you think is best for us and do what we expect - represent us in Parliament and protect the freedoms and liberties we earned long ago. On the latter score Parliament is losing badly. Rights and freedoms are not things gifted to us by the Government. They are ours. The move from Habeus Corpus to Corpus Juris is unseen and unchecked.

We are in charge not you. Or at least that is the way it is meant to be. I believe voter apathy is rife because we have 3 main parties who are all decidedly pro-EU. What kind of choice is that? Parliament dare not ask the question because the answer is simply not to their liking.

The most promising signs of the human resistance is Douglas Carswell. Not even flavour of the month in his own party but a he is at least, a young, thrusting Parliamentarian first and Conservative a distant second. He sees the rot. He knows a potential solution. It is immensely depressing that so few of his Commons brethren dare wonder 'Is Parliament still sovereign?' or 'Do we still represent the people?'. Not just on an EU dimension but on a UK Government one as well.

What Stephan said and Martin Bell knew

A post on Nadine Dorries blog.

During an interview on the R4 Today programme (and about a dozen times since) I said the following - ish:

" No Prime Minister has ever had the political courage to award MPs an appropriate level of pay commensurate with their experience, qualifications and position; as recommended by the SSRB, year after year.

Prior to my intake in 2005, MPs were sat down by the establishment and told that the ACA was an allowance, not an expense, it was the MP's property, in lieu of pay; and the job of the fees office was to help them claim it."

etc

A comment from me:

"No Prime Minister has ever had the political courage to award MPs an appropriate level of pay commensurate with their experience, qualifications and position; as recommended by the SSRB, year after year."

What price an MP?

The SSRB say "...there is little or no difficulty in recruiting sufficient suitable candidates to stand for election. There does not appear to be a problem of retention. We heard no evidence to suggest that MPs are leaving the Commons because of inadequate pay."

Your position is in great demand and it requires no qualifications. Perhaps you are getting paid too much and/or doing too little.(Parliament as a body certainly isn't doing what it should - standing up to the Government) At every turn MPs seek to shirk their responsibilities with quangos and hide behind external bodies. You are our voice. You have the authority because we have lent it to you but many of your colleagues simply never exercise it. Time and again political points are scored that do not help protect us from the Government.

If MPs thought they deserved the extra income the ACA gives them (and this system has been in place nearly 40 years) how pathetic is it that few have ever attempted to make the case for it and so many of you consciously agreed to hide it and exempt it from taxation. You as Parliamentarians have always had the power to put this right. You need not wait for the PM to stick their oar in.(Or is Parliament now so emasculated it is subordinate to Government?) Of this discretionary £40k (equivalent) bung not all MPs claim everything going either.

There was nothing to stop each MP publishing their own expenses by their own initiative long before now. There was nothing to stop MPs from campaigning for a more honest and upfront pay. That so few did says a lot to me. We have become a culture where rules is rules and officious compliance is the most important thing rather than exercising common sense and having a conscience.

Apologies if this message has appeared twice.

The slug is leaving the cabbage patch.

Martin is allowed to resign? He has been the Executive's bagman for nearly a decade. Plainly partisan, plainly incompetent. A thug, a child and a key figure in the expenses coverup. He should have been removed long before now but too many MPs have been happy with the status quo. Too many MPs have been content to let Government ride roughshod over Parliament.

Why is Parliament dancing to the Executive's tune? Again.

They could have removed him themselves had they the wherewithal to do it. The Government is being allowed to dictate terms to our representatives in Parliament. We have authority and vest it in our MPs. Why will they not exercise it?

It is high time MPs were educated about their duties to us and about the extent of the authority they have abandoned.

Parliament should lead Government in the direction the people desire, but the political class are happy to spend time lurching from crisis to crisis, seeking to pretend that they are in control. Yet the Civil Service has go so out of control. MPs simply aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing.

If Ann Widdicombe or whoever else can make Government answer questions and ensure the opposition ask them, we might begin getting somewhere.

This is not so much an elected dictatorship as one allowed by the inaction of Parliament. How much legislation is Parliament allowing to come to be without their scrutiny? How many policies have been announce on tv rather than in Parliament? Martin should have publically rebuked MPs for doing that.

A simple notion.

The Government fails when Parliament lets it.

From a blogpost on EUreferendum.blogspot.com

At last, elements of the Vector story are emerging, drowned in the torrent of stories on MPs' expenses, even though we are seeing the waste of £100 million – roughly the sum paid to all 648 MPs in a year – the unnecessary deaths of at least five men and many more very badly injured.

...

Thus, while [Liam] Fox so casually lays the blame – all blame – at the feet of government, he too shares the blame, with his parliamentary colleagues. They all had the opportunities and power to bring the MoD to book, and failed to do so. In our constitution, the buck stops with Parliament. In this case – and in so many – the institution failed to do its job.

And this really is the nub of the issue, which takes us beyond the child-like tendency to load all our ills on "government". Parliament must accept responsibility for its own mistakes and then it must improve its performance. Otherwise, there is no point in having it at all – at any price.

Defective regulators as far as the eye can see. The FSA let bankers run riot. Parliament has allowed the Government to do the same. Squeaker Martin has allowed, nay encouraged by example, Parliamentarians to twiddle their thumbs and fiddle their expenses. In this particular example Liam Fox himself as the shadow Defence Secretary, the Defence Select Committee and other interested MPs have not used their authority to help the MOD do a good job.

What is democracy?

We seem to have so much of what the political class would call democracy. Votes coming out of our ears. 'Representation' at 6 or 7 different levels of elected Government. Yet the will of the people is routinely ignored. How can this possibly be? We have never had so much democracy! There is little genuine choice when the best you can hope for is choosing between 3 statist parties. They know it. You know it. We know it.

Democracy is dying on it's arse here. Democracy is not just voting once in a while, it is people being involved in politics and Parliament doing the will of the people. Protecting us from the excesses of the State. We have not had that in a long time.

We have too many politicians who talk the talk and wave bits of paper at each other (though leave the Commons strewn with rubbish) but when serious concerns raise their head they are propping up a bar waiting to vote the way they have been told.

Each and every MP has a duty to Parliament, the nation and their constituents that surpasses any allegience to their party and any self serving nature. If they cannot and will not exercise the authority still vested in them despite their gross attempts to pass it to quangos and the EU, it says a hell of a lot about the standards of our politicians.

How many debates have been curtailed? Far, far too many.

How many MPs have spent their careers voting the way their party tells them? Far, far too many. This is not democracy it is a corporatist thugocracy. Too many MPs clearly do not care for the standing of the job they are there to do. Many of them would not be missed if the number of MPs and Lords were halved.

It is through the failings of Parliament, particularly in it's role of holding the Government to account, that so much has crumbled under Labour. The civil service has gone unchecked because the Government was too self-absorbed. The battle between Blair and Brown has been a massively costly one in terms of money waste, opportunities lost and crushing future taxpayers with a millstone of debt. The other 500-odd MPs who are not in Government could have done better to protect us and our way of life. They have largely been happy with the appearance of status quo.

A hell of a lot has been lost while politicians played with themselves. It will take a long time to regain what we have lost. Liberties, jobs, lives and reputations. Squandered, and for what? A few grubby pounds here, a few grubby pounds there, a jolly abroad now and then and free biscuits when you go to the BBC.

We will only have democracy when we can elect MPs who know what it is. This isn't it.

Riddle me this...

If the Green Book on MPs expenses (pdf hosted by Sky News) states the Additional Cost Allowance is "for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence ... for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties", and Gordon Brown was living in a grace and favour home at the time, why did he claim for the cost of cleaning his private London flat?



Because he could!

Even though it is effectively his third home. 1) constituency home. 2) the grace and favour place. 3) the flat he bought from the estate of Captain Bob.(AKA Robert Maxwell House) Even though Brown in no way needed the use of that flat to do his duties as an MP. Geoff Hoon, Margaret Beckett and Alistair Darling have been at this wheeze as well.(Section 3, 4th paragraph)

Because he could!

Any and all ACA claims by Brown while he is enjoying grace and favour acommodation are as shaky as Tony McNulty's specious submissions.

Because he could.

The system is not at fault.

They are.

Brown is currently keen to proclaim 'The public must have confidence in the system' with regards to the gross abuse of MPs expenses. He is positioning himself as the do something bloke.

He is wrong.

The public must have confidence in MPs first. From that, confidence in everything else naturally follows. Confidence in MPs being in Westminster to represent us not enrich themselves and their families. Confidence in MPs willing and able to look after the nation's interest before their own. Confidence in MPs to spend our money wisely in Government and claim only what is neccessary as an MP. Confidence that MPs will defend our historic traditions and hard won freedoms. Behave with propriety and be decent, upstanding people.

MPs are too craven to their parties, believe they are above the law, toe the EU statist line almost to a man and have allowed the civil service to get out of control.

Incoming MPs are taught how to work the system. It has been claimed this is to supplement their income as the public wouldn't stand for MP pay rises. That is bollocks. They made a choice to submit specious claims. They made a choice to flip their second home designation on a whim. We do not let speeders off the hook by saying speed limits need to be raised. We do not let shop lifters off the hook by saying shops shouldn't have goods on display. We do not let benefit fraudsters off the hook by saying 'well the system is ripe for defrauding, it's not their own fault'. The whole of the UK is a rotten borough. The great stink has returned to hang over Westminster.

No doubt there are decent MPs who strive to be as small a burden on the taxpayer as possible. Sadly they are vastly outnumbered by the cynical and greedy.

How we have got here: Who runs the country?

MPs are less in charge than you might think. Those actually in Government (Ministers and junior ministers) get a lot of guidance from the civil service. The other MPs (including Labour ones) are supposed to be more like a Board of Directors keeping the Government in order and holding it to account. They haven't. They do have the authority to insist the Government explains itself but presumably for a quiet life, chose not to exercise it.

Parliament hasn't done it's job properly for a long time. The opposition was effectively AWOL for a decade and the Labour party cultivated very strong loyalty in it's MPs to the point that they mostly do as the Government says not vote in Parliament as independent minds. MPs collectively abrogated their duties to hold the Government to account. That's why things are in such a mess.

With regard to expenses, MPs seem mostly to view them as an entitlement. They move homes, buy goods and submit claims as a matter of course to enrich their lives not simply as and when they incurr the minimum of costs required to do their job. HM Revenue and Customs would take a dim view of this if I did it. Whoever oversees MP's expenses has not done their job. A position of deference was taken long ago, perhaps when MPs [i]were[/i] mostly decent people who didn't routinely claim the maximum allowance. That deference has not altered to combat the rise of career politicians continually on the make.

In many areas this country is falling apart because people with responsibility are not doing their jobs. The FSA were asleep at the wheel. The banks were too. MPs do not do their duties. The Government sits there playing with itself. The MOD believe everything is going great and they always buy the best stuff. The NHS management look busy and cherry pick statistics to show pretend improvements while elderly patients die in filthy wards. The Police pick and choose the crimes they investigate 'reduce' crime by not recording it. The justice system is not working and due process is being trampled on. Moral hazards and rewards for failure are everywhere. I guess this denial of responsibility arises due to it being the path of least resistance.

Conway twitter...

Courtesy of Plato: Derek Conway - Freelance sleaze buster?

I don't think bringing secretaries and assistants in house is not what is needed. Transparency is. A civil servant will not always be thought of as loyal or trustworthy under any Government. Your wife/mother/son/daughter would be.

From a constituent's viewpoint - would you trust an MP whose staff were an arm of the State?

Bringing secretaries and assistants in house looks like a simple kneejerk to me. More just a possible solution to the problem than some nefarious attempts by Brown - I don't think he or his people are capable of such joined up thinking and a lot of incompetence from others has hitherto been ascribed to plotting, scheming and talented politiking by Brown. Brown gets his strength from the weakness of his opponents. He is not Samson. He is not Hercules. He is is not even Achilles. He's just a malignant shit.

MPs ought to stand up for themselves more. It is troughing when they fiddle the system. It is unacceptable that they repeatedly attempt to cover it up. If they argued from the position of each member being self-employed and able to call on taxpayer's money for justifiable expenses (with the requisite routine publication of those expenses and to have MPs subject to exactly the same tax rules as the rest of us) there would be far less chance to throw mud at them.

I am beginning to see parallels with the financial sector everywhere and this is no different. There is a regulator of expenses and the Green Book is supposed to be the rules. Like the FSA relied on bankers to not be too greedy and largely left them to their own devices, the expenses authorities have relied on MPs being honourable, decent and above reproach. Yet it is plain to see that many of them are instilled with an entitlement culture and a gross welfare dependency. There was simply nothing and no one to stop them cheating, so many of them did. Not even the bastion of er... truth - the media. Too often they are nothing more than a weathercock pointing the way after public opinion has changed.

Again and again these problems boil down to appointed (or self-appointed) regulators not doing what most people would see as their job. Why that is I cannot imagine. There is a pervasive culture of indifference at the heart of the running (and ruining) of this country.

'I will be watching your broadcast very closely.'

How Gordon Brown threw a tantrum during a TV interview.

Embattled Gordon Brown's state of mind is under further scrutiny after it was revealed that he had a tantrum during a series of tough television interviews in No10.

The Prime Minister had to be calmed down by Business Secretary Peter Mandelson after erupting in a series of off-camera clashes with broadcast journalists.

Lord Mandelson soothed a raging Mr Brown and reassured him: 'Gordon, calm down, calm down. It's a bank holiday weekend. You can have a rest.'

'You are impugning my integrity.'

'I will be watching your broadcast very closely.'

The words of a sinister and immature man or those of a pratt? I think it is the latter. Aided and abetted by chickenshits in the Labour Party who couldn't stand up to a fart, the cult of personality under Blair has become some other c word with Brown. The man couldn't be charming if he tried, is unable to cede control to other Ministers and spits his dummy out at the drop of a hat.

Brown has been in charge of national policy since 1997 as he controlled the purse strings. Now with him at the controls of foreign policy too he has been marginalised, rebuffed, humiliated and ignored by other international statesmen and women. Either Blair put themon notice about the corrosive effects of Bottler Brown, or the other world leaders can easily see what all but the Labour Party can.

Now time for the obligatory embedded Youtube video...

Will it get better in the long run?

Government should be symbiotic

Not parasitic. It should help us or get out of our way.

Firms are dying under the weight of paperwork, taxes, supplementary 'fees' for things like the Money Laundering Regulations, Data Protection Act, specious qualification requirements and others. 

The unemployed and child rearing ought not to get given so much that their income becomes a barrier to gainful employment. The welfare trap is real and people are being pushed onto the scrapheap through unthinking charity.

Tax relief not tax credits. It costs money for the Revenue to take it off us and then give us some back and we fall for the con trick of being grateful.

The State needs to protect it's taxpayer base which is why it encourages people to have children but even that has gone awry. Too much under the existing Government have the feckless and idle scroungers given birth to an army of more feckless and idle, who will do as their parent (the State) instructs - claim every thing they have been told they are entitled to in later life. Alistair Darling's debt is going to be several thousand a head; it will be several tens of thousands per net tax payer. He has no mandate from our future selves to put us in this penury.

There are fewer and fewer net tax payers supporting more and more unproductive public sector workers* and dolescroungers. This is the way of madness. This is the way of anarchy. This is the way of bankruptcy. I do not believe there is a grand plan, that Gordon is a closet Marxist or Communist. It is easy to believe in triangulation. That while times were good money was thrown at anyone who asked for it (in full knowledge that there are a lot of decent people who will be loathe to ask for help) and then for Gordon to ride to the rescue when the wheels fell off. For me the fingerprints of incomptence and infantilisation are all over this nation. Nanny was meant to know best. Nanny knew jack shit.

* There are plenty of public sector workers who genuinely add value to this country. However, there are an army of back room jobsworths whose "work" is an unneccesary burden on the rest of us. It isn't that they would be better off unemployed but that they would be better off self-employed or in private employment earning a productive wage and contributing tax revenue.

That prediction lasted long didn't it.

Wednesday:

"The falls in trade, production and GDP around the world in the final quarter of 2008 were much steeper than expected. Private business survey indicators suggest a similar rate of contraction in the first quarter of 2009" - Alistair Darling's Budget 2009.

GDP fell 1.6% in Q4 of 2008.

Friday: UK economy slumped by 1.9pc in first three months of 2009

What's 0.3% between friends. If past performance is anything to go by the figure will be quietly revised in about a month's time as more concrete data comes in.

I can't help but think that a certain gurning Gordon will see this as good news - believing as he appears to that a faster fall makes for a faster and higher recovery.

I'd rather not step on Plato's toes.

Plato says The economy under Labour - a graph

(From the Telegraph)

The graph of borrowing re-enforces in my mind that the rot set in during the dot com bubble burst.* The response from that episode, during which a lot of perceived value evapourated, was to let rip with credit (both taxpayer debt and personal debt). The Government was loathe to put up taxes in a brazen fashion so borrowed instead. Unfortunately for us they never stopped borrowing.

You can see a double top in the FT 100 in the last decade. Value disappears, things are done to get the whole merry-go-round turning again and it gets out of hand.

(From the Telegraph)

The banks were set loose by Gordon Brown but, by setting up the FSA the banks must have become convinced that they could do whatever they liked until the FSA said stop, and the FSA never got around to saying stop. If the Government is to position itself as referee it must do it's job. It failed. Just as Parliament has failed to supervise the Government. Cheap credit was a convenient get out of jail free card for the Government and the economy. The difficult decisions were never taken. Gordon talks much of redistributing wealth. What he has mostly been doing is redistributing debt.

So much of the last decade has been growth funded by credit not proper wealth creation. Credit cards and mortgage equity withdrawl to realise the 'wealth' from rising house prices have kept retail, service and manufacturing industries afloat. Management buy outs funded by the banks have kept unprofitable firms in business. That in turn kept Revenue coffers mostly full in income tax, corporation tax, national insurance and VAT receipts. Yet even that wasn't enough and Gordon kept borrowing.

It could have all been different if it wasn't for the mortal fear of deflation. Had the full effects of the internet and globalisation been allowed to take hold we would have seen a reduction or standing still of GDP simultaneously with a reduction in the cost of living but, we would have also slipped down the standings compared to other economies. Gordon's fiscal policy was simple - we must have growth. He deployed stealth taxes and fiscal drag to achieve growth through Government largesses. He borrowed even more to add to his profligacy. Yet strip out inflation and what is left? Sod all really. A decade of standing still and shitloads of debt to show for it.

Deflation isn't exactly benign but then, neither is growth at all costs.

The damage has been done. We've been put on the hook for so much borrowings that the Government has okayed plans to print money if the bond markets either go on strike or begin to push up interest rates too quickly.

It isn't entirely Gordon's fault though. There is plenty of blame to share around. The FSA are shit. The public are greedy and idle. The banks have been fantastically reckless. Parliament has been absent from it's role of keeping the State in check for much of the last decade. It has allowed itself to be bypassed. It has withered while the main parties play politics for their own interests not the nation's. The opposition has rarely opposed for the sake of opposing (as Labour were good at in opposition) - that isn't a daft thing or a deceitful thing but merely the accepted mechanism for the opposition to get the best out of Government. To make it up it's game. To look out for our interests. The consensus of the political class has been to serve their needs first.

The house price bubble was forseeable. The mountain of personal debt was easy to spot. The economics of ignoring the cost of home ownership in the measure of inflation was always going to leave it ripe for an asset price bubble to ocurr. The IMF warned we were too much in debt. The Bank of England warned we were too much in debt.

To me Gordon's rote adoption of what he and his international finance jet setter colleagues insisted were best practice was his biggest mistake.** He has doggedly ignored the peripheral warnings because he was led to believe the system was working. If he were even half the economic luminary he believes he is these things would have been taken on board and accounted for. But no. They were swept under the carpet along with public sector pensions, the shrinking productive population, PFI obligations and the rest of it.

All the while the grin on Gordon's face gets more grotesque.

He's enjoying this.

* Of course, in each year's budget speech Chancellor Brown predicted that about 5 years hence the Government would be borrowing bugger all. It never came to pass.

EDIT: Not quite. We started borrowing in 2002. Each subsequent budget Brown predicted he would quickly regain control and simply could not.

** It seems a peculiarly British disease that we have to be seen to be the teacher's pet when it comes to rules. We do the same with EU directives while the others on the continent appear quite happy to ignore or adopt them to fit the national interest.