Is Brown starting to look a bit better ?

[Papaumau]

I know that many of the users of this forum are hard down on poor ole Gordy and as is usual it is the incumbent man at the top that has to take all of the snash for what is going wrong in the country. This is a given I suppose !

Having said that, although I would be the first to admit that Brown has made some stunning mistakes, like selling off our pension rights, getting rid of the ten pence in the pound taxation level and allowing Darling to re-introduce the fuel-tax escalator etc' etc', being a reasonable man I have to try NOT to blame Brown for everything that has transpired over the past ten or more years.

It is a fact that he was at the reins when the global crash came down on all our heads and yet he did enough to ensure that our whole banking system did not collapse while guaranteeing every penny that savers had invested in these banks. Without that guarantee the country and the banks might have failed just like Iceland did.

On the world stage he is seen as a solid and dependable statesman and he has received accolades from many of the other international leaders while helping to steer the world through really rough waters.

After the Labour conference he also looked like a leader once again and while he is certainly a flawed individual, IMHO he has always looked more like a Prime Minister than David Cameron ever will.

I would just hope that the electorate of this country know what they are doing when they hand the reins over to an ex-Etonian that has the arms of the old Thatcherite grandees up the back of his jumper.

As my wise old Irish gran used to say: "Be careful what you wish for as you might just get it !"

[John]

You forgot to mention selling centuries old gold reserves when the price was at rock bottom.

The current wish of the Country is for a General Election and if polls on the matter
are correct, that David Cameron will become the Prime Minister.

I believe that many people have got over the fact that he had a privileged education
and upbringing. There must be many members of both Houses in that position.

It is up to the individual if they believe the Labour Spin machine about how
great Gordon is.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people
all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

[Wrinkles]

After the Labour conference he also looked like a leader once again and while he is certainly a flawed individual, IMHO he has always looked more like a Prime Minister than David Cameron ever will.

I don't know what you were looking through if it wasn't rose tinted glasses. Either your TV is on the blink or you should have gone to Spec Savers. Probably both.

[Ivanhoe]

"""Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves at $275 an ounce. A frequent criticism of this decision was that an unprecedented rise in the gold price since has resulted in £2billion of lost potential revenue.[42] Brown was reported to believe that it is appropriate to remove much of the unpayable Third World debt""

My point is that the powers that be make decisions that can so often be so easily criticised by us lessor mortals, so what else would anybody criticising done ?

[Wrinkles]

Heed the old saying regarding robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Never mind the third world debt, we have enough of our own to contend with.
Governments are far too free with our money, how much overseas aid is given out only to find it's way into the pockets of corrupt leaders or Arms dealers?
An awful lot

[Ivanhoe]

"""Heed the old saying regarding robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Never mind the third world debt, we have enough of our own to contend with.
Governments are far too free with our money, how much overseas aid is given out only to find it's way into the pockets of corrupt leaders or Arms dealers?
An awful lot""""

I could not agree more with what you say.

But has'nt Britain always been charitable to third world countries ?, is it not part of our heritage ?, is'nt this how we as a nation hold our heads up high with immense pride ?, and are able to call ourselves "Great Britain" .

[John]

"But has'nt Britain always been charitable to third world countries ?, is it not part of our heritage ?, is'nt this how we as a nation hold our heads up high with immense pride ?, and are able to call ourselves "Great Britain" .

Have you  any idea about the history or heritage of Great Britain?

It certainly wasn't charitable in the meaning of that word.

The words slaughter, slavery and colonialism spring to mind.

[Ivanhoe]

Yes indeedy, that as well.

[Wrinkles]

Have you  any idea about the history or heritage of Great Britain?

It certainly wasn't charitable in the meaning of that word.

The words slaughter, slavery and colonialism spring to mind.

You say that as though it was a bad thing. I'll grant the slaughter and slavery wasn't exactly cricket but the colonisation? In most cases that brought order out of chaos and provided stability. Yes we, or our forefathers, were the beneficiaries but the colonies got their share of benefits too. We did nothing that others were not doing also, the difference being we did it better. Take a look at Africa. How many African countries went on to prosper once they got independence?

[John]

You say that as though it was a bad thing.

It fitted the time period. Matters would have been seen as normal life, particularly the hardships.

I do not believe in all the woolly liberal apologising that goes on. That was then, this is now.

History is tainted enough by political correctness which normally derives from local Councils (normally Labour) - where there is much under employment of small minded people.

[Ivanhoe]

So in our arrogance, the end justifies the means does it ?

[John]

In your arrogance it may...

[Ivanhoe]

Im not arrogant, but our empire was.

[Wrinkles]

Of course it was arrogant, that's the way it was at that time. Yes there were "crimes " committed, if you apply present day yard sticks of Human rights etc. But it was all in the past and regardless of whether or not they should have or not those rules didn't apply. If you go further back to the dark ages, there were atrocities against our own people by the landlords (gentry), the Normans et al. Should I go wingeing to the French demanding compensation for the dastardly acts committed against my distant relatives? It's history and no amount of sanctimonious tree hugging will change it.
Instead Governments continue to pay huge amounts of blood money as aid, in a vain attempt to salve the national conscience. If the truth be know the national conscience couldn't give a toss anyway and would prefer the money be spent on keeping immigrants out of our overcrowded country and shipping out illegals already here.

[Ivanhoe]

An impartial view here, but getting rid of immigrant's will not get rid of our problems.