First he gets invited to the Eurozone summit to pretty much tell Europe what to do, now we see the Nobel Prize winner for Economics declare Gordon Brown as the saviour in the financial crisis, the man leading the world. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
While we pitied and sorrowed over GBs loss of support here at home, we neglect shouting about the praise and admiration the international community has for Gordon Brown. No other world leader currently has the expertise and experience as GB. Its a bit like Lost, everyone looks to Jack, at home he has his troubles, but in a crisis we all want the good doctor to show us the way. Don't be fooled by those Tories. Weeks overdue, their 'analysis' of the crisis has only led them to attack bonuses. Well done, clap clap. You've managed to find the most populist stance on something that pails in comparison to the day to day events of this crisis. The end of Thatcherism, eh? What do the Tories do.
In the US people are swinging to the Democrats. Obama's got a solid lead, despite the possibility of the McCain camp stirring up a race riot. Is it the natural reaction to go against the incumbent in an economic crisis? Bush has mishandled the economy certainly, while in the UK at least we enjoyed the years of economic growth by fixing our schools and hospitals, its as if a large proportion of Americans lost out completely.
But is it the natural anti-incumbent reaction, like Hoover losing in the Thirties or even Hitler's rise. Or is it a swing to the left. A desire for intervention and redistribution to help those hurting more than any other in the crisis. The consensus gripping the UK right now is certainly along those lines. People would rather see a big government right now, than a big hole left by the collapse of the financial industry.
Comparison with the US is of course difficult. I think it unjust to compare the legacy of the Bush years with those of Labour. From an entirely bias standpoint, Bush has done next to nothing of worth, while Labour has a decent sample of achievements. Bush's 'election' was built much more on divide and conquer, than big tent, centre ground consensus. The big issue of Iraq, is better divided by the two Parties, whereas here, both the main parties supported it.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with left or right, but simply who has the best ideas, who looks the most competent. Bush and Paulson look out of depth, Obama looks statesmanlike and more plausible in his analysis of the crisis.
In the short term, its all about Brown. The Tories look petty and [only in a global crisis is this apt,]too nationally focused. Every now and then Baronet Osbourne is wheeled on at the BBC for his side, he says nothing of impact or worth. Like a man complaining about the food on the Titanic . I mean, how weak was Cameron's speech now? Of all the times to declare your position, to announce your strategy, what does he decide to discuss? The most insignificant issues , more appropriate for a Daily Mail letters page. Nothing on how Britain's education system competes with the world, but a passage on how its so awful for 2 marks to be awarded for writing 'Fuck off,' is that what should be on a politicians priority list? How about the remodelling of the global financial system? Nah, lets just change 'Free Market' to 'Free enterprise' and pretend we care how much Bankers are paid. Its not the most convincing vision to say your reason for getting into politics was to cut taxes.
Voters weren't convinced by Kinnock in '92. The Tories haven't shown any reason to be convinced by them now. Another 5 years, sure. Not yet.
While we pitied and sorrowed over GBs loss of support here at home, we neglect shouting about the praise and admiration the international community has for Gordon Brown. No other world leader currently has the expertise and experience as GB. Its a bit like Lost, everyone looks to Jack, at home he has his troubles, but in a crisis we all want the good doctor to show us the way. Don't be fooled by those Tories. Weeks overdue, their 'analysis' of the crisis has only led them to attack bonuses. Well done, clap clap. You've managed to find the most populist stance on something that pails in comparison to the day to day events of this crisis. The end of Thatcherism, eh? What do the Tories do.
In the US people are swinging to the Democrats. Obama's got a solid lead, despite the possibility of the McCain camp stirring up a race riot. Is it the natural reaction to go against the incumbent in an economic crisis? Bush has mishandled the economy certainly, while in the UK at least we enjoyed the years of economic growth by fixing our schools and hospitals, its as if a large proportion of Americans lost out completely.
But is it the natural anti-incumbent reaction, like Hoover losing in the Thirties or even Hitler's rise. Or is it a swing to the left. A desire for intervention and redistribution to help those hurting more than any other in the crisis. The consensus gripping the UK right now is certainly along those lines. People would rather see a big government right now, than a big hole left by the collapse of the financial industry.
Comparison with the US is of course difficult. I think it unjust to compare the legacy of the Bush years with those of Labour. From an entirely bias standpoint, Bush has done next to nothing of worth, while Labour has a decent sample of achievements. Bush's 'election' was built much more on divide and conquer, than big tent, centre ground consensus. The big issue of Iraq, is better divided by the two Parties, whereas here, both the main parties supported it.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with left or right, but simply who has the best ideas, who looks the most competent. Bush and Paulson look out of depth, Obama looks statesmanlike and more plausible in his analysis of the crisis.
In the short term, its all about Brown. The Tories look petty and [only in a global crisis is this apt,]too nationally focused. Every now and then Baronet Osbourne is wheeled on at the BBC for his side, he says nothing of impact or worth. Like a man complaining about the food on the Titanic . I mean, how weak was Cameron's speech now? Of all the times to declare your position, to announce your strategy, what does he decide to discuss? The most insignificant issues , more appropriate for a Daily Mail letters page. Nothing on how Britain's education system competes with the world, but a passage on how its so awful for 2 marks to be awarded for writing 'Fuck off,' is that what should be on a politicians priority list? How about the remodelling of the global financial system? Nah, lets just change 'Free Market' to 'Free enterprise' and pretend we care how much Bankers are paid. Its not the most convincing vision to say your reason for getting into politics was to cut taxes.
Voters weren't convinced by Kinnock in '92. The Tories haven't shown any reason to be convinced by them now. Another 5 years, sure. Not yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment