Brown's plan: dreary, uninspiring or just plain wrong
A correspondent upbraids me for being horrid about Gordon Brown, to which I have replied that I have always tried to be polite. Frank Field and Charles Clarke may have crossed the line, but I hope that I have stuck to issues of substance rather than style. The trouble is that, despite my tribally wanting a Labour Government to succeed, Brown has done almost nothing of substance since becoming Prime Minister that has filled me - or, on the evidence of the opinion polls, anyone else - with enthusiasm. There were a few stylistic touches that I liked, such as talking about jihadist terrorists as criminals and saying reading and counting instead of literacy and numeracy. I approved of his decision to give up £500,000 in pension rights and to scrap the super-casino in Manchester.
That, though, is really style; the substance was yesterday's draft Queen's Speech. As I wrote this morning, the stuff on new rights for workers to request flexible working or time off for training, strikes the right balance between employees and employers. I also think elected police commissioners - an idea blatantly lifted from the Conservatives - is a good policy, and its uncomfortable implications for the tender prejudices of liberals are a recommendation not a problem.
But the rest is dreary, uninspiring or just plain wrong. As Ben Chu has already pointed out here, propping up house prices by buying up unsold flats is illogical.
And the stuff on welfare reform - on which it is so important, not least for his chances of becoming prime minister, that James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, succeeds - goes no further than before. After a decade of pussyfooting around the Incapacity Benefit issue, John Hutton finally broke the taboo on taking it away from existing claimants in the dying months of the Blair Government. Since then, we have got no further than saying that existing claimants who are under 25 will be checked to see if they are really ill.
If anyone thinks there is anything in the draft legislative programme that progressives ought to be getting excited about, you know what to do below.
Its wrong to just blame Brown. There is virtually no one you could vote for from any party who would be better. All have a similar message. The talk is of the need for economic growth and cutting taxes. What is wrong with stability? If everyone has what they need, maybe we should be happy with that. While great minds contemplate the expansion of the universe, it is patently obvious that the world is finite, and growth, both of economy and of population cannot continue to happen. Control the population, and we could have stability.
Posted by: Jamie | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 01:36 PM
No. Just more of the same we were fed by Blair and by Major and Thatcher before. Attacking the same old targets as before but using new words instead of new ideas. It's the same every year now, a new "Five Year Plan" is being implemented while everyone is still trying to come to grips with the ones introduce five years previously. These people are idiots and seem completely oblivious to the damage they've already done to the country. Sadly a change of government is unlikely to improve matters. The price to pay for this will be more doctors and nurses leaving the health service and more teachers taking early retirement.
Posted by: flipped | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 02:08 PM
Seems to me Jamie has it. Population control. For example, if the global population were say 25% of the present number, would there be a global warming problem? Doubtful. However, I regard Gordon brown as an incompetent, devious prime-minister. I worry much about our country with him in control along with his dubious cronies.
I worry too about Brown promoting himself Queen. Making the speech traditonally reserved for the Monarch, ahead of time and for his own ends. To influence the outcome of a by-election. How low can you get?
I worry about self-professed do-gooder socialists whose very survival depends on maintaing a 'healthy' poor sector of society. It's in their interest to keep the poop poor. And they've been found out. Hurrah for Frank Field.
Posted by: Maurice Butler | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 05:19 PM
"It's in their interest to keep the poop poor."
So tories will make poop wealthy. I knew the tories liked to spend money on crap. LOL.
Posted by: dirty european socialist | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 09:53 PM
Yes, if Brown were any good he'd get serious about environmental issues, peak oil, the food and resource crises and the population issue, not pussyfoot around giving a few quid here and taking a few more quid there, none of which matters a damn in the long-run.
Plays the fiddle too no doubt.
Posted by: Mark_IV | Thursday, 15 May 2008 at 11:07 PM
[Plays the fiddle]
Just the books, sir, only the books!
Posted by: flipped | Friday, 16 May 2008 at 09:48 AM