A National Government in times of crisis, Gordon?

If Gordon Brown keeps referring to this Financial Crisis as a global one that needs the efforts of every nation to come a universal solution. This blog feels that Gordon wants to be the Churchill of out times – a national leader in times of crisis.

But he would be good to remember that although Churchill was a Tory, he presided and ruled in a national government – a collection of all parties striving for the greater good.

Perhaps if Gordon could stop being so drugged up on his Socialist obsession with Power and ultimate rule, the idea of a national government to free us form this crisis isn't a bad idea.

Vince Cable and George Osborne would make fine additions to an economic cabinet to deal with this enemy. Though the controlling Gordon wouldn't dream of this power-share knowing that Churchill lost the election after the war. So much for non-partisan politics.

Time is up on the Brown Solution

Gordon Brown's constant mention that the whole world is in his hands is an outright lie. Take the evidence of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, speaking earlier this week.

She feels that Brown's remedy of throwing cheap money at the economy to boost it, which I might add is borrowed money, is exactly the same act as what got us here in the first place – a debt ridden society.

Ms. Merkel states: "I am deeply concerned about whether we are now reinforcing this trend through measures being adopted in the US and elsewhere and whether we could find ourselves in five years facing the exact same crisis."

The difference in her rhetoric can be traced back to the way Germany built a large surplus in times of plenty, something that slipped Gordon's mind as he was to busy fantasising over the end of 'boom and busts.' Hence we now have Gordon lunging around calling for a fiscal stimulus.

She believes that this course of action is nothing more than short term solutions of stimulating the economy rather than overhauling huge global problems in the way we borrow and save. Her chief economic advisor echoes her sentiments:

“How good is a policy package if it has to be changed every other week? How good is it for confidence? The latest British decisions on VAT and income tax, for instance, are inconsistent. Better to wait a bit longer and put forward more durable solutions,"

These type of aggressive utterances should be what Cameron and Osborne should be mounting as a direct attack on Gordon. They must shatter the lie that all other nations are following his economic ways and furthermore, that these nations ever followed him in the first place by allowing one's nation to borrow disproportionately against its surplus.

Cameron needs to pick up this sceptre laid down by Chancellor Merkel, that conveyed the doubts people had over using fiscal brute force to reverse the current economic cycle. Merkel adds: “Our goal is not to try and overcome the crisis, but to build a bridge so that we at least can start recovering in 2010.”

So the 'do nothing' rhetoric Brown is trying to pin on Cameron could actually be embraced by the Tories, by using Merkel's political significance, as a reason to work for a long term solution to the current economic woes, not supermarket give-away sales in the form of tax-holidays that will no doubt have to be paid for later down the line.

Labour has a moral claim to answer for with its duplicity in the Financial Crisis.

Many commentators have branded the pre-budget report the death knell of the New Labour Project, but this blog takes a different view believing that Britain itself, including its Government, has gone absent without leave.

The economic dimension for the current crisis is starkly obvious, but the moral rudiments are scarcely muttered. We have a Government that bought up cheap credit and thus went on a credit binge, this was echoed by the banking sector that gave everyone under the sun access to credit.

My argument is this pseudo-morality claim to end boom and bust encouraged normal citizens to follow suit to borrow and subsequently get into copious amounts of debt.

The moral compass, to use a Brownite phrase, was placed next to a magnet and from henceforth became utterly distorted in a positive social direction. People, including Labour, felt it had a moral right to spend money on things, to fitter money away and it was a sign of a bad citizen if one was a poor consumer in essence a saver.

This all came crashing down hence our current predicament, however it is the supposed 'solution' that Labour are putting forward that has me lost for words. How can anyone justify spending their way out of recession, both in Government and in public consumption habits?

Surely our culture of debt has gotten us into this hole in the first place? People are in debt, coupled with house prices plummeting and food and energy prices climbing, the public are on no position mentally or physically to start spending.

The same goes for Labour, if they have no money, because they didn't save in times of plenty, borrowing more will surely just rack up a larger debt we can't pay off.

The blame-game on the banks is equally a futile endeavour, people have slagged them off because they lent to people who couldn't pay them back, now in a complete volte face the banks are not lending to anyone, included themselves, to which people are demanding their heads.

Banks have been polarised by fear, from lending recklessly to recklessly not lending at all.

In addition, Labour are treating its supposed voters the working class with total contempt with its policy on VAT. Labour have spoken about getting people to open there wallets and who better to do that than the working classes! It was this solution to boost economic growth that has led to this current crisis.

To get poorer people in society to purchase goods they don't need, especially now they are in debt, caused by this deranged morality to borrow, is an outrage to helping poorer people everywhere. For Labour to think, 'they' (the working class) don't have the faculties to save and not to spend recklessly is abominable. What good is a cut in VAT to stimulate growth if you have no job in which is earn a wage?

This is why the Conservatives have to weave a thread that unites, firstly their successful campaign to pin Britain's 'broken society' narrative onto Labour's time in government, with the economic crisis.

In essence, Britain has become financially corrupt because of her moral debasement in the art of prudence and thrift, caused by Gordon Brown's 11 year legacy borrowing and not saving, which should be written on his tombstone.

If Cameron can successfully make this socio-economic argument for Britain's broken society
clear in people's minds then he has a huge opportunity to hang Labour with it. In short, the attack should read:

'Brown isn't at all economically strong, because he has morally weakened our societal sense of proper economic conduct thus we have entered into a broken society' – to which the Conservatives exist to only fix what is truly broken, this is Cameron's calling I hope to God he answers it.

The BBC is now 'hideously black'

The BBC's post coverage of the US elections was totally unprofessional and utterly biased. I watched the news every hour only to be greeted by Huw Edwards exclaiming that Barak Obama is the 1st black President of the United States.

The amount of times the word black was mentioned was astonishing; perhaps it makes up for all the times they have barred its presenters from using the term when discussing a murder case or violent crime, in case they 'appeared' racist for even mentioning a vague description of the criminal.

It was as if all other terminology went out the window - he was 'black' and nothing else mattered! What astounds me is that the once labelled 'hideously white' institution was bending over backwards to accommodate this notion ahead of all other attributes. Obama has spent this whole campaign not even mentioning race, yet the BBC is still stumbling around in the murky rhetoric that white and black alike wanted to avoid.

The BBC made little reference to the fact that that he is in fact mixed-race and that it would have been more appropriate to run with a narrative that spoke of Obama's mixed cultural and biological make-up transforming race relations. This unique and modern synergy being the ties that could bind America into a post-racial nation. His story spans 3 continents - Africa, Asia and of course the US (Hawaii and the continental US) His story is a migrant story, it is an American story.

Obama's aim has been to transcend the black-white divide, as he may never feel comfortable as one or the other. For example, not fitting in during his stay in Indonesia as he looked too 'dark skinned,' flip that over to his stay in Chicago where the black population viewed him with suspicion as too 'white' in nature, too intellectual and too foreign to understand their plight. In his books he has made it clear he decided to anchor himself to America after years of living a nomadic life.

None of this made in into the BBC's version of events, preferring to highlight skin deep actualities over the man's substance. It flies in the face of Martin Luther King's icon statement:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. "

If only the BBC has the gumption to not tip-toe around racial issues, to not opt for tokenism as they usually default to, but to appoint BBC staffers by the content of their character.