Brown's spend, spend, spend during his Chancellor's days has brought us into the current economy we are facing today. His appeal at a Downing Street meeting for the lenders to pass on cuts appeared to fall on deaf ears with HBOS, which owns the Halifax, increasing its rate on some mortgages from 6.09 to 6.59 per cent. Borrowers taking out this type of deal will now pay 46 more a month. On a two-year tracker, the rate will increase from 1.49 points above base rate to 1.99 points, giving a current rate of 6.99 per cent.

Other lenders are expected to follow Halifaxs lead.

If the Government wants the banks to lower mortgage rates to home owners - why not just offer them through Northern Rock? Everyone would rush to the Rock to get the loans forcing banks to match the rates or lose the business? Or maybe the government would then run into bigger credit crunch?

Just heard that James Whale has been sacked from Talksport all because he urged listeners to vote for Boris Johnson in the London elections.. incredible.

this country is a diluted form of soviet russia.....people r so suppressed these days. until uk folk go abroad and then come back some time later, they wont be able to see how soft they r.

come on, lets bomb china or something! lol

So a senior police officer has publically stated that the huge increase in investment in street camera surveillance has not made any impact on the massive increase in crime, but it sure has made a difference to the bank balances of those selling the equipment!

Another success for New Labour.

Very true Halifax, I did very well with VSK a few years back, it's always worth looking where the Government will throw money too, and look for companies that can profit (EDD)

And this Government has cetainly thrown plenty of money around.

i know in aberdeen on main street that metre a CCTV camera can watch you....thats more than a mile long!!

if we had uk in stle of stalin esque strlye it might be better as we would not only be raghead free but also totally white british......with no teerorists.....and people wanting to work again.
and no banks wanting bailed out either.

bring back joseph stalin.

and you'd probably be thrown in prison or shot for daring to speak freely--we should all be civilised enough to live together in peace in a free democracy. I hope the Tories restore some of our freedoms and rejects the iron fist of the EU!

Freedom means nothing without definition.
The only definition that means anything, must include the freedom to take the consequences.
I submit there is no way that will ever be applied in a modern society, as we all have expectations that the state will protect us and provide for us in times of crisis or poverty, and that this is a natural consequence of collective responsibility and an inescapable aspect of any form of government.
The only political system that truly encompases freedom is anarchy and it is interesting to note that the definition of anarchy, according to the OED, changed in the 19th century from being a perfect state without need of government to its modern definition.
The question therefore is what level of freedom we want. We want to be able to speak freely, for instance, but is this acceptable if your speech includes a call to kill non believers? Of course not. Therefore freedom of speech is not applied.
Now we arrive at the conclusion that freedoms are allowed, when they are in line with the policy of the community. As the communitys executive arm is the state our freedom is as much as is prescribed by the state, and no more.
Therefore, even with the most liberal of governments we arrive at a Stalinist proposition that the government dictates what we all do, say or think.
The only real difference is that every few years we can always replace our current Stalin with his shadow, and end up with Marx or Lenin instead, to now dictate their list of what freedoms we have, and those which we don't.

Hmm--I agree with your points Alan but when speaking freely means being offensive to peaceable non white brits which I find offensive and inflammatory-I just make the point in many dictator run countries this would bring dire consequences.

Indeed it would, MP, I was just being an arse.
FWIW, I believe in freedom of speech in its entirity though. I believe everyman has the absolute right to express his or her opinion. It is not an act that directly causes damage, whereas to gag someone stifles debate.
It is better to allow me or anyone else to say what I like and then expose my reasoning as flawed and my motivation as criminally suspect than to prevent me voicing my concern. Just because you may find it offensive, and the government does not support it does not make it any less valuable contribution to the debate, as it is a view held by part of the electorate.
You never know, if all views could be aired freely, we may find that some that are labelled as racist or extreme may actually have huge support and make some amount of sense. If we gag that, we will never know. And what then for the liberal elite who dictate what is acceptable to say? Do we class them as dictators?

i remember seeing on news recently that some of our british soldiers are spat on etc in uk.....mainly by muslims.....these perpetrators of this crime should be executed for being traitors as they are now in uk and have to live by our fine standards.
i find these countries views offensive.....countries like n. korea, iran, china, russia are dangerous

Interesting to see the knives going in at the moment with the Nantwitch by-election coming up later this month. The more creditable YouGov poll puts Labour on 23%, 1% lower than achieved at the recent local elections. The additional knives are from Mrs Blair and John Prescott, the later mentioning that he advised Blair to sack Brown when Blair was Prime Minister. However, Blair was frightened of Brown's power base. If, as I hope, the Nantwitch seat is lost by Labour, this imo will result in the Labour party forcing Brown out. Thus, all the well timed stabbings at the moment. There is no doubt in my mind that Brown is Labours ball and chain and a complete shake up is required should the party wish for damage limitation.

Agree Brown has creditability and popularity problems and is dragging on Labour, but who could possibly want to replace him. Prime Minister is not a good job at the moment, and whoever took it, from whichever party, could have all the confidence of a fat lad in a leotard.
Nobody could possibly do anything about the issues that currently concern the majority of the populace. Credit crisis, Oil prices and energy prices. All are a global phenomonon and the policies of a small island nation have little conceivable effect.
Yes but what about tax and immigration and all the beaurocracy and nannying that goes on? Its gone on for decades and has never seen a government off yet!!
Applying for the job at the moment is tantamount to tendering your resignation. If you win, you will still get hammered at the next election. If you lose, you will be remembered as a failure who split the party.
You simply cannot solve a global economic crisis from downing street and so will be tossed by the ill winds of capitalism gone wrong until 2009 sees the USA return to confidence and the rest of the world limps out of the current crisis. Even then, we are still 2 years, minimum, away from a return to easier credit and people feeling the benefit of better economic conditions. By then it will be too late and the next incumbant of number 10 will reap reward for just sitting on his hands and letting it happen.
In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for Brown who found himself judged by most on things he cannot control. A bit like a football manager really.

Agree, that you cannot control food and energy prices etc but, it is Brown that has made the overall position worse and is having to cut back programmes on public expenditure simply because he cannot keep putting up taxes and his overall tax take is under threat. His wasteful expenditure in the past is a severe handicap to the economy. He should be in a position to reduce petrol tax amounst others, not be looking at other ways to raise more and slow the economy further. Agree, whoever takes over has a difficult job on his hands, whoever or what party but, the country cannot continue to tolerate and trust Brown to get us out of this mess. We all have an interest in UK plc and it is up to its investors to try and find a better management. If we were talking about a Company here, we all know they would have been told to go. Quite honestly,all this talk about who would replace him is a bit overdone, considering his record. Just pick someone mediocre if you like who is not a control freak, listerns to others views and is prepared not to bite off more than he can chew. OK the conservatives may form the government in two years time but, it would be better not to have to wait until then with Brown & co in charge. I believe if his replacement lays the country's difficult situation on the line and does even a half decent job in the interim, labour will have a chance of at least limiting the damage. Ok, I would prefer to see a Conservative government but, not one with a massive majority. Perhaps 30-50 seats would be ideal since it would keep them on their metal and not allow complacency to set in. Sometimes the right man can step into a job when it is least expected and I think Labour should give it a try. They have nothing to lose and may do comparatively well out of it.

Global problems yes but all Gordon's decisions are like chickens coming home to roost. Raided the pension schemes now strikes when companies can't pay the price, selling our gold at the bottom, damaging the Aim market, driving our large companies to take refuge abroad, pushing out our high spenders who are keeping the retail sector afloat, sending rivers of money into schools hospitals where it is not properly controlled and washes away, I could go on and on! Meanwhile with all the local unemployment and benefits paid out--down in this area fruit and veg are rotting in the fields because nobody will take the jobs now immigrants are going back home! rant over it's a lovely day down here.

'S a lovely day up here too.
No great support for GB from me, even if it came across as such, but I can't think of a single person in any party who is up to the job or could be trusted with any power at all.
Funny thing is, 15 years ago the slide to obscurity for the tories started with accusations of giving money to the fat cats. Today we lambast GB for taking it away. Enoch Powell was ostracised for his warnings on immigration. Now GB could pay heavily for not heeding them. Every PM since Pitt the Younger (nearly) has been taken to task for not applying sufficient funding to health and education, yet this one gets it in the neck for giving too much, and it being wasted by a system created by the other party. He got rid of the fuel duty accelerator introduced by the tories and has deferred rises on petrol many times, and then suffers when he applies other taxes to make up the shortfall.
My point is that we all demand free beer today, and the most any PM can offer is free beer tomorrow. Tomorrow of course never comes and the PM has a limited life expectancy. GB perfect? No. Good? Not really. Just run of the mill.
I agree, Gus, that a little honesty may be a good thing, but the ignorant populace would never elect anyone whose hoardings speeches said that they had 2 years of austerity, no solution to immigration or terror problems,a health service and education system that will always fall short of what we need no matter how much money we throw at them and the best they could offer was opportunity for those who can, to make enough money to provide for their own. Everyone else would have to make do and mend. But if we are honest, thats the truth of it.
Remember, even Churchill lost when he said all that, and he was our greatest leader on the back of a jubilant world war triumph!!

see Prescott is good at Fairy Tales.

the only thing he advised on was the colour of the toilet paper.

I agree Alan sadly. I think any politician who said no free terminations on the NHS after 2 [ some regulars are having 4/5 at my local hospital and treat it as easy birth control]-- limit child benefit to 2or 3 children---abolish road tax and price in pay as you drive on fuel---encourage use of buses by half price promotions at quiet times etc---raise the lower earnings level for income tax by a substantial amount to make it worth giving up benefits---and finally raise the level for house purchase tax to kick in to at least 250000. To pay for this I'd prune out the quango gravy train, slim down the multi masses in public sectors, and raise vat to 20%. I'll get my coat!!

For me, mp, the only real changes I would make are partly as outlined by you.
I would save the country several gazillion pounds by getting rid of the beurocracy and idealistic, elitist liberals who cost so much to sit polishing committee room chairs with their pompous arses, telling us to eat no more than 0.632 eggs per day or debating whether a lesbian branch of the BNP deserves support and nurture for being lesbian or derision for being BNP.
No-one other than a teacher has any place in education (though I would make the buggers work for a change) and no-one other than practising health professionals should have any say on the NHS. Surely I am not the only one to question the wisdom of entire departments costing millions to save thousands!!!
I would get rid of all advisory and regulatory bodies that are not essential for the well being of the population. The FSA would be gone, as would the ASA, the milk marketing board, the white fish commission and many more. Not only would this save the country the equivalent of an African nations debt, it would make business easier to conduct and both cheaper to the consumer and more profitable.
Of course there would be strikes and unrest, but the 80's saw Thatcher do all that to the industries that were dragging on us, so why not do it to the beurocrats.
That would be my first day in office. On my second day there would be free beer.

Lol--I love it!! I wish I had your quick wit and fluency.

Alan, you got my vote.