More of smarmers bullshit exposed.

Amonst the MANY news papers across the world who held up Gordon Brown as the man who showed the rest of the world what to do as the Bankng Crisis hit was The New York Times and Washington Post.

It is also correct that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman did praise Gordon Brown

(Wikipedia) " Krugman asserted that Brown "defined the character of the worldwide financial rescue effort" and urged British voters not to support the opposition Conservative Party in the 2010 general election, arguing their Party Leader David Cameron "has had little to offer other than to raise the red flag of fiscal panic"

In the days immediately after Gordon Brown announced his plan of action, the US President "George Bush" followed suit, leading many commentators to declare that Gordon Brown led the way.

IT WORKED

I suppose that Keir Starmer could stick to the original promise of abolishing tuition fees, plus billions for the NHS, free cake tomorrow, open up the ever lasting cheque book.

But what about reality ?

I would far sooner trust any prospective Prime Minister who said that they cant do everything overnight, but what I do know is that a Labour government would be infinately more fairer than the Tories, and would priorotise the things which are important to ordinary people, and not the wealthy or big business.

You can only spend and borrow what the economic and financial landscape at the time dictates

When have labour ever worried about what the country can afford fiddles? There is one thing for sure the country can't afford having smarmer infesting NO 10.

Partly fixing a mess you yourself contributed to, is not a sign of success.

If you crash your car, and then repair it, it's not a sign that you're a good driver, you've still crashed your car.

Gordon Brown in his madness sold off our gold at rock bottom prices, raided pensions destroying the idea of a private pension's scheme as being a good investment.

The only only decent savings option available to people under New Labour, was buying houses.
And that pushed house prices up by over £100k between 1997 and 2007.
That level of a boom is unsustainable and went bust.

Tuition Fees

Personaly I do not believe that going to University should be free, I believe that students should pay something, a contribution, partly because it helps to keep the Drop-Out Rate down, but partly because later in life many or most of those students will be in a position, financialy, to make a contribution.

The Labour Party, like the SNP and Greens, and to a degree the Lib Dems are so called "Progressive" political parties - educated people with degrees and higher qualifacations usually = higher pay; Is it fair to expect that those on modest incomes and pay tax should fund (in full) an education which will enable someone one day,to earn a lot more than they do.

In other words its REASONABLE to ask students to retrospectively contribute something, when they are able to do so, I see nothing unfair about it.

The Labour government of Blair introduced fees capped at £3000, late TRIPLED by the Tories

My other argument is that by asking former students on decent incomes to contribute towards their fees, it frees up money to spend on priorities, which as far as both Labour and the SNP are concerned would be similar priorities, public services, local transport, and YES it would be good if more people in England on low incomes could get free prescriptions.