If the real thing, has he been off, swathed in his towel, to kiss the sacred aereolite yet?

You could make a better argument that what followed looked rather more like propping up the shareholders and, I suppose, protecting people from their own stupidity. But to say that this was an intellectual failure is blithe. No one had a gun put to their head and was forced to take out unsustainable debts.

I don't think that's true. The problem is that following the crash a Tory narrative about 'ballooning debt' became more prevalent rather than the need to rescue the banks (which the Tories would have done anyway).

the polls show that people believe the crash was a US led one. So he didn't get the blame like Bush did.

I'd like to seem more evidence of the polling. But this was an intellectual failure on the part of Brown and the rejigged tripartite regulation system he set up after 97 with the more independent Bank of England, the FSA regulating the banks, and the Treasury. one of the major criticisms of this system was that it wasn't joined up enough to spot and deal with the problems in the banking sector that emerged. Northern Rock was an early warning sign, but no radical steps were taken until after the second wave of banks going down.

Default credit swaps didn't ameloriate risk; instead, they overloaded the investment and other banks with bad debt. The banks were allowed to get too big, too big to fail, hence costing billions to bail out. Our billions. Not letting banks get too big was one of the key lessons the Great Depression that was forgotten. The short termist bonus culture allowed investment bankers to create a highly irresponsible bubble, which has now burst. Another bubble allowed to inflate for too long was the housing market in the UK.

Finally in makes no sense to talk about this as an American problem; banking is highly interdependent and globalised. Brown has been right at least to insist on global regulation, and, to his credit, has taken a lead in responding the mess. But that doesn't ameloriate the collective failures made from London, Washington and elsewhere that allowed this banking crisis in the first place.

I am conflicted / unsure / undecided on the issue of electors' knowledge and electors' rate of participation in the political process, to use an American term.

I recall listening to a panel discussion at the time of the Clintonian Health Care fiasco – I was in Boston at the time – and an out-of-state Senator [I forget who] said that a perennially-voting woman came along to one of his regular meetings and said, much-concerned and pleading piteously:

“Senator, don't let the Federal Government take over my Medicare!”

… quite oblivious of the fact that Medicare is and was a government programme.

In Australia vorting is, in theory, compulsory. Jehovah's Witnesses are automatically let off without penalty and the maximum fine is $50.

Would you prefer to see that in the U.K., I wonder.

Or would you preder an electoral system similar to that of Ireland or Israel – much 'fairer' in the sense that minor political parties get a look-in and are represented in the Parliament / Dail / Knesset but sometimes appallingly arterio-sclerotic and sometimes – as a result of so much 'fairness' in the electoral process – resulting in nutcase parties [SHAS in Israel] or a single MP/TD [Tony Gregory TD] holding the balance of power, leading to a bidding war of political bribery to win over the SHAS MKs or Tony Gregory TD.

Good sixth form debating society stuff, innit ?

Binky perhaps its arguable that participation is more important than knowledge? Americans don't seem to be on top of the info, but they certainly do participate a lo more than we do…

On the other hand, there are people of working age in Sarawak who have not the slightest idea that Sarawak was once a British Crown Colony, or ever Japanese-occupied or anything else. To them, Sarawak as a distant outlier of Malaysia has been the way it is now and ever was for ages eternal.

Don may be in error about either Thomas or William Huskisson [Sp?] of Huskisson's Sliding Scale fame from when he was the President of the Board of Trade [this was in my O-Level History in the mid-1960s - there are those who claim he was NOT the first railway fatality, only the first PROMINENT one.

However, my point stands: Most orinary people - literate or not - are totally unthrilled by politics.

When I was much younger I was enrolled on a 1-term course which - in part - required us to go out into the streets of Lancaster and badger decent people with questions like:
1 - Is your Member of Parliament doing a good job?
2 - What's the name of your member of Parliament?
3 - What does NATO stand for?
4 - Is Britain in NATO?
5 - Is Russia [we used 'Russia', not 'the USSR' because it had already been established that over 80% of ordinary people hadn't a clue what 'USSR' meant]
and so on …

Amazingly, most people submitted to this with a good grace unless pressed for time and none of us were assaulted [i.e. none of us elicited a non-verbal response]

But the level of general knowledge was utterly pitiable.

However, now that I am as old as I am now – and I was born under George VI and Clement Attlee – I am far from convinced that being politically engaged and well-informed makes any society happier or even more prosperous. The Irish and the Serbs know far more about their history and so on than the dumb bovine English but it seems to have made them a jolly sight unhappier than placid ignorance.

If people feel so angry with the world or individuals they should either punch a cushion or seek a psychiatrist.

Tom I think that is spot on. It's not a surprise the Labour party couldn't get any political capital out of the crash – they didn't have a bloody narrative! the Tories won that battle too.

Gordon Brown's reputation for economic competance get shredded by the credit crunch.

I don't think that's true. The problem is that following the crash a Tory narrative about 'ballooning debt' became more prevalent rather than the need to rescue the banks (which the Tories would have done anyway).

the polls show that people believe the crash was a US led one. So he didn't get the blame like Bush did.

shamit, nyrone – thanks

Do you really think that nobody knows about Spencer Perceval? Everybody knows that.

Without looking it up, which British politician was the first railway casualty? You can't even get into a pub quiz team without knowing that stuff. What was your point?

The only way in which you and your presence at the debate will be remembered by anyone other than close friends and truly bitter and vindictive enemies will be if you – er – are assassinated by a fascist or an Islamist.

Try to arrange it if you desire immortality and even then the immortality may
prove illusory.

[QUICK: One and only one British Prime Minister was
assassinated. Name him! You CAN'T! See? ]

The Great British Public don't give a lump of dog poop about politics unless they're enraged and even then they have the attention span of a hyperactive two-year-old.

TO CHECK THIS:
Jump up. Run outside and ask twenty people chosen at ramdom if they know or care about the Tories' allies in Europe. See?

I'm also pleased that despite being so closely connected to the blogs and politics, you have the sense to step outside of the bubble and look at it objectively.

It's almost comical that the politicians and pundits really feel that people actually give a shit about this tit for tat bollocks, they absolutely don't.

I realise you do not have the necessary intellectual capability to have a civilised debate without attacking someone. Maybe when you grow up you could come back here. Until then why don't you go and do some reading (and I don't mean The Sun and other red tops) and learn some manners.

This is a polite response – and if necessary I can be as abusive as you are if not more. so, please don't even think about starting a verbal curse match here. Because again it would show you up to be a fool (which I think you are).

If you don't like the post – what don't you like about it? Why don't you try to articulate some points ie if you have any reasoning skills. Come on prove me I am wrong. Otherwise stay away.

But they disagreed because they thought the public would pay attention or actually cared about changes in policy. They don’t.

This needs to be clarified. People want to care, they just come to the conclusion it's futile as 'nothing will change'.

Many of them (swinging voters, centrish bloc) see Cameron in the same vein as Blair. But they know they'd rather have a Blair style leader, Cameron, than an apparently inept Gordon Brown, whom for whatever or whoever he touches turns into a disaster..

Persephone on Channel 4 news there was a mock up with the European leaders as the X factor judges and contestants. It looked horrific!

We are disseminating this one:

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/31044