Armistice Day has greater resonance than ever

Yesterday's Armistice Day was one of the most important in recent years.

At a time when British soldiers appear to be making little progress in Afghanistan and yet continue to lose their lives on a regular basis, yesterday served as a day of reflection for many.

The First World War was of course on a completely different scale to the wars we see today, and the loss of life was horrendous in comparison; but at the time this was justified by saying that it was 'the war to end all wars'.

War breeds war

The reality was of course that 'the Great War' did not end all wars, and it was only twenty one years later that the second world war began. If anything the First World War only served to create more favourable conditions for more wars.

War is never an ideal solution and rarely does it achieve an ideal result. The reality of war is that many people will die, both civilian and military in the pursuit of victory and there is little that can be done to prevent this.

The crucial point though, is whether or not the sacrifices made during wars are justified. If your relative has died for a good cause it will of course be devastating, but at the same time one may feel a sense of pride in what they stood for.

If however your relative dies in a futile war, then their death could be seen as a waste. This is the dilemma that politicians and soldiers' relatives have to mull over on a daily basis.

Dilemma

Is the war in Afghanistan worth losing British soldiers for? The Prime Minister maintains that we are fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Britain's security from terrorist attacks, and that if we were not there we would be under serious threat.

This may well be true and not many people are able to look at the intelligence reports to be able to agree or disagree with this statement. Public opinion though appears to be turning away from supporting the war and this is dangerous for Gordon Brown.

The recent public row with the mother of dead service-man Jamie Janes did not help Mr. Brown's cause and while the criticism of the Prime Minister in this instance was mostly unjustified; it shows how impatient people are becoming with the war.

The Prime Minister should have taken more time to draft his letter to Mrs. Janes but portaying him as insensitive for making spelling mistakes was a bit of a cheap shot from The Sun.

Brown said on Monday "I have at all times acted in good faith seeking to do the right thing. I do not think anyone will believe that I write letters with any intent to cause offence."

Need for debate

This argument though clouds the real issue of whether or not is time to start bringing home the troops and unless things start to improve quickly expect to see the issue debated more frequently in parliament.

There is a danger however; that if this does happen it could be seen as showing a loss of support for our soldiers but this is no reason not to have the debate.

The mission objective in Afghanistan has become muddled and by not having a proper debate on what we are trying to achieve there, could mean that lives will be lost when they need not have been.

Yesterday's Armistice Day service at Westminster Abbey included the words of Wilfred Owen the First World War poet, and much of his poetry still resonates today.

For instance 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria more'. These words have been repeated over and over, but today they have lost none of their meaning and perhaps for some, none of their cynicism.

The situation in Afghanistan does not appear to be improving and on a day when the US ambassador in Kabul has allegedly advised the US President not to commit thousands more troops to the war-zone, the future of the conflict looks uncertain.

It may be difficult to redefine the mission but for the brave troops, their families and the public mood, it is essential that this happens soon.

What have we learnt from the Party Conferences?

At the end of the party conference season we have now heard all three parties' visions for the future, but have we actually learnt anything new?

Clegg the idealist

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg did a good impression of someone who wants to be Prime Minister and to be fair his party did present some good ideas.

The problem of course is that Clegg will never be able to get the wider British public to listen to him. The irony is that if they did listen a lot of people would probably agree with his sentiments.

For example, in his conference speech he said:"I want to live in a country where prejudice, insularity and fear are conquered by the great British traditions of tolerance, pluralism and justice.

Where political life is not a Westminster village freak show, but open, accessible and helpful in people's everyday lives."

Fair enough. The problem is achieving all of this and it is very easy to make grand pledges when you know there is no pressure on actually having to deliver on them.

The future's Brown?

So if the Lib Dems can not be taken seriously, can Labour? The answer appears to be just about, but with Gordon Brown in charge they still look a doomed party, destined to return to opposition.

It is true that Brown gave a good speech at Labour's conference (by his standards) but many Labour activists still came away with lingering doubts about their chances of winning the next election.

The Prime Minister's biggest flaw remains his inability to effectively communicate with the public, and even his articulate wife's introduction could not change this.

Sarah Brown introduced Gordon as "my hero" and as the tired looking Scotsman sauntered up to the lectern, it is fair to say that he did not look particularly heroic.

Brown quite simply looks exhausted at the moment, no surprise given his busy workload but sadly today impressions are all-important and Brown looks a beaten man.

In terms of his speech, the stand out mentions include the referendum promise on electoral reform, something that will have cheered many Labour MPs, putting teenage mothers in a "network of supervised homes" and his pledges on social care.

The teenage mothers supervision idea is supposed to give young mothers help in bringing up their children but it did sound strange when it was announced.

If you were a Conservative you could use it as an example of too much government interference in our daily lives, but although a little crude it may have some merit in theory.

The best speech of the conference however, was made by Peter Mandelson, the come-back king. Mandelson declared the election "up for grabs" but admitted that Labour would be underdogs going into it. A fair assessment perhaps, but it will be an uphill struggle for Labour.

Cameron gets personal

The final round of conferences was hosted by the Conservatives and it is clear why they are favourites for the next election. Whether or not you like David Cameron he is definitely the most charismatic of the three leaders.

Cameron's speech itself was light on policy, but what it did contain was a glimpse into the man himself. One of the main criticisms of Cameron is that he is too slick and people do not trust him because of this.

The biggest challenge then for Cameron is to present to voters a man who is capable of being Prime Minister and during the conference he went some way towards doing this.

One of his key messages was that government needs to decrease in size, and for a country trying to make savings this should be an appealing idea. At the heart of his speech though were his attempts to try and portray what kind of man he is.

Significantly he spoke of the death of his son Ivan earlier this year which he said had made him think about whether or not he wanted to carry on as leader. One would have to be very callous to doubt the truth of these words.

Cameron left the tough policy announcements to George Osborne and the cuts he announced were a big risk.

For example, 25% off the defence budget and a one-off pay freeze in 2011 for all public sector workers, (excluding frontline forces and those earning less than £18,000) are definitely not policies you would describe as vote winners.

However by announcing cuts now, the Tories are trying to show that they are up-front about what they will do in government. Osborne used the phrase "we're all in this together" and they have certainly taken a gamble by announcing cuts as savage as this.

One of the biggest problems facing Cameron is his past. He and his shadow-chancellor George Osborne both went to Eton and this is a fact that unsettles many voters.

If two Etonians are at the top of Government in 2010, then what does this say about this country's progress in terms of social mobility?

To digress for a moment, my highlight of the Tory conference has to be when William Hague introduced the Conservative MPs onto the stage.

It looked like a school prize day when all of the clever people are grouped together in a bizarre freakish line-up. This was unsettling enough, but when Bono appeared on screen things got even stranger. Is there nothing this man won't do? A rare comedy moment in a month of tedium.

Anyway, the Tories may well win the next election but unlike New Labour in 1997 there is not as yet a healthy enthusiasm for them as a fresh party with new ideas. If they want to make sure of a big majority in the election this has to change.

A hung parliament would be a bad result for everyone. A country in crisis needs a strong government, and Cameron has a tough challenge ahead of him to try and convince the British public that his party offers real change.

Brown will not go down without a fight, but in all honesty the next election looks like it will go to the Conservatives. By what margin though remains to be seen and complacency could be Cameron's biggest weakness.

Norwich North by-election result weakens Gordon Brown further

On Friday the Conservatives secured a 7,348 seat majority in Norwich North, making Chloe Smith the youngest MP at 27.

This used to be a safe seat for Labour but the way in which Dr. Ian Gibson was dropped by his party, meant that in reality Labour never had any chance of retaining this seat.

Like many MPs Dr. Gibson was caught up in the expenses scandal, for claiming for a flat in which his daughter lived rent-free before selling it to her for half its market value.

Regret

There is little doubt that Dr. Gibson would have regretted this, but his constituents still valued him greatly as an MP and did not want to lose him.

The decision then from Gordon Brown to tell Dr. Gibson he would not be allowed to stand as an MP at the next election, was not welcomed by the people of Norwich North.

One could argue that what Gibson did was not any worse than what other MPs did who kept their jobs. So why was he singled out? If the Labour leadership was connected to its grass roots then this decision would never have been made.

Brown attacked

The Labour MP Barry Sheerman, has today decided to launch an attack on Gordon Brown saying he had until "this summer to show he's got the capability to do it." Shearman was at the forefront of previous calls for Brown to go so this is no real surprise, but calls for the PM's head will not go away.

Gordon Brown has failed as a leader and any Labour supporter must surely be despairing at the mess their party is in. Put simply there is no chance that Gordon Brown can lead the Labour party into a general election win in 2010.

So why are Labour persevering with Gordon Brown? It could be that no-one else in the party wants to be put their neck out in what is a difficult time for the country.

Defeatist

If they wait until after the likely election defeat, then the successor will be able to start again with a fesh slate, something they could not do now. But this is surely a depressing way of going about politics, when personal ambition becomes more important than sorting the country out.

By sleep-walking into an election defeat Labour are leaving the country in a vulnerable state. A lame-duck government is no good for anyone, especially when the economy is in such a dire state.

What is needed now is a general election, and the sooner the better. Britain needs a fresh start under a fresh government.

Like many long serving governments, New Labour has now run its course and change is needed urgently.

John Bercow is the new speaker...so what?

Well it has finally been confirmed. Conservative MP John Bercow is the new Speaker of the House of Commons.

Many Tory MPs did not want Bercow to get the position and it appears that Labour got their way, voting for a Tory that is disliked by many in his own party. It is sad that party politics got in the way of this appointment, but also inevitable.

Michael Martin the former failed speaker, was derided as a Labour chosen candidate during his time in office and Bercow promised "permanently to cast aside" his "previous political views". Admirable words indeed, but ones that were roundly ridiculed.

Neutrality

Bercow's statement even produced a joke from Gordon Brown; "It is said that you have now cast aside all your past political views - some of us thought you had done that some time ago."

This was in relation to Bercow's previous work in an advisory role to the Prime Minister, and rumours of his planned defection to Labour. It was significant to see many Conservative MPs refuse to applaud the new man as he was led to the speaker's chair.

Today was supposed to signal a big change in the way that parliament conducts is business, but is this really accurate? Bercow speaks of reform, but in reality the speaker is in no real position to offer it.

Need for change

The only way reform will happen is for all of the party leaders to agree on a clear way forward together, and this will not come from the speaker however much Bercow would like us to think it will.

On another point, it was sad to see Ann Widdecombe post such a low vote. Widdecombe is a politician with much integrity, but her decision to stand down at the next election may well have dissuaded MPs from voting for her.

The rise of the career politician is something that Widdecombe stands against, and this is arguably one of the biggest problems with today's parliament. The party whips have become too powerful, with some MPs reluctant to break party lines for fear of stalling their political careers.

Breaking with party policy was never something that bothered Ann Widdecombe and she will be a big loss to both parliament and party when she stands down.

Overplayed

In the past, the election of a new speaker has never usually been reported as a big event, it is only because of today's unique circumstances that it has now become one.

Parliament is still in crisis, and the sticking plaster of a new speaker, however much he talks of reform will not heal this wound.

Fundamental political reform is needed urgently, and for this to happen there needs to be agreement from all sides of the house, otherwise party politics will continue to cloud the debate.

Gordon Brown's position may soon become untenable

As more and more expenses claims continue to surface in the Daily Telegraph, British politics has never looked worse.

Many governments have been damaged by allegations of sleaze, John Major's for example in the 1990s, but today's scandal cuts deeper than rows over brown envelopes and affairs.

The problem for Gordon Brown right now, is that he has to be seen to be firmly in control of his party, but with each new allegation his influence seems to weaken.

Brown indecisive

Take the example of Hazel Blears, the MP for Salford. Brown called her actions "completely unacceptable" but then appeared to give her his full backing. Pardon the electorate for feeling confused over what he really thinks.

There are now rumours that Blears will be moved on in the next cabinet reshuffle, which would only make Brown's decision making process look even more confused. Many may well ask, if he can't control his own party, can he be expected to keep control of the country?

Of course one should add some balance here, this expenses scandal was not solely a result of Gordon Brown's mismanagement of the system, although one could argue that he (and others) only want to make changes now because the revelations have come out.

Parliament still in the dark ages

It is very easy to blame the Prime Minister for the problems, and ultimately in a self-regulating House of Commons, one could argue that the buck stops with him, but this is far too simplistic.

The fact is that much of what goes on in the Commons is well and truly past its sell-by date, and the expenses furore could just be the shot in the arm that politics in this country needs.

Sadly for Brown though, he has not really been able to seize the initiative, and instead the younger more articulate David Cameron looks to have come out on top. With an election only a year away (or sooner depending on who you talk to) the Labour party is in deep trouble.

Labour left dejected

It looks almost as if Labour have given up the ghost, resigned to their fate of being the opposition party after the next election; but does it really have to be this way? There could just be a twist in the tail.

The most popular theory doing the rounds at the moment is the idea of Alan Johnson the Health Secretary, putting himself forward to be leader. Johnson would be a popular choice, and he could just give Labour a much needed boost in the polls going into an election.

Significantly, Johnson put himself well and truly in the shop window this week, by talking up political reform and suggesting perhaps the use of Proportional Representation.

Johnson wrote in the Times "we need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," but does he mean removing Gordon Brown as leader? He of course denies this but for many, a Johnson led Labour party would be a welcome relief from the burden of Gordon.

So now we can sit back and await the next round of expenses revelations. Only this morning there was the news that the Labour MP Frank Cook allegedly claimed for a £5 church donation, a kind gesture indeed, I am sure you will agree.

Brown's political raft may have been set adrift by Labour, and it looks like his party would rather puncture it than throw him a lifeline, but have they got the guts to do it? Only time will tell, but if the Prime Minister does sink, expect to see some political careers go down with him.

(photo courtesy of telegraph.co.uk)

British politics is dragged through the mud as Cameron takes the lead

First it was Labour's turn, then it was the Conservatives and today it is the Liberal Democrats' turn to have their reputations dragged through the mud.

However, entertaining as it has been to see so many politicians embarrassed, this does no good at all to British politics. At a time when the domestic (and global) economy is at a standstill, it is a pity that Prime Minister's questions today, was spent squabbling over who paid back what and who claimed for this?

The Tories expenses have been arguably the most embarrassing claims yet. Douglas Hogg's moat cleaning has to get the prize for 'most original expense claimed' with Oliver Letwin's claim for a leaking pipe under his tennis court coming a close second.

Cameron takes the initiative

Despite this though, David Cameron has somehow come out of the last few days on top. Yesterday he took the initiative by saying that Tory MPs who refused to pay back "excessive" claims would not be Conservative MPs for much longer. This was a firm stance and perhaps as a result, the government were left scrambling to keep up.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears held up a cheque for £13,332, money she made from dodging capital gains tax (although she did not break any rules), and Gordon Brown claimed to have cross-party support for his new plans to review all expenses claims going back four years.

It was later revealed that this cross-party support was not fully agreed although it was discussed, and that Brown appeared to have been caught on the hop. The Tories have been just as bad as Labour in terms of their abuse of the system, but by failing to act sooner Brown has been left behind.

Lame duck government

Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, described today's government as a "lame duck" government, while speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics, and in today's Prime Minister's questions this was all too telling. Brown was unable to think on his feet while Cameron was offering up new ideas.

One of his ideas today was not a new one, the idea to cut the number of MPs, but it is one that could capture public opinion. This is the key to the middle ground right now, and the ailing Labour government have shown themselves to be way out of touch.

Of course this happens to most governments on the way out but at a time when the economic situation is so dire, the country needs strong leadership. Brown is a good politician, but crucially he appears to be losing the support of his party, and when that happens, as it did for Margaret Thatcher in 1990, there is only one way to go, and that is towards the exit.

A challenge to Brown?

David Cameron has used the expenses row to put himself in the shop window as a future leader, and Brown has not used it at all. It will be very interesting to see how the summer pans out. Labour MPs will certainly be getting twitchy, but just who would be willing to stand against Gordon Brown?

Alan Johnson could be a good option, and if the economy starts to pick up, there might just be hope for Labour, but Brown is a survivor and will not go down without a fight. Anyone wanting to deal a knock-out blow to Brown had better be prepared for a scrap, and Johnson may well think better of it.

This week will not be looked back on as one of British politics finest hours, but hopefully it will lead to positive changes to the MPs' expenses system. It is just a shame that so much damage was done before things could begin to be mended.

Labour look doomed as more expenses claims are revealed

Things are not looking good for Gordon Brown.

First he posted a bizarre Youtube video about reforming expenses, where his strange "smile" sparked ridicule (even from his own party). Then his plans were watered down in Parliament, and then he lost a vote on Gurkhas rights to live in the UK.

But it did not end there. This morning the Daily Telegraph published further details about Labour MPs' expenses, including embarrassing information about Gordon Brown himself.

According to the paper, the Prime Minister paid his bother Andrew Brown, a senior executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 over 26 months, for cleaning services at his Westminster flat. Not only this but Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary was said to have over-claimed for council tax and mortgage bills.

Bad impression

To date, there are now thirteen members of the cabinet whose expenses claims are under investigation, so not exactly confidence inspiring then? The real problem though, is the impression this gives. The public are unlikely to have confidence in a government that can not even keep their own affairs in order.

It is too cynical to say that all politicians are greedy, thieving and dishonest, because this is simply not true. However, what is true is that the current system of MPs' expenses is now defunct and must now be cast aside and reformed.

However, Brown's Youtube video was not the way to do this. By not consulting his own party, let alone parliament the Prime Minister made himself look distinctly amateur. One has to ask the question, just who is advising dear old Gordon at the moment? Whoever it is, they are not doing a good job.

Ridicule

Vince Cable said it so aptly some time ago, when he said that Brown had "gone from Stalin to Mr. Bean". The days of the Iron Chancellor are now long gone, and Brown's reputation is now in tatters.

The biggest threat then to Brown is ridicule. Under the media spotlight, Brown does not measure up to modern day standards and appearing on Youtube does his image no favours whatsoever. He has always paled in comparison to Tony Blair, but now even more so.

Change of leader?

Another big problem for the Prime Minister is his own party. Many of them will be feeling nervous about losing their seats at the next election, and as a result a change of leader is probably already being discussed.

There have been rumours of Charles Clarke running against Brown in a leadership contest, but a move to change the leader now would make the Labour party look even more disorganised, and crucially even less electable.

The real winners in all of this are the Conservatives. They have not had to serve up any new policies or ideas to profit from this mess, and in PMQs on Wednesday the Tories did not ask any questions at all about policy.

However, the Tories must be careful not to look too cocky. There is little doubt that they are favourites to win the next election, but they can not act like they think they will win. Similarly on expenses, the Conservatives almost certainly have skeletons in the closet, so playing that card would again be ill-advised. The name Derek Conway springs to mind.

The end is nigh

Gordon Brown may yet make a comeback, but with unemployment rising and the economy still flagging, it is hard to see how he can. Even if his government do have some good ideas between now and the election, they may well be overshadowed by trouble at the top.

The next few months will be very interesting. Will Brown remain as leader? My guess would be yes, but only because there is no real alternative. No MP with serious leadership intentions would want to lead under today's circumstances, and not many people would blame them.

Twelve years is a long time for any government to be in power, and the flame of new Labour now looks to have gone out. Sadly for Brown though, he has been left holding the fire extinguisher.

Should we really be worried about swine flu?

This week has been the week of swine flu. It came from Mexico, spread to the USA and then moved overseas, including to the UK. As I write there are apparently 230 possible cases in the UK alone. A worrying business then?

Well perhaps not. It is not long ago that the world was in panic over the SARS outbreak. I remember getting off a plane at the time and having to fill in reams of paperwork before I could get off the plane. Luckily in this case it soon petered out.

Then there was the widepspread alarm over Bird flu, where we were warned this virus could cover the globe and cause savage destruction. I remember watching the news, where a map was shown plotting the advance of this terrible affliction, but once again it disappeared and was soon forgotten about.

Now it is the turn of swine flu. It is obviously a tragedy that in Mexico, eight people have died, but soldiers die all the time in places like Afghanistan and get little mention on the news. Just because the cause was flu, does this make these deaths more important?

Of course this is an irrational argument, but the "level 5" danger that we are told we are in could alarm people. It should be remembered that only nine people have died so far from the disease and most patients have responded well to treatment.

So the British government's advertisement campaign introduced today, could make things worse. "Catch it, kill it, bin it" is the catchy slogan for stopping germs spreading, but surely stopping your snot hitting people is something most people would do anyway. Do we really need the government to tell us how to sneeze?

The distribution of leaflets is another tool in their armoury. They give information about the virus and how to combat it. This may all be a little pointless. The World Health Organisation have admitted that it is now impossible to contain the outbreak, so why do we need all of this advice?

By giving people too much information, there is a strong risk that people will worry unnecessarily about catching swine flu, and that will not help the situation at all. By trying to help people, the government may well have made things worse.

Another negative for this advertising campaign is the cost. Surely distributing leaflets to every home in the UK and making TV and radio adverts is an expensive operation. At a time when the country is deep in recession, this could appear misguided.

So far there have been 212 confirmed cases of swine flu across the world and nine deaths. Without twenty four hour mass media, one must ask the question; would this be such a big story? Twenty four hour news is generally a good thing, as it gets the news to people fast, but when there is little news to update a story this can cause problems.

Taking the example of swine flu, the news channels have filled their air-time with spurious suggestions from so-called experts about what "might" happen. The word "might" is key here, as nobody really knows what will happen and conjecture is certainly not news.

Of course swine flu may end up killing us all, making the government's leaflets useless, but if most of us survive, will Gordon Brown have saved us from certain armageddon? I think not. Even the politicians can not control our sneezes, however much they would like to.

Damian McBride gives Gordon Brown a headache

The news broke on Saturday, that one of Gordon Brown's closest aides had been sending vicious emails meant to 'smear' top Conservative figures. Shock, outrage, despair!

Of course though, one may say that these kinds of dirty tricks are nothing new in politics and that we should all move on and talk about something far more serious such as the worsening economy.

However, the fact that the Prime Minister allowed such an individual to work so closely with him is surely a worry. In these emails, McBride allegedly attacked the mental health of George Osborne's wife, which is surely below the belt.

There is indeed no room for this kind of 'smear' in politics but the Tories should be careful not to take too high a moral line when criticising McBride's actions. This may just come back to haunt them.

During the continued row on expenses both parties have resisted talking about allegations in the house of commons in too much detail, both in the knowledge that they probably have more skeletons lurking in the closet.

With someone like Peter Mandelson around, the Tories should be very weary indeed of appearing to openly attack Brown's government too veraciously.

Oleg Deripaska is a name that should be remembered, especially by Osborne. In this case Osborne tried to smear Mandelson but not surprisingly the shadow Chancellor came out worse.

Both parties of course have their failings but the Damian McBride issue is not really party political. Does it for example, highlight a worrying culture at the heart of government, where smearing has become acceptable, no matter what the truth acually is?

Certainly it is worrying that Gordon Brown kept McBride so close, but does this paint Brown as a bad judge of character or merely ignorant? Neither of these assumptions are probably true so why was McBride able to do what he did?

The answer may be that McBride did what he did, because he thought his boss wanted him to do it. This is worrying, because if true it suggests that Brown promoted a culture of 'smear' against his opponents.

This is perhaps too cynical and Brown if nothing else does at least appear to be a sincere politician. It was then to many people's astonishment that he refused to personally apologise for the emails.

True, the PM did not send the emails himself so he is not personally responsible, but in most organisations the buck stops with the man at the top and this issue could have had a line drawn under it far earlier had Brown apologised immediately.

Brown did send hand written letters to all of the top tories who had been smeared, expressing his "deep regret" but the word sorry was not included. This is no real surprise but a small sorry could perhaps have eased the pressure on number 10.

So here we are on Wednesday and the story is still in the news. Who knows, maybe it will distract people from their economic woes and they will go out and spend some money.

Every cloud.....

The week that was - the G20

Last week the leaders of the G20 agreed to a $1.1 trillion package of financial measures which could have a massive effect on the health of the worldwide economy.

The IMF will be a main beneficiary of this agreement, as its coffers swell to $750 billion. Presumably this money will not be used to help the stretched UK economy but many other countries should benefit from the IMF's help.



Tax havens were another part of the agreement, as leaders promised to come down hard on areas such as the Channel Islands and Monaco, but this may be more symbolic than anything else.

Most Monte Carlo residents will have clever accountants who are paid a lot of money to get around financial regulation, but nevertheles this sets down a positive marker and is one step in the right direction.

Nicolas Sarkozy threatened to walk out of the summit if regulation was not boosted, but even he said that the talks achieved "more than we could have hoped for". This will have been a relief for many, not least Gordon Brown, the host leader.

Confidence

The biggest thing to come out of the G20 though was the projection of confidence. President Obama called the summmit "a turning point" in pursuing economic recovery and if this kind of rhetoric inspires confidence then the meeting will have done its job.

The large sums of money are obviously important but the sight of world leaders working together could have just as big of an impact. Confidence is a key part of any economy and if people see things getting better in the future, then consumers are more likley to start spending again.

More important than this though, is confidence within the banks and it will be interesting to see if the banks do begin to loosen their hold on the purse strings. If this happens, then things could improve, but this is a big 'if'.

What must be reiterated is that it will take time for any of the measures agreed to have any impact. So in the meantime the leaders have to try and inspire confidence. The meeting on Thursday was a strong attempt at this.

Brown boosted?

In my last post I said that Brown was gambling his political future on the outcome of the G20 talks, but this was not completely accurate. It now seems clear that Brown knew what would be agreed well before Thursday's summit.

This being the case, he knew he could build up the outcome without much risk of calamity. It could well be the case that the measures will not have the desired effect of boosting the world economy, but right now Brown is in credit.

Before the summit his poll ratings were not looking good, but their decline could now begin to slow. 'Gordon the world leader' is how he would love to be seen and by hosting the apparently successful G20 he may believe that he has achieved this.

In reality Brown is not seen quite in this light, but the summit has certainly not done his image any harm. Indeed many of the British newspapers were very favourable towards Brown's involvement.

The Guardian wrote "Gordon Brown brokers massive financial aid deal for global economy", clearly putting Brown at the centre of the action. Brown's spin doctors would have been thrilled.

Of course this may not last for long, but Brown will bask in this reflective glory for as long as possible. It should be remembered that people will continue to lose their jobs and last week's meeting will soon be forgotten.

Cameron

In terms of where all of this puts the Tories, it is unclear. Obama did meet David Cameron but as an opposition leader there is not much that one can do in such situations except perhaps support the actions taken.

Cameron will not have benefitted from Brown's hosting of the G20 but his party's position has not changed all that much. Last week's events do look good for Brown, but they will not make him instantly electable.

The future

The results of the G20 summit are currently unknown in the long term, but in the short term they will certainly be positive. In times of crisis people want to see their leaders standing shoulder to shoulder.

This may only have happened for a few hours but it was an important symbol all the same. The fact remains though, time will tell if it will make any real difference to the world economy and all we can do is sit and wait.

Will the G20 summit achieve anything?

This week will see the leaders of the G20 descend upon London. The hope is, that they will come to a global agreement to help resolve the world economic slump.

Sadly, the chances of this happening are about as low as Peter Mandelson defecting to the Tories and becoming David "call me Dave" Cameron's right hand man.

The main stumbling block appears to be the need for governments to be seen to be doing the best for their country. As a result, free trade is inevitably being hit hard, and protectionism is blossoming.

Our Prime Minister Gordon "call me Gordon" Brown, has been frantically crossing the globe this week in an effort to convince leaders that they need to pump more money into their economies.

Brown also wants them to up their levels of foreign trade, but this will be a big ask, even for the silver tongued Brown. For too long many countries have had a perception of our PM as someone who loved to lecture others, on how they should run their economies.

This was all too apparent when Brown spoke in Brussels this week. The chamber was only a quarter full and the biggest news to come out of his visit was the attack from a Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan.

People do not like being lectured, and Brown may now be reaping what he has sown. During the boom years, he was happy to take the plaudits and dish out advice, but now things have turned sour he is less willing to admit his failings.

Brown's favourite phrase at the moment is "fiscal stimulus" but the problem is, the UK may not be able to afford another one. This is a big problem if you are trying to convince other countries that it is a great idea.

Indeed, Mervyn King's words to the Treasury Select Committee this week appear to have confirmed this worry. King said:

"I think the fiscal position in the UK is not one where we could say, 'well, why don't we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion'."

For the Governor of the Bank of England to say this as the Prime Minister is looking to launch another fiscal stimulus, it was unlikely to be unrehearsed.

If King is worried about overstretching the British economy, then we should all be worried. One must remember that Keynesian economics are not fool-proof and spending your way out of a recession is an extremely risky business.

Brown has called the Conservatives a "do nothing party" for months now, and laughed at their caution towards hefty fiscal measures, but now it appears they are not alone in having doubts.

The European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso warned this week against a second EU stimulus plan, and it should be considered that the initial rounds of demestic stimulus packages will take months to have any real effect.

It should be said though, that King's words do not endorse Conservative economic policy as David Cameron tried to suggest. They do however give the Tories more authority, something they have been lacking when talking about the economy, up til now.

Brown seems worried about doing nothing, or at least being seen to be doing nothing. Indeed, one could argue that by introducing fresh economic measures every week is not achieving anything, in terms of helping people in the real world.

The measures that have already been implemented need to be given time to take effect, and by continually introducing more and more schemes, the government could be perceived as being in a bit of a panic.

New Labour created an idea of an all-providing state, but with the economy faltering this could ultimately be their undoing.

When things get really bad, people will begin to look towards the government, but it is unlikely that they will be able to solve most people's problems.

The state cannot always provide, and the enlargement of the welfare state under New Labour has created a culture of people who feel they are owed something.

In the US, Barack Obama warned against this kind of expectation in his inauguration speech when he said:

"For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies."

Governments can only do so much in crises such as the one the world finds itself in today, and it will have to be a huge collective effort that gets us through it.

The G20 summit has been built up massively by Gordon Brown, but anyone expecting a global solution from it may be disappointed.

Of course we are all hoping for a miracle, and no-one more so than Gordon Brown; the man who appears to have gambled his political future on securing a quick fix to this global problem.

The global recession conundrum

Recently we have been bombarded with bad news on the world economy, but are things really as bad as we are being told?

No-one really knows, and I believe that this is part of the problem. People look towards politicians, commentators and writers to give us answers to problems, but this is different. It is clear that nobody has the answers to solve the recession conundrum, and this is where the real problem lies.

One of the biggest problems is confidence, and this goes to the heart of the banking system. On a personal level, you would not let a friend borrow money if he/she could not pay it back. In the past, money was lent to people that realistically had no chance of paying it back. The sub-prime mortgage market in the US is a good example of this, and is often the one event that people trace this whole crisis back to. Whereas risk used to be a commodity that was sold off globally, financial institutions are no longer willing to take these risks, and as a result the wheels of credit have ceased up. What is interesting about this recession, is that it need not have happened if lending had been conducted responsibly. However, as financial capitals such as London became richer and richer people lost sight of the simple principles of lending.

The result of these decreased risk margins, is that many businesses are going to the wall, as they no longer have access to the levels of credit that they had become accustomed to. In a way, these calamitous circumstances which will undoubtedly end in many job losses are a necessary evil. The former Chancellor Norman Lamont was lambasted for saying that unemployment was a price worth paying, back in 1991, and of course this can not be agreed with. However, it is inevitable that this will happen, as non-profitable businesses close down, and indeed this needs to happen in order to put the economy back on its feet. Capitalism works because it rights itself by shedding the non-functional weaker parts of the economy. Take Woolworths for example in the UK. This was a failing business that needed to close. Keeping it open by bailing it out would not have done anyone any favours. The workforce may have stayed in place, what at what price? Without boom and bust, Capitalism would not work, and Gordon Brown was foolish to claim he had eradicated it in the year 2000.

In the US, the car business is a classic example. Here, an out-dated business model ran into trouble and had to be bailed out at huge cost to the taxpayer. The problem however, much like British Leyland in the 1970s, is that the consumer does not want the cars that are being manufactured. The bail out was implemented in order to save jobs, but in the longer term these jobs may have to go anyway. This may have bought the President some time, but it could be too late for this particular industry, and it will be the taxpayer that will foot the bill for their failings.

Another problem though, is that markets are now increasingly global. In the case of the UK, the government can do little to improve the economic situation if the US situation does not improve. Gordon Brown has taken the risky step of borrowing large amounts of money to jump-start the economy, but there are little signs of things improving on any noticeable level. The Prime Minister said today at Prime Minister's Questions that British banks were now beginning to lend more, but without the presence of American money, there is a gaping hole in the market.

If the world economy is to improve, then a world solution needs to be reached. Domestic policies can help but these must be implemented without encouraging protectionism. Otherwise this recession could be far deeper than it needs to be and far harder to get out of.