GORDON PRUDENCE BLOODY BROWN.... THANKS A LOT.

First he said that Britain wasn’t in recession. (Lies of course!) Then, when he admitted that it was, it was only because every other country in the world was in recession. (Lies of course!) Then he said that it was the best placed nation to lead the world out of recession because of his prudent management of the economy. (Lies, of course...unless by leading he means from behind, and after everyone else!)

Britain is the last of the G7 economies to emerge from economic decline. The slump, lasting six consecutive quarters, represents the UK’s worst recession since comparable records began in 1955. It is also a ridiculously slight emergence at an estimated growth rate of 0.1%.

So much for the financial genius of Mr Gordon “I’ve ended boom and bust” Brown.

According to the Times: There are growing fears that Britain could tip back into recession after figures showing that the economy staggered to growth at the end of last year. The tiny 0.1 per cent uplift achieved from October to December, far worse than most City economists expected, threw Labour and Conservative election tactics into confusion. Gordon Brown’s hopes of hailing a lasting recovery were dashed amid signs that the next three months could be as difficult as the last.

Conservative plans to promise immediate spending cuts also looked questionable as analysts suggested a double-dip recession, in which the economy moves out of negative growth briefly only to go back into a second downturn soon afterwards.

So it’s back to the drawing board for both of the major parties. (The SNP doesn’t count remember: Mr Murphy says so.)

But worse still: Sterling fell on foreign exchanges and fresh concerns were expressed over the government’s ability to tackle Britain’s budget deficit.

Bill Gross, co-founder of Pimco, which runs the world’s largest bond fund, urged investors to steer clear of UK government bonds. He wrote on his website: “Gilts are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine. High debt with the potential to devalue its currency present high risks for bond investors.”

Given that the finances of the UK have been in the hands of the same man for the last 13 years, is it not something of which he should be heartily ashamed? Has he not completely and utterly cocked up our whole financial situation and subjected us, and our children, to a hitherto unimagined debt?

Is he not a complete and utter failure, and the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had, bar none?

DRINK: WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP SCENES LIKE THIS

It was a dream that just wasn’t going to come true. After decades of repressive drinking laws, which were often blamed for the British malady of drunkenness, both Conservative and Labour governments have relaxed drinking laws so that they match those of our continental neighbours.

Laws have always been different in Scotland and England, but the principles behind them have been the same. Both Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair felt that if the restrictive hours allowed for selling alcohol (introduced during the First World War) could be relaxed a little, then British people would not feel obliged to throw drink down their necks with such abandon, and a café style society would develop along the lines of that in France or Belgium.

It was a reasonable suggestion I suppose in fairness to both leaders. Why would British people be less capable of controlling their drinking urges than the French or Spanish?

However, for some reason it didn’t work. Official figures reported in today’s newspapers suggest that the cost to the NHS of dealing with drunkenness has doubled over the last 6 years. However, It is not clear whether that is UK wide or England only.

So.... what to do? The government in Edinburgh has put forward suggestions on minimum pricing for alcohol in an effort to stop the sale of alcohol that is sometimes cheaper than the water on their shelves. Loss leader alcohol deals are a way of pulling customers in. However opposition parties disagree that this would be effective.

Among other suggestions is one which on the face of it sounds good, but on analysis is filled with holes. It is that of charging people who are found drunk and incapable with the cost of their treatment. Good idea...sounds reasonable, you might think. They are draining the NHS, let them pay up. But of course you are left with the question of where you draw the line, and why a person who gets drunk and falls over at a certain cost to the public purse is any more culpable than someone who goes mountain climbing and needs to be rescued by helicopter. Both made the choice to do it and both cost us money. It’s also true to say that the tax take from alcohol (£13 billion in 2005/6)* is far larger than the amount spent on treating drunkenness currently £2.7 billion. It could reasonable be argued that drinkers have already paid handsomely to be rescued.

The government probably has no right to be nannying people to look after their health, although there is probably an obligation on them to ensure that people are aware of the dangers of over imbibing. The misery of cirrhosis of the liver should not be underestimated. We also need to take into consideration the right of those of us who prefer not to have to pick our way through last night’s vomit on our way to wherever we are going.

Perhaps we need to try to ensure that people who get into the state where they are lying half naked in the snow, understand just how disgusting they look. We turned around the culture of drink driving in this country from where almost everyone did it, to where almost no one does, by a series of hard hitting advertising campaigns. Can we do the same thing with this?


* The last fingures I could find.

Pictures from the Daily Mail.