Brian Monteith: Spinning along in the same orbit

IT was all going to be so different. Thanks mainly to Labour members of parliament that had tired of Tony Blair, at least a year after the public, we were given a new Prime Minister without having a say in it. But Gordon Brown told us he represented change, he was going to be different, so it was all right then, wasn't it?

For a moment in the autumn of 2008 Brown's moral compass let his conscience get the better of him and he toyed with going to the country to obtain the authority that only a popular general election victory can bring. Unfortunately he sensed that instead of increasing his majority he might see it savagely reduced (he never, ever thought he would lose). The risk was enough to tell him it would be better to fight another day. After another six months of his sage-like insight and steady hand at the tiller surely things would only get better, after all.

I think it's fair to say now that this decision in itself illustrates just how unaware Gordon Brown was about the recession that had already taken hold.

One of Brown's opening promises was that there would be an end to the spin that had made the public so jaundiced towards the New Labour style of politics. Political spin was branded as a symptom of Blairism, something that Brown despised and would have nothing to do with.

The more gullible of political observers swallowed this whole and spread the myth themselves. Others like myself, knowing of Brown's penchant for controlling every minute detail of power at his disposal, thought it mere hype. Only time would tell.

Well, nearly two years on we can see Brown – having deceived us about selling the nation's gold reserves, having lied to us about how our pensions were safest under his stewardship, having repeatedly overestimated the tax receipts and underestimated the public spending costs, having annually had to correct his economic forecasts – has betrayed us yet again by employing a very close adviser responsible for the most sordid and despicable smear campaign in modern British politics, launched from No 10 Downing Street itself.

I've been in politics for long enough to know what the black arts entail and I've dabbled in it myself – but what I know is that when I and my adversaries sowed the seeds of stories we worked on the premise that revealing the unsaid or unwritten backstory would damage an opponent most – because once the truth is out it is almost impossible to repress it.

What Brown's adviser contemplated was circulating, via a Labour party internet diary, downright lies about sexually transmitted diseases, mental disorders and other such baseless rumours – and not just about enemy politicians, but also about their wives.

I have no reason to believe that Gordon Brown commissioned or approved these stories.

Given, however, the reputation of Brown's previous spin-doctor, Charlie Whelan, for initiating damaging stories about Labour Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson there is a highly unattractive character trait to the Prime Minister that is now emerging. It is a form of behaviour that no amount of apologies or saying sorry days after the event can correct.

The genie is out of the bottle. Gordon Brown is the spinmeister, he has told us porkies all of his political life. Why should the public accept his apologies for this or his trashing of our economy?

The only words we should be willing to accept are very simple: "I resign."

Pedestrian heaven
I see that my comments a couple of weeks ago that Edinburgh would be better off leaving the buses running along George Street and fully pedestrianising Princes Street has been echoed by a number of others in retail and local government. Apparently some people have recognised that Princes Street is nicer without traffic – not because of its shops (which need much improvement) but because of its new-found tranquility and of course the views – both of which can help attract customers back.

There still remain many problems that would have to be tackled. Having only one tram stop in Princes Street is sheer madness and the route of its line would be better being at least ten yards further south, so that there is more room between it and the shops.

Retailers in George Street seem less than enamoured – but I find it hard to believe they are not benefiting from the greater footfall – and if the centre street parking could be relocated the pavements could be widened.

The fact that the public seems interested in the debate – it is their city centre after all – means that a genuine public consultation might for once be held. That would be novel after the congestion charge and trams debacle and help restore people's faith in local politics into the bargain.

And if the idea doesn't fly? Well, can we at least pedestrianise the whole of George Street once the buses return to their previous route?

Frankly I would settle for either street being pedestrianised – I just think we should have one main street with some respite from the bus and car in Edinburgh – if Buchanan Street in Glasgow can have it then why not Princes or George Street in Edinburgh?