This weekend Brown did a very Blair-like "spin". Using the opportunity of a meeting in Newcastle during his "leadership tour", he ensured the Sunday papers would be reporting on his "tough stance on terrorism". And by so doing he also managed to steal the thunder of the departing Home Secretary, John Reid, who was due to announce a review this Thursday, of Blair's Terrorism Bill.

This Bill was the cause of back-bench revolt in 2005 when MPs defeated Blair in his attempt to introduce 90 days detention without charge for terror suspects. But it not such a great rebellion, since MPs voted for 28 days detention, as a "compromise". Which happens to be the longest period to hold a person without charge in the whole of the so-called "free world".

So now Brown wants to review this legislation and try to succeed, where Blair failed. He wants 90 days detention on the statute book - as well as other things, like the possibility of using evidence obtained from phone taps.

And he has been invoking the "Cold War" and the historical fight against "Communism" for good measure - just as Blair's supporters did last time round. According to preacher's son Brown, by curtailing the freedom of individuals, he will "show people that we stand for freedom and democracy and the dignity of the individual...so together we can isolate those people who are preaching extremist ideas"!

Of course, as usual, there is more behind all of this than meets the eye. Brown has been portrayed as a softer and more reasonable version of Blair. But while this might serve to feed illusions among core Labour voters, come the next election, it could lose him the support which Blair won in the reactionary Tory heartlands, as well as the City.

So for Brown, overbidding on issues such as "the fight against terror" is very much in order. Along with a good sprinkling of British nationalism - or in Brown's words "British-ness". But more importantly, the "tough on terror" stance underlines Brown's intention to remain aligned with the US, for the sake of British companies who claim their share of the market which the Blair/Bush war on terror is meant to open up.

None of this posturing by Brown comes as a surprise, of course. There was never any stake for the working class in the Labour leadership (or deputy leadership) charade. However it is instructive to see just how far Brown will go to try and get the reactionary vote.

The financial press reports that over one million people with mortgages could be faced with their payments soaring by almost a third over the next 12 months. In other words, increases of several hundred pounds a month in repayments, depending on the size and type of mortgage.

This is because these people took out fixed rate deals in 2005, which are now due to come to an end. At the time, as much as 20% of the UK mortgage market moved onto fixed rate deals, in fact. But today, when interest rates are going up, unlike in 2005, when they were going down, the banks and building societies offer no such deals.

In fact what they do sell, are mortgages lent over periods as long as 30 or 40 years, supposedly to "help" workers get a foot on the property ladder. Figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that in April 2005, 7.5% of first-time buyers took on a mortgage for 30-plus years. By March this year, that figure had grown to 17.2%.

Of course, for the rich establishment, home ownership is promoted as a necessity, whether affordable or not, rather than a necessary evil. The supply of council homes for rent dried up completely by the late 1980s, thanks to Thatcher's "right to buy". Today more than double the number of households live in their own homes as did 50 years ago. But now, if a young couple wants to find a home, they face house prices of more than 8 times the average annual salary!!

So they wait longer before taking out a mortgage, and as the Financial Times explains, as a result, "millions could be paying off mortgages in old age"! The FT omits to say where the "elderly" are going to find the money to pay off their mortgages, given the current attack on pensions! But then of course, retirement age is also due to be delayed...all the way up to 70 years or more!

In fact peddling home ownership it is just another - very lucrative - mechanism to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. As long as workers are in hock, the bosses hope we will keep our heads down. But they shouldn't bank on it!