The National Health Service (NHS) has endured a barrage of criticism from opponents of Barack Obama’s plans to push through a healthcare bill that would rein in costs, place constraints on insurance companies and expand health cover to 46 million uninsured Americans.

Stateside critics of the U.S. President’s plans — including former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin — have branded the NHS “evil and Orwellian” and said it allowed “death panels” to decide levels of care for the elderly. They see it as an overly bureaucratic, “socialised” system of healthcare and the proposals have prompted angry scenes at town halls across America.

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan stirred up further controversy by describing the NHS on a U.S. TV show as a “60 year mistake” and as a service he “wouldn’t wish on anybody”.

Political leaders in the UK have been united in their defence of the NHS following the onslaught. Gordon Brown used micro-blogging site Twitter to voice his support, saying: “The NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there.”

A campaign supporting the health service on Twitter, called welovetheNHS, has received tens of thousands of messages.

David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, was quick to distance himself and his party from Hannan’s remarks. “Just look at all the support which the NHS has received on Twitter over the last couple of days. It is a reminder — if one were needed — of how proud we in Britain are of the NHS,” he said in a statement.

What do you think of the National Health Service? Do you agree with our country’s politicians that it is a system we should be proud of? What are your views on healthcare in the U.S?

Britain’s embattled political class are falling over themselves to modernise parliament, but given we have fully embraced the Internet age the proposals have a rather tame feel about them.

Gordon Brown’s latest proposals for “democratic renewal” — the reform of MPs expenses and an elected House of Lords to name but two — could hardly be described as Parliament 2.0.

Maybe Brown should take his cue from Barack Obama, whose U.S. presidential election success had much to do with the way his campaign embraced the Web and mobile phones to mobilise American voters.

If it worked for Obama, why not go one step further and allow voters to cast their votes in local, general or european elections by texting or via the click of a computer mouse.

Obviously an electronic vote raises the issue of electoral fraud, especially given the difficulties that have been encountered in the past with postal voting.

And on a similar theme why is Britain so coy about the use of referendums? Switzerland has a long established tradition of direct democracy which provides its citizens with the right to vote on the big political questions of the day.

Given how few people voted in the European elections last week in the United Kingdom and the low esteem our political representatives are held in by the public, has the time come for people to be allowed to vote electronically in elections and for Britain to explore the idea of a more direct democratic system?

Sarah Brown will have had an anxious early morning.

Her husband’s attempt to be the great fixer of the financial crisis and best friend of the United States at the same time was a big ask, but how was she going to handle the visit of Michelle Obama?

This was the first time Sarah had been called upon to host her new opposite number from The White House. And it wasn’t all smiling outside Downing Street either – the pair had to visit a cancer care centre as well and – horrors – meet Her Majesty the Queen.

Michelle is only three months younger than Sarah, but she is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard, is the taller of the two by some distance and is famously well dressed.

She was on the cover of Vogue magazine last month and is constantly being compared to Jackie Kennedy.

So what does Sarah wear?

The choice was a smart, dark blue suit – she looked frightfully important and every bit the hostess of the world’s 20 most important nations.

Michelle went for a more dressed-down look – she was wearing a knee-length lime green skirt and a patterned white sparkly top. Crucially – and this may have been a deliberate gesture towards Sarah – she was covering up her famously toned arms, which fashion experts reckon is her best attribute.

But there’s a nagging thought: Was Sarah bold enough? She looked very smart of course, but is smart stylish?

“I have to say that Sarah played it very safe. Michelle is much more stylish with her combination of colour and textures — it seems that she is on show and sparkling,” says Michelle Shakallis, a London high street fashion designer.

“Sarah has gone for what will just blend in and look as boring as a man in a suit. Dark tights and shoes also reflect this. She does not want to have her figure or fashion on show here,” Shakallis adds.

Sarah cannot be blamed for making sure she did not attract headlines for the wrong reasons, but her lack of confidence is not befitting of our ‘first lady’. She should have had more of a go. Maybe she’s saving herself for tomorrow’s big event.

Still, at least Carla (Sarkozy) didn’t show up.

He loves the Queen and the British people. Truth be told, President Obama was always going to be a hit on his first overseas trip.

But Gordon Brown probably could not believe his luck. The prime minister just could not stop grinning as he stood next to the new president at a news conference in the Foreign Office ahead of the G20 summit.

He must have always been hoping for a bit of the Obama magic to rub off on him and revive his battered ratings but he can't have expected the ringing endorsement he got.

Tony Blair and George W Bush. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Britain has always liked to make much of the special relationship between it and America and any doubts it was in danger under Obama could be put to rest this week.

Obama looked on intently as Brown made his opening statement, referring to him by title.

But the formality dropped as soon as it was Obama's turn, as he thanked his hosts "Gordon and Sarah" and said he had been discussing dinosaurs with their two sons.

The United States and United Kingdom have always stuck together, he said. That's why he was pleased that his first overseas trip was to visit Brown.

Brown's face immediately lit up. Soon he was calling the president "Barack", joking that he was keen to introduce him to
his friends in the British press.

Even a question about Brown's regular remark that the crisis was made in America passed without a hitch, as Obama readily accepted the United States had to share some of the blame.

Asked what advice he would give to Brown on winning an election, Obama said: "The only advice I would give him Gordon is the same advice I gave myself -- good policies are good politics."

But the presidential hand on Brown's back as the two men left the podium may be the biggest helping hand of all.

“Brave” was how most of the British press responded to Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s speech to both houses of Congress in Washington.

Brown was the first European leader to be invited to Washington by the new U.S. administration and was only the fifth British prime minister to speak to a joint session of Congress.

The front pages of the broadsheets were dominated with the speech and leader writers agonised on whether the so-called special relationship between the two countries is still intact.

With an eye on the upcoming G20 meeting of leading nations in London on April 2, Brown called for the U.S. and their European allies to work together through the global economic crisis.

He was praised for his warning against protectionism and his “passionate” plea on tackling poverty in Africa.

It was a speech where Brown “rose to the occasion”, Peter Hyman, former speechwriter to ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, wrote in the The Guardian.

“Yesterday, Brown didn’t just give us substance but a little style too.”

It had “passion”, Kafka and even a reference to a Puritan founder of New England, the paper said.

“The speech was delivered with passion and was full of good lines; even a bit of poetry,” Hyman added.

“To this audience, religious rhetoric, like manna from heaven, is scooped up with open arms. And Brown didn’t hold back, Biblical soundbites flowed.”

The broadsheet Daily Telegraph said: “Gordon Brown … found eloquent and moving words to describe this country’s unique relationship with the United States and capture the common purpose of the wars we have fought together.

“More important, he found brave words when he tackled head-on the protectionist instincts that are so powerful in the United States and which could hamper the world’s economic recovery.”

The Daily Mail’s leader described it as a “serious and sombre speech for serious and sombre times”.

“Mr Brown merits praise for refusing to pull his punches (unlike his predecessor, whose idea of the special relationship was to fawn on American presidents).

“…If the special relationship is to mean anything, it must be based on honesty and not platitudes.”

But The Guardian leader was critical, saying the speech was limited and full of flattery.

“A brave speechmaker challenges his audience and a cautious one flatters them. Gordon Brown spoke to Congress yesterday with all the daring of a lover clutching a bunch of slightly wilted flowers.

“He said very little that was new, and nothing that was shocking.

“…Perhaps respect encouraged him to be too cautious, when a more critical friend would have been blunter.

“He passage on protectionism pulled its punches. He did not blame America for the crash, as he so often does at home.”

The tabloid Sun newspaper questioned the extent of the special relationship, pointing out that while Brown received 19 standing ovations, Congress was depleted.

“While Congress was packed, it was not with politicians,” the paper’s political editor George Pascoe-Watson wrote in an opinion piece.

“There were many ’staffers’ and interns taking up seats. Gone are the days when a British PM was such a star draw that Tony Blair was cheered as he walked through US hotel lobbies.

“Mr Brown left America last night with a vastly different Special Relationship.

“A new President has taken over - and it is hard to claim he and the PM have an obvious chemistry.

“President Obama paid lip service to the bonds between America and Britain. Things are definitely not what they used to be.”

But the International Herald Tribune said the chamber “was nearly full”, adding the interns “who are sometimes summoned to fill empty seats on such occasions were relatively few in number”.

While the visit dominated the British press, papers in the U.S. were less obsessed. They did look at the special relationship, suggesting it had cooled.

“The address came a day after President Obama assured Mr. Brown that the “special relationship” between the countries was as strong as ever, despite what some people have described as coolness in the handling of the prime minister’s visit,” the New York Times wrote.

The Internatational Herald Tribune referred to the same coolness, harking back to the close bond between former leaders George W. Bush and Blair.

“Commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have catalogued a number of signs that the reception accorded to Brown in Washington was not quite as warm as the ones British prime ministers enjoyed during the Bush years: No invitation to Camp David, no full-scale news conference, no state dinner - and while there was a meeting between the men’s wives, none was held between the two couples.”

But as the Daily Mail pointed out, Brown was still pleased to have beaten French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Barack Obama’s door.

Brown could not hide “his satisfaction” at becoming the first European leader invited by Barack Obama, it reported the French financial daily La Tribune as quoting a Washington source as saying.

After all the angst, the special relationship is alive and well. For Gordon Brown, it must feel like job done, to a certain degree.

Before his trip to Washington, there was endless speculation about whether or not the new president really cared about the so-called special relationship between the two countries.

And while Brown may have been the first European leader to visit Barack Obama in the White House, Japanese PM Taro Aso got in there first.

Then there was the fuss about whether or not there would be a news conference. A snow storm and sub-zero temperatures this week in Washington meant the Rose Garden was out of the question.

The news conference was going to be a few questions in the Oval Office — Brown snubbed was the immediate reaction from some of the British media travelling with the prime minister.

But to be fair, Aso just managed a doorstep.

The truth is more likely that the new administration just has its own way of doing things. The full pomp and ceremony of a state visit might not seem totally appropriate when the economy
is in such dire shape and millions of Americans are worried about whether they will stay in work.

The Oval Office setting probably suited Brown more though as he managed to avoid the unease he sometimes possesses at his regular news conference in Downing Street.

And the two men were almost gushing over each other. We both have wonderful families, said Obama, when asked what they had in common — a probably more dignified frame of reference than
George W Bush saying he and Tony Blair shared the same toothpaste.

Sport was another shared passion, according to Brown, telling Obama he couldn’t compete with him at basketball. “Perhaps tennis,” said the prime minister.

“I hear you’ve got a game,” was the president’s reply.

Perhaps they’ll play at the London G20 summit next month, but for now the seal of approval from arguably the world’s most popular current leader is just what Brown needs as he lags in the opinion polls at home.

    Alistair Darling may think it’s time for a bit of collective
responsibility, but anyone who thinks Gordon Brown is about to
apologise for Britain’s current economic travails should think
again.

    The prime minister, who loved to boast about abolishing boom
and bust when he ran the Treasury for a decade, is now
contending with the economy shrinking at its fastest pace in
nearly three decades and the prospect of millions out of work.

 The mighty banks that were given free rein to make London
the world’s number one financial centre are now on their knees
and reliant on taxpayer support.

Darling, the man who replaced Brown at the Treasury, now
says it is a time for humility — ministers had a collective
responsibility.

Brown doesn’t seem to think so.

    It’s a global problem, everyone’s in the same boat, he says.

    Asked point blank in the White House Oval Room whether
Darling’s comments amounted to a government apology, Brown just
said: “There has got to be big regulatory change…We’ve learned
from what has happened in these 10 years.”

    That’s probably it for an apology for now.

A poll for the BBC has indicated that the vast majority of the public want British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan within the next year.

Since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, 124 British soldiers have been killed, with two Royal Marines becoming the latest casualties when their convoy was hit by an explosion on Wednesday.

Defence Secretary John Hutton says it is more important than ever that the 8,000 British troops remain in the country to fight the resurgent Taliban, saying it is vital to British security and interests.

On a trip to London with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s foreign minister has said more international forces were needed while U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to send in more U.S. troops.

Do you think British troops should stay in Afghanistan? Send us your comments.

I went out today to ask people in the area around my office in central London what they thought about Obama’s win. Despite my best efforts to find some who were not happy about the change of leadership in the United States, I didn’t manage…even the cab driver was enthusiastic. So, this is not meeting the Reuters rules of providing a balanced picture …but it’s a snapshot of what some people in London had to say on this historic day.

If you have problems watching the video on this post, go here.

This morning’s editorials on the U.S. election reflect both a sense of history and of unease.

Obama’s achievement in becoming America’s first black president is lauded – as much as for its symbolic importance as for its implied message that race no longer matters in politics.

But there are worries about the way ahead, about whether America will turn in on itself again after the trauma of Iraq and whether the 47-year-old president-elect has the experience to deal with the huge problems he must now face.

Much has been made of the parallels with Britain in 1997 when a similar desire for change swept Tony Blair and Labour into power after years of Tory government. Cynics say change there certainly was but, ultimately, not much improvement.

What do you make of Obama’s victory? Do you think it will have an impact on Britain or indeed any effect on you personally?