Gordon Brown: Genius or Pinhead?

[InsaneApache]

Now that Gordon Brown has had a few months to bed himself into his job as our Dear 'unelected' Leader, it's about due to look at his half-term report.

When he's not walking into plant pots, tucking his trousers into his socks or picking his nose, what has Gordon Brown done for us?

Answers on a postcard please.

When White, Toynbee, Ashley and the rest of the deluded left wing commentators turn on him you know his time is coming to an end.

After the beating he's going to get in the coming May elections will the man with the brain the size of a planet still be in office?

My own view is that he should stop dithering and grow some Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Balls that is. :yes:

[Geoffrey S]

And the best part? The other guy is probably even worse :shame:

[CountArach]

And the best part? The other guy is probably even worse :shame:
Welcome to Democracy.

[Fragony]

Total :daisy: poor england, these guys make our crypto-communist governherd look like hardliners. Just bend over for your salafisting droopy.

[Pannonian]

Despite our very different political views, this is why I enjoy reading the Fragmeister.

[Fragony]

Despite our very different political views, this is why I enjoy reading the Fragmeister.

Hey thanks :beam:

[naut]

He's a completely useless git.

[Mikeus Caesar]

https://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9173/1204974101948px2.jpg

The words 'blithering' and 'idiot' were invented 500 years ago by Nostradamus, especially for Gordon Brown.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pinhead. Brown is a turd.

It could definitely be worse, though.


PS - i broke and finally looked up "salafisting" in google. Nothing, just two pages that mention it. What does it mean?

[Fragony]

PS - i broke and finally looked up "salafisting" in google. Nothing, just two pages that mention it. What does it mean?

That's just me being a nuissance, salafism is the saudi version of islam, and fisting, ah well you get it. English is fun.

[InsaneApache]

He sold our gold reserves at a point in the cycle when the price of auric was at it's lowest and then just to compound this dreadful error he announced to the markets that he would be selling the stuff, thus further depressing the market. Supply and demand Gordon FFS it's 'O' level economics you pillock!

The man couldn't run a bath.

Here is the measure of the man blaming the tories for him selling the family silver at bargain basement prices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDm8zGwcdZ4&eurl=http://thecrownblogspot.blogspot.com/2008/04/brown-squrms-out-from-blame-again.html


You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

I'm with Ollie on this one. :2thumbsup:

[Kaidonni]

He sold our gold reserves at a point in the cycle when the price of auric was at it's lowest and then just to compound this dreadful error he announced to the markets that he would be selling the stuff, thus further depressing the market. Supply and demand Gordon FFS it's 'O' level economics you pillock!

The man couldn't run a bath.

Here is the measure of the man blaming the tories for him selling the family silver at bargain basement prices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDm8zGwcdZ4&eurl=http://thecrownblogspot.blogspot.com/2008/04/brown-squrms-out-from-blame-again.html



I'm with Ollie on this one. :2thumbsup:

You forgot to mention raiding the pension funds, too.

[InsaneApache]

You forgot to mention raiding the pension funds, too.

I'm coming to that one. :wink:

[LittleGrizzly]

I was quite looking forward to Brown taking over from Blair but so far little has materialised and mistakes have been made, that being said when it comes down to the crunch i would vote brown anyday over a tory leader.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was quite looking forward to Brown taking over from Blair but so far little has materialised and mistakes have been made, that being said when it comes down to the crunch i would vote brown anyday over a tory leader.

That pretty much goes without saying. I prefer the Labour party to the Tories in the UK. The Tories are like a heartless and out of touch version of the G.O.P.

When will you get a decent alternative to Blair's party?

[Vladimir]

That pretty much goes without saying. I prefer the Labour party to the Tories in the UK. The Tories are like a heartless and out of touch version of the G.O.P.

:laugh4:

I'm sure you'll have plenty of people who say that is the GOP.

[naut]

Blair and Brown planned their strategy to make Britain a Socialist state of Europe, long before they hi-jacked the leadership of the Labour Party. They believed , correctly, that as the Tory Prime Minister, Edward Heath, tricked us into voting for the Common Market, the Tories would not open themselves up to ridicule by oposing too strongly the expanding power and influence of the EU.

Blair decimated parliament and sidestepped democratic proccess, while Brown forced every minister to toe the line by controlling their purse strings.

The second stage was a straight out of the Marxist's hand book, disenfranchise and destroy the host nation's culture using the weapon of mass immigration.
(Remember, that even at the height of the terrorist outrages, our border police were ordered to waive people through without any checks whatsoever.)

Insist that alien traditions and practices hold equal sway under the law.

Ban freedom of speech and expression, and install a climate of fear.

Recruit state employers to report on, and to spy on their neighbours, and increase use of surveillance equipment.

Create anarchy by diverting police forces away from physical crime to deal with crimes of anti-deology and political correctness.

Close informal meeting places of those old enough to object to what is happening, such as the Post Office.

Blair and Brown lied their way into power on back of a televised promise of, "No plans to raise income tax."

Rather misleading when they were planning the biggest tax hikes this country has ever seen.

Never has any 'free' nation tolerated the amount of interference by the state into their private lives, as the English are forced to now.

The humourous part about it is, that each and every one of us has the right in law to tell the state and its minions to get lost.

The Universal Decalration of Human Rights. Article 12.
'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary intrfence with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Green Packs to sell your home? Unlawful.

Camera weilding officials inside your home? Unlawful.

Spy chips in your Wheely Bin? Unlawful.

Satelitte spying on you or your property? Unlawful.

CCTV cameras moitoring your movements in a public place? Unlawful.

Your details held on police computers though you have not been found guilty or even charged with a criminal offence? Unlawful.

And the list of illegal activities being carried out by the State seems endless.

Download a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the European version designed by the commies to deny you the irrevocable rights and freedoms as granted to you by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is a simple and fairly short piece of legislation written in laman's English.

Learn your rights and then demand them!
Found that somewhere on the net, a while back, rather interesting points.

Oh and not to forget Broon picking his nose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VaP1HB7Vew&NR=1).

[Kralizec]

People are going to declare me insane, but I'd vote and probably volunteer to campaign for the liberal democrats. I like some of their positions (proportional representation for teh win) and besides there's no way they could do worse then either the other two.

[Pannonian]

That pretty much goes without saying. I prefer the Labour party to the Tories in the UK. The Tories are like a heartless and out of touch version of the G.O.P.

When will you get a decent alternative to Blair's party?
The Tories have always been heartless. The main argument they had going for them in the past is that they were significantly more competent in government than Labour. Especially since their reinvention under Thatcher, the Tories would be guaranteed to screw the poor, the foreign, the helpless, etc. as a matter of doctrine, but that's the way of the world, and the Tories were very good at carrying this through. In comparison, raised to its peak under Foot (Thatcher's opponent in 83), Labour were guaranteed to screw the country good and proper, but at least they were well meaning and had the right intentions.

The old distinctions were deliberately blurred by Blair, who ran on a platform not of ideological difference, but of more competent governance. Thatcherism was adopted wholesale by New Labour, who recognised the new liberalised political landscape (Thatcher made liberalism fashionable), but sold themselves as more in touch with the people. Given this wholesale stealing of their clothes, all the Tories could do was take the punches and wait for Labour to slip up and prove themselves hopelessly incompetent again.

Ironically, many of the worst disasters that the Labour government has seen under Blair and Brown have come from an overenthusiastic adoption of Thatcherite policies and trends. The rail system failed because its privatisation (under Major) was fundamentally unsound, resulting in many calling for its renationalisation. Northern Rock's collapse was another failure of a private company, with the government effectively nationalising it to preclude worse disasters. The British military's winddown is the continuation of a postwar trend of costcutting and downsizing, accelerating under Thatcher (famously provoking the Falklands war). The ridiculous overcommitment of the military can be seen as an aberration, which would correct itself once the evangelistic Blair was gone.

The most unforgivable mistake Labour made, which couldn't be accounted for by any political trends, was, of course, the Iraq war, whose idiocy was plain to a significant majority of the country even before it happened. After Iraq, no-one had any hope left that Labour would carry the country forward, and they were reelected in 2005 on the understanding that they would only be in power for as long as they could demonstrate good government. Any mistakes, and the country's patience would be at an end.

[Kralizec]

Especially since their reinvention under Thatcher, the Tories would be guaranteed to screw the poor, the foreign, the helpless, etc. as a matter of doctrine, but that's the way of the world, and the Tories were very good at carrying this through. In comparison, raised to its peak under Foot (Thatcher's opponent in 83), Labour were guaranteed to screw the country good and proper, but at least they were well meaning and had the right intentions.

Before Thatcher the Tories were a self-declared unideological party who emphasized "if it's not broke, don't fix it" policies and where change was necessary, to do it slowly and incrementally. They left Atlee's reforms mostly in place and the public liked them well enough to let them rule for the greater part of the next three decades. Thatcher was a radical in comparison and took the party in an entirely new direction.

[Justiciar]

People are going to declare me insane, but I'd vote and probably volunteer to campaign for the liberal democrats. I like some of their positions (proportional representation for teh win) and besides there's no way they could do worse then either the other two.
Ah. The Lib Dems. Lesser of three evils, greater of three jokes. :no:

[rory_20_uk]

I quite liked the English Democrats - although mainly as they are in essence an interest group rather than a option to govern the country.

Conservatives prior to Thatcher let matters slide along with Labour. We're back doing the same thing:

Finances in growth - negative
Finances in recession - more negative

What the government gives out is not sustainable in its current form, and Brown isn't really helping. Currently hiing an average of a new advisor every weeks. :soapbox:

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

5 most evil people of all time in no particular order:

1. Adolf Hitler
2. Josef Stalin
3. Pol Pot
4. Timur the Lame
5. Margaret Thatcher

OK maybe a slight exaggeration, but unfortunately the Labour Party has chosen to become the true heir to Margaret Thatcher, leaving British (not English Fragony!) voters with little meaningful choice come election time.

I do not see how having two parties alternate in power depending on how long it takes for their incompetence to show can possibly be beneficial for the country.

Gordon Brown, like all the New Labour team, is a pinhead.

:furious3:

[Fragony]

leaving British (not English Fragony!)

I know that

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know that

Just stirring up some trouble then...:shame:

[King Henry V]

That pretty much goes without saying. I prefer the Labour party to the Tories in the UK. The Tories are like a heartless and out of touch version of the G.O.P.

When will you get a decent alternative to Blair's party?

They're the natural party of government (or were, until Mrs Thatcher stuffed the party with her yuppie allies and other such parvenus), of course they're heartless.

[LittleGrizzly]

People are going to declare me insane, but I'd vote and probably volunteer to campaign for the liberal democrats. I like some of their positions (proportional representation for teh win) and besides there's no way they could do worse then either the other two.

No laughing here they are the ony political party i have ever voted for, It was mainly as an anti-Iraq war vote but the Lib Dems are alot closer to my views than the Cons or Lab, as i live in a safe labour seat i will probably be voting Lib Dems again.

[JAG]

Rythmic - that is one of the most hilarious and stupid posts I have possibly ever seen on this board - and that is saying something. Quite how you think it is 'interesting' is beyond me, it is straight off some 13 year olds blog, devoid of reality or reason. Anyway....

It is quite possible for Brown to be neither a genius or pinhead - and he is pretty much in the middle.

He is not a good PM in my opinion, but he isn't a disaster either. The tax changes have been disasterous, talk about selling off your base - and his PR moves have likewise been terrible.

In fact, I can't really defend too much of his record because it has either been pandering to the middle class - a three year pander I am sure it will be in leading up to the elections two years from now - or it has been ineffecial and even somewhat non-existent.

My views on the state of our nation is in a pretty bleak state right now, I don't really know where to turn.

[Furious Mental]

Rhythmic if you don't want the Parliamentary majority to be able to enact whatever laws it wants you will either have to convince the rest of Britain to adopt a different constitutional system or move to another country.

[English assassin]

People are going to declare me insane, but I'd vote and probably volunteer to campaign for the liberal democrats.

You are insane. What exactly is it about a bunch of wooly minded middle class whingers that you think fits them to run the country? :beam:

I've met a few LD candidates in my time, and I have never once thought anything other than that I was meeting a sad little man/woman who needed to get a wash, a haircut, and most importantly laid.

I'd rather have Alan B'Stard or Dave Spart any day.


The Tories are like a heartless and out of touch version of the G.O.P.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Republicans but from what I do know the Tories bear little resemblance to them. For a start the Tories have no (meaningful) religious right, have always been much more international in outlook, I seriously hope no Tory party would ever have pursued Bush's dont tax and do spend economic policies, I can't imagine the GOP being as in favour of vested interests (ahem, well, ok, but what I mean is I don't think of the republicans as being small c conservatives) and so on.

IMHO the Tories more resemble a slightly more reactionary version of the democrats, although the resemblance isn't that close.

You can't learn anything about the Tories from Thatcher. She wasn't really a Tory, she was a Whig, and of a particular sort. Nothing wrong with whigs, but very different animals. Just contrast her with Cameron, who I think truly is a Tory, for good and bad.

[LittleGrizzly]

You are insane. What exactly is it about a bunch of wooly minded middle class whingers that you think fits them to run the country?

I tend to think of Daily Mail when i think of middle class whiners, which basically leads me to think of the conservative labour party (ive decided recently they are infact one party tricking us into thinking thier 2 partys)

But i do think the LD's have had some good policys over the years....
Keep the same basic income from tax but shift the burden more from the poorest to the richest
Cannabis Legalisation, the only major party to have it as a policy
The Iraq war, the only party that said no
The most impressive array of green policys the Con Lab party is still catching up.
The most dissenting party when it came to the wave of anti-terror legislation

Thats just off the top of my head but they are 5 policys i fully support. I realise as they never seem like they're going to be in power they could just be pandering to the electorate and none of thier individual politicians are paticularly inspiring but just based on policy IMO the LD's are streets ahead of the Con Lab party

[Marius Dynamite]

I don't think that any of the big politicians in the UK have the nations best interests at heart. They should therefore put me in charge.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Britain has become a one-party state. We need some foreign power to come and liberate us. Or a series of communist/nationalist revolutions to split the country apart.

Lets start in Scotland. Its quite funny how the Labour Party are fighting with the nationalists because Labour don't want to achnowledge Trade Unions.

Its a sad, sad situation. For all the faults of the SNP, at least they are not closet Thatcherites.:no:

[InsaneApache]

BNP

[LittleGrizzly]

Its a sad, sad situation. For all the faults of the SNP, at least they are not closet Thatcherites

I have a natural idealogical problem with nationalist partys but the SNP and to a lesser extent Plaid Cymru seem to be more in line with my views than the Con Lab Party.

[InsaneApache]

I liked his policy of shafting the poorest wage earners in society to fund my tax breaks. In fact if he keeps up this eminently sensible tax system I'll probably vote Labour on May the 1st.

Yay! for Gordy baby. :2thumbsup:

Oh and don't worry about his U-turn, it's nowt of the sort. He's only promising to look at the situation. :whip:

Now if he could find some British jobs for British workers, the jobs a gud 'un. :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

I liked his policy of shafting the poorest wage earners in society to fund my tax breaks. In fact if he keeps up this eminently sensible tax system I'll probably vote Labour on May the 1st.

Yay! for Gordy baby. :2thumbsup:

Oh and don't worry about his U-turn, it's nowt of the sort. He's only promising to look at the situation. :whip:

Now if he could find some British jobs for British workers, the jobs a gud 'un. :laugh4:

Sounds like a lot of tripe here in the US. The poorest wage earners don't pay income tax yet they're somehow receiving a disservice when those who do have their taxes lowered.

I despise sales and value added taxes. Their regressive nature truly does place a larger burden on the poor. Maybe you're talking about those kinds of taxes.

[InsaneApache]

Sounds like a lot of tripe here in the US. The poorest wage earners don't pay income tax yet they're somehow receiving a disservice when those who do have their taxes lowered.

I despise sales and value added taxes. Their regressive nature truly does place a larger burden on the poor. Maybe you're talking about those kinds of taxes.

Nope. Our Great (unelected) Leader has decreed that those on the lowest pay must pay more in tax. In fact he doubled the rate for the little beggers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3807163.ece

That'll teach the swine.

[Vladimir]

Sorry but that's a bunch of bla bla bla. Who makes 10 pence a year? :juggle2:

Anyway, it's not a very clear article. One of the comments was that they established the 10p bracket only to take it away. When was it established? Who established it? How many pounds, Euros, or peanuts is that a year? What is it?

[Craterus]

Nope. Our Great (unelected) Leader has decreed that those on the lowest pay must pay more in tax. In fact he doubled the rate for the little beggers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3807163.ece

That'll teach the swine.

You don't elect a leader, you elect a government and that's Labour, for now. If people (and the media) would stop concentrating so much on the leaders, the message might get through that the criticism needs to be spread out a bit.

Maybe if the Tories were competent as an opposition, some of these unagreeable policies might not go through.

[Flying Pig]

This is MI5. Flying Pig has been executed for daring to see this thread. All those who read this risk their lives. All hail Comrade Brown, 1st tyrant since Cromwell!

[Vladimir]

This is MI5. Flying Pig has been executed for daring to see this thread. All those who read this risk their lives. All hail Comrade Brown, 1st tyrant since Cromwell!

Good. You people could do well with another Army reformation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think its about time we completed the 'Godly Reformation'. From now on we will be represented in government by our local militia. Royalists will be executed and have all their posessions given to the poor! Titus Oates can be head of MI5 to uncover any Popish plots.

At least Cromwell was more interesting than Brown. I think I need to establish the Puritan Republican Party. All vote for the PRP!

[InsaneApache]

Blimey you lot in Auld Scotia been sniffing petrol again? No, wait! You aint got none. :oops:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Blimey you lot in Auld Scotia been sniffing petrol again? No, wait! You aint got none. :oops:

The strike was made up, thats the real reason why its gone.:beam:

[InsaneApache]

Well done Gordy baby, mission (the destruction of [Za]NuLabour) almost accomplished. :thumbsup:


The last time Labour did this badly in a local election, the Beatles were in the charts and Flower Power was all the rage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7379275.stm

:laugh4:

Now Gordon, pay attention, you must stay on course penalising the poorest members of society, that retrospective tax on cars 7 years old and older was a stroke of genius. It's up there with doubling the tax the poorest pay, you've played a blinder!

I propose a slogan for the general election.......

[Za]NuLabour, the party that taxes the poor the most, you know it makes sense.

:beam:

[Banquo's Ghost]

[Za]NuLabour, the party that taxes the poor the most, you know it makes sense.

God knows I hold no candle for the British Labour party, but don't you think it's a bit much to equate them with an utterly murderous, anti-democratic, tyrannical regime?

Maybe I'm suffering a sense of humour failure, but it just doesn't seem right or funny. Whatever Brown's faults.

:shame:

[InsaneApache]

God knows I hold no candle for the British Labour party, but don't you think it's a bit much to equate them with an utterly murderous, anti-democratic, tyrannical regime?

Maybe I'm suffering a sense of humour failure, but it just doesn't seem right or funny. Whatever Brown's faults.

:shame:

Oh I dunno, it seems quite apt. Detention without trial. The use of anti-terror legislation to spy on and prosecute members of the public. The introduction of I.D. cards, which whilst trumpeted as voluntary, you will need one to access services, whether you like it or not. Banning of political protests within a click of Parliament. The list goes on and on.

Seems a perfect analogy.

[Adrian II]

Oh I dunno, it seems quite apt. Detention without trial. The use of anti-terror legislation to spy on and prosecute members of the public. The introduction of I.D. cards, which whilst trumpeted as voluntary, you will need one to access services, whether you like it or not. Banning of political protests within a click of Parliament. The list goes on and on.

Seems a perfect analogy.You forget a one-party state, widespread political torture and murder, a controlled press, violent land reform, massive ballot fraud, wide-spread nepotism, food shortages.. need we go on? :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

Give him a chance, he's only been in power ten months. It took Mugabe thirty years. :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm still supporting Cromwell.

[JAG]

I think it is fair to say we didn't have a good night. Hopefully as Ian Gibson stated on the BBC last night it brings out the best in the Labour movement and we start tacklicng the real fundamental problems in this nation - while we still can.

Not a good night for Labour supporters though.

[Vladimir]

I'm sure some are already longing for the good old days of Blair.

[Craterus]

Has anyone suggested a positive reason to vote for Cameron other than the fact he's not Labour?

[LittleGrizzly]

Has anyone suggested a positive reason to vote for Cameron other than the fact he's not Labour?

im sure theres one...... umm....... some hardcore torys think hes too left wing (best i can do)

[Craterus]

I think you misunderstood my point.

I'm saying that people are anti-Labour, not pro-Tory. And that's hardly a reason to put some idiot Etonian into power.

[Adrian II]

Not a good night for Labour supporters though.You can say that again. Labour comes in third in share of voters, with 24% behind the Lib Dems 25%. Maybe some commentators are right that the majority don't really like the Conservatives or Lib Dems any better, in which case they must be really fed up with Labour.

Now I wonder why that is? :dizzy2:

If I were British, I'd have probably voted Lib Dem, too. They seem to be the only decent choice for anyone in the UK with a Socialist outlook these days. Social justice without an invasive nanny state, no more silly foreign adventures, further integration into the EU, oh, and let's keep our donations legal and above board, shall we?

Labour might at least have taken that last one to heart. Between Tony - 'let me clear that deal with Rome for you, Rupert' - Blair through Gordon - 'Can't recall that I met him, don't remember if I received money, cannot even remember what bloody day of the week it is, but listen to my great vision' Brown right down to Peter - 'I must have been too busy to notice that £103,000 donation'- Hain, Labour has become more of a racket than a political party.

Sorry JAG. You may shoot me now.

[InsaneApache]

Frivolity aside.

It has been extraordinary watching the last 10 months unfold. I've never before witnessed a political party commit mutual suicide in such a short space of time. Quite extraordinary.

GB seems to suffer from a 'reverse' Midas effect. Everything he touches turns to crap. A lot of people pinned their hopes on this man. After Blair he was looked upon as a saviour of sorts. He didn't rise to the occasion, he just floated about for a bit. Unless Nu-lab ditch him they will be in the wilderness again for another twenty years. Unfortunately it seems that it can't happen, I'm sure JAG could explain the complexities of the Nu-Lab constitution.

Gordon Brown is the classic example of 'The Peter Principal'.

@ JAG, kudos sir on your post. :bow:

[English assassin]

If I were British, I'd have probably voted Lib Dem, too. They seem to be the only decent choice for anyone in the UK with a Socialist outlook these days. Social justice without an invasive nanny state, no more silly foreign adventures, further integration into the EU, oh, and let's keep our donations legal and above board, shall we?

Lord, where to start?

First, LD's aren't socialists, but I guess you know that and meant social democrats.

Second, you are clearly talking about the SDP wing of the party, and not the so called orange book lot, who are at least truly liberal. Your lot are socially liberal and economically, well, its like the last 50 years didn't happen isn't? If you still belive in punitive taxation and a central command economy for the welfare state you really have not been paying attention. Or maybe you think our NHS actually works?

Foreign adventures: You are quite right, the liberals did indeed bravely oppose the overthrow of a fascist dictator. Top marks to them for principle. Also, of course, if you oppose everything, sooner or later you have to be right on something (although I would be interested to hear the case for fascist dictators remaining in power)

EU, yep, I'm in favour of that. Just as soon as, shall we say, the French impliment as many directives as the British, and the auditors sign off a years accounts as not infected with fraud.

Donations: Are you for real? Have a little google of 5th Avenue Partners Ltd, and Michael Brown.


And that's hardly a reason to put some idiot Etonian into power.

Is idiot Etonian the best you can do? Its not exactly F. E. Smith is it? Not "He was the future once"? Not "a modest man, with much to be modest about"? Its not even at the level of Alan Clark sneering at Michael Heseltine that he had to “buy his own furniture” (the retort was better, that this was a bit rich, coming from a man who had to buy his own castle.)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I guess Adrian just minced his words, since he seems to have a bizarrely detailed knowledge of completely random parts of history, so I would'nt like to argue with him.

But there does seem to be some slight misconceptions on the continent about the nature of British parties. I knew a German guy that went to my school who said he was voting for the Liberal Democracts because they were a socialist party. He also couldn't believe my parents were voting for the SNP (I just missed out, 17 at the time), because he thought they were the Scottish branch of the BNP. :laugh4:

Well done to Boris on the election results. I think this may be the beginning of the end for New Labour.

[Craterus]

Is idiot Etonian the best you can do?

I think it's a valid point.

But here's some more:

Look back at his career, he's never had a proper job (outside of politics, which is hardly a job) aside from working at Carlton. Bearing in mind his rich kid past, it's fair to say he knows nothing of life outside of the upper class (as demonstrated by his hug-a-hoody initiative).

He was also a Special Adviser behind that fantastic moment in Conservative history: Black Wednesday. The guy's just full of bright ideas.

So, why vote for him? Enlighten me. Because the main reason seems to be disillusion with Labour and I for one don't think he's capable of doing a better job.

[Adrian II]

Lord, where to start?Indeed, I see you haven't a clue where to start, let alone when to get real. Nice to see I touched the old nerve. Oh, and your NHS could learn a thing or two from French health care, but I guess you knew that already.

Brown struck only a vague chord so I googled him. Turns out the 2005 donation was all above board (properly reported, as it should be since 2001) and legal. The Electoral Commission declared in 2006:


Between February and May 2005, 5th Avenue Partners Limited made donations totalling around £2.4million to the Liberal Democrats. In October 2005 the Commission took the view that, based on all the evidence which the party had, and subject to any further information becoming available, it was reasonable for the party to regard the donations as having been permissible.There was no string attached either. Brown is still mad that they 'just took my money and said "Goodbye"'. Only afterwards did it turn out that Mr Brown was a fraud. Stuff happens, but it was mainly Mr Brown who stuffed himself.

[English assassin]

Look back at his career, he's never had a proper job (outside of politics, which is hardly a job) aside from working at Carlton. Bearing in mind his rich kid past, it's fair to say he knows nothing of life outside of the upper class (as demonstrated by his hug-a-hoody initiative).

Gordon Brown was a politics lecturer for a few years, then an MP. Working at Carlton looks pretty good in comparison.

You aren't exactly open minded on this one, are you? People just have to fit into their class background and that's that. They aren't people, are they, they are labels, "Etonian" "rich", whatever. If you're rich you just can't know about the poor.

Fair enough, you do belong on the Left. I hope they can find you a black/white man/woman/gay/straight/disabled-but-only-at-the-weekend candidate earning exactly the national average wage, because otherwise you'll be having to vote for someone who knows nothing of some part of life today, won't you?

@ AII, the point stands. The one big LD donation came from a fraudster giving away other people's money. The EC looked the other way, probably rightly, why make martyrs of them? Say what you like about Labour, when they bent over for Bernie Ecclestone, David Abrahams, Powderject and all the rest, at least they were being bribed with money that the donor actually owned. Its pretty easy to be moral when no one actually wants to bribe you, but the LDs even failed that test.


He also couldn't believe my parents were voting for the SNP (I just missed out, 17 at the time), because he thought they were the Scottish branch of the BNP.

Interesting But what, exactly, IS the difference between Scotland for the Scots and Scottish culture is best, and Britain for the British and British culture is best?

Nationalists are like religious fundamentalists. They are all the same, it's only the detail that differs. And the detail only matters to another nationalist.

[Adrian II]

@ AII, the point stands. The one big LD donation came from a fraudster giving away other people's money.Which they learned well after the fact like everyone else. And my point stands that it was legal and above board. It was not a bribe.

[JAG]

We arn't getting rid of Brown, we are with him now unfortunately until the bitter end of being in government. If he wins the next election we will be stuck with him until the following one when he will more than likely loose. It is hard for us to suddenly change leader anyway.

I don't buy this 'no one voted for the Tories, they voted against Labour'. It is rubbish, people did actively want to vote for the Tories, for pete's sake even I think that they have some better positions than Labour, and I hate thier bleeding guts. People don't like what they see from Labour and do see things in the Tories which is enough to vote for them. It is not a simple 'pinch my nose, not look and vote Tory' it is far more than that - and I think the Tories are the ones benefiting from the myth that it is, as it leads to Labour thinking that if they were just a little bit more right wing they would be fine - a little bit more 'central'. Far from the case. People in the North are not voting Tory because they are only fed up with Labour, the last 3 general elections show that is not the case, the Tories are actually saying things that appeal and Labour have got their pants down, screming about tax cuts for middle England.

Ah well, it is depressing days and this is the political current and situation I find myself in, when leaving university with a politics degree and possibly having to try and gain employment by some of these people. Crazy.

[Adrian II]

We arn't getting rid of Brown, we are with him now unfortunately until the bitter end of being in government. If he wins the next election we will be stuck with him until the following one when he will more than likely loose. It is hard for us to suddenly change leader anyway.

I don't buy this 'no one voted for the Tories, they voted against Labour'. It is rubbish, people did actively want to vote for the Tories, for pete's sake even I think that they have some better positions than Labour, and I hate thier bleeding guts. People don't like what they see from Labour and do see things in the Tories which is enough to vote for them. It is not a simple 'pinch my nose, not look and vote Tory' it is far more than that - and I think the Tories are the ones benefiting from the myth that it is, as it leads to Labour thinking that if they were just a little bit more right wing they would be fine - a little bit more 'central'. Far from the case. People in the North are not voting Tory because they are only fed up with Labour, the last 3 general elections show that is not the case, the Tories are actually saying things that appeal and Labour have got their pants down, screming about tax cuts for middle England.

Ah well, it is depressing days and this is the political current and situation I find myself in, when leaving university with a politics degree and possibly having to try and gain employment by some of these people. Crazy.Like someone else already said, kudos to you for taking such a sober approach. You've got balls, JAG, and I am sure you'll go places under whatever government. :bow:

[English assassin]

It does seem strange watching another one of these slow motion car crashes. Its the completely avoidable self inflicted wounds I can never understand. What on earth possessed him to monkey with the 10p rate?

Having spent the last month on the stump, and the happiest day's knocking up for, oh, about 14 years on Thursday, people certainly are voting for the Tories as much as against Brown. (Funnily enough, not that many people were against Ken, though whereas for the first time ever I felt involved in a campaign against an individual who it was positively necessary to have excluded from politics. But then identity politicians who fellow- travel with antisemites have that effect on me.)

In a bid to show JAG isn't the only one who can take a slightly broader view, though, I am afraid not very much is changing. Now that the argument about socialism has been comprehensively settled, and until the next real issue of substance comes along, the fight is really who's got the brand to capture the centre to centre-right. Blair had it. Cameron's got it. Brown hasn't. I almost feel a tiny bit sorry for him, he's like a contestant on Big Brother who thinks the best man wins, while meanwhile his opponent is flashing her tits in the shower.

One last comment though: Cameron really does get the green thing. Its not greenwash. Sure, the Tories aren't "lets live in a teepee" green, thank god, but they are "This is a big issue like stuffing the Soviets was a big issue" green.

Not too impressed with the BNP getting in. This is not a failure on the part of people who voted BNP, its a failure on the part of all the other parties not giving those people a batter alternative. (I apologise: an alternative that they understood was better). The BNP is obviously not going anywahere because they are far too stupid, so there's no need for bed wetting, but still it calls for a better response than, in effect, the voters got it wrong*.


*although obviously they did

[Rhyfelwyr]

Interesting But what, exactly, IS the difference between Scotland for the Scots and Scottish culture is best, and Britain for the British and British culture is best?

Nationalists are like religious fundamentalists. They are all the same, it's only the detail that differs. And the detail only matters to another nationalist.

Well I don't support the SNP, but I would not say they are your standard crazed nationalist group. The Jacobite Party might be more along the lines you are thinking of. Their plans include conquering northern England, adding Newcastle FC, Sunderland, Carlisle etc to the Scottish Football Leagues, and banning foreign players from playing in Scotland.

I don't like any of them. Scottish Unionist Party look OK, other than that we have a crap choice of parties.

And on the topic, while I don't think upper-class people should be dismissed from politics, Boris doesn't seem to offer a lot other than not being a Labour candidate. His father said that we should take him seriously because he hadn't had a drink for a few months. He seemed a bit more reluctant to mention policy...

Although on the whole I wouldn't just say the recent results were an anti-Labour vote. Its like they are trying to make themselves look like the natural party of government with such talk.

[Fragony]

Like someone else already said, kudos to you for taking such a sober approach.

A bit of common sense is so easily apreciated, maybe it was all just bull to begin with. Now there is the vile treason that is closing local post-offices :inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

A bit of common sense is so easily apreciated, maybe it was all just bull to begin with. Now there is the vile treason that is closing local post-offices :inquisitive:Are you drunk?

[Fragony]

Hmmm don't remember writing that and I don't know what I meant with it so that must equal yes.

[Adrian II]

Hmmm don't remember writing that and I don't know what I meant with it so that must equal yes.That's alright. Easy now, today is a Sunday and you're in Holland. Post offices are closed today. Some lightly topped toast and a white beer with a slice of lemon will get you back on your feet. Don't drink in the sun though, you'll get dizzy spells.

[Papewaio]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/how-boris-triumphed-in-london/2008/05/04/1209839454647.html


IT HAS been dubbed the "doughnut" strategy, the relentless, circular onslaught on London that delivered victory and the coveted mayoral chains to the Tory pin-up boy Boris Johnson - and was masterminded by the Australian political tactician Lynton Crosby.

Crosby - who reportedly earned £140,000 ($295,000) for his four-month stint - understood immediately that not only did his Oxford-educated jokester require a tight leash, but also that he was not the man for the tough, white neighbourhood council estates or the enormous tracts of London dominated by immigrants.

Rather, he borrowed from his success with John Howard and targeted the middle-class, aspirational - but swinging - voter, and focused on the bread-and-butter issues of transport, the cost of living and personal safety.

Already the media now the political masterminds... Aussie, Aussie, Aussie,
Oi, Oi, Oi!

Muhahahahahaa!

[rory_20_uk]

Of course Jag is against Brown, and any other party that takes power as none will balance the requisite ideals of the Ultra Left and the success that "proper" instigation of these ideals would achieve; case in point post offices: they are loss making because few people use them. If people really REALLY wanted them all they have to do is pop along and buy the stuff they sell.

Sure, it's over £200 million a year, but that can be recovered by taxing the Undeserving who earn high salaries for basically nothing (obviously). These high earners and their companies will passively sit there whilst the tax increases higher than anywhere else.

London is overcrowded, expensive to live in and housing is expensive... yet there is housing for the unemployed??!?

If they really wanted to help the middle incomes with 2 jobs and kids then scrap council housing and build more in cheaper areas.

Boris deserves a chance. Ken had 8 years and was renowned as a dictator wannabee from his previous time in charge so he needed a taste of humility.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

London is overcrowded, expensive to live in and housing is expensive... yet there is housing for the unemployed??!?

Now I am sure you had a point there somewhere , but for the life of me I cannot work out what the hell you are on about .


If they really wanted to help the middle incomes with 2 jobs and kids then scrap council housing and build more in cheaper areas.

What you mean like the overspill towns with the parents spending hours and a fortune commuting and the latch key kids left to their own devices .
Thats I good idea , I bet they never tried that before :dizzy2:


Boris deserves a chance.
Have you read any of his policies , listened to any of his "ideas" ?

[rory_20_uk]

Few politicians will keep to their ideas, so what they come up with in their manefesto is at best a rough idea of what they hope people want to hear.

My point regarding council housing in London is rather simple: you get more bang for buck elsewhere. This would then reduce pressures on property as more was available - the housing in cheap areas would be for those that have to be given housing but don't work and therefore don't commute.

Thus this would help the overspill towns (albeit in the short term) as more could move closer to wherre they work; but where parents decide towork is a money vs quality of life decision.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

My point regarding council housing in London is rather simple
Your point is pure nonsense .

[Adrian II]

Your point is pure nonsense .A fine specimen of DH3. :bow:

Any news on the Saturday marching orders for London's youf?

[Tribesman]

A fine specimen of DH3.
well Adrian since the original was rather dubious to put it lightly and the following explanation was even worse there isn't really a need to point out why the bollox written is so testicular in nature is there , it speaks for itself .


Any news on the Saturday marching orders for London's youf?

Not since yesterday , didn't you find it in Londons own version of the Daily Mail ?
But anyway it seems like its just a re-hash of the old attendance centres Thatcher tried , they failed miserably for some reason that quite escapes me for the moment ,.
Though I think possibly the reason may be because the idea was bollox:2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

A fine specimen of DH3. :bow:

Any news on the Saturday marching orders for London's youf?

I think this is what my esteemed colleague is on about:

Boriswatch (Evening Standard) (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23482556-details/Boris+war+on+knife+gangs/article.do).

And it's not really his idea - Respect schools (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/respect-good-manners-to-be-taught-in-schools-446689.html).

Of course, I may be wrong, but this is the nearest you're going to get to a link from Ireland. :wink:

[Adrian II]

I think this is what my esteemed colleague is on about:

Boriswatch (Evening Standard) (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23482556-details/Boris+war+on+knife+gangs/article.do).

And it's not really his idea - Respect schools (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/respect-good-manners-to-be-taught-in-schools-446689.html).

Of course, I may be wrong, but this is the nearest you're going to get to a link from Ireland. :wink:I see.

So it's merely for 'troubled teenagers' and instead of marching it involves 'sports, academic subjects, competition, discipline and punishment'.

And Johnson is planning to recruit 440 policemen, not 40, to help enforce the drinking ban on the tube.

[Tribesman]

And Johnson is planning to recruit 440 policemen, not 40, to help enforce the drinking ban on the tube.
Yesterday 19:52

Nope the 440 are not policemen , they are pcsomethingsomething officers or whatever the new term is for the part time unpaid volunteer constabulary .
The 40 proper police officers is what he said the other day though he had promised 50 in his manifesto , I suppose that change in his pledge might be down to costs as the 440 specials are exactly what he pledged .


So it's merely for 'troubled teenagers' and instead of marching it involves 'sports, academic subjects, competition, discipline and punishment'.

Nope , I might have to post the other Stadard article , it definately quotes Boris saying marching and teaching good manners .

[InsaneApache]

"Remember," one Labour backbencher murmured to me yesterday, "it's his finger on the nuclear button."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/the-sketch-the-denial-of-a-man-who-cannot-accept-being-wrong-824581.html?startindex=10

Believe it or not I'm beginning to feel sorry for Gordon. The man's obviously mentally ill and should not be in any sort of public office. I'm not joking either.

[Adrian II]

Believe it or not I'm beginning to feel sorry for Gordon. The man's obviously mentally ill and should not be in any sort of public office. I'm not joking either.Oh please, that is the lowest level of public debate. If you say that Gordon Brown/Boris Johnson/George Bush/Hillary Clinton is mad, you cut short all political analysis. And ultimately, such talk encourages real madmen to shoot at politicians.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh please, that is the lowest level of public debate. If you say that Gordon Brown/Boris Johnson/George Bush/Hillary Clinton is mad, you cut short all political analysis. And ultimately, such talk encourages real madmen to shoot at politicians.

Your point is well made, but there is a kernel of truth in IA's post too. It has been reported that the Prime Minister is getting by on four or less hours of sleep a night. You just have to look at him to see how ill he has become since taking office.

Whilst not madness, sleep deprivation can produce all the symptoms. Lady Thatcher was reputed to survive on about the same, but she started with a very high - almost demonic - energy and drive, whereas Mr Brown is a more phlegmatic character. She also lost the plot, not as early, but as decisively. Add to that the observation that Gordon Brown is very clearly out of his depth, with the crushing realisation that brings to a man's ego and the necessary denial that follows, and the UK has a serious problem - which may be resolved by the terrible prospect of the PM suffering a nervous breakdown.

People in high office should be forced to get a decent night's sleep. Their judgement affects lives and shouldn't be compromised by false machismo.

[Adrian II]

Your point is well made, but there is a kernel of truth in IA's post too. It has been reported that the Prime Minister is getting by on four or less hours of sleep a night.So does a host of other politicians. It has been reported that Margaret Thatcher ate babies and visited the secret headquarters of the Illimunati at night, there to be initiated in the rites of the Ascended Masters of WooÇh'tlhyuhh. It didn't stop her from making huge mistakes in the early days (such as the poll tax) and taking the right decision towards the end (with regard to the Gulf War).

P.S. Although I concede that it takes an Insane Apache to know one.

[InsaneApache]

I know that all politicos are a bit potty, after all it goes with wanting the job. An interesting article in last months gruniad.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/joepublic/2008/01/would_you_vote_for_an_mp_with.html

It's easy to dismiss as politician speak but when Gordon was asked, recently, what he thought about first thing in the morning he droned on about interest rates, mortgage repossessions, pensioners.......when the interviewer intervened and said that most people thought about a cup of tea or breakfast, Broon looked bewildered. Just hadn't a clue what the guy was on about.

No the man's not far off a psychotic episode. As you point out Adrian, I'm almost an expert. :wink:

Pinhead it is from me then. :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

It's easy to dismiss as politician speak but when Gordon was asked, recently, what he thought about first thing in the morning he droned on about interest rates, mortgage repossessions, pensioners.......when the interviewer intervened and said that most people thought about a cup of tea or breakfast, Broon looked bewildered. Just hadn't a clue what the guy was on about.I think Brown knew darn well what the guy was on about, he was on about stupid, irrelevant, wishy-washy 'human detail' which is one thing that, if you ask me, does not interest Gordon Brown one little bit. In his turn, the interviewer was probably bewildered to discover that there are actually hard-working, dedicated people in this world whose first thought in the morning is not to have a cuppa.

Mind you, much of the Brown-criticism in the British press is aimed at his media performance, or rather its absence, as if that's what being a successful PM is all about. Maybe it's because Blair was to good at it. My impression is that Brown does things in his own good time, he doesn't look at today's opinion poll to know what tomorrow's decision should be, and he is concerned with the basics instead of appearances. Just watch the footage (or listen to the audio) of PMQT on May 7, the first two minutes. You'll see for yourself what Brown is actually about: doing his bleeping job. Well, I can't vouch for it, but that's my impression.
No the man's not far off a psychotic episode.You are no doubt unpleasantly surprised, like most of us, by the mediocrity of many of today's politicians. Don't you see that your own attitude contributes to their miraculous multiplication? You can't have good politicians who are also good human beings, good debaters, good tv-stars and good sleepers with clear consciences.

The Grauniad blog that you linked to has a nice contribution by one 'Filopast'. He seems to imply that had Winston Churchill lived in this day and age of daily obligatory media appearances, sound-bites and publicity-driven decision-making, he would have long succumbed to the sort of superficial public judgement you seem to represent:


Winston Churchill suffered from his 'black dog', periods of severe clinical depression. Clinical depression is a mental disorder; however, Churchill did not allow it to affect his performance as a politician, leader, statesman, author, artist and amateur bricklayer.

Most people in the UK respected Churchill for his political common sense and his tireless devotion to his country. During some of this the country's darkest times, people did not call into question his ability to lead them because of his black dog.

A person's suitability for a role should always depend on how their illness affects them; they should not be barred from office simply because they have a mental illness.

[InsaneApache]

Martin Kettle from todays gruniad is getting in on my theory.......


These were not the responses of a man who understands change. His preposterous 20-hour days - the Sarah Brown profile in the June issue of Vogue reveals that he is often still working at 4am - will become 22-hour days and at some point, he believes, the voters will realise that he is right. To put it at its gentlest, this is what Joan Didion calls magical thinking.*

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/10/labour.scotland

*Code for nutcase.

I see what your saying Adrian about presentation and froth, but since Nu-Lab decided to let their advisors have power over the (neutral) civil service, hoist by their own petard springs to mind.


My impression is that Brown does things in his own good time, he doesn't look at today's opinion poll to know what tomorrow's decision should be

Quite the contrary old chap. The guy swings in the breeze more than the man on a gibbet. He's done more U turns than Jeremy Clarkson on a roadtrip to Monaco.

[Adrian II]

He's done more U turns than Jeremy Clarkson on a roadtrip to Monaco.Brown has balanced the UK budget despite fierce opposition, Blair's incessant electioneering and an onslaught of special interests. He has also seen off floods, livestock epidemics and terror plots with prudence and dignity, never going overboard like Thatcher or Blair would have done. Or shooting himself in the foot like John Major used to do about every other day before breakfast.

Doing U-turns isn't bad per se. The question should be whether his policies are good or bad. So far in this thread, and on this forum, I have read very little in that vein.

My impression is that most modern western politicians are essentially clueless. They have no politial views proper, only electoral strategies. That's where the rot sets in, that's why they need so much money and that, in turn, explains why they are often corrupt, including Gordon 'I can't remember meeting him' Brown.

[InsaneApache]

Ahh yes, policies from conviction politicians, I remember them. We havn't had much of that this last decade or so. Focus groups anyone?

Therein lies the problem. Once upon a time politicians used to have ideas, like 'wouldn't it be a good idea to have a trading bloc, with no tariffs and no restrictions on trade?'

Now the whole reason d'tra is power for powers sake. Let's get into government and sod policies. The problem for the old Labour party was that they were unelectable. To correct this they came up with Nu-Labour so that they could become electable. However to do this they had to ditch all the rubbish about socialism and fairness. What you were left with was a party that pretended to be socialist but in reality was not.

As for the myth that Brown was a capable Chancellor with the brain the size of a planet, that's what it is, a myth.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Brown has balanced the UK budget despite fierce opposition, Blair's incessant electioneering and an onslaught of special interests. He has also seen off floods, livestock epidemics and terror plots with prudence and dignity, never going overboard like Thatcher or Blair would have done. Or shooting himself in the foot like John Major used to do about every other day before breakfast.

You surprise me, old fruit.

The UK budget deficit is at pretty unpleasant level, with Brown's forecast for a deficit in 07/08 being £38bn - yet it was over £43bn by January (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/21/economics.prebudgetreport2007). I'm no economist, so perhaps its some other balanced budget (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/24/cnbudget124.xml) you cite.

Gordon Brown is most certainly one of the unluckiest PMs of modern times - which one might argue is not his fault - but he has also created his own disasters. For example, launching and continuing to push the 42 day detention policy - despite Parliament having ruled recently on 28 days - is a purely populist attempt to court the right-wing press. He's almost certain to lose the vote, yet he keeps going.

The fat-headed 10p tax rate abolition has been woefully mishandled yet he was warned time and time again about its consequences.

His incredible mishandling of the Wendy Alexander outburst (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/attempt-to-outflank-snp-over-scottish-independence-backfires-on-brown-822830.html), where he dithers and confuses over a matter of supreme constitutional importance speaks of an utter incompetent.

Just shooting himself in the foot would come as a welcome relief to the Brits, methinks.

[Adrian II]

You surprise me, old fruit.

The UK budget deficit is at pretty unpleasant level, with Brown's forecast for a deficit in 07/08 being £38bn - yet it was over £43bn by January (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/21/economics.prebudgetreport2007). I'm no economist, so perhaps its some other balanced budget (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/24/cnbudget124.xml) you cite.This would be Darling's budget, even though it obviously builds on Brown's previous policy as Chancellor to make borrowing dependent on an entire business cycle instead of year-to-year numbers. It is common sense to let a budget drift into the red during a recession, certainly if empoyment is at a record high and corporate profit, too. That's why the present budget still looks better than anything seen between 1979 and 1997, and this at a time when the UK must weather a seismic shock to the global financial system, oil at $126 a barrel, mortgage banks going belly-up, food prices soaring out of reach and a slump in housing and car sales. Oh, and isn't there still a costly war on in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's not bad at all, as budgets go. Now I would be grateful if the gentleman from Ireland would point out how he , as opposed to mr Brown, would fight this recession.
His incredible mishandling of the Wendy Alexander outburst (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/attempt-to-outflank-snp-over-scottish-independence-backfires-on-brown-822830.html), where he dithers and confuses over a matter of supreme constitutional importance speaks of an utter incompetent.Oh, the drama... Look, these things happen in democratic parties. Do you remember some of the troubles John Major had with the Euroskeptics in his party? I think Brown handled the situation as best he could, and it was the lady, not Brown, who did a 'U-turn' (which seems to be the modern Anglo-Saxon equivalent of reconsidering one's stance).
For example, launching and continuing to push the 42 day detention policy - despite Parliament having ruled recently on 28 days - is a purely populist attempt to court the right-wing press. He's almost certain to lose the vote, yet he keeps going.So now he stands accused of not performing a U-turn under public pressure?

In the good old days this used to be called 'character'.

P.S. I don't want to be unpleasant, but it is only on page 3 of this thread that we are finally talking politics. The OP is, with all due respect to our esteemed Apache, no more than a list of malevolent personal notes. Tory Orgahs then proceed to call Mr Brown a turd, a useless git and a dictator. Very impressive. The only posts of substance come from a hesitant labour voter, Pannonian, and a Lib Dem, Fenring.

[rory_20_uk]

Although I am aware that to run a deficit in times of recession is viewed as a way of improving the economy, I can not remember the last time when the budget was in surplus. As such we've not got a "war chest" to subsidise the bad times.

Some economies who are underpinned by one main earner try to mitigate this with sovereign wealth funds. Although the UK is not quite in that position, our reliance increasingly on the service industry which is by its very nature able to move almost at a moment's notice does make the economy liable to panics more than an economy based mainly on manufacturing for example.

In the times of plenty we haven't massively increased our manufacturing base of either the low tech or the high tech industries.
We've not massively increased agricultural output.
We've not massively invested in R&D (although substantially more money has done on Education for so far no appreciable improvement - and it has been a decade now).

I think that a great Chancellor would have tried to increase our revenue sources and hopefully increase wealth creation rather than merely having wealth distribution with an increasingly large Civil Service

We have got the longest tax code in the world, not only causing complexity for the residents but also increasing red tape for businesses
We are involved in two conflicts which waste money like a running sore.

If I were to asked to try to help the budget:

1) Either request money from the USA for it's Wars abroad or else just pull out. Sorry - we're broke and can't afford it.
2) Review Budgets in England and especially Scotland. Current deal was supposed to be a temporary measure 30 years ago. I feel that it needs amending.
3) Reduce unemployment benefit / reduce tax on initial earnings - so it pays to work

Other things that are going to help in the longer term:

Simplify the tax code. (Link required) A Treasury report showed that a flat tax on earnings above a certain level would have been possible to impliment, but clearly Brown prefers complicated ones. Possibly this adds the ability to fine tunr, but in reality it is more complicated allowing more errors at all evels and costig more to impliment.
"Rationalise" agriculture: less subsidies, more growing what we can produce effectively.
Invest in new tech: Grants to universities to allow more places for research. Expertise can then be exported. It's comparitively cheap to do and the results can be extremely beneficial.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

I'd love to talk about Gordons politics (policies) except no-one really seems to know what they are. I suspect even Gordon doesn't know what they are. This is what happens when a leader is appointed, not elected.

I know, I know, in a parliamentary democracy we vote for a party not a leader, but Gordon has demonstrated how this shows up the deficiencies in such a system. No mandate from either party or country has led to a disastrous premiership and it's only been 10 months!

To BGs' point about Gordon being an unlucky PM, I would add the rider that he was also the luckiest chancellor in modern history. The economy was not just fundamentally sound but positively robust under the Tories after Black Wednesday. Indeed it was the fact that Sterling was so unceremoniously dumped (cheers Deutchland and epharisto George Soros :2thumbsup: ) out of the ERM that caused the upsurge in the UK economy.

If it wasn't for the fact that the Tories had become unelectable through sleaze and a desire on the electorate for a change, they would have been regarded as a success. Economically speaking.

[ShadesWolf]

Pinhead Pinhead Pinhead

[Adrian II]

Pinhead Pinhead PinheadNice to meet you. My name is Adrian. So how old are you? :mellow:



Ladies and gentlemen, I propose that we take a brief look at this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1947289/Labour-Gordon-Brown-should-reflect-on-premiership%2C-says-Lord-Levy.html) in today's Telegraph because it is a perfect illustration of the lack of substance in today's politics.

Here we have a Conservative paper presenting the views of a former Blair fundraiser, Lord Levy, who has exactly nothing whatsoever to say about politics. But he has lots to say about Mr Brown.

Let's do a little close reading.

https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1420/lordlevygk8.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
Smug old git kow-towing to public opinion


Lord Levy offers not a single political reason for his call to Mr Brown to stand down as Prime Minister. "You don't really need to ask me that question, you need to look at the polls and see what the public believes and feels. I am actually stunned at what the polls are showing."

The article then mentions various polls purported to 'show' or 'predict' all kinds of things.

The article then briefly touches on some of the legislation Mr Brown is expected to reveal: flexible working, educational reform and a government waste-saving scheme. Is this programme elaborated and discussed in the article? No, it is not, because - hold on - "they may be overshadowed by the stream of damaging disclosures about Mr Brown from former colleagues".

Exactly what are these damaging disclosures?
Johh Prescott has called Mr Brown "annoying"
Cherie Blair has said her husband wanted to remain PM as long as Mr Brown was "'rattling they keys to No 10 above his head'
Lord Levy thinks that "the polls are not looking very pretty"
Is there anyone in this forum who wouldn't agree that John Prescott himself can be pretty annoying, that Mrs Blair is and always has been consistently and blatantly annoying and that Lord Levy is no more than a cunning old fart.

Why isn't Levy asked the obvious question? "Are you dumping Brown because you disagree with his politics, or merely because you'd hate to see years of shady networking and influence-peddling go to waste if he is ousted?"

Is there anyone here who doubts what the true answer to that question is?

Here is the wiki entry for Lord Levy:


A long-standing friend of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Lord Levy spent nine years from 1998 as Tony Blair's special envoy to the Middle East , being replaced by Gordon Brown's appointee, Michael Williams, from September 2007[1]. Levy was arrested and questioned in connection with the "Cash for Honours" inquiry by the Metropolitan Police on 12 July 2006.[2] After six hours of questioning he was released on police bail. On 20 September 2006 he was questioned a second time, and again released on bail.[3] On 30 January 2007 Lord Levy was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.[4] On Wednesday 23 March 2007 Lord Levy issued a statement announcing that he would leave his position as special envoy to the Middle East on 27 June 2007, the day that Tony Blair also left office.[5].So Baron Levy was fired by Gordon Brown because of the growing suspicions of corruption which made his position untenable, wasn't he?

Yet Baron Levy has the extraordinary temerity to claim "that Mr Brown must have known that Labour was using secret loans to fund the 2005 election campaign".

If anyone should know, it would be Baron Levy, wouldn't it?

But the Telegraph is far too satisfied with his criticism of Brown and lets this one pass as well. And thus, my friends, a man with the moral, intellectual and political standing of an amoeba is added to the 'growing list of critics of Mr Brown'.

I pity Mr Cameron in advance.

[InsaneApache]

Brown's finished. He just not up to the job. All the cock ups endured by him are of his own doing, he's a dead man walking, politically.

He manipulated the budget (his last one) to try and win 'middle England' in a snap election but he lost his nerve at the last minute.

Let me explain some of our Great Leaders decisions.

When Chancellor, he sold off the gold reserves when gold was at an all time low, against the advice of the bank of England. He also squandered the windfall from the G3 'phone auction, billions of pounds. Although he banged on about his prudence, the economic reality was that a rhesus monkey could have done his job at the treasury this last decade.

Now the good bits. As PM he presided over the failure of Northern Rock, not his fault, but what was his fault was the incredibly lax framework setup by him (as Chancellor)to oversee the finance industry. Then there was the debacle of the election that never was, severely denting his credibility. The loss of half the populations tax details, the loss of the details of all the children in the UK, names, addresses, telephone numbers, NI numbers of their parents etc etc.

Then there was the donations sleaze, long after cashpoint had departed. For christ sake he/labour broke the very laws that they/he had passed a few years earlier. A gigantic cock up, if I'm feeling charitable, or a flagrant breach of the law because he/they think themselves above it, if I'm not. It's already cost one minister his job, but the buck stops with Gordon.

I could be here all day but the last straw was the 10p tax rate fiasco. Hitting the lowest paid to fund tax breaks for the middle classes. Slipping under the radar but soon to be blaring out is the new tax on all cars 7 years old and older, effectively doubling the tax burden, again on the least well off in society.

I'm no socialist but even I think this is just not on. Squeezing the poorest until the pips squeak! As I have often stated Labour is the enemy of the working classes, they've just shown their hand now.

No amount of re-launches or policy initiatives will help him now, no one believes anything that comes from this government.

[InsaneApache]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_EQc_hLHXONE/SCgtSn5Ut7I/AAAAAAAABy0/55rc9GW2xpo/s1600-h/labour-bankrupt.jpg

:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hope that bid is successful...

We maybe should'nt be too harsh on Brown personally. It's not his fault Wendy Alexander is a SNP agent. Or that Levy decides to mention past issues with perfect timing for maximum damage to Brown's reputation following the resent election results.

I want a referendum on independance anyway since it will be the first time I get to vote...

[Justiciar]

The loss of half the populations tax details, the loss of the details of all the children in the UK, names, addresses, telephone numbers, NI numbers of their parents etc etc.
I was under the impression those events were the Civil Service's fault.

[rory_20_uk]

I was under the impression those events were the Civil Service's fault.

The usual argument is that the government is in charge of the Civil Service.

I would have preferred to see some Civil Servants getting reprimanded / demoted and the department reviewed but I blanch at the complexity of that undertaking - and I'm thinking of a career in Management Consultancy!

If you leave them to sort themselves out 0 they probably won't
If you get a QUANGO to do it there runs the risk of jobs for the boys
If you get a private outsider to do it then there's the disgraceful waste of public finances to the private sector.

Of the 3 I'd have thought that commissioning a plan from an external company with expected gains might have been wise - as after all this is what they specialise in. If the savings will be recouped then a proper sort out would be the way forward - and a clear warning to other departments

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

I pity Mr Cameron in advance.

Alas, too true.

I was reading on the tube this morning about the events behind Churchill becoming PM, and how easily it could have been Halifax. The choice being, fight the beast to the death, with no certainty as to whose death it would be, or see what could be done with a negotiated peace, turning a blind eye to certain continental nastiness, and reverting to Britain's traditional balance of power approach to European politics.

Somehow this all put modern politics into perspective. They must be second rate even to bother.

[InsaneApache]

This is not the end, nor the beginning of the end but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.


Gordon Brown is facing the gravest crisis of his premiership after David Cameron led the Tories to their first byelection gain in a quarter of a century this morning, on a 17.6% swing that would sweep the party into Downing Street. In one of the most humiliating setbacks to Labour since the era of Michael Foot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/23/conservatives.win.crewe.and.nantwich

Serves Gordon right. A disgusting reactionary election campaign comprising of racists language and toytown class issues. If this is the best he can do, he's toast.

The greatest Briton, Sir Winston Churchill said this.

"the socialists will AT THE END resort to gestapo methods... and will produce a police state."

Papars pleeze!

[Fragony]

Clever man he was that Churchill he understood socialism for what it is.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is not the end, nor the beginning of the end but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.


Gordon Brown is facing the gravest crisis of his premiership after David Cameron led the Tories to their first byelection gain in a quarter of a century this morning, on a 17.6% swing that would sweep the party into Downing Street.



That was £2.7bn wisely spent then...

Prudence must be lying down in a darkened room. :wink3:

[InsaneApache]

The old car tax I fetched up earlier in the thread is looming. This is the next one, along with the 2pence a litre tax thingy.....Brown will 'do the usual' and provaracate for week or so, then U turn, then say he aint turnin' (again), then bleat on about 'getting on with the job' and 'focusing on issues'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/27/travelandtransport.carbonemissions

[ShadesWolf]

Nice to meet you. My name is Adrian. So how old are you? :mellow:

Hello Adrian, my name is Ian.

and as for my age, I would guess Im a few years older than you. :skull:

Anybody here, that knows me, will tell you I have a hate for Labour, new Labour who whatever name they are calling themselves this week.

Gordon Brown is a muppet and anybody who cant see that i cant be bothered to waste my time talking with.

As for Cameron, he wasnt my choice, I actually didnt vote for him. But any tory is better than the stupid muppets we are currently ruled by. However, we live in a democracy and I will have to accept the votes of the stupid mass wont I :wall:

[InsaneApache]

Our Great Leader gets his great big clunking fist to pummel our long time, hard won rights. Never in a hundred years did I ever think that I would find myself agreeing with 'Wedgie', however on this issue he is spot on...


Veteran former Labour MP Tony Benn said: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

It wouldn't be too bad if the one eyed moron had done it for any other reason than to save his political skin. The manse a disgrace. All this disgusting piece of legislation will achieve is as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. I am officially embarressed to be a member of the 'free' world. :thumbsdown:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Don't worry, IA, there's still the Lords.

Though I find it deliciously ironic that your civil liberties will be saved by a bunch of hereditary and unelected fellows.

[Adrian II]

Gordon Brown is a muppet and anybody who cant see that i cant be bothered to waste my time talking with.You just did. At least in the technical sense of 'talk'. Anything more substantial would obviously be wasted on me. Don't worry, I'll make do with Banquo's Ghost, InsaneApache and other anti-Brownies who know how to argue a point very well. They may even convince me, as they have done on other topics, or at least make me respect their views as they manage to do with nearly everything they post.

[InsaneApache]

David Davis resigns on a matter of principle on 42 day detention without charge. A shame that Gordon doesn't have a principled bone in his body, otherwise he'd put himself up for election, oh sorry, the manse a coward and doesn't 'do' elections...


Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

[Craterus]

David Davis resigns on a matter of principle on 42 day detention without charge. A shame that Gordon doesn't have a principled bone in his body, otherwise he'd put himself up for election, oh sorry, the manse a coward and doesn't 'do' elections...


How is calling an election a matter of principle? Principles are about doing the right thing and giving power to the Tories is hardly the right thing.

[rory_20_uk]

How is calling an election a matter of principle? Principles are about doing the right thing and giving power to the Tories is hardly the right thing.

We are supposed to be in a democracy. Although not required, having an election would allow Brown to state he was ruling with the people's consent. Currently he's ruling as no one else wants to be the captain when the ship sinks.

Why do you state the tiresomely typical "Tories = Bad" statement? I'm not saying that they are the next coming of the messiah, but what about giving power to the Tories is the wrong thing? I could ask how much worse could it get, but I'm sure we'll find that out...

~:smoking:

[macsen rufus]

And as Mr Davis is a Tory, I'm sure he'd not see it as the wrong this either :yes:

I just cannot believe the govt are touting this 42-day vote as a "victory"... concessions left right and centre, and the majority entirely matches the DUP contribution. I get a very strong whiff of pork, which is an odour that thankfully normally fails to cross the Atlantic.

[JAG]

I think, generally speaking, David Davis is a vile politician with beliefs I could never share in a million years. However - on this issue and a certain few other liberal issues he is not only right but one of the most ardent and principled opponents of it. I salute him, though it could be seen as a little bit of a stunt, this by election, I don't think that is what is intended - it hurts the Tories as much as it helps them anyway. But if I was in his constiotuency, it would be the first, and probably only time, I would vote Tory in my life. Good on him.

[rory_20_uk]

I... I'm with Jag on being very sceptical that this is a publicity stunt. Yes my esteem of politicians is so low that even acts based on belief are immediately dismissed as cynical ploys.

Seems like the other parties are going to take the wind from his sails by not running candidates against him - Lib Dem have already sad that and Labour would have to be masochists to take up the challenge. My guess is that it'll be an easy Tory victory.

~:smoking:

[Craterus]

We are supposed to be in a democracy. Although not required, having an election would allow Brown to state he was ruling with the people's consent. Currently he's ruling as no one else wants to be the captain when the ship sinks.

Then you would have an election every other day? Just to check a government is still the people's choice. After all, it's the only fair way.

Could also argue that approval ratings aren't necessarily the best judge. People are too fickle.

[rory_20_uk]

The Prime Minister drives the direction of the party. Tony Blair was elected on his platform. Brown's has been very different.

Elections every day? I feel that you are taking an extreme position whereas I would advocate a general election when a PM steps down.

I would agree that approval ratings are not 100% accurate. But they are the worst on record. Again by-elections are not general elections, but labour did get stuffed at the last one.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Another flying tackle coming from the leftfield, this time Diane Abbot.


Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour) | Hansard source

As has been said throughout this debate, the first duty of Parliament is the safety of the realm. It is because I believe that the proposals on 42-day detention will make us less safe, not more safe, that I oppose them. I do not take terrorism lightly. I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from Ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.

I do not believe, as Ministers continue to insist, that there is some trade-off between our liberties and the safety of the realm. What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free. I ask the House to reflect on how we got here. Two years ago, this House emphatically rejected the proposal for 90-day detention. I do not talk very much about custom and practice in Parliament, but it is custom and practice that when the Government lose a vote on a proposal, they do not bring back a similar proposal in the same Parliament. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office now know why that is so: it is because losing the vote is a clue that the Government do not have the votes. The Government machinery has devoted 10 days to bone-crunching pressure on potential rebels, again because they do not have the votes. Ministers have appeared in the media saying that they have won the argument. They may win the vote, but they have emphatically not won the argument.

Two years ago, the House rejected the 90-day proposal. The issue should never have come back, and all this high drama has been caused by bringing back something that the House has already rejected. I voted for 28 days, but I remind the House that I and others did so only under duress. We believed that by voting for 28 days the debate would be finished for this Parliament and an upper limit would be established. Some of us were unwilling to go as far as 28 days. That is why we are so upset that the Government have come back with this proposal, reneging—as far as we are concerned—on a tacit understanding that voting for 28 days would finish the debate on this issue for this Parliament.

Why have the Government come back with this proposal? Speculation has raged on the Labour Benches as to what has moved the Prime Minister to take this dangerous course. Some people say that he wants to try to do something that Tony Blair could not do. Some people say that he is driven by the polls. Some people say that last year he saw an article in The Sun that said that he was soft on terrorism and he has been heading down this path ever since.

In reality and despite everything that Ministers say, nothing has changed since two years ago. The arguments that they used then about computers and complications are the arguments that they are using now. I ask Ministers to spare the House those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.

The Government came back with a proposal that the House rejected two years ago. Interestingly, when they did so it then took them several months to come up with a time limit. Was it to be 29 days, or 30, or 40? At one point, some of us offered to put our hands in a hat and to draw out a number for the Home Secretary. They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven Bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism. I put it to colleagues that we should not play ducks and drakes with our civil liberties in order to get a few months' advantage in the opinion polls. We have got here through a process that involved the wrong practical politics and was wrongly motivated.

Let me remind the House of what is problematic about the proposal. The security services have unusually gone public and said that they are not calling for the change. The Director of Public Prosecutions, unusually, has gone public and said that he is not calling for it. I remind the House that he is the prosecuting authority. We will hear from Ministers about the police, but the police are split on the subject. We have heard about Sir Ian Blair—whose days might be numbered under the former Member for Henley; hey, that's life—but the most senior Muslim policeman in the Metropolitan police force, Tarique Ghaffur, has said privately and emphatically that he believes that the risk to community cohesion of the proposal is not worth any marginal operational advantage. It is alleged—I use that word because I do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege—that he was called in by Sir Ian Blair and asked to consider his position. The police are split on this subject. Let us hear no more about the police as a whole being behind the proposal.

Seems as though Brown might have dug himself into another pit. The mans capacity for self flaggellation is becoming farcical.

[InsaneApache]

From David Davis, his statement to the Commons...


TEXT OF DAVID DAVIS' STATEMENT
"The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. The word
Haltemprice is derived from the motto of a medieval priory, and in Old French it
means "Noble Endeavour".


I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least
because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental
freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday.


This Sunday is the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, the document
that guarantees the most fundamental of British freedoms, habeas corpus. The
right not to be imprisoned for prolonged periods by the state without being told the
charge against you. But yesterday this House decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent
people for 6 weeks without charge.

This Counter Terrorism Bill will in all likelihood be rejected by the House of
Lords. What is their function, after all, if not to defend the Magna Carta? But
because the impetus behind it is political, the government will be tempted to use
the Parliament Act to enforce its will and insist on its right to set aside a
cornerstone of all our liberties.


It has no democratic mandate to do this, since 42 days was not a manifesto
commitment. And its legal standing is dubious, to say the least. But purely for
political reasons, this Government will do it.
And because the generic security arguments relied upon are ones that will never
go away, this Government will be tempted again in the future to try for 56 days, 70
days, 90 days.
But in truth 42 days is just one albeit perhaps the most salient example of theinsidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms
under this Government.


We will have the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV
camera for every 14 citizens.
And a DNA database bigger than that of any dictatorship with thousands of
innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
We've witnessed a sustained assault on jury trials that bulwark against bad law
and its arbitrary abuse by the state. Shortcuts with our justice system that have
left it both less firm and less fair.
And the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying
eyes of official snooper and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants
and criminal hackers.
The state has security powers that clamp down on peaceful protest, and so-called
hate laws that stifle legitimate debate whilst those inciting violence get off scotfree.
This cannot go on. It must be stopped.
And for that reason, today I feel that it is incumbent upon me to take a stand.
I will be resigning my membership of this House, and I intend to force a byelection
in Haltemprice and Howden.
I will not fight it on the government's general record. There is little point in
repeating Crewe and Nantwich.
I will not fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this chess game. I
will fight this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British
freedoms by this Government.


This may be the last speech I make to the House. Of course, that would be a
cause of deep regret to me.
But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the
opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day
the ever intrusive power of the state into their daily lives, the loss of privacy, the
loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.
And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message.
That the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday should not stand.
That the British people have grown tired of the inflated, arbitrary and arrogant
power accumulated by this Government. And that the slow but ceaseless
encroachment of the state into their daily lives must come to an end."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpodjxmHlI

Blimey even an old cynic like me felt the hairs on the back of my neck rise up at his words. Good for him.

[Adrian II]

A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens...

That's sick.

[English assassin]

Although I think Davis's action is a bit odd, I applaud the spirit behind it. He's not the cuddliest Tory out there, but give me a cold hearted libertarian over that awful fascist-but paternalist Widdecombe any day.

I can only hope the Tories will be moving to restore civil liberties in other areas, when we inevitably take power. Banning most CCTV, requiring the police to delete DNA records of people arrested but not convicted, and repealing s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 would be good starts.

[LittleGrizzly]

Although I think Davis's action is a bit odd, I applaud the spirit behind it. He's not the cuddliest Tory out there, but give me a cold hearted libertarian over that awful fascist-but paternalist Widdecombe any day.

I can only hope the Tories will be moving to restore civil liberties in other areas, when we inevitably take power. Banning most CCTV, requiring the police to delete DNA records of people arrested but not convicted, and repealing s5 of the Public Order Act 1986 would be good starts.

If i thought they were going to undo all of labours authoritarian moves i wouldn't mind the tories having a term.... one vote for the tories probably wouldn't kill me...

[InsaneApache]

That's what concerns me.

Now then, if the tories did promise, cross their heart, hope to die, that they would; then I might even start voting again.

However, I suspect that they may well keep close to their bussoms the apparatus of control. A natural feature of government. Empire building. Trust me, I know.

[LittleGrizzly]

They seem more concerned with outdoing each other with authoritarian moves on crime and terrorism to impress the middle classes, the lib dems are the party of the libertarian as far as im concerned... which is partially why i have voted for them everytime...

[Pannonian]

They seem more concerned with outdoing each other with authoritarian moves on crime and terrorism to impress the middle classes, the lib dems are the party of the libertarian as far as im concerned... which is partially why i have voted for them everytime...
Every time there's a murder or something similar, the tabloids ask why more wasn't done to prevent it. They never say, look this is life, get on with it. And thus everyone vies to compete to do "more" to prevent "it".

[rory_20_uk]

I'd hope that the Pm might be able to rise above the wants of the Tabloids. If he is unable to do so it is still his / her failing.

~:smoking:

[PBI]

If there's ever been a government which wasn't a slave to the tabloids then I'm not old enough to remember it.

Still, the fact is, as LittleGrizzly says, the only major party which has been consistently strong on human rights and civil liberties is the Liberals. You don't like the way our country is sliding into a police state, you're just going to have to hold your nose and vote for them. Voting in the Tories isn't going to help one bit.

[rory_20_uk]

I imagine you're right with politicians chasing the lowest common denominator instead of, I don't know, leading the country?

Lib Debs wish to take even more of my pay than Labour. They also more Europhile than the other two - and I'll resist the temptation to again list why I'm against the reality of the EU and not that impressed with several of the ideal, theoretical models.

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

It seems that Cameron has put some distance between himself and Davis, claiming that it is an individual thing. What an idiot, he should have jumped onto this if he was a man truly commited to his words. I alo see that Brown has called it a farce, I wonder if he go his cabinet talk confused with the BBC journos? I mean honestly Brown has to be living up John Prescot to think that Davis will not be supported by those sections of the populace not reading the Sun.
Maybe that is what he is counting on?

[PBI]

Lib Debs wish to take even more of my pay than Labour. They also more Europhile than the other two - and I'll resist the temptation to again list why I'm against the reality of the EU and not that impressed with several of the ideal, theoretical models.


~:smoking:

Both probably true. It's a question of priorities; if you consider civil liberties to be more important than those two issues you should vote Lib Dem (most probably whilst holding your nose, as I suggested). Personally I'd regard higher taxes and EU beauracracy as the lesser evil so long as I'm still allowed to complain about them without being thrown in prison without charge.

[InsaneApache]

The problem with the Lib-Dems is that, like Nu-Labour, they don't keep to their manifesto pledges, so you're never quite sure of what you've voted for. As for the tories and civil liberties, it is, after all, home ground for them.

Opps I forgot, tories=bad. :embarassed:

[Adrian II]

Oops, posted in wrong thread.

[rory_20_uk]

I am not interested in whether politicians form groups to fight corruption - how successful have they been? The Tory lead managed to be bending the rules to the limits - which leads to the further point that not only is corruption an issue, but so is the benefits that the MEPs get in the first place.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

As for the tories and civil liberties, it is, after all, home ground for them.

Going back to when the tories were in power 1997 is before my time, since becoming the oppositon though they don't seem to have stood up to labour much when it comes to civil liberties, im not sure how they have voted but when ever i saw anyone criticising the goverment over civil liberties it was always the lib dems, thats why they really are the party of civil liberties today, if your a right winger then you probably wouldnt want to vote for them anyway, but they have been the strongest party on civil liberties.

[InsaneApache]

@ Adrian; Have you posted in the wrong thread? :inquisitive:This one's about Gordon the Moron. :laugh4:

[Adrian II]

@ Adrian; Have you posted in the wrong thread? :inquisitive:This one's about Gordon the Moron. :laugh4:Yeah, I forgot this was your little playground, not a real thread.

Seriously, some of us actually have jobs and get work done, and I posted that in between two phone calls or something. Sorry to upset you with something substantial. Shan't happen again. :mellow:

[LittleGrizzly]

IA my post was somewhat directed at you, i was hoping for some reasoning on why you still consider the tories the party of civil liberties since thier opposition began in 1997, or why they should be considered over the lib dems as the party of civil liberties.

Adrian you seem abit tempermental these days, i always think people are being a bit over dramatic when a comment makes them delete a whole post...

[Adrian II]

Adrian you seem abit tempermental these days, i always think people are being a bit over dramatic when a comment makes them delete a whole post...:laugh4: No problem, Grizz.

Seriously, InsaneApache was right, I did post in the wrong thread. I've moved my post to the referendum thread.

And IA and me love to bark at each other a lot, we don't bite. Well, let's say I never noticed that he did.. certainly not when he is drunk again.. :nice:

[LittleGrizzly]

Now i re-read it im detecting heavy sarcasm, it also helps explain that deja vu feeling i had in the other thread...

[Adrian II]

Now i re-read it im detecting heavy sarcasm, it also helps explain that deja vu feeling i had in the other thread...Yeah, well, I reserve the heavy sarcasm for people who appreciate it and who answer in kind, like IA, Lemur, Tribesman. You are much too polite and considerate for that. Sorry for upsetting your discussions. I mean it. :bow:

[LittleGrizzly]

No worries, grizz is a big fan of sarcasm, just not quite adept at spotting internet sarcasm yet though.... anyway back to the topic

Brown may be a pinhead but camerons head is not even real! it was made of plastic and was constructed at tory HQ!

[InsaneApache]

To answer your question LittleGrizzly.

My understanding of tory philosophy is that those who can look after themselves should. Those who can't should be cared for by whatever needs are appropriate. A belief in small government, with minimal intrusion by the state into personal lives. This, to me, is in stark contrast to the centralist instincts of both the other main parties but especially Nu-Labour.

It seems to me you can't have a credo of small government and at the same time increase the powers of the government to spy, snoop and pretty much interfere on a day to day basis.

The phrase "I'm from the government....and I'm here to help you." Sums it up. Having worked in local government and being a businessman I've seen it from both sides. Government is extreamly wasteful and inefficient. It also tends to attract 'jobsworths' intent on flexing powers given to them. It is my view that the least powers available to the government, the better.

[English assassin]

My understanding of tory philosophy is that those who can look after themselves should. Those who can't should be cared for by whatever needs are appropriate. A belief in small government, with minimal intrusion by the state into personal lives. This, to me, is in stark contrast to the centralist instincts of both the other main parties but especially Nu-Labour.

Lord, Tory philosophy. I usually try to duck these questions by explaining with a smile that we ARE called the stupid party, you know. Why should we have a phiso, flossy, er, ideas?

Anyway IA's attempt is as good as any, but there are also the conservatives (change=bad), the authoritiarian hardliners, and the whole idea of minimal state action can be unpicked to any level of detail. The so called free market actually requires a lot of state intervention to maintain it.

At the most fundamental level, for me, it is about prefering the individual over the collective. Not because I think the individual will make better choices than the collective (although he may), but because there ARE individuals, whereas collectives are constructs. I don't believe in the interests of the working classes, but I do believe in the interests of Joe Bloggs, plumber.

Heavens, now I sound like Maggie, now there was a centrist with a vengance.

[InsaneApache]

I also like the thought of being able to have a belief in no idiology. How refreshing.

[Pannonian]

Heavens, now I sound like Maggie, now there was a centrist with a vengance.
Thatcher wasn't exactly a centrist, or at least when she got Thatcherism going. For her times, she was a fairly extreme Liberal, in abandoning the idea of any kind of collective and going fully for individualism. In this, she departed radically from the old Tories and Labour, who both valued society, albeit of different kinds.

[English assassin]

My bad. I meant centraliser.

She certainly wasn't on the centre ground.

The sounding like Maggie comment was a reference to "there is no such thing as society". I THINK what she mean was "there is no such thing as the interests of society". Or maybe she mean that everyone has an agenda, and you need to beware of people claiming to speak "for society".

[Adrian II]

Margaret Thatcher, interviewed by Women's Own magazine, October 31, 1987:


"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

[Incongruous]

Back to Davis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/06/how_will_murdoch_fund_mackenzie_campaign.html

Oh dear, this fellow makes me feel rather uneasy.
What an absolute nutter, how will Murdoch do it?

That question probably won't need answering...:no:

[PBI]

Interesting, I wasn't aware we even had such a law against foreign funding of British election campaigns. Unfortunately, doesn't seem to stop Murdoch effectively appointing our government and dictating its policies to fit his own right-wing Republican agenda.

[Incongruous]

Indeed, king-maker he is. I cringe when I hear the story of Tony upon bended knee before him.

Here is a rather good piece from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/16/do1601.xml

Although I disagree with some of their gripes, such as fox hunting, I agree with the overall argument against big government and its imposition of certain moral standards upon Britain.

I really see no reason not to vote Tory these days.

[PBI]

How about this one? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7455520.stm)

This is the problem I have with the Tories, for all their touchy-feely makeover every now and then one of them makes a slip of the tongue like this which makes me suspect that they are simply the same old nasty party but with a policy of not airing their archaic prejudices in public. Acting like you have something to hide is not an endearing quality in a politician.

I have to say, I am not at all satisfied that the Tories and human rights are natural bedfellows; if that were the case, why would the article you linked to feel the need to encapsulate the term with sarcastic quotation marks? The Tories are like any major party in that they are a mixture of sometimes disparate interests and groups; true there is a relatively liberal, pro-EU, pro-immigration element, but there is certainly also a strong element of moral authoritarianism and social conservatism (it is called the Conservative Party after all). True, they talk about human rights when it suits them, but to people like me for whom human rights are one of, if not the, most important issue, they sound insincere, as though they have learned the jargon but do not really understand or believe it. And I'm simply not satisfied that social conservatism and liberalism will ever be compatible.

[English assassin]

And I'm simply not satisfied that social conservatism and liberalism will ever be compatible.

That's because they aren't.


I have to say, I am not at all satisfied that the Tories and human rights are natural bedfellows; if that were the case, why would the article you linked to feel the need to encapsulate the term with sarcastic quotation marks?

Because the Daily Telegraph doesn't believe in them.

Human rights, human rights, how I love human rights.

Ahem.

There's so much to say here isn't there. On the one hand, there's substantive, serious rights, like, say the right not to be subject to arbitrary detention (cough 42 days cough). There's no basis for saying the tories have a problem with those rights. (Other than Mad Ann Widdecombe).

Then there's frivolous rights, like the idea that prisoners have a human right to broadband access. Whatever you may feel about prisons and rehabilitation, I think most people would feel we are slightly cheapening the language of human rights to apply it in this context. Not every good idea is a human right. Tories may rubbish these examples, but we are not alone in doing so.

And then there is the constitutional issue of whether or not it is a good idea to leave the difficult, serious, HR questions to unaccountable lawyers and judges. (Say, for instance, whether or not there can be a human right to healthcare, and what that right is, an issue which has been troubling me of late and to which I can assure you there is no easy answer.) Here I think the Tories are less content with the current situation than the left, and would like there to be more political input.

Personally I think that is wrong, because lawyers are teh bomb, :yes: , but its not an unreasonable issue to raise, and need not indicate that there is a hidden agenda to reintroduce child labour.

[InsaneApache]

Blood and stomach pills.

[Incongruous]

How about this one? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7455520.stm)

This is the problem I have with the Tories, for all their touchy-feely makeover every now and then one of them makes a slip of the tongue like this which makes me suspect that they are simply the same old nasty party but with a policy of not airing their archaic prejudices in public. Acting like you have something to hide is not an endearing quality in a politician.

I have to say, I am not at all satisfied that the Tories and human rights are natural bedfellows; if that were the case, why would the article you linked to feel the need to encapsulate the term with sarcastic quotation marks? The Tories are like any major party in that they are a mixture of sometimes disparate interests and groups; true there is a relatively liberal, pro-EU, pro-immigration element, but there is certainly also a strong element of moral authoritarianism and social conservatism (it is called the Conservative Party after all). True, they talk about human rights when it suits them, but to people like me for whom human rights are one of, if not the, most important issue, they sound insincere, as though they have learned the jargon but do not really understand or believe it. And I'm simply not satisfied that social conservatism and liberalism will ever be compatible.

If human rights are you're major concern then I'd expect you to be right keen to get rid of Labour, the Tories are the only real choice.
As for the case of incompatability between social conervatism and Liberalism, I would question that.

I apologise for actually having linked or read the Telegraph, but I like to laugh at old Heffer every now and then

[PBI]

I am most certainly very eager to be rid of Labour and their flagrant disregard for civil liberties, but I am simply not convinced that the Tories will be any better. Since I tend to vote on principal rather than simply to have the satisfaction of having backed the winning horse, voting Tory just because they have a chance of unseating Labour doesn't wash with me.

@Insane Apache: Erm, perhaps you would care to expand upon your point a little?

[InsaneApache]

an hilarious parlimentary sketch in the times today...


Gordon Brown may be jealous of the fuss about David Davis. Ever since DD resigned in a blaze of something close to glory (or madness), he has been getting loads of attention. Gordon must be furious for yesterday he fought back with a speech entitled “Why I Love Liberty More than David Davis”. OK, so it was called “Liberty and Security” but my title is more accurate.

Gordon Brown, freedom fighter. That's the idea, I think. Such an important launch had to be tightly controlled. You cannot go launching a crusade on liberty before any old riff-raff. So he invited about 50 of his closest friends from the centre-left IPPR think-tank to applaud (oops, listen). The venue was one of those grand old buildings in Westminster. The last time I was there was a few years ago when David Davis held a launch for the Tory leadership. That ended in failure. I do hope Gordon has more luck. Still, spooky or what?

DD seemed to be haunting the whole event. As the Prime Minister entered the building, James Landale, freedom fighter for BBC 24, attacked. “Why isn't Labour standing against David Davis?” he asked. “Are you afraid of a debate on terror?”

The PM swept by. He must have been thinking how pathetic it was. Here he was, a fearless freedom fighter, and all the media cared about was DD. Gordon wants to “write a new chapter in our country's story”. We need 21st-century methods to fight 21st-century challenges. (I'm not sure what this has to do with 42 days, although 21 does go into it twice.) “There is a British way of meeting this challenge,” said Gordon. “The British way cannot be a head-in-the-sand approach that ignores the fact that the world has changed.”

Head in the sand? DD, I think he's talking about you. Actually the whole speech was about DD, although he was never named. Gordon explained the British way of meeting this challenge, which is more CCTV, ID cards, biometrics, DNA databases and 42 days of detention. (If it's all so 21st-century, how did Orwell know so much about it? Also, 42 times two is 84.)

“We must advance towards this open society with our eyes wide open,” said Gordon, who loves a good cliché. We shouldn't worry about liberty because he loves freedom. “We have in the last year sought to do more to extend freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of information.”

He then refused to answer questions from the press. Obviously. Still, he took a few from the floor and even one from Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty. I am surprised that she was allowed in. There is a rumour that DD resigned after being “bewitched” by Shami. She denies this, but then she would.

Afterwards Gordon swept out on to the street, which held the irritating James Landale. “Why won't you stand against David Davis?” cried James. “Are you afraid?” Gordon refused to turn towards his car, for that would mean more contact with BBC questions. Instead, without looking, he veered into the street. His security men scurried alongside. The PM jaywalked. Actually it was more like jay-running. It's the kind of thing that freedom fighters do.

:laugh4:

[Incongruous]

I am most certainly very eager to be rid of Labour and their flagrant disregard for civil liberties, but I am simply not convinced that the Tories will be any better. Since I tend to vote on principal rather than simply to have the satisfaction of having backed the winning horse, voting Tory just because they have a chance of unseating Labour doesn't wash with me.

@Insane Apache: Erm, perhaps you would care to expand upon your point a little?

May I enquire as to which party you most prefer?

[PBI]

I expect I'm going to regret saying this, but I have to say of the three major parties the Lib Dems are the party most in line with my views. They have been consistently strong on human rights and the environment and were the only one of the three major parties to oppose the blatantly misguided invasion of Iraq. The usual criticism of them that "you wouldn't really trust them to actually run the country though" seems to me to overlook the rather spectacular mess that both the Tories and Labour seem to have made of doing just that.

In my view probably the best outcome for the next general election would be a hung parliament, with the Lib Dems holding the casting vote.

:ducks below parapet to avoid inevitable barrage of rotten fruit and tomatoes:

[Incongruous]

Nope, cannot fault the logic, seems a reasonable way to vote. I am not overly familiar with them as I am constantly being barraged with comments about how useless they are.
I will therefore read up on them.

On another note, has anyone heard about Cameron employing two mentors for each of his frontbenchers? One a civil servant the other a businessman, apparntly he has nicked alot of old Blairites and is starting to anger members of the party. Apparantly the conservatives are also no longer happy with letting Gordon shoot himself and are looking forward for radical change.

I have no link because I read it in this month's Spectator.

A small question for those more in the know than me, could you tell me where all the respectable political publishings and newspapers stand in political terms?
I know the Telegraph is very right and the Observer seems quite left of field, but what about the others?
I've heard that the Independent is not really anymore...:juggle2:

[PBI]

Independent is very definitely left of center, although I would describe it as more liberal than left wing. It is very liberal though.

Guardian is straightforwardly center-left as the Telegraph is center-right. The Mail is in my opinion bordering on far right, "foaming" is my preferred term for its views.

The Times is somewhere between the Telegraph and Guardian, although I would say it leans slightly right of center.

The tabloids, I wouldn't say are really on the political spectrum, they pretty much just make up any old nonsense to fill the gaps between the naked ladies and the celebrity gossip, though I guess the nonsense the Mirror spouts is probably slightly more left wing nonsense than the nonsense the Sun spouts.

That's how I perceive them anyway, others may have a different view.

[Incongruous]

Cheers!
Have a ~:cheers:

[PBI]

~:cheers: all round.

Speaking of which, here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7159259.stm) a real issue. Already the one pound pint of my student days is a distant memory...

[Incongruous]

Perhaps this could lead to a resurgence in local brews?
The economic crisis has already created new small/local banks in its wake,perhaps heralding more localisation across society? This would be a good thing, proper ale from ya local!

[English assassin]

The Times is somewhere between the Telegraph and Guardian, although I would say it leans slightly right of center.

The Times is like the Sun, but with longer words.

I have finally had to accept that it isn't a newspaper anymore, and resort to the Guardian.

The Indy is left of centre, and it is liberal, but the words you really want to describe it are "insufferably self righteous".

[Adrian II]

The Indy is left of centre, and it is liberal, but the words you really want to describe it are "insufferably self righteous".Well said. They don't even pretend to hold the moral highground, they pretend to be it.

[Incongruous]

Apparently the Labour Party is tens of millionsof punds in debt, roughly 20 I think. As many articles have pointed out, this makes it more probable that Labour will bend for the unions, but I'd heard they want none of it (the unions that is). So what the minister is going to happen?
Under the party's constitution, isn't Brown commited to paying the bill? What will happen if Labour goes bankrupt? Will it be dissolved?
I suppose EA is the best one for this job, but anyone of the more weathered members is most welcome to educate me.

[English assassin]

What will happen if Labour goes bankrupt? Will it be dissolved?
I suppose EA is the best one for this job,

Dunno about that, but political parties are unincorporated associations. The usual rule is the members are jointly (query, and severally?) liable for the debts of unincorporated associations.

According to the meeja if Labour goes belly up it will be the members of the NEC that are liable, and not the members. That might be right, if Labour has a complicated membership structure (eg if you are actually a member of a local party, not the national party.)

Debts aside no doubt what would happen politically is a new organisation would come into being overnight, looking remarkably similar to the labour party, but with none of its debts. You'd think the LDs would clean up but all the Labour activists I know hate the LDs. It's been the subject of many happy bipartisan chats in the pub over the years.

What that organisation might look like would be interesting. Maybe, I don't know, we might have a political wing of the trade union movement, and call it the labour representation committee...*

I have to say I wouldn't welcome a party going like this. I very much doubt that any lender would actually apply to have them wound up, though, that would just be crystalising the loss.


*This was the origin of the Labour party in 1900, fact fans.

[InsaneApache]

Now the old tarts been at the cooking sherry, he thinks he's Heathcliff....


In an interview with the New Statesman, prime minister Gordon Brown has unveiled his romantic side, comparing himself to Heathcliff, the passionate, brooding and tormented central male character in Emily Brontë's novel, Wuthering Heights.

Brown insists that the comparison with the dark and self-destructive Byronic hero is spot on, adding: "Well, maybe an older and a wiser Heathcliff."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/10/gordonbrown

hmmm......I prefer to think of the Great Gurner as this...


"Heathcliff is a man prone to domestic violence, kidnapping, possible murder and digging up his dead lover. He is moody and unkind to animals.

I think, possibly, some of the mushrooms he ate in Japan were liberty caps. He's deluded.

As an aside, does anyone else spot the hypocracy when Gordon lectured us (UK) last week about wasting food and then sitting down to a nineteen course banquet? Like I said, deluded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmBaE7ozWow

[rory_20_uk]

To be fair, as long as he gorged his way through the 19 courses he's not wasting the food.

I don't think that the PM needs to tell us to stop wasting food. People will work this out for themselves - it is amazing how savvy people are when it's making their own money go further.

5 billion surplus due to higher fuel bills. Investment in renewables? I doubt it.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think our great leader is obviously just letting the current economic crisis run its course so that people will have less money to spend on food, solving our obesity problem and saving food for those suffering in famine.

And so what if he wants to run away from all the reporters, he was obviously just running off that 19 course meal, setting an example to us all when it comes to exercise.

Why must you Tories be so cynical?

[InsaneApache]

Good job Gordy, it looks like you've managed to lose Glasgae east. My siggys could not be more pertinent. Labour are toast at teh next election, perhaps even a 1922 moment. One can only hope.

[LittleGrizzly]

Is 22 when the party reformed ?

Out of interest what is your opinion of cameron, just the impression i get is a faker, shinier, less truthful version of blair, then even though i have heard one or two decent policys of him my inherent distrust gets in the way, even after all my bad experiences with blair i'd elect him in a heartbeat over cameron.

[InsaneApache]

The allusion to 1922 is when the Liberals imploded, never to be a serious force in British politics again, well deserved as well. The way Labour are going they could well emulate the Canadian conservatives at the end of the last centuary, again it would be well deserved. Talk about a nasty party.

Are you joking about the duplicitous, mendacious, criminal warmonger Blair? :inquisitive: Or are you just teasing me? :laugh4:

[PBI]

I guess the point with Blair is maybe "better the devil you know"

Cameron is a former PR man, and is clearly well practiced in conveying whatever image of himself he deems appropriate, much like Blair when he was in opposition. Thus, like Blair, we will actually have no idea what kind of politician he is until he is in power (which I suspect for better or worse may now be inevitable).

However, as I've said before, when politicians give the impression that they are hiding something it is not a reassuring sign.